User Profile: Hailgoober

Member Since: June 28, 2011

CommentsDisplaying Hailgoober's 10 most recent comments.

  • I know Glen well enough to realize he doesn’t support the commercials that have been airing. I agree with others in this thread that it is almost certainly a play up to the release of Glen’s upcoming book re. Agenda 21.

    Still, I am surprised that Glen, Pat, and Stu appear to be subtly mocking the people who wrote him regarding their concerns. In a sense they are doing exactly what Glen has so often preached, which is to “Question with Boldness”. I believe it would have been more beneficial if Glen’s response to their concerns was a little less cryptic.

  • If You Watch One Karaoke Video Today, Make It This Amazing One

    September 18, 2012 at 12:12pm

    In reply to OniKaze.

    Are they absolutely sure the young lady isn’t lip synching? In watching the video there are moments where the voice and her mouth just don’t seem to add up. There is a specific moment between 2:20 and 2:25 where the young woman’s teeth are very visable and she appears in that moment to have largely closed her mouth but the voice continues at a rythm that doesn’t add up with what should be a lack of air movement and tone from her mouth.

    Of course I am most likely off my rocker. I so hope I’m wrong because it is a breath-takingly beautiful rendition and I would love to see the young lady succeed.

  • @ Chris Bacon,
    I politely disagree with your assertion. You are applying too much speculation to arrive at your conclusion that a deliberate underscore took place, based on affirmative action. Aside from the fact that you appear to be ignoring the other caucasian challenger, Raisman, in your argument, this is an especially challenging hurdle for you to mount considering the floor exercise judges were applying a particularly hard standard to that event across the board. Wieber was not the only top rated gymnast present to receive a lesser score on the floor. Douglas’ performance throughout the day was exceptional. She set the standard so exceptionally high that even with the massive gaff on floor and a miserly score of 13.7666, Wieber had to achieve 14.899 or better to get past Douglas and make it to all around. Despite the difficulty of her routine Wieber’s step out of bounds cost her the spot, she had a final score of 14.666. Douglas performance wasn’t really that big a surprise, she was expected to be a solid contender for all around from the beginning. It was Raisman that was the true dark horse and came out of no where to snatch the all around from Wieber. It stinks in alot of ways but affirmative action is not one of the stenches this time around. My argument aside I am saddened for Wieber, I do not care for the sport’s new system of measurement nor how the system enables a world champion to lose an opportunity arguably well earned.

  • Dear Blaze,

    You have had an Athiest articulate his positions remarkably well and you have now given your readers an opportunity to see this gentleman attempt to articulate his more progressive perspective of Christ and Christianity.

    Is there any chance at all you might also consider someone who articulates the more socially conservative perspectives of the areas that both the Athiest and this gentleman have addressed. Perhaps someone such as Ravi Zacharias?

  • @Devonrye

    Thank you for your very stimulating thoughts. I do not have a forum I frequent unfortunately, but I would enjoy bantering some more. If you are ammenable, hailgoober@gmail.com.

  • @ Devonrye,

    In truth I cannot declare that I have an absolute knowledge of what faith is or how it differs between individuals or belief systems.

    Here is the context of my thought.

    Can faith be universally defined as an person’s specific belief in the absolute nature of something regardless of proofs or lack thereof?

    This certainly applies for me as an individual who does believe in a creative entity. My confidence in such an existence does have roots in an educated review of historical, written, and observable facts, but at the end of the day I do transmute those observations within my thinking in a manner that supports my strongly held belief in a creator.

    If as a person who has a strongly held belief that there is no creator your belief is based on your educated review of observable facts that define for you the proof that you need to feel assurance of your position, could that be considered a form of faith?

    I won’t even quibble over the differences present between belief in and belief not in a creator. If we start from a demonstrable form of faith, such as when I sit in a chair I have an instinctual faith that the chair will hold me up? Might we be able to subscribe that instinctual ability to believe in something to both sides of the equation? Does the action of belief constitute trust in what you adhere too and might not that “trust” be understood to be faith in what you believe?

  • Dear Devonrye,

    Overall you have debated well in this thread. I have greatly appreciated your perspective.

    Can you in turn offer credible evidence that there is no such being?

    There is definitely an element of faith in the belief of a Creator I will not deny that truth.

    I imagine that you and I differ greatly on what evidences there are that prove or disprove a Creator’s existence. There are evidences for me that are both personal and impersonal that give me complete confidence in such an existence.

    I can certainly argue for a creator’s existence on the impersonal evidences I see, however even in such there will be elements of my subjective view on the matter. My personal faith is a driving force and provides the foundation of the certainty that I feel in such an existence.

    I imagine that from your perspective complete objectivity is also challenging and your own belief that there is no such creator does at some level include elements of faith in the evidence you too hold dear as the proof you need to hold that there is no creator.

  • @ Pickingcotton,

    Why does He hate athiests?

    If the Christian God is to be taken at face value than he cannot hate anyone human being, otherwise His clear position as stated in John 3:16 would be untrue. Is He lying? Did he only come for people who agree with Him, or did He come for everyone as He claimed?

  • @ Nomnom
    Articulately put. I am particularly struck by your statement “…what he did with Christianity”.

    Is it Christianity itself that should be held accountable or the abuse of it by ill-intentioned people? People whom by their actions clearly stand outside of the teachings and principles of Jesus.

    I submit that there is also ample historical evidence that Hitler used remarks and statements of faith surrounding God and Christianity as a means of propoganda and control with the German people whom were still very much influenced by a national Christian faith and were blind to his real intentions. In addition the sadistic bastard was smart and slowly wittled away at Germany with a little change here and a little change there. He did not begin mass slaughters overnight.

    I believe much of his claims to be for Christianity can be legitimately disproven by the content of his actions.There have been evil men and women throughout history who have used Christian belief to commit unspeakable acts.

    Many of the young lady’s conclusions are socially acceptable and based on legal precidence so I do not fault her for her stance on those points. However, there is a considerable amount of detail and accuracy missing from her conclusions. Of course she is only 16 so that is not unexpected.