User Profile: Gup20


Member Since: September 26, 2010


  • September 30, 2014 at 12:39pm

    Here is what I would ask a Muslim cleric: The Christian God Yahweh is ultimately and absolutely just, is Allah? How can I be certain I will get to heaven if I follow Allah? Can a sinner go to heaven?

    Then I would lay out this scenario: If a person swats a fly, is that wrong? What about if a person kills a family’s beloved pet dog? Is killing the loved pet dog a worse offense than swatting the fly? How about a Kentucky Derby winning horse? Would killing a prized horse be worse than killing a family pet dog? How about a man? Is killing a man worse than killing a horse?

    Are human beings better at justice than Allah, or is Allah more just than a human being? With humans, if a person commits murder – no matter how good they are in the rest of their life – they still need to pay the penalty for murder.

    As we saw with the fly, dog, horse, and man – the one you commit an offense against determines the severity of the offense. Yahweh, the Christian God, is infinite, and so to sin against him is infinitely evil. No amount of human goodness can measure up to the evil of just one sin. So Yahweh’s absolute justice demands they die and go to hell. Jesus was the only righteous man who didn’t sin. In a loving sacrifice, he gave up his righteousness in exchange for our sin, thereby fulfilling Yahweh’s justice. So Christianity has a rational mechanism for getting to heaven despite our sin… what is Islam’s good and just mechanism for assuring one goes to heaven?

  • [4] September 30, 2014 at 12:08pm

    The IRS did this to my brother about 15 years ago. My cousin had a little paintball business (2 employees, including my cousin the owner) in Minnesota, and my brother, who is good with computers, helped him out by building a website for him for free. My brother listed himself on the website’s as the “webmaster” of the so that any questions regarding the website would be directed to him. The business was registered as a sole proprietorship in my cousin’s name.

    However, at the time, my cousin wasn’t financially stable or reliable. He ended up owing a bunch of taxes. Because he was frequently behind on his bills, he didn’t answer his phone much. When they coudln’t find my cousin, they went to the website, saw my brother listed as the “webmaster”, and his contact info. From this, they found my brother’s bank account.

    Without warrant, trial, or charge they cleaned every penny out of my brother’s personal bank account in Texas for taxes my cousin owed on his business in Minnesota! My brother was never an employee of the business, but had donated his time to helping out a family member. The IRS said since he was on the website, they considered him an “officer of the company” (recall that it was registered as a sole proprietorship). My brother had to fill out an affidavit and make an statement to the IRS in writing that he wasn’t an officer of the company, and wait a few months before the IRS would return his money… which they did – without interest.

    Responses (1) +
  • [6] July 11, 2014 at 9:01am

    There is no direct link between “christianity” and “slavery” as the host says. Charles Darwin and his book “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” probably had a lot to do with the de-humanization of blacks in America. Freedom is a uniquely Christian idea. Jesus said “Who I set free is free indeed”… the Apostle Paul said “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.” Jesus also said “whoever commits sin is a slave to sin”. Jesus was here not only to free our persons, but our spirit from the bondage of slavery to sin and death.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] June 18, 2014 at 5:51pm

    Eph 5:21
    and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.

    Then, verses 5:22-24 describe how a wife can submit to her husband, and then verses 5:25-32 describe HOW A HUSBAND IS TO SUBMIT TO HIS WIFE. There are twice as many verses on how a husband submits to his wife as there are on how a wife submits to her husband!!

    Basically, verse 33 summarizes by saying:

    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.

    I highly recommend a book called Love & Respect by Dr. Emmerson Eggerich. A husband submits to his wife’s need for love, and a wife submits to her husbands need for respect. By seeking to understand and meet one another’s needs, we’ll have better relationships.

  • June 4, 2014 at 3:17pm

    Someone should point out this is an example of Devolution, not Evolution. The crickets LOST a structure, not gained genetic information. Evolution from molecules to man requires massive increases in genetic information. This is a demonstration of a loss of information. So while the cricket does “change” the change is in the wrong direction to support Darwin’s theory.

    In fact, this is what creationists predict. This finding supports creationists, not evolutionists.

  • June 3, 2014 at 1:12pm

    No one seems to be able to answer the constitutional question of why it would be illegal for a bakery to deny service to a gay couple, but it is perfectly legal for restaurants to deny service to someone who is exercising their 2nd amendment rights. Somehow, our right to have sex with whomever we want is construed as “shall not be infringed” but our 2nd amendment right is able to be limited. To me, that is what is “weird.”

  • March 26, 2014 at 2:54pm

    If true, I smell an IRS audit in many of the justices near future.

  • March 6, 2014 at 1:03pm

    WTF happened to the “C” in CPAC? These are supposed to be conservatives. Mitch McConnel and Chris Christie are some of the biggest liberal/progressives in congress.

  • February 26, 2014 at 4:57pm

    A single person is more important than any (or all) of the moose on the planet. This guy was certainly justified in the action he took to protect himself and his son… the moose could certainly have killed him. However, a knowledge of how to deal with a moose in this situation in a way that would prevent the moose from feeling the need to attack may have prevented the necessity for the use of deadly force. Given the circumstances here, the killing is justified and couldn’t be helped. Perhaps some education on how to deal with moose would prevent future events.

    Responses (3) +
  • February 26, 2014 at 2:10pm

    “What is the difference between a business owner saying no blacks are allowed here versus no gays are allowed here?”

    What’s the difference between a business owner saying no blacks or gays are allowed here versus no guns are allowed?

  • February 25, 2014 at 11:53am

    Up to a billion-fold acceleration of decay has been observed in a lab. When uranium decays into lead it gives off helium… Helium leaks out of rock at a constant rate. I bet if they measured the helium in the rock it would be much higher than a wild guess of 4.4 billion years of leakage would suggest… it’s probably only a few thousand years old.

  • February 25, 2014 at 11:44am

    Alvin Holmes is a huge racist. Can you imagine if a white congressman said that he would not respect another white man who allowed himself to carry the message of any black man? What a huge bigot this guy is.

  • February 17, 2014 at 5:25pm

    The scientific method (invented by a young earth creationist, btw) involves observation and being able to repeat that observation. Since no one was here to observe creation or evolution, and it obviously cannot be repeated, this means that both fall outside of the scientific method. Any “evidences” that we can currently observe will be observed in the present, not in the past. A creationist and an evolutionist will each look at the exact same evidence and will be convinced that it demonstrates their worldview because they are relying on their underlying, unobserved assumptions to create the interpretation of the raw data. Therefore, the creationist and evolutionist come to diametrically opposed conclusions, not because they use different science, but because they apply a separate set of unobservable assumptions as the foundation for understanding the evidence they can observe. So it is not the evidence which is in dispute, but rather the faith each side holds to absolutely as the foundation of their understanding.

    The debate never ends because the evolutionist side refuses to acknowledge their own preconceived assumptions.

    Creationist: can’t you see God created this dinosaur egg in this fossil?
    Evolutionist: can’t you see this fossil dinosaur egg evolved?

    Both see the world through the lens of what they already put their faith in. The evidence is common and both sides see the same evidence. Both sides do the same science. It is the faith that is a

  • February 17, 2014 at 1:50pm

    It isn’t science vs religion, it is religion vs religion. The science classrooms have become the holy temples of humanistic materialism. The humanists have an absolute and blind faith in evolution that can never be challenged no matter the evidence against it.

    Responses (2) +
  • February 7, 2014 at 5:03pm

    This article seems completely biased and slanted to one side of the argument.

    I have to say, I think Glenn Beck was way off on this one. What I saw was two men come together in a civil and straight forward way with mutual respect and honor and express diametrically opposed opinions without leveling personal attacks or getting nasty. It was the epitome of the kind of civil unity Beck is looking for, and he missed it.

  • February 5, 2014 at 6:05pm

    I think the creation v evolution debate is foundation to changing the culture. That being said, it can also be divisive — and here is why. It is faith vs faith. No one actually observed the formation of the earth and universe, be it by a big bang or by God’s own voice, therefore it falls outside the realm of observational, repeatable science. Ken Ham pointed out that the creationist position is actually up front about it’s starting suppositions, and that those suppositions actually make sense of what is actually observed. The evolutionists have a just as firmly held faith in the unobservable, yet they are intellectually unwilling to admit that they take humanistic materialism as an absolute on pure faith.

    Creationists have the exact same evidences… but both of them make their observations of that evidence in the present. They come to very different conclusions because they start with and interpret the observed data with a different set of assumptions.

    To change the culture, you have to show why or how your starting assumptions make more sense, and I think Ken Ham did a much better job of that than Bill Nye. Nye’s evidences can all be explained by simply replacing the evolutionary assumptions with creationist assumptions. Nye didn’t show why the evolutionary assumptions were preferable.

    Responses (1) +
  • January 20, 2014 at 10:34am

    The police officer here is completely in the wrong, and should be fired. He violated the citizen’s rights and acted criminally too.

    First off, Terry v Ohio (a landmark court case that set the standard for detaining a person for investigation) says officers must be able to articulate a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or will commit a crime before they can detain them. In this case, the man clearly asks the officer what crime he has committed and the officer indicates that he doesn’t know and that’s what he is there to find out. Right there, the officer has admitted to illegally detaining this person. Furthermore, the officer has admitted that he had no justification for pulling his weapon out. That means, the officer is not only violating the citizen’s rights, but the officer is himself committing a gun crime – aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

    Michigan law allows police officers to pull their weapons in the commission of their duties, however, the citizen has a pretty good case that illegally detaining a person when they have not committed a crime doesn’t fall within the scope of the officer’s “duties”. If it did, the entire police department is criminally and civilly liable for what happened here.

    Besides the aggravated assault, the officer should be charged under the federal penal code Title 18, section 242 – deprivation of rights under color of law. Because it included aggravated assault, the officer should get 10 years

    Responses (1) +
  • January 16, 2014 at 4:14pm

    In the last 2 elections of Obama, we’ve had nothing but progressive candidates. Obama was, by far, the most extreme, left-wing, progressive, communist, socialist candidate in the field, and he was elected. Why? Because he is an extremist idealogue. People want to know you believe strongly in something, and have a plan to achieve your vision. After 5 years, we’ve seen that vision turned out to be the most destructive course for our country. Now, we need bold, genuine, leadership that can articulate another direction. Centrist, progressive republicans (such as McCain, Graham, Peter King, Chris Christie, etc) CAN NEVER WIN. They aren’t AS progressive as the democrat, so they will just look like the less attractive candidate out of two progressives. They aren’t conservative enough for regular people to get behind.

    My pick would be Ted Cruz for President.

    VP would be Allan West, Rand Paul or Mike Lee. These people can articulate freedom values and show how they stand in stark contrast to the progressive dissolution of our God-given freedoms that we’ve all been experiencing for the last 5 years.

    West would make an awesome Sec of Defense. Put Ron Paul in charge of the Federal Reserve. Make Ben Carson secretary of HHS. Make Andrew Napolitano Attorney General.

  • January 16, 2014 at 12:36pm

    I disagree. This is a national problem, and mothers are discriminated accross the country. I live in MN by the headquarters of Target. They recently put out an enterprise wide announcement to all employees to allow breasfeeding because it is protected in many states (like MN and TX), and employees are ignorant of the law, and discriminate against mothers. As this story shows, a company can have larger than life banners in their stores of women in next to nothing, but then have the nerve to say a breastfeeding mom is inappropriate? That’s so backwards from how it should be. The teenage models shouldn’t been showing off their bits and pieces in banners, and the mom using her breasts for their designed purpose should be celebrated.

    Lets be clear — the showing of breasts in public is not immoral or inappropriate; the sexualization of breasts in public is inappropriate. Victoria Secret does that every day (as do most media outlets) right across this country. Breasts being used for their natural function is not inappropriate in any way or in any setting.

  • January 10, 2014 at 2:27pm

    @Billy Hallowell

    Read the book Love & Respect by Dr. Emmerson Eggerichs.
    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.

    Most men’s greatest need is respect, and most women’s greatest need is love. The reason we have trouble understanding one another is we see our spouse’s need through the lens of our own greatest need. Dr. Eggerich says the key to a great marriage is mutual understanding. In fact, I would say the Love & Respect connection is the key to understanding human behavior. 4 of the 5 points from Feldhahn’s book in this article aren’t possible without understanding your spouse. You can assume they are good willed toward you, or you can understand them and see why that thing they did that hurt you was really good willed. Changing attitudes is quite easy when you see why your spouse did that thing that upset you, and you can realize that it had nothing to do with hurting you and was actually intended by them to compliment or encourage you. From Love & Respect you can learn how to motivate your spouse to meet your needs by meeting their deepest need.

    Check it out.