User Profile: HappyStretchedThin


Member Since: January 09, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [14] September 19, 2014 at 8:20pm

    I find that both appropriate and curiously easy to pronounce.

  • [15] September 19, 2014 at 8:14pm

    Not exactly, 64. It’s just an illusion.
    The French administrations have a talent for acting to protect national energy interests under cover of tapping into their public’s selective moral humanitarian outrage. Every 12 hours, the stopped clock tells the right time, so to speak. They’re not out to solve any actual underlying problems, but acting out of narrow self-interest IS better than inaction on a global problem like Daesh. Obama’s only decisive when he thinks it will score him political points…Which is to say, the world’s peace and stability is not as important as his ego.

  • [249] September 19, 2014 at 8:04pm

    No one pretends the French can actually accomplish anything militarily. But they DO seem to be appropriately tapping into their cultural special ability of being able to use words to get under people’s skin. Look out ISIS or they’ll taunt you a second time…

    Responses (12) +
  • [4] September 18, 2014 at 10:45am

    I love Dennis Prager’s practical, down-to-earth hypothetical question to illustrate the design flaws you are astutely calling attention to here. He asks something to the effect of: Which group do you think a random woman would feel comfortable encountering in an alleyway immediately after they exit their worship services–a group of 5 Christian men or a group of 5 Muslim men? (Or insert any number of other religions for various tests).
    This is NOT a question of prejudice, but rather a measurement of attitudes based on the perceptions available within a given society. There is PLENTY of good, moral behavior that Islam and Christianity agrees on, and it is unfair and logically fallacious to hold up abusers of their own belief system as representatives of the broader belief system. However, differences of belief DO produce differences in horizons of expectations on questions of morality and on questions of preponderance of abusers of the belief system.
    and all of that is before I get into the error of self-reporting as the only data on questions of morality. We don’t always have access to, or are practiced in the elaboration of self-reflections enough to adequately describe the full depth and breadth of our own motivations. The existence of degrees of penalty in our justice system is evidence of this fact.

  • [5] September 18, 2014 at 10:21am

    Deipno, if you’re using this study as evidence, you should stop, as I did, at the opening line of the study’s abstract: “the science of morality”.
    The effort to constrain the concept of morality into a “science” misconstrues and distorts the nature of the object under study so heavily that it no longer bears any resemblance at all to its original meaning. I’m sorry: morality is not and never has been a science. There may be scientific ways to explore the chemistry and neural pathways of the human decision machine, the brain, as it makes decisions based on a sense of morality. There may even be a way to study, more or less scientifically, the sociological probabilities of behavior in various communities as constrained by questions of morality.
    But none of that attempts to understand morality itself as a concept. It’s beyond the very purview of science as a study question, as ANY actual scientist would tell you.
    As to your point about not needing to be religious to act morally, Christian theology predicts this, and conversely also predicts the failure of ALL of us to behave morally 100% of the time. The question isn’t “is religion good/necessary for moral behavior?” The question is: “what system of beliefs makes the most effective motivator of moral behavior?” I’m open to debate on it, but you’d be hard pressed to demonstrate to me how Christian beliefs are NOT it.

    Responses (1) +
  • [105] September 4, 2014 at 6:29pm

    What makes ME “uncomfortable” is how frequently emotionally descriptive words derived from the root “comfort” are used and applied to teaching the subject most closely associated with logic. Why is this teacher so intent on making sure subjective feelings are injected into hard-coded, perfectly objective, unavoidable-nature-of-the-thing sort of categorical truths? What a perfectly insidious way to create a generation of Americans unable to critically distinguish any objective truth from objective error–because it doesn’t “feel comfortable” to criticize the false.

    Responses (4) +
  • [1] August 19, 2014 at 9:26am

    Yup, there’s a deliberate distinction. But that’s not it. And stubbornly insisting people of faith accept your definition doesn’t change the fact that they don’t. The distinction for the believer is that science designs experiments limited to five senses, and limited to intellect and logic. This is NOT to exclude reason and logic from specifically religious kinds of experiments, because they ARE also quite purely logical and reasonable. But spiritual evidences can also include subjective feelings, and the testimony of others on their subjective feelings.
    Defining science as rational and faith as irrational might make you feel like you’re winning debates, but only because you’re woefully ignorant of the very basics of what faith is, and how many smarter thinkers than you have written that there’s no incompatibility between science and religion.
    Finally, when you examine your own method, you’ll find that you’ve been blindly accepting a false definition, parroting it without even doing the basic work or asking a believer if what you claim about them is true. I couldn’t imagine a process less truth-oriented, less scientific, more blind-faith-like (according to YOUR definition of faith), if I tried.

  • [2] August 19, 2014 at 12:47am

    You’re that guy that doesn’t even realize how badly he’s been beaten.
    Newsflash pwned you.
    Your own blithering response demonstrates HIS point, not your own. Of course it’s silly to attempt to disprove the existence of flying horses. That’s PRECISELY why pure Atheism is a stupid pursuit. (If you truly think God is an idiotic concept unworthy of disproof, why subscribe to a belief that God does not exist–you’re assigning YOURSELF, by definition, the impossible task of proving a negative, made all the sillier and circular by the fact that you don’t belief in the need for disproving silly things–truly dizzying madness)
    Agnosticism at least has a leg.
    Seriously, bro. Make at least an ATTEMPT to restate–especially things you disagree with. It’s a good exercise on its own, and it helps you avoid bloviating against things you otherwise repeatedly demonstrate that you don’t even understand.

  • [10] August 19, 2014 at 12:39am

    You don’t make yourself sound intelligent when you obtain all your information from hate sites. You’re just plain wrong about there being “no”slaves in Egypt as even a cursory visit to wikipedia will inform you. It’s true that the broader scientific community no longer seeks to confirm the theory of a worldwide flood because there isn’t enough evidence for the theory and there is counterevidence against it. However, that may simply be a failure of your own ability to properly interpret the biblical record, because there IS evidence that major flooding occurred at various prehistorical points, and the scientific facts on these have not exhausted the interpretive possibilities within the biblical text. Your comments about Jesus as an existing historical figure are either fiction themselves, or entirely beside the point. No biblical account has been proven a forgery, as you claim (with no evidence, or citation, btw), and the fact that ANY extra-biblical mentions of Christ as a historical figure exist add weight to the intra-biblical testimonies. The fact that you question them speaks to your bias, not to any actual doubt on His historical presence. Burden on you to show why anyone would want to concoct such an otherwise silly conspiracy and by what means of control it maintains itself on such a vast scale.
    Bones’s post carefully categorizes kinds and degrees of evidence quite well. You’re a bellowing fool in objective comparison.

  • [2] August 19, 2014 at 12:02am

    You’ve mis-characterized both the concept of faith and Dr. Kreeft’s main logical fallacy. The latter first: it’s not circular reasoning per se to suggest that the existence of an objective standard is an argument for some kind of God, rather it’s a failure of imagination, a false dichotomy. Atheists are logically consistent to suggest that the standard is not necessarily an argument for God on the grounds that a third option (which Kreeft ignores) is possible: an appeal to humanity in general, or the community in specific, as the authority for the standard. That way, objectivity can be parceled together from the aggregate of subjectivities, rather than appealing to the universal. That’s wrong, of course, but at least logically consistent.
    On the other hand, you’re just completely ideologically blind on the definition of faith. It’s not silly persistent belief in the irrational. It’s more like the hypothesis stage of the scientific method. It’s the word we use to describe the motivation to test whether something we suspect to be true actually is true. It’s what leads us to experiments. And if the experiment returns a negative result, then we must re-examine our theory/hypothesis (which some fail to do, admittedly). Don’t dismiss believers based on a false understanding of their central concept. That, my friend, would be falling prey to the straw man fallacy.

    Responses (2) +
  • [4] July 28, 2014 at 6:01pm

    Hi Monk!
    @ Moderate. Both you and Will are deliberately trying to paint your political allies with the same dark color the Left does. And it’s a ludicrous premise to begin with. No one thinks we can’t assimilate them. No one wants any harm to come to the children. No one thinks they’re responsible adults. No one wants to treat them as if they are. And no one wants them to wallow in misery back at home either.
    You’re asking the wrong questions, and then calling conservatives monsters when they don’t answer your faulty assumptions.
    The question isn’t what should the US do about them. It’s what should the PARENTS and the HOME countries do about them!
    Just because we have the capability to offer a wonderful society to many doesn’t mean it’s right for us to impose our way of life on others. that’s why we don’t force other countries to follow our constitutional model and have their own success. In the same way, we DO accept all “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses”, who knock at our front door. But it doesn’t do US any favors, and doesn’t do the home countries any favors either, to pretend it’s all right for THEM to shirk THEIR responsibilities to keep THEIR kids safe and prosperous. We should treat them like needy human beings in their time of need, and make the TRULY responsible parties TAKE their responsibilities.

  • July 16, 2014 at 3:58pm

    Still wondering where ManNitoba is…

  • [9] June 12, 2014 at 5:03pm

    @ The rapture: Monticello just cited 3 reputable scholars. You offer nothing but prefabricated assertions every time someone challenges you, and you completely gloss over the evidence and argument they present. You’re batting 0.000. Again.
    Or maybe reputable is another word you don’t actually understand…

  • [3] June 12, 2014 at 2:24pm

    So this is how you avoid dealing with truth that confronts your false witness?
    You like to accuse, and cherry-pick evidence, but you don’t like it when someone actually stands up to you and demonstrates how baseless the accusations are.
    I made NO claim to be ANYTHING other than LDS, and didn’t label myself as LDS either.
    What I DID do was tell the truth about what LDS doctrine claims and supports through scriptural evidence.
    YOU are the one who falsely claimed I belonged to an “emergent church”. I neither confirmed nor denied.
    And now the neutral readers are seeing who it is truly exposed as a liar.
    You want nothing to do with me? It does you well. But I already know your definition of a cult: anyone who doesn’t believe like you.
    The problem is that cults are about a central charismatic leader who profits by exercising power over weak-minded followers. Show me ONE example of Mormons behaving like that.
    The problem is that scriptures do NOT grant authority. You’ve cherry-picked again by glossing over Hebrews which makes plain that “no man taketh this honor [to preach and serve in a priesthood capacity] upon himself”. Your problem is you can’t show a SINGLE biblical example where someone didn’t WAIT to be authorized before disseminating God’s word.
    Your doctrinal legs are thin indeed, and your much noise signifies nothing because your courage is sapped by a lack of truth behind it.
    Stop lying, repent, and I’ll forgive as He will.

  • [8] June 12, 2014 at 2:13pm

    So far you seem to be listing more words you understand backwards (a neutral observer to this conversation would easily find that your manner of arguing is the eisegetical one because they falsely claim rigidity of interpretation where rational readings can disagree.)
    And more scriptures you cherry-pick without dealing with the actual question at hand: I cited 4 counter examples to show that it’s a perfectly biblical concept of Christ that He be considered a separate being from the Father, and that your claim that He couldn’t have been created by the Father is not biblical fact, but biblical interpretation. You may not agree with it, but you have NOT demonstrated that your interpretation is the only valid possibility. I don’t have that burden. All I have to prove is that you’re overly rigid.
    Interesting though, that you appeal to Judaism. And after correcting your misstep in claiming they worship Jesus (they don’t, but rather Jehovah, who Christians like myself CLAIM is one and the same), I’ll call your attention to the fact thattTheir concept of MULTIPLE supreme beings (hello: Elohim has a PLURAL ending on it), kinda lends credence to my interpretation, not yours.
    We can agree that ONE meaning of begotten could refer to His body only, and that would explain the “Son” title, but then that would also be cherry-picking because of the other 2 I mentioned (Stephen saw 2 beings at his stoning, they don’t share a brain. Explain. Go!

  • [6] June 12, 2014 at 1:30pm

    Silly Rapture,
    First of all, people who stay silent about cults don’t hate them, they condone them.
    Second of all, no one would have a problem with you if you were using your voice against an ACTUAL cult.
    What you’re doing is bearing false witness (you know, something a self-proclaimed bible expert probably should know is a bit of a no-no) about what IS and is NOT properly classified as a cult.
    Telling people they belong to a cult, when they clearly don’t, isn’t truth–it’s quite the opposite.
    But let’s hear it from you: what IS a cult, in your definition?

    on your doctrinal challenges
    1. Those words are all WRITTEN, not spoken.
    2. The ones credited to John are indeed from John the beloved (and are examples of him citing Jesus’s direct speech), who also wrote Revelation, and the ones in Galatians by Paul the Apostle. In both cases they were inspired by the Holy Ghost, to men who were AUTHORIZED to speak on behalf of Christ. Which begs the question: how did YOU get authorization to speak for Christ?

  • [18] June 12, 2014 at 1:17pm

    You claim a huge sticking point to LDS doctrine is the idea that Lucifer (who YOU admit is a creation of God) shares ONE point of similarity with Christ in that Christ ALSO was created by His Father, thus making them brothers.
    Except that to argue that this is non-Biblical or incompatible with your cited scriptures, you have to IGNORE UMPTEEN citations about Christ being “begotten” of a Father, about the fact that He’s called Son (and the other is called Father), about the fact that the two of them can be seen together as SEPARATE individuals at Stephen’s trial, that they DON’T share a brain (the Son knows NOT the day nor the hour of His own return, but the Father does), etc.
    In truth, you’re just ideologically blind, and reject VERY biblical ideas (I didn’t reference ANY other source), because they don’t happen to match your CONCLUSIONS. It’s the same mistake Bill Nye makes on climate change, mistaking his conclusions for the evidence itself and claiming anyone who doesn’t believe his conclusions is a flat-earther.
    In short, your argument is based on cherry-picking biblical references, not on solid exegetical principles.
    I add this not for your own benefit, but for others who may be reading this who deserve a reasoned counter-point.

  • [7] June 12, 2014 at 12:51pm

    Your claim to love and concern is touching. But your version of this “tough love” that speaks “truth” to “error” seems a lot more like hatred when it has to pass through lying about what people actually believe in order to “prove” they don’t believe what they think they believe, or what you think they should believe.
    In the same spirit of love–scratch that–in a TRUE spirit of love, I invite you to examine the emotions animating your speech, because it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaketh.
    People who are truly engaged in trying to convince another that their beliefs are in error DON’T begin by accusation and finger pointing. They begin by dialog, finding out where the common ground lies, and building positively upon it. They listen and the restate the other’s beliefs back to them until the other replies “yes, that’s what I believe”. You’re failing the test of someone who truly cares to convince.
    Even you accusations you use for emotional impact, rather than truth. A “cult” behaves almost NOTHING like the LDS church behaves.
    And that’s BEFORE we even get to your merits.
    You consistently mistake your own interpretations and conclusions for biblical evidence, and then accuse people of not being biblical when they don’t conform to YOUR conclusion. What the Bible states, and what YOU think the Bible MEANS are separate things. If the Bible were transparent, there wouldn’t be ANY denominations, would there.
    Be truthful, it help

  • [17] June 12, 2014 at 10:30am

    This is actually good. We have you on record now. When your prediction proves false, will you then admit you’re a false prophet? Their evidence of their history does not bode well for your prediction either, I must say.
    If you knew anything true about the LDS beliefs OR about what a cult even IS, you’d stop the name-calling. Or perhaps the monicker “whited wall” applies more to yourself?

  • [10] June 12, 2014 at 10:23am

    Interestingly, that’s what Ordain Women claims. Cooler heads and those paying attention notice a few differences: allowing Blacks to hold the priesthood was a top-down move responding to needs on the ground. No one was excommunicated for activism beforehand and no one was excommunicated for opposing the “revelation” afterwards (because it wasn’t opposed). It also wasn’t a reaction to activism (or it would have been done in the 60s).

123 To page: Go