Clean Air and Coal, and Keystone

[Vermin93]

I should have stopped reading your post after the second notation, because it's now a rant. . As I said, you are judging a man based on his Protestant beliefs. He's a chairman of a committee. You seem to think he can't function as such, because of that belief, while ignoring that every other chairman in that position has also confessed to having Christian religious beliefs. I've pointed out that he has been scandal free, and has been involved in balancing the budget the one time it has been balanced in a decade.you say I'm wrong, but give no proof of this. You seem to think that no other religious sect believes in the healing power of prayer and belief in god. I've pointed out that others do, and named them. You say I have no evidence that this man would use medical aid above prayer. Neither do you have evidence that he would not. You say he is not suitable for this position, but give no reason other than his Protestant religious beliefs as a reason, but then add that it's a GOP appointment, as if that is a horrid fact, when it's just a reflection on your obvious disdain for trump. Your political bias is obvious. This man has done NOTHING wrong , but you convict him anyway. Whether it's politics or religion, you condemn him before he has Done anything to give you reason. Maybe you can point out a few more Christian chairpersons to ridicule for no reason.

I've opined that the man is a poor choice to chair the Science, Space and Technology committee based on core beliefs of Christian Science and his actions on the committee. You've genericized these beliefs to make an equivalence argument that you're now defending behind a generalized shield of Protestantism, presumably to earn Protestant support. It seems appropriate to note that The Church of Christ, Scientist is not grouped under the Protestant umbrella by multiple sources. It's far from being universally recognized as Christian, and Mary Baker Eddy's book "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" is widely unaccepted as the divine inspiration that the Church of Christ, Scientist purports it to be. If defending it as Protestant works for you, go for it.

My point is very simple. It's a joke that the chair of the House Science, Space and Technology committee is someone representing a faith with a core belief that the material world, including matter, sickness and death, is an illusion, and that evil is also an illusion. I can understand why he's essentially declared war on climate science. There's nothing to lose if the environment itself isn't real. Destroying it can't be evil if matter and evil don't exist in the first place. All is good, because all is god.

Coincidentally, he's a SETI fan, which is pretty interesting.

[Lostacresranch]

I've opined that the man is a poor choice to chair the Science, Space and Technology committee based on core beliefs of Christian Science and his actions on the committee. You've genericized these beliefs to make an equivalence argument that you're now defending behind a generalized shield of Protestantism, presumably to earn Protestant support. It seems appropriate to note that The Church of Christ, Scientist is not grouped under the Protestant umbrella by multiple sources. It's far from being universally recognized as Christian, and Mary Baker Eddy's book "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" is widely unaccepted as the divine inspiration that the Church of Christ, Scientist purports it to be. If defending it as Protestant works for you, go for it.



My point is very simple. It's a joke that the chair of the House Science, Space and Technology committee is someone representing a faith with a core belief that the material world, including matter, sickness and death, is an illusion, and that evil is also an illusion. I can understand why he's essentially declared war on climate science. There's nothing to lose if the environment itself isn't real. Destroying it can't be evil if matter and evil don't exist in the first place. All is good, because all is god.



Coincidentally, he's a SETI fan, which is pretty interesting.

Yes. You base your opinion on his religion, and you then explain that he's a GOP appointee that takes contributions from oil companies. That statement regarding his party actually says what you really mean. He's a republican. But You are making excuses for your labeling him as unqualified on his religion. You say Christian Science is not Protestant? They seem to think they are, regardless of your "sources". They were founded by protestants, use the Protestant bible, pray the same prayers, and believe, as all other denominations of protestants do, that god heals people. You assume all CS followers reject medicine and depend on God healing them? That's not true either. Some have. Also some other denominations have too. That does not mean that all of them are religious zealots that let their children die because they depend on Devine intervention.
You have no proof that he has ever made a decision based on a religious belief regarding "science", yet you say he's a "poor choice".
Your last bit, about his beliefs interfering with his work ethic is ridiculous. You are saying than anyone in any position cannot be trusted because of the church they attend. Every decision they make is strictly based on religious beliefs. If 88% of congress says they are Christian, then they are obviously able to seperate
Their religion from the workings of government. I'm sure he will be able to manage.

[LFD2037]

Yes. You base your opinion on his religion, and you then explain that he's a GOP appointee that takes contributions from oil companies. That statement regarding his party actually says what you really mean. He's a republican. But You are making excuses for your labeling him as unqualified on his religion. You say Christian Science is not Protestant? They seem to think they are, regardless of your "sources". They were founded by protestants, use the Protestant bible, pray the same prayers, and believe, as all other denominations of protestants do, that god heals people. You assume all CS followers reject medicine and depend on God healing them? That's not true either. Some have. Also some other denominations have too. That does not mean that all of them are religious zealots that let their children die because they depend on Devine intervention.
You have no proof that he has ever made a decision based on a religious belief regarding "science", yet you say he's a "poor choice".
Your last bit, about his beliefs interfering with his work ethic is ridiculous. You are saying than anyone in any position cannot be trusted because of the church they attend. Every decision they make is strictly based on religious beliefs. If 88% of congress says they are Christian, then they are obviously able to seperate
Their religion from the workings of government. I'm sure he will be able to manage.

Agree on all counts!

[Buff]

My company had planned to shut down, Thrump getting control of the EPA saved our jobs and most surly saved my little town from collapsing.

I just wish I had control of Texas utilities for a week.

I would cut all the power off to every major city in Texas for about 5 days in August.
I would bet money folks would look at coal differently after a week with no A/C or lights.
I expect Dallas would look like Mad Max in the thunder dome before the week was up.

[Buff]

I was amazed a couple of years ago in Dallas. The EPA had a listening session about forcing every coal plant to shut down in Texas.
There were grown folks there giving their environmental speeches that have no ideal where electricity comes from. They think it just lives in their wall.

If you are using electricity in Texas, thank a coal miner.
If you drive a car or run a boat, thank one of those dirty oil field hands.

Any person who whines and moans about fossil fuel on the internet, is a hypocrite. Well unless they are living off solar power and riding a horse to work everyday

[Vermin93]

Yes. You base your opinion on his religion, and you then explain that he's a GOP appointee that takes contributions from oil companies. That statement regarding his party actually says what you really mean. He's a republican. But You are making excuses for your labeling him as unqualified on his religion. You say Christian Science is not Protestant? They seem to think they are, regardless of your "sources". They were founded by protestants, use the Protestant bible, pray the same prayers, and believe, as all other denominations of protestants do, that god heals people. You assume all CS followers reject medicine and depend on God healing them? That's not true either. Some have. Also some other denominations have too. That does not mean that all of them are religious zealots that let their children die because they depend on Devine intervention.
You have no proof that he has ever made a decision based on a religious belief regarding "science", yet you say he's a "poor choice".
Your last bit, about his beliefs interfering with his work ethic is ridiculous. You are saying than anyone in any position cannot be trusted because of the church they attend. Every decision they make is strictly based on religious beliefs. If 88% of congress says they are Christian, then they are obviously able to seperate
Their religion from the workings of government. I'm sure he will be able to manage.

There's a few problems that I see here. One problem is that you're convinced you can read my mind. This keeps you coming back to an unrelated and obsessive defense of Trump and Republicans. Another big problem is that you have yet to address my main point regarding the core belief in Christian Science of the nonexistence of matter, sickness, evil and death. Contributing to this problem is that you don't seem to want to investigate much about Christian Science, particularly its metaphysical foundation. Instead, you've relied on inaccurate generalizations and false equivalences about Christian Science. I assume this is because you either don't want to examine the details of the faith or you're not comfortable addressing them.

Let me preface this by saying that I couldn't care less about this denominational subject, but apparently you do. I don't doubt that some Christian Scientists consider themselves Protestant. I presume they've sought acceptance into the club since Mary Baker Eddy published "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" in 1875. The problem is that Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic churches don't buy it, suggesting that Christian Science is neither Christian or science. Christian Science is considered Nontrinitarianism, as they don't subscribe to the Protestant belief in the Trinity. I found a number of similar Protestant interpretations of Christian Science. Here's one for you.

http://www.eaec.org/cults/christianscience.htm

I return to my previous suggestion that there seems to be no limit to what one can believe in the name of religion that would make you question their suitability for a particular leadership role. I disagree with this point of view. In this case, the belief that the physical world is nonexistent and that "The cause of all so-called disease is mental, a mortal fear, a mistaken belief or conviction of the necessity and power of ill-health" is a disqualifier for chairing the Science, Space and Technology Committee, in my opinion.

I'm going to head out of my house that doesn't really exist, get into my car that doesn't really exist and get some Mexican food that doesn't really exist. Then I'm going to file my taxes, which don't really exist. My girlfriend, who, like you and I, exists as Truth in mind not matter, won't be joining me as she has a cold that doesn't really exist. I've told her the cold isn't real and that she simply needs to pray for Truth, but not to God, and the cold will no longer exist as an "error" and she can join me for tacos. She looked at me like I was crazy, so I referred her to the chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology committee.

Have a great weekend.

[flywise]

My company had planned to shut down, Thrump getting control of the EPA saved our jobs and most surly saved my little town from collapsing.

I just wish I had control of Texas utilities for a week.

I would cut all the power off to every major city in Texas for about 5 days in August.
I would bet money folks would look at coal differently after a week with no A/C or lights.
I expect Dallas would look like Mad Max in the thunder dome before the week was up.

Cut it off for 1 day in august and I bet there is a new appreciation for coal.

[Lostacresranch]

Clean Air and Coal, and Keystone

There's a few problems that I see here. One problem is that you're convinced you can read my mind. This keeps you coming back to an unrelated and obsessive defense of Trump and Republicans. Another big problem is that you have yet to address my main point regarding the core belief in Christian Science of the nonexistence of matter, sickness, evil and death. Contributing to this problem is that you don't seem to want to investigate much about Christian Science, particularly its metaphysical foundation. Instead, you've relied on inaccurate generalizations and false equivalences about Christian Science. I assume this is because you either don't want to examine the details of the faith or you're not comfortable addressing them.

Let me preface this by saying that I couldn't care less about this denominational subject, but apparently you do. I don't doubt that some Christian Scientists consider themselves Protestant. I presume they've sought acceptance into the club since Mary Baker Eddy published "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" in 1875. The problem is that Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic churches don't buy it, suggesting that Christian Science is neither Christian or science. Christian Science is considered Nontrinitarianism, as they don't subscribe to the Protestant belief in the Trinity. I found a number of similar Protestant interpretations of Christian Science. Here's one for you.

http://www.eaec.org/cults/christianscience.htm

I return to my previous suggestion that there seems to be no limit to what one can believe in the name of religion that would make you question their suitability for a particular leadership role. I disagree with this point of view. In this case, the belief that the physical world is nonexistent and that "The cause of all so-called disease is mental, a mortal fear, a mistaken belief or conviction of the necessity and power of ill-health" is a disqualifier for chairing the Science, Space and Technology Committee, in my opinion.

I'm going to head out of my house that doesn't really exist, get into my car that doesn't really exist and get some Mexican food that doesn't really exist. Then I'm going to file my taxes, which don't really exist. My girlfriend, who, like you and I, exists as Truth in mind not matter, won't be joining me as she has a cold that doesn't really exist. I've told her the cold isn't real and that she simply needs to pray for Truth, but not to God, and the cold will no longer exist as an "error" and she can join me for tacos. She looked at me like I was crazy, so I referred her to the chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology committee.

Have a great weekend.

Again, to simplify this entire rant you are on, YOU said this man is not qualified to be chairman. You first give his religion as a reason, followed by the fact that he is a republican, then amplify that by saying he takes contributions from oil companies.
I disagreed with you, pointing out you have no proof he allows religion to drive his motivations. I also pointed out, most of our government personnel identify as Christian. By your logic, all of them are disqualified, because Christian beliefs state that god can indeed heal the sick. That's not just a Christian Science belief. It's an almost universal religious belief.
All the rest of this mess of a rant about me reading your mind, and dragging republicans into it is nonsense. YOU dragged that up, as well as contributions from oil companies, which I would wager are accepted by politicians on a daily basis. Does that disqualify them too? And to be clear, I wasn't first to bring up trump either. Your opinion of him is again, obvious.
As for my knowledge of Christian scientists, I'm not the one that said they aren't protestants. They say they are, so I believe that. And again, they believe in god being able to heal. Just like every other religion I know of. I don't know what denomination you follow if any, but if you do follow one, I bet you my next paycheck, they believe that also.
As I said, now more than once, you are judging this man without any reason to do so. He has given NO indication that he is allowing his beliefs to control his chairmanship. How could it? You obviously don't like the GOP, you don't like oil companies, and apparently you don't like Christians that believe what their denomination follows. That's allowed In this country. It doesn't mean you are right.
As for that mess at the end of your post, well, to me, it doesn't exist.
And I WILL Have a great weekend. Thank you.

[Ætheling]

I was amazed a couple of years ago in Dallas. The EPA had a listening session about forcing every coal plant to shut down in Texas.
There were grown folks there giving their environmental speeches that have no ideal where electricity comes from. They think it just lives in their wall.

If you are using electricity in Texas, thank a coal miner.
If you drive a car or run a boat, thank one of those dirty oil field hands.

Any person who whines and moans about fossil fuel on the internet, is a hypocrite. Well unless they are living off solar power and riding a horse to work everyday

Yes sir! You're on it today!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[flywise]

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/03/29/j-scott-armstrong-fraction-1-papers-scientific-journals-follow-scientific-method/