Nope. Reading comprehension ftw. Try again.

^ See now!

Wow. You really don't understand what I was saying. I was clearly pointing out the irony of his post. Everyone, aside from you, is aware of this. Too much weed for you, my friend.

Any tree house, even one that is constructed safely, can lead to injury if children play in ways that is inconsistent with the design of the tree house.

Do you know anything about children? I mean, even the super-safe playgrounds that children play on these days (many of which are really quite boring, actually) are still dangerous in the sense that children can still hurt themselves.

What does this have to do with the question of whether it makes sense that a grand designer could or could not have created creatures with agency?

Why do you keep insinuating that I smoke pot? I haven't smoked weed for over 10 years!

You asked me why he would not, and I present this scenario! Now you are asking what it has to do with the very question you asked? WTF?

In your first quote you say, you never said that he shouldn't share his opinion.

In your second quote you are asking him why he is not hiding his views?

HEH??? Contradiction much!!!

LOL - u mad bro.

You're making absolutely no sense. The scenario doesn't really explain anything related to the concept of agency.

He smoked too much weed in the past. The damage is done. He keeps going in circles without listening to what people are really saying. He just draws conclusions in his mind and doubles down on them in the face of evidence to the contrary. Best to just move on.

LOL, you guys are funny. NVM, I guess. I present your own posts, give you evidence that you are contradicting yourself and this your forensic approach. LOL. Seriously though this is exactly why religious scientists should NOT practice science!

Some more hypocrisy!

You make a statement how I have smoked "too much weed" in the past. You draw this conclusion from my post. The post did not mention the quantity of weed smoked.

You then go on that I draw conclusions!!!

Dude are we done yet?

Hope you actually do not begin a forensic career. You would not hold up in court, telling the judge how he has misheard you and ****! How he should stop smoking and ****!

Already work as a therapist. Already testified in court. Swing and a miss. I've been around enough substance abuse to easily identify people who either currently or previously had an issue. No need to know how much you smoked as early smoking seems to cause bigger problems than quantity.

Either way, you make no sense and continually choose to ignore the obvious. Why would I continue with someone who doesn't listen and doesn't understand?

Good luck in life.

Did you or did you not draw that conclusion?

Some people can't admit defeat. LOL. Sad really!
You point to their posts, it is staring them in the face and even then they continue to make **** up. Pathetic, is all I can say.

You do that with your religion too! Don't you!

Cherry pick the **** out of all my posts. Choose the ones you want to answer and simply ignore the ones you know are going to **** up your little world! I am done both of you are ****ing couple of ******s!

Here you go again, making conclusions. Conclusions according to yourself I shouldn't be making. Yet the irony is that's all you do!

The hypocrisy!

I am beginning to see why Lestat said you were to stupid to have a conversation with!

You are being told that theologians claim to have a way to wiggle out of this conundrum. And perhaps they do. But very few religious people could argue these esoteric theories or even know they exist. So your basic assumption about most of them is in fact correct.

Omg I'm totally with you on this. It's an annoyance I've had for as long as I can remember, in fact it might be my first pet peeve.

But I did want to commend pork_chop for trying to find common ground with lestat ("I do know what you're saying about 'X' types..."), esp after a bit of a rocky start.


As for the percentage of Christians in a population, bolstering the numbers seems to be the only time Protestants blindly consider Catholics to be Christian!

People usually don't mean what they say.

The praying thing is just there way of showing their sympathy and wishing the woman well. If she knows that enough other people sympathise with her plight then it might help her moral and increase her chance of pulling though. Whether or not you look ridiculous is irreverent of course, its how the unwell women feels that's important. Making yourself look ridiculous in order to make someone else feel better is a common rhetorical trick.

When people mention praying for people in bad situations, the only message I get is sympathy not crazy. Although there are a few who say they will pray, who actually do pray and believe it has a real effect, I don't think that is important as it is only what the badly off person thinks that matters.

I guess the only problem is if you tell someone, like maybe Lestat, who reacts negatively to prayer, that you are going to pray for them and the prayer thing makes them worse. But really overreaction??

Instead of sympathizing, how about doing something for the poor woman, to make her life easier. My peeve doesn't stop with - sympathy. Sympathy is not good enough.

For example: buy the poor woman some nice flowers to remind her that there is still beauty in this world. Find a way to give her some up-lifting or life-affirming message. Donate to a cause that relates to whatever the issue at hand. Just do anything proactive, and stop wasting time reminding her of how bad life can be, there's already enough of that around.

In such contexts, sympathy is almost at the same level as complete neutrality/inaction. In some instances, it may even be for the worst. Meaning well and doing well can often be completely separated.

That's unbelievable nittery and 100% on you. He assumes you are smart enough to know that when he uses the word "mom" he refers to his mother.
It does not imply you have the same mother.
Casual every day conversations do not require the same level of accuracy you'd expect from design plans of a spaceship capable of interplanetary travel.

Wait... so Lestat's mom is building an interplanetary spaceship?

ETA: If I'm going to be a smart-ass, I should at least address the OP. Lestat, I'm in the no-big-deal camp. I don't think they're trying to force their beliefs on anyone by saying, "I'll pray for her." It's just how they express sympathy. Really, is it any different from an atheist saying, "My thoughts are with her"? If we don't believe our thoughts have healing power, aren't both phrases empty* displays of sympathy?

* Empty in terms of direct power to improve the woman's situation; prayers and wishes of well-being might help the family, or comfort the woman after the fact.

I agree that "My thoughts are with her" and "I'll pray for her" both have the same meaning and that both people mean well. When you break it down, both statements imply she is in one's thoughts. However, one seems to be trying to out trump the mere offering of thoughts, but go one better... As if to say, "Not only am I moved enough to think about the person, but I'm going to actually do something and pray". It also makes the unnecessary assumption that the person is religious.

I wonder if the people who see no difference here, are also the same people who use "he" when talking in generalities about a career position, for instance. That is, assuming that because the majority are males, that it's okay to say "he" anytime gender isn't specifically established.

It has nothing to do with being smart enough to figure out what someone means after they use a word in the wrong context.

I not agree with you.

I'm sure you're smart enough to figure out what I meant by the above sentence. You can also assume that I either worded it incorrectly or am too lazy to use the correct syntax.

Except that it kind of does. While any woman with a kid can be a mom, the only person you call mom, is your mother.

I agree, but unless you don't know any better, you should at least attempt to speak accurately. It can't hurt, can it?

I am very close friends with a couple who have one severely autistic child, and one with Asperger. It's a monumental and horrific condition for a family to deal with. You have the audacity to call ME a jerk and insensitive after using autism as a form of insult to someone you don't even know?!