I thought what it means to be a Christian was settled by the various Ecumenical Councils. Specifically Councils one through seven. If you just follow the teachings of Christ but do not subscribe to the beliefs expressed in the first seven councils, the rest of Christianity considers you to be a heretic.
That's a specific example. It's not the main point. The point is, we do not know enough about genetics to know what all we're throwing away when we throw away a certain gene. Maybe that gene is crucial to genius. Maybe it protects against disease. Maybe it helps reduce the amount of psychopaths somehow. Maybe by getting rid of everything sub-par, we'll be getting rid of everything above average as well. Do you know for certain? Does anyone at this point in time?
Wow, that's messed up. I took one look at the source (Hello Rev. Moon!) and had to look up the original Daily Telegraph article. It's not nearly as sensationalistic as the Washington Times piece. Yeah, the Telegraph is a bit conservative too, but Brit conservative is like American left wing. It sounds like this case, where both parents have the same severe genetic condition, is not that bad, but the same doctor does claim that he would screen for hair color, because certain hair colors can be a cause bullying. By that logic, as anything out of the ordinary is a potential cause for bullying, anything could be used as a reason for abortion. I support a woman's right to choose, but that doesn't mean I can't criticize her for her choice if I think it's thoughtless and callous.
If they didn't know that being naked was evil, how could they have known that disobeying god was? I've always wondered that, and I've never had a Christian explain it to me in a comprehensible way. Any Son worshipers out there want to take a crack at THAT little paradox?
Is God a jerk? Come on, I think the whole infinite punishment for finite mistakes bit proves that he is far more than a jerk. Psychopath is more like it.
Dude, there are two explanations for someone calling themselves "Ann Coulter." One, they really are the Coultergeist, and therefore the biggest troll in the world. Or they aren't Ann, and therefore are a lesser troll.
How old are you? You are one of the worst debaters I've ever seen. You argue like a child, like a smart five year old. No one is putting you down, it is a legitimate criticism. You can't spell, you have atrocious grammar, and your ideas have no coherence or intellectual impact. Oh, and no one is forcing anything on anyone, this is called FREE SPEECH! Sorry if it hurts, but no one is holding a gun to your head and making you read Slashdot.
And what the UN says is more important than what I think, why, exactly? Look, I'm just giving you my opinion, take it or leave it. I explained what I consider the differences to be between Buddhism and Unitarianism on one hand, and most other religions on the other. Call it what you will, the differences still exist. Or are you denying the differences themselves?
Buddhism does not deny the existence of external reality. That is not what that Koan is about. Koans have specific purposes, to help people who's mind is stuck in certain ways. That Koan is to help people realize that we construct our own reality based on sense impressions from an external world. Thus the coda at the end, I suggest you go back and reread the whole thing.
"Flies" is a concept made by mind. "Moves" is a concept made by mind. You fit your sense impressions into these self made categories. Does the flag really fly? Or do waveforms collapse?
You are either an idiot, or the best damn troll Slashdot has ever seen. In either case, I've made my point and I don't think anything you've said has refuted word one of it in the eyes of anyone with half a brain.
I don't hate you. I'm sorry you see the world the way you do, it must get very lonely. As for science, I'm sorry, but if radiocarbon dating were wrong in any significant way, the basics of chemistry would be different and your car wouldn't run. Science all hangs together in one vast web of interrelations. It is vaster and more beautiful than any religion, and it saddens me you can not see it.
Making fun of your spelling is a kind of poisoning the well too, and I'm sorry. It doesn't confirm my beliefs. Not only don't I need my beliefs confirmed, I have no beliefs. I don't believe that the floor will stay solid when I step on it. I don't believe the sun will rise tomorrow. I don't disbelieve anything either. It's a nice way to go through life. Everything is new and one is continually surprised by little things.
Buddhism is not a religion as it makes no mention of creator God's or a personal soul. In fact, it makes no claims that an individual could not verify for themselves. Buddha even said, don't take my word for it if it doesn't make sense to you. Buddhism is a philosophy.
Unitarians don't say anything at all. They're just a big social group that gets together to share in a feeling of spirituality, so I guess I'd call them a spiritual fellowship.
You don't get it. It's very simple. You can not sense things outside your mind. Do you think you are seeing the real flag, the real wind? No, you are seeing what your mind has created out of sense impressions. Duh.
It's not about a senior figure. In Buddhism, one is accounted "senior" in any sense only because others all agree that your wisdom is valuable. There are plenty of other stories in Buddhism where the "senior figure" is shown to be a fool, and the cook or the janitor who no one noticed is shown to be wise.
It does not matter what happens to me when I die. I can suppose, but until I die, I can't know for sure, so speculation is useless. If God existed and felt it was important for me to know, God would have let me know in some way that couldn't be faked by humans. That hasn't happened, ergo, it isn't important or God doesn't exist.
The existence or lack of existence of God is not important. The existence or lack of existence of a personal soul is not important. What is important is the present moment. Pay attention to that, and all those extraneous questions will disappear.
As for myself, I hope that I do not continue after death. It will be a big disappointment for me if I do. "What, more story? I thought I was done!" All stories are the same story, I don't need any more details to figure that out. Personally, I'm tired of being a finite individual and having a viewpoint. It's so limiting, and any kind of afterlife where I feel as though I am a finite individual with a viewpoint will be a bit of a let down. But if it happens that way, it happens. It doesn't affect what I'm going to eat for lunch. Which, to be quite frank, is more important to me right now than whether I have a soul or not.
Hitler was a Christian. Science does not take away any meaning to life. Religion does not bring any meaning to life. You are free to create your own meaning, using religion, science, or anything else you find. No one is forcing any opinions on you. Disagreement is not force. Torturing someone until they recant their beliefs and agree to yours is force, and science has never done that. We think your beliefs are incorrect and foolish. Saying so is not forcing anything on you. You are free to say otherwise, and believe whatever you like. You do not have the right to force us to keep quiet.
You are free to leave the discussion, to ask that people refrain from insults (and saying "I don't believe you" IS NOT an insult, sorry), and to state your opinions.
Nice "spycology" there, bringing up "transposing" of feelings. Projection is the term you want, but it is not the all purpose "I'm rubber, you're glue" kind of rejoinder you're making it out to be. I suggest you read some more books on "spycology" before trying to apply it in a debate. In any case, its a transparent attempt at poisoning the well.
Sorry, but it IS the same science that makes cars, TVs, and all our modern conveniences that says the universe is a certain age. You are no scientist and have no understanding of science. It all hangs together in a vast web of interrelations. If one part of that web were false, it would have ripple effects on all of the rest of science. You can't just isolate the part that says the universe is X years old from the part that, say, lets us make televisions.
No one hates you for your religious views. Get over your Christian persecution complex. Christians control this country and dominate the political and social landscape. You people are not persecuted. We think your religion is stupid, and we think people shouldn't pay any attention to it. That is not the same as hating you.
Are you a constitutional law expert? Seriously, what is your law background? Where did you go to school, who was your favorite professor? I mean, even I know that NO ONE has been prosecuted under that act, it's constitutionality has never been decided, and it never applied to CONGRESS for fuck's sake!
I never mentioned impeachment, why bring it up? Oh yes, your standard, "Well THEY did it, so it must be okay!" Arguing with you is like arguing with a god damn two year old.
You are just spreading FUD. You don't give a rat's ass about the truth, you just care about opinion and how to sway it. You aren't any kind of expert on the constitution, just admit it. I've known enough real lawyers here to know you either aren't one, or you aren't any good. Drop the act.
In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:
The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country. Senator McGovern's report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States -- that I had come to listen and learn...." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975). Senator Sparkman's contacts with Cuban officials were conducted on a similar basis. The specific issues raised by the Senators (e.g., the Southern Airways case; Luis Tiant's desire to have his parents visit the United States) would, in any event, appear to fall within the second paragraph of Section 953. Accordingly, the Department does not consider the activities of Senators Sparkman and McGovern to be inconsistent with the stipulations of Section 953.[4]
From Pelosi's page:
Pelosi was one of seven American lawmakers to participate in a 2007 Mideast tour -- with Keith Ellison (D-MN), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Nick Rahall (D-WV), and David Hobson (R-OH) -- that included stops in Israel, Syria[11], the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. Three Republican congressmen -- Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts and Robert Aderholt -- met with Syrian President Bashar Assad earlier.
Pelosi's trip was know ahead of time. No one in the administration is considering invoking the Logan Act. Republicans had done the same thing previously.
Just out of curiosity, you must be some sort of lawyer, or an expert on constitutional law, yes? I mean, you wouldn't just repeat something like a parrot without looking into it or thinking about it, right?
Not dirt, but mudd, after Dr. Mudd, the doctor that set the broke leg of Lincoln's assassin unknowing he was Lincoln's assassin. From the wiki page on Samuel Mudd:
Samuel Mudd is sometimes mistakenly given as the origin of the phrase "your name is mud", however this phrase has its earliest known recorded instance in 1823, 10 years before his birth and is in fact based an obsolete sense of the word 'mud' meaning 'a stupid twaddling fellow'
Slashdot Mirror
I thought what it means to be a Christian was settled by the various Ecumenical Councils. Specifically Councils one through seven. If you just follow the teachings of Christ but do not subscribe to the beliefs expressed in the first seven councils, the rest of Christianity considers you to be a heretic.
Step 3: Get her to open the case
P.S. Do not put your junk in the case through the power supply fan while it's on.
That's a specific example. It's not the main point. The point is, we do not know enough about genetics to know what all we're throwing away when we throw away a certain gene. Maybe that gene is crucial to genius. Maybe it protects against disease. Maybe it helps reduce the amount of psychopaths somehow. Maybe by getting rid of everything sub-par, we'll be getting rid of everything above average as well. Do you know for certain? Does anyone at this point in time?
Wow, that's messed up. I took one look at the source (Hello Rev. Moon!) and had to look up the original Daily Telegraph article. It's not nearly as sensationalistic as the Washington Times piece. Yeah, the Telegraph is a bit conservative too, but Brit conservative is like American left wing. It sounds like this case, where both parents have the same severe genetic condition, is not that bad, but the same doctor does claim that he would screen for hair color, because certain hair colors can be a cause bullying. By that logic, as anything out of the ordinary is a potential cause for bullying, anything could be used as a reason for abortion. I support a woman's right to choose, but that doesn't mean I can't criticize her for her choice if I think it's thoughtless and callous.
There is no point to the bible, it's a book of fairy tales. The inconsistencies merely illustrate that fact.
You have a link to that doctor story?
But they didn't know that disobeying God's commands was wrong before eating the apple! You haven't answered anything.
Is God a jerk? Come on, I think the whole infinite punishment for finite mistakes bit proves that he is far more than a jerk. Psychopath is more like it.
Dude, there are two explanations for someone calling themselves "Ann Coulter." One, they really are the Coultergeist, and therefore the biggest troll in the world. Or they aren't Ann, and therefore are a lesser troll.
How old are you? You are one of the worst debaters I've ever seen. You argue like a child, like a smart five year old. No one is putting you down, it is a legitimate criticism. You can't spell, you have atrocious grammar, and your ideas have no coherence or intellectual impact. Oh, and no one is forcing anything on anyone, this is called FREE SPEECH! Sorry if it hurts, but no one is holding a gun to your head and making you read Slashdot.
And what the UN says is more important than what I think, why, exactly? Look, I'm just giving you my opinion, take it or leave it. I explained what I consider the differences to be between Buddhism and Unitarianism on one hand, and most other religions on the other. Call it what you will, the differences still exist. Or are you denying the differences themselves?
Buddhism does not deny the existence of external reality. That is not what that Koan is about. Koans have specific purposes, to help people who's mind is stuck in certain ways. That Koan is to help people realize that we construct our own reality based on sense impressions from an external world. Thus the coda at the end, I suggest you go back and reread the whole thing.
"Flies" is a concept made by mind. "Moves" is a concept made by mind. You fit your sense impressions into these self made categories. Does the flag really fly? Or do waveforms collapse?
You are either an idiot, or the best damn troll Slashdot has ever seen. In either case, I've made my point and I don't think anything you've said has refuted word one of it in the eyes of anyone with half a brain.
I don't hate you. I'm sorry you see the world the way you do, it must get very lonely. As for science, I'm sorry, but if radiocarbon dating were wrong in any significant way, the basics of chemistry would be different and your car wouldn't run. Science all hangs together in one vast web of interrelations. It is vaster and more beautiful than any religion, and it saddens me you can not see it.
Making fun of your spelling is a kind of poisoning the well too, and I'm sorry. It doesn't confirm my beliefs. Not only don't I need my beliefs confirmed, I have no beliefs. I don't believe that the floor will stay solid when I step on it. I don't believe the sun will rise tomorrow. I don't disbelieve anything either. It's a nice way to go through life. Everything is new and one is continually surprised by little things.
Buddhism is not a religion as it makes no mention of creator God's or a personal soul. In fact, it makes no claims that an individual could not verify for themselves. Buddha even said, don't take my word for it if it doesn't make sense to you. Buddhism is a philosophy.
Unitarians don't say anything at all. They're just a big social group that gets together to share in a feeling of spirituality, so I guess I'd call them a spiritual fellowship.
You don't get it. It's very simple. You can not sense things outside your mind. Do you think you are seeing the real flag, the real wind? No, you are seeing what your mind has created out of sense impressions. Duh.
It's not about a senior figure. In Buddhism, one is accounted "senior" in any sense only because others all agree that your wisdom is valuable. There are plenty of other stories in Buddhism where the "senior figure" is shown to be a fool, and the cook or the janitor who no one noticed is shown to be wise.
It does not matter what happens to me when I die. I can suppose, but until I die, I can't know for sure, so speculation is useless. If God existed and felt it was important for me to know, God would have let me know in some way that couldn't be faked by humans. That hasn't happened, ergo, it isn't important or God doesn't exist.
The existence or lack of existence of God is not important. The existence or lack of existence of a personal soul is not important. What is important is the present moment. Pay attention to that, and all those extraneous questions will disappear.
As for myself, I hope that I do not continue after death. It will be a big disappointment for me if I do. "What, more story? I thought I was done!" All stories are the same story, I don't need any more details to figure that out. Personally, I'm tired of being a finite individual and having a viewpoint. It's so limiting, and any kind of afterlife where I feel as though I am a finite individual with a viewpoint will be a bit of a let down. But if it happens that way, it happens. It doesn't affect what I'm going to eat for lunch. Which, to be quite frank, is more important to me right now than whether I have a soul or not.
Hitler was a Christian. Science does not take away any meaning to life. Religion does not bring any meaning to life. You are free to create your own meaning, using religion, science, or anything else you find. No one is forcing any opinions on you. Disagreement is not force. Torturing someone until they recant their beliefs and agree to yours is force, and science has never done that. We think your beliefs are incorrect and foolish. Saying so is not forcing anything on you. You are free to say otherwise, and believe whatever you like. You do not have the right to force us to keep quiet.
You are free to leave the discussion, to ask that people refrain from insults (and saying "I don't believe you" IS NOT an insult, sorry), and to state your opinions.
Nice "spycology" there, bringing up "transposing" of feelings. Projection is the term you want, but it is not the all purpose "I'm rubber, you're glue" kind of rejoinder you're making it out to be. I suggest you read some more books on "spycology" before trying to apply it in a debate. In any case, its a transparent attempt at poisoning the well.
Sorry, but it IS the same science that makes cars, TVs, and all our modern conveniences that says the universe is a certain age. You are no scientist and have no understanding of science. It all hangs together in a vast web of interrelations. If one part of that web were false, it would have ripple effects on all of the rest of science. You can't just isolate the part that says the universe is X years old from the part that, say, lets us make televisions.
No one hates you for your religious views. Get over your Christian persecution complex. Christians control this country and dominate the political and social landscape. You people are not persecuted. We think your religion is stupid, and we think people shouldn't pay any attention to it. That is not the same as hating you.
Hitler was a Christian.
Are you a constitutional law expert? Seriously, what is your law background? Where did you go to school, who was your favorite professor? I mean, even I know that NO ONE has been prosecuted under that act, it's constitutionality has never been decided, and it never applied to CONGRESS for fuck's sake!
I never mentioned impeachment, why bring it up? Oh yes, your standard, "Well THEY did it, so it must be okay!" Arguing with you is like arguing with a god damn two year old.
You are just spreading FUD. You don't give a rat's ass about the truth, you just care about opinion and how to sway it. You aren't any kind of expert on the constitution, just admit it. I've known enough real lawyers here to know you either aren't one, or you aren't any good. Drop the act.
From Pelosi's page:
Pelosi's trip was know ahead of time. No one in the administration is considering invoking the Logan Act. Republicans had done the same thing previously.
Just out of curiosity, you must be some sort of lawyer, or an expert on constitutional law, yes? I mean, you wouldn't just repeat something like a parrot without looking into it or thinking about it, right?
Replying to my own post, because I feel dumb for not previewing, damn it: "individual, let alone a group" in that first line. Duh.