User Profile: Gup20

Gup20

Member Since: September 26, 2010

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [1] April 10, 2015 at 1:30pm

    I went through a time with an unfaithful spouse – twice. It sucks. But it’s not unbeatable. My wife and I made it through and we have been married for 15 years. The only way to get through it is with unconditional love. Your commitment to the relationship really has little to do with her commitment to the relationship because you are accountable to God for your commitment, not to your spouse.

  • [31] April 10, 2015 at 1:09pm

    1Co 13:4
    Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant,
    5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,
    6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
    7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
    8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.

    The narcissist loves himself. If the narcissist marries, he is only using his spouse to love himself. The spouse is a tool for self-indulgence. They are looking for the OTHER person to make them “happy.” Happiness becomes the all important factor. For the narcissist, if they are no longer “happy” it’s the other person’s fault, and divorce is warranted becuase they married to make themselves happy, not to love another person.

    Love does not seek it’s own, bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. True and actual love doesn’t fail based on the object of the affection. It is unconditional.

    In reply to the contribution Marriage Doesn't Work if You're a Narcissist

    Responses (1) +
  • April 10, 2015 at 12:59pm

    1Co 7:28
    But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.

    The Bible says YOU WILL have trouble if you marry. It’s not a maybe. I’ve been married for 15 years, and have gone through hard times and great times (including infidelity of my spouse). Today we are still together and our marriage is stronger than ever. I highly recommend a book called “Love & Respect” by Dr. Emmerson Eggerich. From this we learned that unconditional love and respect are the keys to a good marriage, and it’s worked for us!

    Eph 5:33
    Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.

  • [7] April 2, 2015 at 11:32am

    I agree with the supreme court… atheism is a religious belief and carries all the same protections as any other religious belief under the first amendment of the US constitution. My only problem is an unequal application of the establishment clause of the 1st amendment which targets Christians and ignore atheists. For example, you can’t teach creation in schools, but you can teach evolution – a religious belief which cannot be tested, observed, or repeated. It would be more proper if origins were not taught by public education systems… your origin beleifs are irrelevant to actual observable science anyway – both creationists and evolutionists make equally qualified and effective scientists.

    The courts could easily rectify this by recognizing the true nature of the establishment clause is “congress shall pass no law” means that individuals in government can participate in religion (such as atheism) as long as it doesn’t pass a law which requires anyone else to do so.

    Responses (12) +
  • [1] March 26, 2015 at 11:59am

    I would suggest we need to actually listen to their words. They said that the strategy “worked” and they said that the region was in complete chaos. It is at this point you have to start to believe that bathing the region in chaos may be an unstated goal of the Obama administration.

  • [2] March 24, 2015 at 3:19pm

    I see experience as one of Cruz’s biggest assets. First, his lack of being a career politician puts him in a unique place for going after a term limit constitutional amendment. But second, it shows he’s not steeped in the corruption of Washington DC. Additionally, I see his experience as a junior senator standing up to all the “big boys” as tremendously positive for him. He not only went after the democrats and stood his ground and swayed public opinion, but he went after the progressives in the republican party, and the political game players who work their deals. He showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has the fortitude to stand his ground. That’s what I’m looking for…. someone who is BOLD and will stand up to the corruption and progressiveness in both parties. Cruz is my first choice, but I would also vote for Walker or Paul. Hopefully one of those 3 get the republican nomination. The democrats have been completely lost to the progressive mindset — a lost cause. No one in that party worth voting for. The Libertarians have some good candidates that I would definitely consider, but the problem there is that they are lesser known and therefore have much less chance of winning. The republican establishment is quickly sliding into progressivsm. It’s not long before I completely abandon them. Krauthammer is protecting that establishment because it puts dinner on his table.

  • [4] March 17, 2015 at 1:01pm

    Matt, I couldn’t agree more with your article. My wife & I have been married for over 15 years, and the one thing that I can say is that unconditional love & respect are the keys to a successful and fulfilling relationship. My wife and I read a book called Love & Respect (by Dr. Emmerson Eggerich) and it changed our marriage. I also agree with your diagnosis of the cause of the problem – progressive ideology. Be it feminism, white privilege, or any of the myriad of other divisive ’causes’ that progressives promote, one factor is prevalent – they believe not just in raising one side to effect equality and social justice, but that it is also a requirement to lower the other side. Feminists not only say “we need to raise the quality of life of women” but then they go too far and say “we also need to lower the quality of life for men.” The white privilege crowd does the same thing with race… whites need to be brought down. The irony is both of these groups in so doing become the very sexist or racist evil they purport to stand against.

    Only through humility and putting someone else’s needs ahead of your own does a relationship flourish. The progressive mantra of bringing down those you disagree with is destructive and does more harm than good.

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] March 10, 2015 at 5:21pm

    In over 10,000 open carry marches, parades, and rallies in the last 2 years there hasn’t been a single person shot or injured. There are, however, documented cases where a person on an open carry walk stop violent crime from happening. For example, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKyi4SHd2X4

  • [1] March 10, 2015 at 5:07pm

    Anyone who hurts a child – no matter the “weapon” – should no longer be a teacher.

  • [3] March 10, 2015 at 5:06pm

    This guy does these walks in this town all the time. They know him. They know specifically out there to protest and bring awareness, yet they harass and stalk him anyway (both crimes, I might add). Part of the point is not only to demonstrate his rights, but to show people that it is irrational to be afraid of guns. Why don’t good people carry guns? Because there is a stigma associated with it. Why is there a stigma, because the media and news only ever report on what the bad guys do. Someone has to break that negative cycle.

    The REASON we have mass school shootings and no mass shootings at gun shops and gun ranges is because gun-free-zones creates “easy victim zones.” At their core, mass shooters are cowards. If they had the courage to face life, they wouldn’t do mass murder. They intentionally choose soft, easy targets. Why doesn’t the mass shooter go to shoot up the police stations? Why doesn’t the mass shooter go to shoot up the capital buildings? Why doesn’t the mass shooter go to anywhere that is heavily guarded? For the same reason they choose schools… because they are cowards who want to kill a lot of people with as little risk as possible.

    If this guy walked into the school with that gun on his back, it would be the safest school in the state.

    Here is a hint: guy with gun in holster or sling – friendly, happy, polite guy. Guy with gun in hands pointing or waiving it around = bad guy. It’s pretty easy to make the distinction.

  • [7] March 10, 2015 at 4:36pm

    Zapparules, police have no affirmative duty to protect people. The supreme court is clear on that – otherwise people could sue the police for not getting there in time to save them from a bad guy. It is law enforcement’s role to find out who did it after the fact. It is the responsibility of each an every one of us to defend ourselves. In the case of children, it is the school administration’s job to keep them safe. Given the open carry laws, it would be the school’s job to make sure a requisite number of teachers or staff were armed at all times or hire a security firm to do it. There should never be a time when schools are waiting on police to respond to protect kids from a bad guy. When seconds are the difference between life and death, the police are always minutes away.

  • [3] March 10, 2015 at 3:31pm

    RipeForParody, look up Nick Meli in the Clackamas Mall in Portland Oregon. At the same time as the Aurora and Newtown shootings, a guy brought an AR-15 into the Clackamas mall and killed 2 people before Nick Meli pulled his hand gun out and confronted him. The shooter ran into a stairwell to hide and there committed suicide. A mall full of people — 30 round magazines — stopped by an average citizen with a hand gun who never fired a shot. A recent study showed that a gun is used in self defense between 2 and 3 million times per year in the USA. We have 8000 gun deaths per year. That is a lot of non-fatal uses of firearms for their intended purpose. In the vast majority of cases, the mere presence of a good guy with a gun prevents crime – just as it did with Nick Meli in Portland.

  • [6] March 10, 2015 at 3:22pm

    This is one of those rare occasions where I disagree with Beck. The police have no business contacting him unless he does something illegal. He shouldn’t have to justify his carrying a gun to a cop – ever. Now if he is holding the gun in his hands, or waiving it, or pointing it… that’s a different story. That’s a crime. But the good guys carry holstered or slung. If John-Q-public don’t recognize that, they they need more exposure to guns. Schools are a perfect place for kids to learn gun safety. Or what if Johnny’s dad and Billy’s dad are buddies who see each other each day when picking up their kids from school… and one day Johnny’s dad mentions to Billy’s dad he’d like to try hunting and Billy’s dad says “hey I’ve got a great hunting rifle… would you like to borrow it?” The next day Billy’s dad brings the rifle to the place where he sees Johnny’s dad every day and hands him the cased rifle. No one dies and SWAT probably doesn’t need to be called. In some states, that’s a felony. The bottom line is we shouldn’t have to ask the police for permission to exercise a right, nor do we have to justify ourselves to the government. The police should have driven by, seen him abiding by the law, and then driven away without ever trying to contact him. This BS about being by a school — well if the teachers were adequately armed to protect students, there would be nothing to worry about. We don’t have shootings at gun shops, only schools, because schools are unarmed

    Responses (3) +
  • [1] March 5, 2015 at 2:01pm

    Butterdog, yes, I am glad you asked.

    Mat 5:28
    but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    1Jo 3:15
    Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer;

    This puts things in perspective doesn’t it? Another verse says:

    Rom 3:23
    for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

    and

    Rom 3:9
    What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
    10 as it is written,
    “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;

    Do you see the message of scripture? All are sinners… there is NONE who are guiltless. None of us are better than any other. We all need a savior because we’re all guilty of sin. We are all in the same boat together.

    It saddens me that the so called “church” has so mistreated and rejected our homosexual brothers and sisters. Rather than treating them with understanding as a fellow sinner and realizing we are no better than they, the church has – for the most part – taken a ‘holier than thou’ attitude toward those who are mired in that sinful lifestyle. We can certainly affirm the value and worth of people, even sinners, because WE ARE OURSELVES SINNERS! To accept a gay person doesn’t require accepting their sin as OK. But God loved us and sent His Son to die for us while we were yet sinners. Our attitude should be the same – one of serving the gay community while helping them see their sin for what it is – sin.

  • [1] March 5, 2015 at 1:28pm

    BTW – gay marriage in an of itself isn’t immoral — but insomuch as gay sex is assumed to take place in a gay marriage, it makes it wrong. Homosexual behavior is immoral. Gay sex is immoral. If anyone says “I don’t care what you do in your bedroom, but I don’t want gay marriage,” they are inconsistent and have no sound basis for being against gay marriage.
    Also, you may love whomever you wish. In fact, we should love everyone we come in contact with. But that doesn’t mean we should have sex with everyone we come in contact with. Love does not equal sex. Sex is not love. I love my daughter, for example, but I don’t need to have sex with her to express that love. I love my parents, but I don’t have sex with them. I love my brother, but I don’t have sex with him. I love my friends but I don’t have sex with them. The notion that you have to have sex to love is demonstrably false.
    I personally believe that the government should get OUT of the marriage business all together. I believe that all unions granted by the state should have no sexual consideration. Let churches and religions “marry” people… but let the government and state validate partnerships and unions between ANY legal persons. A man and his wife… a man and a man… a woman and a woman… 3 women together… parents and their children… whomever wants to should be able to enter a marriage like partnership. The states need only to remove the sexual component of unions to accomplish this.

  • March 5, 2015 at 1:17pm

    It’s about morality – right and wrong. If morality is relative, then it doesn’t exist. For morality to exist, which I believe it does, it must be absolute, universal, unchanging, and come from a valid authority. If morality is relative, then anything (including “nothing”) can be right or wrong. Murder, then, is not wrong… it just depends on the situation or if you get caught.

    I don’t doubt that people are born with certain sinful proclivities or that a person can be influenced by their environment to desire the opposite or the same sex. If, for example, as a 3 year old boy you are sexually abused by a man, the chances are high that you will grow up gay because our first sexual experiences often define our sexual desires.

    The question is not whether you choose to be attracted to the opposite or same sex, but the choice is whether you act on those lusts once you understand that it is wrong.

    Responses (2) +
  • [3] March 5, 2015 at 1:05pm

    I disagree. Like any other sinful behavior, one is not that until they actually perform it. The person who hates, but does not kill is not considered a murderer. The person who lusts, but does not cheat is not considered an adulterer. The person who wants to dominate sexually, but does not rape is not considered a rapist.

    All people are born sinners desirous of some sin. It is up to us to refrain from actually sinning. Just like when a man marries a woman – he agrees to forsake all others and have sex only with his wife. He doesn’t stop wanting to sleep with other women… he simply conforms his sexual behavior and denies his own desires out of his love and honor for his wife.

    The Bible describes this progression from sinful desire to actually sinning in this way:

    James 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.
    15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

    By the way — if it is about consenting adults, then polygamy should also be legal, right? Why not allow 6 men and 5 women to all marry each other? They are all consenting adults, right?

  • [6] March 5, 2015 at 12:54pm

    Is one an alcoholic if they have never had a drink? Is one a pedophile if they have never acted on their desire? Is one a murderer if they only hate someone in their heart, but never act on it? Is one an adulterer if they only desire another woman who is not his wife, but never act on it? Is one a polygamist if he covets another man’s wife but never acts on it? Is one a thief who desires to have things that he cannot afford, but never takes it? Is one a speeder if he never disobeys the speed limit but desires to get there faster?

    It seems to me that if someone is celibate, they are not gay… they are celibate. That seems like common sense to me. Regardless of a person’s desires, they are not their behavior until they actually perform it.

  • [10] March 5, 2015 at 11:43am

    Being gay means to have sex with those who are of the same gender. This is a behavior. This is a slippery slope – if the supreme court holds that gay marriage is a constitutional right, then it must necessarily recognize that ALL sexual behavior is a fundamental constitutional right – including rape, incest, pedophilia, homosexuality, and polygamy. Since the constitution is absolutely silent on sexual behavior, to attribute one form of sexual behavior as “protected” under the constitution is to declare all sexual behavior protected under the constitution. We absolutely do and should regulate sexual behavior. Because of the lack of specificity (or a single word about sexuality in the constitution) this is CLEARLY AND ABUNDANTLY a states issue and falls under the 10th Amendment.

    Responses (4) +
  • [7] March 4, 2015 at 2:51pm

    Does a straight married man “overcome his desire” to have sex with women who are not his wife, or does he desire other attractive women for the rest of his life? Yet, he conforms to the oath he took to his wife for the rest of his life out of his love and honor for her.

    We, too, are called by God to conform our sexual behavior to His standards regardless of our attractions. We do that out of our love for God. If you don’t love God, or are not a Christ follower, then why not indulge every sinful lust and desire?

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love