User Profile: Blest

Blest

Member Since: January 11, 2013

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [21] October 22, 2014 at 1:51pm

    “These people obviously don’t realize that our ancestors originally settled on our shores in order to escape a government that, in their opinion, didn’t provide enough supervision over their religious activities.”

    I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that one. Like, the little thing that normally locks my computer chair in place wiggled loose, and I leaned back while laughing, and thought I was going to fall over when the locking mechanism didn’t do anything to stop the chair from reclining.

    Thanks, Matt.
    Most exciting moment I’ve had all morning.

  • [3] October 22, 2014 at 12:48pm

    @Surak

    You totally took that to mean something it doesn’t mean. It wasn’t an indictment of ALL Pharisees or Sadducee teachings. Jesus was a Rabbi, after all. He obviously knew that it was a specific group of teachers that were the problem, not the teachings in general.

    Stop being so sensitive. Stop trying to be a victim. Stop the petty vindictive attitude. Else you will go around snatching insults out of the jaws of a compliment.

  • [6] October 21, 2014 at 2:50pm

    Yeah… that whole “homosexuals/fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God” thing is going to come as a pretty huge surprise. He probably should have finished reading the Bible all the way to the end…

  • [18] October 21, 2014 at 2:47pm

    To put things in a less controversial setting, the government is not obligated to issue a car license to you just because you entered into a sales contract with somebody. If you buy a car, and it doesn’t meet the SPECIFIC DEFINITION of being a safe, operating vehicle, then the state won’t issue you a car license. The definition of “safe and operating” might get more strict over time as new hazards are discovered, but it should never get more broad.

    Likewise, just because two lesbians decide to get married by some Wiccan high priestess on a hippie commune, it doesn’t mean the government is required to recognize it. That’s the issue here, recognition.

    If the state gives out car licenses to people who have unsafe and non-operational vehicles, then the license to the “safe and operating” vehicle is now meaningless. You void out the meaning of “safe and operating” by issuing it to something that is the opposite.

    Giving out marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples means that marriage no longer has any meaning, because it has been watered down and re-defined so broadly that it can now mean anything you want it to mean. And the end result is that you destroy marriage, regardless of who issues the contract.

    It’s similar to giving out Superbowl rings to everybody who plays football. If there is no special recognition that one team is better, then the rings become meaningless.

  • [37] October 21, 2014 at 2:34pm

    What do you mean by “state marriages”? Marriage is a contract. The state doesn’t issue the contract, it just RECOGNIZES it. When you buy a car at the car dealership, and you enter into a sales contract, the government recognizes that contract, and issues you your car license, but they don’t get a say in whether or not you should be allowed to enter into that contract or not.

    It’s none of the government’s business. That’s the problem. It’s like when the government tries to stick its nose in any other kind of contract negotiations. The government isn’t allowed to force anybody to issue contracts they disagree with, be they business or personal.

    Since this is a sensitive topic, let’s put it in the realm of something less sensitive. Imagine that you own a home, that you purchased using a real estate contract. Now, imagine that the government comes along and says “People who are homeless want real estate contracts too, but they have no money or homes, so we’re just going to issue real estate contracts to them so they feel equal with traditional homeowners.” Does that make any sense at all? Of course not!

    It’s not that the government should have separate marriage rites than religions, it’s that the government is trying to issue a contract that defines a very specific traditional union to people who don’t meet the definition of that union.

    At best, it’s utter nonsense. At worst, it’s deception and intentional degradation of traditional values.

  • [383] October 21, 2014 at 2:21pm

    So, Matt Stolhandske not actually giving money to them himself? He just made a Kickstarter page and expects other people to help them?

    This isn’t “compassion”, this is “publicity”. This guy is acting just like the Pharisee and Sadducee groups that did all their good deeds in public, so that everybody knew how good and moral they were. If this guy were truly following in Jesus’ steps, he’d tell people to repent, turn from their wickedness, and seek the Kingdom of God; rather than seek to change laws regarding marriage.

    Also, if he really wanted to do good, he would have just collected money from people quietly, and given it to the wedding cake people without making a big fuss over it. This whole thing stinks of a PR stunt for his organization. He’s not sacrificing anything, giving up anything of real value, and it’s not coming out of his pocket.

    What an amazing lie this guy is weaving. Such an elaborate deception merits what Jesus told people in his time who did the same sorts of things.

    “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.”
    -Jesus Christ

    Responses (5) +
  • [1] October 21, 2014 at 2:01pm

    @ Ripe for Parody,

    People loved her long before they saw her face. They read the words she wrote LONG before they heard her voice on the radio, or saw her face on the glowing screen.

    You see, to conservatives, women aren’t just an object to have sex with, or political tools. The way she thinks, the way she protects and guards and keeps her family… those are things that you find in the character of God. And to a conservative, that’s not strange, since most conservatives believe that mankind is made in the image of God.

    So where a liberal sees a woman as a sexual being that can kill her unborn children, a conservative sees a woman as an infinitely precious being who, having been made in the image of God, is willing to go to hell and back… all for the sake of her children. There is nothing in the progressive liberal worldview that even comes close to the kind of reverence and respect that conservatives have for the power of a woman.

  • [4] October 21, 2014 at 1:10pm

    “I pushed on — out of anger, out of spite, out of pure punk rock defiance. I was born for the storm and loved to fight. I thrived.”

    I’m so buying this book. If the rest of it is anything like the intro, it’s going to be a gold mine for amazing quotes like this one. Dana Loesch rocks.

  • [7] October 21, 2014 at 10:18am

    What is up with this dude’s “crazy eyes”? He looks like he’s perpetually surprised. Botox, maybe?

  • [10] October 21, 2014 at 10:16am

    This bloke clearly didn’t do his research. Half a century ago, C.S. Lewis proved everything this man says is wrong using reason and logic. This idea of “hating the rich” and hating good things in life, C.S. Lewis shows how that has nothing to do with traditional Judaism or Christianity, and crept in during the time of the Stoics and from the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.

    Think about it. If Jesus hated wealth and riches, then why did he promise riches to people who were meek, downtrodden, and poor? Every promise Jesus makes about storing up treasures in heaven, and the meek inheriting the earth, they’re all promises of wealth and prosperity.

    God doesn’t find us too greedy and desire-driven. He finds us too dull and dispassionate. After all, the streets of heaven are paved with gold. You don’t get much more bling-obsessed than that…

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] October 20, 2014 at 12:13pm

    One of these days, the whole world will be like Ferguson MO, clamoring and calling for the death of two people, two prophets of God. The whole world will hate them, and want them punished for their “crimes”. When those two prophets are killed, the people of the world will celebrate by giving each other gifts like some perverse Christmas day.

    And to think, we’re already seeing the methodology that will be used in that future time…

  • [2] October 17, 2014 at 5:07pm

    Blinknight,

    You have totally lost your mind.

    You are advocating for insanity. You are saying 2+2=2, and that’s just as valid as 2+2=4. When people say “No, you’re wrong, it doesn’t work like that,” your response is “STOP FORCING YOUR BELIEFS ON ME!”

    Marriage is a contract that governs the mating of the sexes and the production of children. That’s it. It has nothing to do with sexual attraction. It isn’t a right. It isn’t a liberty. Nobody has a right to marry anybody they want. Nobody has a right to marry somebody they’re sexually attracted to. Nobody has a right to marry ANYBODY. And nobody has the right to change the definition of that contract to mean something else.

    You are looking at this through the lens of moral relativism. You think homosexuality is “just as valid” as heterosexuality. It’s not. There’s no rational evidence to suggest that, or support it. Homosexuality is what philosophy calls a “Celestial Teapot”. The burden of proof rests on homosexuality to present solid evidence that convinces people beyond all reasonable doubt that it is just as valid and capable as normal sexuality.

    Until it does that, you’re basically advocating for exactly the thing you hate the most: laws based on religion and blind faith. Because until you can present real solid evidence that homosexuality fits into the current definition of marriage, that’s all this is… Dogmatic, religious, blind-faith propaganda.

  • [-1] October 17, 2014 at 4:57pm

    The problem is that people know NOTHING about marriage. The people leading this push for gay marriage aren’t historical societies, or anthropological experts, or religious experts. The people leading this push for gay marriage are people who know nothing about marriage. They don’t know about its history, its purpose, or its meaning.

    Imagine if we let any other group of idiots lead the push for things. If solar power were being advocated by people who had no idea how the sun worked, knew nothing about astronomy, and had never actually been in the sunlight before, would you trust their ideas about things? If such a person were spear-heading a movement to enact laws that legally required the sun to shine 24 hours a day, would you support such a silly law?

    Because that is how this gay-marriage debate looks from the outside. You go and read what experts on marriage have said over the last few thousands years, and it becomes so painfully obvious that the gay marriage proponents are IDIOTS. They are like morons trying to pass a law that requires the sun to shine at night. It’s THAT stupid sounding.

    When you consult experts and learn about the topic first, and THEN look at the arguments of the gay marriage advocates, it’s astonishing how much nonsense is involved in their thinking.

    Responses (3) +
  • October 17, 2014 at 4:50pm

    They aren’t false analogies.

    They aren’t just private beliefs. That’s what I’m trying to explain. The idea of homosexuals getting married is LOGICALLY INCOHERENT. It makes no sense. So where do we draw the line? Does the government have a right to pass laws that make no sense? Do they have a right to force government employees to do things that violate rationality itself?

    That’s what I’m asking people. Does the government have a right to pass a law that requires the sun to shine at night? If so, do they have a right to fire you for not enforcing that logically incoherent law?

    I’m not comparing the two, I’m asking two separate questions. If I am a government worker, and I am being told to do something that is delusional and incoherent, am I required to do what I am told? Or, am I required to stand up to the idiotic law, and fight it?

    The problem is that you agree with the law, and therefore see nothing wrong with it. There are lots of solar power advocates who would agree with a law to make the sun shine at night. And if you know absolutely nothing about physics, or astronomy, you’ll look at such a law and think, “Why are people against it? This is free sunlight 24/7. What kind of evil person would be against that?”

    So the problem is that people who know NOTHING are going around advocated for “gay marriage”. But they advocacy is nothing more than assumptions based on ignorance of the topic of marriage.

    It’s not a false analogy. It accurately describes the situation.

  • [1] October 17, 2014 at 4:41pm

    Don’t you see the problem with the idea that something must be acceptable by the majority? Nazi Germany was acceptable by the majority. Does that mean that Hitler and the Nazis were right? They had every legal right to kill the Jews. Does that give them the moral right?

    That’s the problem with saying that laws are superior to morality. Just because the country of Iran has laws saying it’s okay to hang homosexuals, does that mean they are morally correct to do so? Of not, why not? Where do you derive morality from, if not from the Bible? You cannot get it from science, or philosophy. You can’t get it from relativistic thinking, or subjective “feelings”.

    You really need to THINK about these things. Ask yourself important questions, like “Where does my concept of morality come from?” I don’t think you realize how important things like the Bible are to moral identity. I’d encourage you to read the writings of G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis. Both of them did tremendous work in the last 100 years to explain why moral relativism is a dead end to thinking.

    “The Abolition of Man” is probably the best thing to read, if you’re only going to read one thing on the topic. It’s short, explains the entire moral relativism concept, and shows why it will ultimately defeat mankind if it’s allowed to take hold over the world.

  • [1] October 17, 2014 at 4:33pm

    You seem to forget that, in places like Iran, those sorts of things are NOT “just wrong”. Don’t you get it? You say that beheading somebody or hanging a gay guy is “just wrong”. But is it? Why do you think it’s wrong? Because you grew up in a culture based on the Bible, which says that murder is wrong, and that people are infinitely valuable because they are made in the image of God.

    Don’t you see? You are using the Bible to justify why it’s wrong to hang homosexuals, and you don’t even realize it. You are borrowing Judeo-Christian values without acknowledging where they come from.

  • [5] October 17, 2014 at 4:21pm

    Logical fallacy is a philosophical term, not a scientific term. Are you really that stupid? I was taught this stuff in the 8th grade English class. It’s not like you had to take Quantum Electrodynamics 602 in college to know what “logical fallacy” means.

    A logical fallacy means that the “reasoning” behind something has been warped and twisted by wrong thinking, or by emotional baggage. Logical incoherence, on the other hand, means that it is self-contradictory, uses circular reasoning, or abandons logic altogether and bases a conclusion upon some other premise like relativism, or subjective reality (meaning there is no truth, no objective understanding, no science, etc.).

    I don’t know what school you went to, but the one I went to taught people to look at things objectively and rationally. So since you’re suddenly being introduced to the bold new world of terminology and Philosophy, you should also look up the term “Celestial Teapot”. Because that’s what gay marriage is. Gay marriage is an unproved, unfounded concept that needs to justify its ideology and existence with strong enough evidence to convince people beyond all reasonable doubt.

    If it can’t do that, then it’s not worth exploring at all.

  • [3] October 17, 2014 at 4:12pm

    Congratulations. The triumph of insanity over rationality is nearly complete!

    When people start marrying their alternate personalities, like they did when gay marriage came to Spain, you’ll have even more to celebrate.

    Yay for logical incoherence and irrational laws!

  • [9] October 17, 2014 at 4:08pm

    Nobody is preventing gay people from getting married. Lots of people end up marrying people that they aren’t sexually attracted to. In fact, the vast majority of the world, for all of recorded history, has married people they didn’t even KNOW before the wedding. It’s called “arranged marriage”.

    It’s not my fault that you reject solid, long-lasting things that have existed forever, and are trying to replace them with artificial things, fads, and trendy ideas that fade away over time.

    There is no inequality here. Just idiotic people who are rejecting reason, science, and objective reality, all so they can throw themselves a pretty party and call it “marriage”.

  • [31] October 17, 2014 at 4:00pm

    @Harry

    Equal rights? Marriage isn’t a right. You don’t have a right to marry whoever you want. That’s absurd. Imagine that I got the chance to meet Betty White. She’s one hot woman, so I decide to propose marriage to her, on the spot. Betty is a kind person, but she’s not kind to a fault, so she says “Nope, sorry dear.”

    If marriage were a right, she’d be arrested for denying me my right to marriage. If marriage were a right, it would be illegal to deny a marriage proposal.

    Marriage isn’t a right. It’s not a liberty. It’s a contract that exists for one reason: to incorporate and perpetuate the mating of the sexes for the purpose of producing and raising children in a stable, life-long environment. There is no “mating of the sexes” in homosexuality, so there’s no point in even talking about “gay marriage”. Such a thing is logically incoherent. It makes as much sense as having a funeral service for living people. After all, everybody has a right to a funeral, yes?

123 To page: Go