User Profile: HappyStretchedThin


Member Since: January 09, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [87] August 3, 2016 at 1:19pm

    Interestingly, for those who get the French of this, the exact words were: va-t’en Satan.
    Rev. Hamel used the familiar form to a SINGULAR, rather than the more respectful/egalitarian and/or plural “vous” form. He commanded them like you’d command a child or a pet.
    And “go away” could be said in a hundred ways, in French as in any language. This particular form of “go away” was a little more like “get the H out of here”.
    His may have been the only spine of steel remaining in France…

    Responses (1) +
  • [25] July 20, 2016 at 11:37am

    Meh. They have free speech rights too–even if all they use them for is to make idiots of themselves in public. They were insulting, to be sure, but I’m not sure why anyone would be afraid that someone might actually be convinced by the arguments of a band whose most influential lyrics were “doo doo doo, doo doo doo doo”.

  • [9] July 16, 2016 at 9:37am

    The headline here is misleading: Pence doesn’t want a religious purity test for incoming refugees or immigrants. Instead, quite rationally, he wants border and immigration controls placed on states whose internal controls haven’t managed to handle their terrorism problem adequately yet. The reason for denying anyone entry would be based on security reasons and would apply by geography, not based on religious reasons and applied by bigotry.
    Huge difference.
    I’m not a huge Trump fan, but this distorting the serious policy proposals of him and his surrogates, usually out of context, serves only Hillary, I’m afraid.

  • March 21, 2016 at 5:19pm

    argyle: you wrote what you wrote, and are only owning a part of it. I’m holding you accountable for all of it. The idea that you were just trying to help broaden the audience is belied by your implication that NO comfort or LITTLE comfort is possible on the face of the words themselves. If what you’re NOW claiming is your motivation were true, there would be NO NEED to belittle the words.
    And speaking of owning words: I’ts Joseph, not Johnathan, and LDS doctrine is NOT to follow HIS visions, but rather to follow CHRIST. The correct analogy would be to Peter, John, Paul, or others who had visions, and yet whose “followers” or ” disciples” we, as Christians, are not.

  • [2] March 21, 2016 at 5:12pm

    The twisting of doctrine is not on mcsledge’s part:
    1. The LDS doctrine of inheritance through the tribes of Israel is about ADOPTION, not necessarily blood heritage. You’re the one who’s twisted that.
    2. The Ezekiel passage clearly establishes that the sticks represent writings AND kingdoms that will be joined, not JUST kingdoms that will be joined. You’re the one who’s twisted that.
    3. The prophecies in Ezekiel are both for Israel AND for the world at large, since the blessing to Abraham was that through His seed ALL the world will be blessed. In the chapter in question (37), there are FREQUENT references to the scripture being applicable to the heathen, prophesying how the heathen would react, directing the faithful to be gathered from among the heathen, etc. It’s clearly applicable to MORE than the Hebrew nation. You’re the one who’s twisted it.

    Mf25: Not a single one of your assertions has any truth to it. I can personally list respected scholars in appropriate fields (history, archaeology, linguistics, and ancient scripture) who find plenty of external evidence to the truth of the Book of Mormon’s existential, referential, and theological truth and accuracy. As to its content and the Gospel it teaches, as a scholar and a student of it myself, I can supply you my witness that it teaches basic Christian theology and confirms the Biblical Christianity with which I’m ALSO intimately familiar. Burden on you to SHOW I’m wrong (not just assert it with no support).

  • March 21, 2016 at 4:50pm

    Due respect, but you’re overstating the commonalities between Bible translations and especially denominations by a LONG shot.
    Bible: As a translator myself, I have a keen sense of what can get “lost” in translation. The fact that the best scholarship may have gone into establishing which of the extant letters are authentic and into determining a sort of average baseline for the translation work to begin from STILL produces some wildly different notions on central points of doctrine.
    Churches: the deity of Christ holds us all together, yes. That His is the only name under heaven by which we can be saved, is common, mostly (some even omit THAT seemingly basic requirement), but the manner of salvation, the need for authorized representatives to perform rites and officiate in covenant-making, the organization of the church, the nature of the Holy Spirit, the nature and purpose of the family, and the literality of the resurrection are HUGELY contested between the different confessions.
    We absolutely SHOULD insist on our commonalities and work in solidarity to support each other. I applaud your desire to do so in posting what you did. But by denying important differences, you are also closing yourself off to the possibility of a truth that’s not merely relative in the way you suggest. I humbly submit to you that God is NOT the author of confusion. Men have introduced MANY distortions of His true doctrines and ways.

  • [1] March 21, 2016 at 4:41pm

    Due respect, maybe you think I’m overstating your implications/inferences/suggestions, but the “unfortunately” and “little comfort” phrases DO imply that you chose not to take the lesson on perfect love casting out fear as a neutral truth, but instead evaluated it negatively in comparison to the Paul quote. You could have, instead, kept the emotionally judgmental language out of it and came at truth positively, saying something more supportive, like: “Yes, perfect love DOES cast out fear. I ALSO found it in the Bible, which adds even MORE comfort to the truth you shared. Thanks for sharing.”
    Also, please don’t insult the intelligence of your readers: you DO have an orientation to the source. Otherwise there would be no need to deploy the ” followers of Joseph Smith” epithet. The implication that those who believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet in our modern times are somehow “his followers” like Muslims follow Mohammed, and Christians follow Christ is insidious and purposeful in an attempt to discredit JS as a source of ANY kind of truth. Since you are aware that the quote above came from the Book of Mormon, you CANNOT escape responsibility for that implication, because you ALSO know that the LDS conception of a true prophet is that NO ONE follows the prophet, but rather follows CHRIST as the prophet himself points to. This is the pattern with Peter, James, Paul, even Agabus…

  • [1] March 21, 2016 at 4:28pm

    Due respect, you’re overspecifying the scope. BOTH make the same point: fear and perfect love can’t coexist in the same heart. The fact that Mormon takes that loving motivation to speak the truth despite a danger is secondary to the lesson on love that BOTH he and John make.
    Due respect, you’re overstating what belongs in canon and applying a NON-biblical standard to the Bible itself. First of all, there are PLENTY of books in the Bible written by/attributed to prophets who did not live with Jesus personally. They’re called the Old Testament. And once we get beyond THAT inaccuracy, let’s get to the more fundamental one: who decided the canon should be closed and/or limited to people who lived personally with Jesus? Paul lived during His time and was witness to SOME of the events of His ministry, but didn’t live WITH Him. NONE of the writers of the New Testament left ANY clue in their writings to the effect that the pattern of God speaking through prophets and apostles should end, except John the beloved who either appears to have broken his OWN rule by writing his Gospel AFTER the Revelation, OR you’ve misinterpreted the “not adding to THIS book” verse to apply to the WHOLE Bible, rather than narrowly to Revelation.

  • [1] March 21, 2016 at 1:22pm

    Brilliant point, Wil. I’m wondering though: would you apply the SAME logic to the different translations of the Bible? What about the different doctrines between Christian denominations?
    If the truth from God is the water, and arsenic is the man-made poison that can distort the truth so badly that it kills you, what is your standard for determining whether a given translation or a given denominational credo has drops of “arsenic” in it?

  • [3] March 21, 2016 at 12:59pm

    argyle. Why manufacture an offense here? Are you so invested in attempting to debunk LDS claims that this scripture is of divine provenance on a parallel with your quote that you MISS the fact that the fundamental truth of the statement is EXACTLY as comforting?
    It’s more important to be interested in truth than in one’s own (probably WAY distorted) opinion of where it comes from. No worries, though, everyone else reading this can see how consistent the truth is with itself, despite your insistence that the source is suspect.

    Responses (14) +
  • [332] March 6, 2016 at 11:17pm

    “Full investigation” to this woman means “What difference does it make?”

    Responses (2) +
  • [3] March 4, 2016 at 2:24pm

    Thanks for the heads up Salt.
    I think I fell for it.
    But even in doing so, I exposed the twist behind his trolling deception.
    Glad you’re on the case.

  • [14] March 4, 2016 at 10:57am

    You understand neither the constitution nor Cruz, and may even BARELY have a handle on basic Christian theology if you actually believe what you wrote. Christ said render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s. The Constitution protects lack of belief in God just as much as it protects belief in any given God. Cruz knows this and would no more lock this legislator up than he’d lock up a Christian for praying in public.
    If these AZ legislators wanted to publicly denounce Mendez’s “prayer”, they have the right to do so, and SHOULD point out how offensive it was to their own privately held beliefs.
    But for them to declare it unfit as an opener for conducting government business runs afoul of the 1st amendment because it amounts to govt imposing a PARTICULAR form of worship as the ONLY appropriate form.
    Let me be clear: as a Christian myself, I want to convince all of the Mendez’s of the world of their ERROR, but force never was persuasion, and the God I worship wouldn’t want to be worshiped by force anyway.
    May your zeal grant you success in converting many, both to Cruz and to Christ, my friend, but please change your direction and manner, because in this particular thing, you’re dead wrong.

    Responses (1) +
  • [43] February 25, 2016 at 2:08pm

    Wow! Just read her original column. She understands NEITHER Christ’s teachings, NOR conservatism.
    Christ didn’t champion the marginalized BECAUSE they were marginalized. He taught us we were ALL sinners. He taught that the ONLY kind of marginalization that counts is the one that the final judgment of a just God can assign us to, because of our OWN choices, if we don’t repent. He did NOT mistake forcible confiscation of property for the purpose of redistribution for charity. He did NOT ask us to turn off all faculties of discernment when He told us not to judge. He did NOT mistake loving enemies for opening yourself up to be taken advantage of, on a personal OR national scale. He did NOT mistake a social program for an individual’s responsibility to take up their own crosses.
    Conservatism believes in people. It gives us all the freedom to organize as we choose, and holds us accountable for the choices. It believes government gets in the WAY of true charity, true liberty, true social harmony INCLUDING care for the less fortunate. It recognizes that the government programs to provide a safety net are best when closest to the local level, and may be necessary, but that attempts to redistribute wealth are not just misguided, but just plain factually counterproductive.
    Listen to the podcast: her REAL beef is that self-described Christian internet commenters get Jesus wrong and don’t behave in a Christian manner. Dumb reason to convert to liberalism. Ever seen THEIR trolls?

    Responses (2) +
  • [25] February 25, 2016 at 1:43pm

    Failing to study her Christian religion made her a liberal, more accurately.

    Responses (1) +
  • February 24, 2016 at 12:44pm

    @ Lestwe,
    The LDS use the 66 book KJV, yes.
    As for whether LDS doctrine contradicts Jesus’s specific “the gates of hell shall not prevail” prophecy, again, there’s no reason to claim their belief in a great Apostasy is NON-biblical, and although I understand that YOUR interpretation is that it makes Jesus a liar (which He’s manifestly not, of course), but you should be open enough to admit that there’s an internal consistency to LDS doctrine that makes it possible to understand that passage IN context and STILL not believe Jesus was a liar. In other words, don’t forget to apply your SAME standard in judging the atheistic distortions on this thread to yourself, please.
    If you’d like to check the KJV on the subject, I suggest starting with 2 Thess 2:3 and the entirety of Matt 24, and perhaps reflect a little on Paul’s entire purpose as he wrote letters (ALL of which were corrective in some way, because the falling away was happening in real-time during his ministry).
    If it’s history you’d like to look at as a judge, I’d take the idea of a restoration any day over what I know of the DISharmony and radical shifts of philosophy and doctrine over the centuries, under purely Catholic hegemony of the Word. I’m not judging by history, though, and fully understand how you COULD know all of it and STILL note the unity that HAS been present. Instead, I judge spiritual things by the spirit, and invite you to try spiritual things the same way.

  • February 23, 2016 at 8:56pm

    Yes, this is precisely the LDS contention: that the Nicene creed bishops did NOT, in fact, have the apostolic authority they claimed. Many of them were political nominees of Constantine rather than duly ordained authorities with an unbroken chain of ordination traceable back to the Apostles, and to Christ Himself. LDS doctrine claims the need not for a reform, but for a restoration.
    Look, the separate “biblia” were available as widely copied epistles long before compilation and canonization. Presumably all the Nicene creed bishops had access to them, and the idea that they later ratified them as canonical shouldn’t trouble the analysis that their interpretation of the doctrines sprang from them.
    The LDS claim (that the Catholic claim to unbroken authority is false) IS radical, but ultimately their position on authority being required for canonizing scripture as well as for its interpretation is something they SHARE with Catholics.

  • [-2] February 23, 2016 at 4:40pm

    As usual, blink’s 180 degrees out of interpretive accuracy: society changed for the better ONLY when it finally listened to more of the original Christian doctrines it had professed to for centuries.

  • [1] February 23, 2016 at 4:37pm

    Lestwe and 7truth,
    Dae’s assertion that there are 3 beings in a “Godhead” united in purpose but not body/being is, in fact, an LDS doctrine. But it’s ALSO quite biblical. The doctrine of the Trinity was the vote of Nicean creed experts, but just because a group of men agree on a single interpretation doesn’t invalidate the existence of other interpretations.
    It’s perfectly Biblical, for example, to note that when Jesus told the Samaritan woman that god is a spirit, the REST of the verse tells US (who are spirits WITH bodies, remember) to worship Him in spirit and in truth. In the same way as it would be ridiculous to believe this means we can’t worship Him until we shed our bodies (i.e. die!), it makes more sense to think of God as a spirit WITH a body. (John 4: 24)
    Similarly, if we’re to take Jesus at His word that ONLY His Father knows the day of Christ’s return (Matt 24: 26), then it makes more sense that they’re separate enough for one to keep a secret from the other.

  • [25] February 23, 2016 at 4:19pm

    Once again, atheists prove themselves malliterate: demonstrating enough literacy to string together all kinds of name-calling, and intelligence insulting, but utterly UNable to understand the core meaning of ANY opinion contrary to their own.
    @Tommy: contradictions are NOT the same as “apparent” contradictions. I know your ideological filter prevents you from accepting delivery on truth, but I have yet to find an ACTUAL inconsistency. All the ones others have ATTEMPTED to point out to me have proven to be their OWN lack of understanding, context, etc. In point, Companion’s dead on: the word in Hebrew is thou shalt not MURDER. Capital punishment is not excluded by the law. But it would also help you to be playing with a full deck. No, I don’t mean your intelligence, but the fact that you’re being selective on doctrine. If you’re going to judge God as immoral for flooding the earth, then you have to do so from INSIDE the WHOLE Christian logic in which it makes sense, otherwise you’re just ignorant. Here’s the inside: God created us a spirit beings inside bodies. The spirit part is immortal and can ONLY act when fleshed out in a world with things to act UPON. Flooding the earth, therefore, removed a great many sinners–dealing in human sacrifice, specifically–from being able to do MORE irreparable damage to their souls through rebellious acts. Don’t worry: even THOSE souls have a chance at getting eternally out of their spirit prison (1 Pet 3:18-20, then 4:6).

123 To page: Go