SisterSalome

Maybe it's being a girl or being sensitive or whatever, but I'm still doing the ministerial thing, but no more forums and making friends. For what. Not friendly.

Decided to stop posting here. Really feel put off by being accused of analyzing everyone and everything when I was just trying to make interesting threads for people to engage with so the forum was active.

Aside from conducting wedding ceremonies, are there other services you conduct as a Minister? What's the various things that are possible with Ministry? I read somewhere that in some states Ministers still need a letter of Recommendation, so I know some of you provide that recommendation to other Ministers. But what else? What's the scope of potential activities a Minister can be involved in: both ceremonial and administrative?

I sense discomfort in your opening statement and this final one. I'm not trying to put anyone in a box. I invited others to put themselves in a box if they so desire for simply the sake of us finding common grounds with each-other (if any) and for fun. I got that sentiment sadly, from Jonathan that is inferring I am attempting to label others when clearly I've only been attempting to label myself (and invited other to label me and invited others to label themselves if they so desire). Anyone who does not wish to participate in a thread I make, feel free to ignore it.

What do you mean by I made it clear that my goal was not to be useful? I was saying what's useful to me may not be useful to you AND I do think it's useful. I'm also not sure what you mean by 'urge' to chart, graph and define 'everything'? I was not aware my urges were being analyzed. I'm sure I've not tried to chart, graph and define everything; neither in general and certainly not here.

Okay thank you!

About some things yes, and other things no.

We are irreconcilable, dear Jonathan (not really)

I deeply respect Stephen Hawking but I'm vigilant. I definitely hear him out though. He is brilliant. However, he has been proven wrong about many things he's said about the universe. He has been wrong about black holes, and predicted we'd never encounter anything Higgs-like, even the big bang (and all related theory) might be valid math but could still prove unsound crap. He's almost as famous for losing bets as he is for making them. He also warns us to be afraid of aliens, and while declaring there is no god; neither presenting his evidence for the existence of aliens (which I don't disagree with but his maths on this were never published that I'm aware of) nor calculates for the premise that in the majority of cases, god(s)=aliens by very definition The god of all Abrahamic religions would most certainly qualify as an extraterrestrial being. Or even a more advanced and evolved humanoid from our distant future who went back in time? His view sounds a lot like Genesis and I don't think anyone realizes it, with beginnings and aliens, and of upcoming extinction events, and so on. Why is he always warning us? Watch out for hostile beings! Escape the planet! I love and respect Hawking but it seems his anti-theism is more than mere atheism. It crosses me that he seeks to prove a god is not needed for things to come about, but still thinks in biblical cosmology. And even the notion of a god particle annoys him. The concept, the word, the idea offends him. Would he become irate if he saw a cross hanging on a wall? He's always debating this non-god's non-existence when nobody really is looking for him to do anything but physics. Carl Jung would have interesting things to say about that. I adore Hawking. Seriously seriously seriously. None of this is to discredit him as a contributor to physics and M Theory. But alas, I am vigilant.

Is the graphic you customized your embosser with on the Wedding Words and More Disc?

With all respect, useful is a term subjective to our own reasoning however. You could have 5 uses for a hammer, I could have 3 or 207, another person could see no use at all for a hammer. I'm not saying that "from one's relationship or definition of god, we can gain insight to their relationship or definition of government." (or vice versa) ^^^^ That's not what I am saying. Can a school determine how a child behaves toward their parents based on a test taken on a teacher-student relationship, no. I think perhaps you misunderstood or perhaps my vagueness allowed space to infer I meant something like that. I am saying the first chart reminds me of the second because the two share: Graphing on a coordinate system vs. side by side comparison only An axis describing SELF=SUBJECT, OTHER=External Force An Axis describing Certainty, Uncertainty Certainty Principal: Conservative or Liberal to the belief in god(s) Conservative or Liberal to a belief in "freedom for all" [While some may posit that god need not be greater, it's also probable there are others who took the political test that perceive their government to be a benevolent created force by the people for the people; while others perceive the government as a malevolent force against the people with an agenda of its own. The belief of the qualities of the government is not addressed here and ones own beliefs about the government may influence their own opinion of the government and thence influence their relationship to the government.] Digressing ... What I'm saying is that we can "map" subject-object relationships in this format (on a graph) to understand and communicate our ideals regarding anything. As a consequence, we can identify how closely we share the specific ideals we mapped. In this case, yourself and Diana both identify as Agnostic Atheist. In the case of the religious chart, we just chose where we fit: 1-A, 1-B, 2-A, or 2-B. In the other test, where we fit is determined by test. We chose religious philosophy based on YES/NO of two qualities: Certainty and Belief and placed them on a 2x2 chart. The Political Chart is 20 x 20 graphing: Statism to Libertarianism, and Liberalism to Conservativism. (These are qualified by a multi-question Q&A on the site the graph was found.) For the sake of explaining usefulness, another test could be created like this: On a scale from 1 to 5, how much do you enjoy being controlled by your employer? 1 indicates you preference self-control and that your employer trust your self-guidance. 5 indicates you preference employer-control and that you trust your employer to guide you. On a scale from A to E, how is accountability shared in the workplace? A indicates you preference everyone holds peers accountable and you depend on being held accountable. E indicates you preference everyone is self-accountable and you depend on everyone (including you) holding themselves accountable. Placing these values on the two axis', we can form a field on which we can graph the coordinates of of all job applicants. I may be at 1-C, you may be at 5-B, etc. And employer can use these scales to only hire those of us who apply and fall in 5-C. Or a teacher, knowing themselves to be more of a 5 type of teacher (guiding and demanding obedience) can estimate possible "difficulty" with blind obedience from students who fall in the 1 range. I was also saying that I like this format better than side by side analysis. Here is a test for politics that uses a graph: https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php And example of a side-by-side test would be: http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Quizzes/BeliefOMatic.aspx Note in the side by side type test, possibility isn't a field; it's particular. In side by side, while the possibility of a whole graph (for all qualities being determined) exists; here's only certain places we are allowed to fall on a side by side test. It's why I like the field version more. As far as extrapolation; technically, we could make 1 superduper test that incorporates all possible sources and forms of force and get an average of how we relate to force in general. Our rebel quotient if you will However, our averages could be similar in general, but different per source of force. Breaking a big chart up into separate charts, we get a more accurate picture of each subject-object relationship within the subject-object relationship matrix of us to the everything else.

Understandably, the subject-object relationship shifts depending on the subject and object. I don't mind a bossy kickboxing coach but I don't care for bossy employers. Looking again, my first comparison was hinging on the certainty principal, but if we spin the religious chart 90 degrees to the right to hinge it on the belief principal, perhaps the similar concepts between charts will be more apparent.