User Profile: COMEBACKSOON

COMEBACKSOON

Member Since: March 19, 2013

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [1] April 25, 2015 at 12:07am

    Only read half the headline before scrolling down. Had to come back to it to find out who the black Rand Paul was.

  • [10] April 23, 2015 at 3:23pm

    “I don’t want to play with Bibi because he’s mean to me! Why won’t he just say that I’m right about everything?? WAAAAA…” What a weenie. Worst president ever. Being nice to him and agreeing with him are now prerequisites for getting an invite to talk with him. Utterly disgraceful.

  • [2] March 27, 2015 at 6:47pm

    Metal-The point I wanted to make was that PEOPLE were not being discriminated against, the CEREMONIES were. You say that discrimination of any kind must not be tolerated, and while it might feel good to say that when someone has mistreated you because of something that is beyond your control, the truth is that a free society cannot work unless discrimination is absolutely tolerated. You decide who to let into your house by DISCRIMINATING based on your relationship with them. You decide which businesses you will frequent by DISCRIMINATING against the ones that endorse causes, ideas, and principles that you disagree with, or at least you should.

    Governmental coercion is not the way to unify our divided nation. The freedom of religion and association are part of the very first amendment in our Bill of Rights. Trying to take this away will destroy our already fragile nation. Many people have fought and died for the freedom to practice our religion. Perhaps you don’t value that freedom, but many people are going to be willing to fight and die for that right that was promised to us in the Constitution.

  • March 27, 2015 at 6:46pm

    Mtjs-George Takei just said that he would consider anyone doing business with/in Indiana as “socially irresponsible”, due to their protection of religious freedom, which is a political idea that he opposes. I’m not criticizing Takei for voicing his intention to DISCRIMINATE against businesses that endorse ideas that are repugnant to him. Lots of people do that, and that is a good thing. I will likewise withhold my business from companies that attack religious freedom. This behavior proves my point. If doing business with someone was not a tacit endorsement of their views and practices, this sort of thing would not happen.

    Also, my comment about murderers was not an analogy, it was an application of principle, and a perfectly valid one. My point was that desire alone does not excuse wrongdoing. Do you disagree?

  • [1] March 27, 2015 at 4:34pm

    Well, you sound like you are coming from a very rational place. I’m going to address the flaws in your argument anyways. The most important thing you are missing is that in each case, the customer is asking the business owners to participate in a religious or political event. To participate in an event is to endorse the beliefs associated with the event. No one should be forced to endorse any message or belief system that is contrary to their convictions.

    If somebody had a religious conviction that prevented them from wanting to participate in birthdays, they should not be forced to participate in them, no matter how much gas was spent or how much my feelings were hurt.

    It may be true that homosexuals cannot help how they feel for one another. But simply wanting to do something, no matter how badly, does not make it acceptable to do something. Can you imagine applying that logic to murderers who can’t help wanting to kill people? At any rate, that was never the point. Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God. The Bible says that marriage the union of one man and one woman. A gay wedding is therefore a ceremonial rejection of God’s word. How can you think it’s okay to force a Christian to endorse that message?

    Responses (4) +
  • March 27, 2015 at 2:06pm

    And surprise! More hateful ad hominem from the “tolerant” liberal. And, whoops, forgot to include an argument. Oh, well, let me help you out. You should start with “People should be forced by the government to do business with people they don’t like and in ways that they don’t want to, because…” And then you would fill in the blank with an appeal to a moral authority, then show how that authority logically supports said government coercion. Watch out though! You’ll have to consider how this might go wrong, or what might happen if, for instance, another president decides that everyone should be forced to participate in Christian ceremonies. Or how about states where prostitution is legal? Should the government force prostitutes to offer their service (sex) to ALL public, regardless of where and how they want those services performed?

    Also, businesses don’t do business with the public, they do business with their customers (that subset of the public that agrees to the terms and conditions whereby the business operates).

  • March 27, 2015 at 1:38pm

    So what you are saying then, is that these businesses should NOT be allowed to discriminate against Indiana for supporting religious freedom? Is that it? because discrimination is inherently bad, right? As you have astutely perceived, that is what they are doing. So either you believe that salesforce.com should be legally punished, or you want special rules and protections only for people who engage in certain sexual activities. So which is it?

  • [49] March 27, 2015 at 1:31pm

    Moron! The Constitution gives us the right to decide who we will respect and who we will shame. You are practicing that right in your very post, when you say that Christian business owners should be shamed for not wanting to participate in religious ceremonies that they are against! It’s called freedom of association.

    Responses (2) +
  • [4] March 27, 2015 at 1:00pm

    Ad hominem from the LGBT crowd, how predictable. Or maybe we have missed the obvious coherent argument for why private businesses and individuals should be forced to do business with people and in ways that they would rather not? Would you mind restating that argument, please?

    Responses (3) +
  • March 25, 2015 at 7:56pm

    Source?

  • [-3] March 25, 2015 at 3:22pm

    “I don’t know a single atheist who thinks that terrorizing … and killing people is remotely OK…”

    That’s because those who do tend to hang out in places like prison. Well, the stupid ones, anyways. The smarter varieties won’t advertise themselves as such, but if you look carefully, you’ll find them congregating in and around government buildings.

    Responses (3) +
  • [3] March 19, 2015 at 3:36pm

    They are doing more than expressing their displeasure, that’s the point. If that’s all they were doing, I would say more power to them. But they are calling for the government to take away their neighbors freedom to run a business using their talents without being forced to participate in a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY that goes against their RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS.

    But in modern amerika, erotic freedom is valued more highly than religious freedom. We’ll see where that takes us. No where good, I can promise you that.

  • [6] March 19, 2015 at 3:31pm

    All businesses are public-facing. That does not make them public enterprises. It is a private business run by a private individual. You would have all businesses everywhere reclassified as public enterprises? And thus take freedom away from millions of your contrymen? So tired of this ignorance.

  • [26] March 19, 2015 at 3:26pm

    “…the couple told their friends to spread the word and that people went to the Next Door Stories and Bexley Area Chamber of Commerce Facebook pages and left negative reviews.”

    So they told their friends to leave negative reviews of a service that was never performed for them. Otherwise, they instructed their friends to lie, and they were only too happy to oblige.

    Once you abandon the standard of absolute moral truth, anything goes. Lying, cheating, stealing, its all okay as long as the only people who are hurt are your enemies.

  • [-2] March 12, 2015 at 1:43pm

    Cobalt-

    You asked what “rules” apply to you, as an atheist. The funny thing is, I never mentioned any rules at all. I spoke of a condition that is symptomatic of a sinful NATURE. The point being that in order to enter an eternally perfect kingdom, we must become people with a sinless nature – that is, we do not sin because we have no desire to sin, not just because we are super good at following rules. Only a totally sinless person can take part in a world where joy perpetuates forever. If you or I entered that world right now, we would ruin the whole show for everybody.

  • March 12, 2015 at 1:42pm

    Cobalt-

    This is an argument about morality. In order for anyone to “win” an argument about morality, the arguers must first agree on the authority or standard of morality. Matt and I are agreed on two points: (1) God is the ultimate authority on morality, and (2) God has communicated His standard of morality through the Bible. I made my point to Matt and his readers who share this common ground. But you got off the bus a long time ago. Atheists have no absolute basis for moral truth, thus every man is his own authority. Thus, it is impossible for anyone to “win” an argument about morality within an atheistic worldview.

    Thus it is possible to “win” an argument by “bringing my God into the equation”, when the argument is between those who mutually recognize God as the arbiter of otherwise subjective concepts. On the other hand, you cannot “win” any argument on any issue by leaving God out of the equation. Never. Without God, truth is relative, and thus argument is pointless.

  • [6] March 11, 2015 at 3:02pm

    No where did Matt call for government intervention. He is cancelling his membership. That, along with word of mouth, is the power of the people to influence private businesses. This is a perfect execution of libertarian principles.

  • [6] March 6, 2015 at 1:53pm

    From a practical standpoint, the distinction between homosexual urges and actions is irrelevant. Both are symptomatic of a sinful nature, and will require the person to trust God enough to give himself entirely over to God, so that he can be perfected, made suitable for His kingdom, finally able to participate in the eternal perpetuation of joy.

    Responses (4) +
  • [1] February 19, 2015 at 12:28pm

    Blinknight, you argue like a troll. Stop relying on ad-hominem attacks and face the facts.

    For as long as science has existed, we have attempted to apply our discoveries in trial of our beliefs about the past and our origins. All such activities fall within the realm of science, but their products are very different. As I have explained above, one results in repeatable, testable knowledge, while the other results in uncertain inferences, subject to bias and debate. Only in the last hundred years have people attempted to convince the world that their products are the same, and the reason for this is clear: to spread their anti-God religion, and to justify tyranny. It is because of this institutional deception of the culture that reasonable people must now learn to distinguish between the two.

    Your summation of my argument is ridiculous. My logic and explanation was perfectly sound. Your argument should not be that forensic criminology always results in certain knowledge of the past, because that is ridiculously, obviously untrue. Instead you should argue from the standpoint of the reliability of the contradictory evidence. From there, though, we will find that our division is one of disputed authority: you trust the fallible word of man, while I trust the infallible word of God.

    However, your refusal to acknowledge obvious truths makes me wonder if you are not a paid troll, or else just zealously anti-God.

  • [1] February 18, 2015 at 4:24pm

    Oh Blinknight, when will you see reason?

    The legitimacy of forensic evidence in justice is limited by the same logical limitations of other historical sciences. The presence of the suspects fingerprints on the murder weapon lets us know, beyond the shadow of a doubt that…wait for it…the suspect’s fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.

    We INFER from the presence of the fingerprint that the suspect came in contact with the murder weapon, and further INFER that the contact included the use of the murder weapon in the act of murder.

    In the presence of contradictory evidence, a jury would have to consider the possibilities that (1) the suspect might have come in contact with the murder weapon, but not in the act of murder; (2) the suspect never came into contact with the murder weapon, but another person placed the fingerprints onto the murder weapon in order to frame him. The unlikeliness of these scenarios must be weighed against the reliability of the contradictory evidence.

    In the context of goo-to-you evolution as the cause of today’s biodiversity, there is only one eye witness account of the beginning of life in this world, and many people have found this witness to be otherwise completely reliable. We therefore reasonably consider the research that claims to prove common descent with skepticism, and find that in all cases, instead of proving common descent, the research simply assumes common descent to be true, and interprets the results accordingly.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love