User Profile: Gup20


Member Since: September 26, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [14] February 26, 2015 at 11:40am

    Roland Hesse (the person throwing the apple) is in the wrong. While Philip Fillion merely spoke against what he believes to be sinful behavior (behavior he doesn’t agree with), Roland committed an assault against someone he doesn’t agree with. If Roland truly believed that we needed to “protect the spirit of grace” then where was Roland’s grace towards Phillip’s point of view? Does Roland believe that Philip’s perspective on homosexuality is sinful? If so, where was Roland’s grace toward Phillip?

    I have gay friends, and I treat them with the same dignity and respect as I would treat anyone else. I accept them as they are, but that doesn’t mean that I accept, agree or excuse their sinful behavior. I also have friends who engage in premarital sex (another sin according to scripture). I meter how I should behave towards homosexuals by how I behave towards those heterosexuals who have premarital sex. I’ve come to the conclusion that how I treat someone who is having premarital sex is unaffected by their sexual sin… I don’t treat them differently. Therefore, I must come to the conclusion that homosexuality doesn’t effect how I treat a person. However, if either the hetero or **** sexual asked me about my view, I would honestly (and in love) tell them that their behavior was sinful. I would also not hide my opinion if the subject came up – though there are ways to speak the truth about sin in love. If I must accept them, they they must accept my view as well.

    Responses (2) +
  • February 2, 2015 at 4:33pm

    Keres, for truth to exist it must be absolute, universal, unchanging, and come from an authoritative, trustworthy source. This perfectly describes the God of the Bible. No other philosophical system can account for truth. All the other systems I’ve examined are self-refuting and cannot lead to the existence of truth. Take, for example, moral relativity. If morality is relative, than anything can be moral. If anything can be moral, then nothing can be moral or immoral. If nothing is moral, then morality doesn’t exist. Biblical Christianity is the only philosophical system which can account for itself without undermining itself. It is the only one which makes truth possible.

  • February 2, 2015 at 3:57pm

    You sound more like you are trying to convince yourself, Keres. Just because you cannot hear or recognize the truth when it’s offered, doesn’t mean it wasn’t offered, my friend.

    Rom 10:17
    So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

    Jhn 8:31
    So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine;
    32 you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
    43 “Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.
    44 “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

  • February 2, 2015 at 2:27pm

    Keres, your comments are spoken like a true sinner trying to justify himself, or keep from facing the facts. Jesus spoke of this attitude:

    Jhn 3:18
    “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
    19 “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
    20 “For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
    21 “But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

    You are willingly ignorant of the truth because you don’t want it to be true. You are hiding from the truth. You mistakenly believe that you have to be “good enough” to be a Christian, and you want no part of that burden. But true Christianity demonstrates that Christ kept the law perfectly, though we have not. We inherit Christ’s good deeds by way of our faith qualifying us as sons of Abraham and of God… not by keeping a list of do’s and don’ts.

    Your mistaken view of Christianity is understandable. There are a LOT of false teachers out there who say this is the way or that is the way. But if you go to the scripture for yourself, and seek God, you will find him.

  • February 2, 2015 at 2:18pm

    Gn8_the_Questioner do you not know that the whole world was judged with death because of Adam’s sin? However, because Jesus was able to come and live a perfect, sinless life, that corporate judgement is now insufficient. Because of Christ, ALL – both the good and bad people – will be resurrected in order to face individual judgement. If you have faith in Christ, you are a qualified child of Abraham and an heir of Christ righteousness. So then you will be judged not based on your own deeds, but on Christ’s. Good news!

    1Corinthians 15:22
    For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

    Acts 24:15
    having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

    John 5:28
    “Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
    29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

  • [1] February 2, 2015 at 10:25am

    Fry isn’t honest with himself about the heinousness of his own sin. Furthermore, he doesn’t comprehend the love of God in allowing us to continue to exist despite our sin. Think of it this way: if you kill an ant, no big deal. But, if you kill a family’s beloved pet dog, this is much worse than killing an ant. Additionally, if you kill a Kentucky Derby winning stallion, this again is much worse than the dog because the horse would be worth millions of dollars and is a more majestic creature than a dog. If you kill a man, this is orders of magnitude worse than killing the horse. If you kill 10 men, you are worse than the one who kills 1. If you kill a 10 million men, you are worse than the one who kills 10. So it is demonstrable that the severity or evil of an act is dependent upon the one you commit the offense against. God is infinite. He is the pure embodiment of love and light and goodness. One act against such a being is infinitely evil. One sin against such a God would make one deserve an infinite justice. The Bible says that ALL have sinned and fall short of God’s standard. Therefore, there are none who are innocent, not who don’t deserve death. The good news of the gospel is that despite our not deserving it, God sent his Son into the world to exchange our sin for His righteousness so that we can inherit the promise of salvation. The death which is our enemy will one day be destroyed and there will be only life.

    Responses (2) +
  • [9] January 26, 2015 at 5:57pm

    To my liberal friends – just think of snipers as “long distance abortionists” who abort enemies of our country rather than innocent, defenseless children. They just abort people up to 420 months (or more) of gestation.

    Responses (2) +
  • [7] January 20, 2015 at 5:21pm

    This is absolutely outrageous! The judge (if one signed off on this “emergency abduction”) and the officer should be charged with kidnapping. There is no law against this substance, and it is safer than household bleach. No child would be removed from a home for bleach or the many other harmful chemicals that are perfectly legal. How do they take the kids when they can’t point to any crimes which have been committed?

  • [1] January 19, 2015 at 12:18pm

    Keres, your statements seem illogical to me. Consider the following thought experiment: Lets examine the “sinfulness” or “wrongness” of killing a living creature. Lets say you kill an ant. Most rational people would say this is no great offense. However, lets say you kill a family’s beloved pet dog. Is this offense equal to or worse than killing the ant? Well, a dog seems like a more worthy lifeform than an ant, and you will have offended the family, so most rational people will say that killing the dog is worse than the ant. Now lets say you kill a Kentucky Derby winning horse. Again, most rational people would say this is worse than the dog because the horse is a higher lifeform than the dog, and as a Kentucky Derby winning animal, it would be worth millions of dollars. Now, lets say you culminate your killing by killing a human being. Again, most rational people would say this is orders of magnitude worse than killing a horse. What about killing a thousand people? Worse than killing one person? So it is demonstrable that the same action – killing – changes in the level of offense depending upon whom the offense is committed against. Now lets say you commit an offense against an infinite God who is love and light and life… the one who created you. Since God is infinite any offense against Him is infinitely evil. The only punishment that comes close to resembling justice is an infinite one of death in hell. Hell is not only logical but necessary.

  • January 19, 2015 at 11:52am

    MAC-10, Satan is not the author of ALL evil. God created both Satan and Man with a free will, and both Satan and Man chose to disobey God. Man is quite capable of evil without Satan, though, Satan did exert his deception over Eve in the beginning. I agree with you that there are none who are innocent, none who are good except God. Christ Himself challenged a man who called Him good when He said that only the Father was good. I think that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The reason people sin (hurt children, etc) is because they are sinners. The reason bad things happen to people is because we are all sinners and have chosen to sin against God – corporately judged with death in Adam, but individually applicable because all of us have sinned ourselves and therefore deserve that death.

  • [2] January 8, 2015 at 3:45pm

    If Allah is sovereign, then why does he need Muslims to do his bidding and kill people in his name. Let Allah reign down his own judgment on men from heaven. If he doesn’t care enough to pour out his own wrath, then he doesn’t really care. If Muhammed is such a revered prophet, why wouldn’t Allah avenge him by himself… is Allah so weak that he needs human beings to fight his battles for him? By taking action themselves, radical Islamists demonstrate that Allah is not sovereign, but needs help accomplishing his will.

    Responses (2) +
  • [3] January 7, 2015 at 10:42am

    The definition of a police state is a place where the safety of the government outweighs the rights of the people. The Bill of Rights was created to protect us – the people – from them – the government. The Bill of Rights restricts and limits government’s interference in the lives of the people. There is no more evil, murderous, and detrimental entity to human life in the history of our planet than tyrannical, overreaching government. The protections of the constitution are in place to keep the “necessary evil” (as George Washington called the government) in check. We have to keep them reigned in as tightly as humanly possible so that they don’t become a hindrance to our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The police are already well beyond the confines of the constitution every day. Something has to be done. The only good laws are laws that further limit government. Hopefully the new congress will act on that.

  • [20] January 6, 2015 at 2:29pm

    “By not rolling your window down, you’re interfering with our investigation,” Scott said. ”If a driver refuses to roll down their window they will be arrested.”

    According to Terry vs Ohio ruling, the police must be able to articulate a “reasonable suspicion” that a crime has been committed in order to detain someone for investigation. Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less demanding than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch’”; it must be based on “specific and articulable facts”, “taken together with rational inferences from those facts”, and the suspicion must be associated with the specific individual.

    Simply put, the refusal to roll down a window does not give the officers the reasonable suspicion necessary to detain and investigate an individual. Without the legal basis for detaining or investigating a person, there can be no legal justification for an investigation, and therefore the notion that a person is interfering with an investigation is ridiculous. Police don’t get carte blanche to investigate anyone they wish for any reason they wish. It has to be based on reasonable, articulable, specific facts.

    Responses (2) +
  • December 12, 2014 at 5:12pm

    This was in St Paul, MN –,-93.0806973,3a,75y,21.01h,70.25t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1skN24jjQOKpuye6IMGCklxw!2e0

  • [3] December 5, 2014 at 12:33pm

    I agree in principle, however, I think the moral outrage that is felt when a pregnant mother is fired by unscrupulous employers is significant and universal. No one wants to see that, and in fact it is offensive to most people. This is one regulation I, as a libertarian, can understand because the thought of mistreating a pregnant mother repulses me to such a high degree. However, to be consistent and principled, I believe you are correct. A law mandating employers certainly hinders employers and businesses. The treatment of pregnant mothers is one area I gladly allow my heart to overrule my head, it seems.

    Incidentally, take a look at the UK’s government mandated maternity entitlements. That is the direction progressives are trying to push for here:

    Responses (1) +
  • December 2, 2014 at 10:38am

    I think Holder is right that it is a “genuine expression of concern and involvement,” however I do not think the way it was done is a legitimate expression. The proper way to express it is not to silence someone else’s speech, but to wait your turn and express it in a sane and orderly fashion. It is a theft of someone else’s time and spotlight to shout your speech over their speech.

    I do not believe that Obama or Holder are genuinely interested in peace. Their interest is to foment anger and frustration to cause chaos, thinking after Sun Tzu’s notion from The Art of War that you have to whip your troops into a hate-filled vengeful frenzy before sending them off to kill the enemy. However their enemy is any American who doesn’t hold to their depraved worldview.

    If Holder and Obama are really truly interested in peace and change, then the Republican congress should create sweeping legislation securing the right of people and further limit the government (i.e. law enforcement) reach into our lives. Make explicit that stop and frisk is illegal. Make explicit that cops can’t investigate a person without a reasonable suspicion of a crime (no investigations under the guise of a casual conversation). Create severe penalties for cops who “get it wrong” and harm people who were innocent to begin with. Stop the militarization of police by law. Stop spying on Americans without a warrant. Stop the overreach of the schools in infringing on free speech and expression.

  • [2] October 17, 2014 at 12:36pm

    Contrary to many of the faith-filled believers with unwavering, unquestioning faith in a materialistic worldview, no Oort cloud has ever been observed. All that has ever been observed are comets which are passing close enough to see… but no cloud or repository of comets has ever been observed. Of course, the Oort cloud was first theorized as a rescuing device for the fact that comets don’t last millions of years… one pass too close to a solar system and they are melted. So scientists had to imagine a way that new comets could be continuously generated, and the notion of the Oort cloud was invented. This has still not been observed, yet it is believed on blind faith by those who’s religion is secular humanistic materialism.

  • [7] October 16, 2014 at 7:02pm

    The concept of white privilege is itself a racist idea. It says you are privileged because you are white. There are many whites who are not privileged, and have just as tough a time getting a leg up as blacks. When you classify people based on the color of their skin, that is racist. When you treat people differently because of the color of their skin that is racist. When you say “white privilege” you are making a racial distinction based on a collective identified by a racial stereotype, and that’s why we should reject it.

    Furthermore the proponents of white privilege believe that not only are blacks underprivileged, but that whites are over-privileged. They want to bring whites down based solely on the color of their skin. They are just like the KKK who wanted to bring down blacks because of the color of their skin. We need to stop making those racial distinctions and treat everyone equally, and exceptionally.

  • [10] October 16, 2014 at 5:47pm

    XaviorOnassis, in Genesis it says God created the earth, then light on day 1, then evening and morning were the first day. Evening and morning come from the earth’s rotation on it’s axis. You don’t need the sun for evening or morning, just a light source and darkness to differentiate day and night. That light source was replaced by the sun on day 3.

    Outside of Genesis 1, where ever “evening” is used in conjunction with the word “day” it is always referring to an ordinary, 24-hour day. Outside of Genesis 1, where ever the word “morning” is used in conjunction with the word day, it is always an ordinary day. And outside of Genesis 1, where ever a number is used in conjunction with “day” it is always an ordinary day. In Genesis 1, you have evening, morning, a number all in conjunction with “day.”

    Exo 20:11
    “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

    No one argues, for example, that moses was on Sinai for 6 thousand years.

    Exo 24:16
    The glory of the LORD rested on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it for six days; and on the seventh day He called to Moses from the midst of the cloud.

    Furthermore, if millions of years of evolution lead to man, that means there was death on earth before man’s sin.

    Rom 5:12
    Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men …

  • [15] October 14, 2014 at 3:14pm

    1. Koran 2:106 – “Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?”

    In other words, Islam is progressive.

    Responses (1) +
123 To page: Go
Restoring Love