This is Cactus Wren's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Cactus Wren's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Cactus Wren
Recent Activity
Can I reuse the salt? Perhaps pour it into a container and freeze it for the next slab of salmon?
Toggle Commented Jul 30, 2014 on How To Cook a Perfect Piece of Salmon at Ruth Reichl
I think that Lewis's formulation, specifically, is largely focused on emotional manipulation: it is based on the equally false dilemma that if every word attributed to Jesus is not to be accepted as True and Right and Good, then every word attributed to Jesus must be rejected as False and Wrong and Evil. Lewis doesn't say merely "a madman" or "a mentally ill person", he says "the man who thinks he is a poached egg". He doesn't say "If Jesus wasn't telling the truth, he was lying"; he says if Jesus wasn't telling the truth, he must have been "the Devil of Hell". This is poison for the well -- and, I believe, intentional and deliberate poison. There's more to it even than "How can you accuse me of worshiping a liar or a lunatic?" -- I perceive a strong note of "What kind of horrible person are you, to say that 'love thy neighbor' is no more valid than 'I am a poached egg', or that 'Let the one without sin cast the first stone' is a statement from the Devil of Hell?"
1 reply
You might be interested in doing some of the research Philip Howard apparently couldn't be bothered to do. For one thing, Mother Teresa's order most assuredly DID have "that kind of $$$$" to pay for installation of an elevator: she simply refused to allow the disabled the "luxury" of making their own way to the upper floors, rather than being carried. The City of New York OFFERED TO PAY FOR THE ELEVATOR -- and "Mother" refused. Her order's ostentatious humility ("Look at us, we're so humble we carry disabled people up and down the stairs! See how humble we are!") was more important to her than allowing disabled persons some measure of independence.
Toggle Commented Sep 2, 2011 on Book Review at Wild Clutter
"Pack light" -- this is news? Hint: talk to experienced travelers. You will never hear one say, "Every year I pack heavier."
William Lane Craig: "I think that a good start at this problem is to enunciate our ethical theory that underlies our moral judgements. According to the version of divine command ethics which I’ve defended, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God. Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses. We all recognize this when we accuse some authority who presumes to take life as “playing God.” Human authorities arrogate to themselves rights which belong only to God. God is under no obligation whatsoever to extend my life for another second. If He wanted to strike me dead right now, that’s His prerogative. "What that implies is that God has the right to take the lives of the Canaanites when He sees fit. How long they live and when they die is up to Him." Shorter William Lane Craig: "God is bigger than we are and can beat us up. Therefore, it is right that we worship Him and praise His Holy Name and give Him our lunch money and accept that sometimes He will take our lunch money and beat us up anyway just because He wants to."
1 reply
Now I'm all hungry.
Toggle Commented Jan 14, 2011 on Ad Hoc Soup at Greta Christina's Blog
1 reply
Great one. The currently popular iteration of "everything has a cause" is called the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and it's usually rendered as, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause." See, they've very tidily eliminated the "but where did God come from?" question even before it can be asked. God didn't begin to exist, the argument runs, so he didn't need a cause. It must be handy to have an argument that comes with its special pleading already preinstalled.
1 reply
I'm not sure how to describe my kid brother's diet: "picky" is one description, but so is "had the culinary tastes of a seven-year-old child". He quite literally lived on pizza, cheeseburgers, macaroni and cheese, Pop-Tarts, Cap'n Crunch, peanut butter sandwiches, fried-egg sandwiches, and popcorn chicken. I have no memory of him ever eating a piece of fruit except for a sliced orange. My brother died of congestive heart failure at the age of thirty-seven.
1 reply