scoobdog

That’s a real buzzkill. I’ll play @Neko

I get that, and yes he is. Like Odin says, you're supposed to clarify with the DJ or LJ, the reason being that he or she can see all three points of the imaginary line - the receiver's toe, the ball, and the down marker on the far side. The receiver theoretically can't accurately see his own point because he's standing over it, so his only two reference points is the ball and down marker. I'm not really saying the guy couldn't have or shouldn't have known (or at least set a yard or so behind), just that he's getting dragged a little unfairly for not seeing something that would be obvious to someone behind him but not necessarily obvious to him.

I can see that it’s an off sides, but I kind of feel for the receiver. It’s sometimes really hard to tell where you are on the field, without the benefit of an overhead shot, because there really aren’t many points of reference.

Happy Birthday!

My brother has rules like that.

OKay, so if we're trying to avoid the pit-falls like the Eugenics Wars, what are you expecting Star Trek writers to do to achieve that?

Would you say applesauce on its own or at least as a critical condiment to an entree?

What's the verdict?

I'm not sure what point your YT would serve. Star Trek is a work of fiction, not a how-to manual for creating a utopia, so it goes without saying that solving neurodivergent prejudice is outside its purview. Are you asking for some kind of prequel where a neurodivergent astronaut in the 2000s overcomes the odds to chart a path into the cosmos? What exactly do you think the producers and Paramount are doing wrong?

This really could kill the mid majors.

I’m holding you to it.

Are you going to be the fun Anthony?

Happy Birthday!

Damn it. Stop being profound.

That’s a fine looking cake.

How does he still get women?

That motherfucker cut and ran before anyone had a chance to jump, further cementing his legacy as that one dude who never gets caught farting in the elevator.

Prosperity gospel is heretical in just about any sense of the word. Historically, Roman Catholicism has been used to propogate atrocities on the poor and adherents of other faiths with unflinching regularity, and always with a strict delineation between what was man’s domain and what was God’s. This level of hypocrisy is how a shadow nobility was able to maintain secular power while professing to be poor themselves: God doesn’t have any want or need for wealth but His acolytes need that wealth to support their ministry. Prosperity gospel preached by Joel Osteen and his ilk contradicts itself in an important way by openly suggesting that God is willing to buy the loyalty of his faithful. The connection is tenuous; they’ll often argue that God isn’t granting people this money as much as unlocking their potential to achieve success. Presumably this means a successful person is obligated to return the rewards to God through his church. However, that is never explicitly defined and, even if it were, it doesn’t resolve underlying paradox between wealth defined in rescources and defined in spirit.

Why would Larry Scott be at the PAC-12 championship?

Karma has a secular and religious meaning. We can establish that the Buddhist karma is not contradictory to Christianity, but what about the secular meaning? At face value, the idea that one can believe that the Christian God will forgive any and all sins with one act of sincere contrition would subvert a karmic system that rewards good behavior. However, karma as is defined colloquially doesn’t extend into the afterlife. It’s mostly transactional - each consequence is tied directly to a behavior - and it exists as a way to frame morality socially across multiple faith systems ( which are individual). When God is offering forgiveness, it’s exclusively postmortem and unique to that person’s journey through the afterlife. It points to a need for regulating communal morality, in a space where one’s deeply held and personal values are expected to support an atheistic social order.

That’s a human thing, not just American. And, you’re right: karma is about not creating suffering in the sense of having attachment to one’s own existence, which does have analogs to other religions. Arguably, the point of separation between Buddhism and Christianity would be how the final destination is loosely defined. In both, the simplified ultimate goal is to completely divest yourself of your identity; you either become the perfect extension of God or become one with the undefined expanse of nothingness. Even the idea of reincarnation is intrinsic to Christian faith even if doesn’t reveal itself in the same explicit way. It’s understood that one does not simply end up in heaven; even one who leads a saintly life is usually unfit for heaven and has to be “reincarnated” in purgatory. Rather than reflecting some kind of shared value, it’s more likely that the true founders of Christianity were aware of the Buddhist faith through Rome as a major nexus point and incorporated elements of the much older faith. Nonetheless and to Buddy’s first question: someone who believes in Christianity should theoretically be adhering to the basic principles of karma already. To be clear: karma isn’t social currency in the sense one can use it to earn enlightenment. It’s a process one undergoes to achieve enlightenment, not a device to earn enlightenment with.

Not narrative media because thats mood related and the weather here doesn’t really change enough to effect mood. But, I do change my listening habits seasonally based on daylight.