User Profile: Doug


Member Since: September 06, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [6] April 14, 2015 at 9:32am


    From the Christian worldview it actually all springs from the sin nature mankind has ,and naturally why we need a redeemer), but the folks you mention most likely have WILLFULLY and DELIBERATELY taken sides. These folks actually seek to take advantage of the fallen nature of mankind and rather than attempt to help folks stop giving in to envy, anger, hatred and so forth actually seek to increase it and then suggest outlets for it.

    In other words they deliberately stir folks up to do bad things for their own advantage. In Soros’ case he actually has helped break countries and banks for his own profit.

    I see little difference between what some of the folks do than Satan himself tempting Eve with envy and fear (“God has something He’s keeping you from?” Can’t trust His words and so forth)

    Fortunately at the end of so much pain these folks will inflict there will be justice and there will be no excuses then.

  • [4] April 10, 2015 at 2:23pm

    “Willfulness, disregarding evidence, is surely a sign of stupidity or insanity.”

    Or, just plain old malevolence.

  • [5] April 10, 2015 at 2:23pm


    I’d suggest a slightly different conclusion which would be this; “He is more willing to follow the Constitution than the supposed Constitutional ;scholar’ in charge of upholding it right now.”

    I have yet to be convinced this is an issue of ignorance rather than one of WILLFUL disregard on the part of Mr. Obama.

    Now, in the abstract, if you assert that not following the Constitution, regardless of intent or knowledge, is harmful or just plain stupid in the same sense that placing one’s hand on a hot stove will burn you regardless of knowledge or intent, then, yes, that is pretty dumb. *G*

    Willfulness, disregarding evidence, is surely a sign of stupidity or insanity.

    Responses (3) +
  • [1] April 9, 2015 at 9:51am

    What a class act this guy is. And what a great thing to happen to him. Well done sir.

  • [1] April 7, 2015 at 2:55pm and driven by your fear.

  • [57] April 7, 2015 at 9:17am

    Same here.. What did the writings say and what were the images of.

    An old Cherokee Indian from the tribe in North Carolina was in the services of a certain church while off the reservation, on vacation. The preacher preached with much zeal but never got around to the point of salvation and hell. He was afraid of making some of the uppity enlightened members uncomfortable especially regarding hell. After the service one of the prominent members, one of the boss ladies, remarked to the Indian, “Wasn’t that just the most marvelous sermon!?” The old Indian’s reply was: BIG THUNDER, BIG LIGHTNING, NO RAIN.

  • [3] April 6, 2015 at 10:57pm

    If you define “god” (lower case “g”) as “Master passion of an individual’s life” then, yes, it appears that Kayne’s god is none other than himself. I suppose the same could be said for many folks including some in the pulpit.

    Now, Mr. West, from what I have gleaned, never having heard the fellow, apparently is able to induce others out of their hard-earned wages. I guess, in his mind, that allows him this further (if you will excuse the sort-of pun) indulgence. And the sense of, what, superiority, immortality, [fill in the blank] that comes with his worldly successes.

    1 Peter 1:4 and Matthew 6:19-21 pretty much sum up what matters at the end of one’s life. Kayne can no more raise himself from the dead than any one of us. However, Peter (correctly) asserts that the believer has an inheritance that can not be taken away. Not so for Kayne.

    Pity the poor fellow.

  • [2] April 2, 2015 at 3:05pm

    TMI!! TMI!! TMI!! TMI!! TMI!! TMI!! TMI!! TMI!!



    Responses (1) +
  • [1] March 27, 2015 at 2:52pm

    - continued –

    If there was only one wedding cake baker then perhaps a case could legally be made to have them bake cakes but that’s a stupid position because it just is not true.

    What this boils down to is the aggressive promotion of a particular point of view that is using the legal system to advance its agenda and in the process violate the very rationale it is using to promote that agenda. Sort of like saying, “I will FORCE others to my will because mine was forced in the past.” or “I will steal to prevent others from stealing.” or “I will condone bigotry in order to eliminate bigotry.”

    Bigot – a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. ( )

    Or, “I will be intolerant of the wedding cake baker in order to FORCE them to tolerant MY point of view.” There is NO MORAL SUPERIORITY in this sort of position whatsoever. It’s just the same old power grab – just a different set of actors. The word for this is

    1.A person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

    2. A person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

    ( )

  • [1] March 27, 2015 at 2:42pm

    victoriamin’s post is a classic example of Reductio ad absurdum ( ) where one attempts to make a point by constructing an absurd or ridiculous conclusion from a false premise.

    Or, victoriamin, are you saying that LGBT folks, who I would contend WERE discriminated against in the past and forced to live against their consciences may now force others to live against theirs?

    If the LGBT folks want me to accept their life choices, well enough but I would suggest they lead by example and first accept mine. What they do in the bedroom, with whatever physical, moral, spiritual or other consequences is their choice but also their responsibility. All of us are responsible for our choices – no one else.

    Now, remember, this legislation is, as far as I understand it, designed to allow someone who would prefer to decline a customer on religious (faith-based) grounds to do so, nothing more. Say in the case of those who bake wedding cakes.

    - continued -

    Responses (1) +
  • March 27, 2015 at 9:30am

    Oh, by the way… existentialism has lost favor with the elites. Mostly now they have just given way to a gussied-up form on “me-ism”

    And, given the nature of existential thought you do not exist. *s* (just messing with you but I hope you see my point))

    Personally, I have always thought that existentialism is almost a perfect reflection of the nature of man apart from God. It’s all based upon the notion that one is the center of all of one’s existence. And that that only life’s experiences give meaning. The problem is that many years ago so many kids deduced that because death could be considered the ultimate experience they all started killing themselves to achieve it. Not good.

  • March 27, 2015 at 9:24am

    - continued -

    Now, your response will be enlightening. Given that I will LOUDLY assert your right (and responsibility) to make your own mind up I would seek to persuade you to examine the evidence proffered.

    This will inform me, and perhaps others, as to whether or not your conclusions were made with an open or closed mind.

    It has been my observation that almost all individuals I have ever made this suggestion to, when made, either never respond or make assertions that indicate the closed mined approach. That is, deciding the outcome and shoehorning the facts to fit the conclusion – much like the global warming crowd has done recently. And, when contrary evidence is demonstrated or better yet proof of their fraudulent changing of the evidence, they actually call for people to be executed and or prosecuted.

    God exists. That you cannot or will not accept this is absolutely your choice but I would caution you to think it through. For C.C. Lewis this became known as his “trilemma”:

  • March 27, 2015 at 9:17am


    You stated, “To me, taking responsibility means accepting my own mortality, and having the humility to know that I am but a speck in an impossibly large world, and you suggest that some eternal being demands responsibility of me? No, sir. I’m taking responsibility for my life. It’s you that’s shirking it, by lazily pushing your meaning to a netherworld for which there is no proof, and no likelihood of existing.”

    Notwithstanding your assertion that I am lazy, which, if I am reading your meaning properly, you are asserting that I have just accepted that which I have been taught, or learned, without any questioning, which simply could not be further from the truth, I must first say that I am glad you have a sense of a need to be responsible for yourself. That’s always a good thing and should not be overlooked.

    Now, to the point that you may not accept the notion of God’s existence; I accept that you hold this position but would want to respond with two thoughts; The first would be to offer you a couple of references that I would suggest you purchase and read. They are Josh McDowell’s book found here

    and Lee Strobel’s book found here;

    - continued in next response -

  • [4] March 27, 2015 at 1:52am


    “The first amendment protects freedom of religious expression. It does not under any interpretation of that protect freedom to inhibit or deny the civil rights or equal treatment under the law for others based on your beliefs. And equal treatment means that anti-discrimination laws regarding denying service should apply. It’s really that simple.”

    So why does it give the LGBT the right to blatantly violate the civil rights others?

    These folks are DELIBERATELY (and I might add brilliantly) using the law to FORCE their will on others. As far as I am concerned they have the right to stick their plonkers wherever and how often they want. But they seem to believe they should do so with impunity. In other words their rights are superior to those who disagree with them.

    You sir are a double standard hypocritical bigot and apparently are unable to balance a scale.

  • [1] March 26, 2015 at 9:56pm

    ohlograndma, They WILL to not go away. That is their nature, and their deliberate choice. To the point that their willfulness becomes a form of insanity after denying truth to the (unknown by man) point where there is no going back.

  • [1] March 26, 2015 at 9:52pm


    You MUST at some point take personal responsibility. At some point, either before death or after, you will tke responsibility. Better to willingly do so now than as a result of finding yourself in a place where the sort of “taking responsibility” has huge consequences that CANNOT be reversed at that point.

    We choose our destinies. Make the right one.

  • [1] March 26, 2015 at 9:50pm

    So, does your assertion, however gratuitous it may be, add to or take away from the tone and tenor of the general discussion? Are you presuming others will think you are smarter, or wiser or more helpful or kind? If you assert you do not care, well, there you go – you are correct and informs quite well.

    From what I can see you need a little remedial work on the whole internal thing you have going on – or are you unaware that your words expose your soul for those who really observe? Your soul is open and exposed here. We all have failures in our lives and how one human interacts with another is not something, I would recommend, to take lightly or without care. Your soul has value, as does ohlograndma, and Gov. Pence and those who oppose him. While I would support Gov Pence’s position those who oppose him have every right to do so – up to the point of breaking the law and civility. When I look at the stats I see more hypocrisy on the secular side than the faith side – though there’s unfortunately enough to go around. .

    I was taught that one cannot give what one does not possess. I’d be curious to hear your answer on what it is that you possess that is more give than take. It is possible if you really wish to think about others more than yourself. If you do you will demonstrate it and if you do not, the same is true. I hope that you will make healthy spiritual, emotional, intellectual and physical decisions in life. You really only hurt yourself if you do not BUT

  • [9] March 26, 2015 at 4:00pm

    Help me out here, would you?

    Those folks who object to this bill do so because they believe that those who support it will force them to do something they do not wish to do. That is, supporters of this bill, they say, will discriminate against non-supporters.

    But, it is OK for the opponents of this bill to force the supporters of this bill to do something they do not wish to do? As in the bakery shop scenario.

    I think willfulness on the part of some has replaced reason.

    I say, if someone doesn’t want to bake you a cake, go somewhere else. Let them go out of business. And for those who do not want to bake the cake why not use the opportunity for greater good? Presuming you are Christian, as I am, use the opportunity to witness.

    I think the real issue is that folks want privilege (rights, however arbitrary or extra-Constitutional) without any consequences. And that applies in a LOT oaf areas it seems – like spending, drugs, multi-partner or extra-marital or pre-marital sex, and so forth.

    Abstinence, for example, would work in all of those areas. I reserve my right to say that but would also say YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE!!!!

    Not to me, but to God. PLEASE – for YOUR sake – make responsible and good decisions. You and I will reap what we sow.

    Responses (1) +
  • [4] March 21, 2015 at 5:22pm


    Would I be out of line to assert that you are neither black as much as I am white. The paper in my laser printer is white. I am NOT white!. I am sort of a pasty fleshy colored old Caucasian fat guy *G*. We have different amounts of melanin in our DNA and that’s about it as far as I can see the issue goes (wish more saw it that way) Oh yeah, I’m as nearsighted as they come *chuckle*

    Now, to the statement that you love God. Me too, and that makes you my brother. We will spend eternity together giving glory to He who paid our debt and that is about as good as it can get – and I won’t be nearsighted then either. *s*

    See you there if not somehow before. [big fat smile]

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] March 21, 2015 at 2:59pm

    In other words – go straight at the GOP and let ‘em have it. Perhaps they will have an epiphany.

    Will they? Based on what I see, no, I do not think a lot of them will – sadly.

    Dale Ahlquist in “The Complete Thinker: The Marvelous Mind of G.K. Chesterton” ( )

    noted that the ‘corporatist’ was just as bad as the phony spiritualist (my words) and I agree. Just because Socialism is bad that does NOT axiomatically make Business good.. This is the error in thinking that has trapped many in the GOP.

    Greed, theft, fraud, lying and deception are just as bad when spewed by someone asserting the rights of the proletariat as those who claim that if you buy [fill in the blank] you will achieve happiness, peace and joy.GIVE ME A BREAK LOL

    Honestly when was the last time anyone actually believed an advertisement? And just why is that may I ask? (for those who may not get it that was a rhetorical question *s*)

    This ultimately is a spiritual battle that feeds into the moral strength and determination of those on the battlefield. Go get your house in order, put on your armor and go get in the fight with Beck.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love