ULCneo
-
Posts
176 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by ULCneo
-
-
On 8/14/2017 at 4:58 AM, Amulet said:
The Tee-Up:
Your ordination is life long and doesn't expire. Acknowledgement of your ordination by the church is 24/7. You are also a participating member of the forum and possibly belong to other ULC groups on FB.
I have a few curious questions referencing the above:
1. Does the acknowledgment of you being an ordained minister 24/7 mean that you are a full time minister because your ordination counts is acknowledged "always"? Or does the term "full time minister" have a different definition if applied to you, your beliefs and your lifestyle? Is there such a thing in your life as being a minister seasonally? Such as for peak wedding season, and then the rest of the year you make no claims about being a minister and perform no other ministerial duties to speak of?
2. Do you consider yourself to be an active minister? What does being an active minister mean for you? Would it mean you actively do "minister things" for a minimum number of hours out of your day or through the week? Does actively participating on the forum or in the ULC groups on FB mean you are an active minister? How regular would doing "minister things" have to be for you to consider yourself active? Is there something specific you think an active minister should be doing?
3. Does the church doctrine specifically come up for you as a reference when you have to weigh decisions now and then? For example, if you saw someone drop a $20 bill and they didn't notice and kept going. Or if you are counting calories/fat and had a choice between eating fries or steamed broccoli? I am not talking about conscience or obligation. I mean, do the actual words of the church doctrine "do that which is right" run through your mind in certain cases for making decisions? No? Yes? Sometimes? - Does it come up for you to use the church doctrine as a piece of advice when it applies to a situation? Like, you literally tell or remind someone "do that which is right?" (or even "do the right thing." but you thought of the doctrine.)
...No right or wrong answers. I am curious how members define some aspects for themselves as ordained ministers.
I think you confuse the term "minister" with the term "pastor" (or its rough equivalent in whatever religion you happen to deal with.) All are called to full-time ministry. The term "minister" means "to serve" when you study the word's historical roots. However, a "Pastor" is more of a leadership role, which not all can do, and certainly not all can do full time.
-
On 10/16/2017 at 1:21 PM, VonNoble said:
Anyone generously hosting STRANGERS at next month's Thanksgiving dinner.
For the sake of discussion I am removing finances as an issue ( there is zero requirement the meal needs to be elaborate or expensive)
There are lots of reasons not to do so.
Who is opening their home in spite of the reasons not to do that? And what is motivating you to do so?
von
That depends on whether or not, I can loudly proclaim "I pooped today!" right in the middle of dinner. If I'm allowed to do this, it will be a full house, and I'll need to get me one of those "take-a-number" machines....
-
On 10/28/2017 at 7:26 AM, cuchulain said:
you are out of your depth on this one, but i will bite. what law school did you attend?
Had a few friends that are attorneys that taught me the down and dirties of practicing law that they DON'T teach in law schools. When I found out how dirty the profession really was, I passed on studying it as a full-time profession. But, like i said, its a "look it up" kind of thing on that- Most of what law schools teach these days is total Bull.
-
On 10/29/2017 at 4:55 PM, RevBogovac said:
So, which phone do you use...?
I have an android phone which I did a custom install of linux on.
-
1 hour ago, VonNoble said:
Knowing this attorney for more than a decade - I am reasonably sure - he is not likely to have overlooked or forgotten anything when discussing law. He is pretty dang sharp. That is just my opinion of him...but that opinion was forged and formed by seeing him in action for quire awhile.
von
Well, apparently, he doesn't know the law, evidently. This is really actually rather BASIC theory, if one cares to actually look it up.
-
To be straight to the point:
Apple Sucks, Microsoft Sucks, Android Sucks (as does everything Google owned) - Linux is OK, depending upon version. I particularly like cali.
-
On 10/19/2017 at 11:35 AM, Rev Ed said:
I honestly do not know. I went to Google Play and punched in Instagram and downloaded the app that came up. I assumed it would be the right program.
It does work at the moment. I find it helps just choosing the picture and then clinking on adding to Instagram and it works.
It may be that your OS version doesn't support the current app permissions. Try finding an older version of the app.
-
3 hours ago, VonNoble said:
I ran this by the attorney representing our church for the past ten years. He was amused too. He told me if there is every a copyright usage question re: the church to call him immediately as there are many instances where we would be required to seek permission before usage of copyrighted material.....then he reminded me free legal advise is worth the price. He has an excellent sense of humor - especially for an attorney. von
Then apparently he forgot that the separation clause of the U.S. constitution states that congress, under no circumstances, can EVER mess with the conduct of the goings on of the Church, absent applying the heightened scrutiny standard (which copyright law nearly always fails heightened scrutiny.) the only real question is whether the use is "Religious" in nature. if it is, then copyright will NEVER apply.
-
11 hours ago, VonNoble said:
This bemuses me.
von
As I've said, before, there are certain expressions in Hebrew and Greek that don't translate well into English, because English is rather restricted in terms of expression.
-
1 hour ago, Dan56 said:
There is no direct tangible evidence to substantiate God, except in what exist; "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead" (Romans 1:20). Perhaps your looking for the sensational, when the evidence of creation is all around you, and in that sense, a tree itself is a miracle when you consider the million of things that had to happen for it to exist.
We do have contemporary evidence in the sense that others living 2000 years ago witnessed and recorded the events, but you discard them as illegitimate because they weren't sourced by independent historians. But the fact is, there is more written about Christ than Julius Caesar, and most records of the Emperors weren't written until centuries later. But even though Christ’s story is just as well attested to as Caesar’s, people reject one and accept the other. I guess it all comes down to what's believable, and not necessarily the amount of documented records, which is why more has been written about Aliens than Caesar or Christ, but I don't believe any of it.
Besides the fact that the ancient Romans were very anti-semetic at the time, and hence, anti-Christian as well. (given Christianity's early juxtaposition to the Jews, whom Rome saw as problem children to their government.) Hence, we'd expect the Roman history to be very much contradictory to the history of the Christian church. Yet, we don't see anywhere near as much contradiction between the two mutually independent accounts as we'd expect, since Rome had motive to be antagonistic and therefore lie their ** off. That would have to be more than coincidence.
-
18 hours ago, mererdog said:
"Articles, texts, and any other information not written by the poster must be properly credited to the author of said work. You are permitted to post articles, so long as they are within the scope of the forum policies. If you did not write the article in question, you must provide the author's name and source of the article. (A link will do, where applicable.) Posts that do not have proper sourcing information will be removed at admin discretion."
I find that amusing. Someone has obviously been legally misinformed. Its amazing how many people don't know that Churches are NOT subject to the provisions of copyright law due to the separation clause.
-
9 hours ago, cuchulain said:
you dont think that the kjv was altered? time to rethink your position.
Translated, yes. Altered, No. Two different things. With translation, your always going to slightly gain or loose, by the nature of what translation is, where the languages don't exactly line up.
-
On 10/22/2017 at 7:37 AM, mererdog said:
Once again, context.
36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That’s enough!” he replied
Two swords were enough. Enough for what?
A following scene shows Jesus being arrested. The followers ask if they should attack with their swords. One does, cutting off an ear. Jesus orders the violence to stop and he heals the ear. Two swords were enough. Enough for what?
(Luke 22:36) He that hath a purse, let him take it.—The word translated to the English “purse” is the same as in Luke 10:4. If the words had stopped short of the “sword,” we could have received their literal meaning without difficulty. They would have seemed to counsel the prudence which provides for want, instead of a simple trust, as before, in the providence of God, and so would have sanctioned all equitable forms of Church organization and endowment.
The mention of the “sword,” however, introduces a new element of thought. Our Lord’s words to Peter (Matthew 26:52) show that the disciples were not meant to use it in His defense. It is not likely that He would teach them to use it in their own, as they preached the gospel of the Kingdom. True teachers felt afterwards that the weapons of their warfare were not carnal (2Corinthians 10:4). What follows supplies a probable explanation:
The Master knew that two of the disciples (Peter and another) had brought swords with them, and with that acceptance of the thoughts of others which we have so often traced, He sadly, and yet, as it were, with the gentle sympathy with which a man speaks to those who are children in age or character, conveyed His warnings in the form which met their fears and hopes. If they meant to trust in swords, a time was coming when they would sorely need them. However, the expression was not meant to be taken with unintelligent literalness. It was in accordance with that kind metaphorical method of expression which our blessed Lord adopted that His words might never be forgotten. It was to warn them of days of hatred and opposition in which self-defense might become a daily necessity, though, in no uncertain terms, not aggression. To infer that the latter is implied has been one of the fatal errors which arise from attributing infallibility to wrong inferences from a superstitious letter-worship.
-
On 10/20/2017 at 8:17 AM, cuchulain said:
you can compare lies against the ORIGINAL letter but not the hand transcribed one if you dont have access to the author. so show the original writings of Corinthians and let's see all the changes....oh wait, we only have hand copies. okay, let's interview the transcriber...oh wait, they were anonymous... how do we know it was accurate again?
but really, you debating that it's not been changed is ludicrous. read kjv then niv Corinthians 13 13 for 100% proof of change. but you still refuse to admit it? now who is ignorant?
The NIV text isn't even regarded by Christians to be authoritative text in the first place, ( the majority of Christians don't regard any text compiled after the KJV to be authoritative because of the fact that they are lacking in more ways than the KJV to the original Greek and Hebrew.) making your point as to the NIV rather moot. There's no legitimate and meritious claim concrete evidence that the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts were ever altered.
As for your verse in I Corinthians 13:13 both texts (the KJV and the NIV) are equivalent in meaning to the Greek, once you conduct a proper "word study" as to investigate what the intended meaning of the author actually was. This is why we have lexicons such as Strong's concordance. Otherwise, you'd have to find a definition for "charity" as used in the archaic sense, that means something different, and still actually makes sense in the sentence and within the context of the passage, in order to evidence a "change". Unless of course, your saying that people just "Changed" the text by throwing some random words in there in a nonsensical manner.
Your apparent position there is so frivolous, that its really not even worthy of discussing.
-
1
-
-
On 10/21/2017 at 11:36 PM, VonNoble said:
von
and your point is what, exactly? Because you apparently don't have a point with that total mess.
-
On 10/23/2017 at 8:08 AM, cuchulain said:
Care to cite those contemporary sources?
I suggest you very carefully re-read my post. it said "contemporary to the events"....
-
On 6/30/2016 at 12:45 AM, Brother Kevin said:
It doesn't change the law, no. New York City was already accepting ULC ministers and issuing them the required permits to officiate marriage. That issue was resolved quite a long time ago.
There were those who claimed that the state law of New York did not include ULC ministers, for various reasons, and pointed to an old divorce case for support of that idea. Which to me, always seemed silly, because if true, that would have meant that the New York City Clerk's office was issuing the permits to ministers who were not authorized by the state law to officiate marriage. (Not to mention that pesky old First Amendment!).
In issuing this decision, the state's highest court ruled that Universal Life Church is a church within the meaning of the statute. Nothing "changes" other than that the question has be resolved. It seems highly unlikely that the case would be heard by the SCOTUS, but let's hope it is! I cannot imagine the SCOTUS issuing a different ruling, and that would then be persuasive in getting the few remaining recalcitrant jurisdictions to quit playing games with religious liberty.The Supreme Court will most likely deny cert to such a case; history establishes that the court has a dislike for hearing "religion" cases in which the government is appellant. Therefore, they will most likely only grant cert to hear such a case only where the circuit courts of appeal are in disagreement on an issue of law. The court tends to abstain from hearing issues of state law, to be sure, unless there is a significant constitutional question that hasn't been decided and the circuit court decisions are ambiguous as to the established law on the given subject matter.
-
On 10/20/2017 at 9:29 AM, VonNoble said:
How did this portion of your posting facilitate understanding of the topic? I might be showing my ignorance but I am willing to do that if it helps me to understand why that was useful, necessary or even relevant to include this sentence in making your point? Thank you
von
It facilitates understanding of the topic by way of not giving examples which are incorrect in terms of the parts of history that agreed to by both the early Christian Church and the Secular historians whom were contemporary to the events. Otherwise, we insert incorrect information into our arguments, and such arguments will fail as a consequence that flows from incorrect information. This is what Google is for.
-
6 hours ago, VonNoble said:
How much more unreliable....hmmm.
That depends on a great number of factors.
Some people are biologically predisposed to learn and remember things via different methods. There are auditory learners, visual learners, learners needing tactile cues and some requiring a combination. Communications are effective when a signal is received; by which ever method, and the receiver indicates understanding the message by sending an appropriate message back.
For a deaf person - no communications are auditory - but they can and do communicate effectively and are competitive with the rest of the world. They are not impaired in any way. They simply don't hear. For a blind person auditory cues might be more important than for an average person.
In a culture with no written language - auditory records are quite good - in fact extraordinary much of the time. Again, this is all measured objectively if you choose to pursue it. If not - that is also fine.
So to address your comment directed to me - reliability of written or auditory records are largely valid - or questionable depending upon specific circumstances. it is not an either or situation. It is an either is possible reality.
von
This is true, but we must also factor in one's motive to lie about what was told. If I write you a letter, its difficult for you to lie about what was said, because one can keep a copy of the letter they sent. The early writers would have most CERTAINLY caused a big stink if they were misinterpreted or misquoted. (in fact Paul did this a few times in his letters to the Roman and Corinthian Churches.) However, if I communicate with you verbally, its quite easy for you to potentially distort or outright lie about the substance of the communication for whatever personal reason you might have, and I have no real way to prove what was said, considering that in the ancient world, we didn't have microphones and audio recording.
-
6 hours ago, cuchulain said:
If they were written several hundred years apart by people who never knowingly met each other, then they were NOT EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS. Statistically impossible.
I guess you forget the FACT that the majority of the NT wasn't written at the time of the events- in most cases the time of the writing was about 30 - 64 A.D., and the later parts of it were written as late as 400 A.D.- hence the fact that the writers, writing their own eye-witness accounts of events they were exposed to, but where the multiple witnesses weren't present at the same location, is fruit for insight.
For example, we know that the book of Acts has two authors- we have distinctly Pauline Script and distinctly Petorian Script. However, during some of these events, we KNOW that Peter was NO WHERE NEAR Paul, geographically speaking, based upon the secular Roman historians of the time. Their writings were combined some time later into a single volume. Hence, the fact that they agree without knowledge of one another's writings at the time they wrote, it becomes that this fact speaks for their credibility.
This is but an example of what I'm talking about, but it serves the point. You should probably study your basic history concerning the writing in question before commenting, as I find your ignorance of the subject matter bemusing.
-
6 hours ago, mererdog said:
The following are the definitions given by Google-
"noun
ˈoutsīd/-
1.the external side or surface of something."record the date on the outside of the file"
synonyms: outer/external surface, exterior, outer side/layer, case, skin, shell, covering, facade "the outside of the building"
adjectiveˈoutsīd/-
1.situated on or near the exterior or external surface of something."put the outside lights on"
synonyms: exterior, external, outer, outdoor, out-of-doors "outside lights" -
2.not belonging to or coming from within a particular group."I have some outside help"
synonyms: independent, hired, temporary, freelance, casual, external, extramural "outside contractors"
preposition & adverboutˈsīd/-
1.situated or moving beyond the boundaries or confines of."there was a boy outside the door"
synonyms: outdoors, out of doors, al fresco "they went outside" -
2.beyond the limits or scope of."the high cost of shipping has put it outside their price range"
The "outside" in "outside force" is the same as the "outside" in "outside help" which is the example given for the second adjective definition.
Hate to break it to you, but in this case Google is WRONG.
-
-
On 4/12/2016 at 9:40 PM, Anthony Cherry said:
Is ULC recognised in Panama City Beach FL??
Yes, it is. Florida Regulates Officiants and clergy at the level of state law. The several counties then implement the requirements of state law. Therefore, you'll need to look up the relevant Florida Statutes.
-
On 3/17/2015 at 8:40 PM, alhla said:
When someone tells you something in confidence does it remain protected after their death?
I've looked at various sites but it was not specifically addressed. Any advice/info is appreciated.
Actually, legal privilege does not continue to exist after the death of the person having the privilege. In general, some states allow both the minister and the congregant to invoke the privilege, where other states require that only the congregant has the right to invoke. If the latter is the case, you could be subpoenaed before a court of law after the death, and forced to tell what you know. Practically, speaking, we keep confidence after death as much as possible, insofar as it is the right thing to do.
-
On 6/16/2017 at 11:25 PM, MiracleThink said:
Good evening my fellow ministers!
My name is David, this is my very first post, I'm excited to be here!
My question relates to forming a church/ministry and I'd appreciate your opinion regarding my situation.
I'd like to have an online Ministry, I am a student/teacher of the metaphysical text A Course in Miracles and my heart and mind keep revolving around my desire to hold a space to disseminate the teachings, that was the main motivation in becoming ordained. However. I'm uncertain as to how to proceed since I feel the best way for me to minister is online, I'm a millennial and I have a bit of an audience on social media, and would like to make weekly video 'services' now the only reason I'd like to form a church or ministry is to have the ability to receive tithes/donations without getting in trouble with the law...
So my question and issue becomes, what is the best way to proceed? Accept donations and cite them in my personal tax returns? Or form an organization? I don't expect the contributions to be enough to even cover the cost of the website but I just want to do things the right way I'm just uncertain of what the right way is given my circumstances.
All of your help would be greatly appreciated, thanking you in advance and God bless you.
Legally, you'll need to form an organization, and keep meticulous records of how you spend donation money (which should never be place in personal accounts for any reason) in order to avoid the government from coming after you for allegations such as tax fraud, running a scam, running a shell corporation, or other violations of white collar business law that can have severe legal consequences if mishandled. This is a situation where you need the advice of a good business law attorney.
The Difference
in Interpath Dialogue, Universal Virtues and Values
Posted