AmberLF
-
Posts
97 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by AmberLF
-
-
On 7/11/2017 at 2:26 PM, Key said:
That is certainly one way to look at it. Most tend to see "skeptics" as debunkers or bullheaded non-believers, in my experience. They do have that right, but it also misrepresents the word to me. I think along the lines as you just expressed.
Skeptics are just truth seekers, or theory testers, if you will.
Yes, I've run across some pretty hard skeptics too. Thing is that people area ll different in levels of belief or disbelief in any subject of plausibility. To paint a thick, clear line between believers and skeptics can completely disregard those who can be persuaded given enough evidence... and what kind.
-
Yes, I think I missed it was a 2016 post. Either way, maybe someone currently or in the future might be able to use the ideas.
-
On 6/25/2017 at 6:42 PM, mark 45 said:
maybe.of the philosophies/religions you listed,buddhism is the only one that does not teach a deity.and if i understand correctly,the norse and greek gods weren't worshiped as they were meant to be emulated.but i could be wrong.as far as wicca,i'm not 100%sure,but you can be wiccan and not worship the goddess/god.
In the case for Traditional Wicca, you are correct. There are some eclectics that claim Wicca who might not. But they would be more eclectic pagan than Wiccan specifically.
-
On 6/8/2017 at 6:18 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
Skeptic is a problem word. One of the worst. If your goal is to avoid offending people, I would find something different.
I don't see it as a problem word. To me it denotes doubts. You can clarify with being a hard skeptic (nothing will convince a person otherwise) or a soft skeptic (want to believe, but can't without truly convincing evidence) but overall it isn't all it's just a word that implies the level of belief a person has about something. How would that be offensive in and of itself?
-
1
-
-
On 7/10/2017 at 8:27 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
I know I passed the standard High School math courses. I don't even remember what some of the terms mean.
I was that way. I don't think I could remember them even then.
-
On 6/20/2017 at 1:09 PM, mererdog said:
I have to say, though, that I don't like the phrase "self important." No individual's importance can be overstated, as it is damn near infinite.
You might think so but I've seen it at work. When it gets to a point of disregarding anyone else for any reason, I'd say that's overstated. Perhaps egotistical is a better word? Either way it comes down to recognition VS service and which the person cares about most or if they care about the other at all.
-
23 hours ago, mererdog said:
I am not saying that it is wrong to avoid saying certain things. I am saying that specific motives for that avoidance are harmful. It is good to be compassionate, or even just diplomatic. I consider the term "political correctness to apply exclusively to where we are ostensibly motivated that way, but where the broader social context shows more sinister (for lack of a better word) motives at play.
Also important distinctions. I guess the reasons why are not explored as deeply as they should be and most are left to figure it out themselves. Unfortunately without having it laid out for them, many can come to a more self important reason than a compassionate one.
-
On 6/17/2017 at 11:53 AM, mererdog said:
Right. The difference between being motivated by compassion and being motivated by political correctness. The difference between not wanting to hurt people and not wanting to look bad. The difference between disagreeing with someone's action and demonizing them.
They are important distinctions, those whys and where froms. I admit and have tangled with those who are more concerned with following rules, looking bad and such. However I also know enough people from the concerned side to understand there are those who are driven more from the depth and height of true concern and compassion. They are out there. Both can be important depending on the circumstances.
-
10 hours ago, 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.
I would think the best way to go about finding out would be to go through a lawyer to see if it's legally possible. You would likely have some loops to jump through and have charities and such lined up for such donations to go to... but seeing as how internet related things are nation and world wide, it would just be a good idea to make sure you have legal understanding and support.
-
On 6/15/2017 at 1:03 PM, mererdog said:
Nah. The fact that an act is harmful in one context has no real bearing on the morality of the same act in a different context. Otherwise, surgeons would get arrested for all the stabbing. As for thinking someone is a jerk... That is exactly what I was talking about when I said "It isn't about being nice, or even pleasant. It is about having a reason to feel superior. ** that."
Right, that's taking it one way to the extreme for the sake of manipulation and control but going too far to the other directions falls into being a bully. There is a difference between purposefully trying to manipulate people into or out of something, and just teaching basic compassion. Again it goes back to caring if there is a basic desire to not be flippant and hurtful or to just not care.
-
21 hours ago, mererdog said:
The problem with ideas like political correctness is that it replaces empathy with rules-following.
We don't use that word.
Why not?
Its a bad word.
What makes a word bad?
It upsets some people.
None of those people are here.
We don't use that word.
That seems silly to me. Part of it is also practice and what's going on in individual personal internal workings. If what you are saying can be hurtful to someone, even if that someone isn't there, you still expose yourself as being something of a jerk deep down. Again, if a person really doesn't care that they may be coming off as an insensitive jerk, then it really doesn't matter anyway. That's more the point than just "but none of those people are here."
-
21 hours ago, mererdog said:
Because the act of creation is valuable, in and of itself. Because sometimes you just need to sing, and sometimes you just need to complain- even if no one else cares. Because a joke that no one else gets can be the funniest joke of all. Mostly, because the stuff in our heads wants to get out.
Sure, but since communication is about understanding, kinda throws a monkey wrench into the works if no one else understands and the creator isn't listening enough to realize they need to change the way they are broadcasting if they wish to be understood at all... even if the other party doesn't really think its funny.
-
On 6/11/2017 at 5:32 AM, mererdog said:
Thanks. I was hoping that would happen to at least one person, but people usually don't say anything about the title unless it has a typo or is a blatant bait and switch... so I expected to never know whether it worked.
Titles are so often just used as attention getters that most people that actually read the article tend to disregard the title as anything much more than that... an attention getter. Sorry to say I missed it... really sorry. It's hard to get humor on a written page until you get to know the writer a bit better.
-
18 hours ago, mererdog said:
There are two distinct motives behind all communication. One is the desire to be understood. The other is the desire to express one's self. To create a mutual understanding requires at least a degree of teamwork, but self-expression can be a completely private affair.
Wanting to be understood does not beholden others to attempt to understand me. Wanting to speak does not create an obligation speak understandably. This means that if I want to understand or be understood, I am asking for something that I am not owed. This is an important distinction to me.
Political correctness is just verbal etiquette. Etiquette is just a way to signal group identity and separate "us" from "them." It isn't about being nice, or even pleasant. It is about having a reason to feel superior. ** that.
Hmm... That's all news to me. Basic communications dictates not only tailoring your presentation to a way your audience understands but do to so in a way that doesn't put them on the defensive so that there is a bigger chance of them hearing and understanding. Also the fact that most people do not usually appreciate being talked at without a chance to be heard also. They simply stop listening or tying to understand if they know they are not going to be heard too. Why bother if it isn't a two way communication? If the speaker doesn't care, why should the listener?
As for verbal etiquette, that goes the same route. If people are on the defensive they are more worried about defending themselves from a perceived verbal attack, not really hearing or understanding what the non-PC person is saying. Granted some do over do the PC a bit but I can honestly say I've never seen it as attached to a feeling of superiority. Though I guess I can see if someone doesn't really have any empathy at all then it might give them that sense...
-
2 hours ago, mererdog said:
Years ago, I heard a speech from Violent Jay of the Insane Clown Posse. I want to say it was from the first Gathering of the Juggalos, but I could be wrong about that. Anyway, there was a point where he explained that his music was designed to morally and religiously instructive, but that the kids don't listen unless you're "waving the hatchet."
Now, I've always found ICP hilarious, and when you look past the standardized adolescent male posturing and shock-for-the-sake-of-shock stuff, you see some fairly standard morality plays. But when I look at the fans, I see a whole lot of missing the point. It makes me wonder about that point where changing your delivery to make your message more accessible makes your message get lost.
Are you sure they are missing the point or is it a case of not really taking that point seriously due to the 'clowning around' in the delivery of it?
-
Bah, I think we all have our moments. Some fewer because they care enough to look for the balance between being honest and trying not to be unnecessarily aggravating and irritating. Others just do not care if they jab at nerves or not. Of course there are others who have that unfortunate foot-in-mouth disorder. I know I've unintentionally pissed off a few people just by making an observation and related statement that came off a bit flippant in this type of forum. It happens.
-
20 minutes ago, mererdog said:
I am curious how others draw that line, both in terms of deciding what to say and in terms of deciding how to react to others.
Ultimately it seems to me as long as you are not trying to be hurtful to another, and if you cross a line unintentionally that you apologize and try to explain your stance, then it's all good. The fact is some people will misunderstand, some are overly sensitive and will take anything as a slight, and some just like to think everyone is just as serious and direct as they are. Waaay too many views and ways of communication to not end up insulting or irritating someone somewhere along the line. Some have a hard time stepping outside themselves and realizing not everyone thinks or feels the same. Different upbringing, experiences, ideals, etc can make for odd and interesting responses sometimes. All you really can do is back up and review your words, try to clarify and bridge a better understanding. If it doesn't work at least you tried.
-
Thank you to those who answered me about the NC laws on ordination. I didn't realize there was that much muck here to wade through. I haven't advertised yet but intend to. I need to dig through more laws and rights and get straight in my own head where the line is. You guys gave me a lot to mull.
-
On 5/9/2017 at 0:35 PM, mererdog said:
There was a divorce case in NC years ago setting a very important precedent. Basically, the court's opinion was that if a couple genuinely believed the officiant was legally qualified at the time of the wedding, the marriage is valid even if the officiant was not legally qualified. I don't have time to Google the specifics right now.
Could it have been a common law instance? Some states had them, might still have them on the books. The only reason I thought of it is that my mother lived with the man she's married to now for 11-12 years, basically acted married. Roughly 8 years in I was out with her and we happened upon some of her co-workers who asked her if she'd married him yet. She said they fell under common law marriage a year or so earlier, so they may as well make it official. Then she quipped she was working on him. They have been married since the 90s. I'd already moved to NC and couldn't afford the flight to attend.
-
6 hours ago, ULCneo said:
The government's position in regulating such is to prevent the clerical title from being watered down to the point of little significant legal import. The error in thinking is the separation clause prohibits such a position in the first place. (the government shouldn't have it's hands in religion) However, religion also shouldn't have it's hands in government. So it really becomes how it is the church's responsibility to preside over the instatement of this legal contract we call "marriage". In this day and age marriage seems to be more of political/civil import than a religious one. (as how many marriages don't take their religious vows seriously?- since in most religions divorce is taboo and to be avoided at best, if it's not considered outright sinful.)
Unfortunately half the marriage is a legal documentation. Clearly you can have a ceremony and be seen as married by the church and whichever god you follow, but the reason many places has a marriage licensing system is for that legal side. It gives a legal bearing on how to handle belongings should one or the other pass unexpectedly. It gives the rights for sharing insurance through work or in any government related programs. If a government doesn't recognize an ordination as valid they can invalidate and dissolve the legal side of marriages performed by anyone ordinated under whatever organization they deem not legitimate under that laws of that state. This is why I'd like to see it cleared up. Was there some guff between ULC and someone in office back in the 80s who decided to push through such a thing? Is there a case working on this? I got ordained in Nov of 2015 and only recently looked up the law directly through an NC government pages. There is a clause there that validates only marriage pre July 1981 unless otherwise stated. This might just be sloppy writing but the whole statement makes it sound like ordinations can be refused by the state. I posted the specific sub-article below:
§ 51-1.1. Certain marriages performed by ministers of Universal Life Church validated. Any marriages performed by ministers of the Universal Life Church prior to July 3, 1981, are validated, unless they have been invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction, provided that all other requirements of law have been met and the marriages would have been valid if performed by an official authorized by law to perform wedding ceremonies. (1981, c. 797.)
-
Very welcome. I posted to your other thread as well to bring up ideas on your other parts of your post. Glad the link did help you.
-
I do believe the last time visited date is back in November of 2015 so you might not get an answer. You could do a search to see if anything comes up.
8 hours ago, Taliesin2 said: -
It would be more maiden, mother, crone, but yes, there are a few deities that are said hold those aspects across several pantheons.
It's possible these things are not related aside from being yours in experience. Your african fellow, as you described, is tickling my memory about something more specific, a ritual of sorts, but I can't put my finger on it. Look into Vodou spirits and deities. Pantheons can and do cross over from time to time. You don't have to follow, just learn.
I think I posted to you elsewhere about the fox/child spirit with a link to an article. I can say the most common ones are out of the Chinese or Japanese Mythology. Again, don't have to follow but the more you learn about these things the easier time you have deciphering clues and hints and such like that.
I have to wonder if these incidents are unrelated apart from they are happening around you specifically. Are you wrestling with some ideas about your chosen goddess perhaps? Trying to decide on something going on in life and hoping she'll gently guide you through or even tell you what you should do?
It could also be part of the dreams that you can't recall, that little layover that sometimes stick with us when we wake but the dream is already fading or gone. Dreams are tricky that way and can take time to figure out sometimes. I find if I have a patch of troubling dreams to jot them down when I wake to help me not only remember them easier but also to work out the ones I'm stumped on by comparing it with whats going on in my life. Sometimes it simply is just working those things out in a more imaginative dream state.
Anyway, that might get you started in figuring this out. Hope it helps.
-
On 5/5/2016 at 10:58 AM, RevDeCo said:
Good morning,
I am unsure of where and how to start. I mean doing weddings or hospital work. I am just not sure how to get my first few steps going with my ordination. Almost like getting my name out there. I was thinking Facebook but that only reaches some, not everyone one there is looking to get married. Can i just go to a wedding show, and hand out business cards, and even at that what type of cards does everyone use? I am at huge crossroads and am not sure of the best directions.
Is it possible for you to check in with those already doing both to see how they got started in the area you serve? See if you can get a few interviews, be an assistant and such until you get a foothold? Might be easier to get an idea of which to do when you have a better idea of what is needed.
Does the human soul exist?
in Philosophy & Theory
Posted
If that were the case wouldn't it still be in Hebrew and Aramaic? Wouldn't there only be one version? A little digging has different versions using different words in some places. In addition just when each book was written and what region also affects the tone in earlier versions. The most popular version used in the Americas is the King James version or one derived from it which smooths out some of the tone but it has also been found to have a few drastic changes made according to his version of what it should be.
I think this is probably true for many religions. Humanism seems to be the base for this era.