the Hearthwitch

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by the Hearthwitch

  1. On 8/14/2017 at 3:58 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.

    Hi, Amulet! :)


    1. Not reeeeallly...I was a Witch long before I was ordained. If the term "minister" is being used in the sense of service, I am always ready to serve, and always have been, since childhood. It's an "I am" vs. "I do" thing. This is why I chose Hearthwitch for a title. :)


    2. Yes. I do Witchy things pretty much constantly. Discreetly, of course, b/c I am solidly in LDS Country, over here. ;) (Although they have witchcraft of their own, whether they realize it or not.)


    3. No. And yes. I do use a variant of it, when giving advice- the one that's most commonly known here is "CTR", or "choose the right", thanks to (again) the Mormons- most of the religions around here have some approximation of the same. I do like the ULC's version for use with my kids, though. (It's funny, when you think about it- you can make that suggestion to kids, but when speaking with adults, they take it as an admonishment or criticism if you remind them that they "should" make choices based on what is "right", LOL!) Also, most of the time, when people come to me for assistance, they already know what direction they're going to take, and they already know whether it's wrong (by whatever belief system they have) or not...often, people want someone to just agree that their chosen course of action is the "right" one. 

  2. "Why do we not incorporate that

    as part of everyone's formal education?   How do parents better their

    own skills in order to teach their children?  How DO they teach such

    things to kids?"


    Some of us do, and are. My youngest is currently in a charter school where this is emphasized (which is good, because Thing Two is dense, when it comes to social cues, and has demonstrated an aptitude for pugilism unseen in our family since his great-grandfather's lifetime). In theory, this is also being taught in our public middle school, too, but I don't credit Thing One's social skills to their teachings.


    As a parent, I can tell you that the best way to teach 'em is to make every mistake a teachable moment- interrupt (intervene), make 'em stop and think it through, and then allow 'em to proceed with reaction/action of their own. Same goes for manners in general. If you want your children to NOT be "those kids" at the restaurant, you start taking them out when they're really little, and you demonstrate how they need to behave. They fail to do that, you take them out. Repeat until the lesson takes. It doesn't take long. They want to succeed. It's not that difficult- it just takes some attention and awareness. You just have to be invested in making sure that they're going to grow up to be...well, adults. 

  3. 8 hours ago, kokigami said:

    I think perfect understanding of any other person is impossible, because of differences in experience. However, empathy can make for proximal understanding, which is a good, but imperfect tool. We must acknowlege that it is an imperfect tool to use it well. I can attempt to be empathetic to a homosexual on the subject of persecution, but, as I am not homosexual, that individuals personal response will considerably different than mine. That is not even accounting for all the other differences. So, assuming my empathy gets me more than a tiny bit closer to understanding is going to lead to very unpredictable success rates. I tend to think it works better on less specific issues, and broader generalizations, but I could be wrong..

    It changed the definition of your tribe. The process also bathed your brain in unfamiliar chemicals. That alone could change your world view, as acid has for many people. Human Babies benefit from mothers with strong bonds and there is a lot of evolutionary engineering to achieve that goal.


    Absolutely! Having babies is a little bit like taking LSD, only the effects are much longer-lasting. ;)

    Thank you for may not be a perfect understanding, but it's good enough! Nice to meet you, Kokigami. :)

  4. On 9/1/2017 at 11:33 AM, cuchulain said:

    you always may disagree, it does not bother me. you are respectful about it and seem to engage in polite discussion.  i changed nothing about my convictions after kids, so maybe that's unique to the individual.

    Thanks! And you may be right about it being an individual thing- I don't know everything! LOL I think that possibly because there are physical changes that go along with this, for women, that it may not affect most men in the same way, either.

  5. 12 hours ago, cuchulain said:

    There is often a misunderstanding, sometimes deliberate I think, that other people cannot understand something without being a part of it.  What is human empathy for if not to try to understand the position of others?

    I don't have to be a father to understand how a father might respond to his child being threatened.  I don't have to be homosexual to understand how a homosexual person might feel being persecuted by others.  I don't have to be...well, you get the picture I am sure.

    The bottom line for me is my own conscience.  I would try my best not to harm another individual, period, because I would feel bad about myself for not having been capable of finding a better alternative.  I don't say I will never harm another person, but I will strive my best not to fail at that.

    I would normally agree with you, but not on this one. I'll be honest, Cuchulain- it really is different, for me at least. I had the strength of a number of convictions, some of which I have since done a complete 180 on, before having kids. I was far less concerned with the world at large, and definitely with people in general...very different worldview altogether. I was pretty nihilistic, and had a pretty negative view of the world. Pregnancy, birth, and parenthood changed me emotionally, mentally, and physically. (It did not turn me into a Republican, though, as someone told me it would! LOL)

    All joking aside, though, this is one where I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. 

  6. 7 hours ago, mererdog said:

    No, I do not have children. My wife and I are also each incapable of having children.

    I suppose the important question is whether the change in perspective makes you more able to see the truth or less able to see the truth. Which is a sort of difficult question to figure out, because the things that blind us to the truth usually blind us to the fact that they blind us to the truth.

    Strong emotional attachments can be very useful things, but they are also the root cause of a lot of tragedies. Because they have the ability to supress our critical thinking skills, they make us vulnerable to the sort of mistakes in judgement that are routinely exploited by our enemies.

    This is not an accusation against you or your arguments here, but a generalized lamentation about the human condition...


    Going back to my dog analogy, you mention the responsibility to protect your family. You understand that protecting your family and allowing the dog to live are not mutually exclusive propositions? Killing the dog is only one of many options for keeping the family safe. It has the benefit of being simple and fairly foolproof. It has the disadvantage of rendering you incapable of trying other options as you become aware of them. You can't unkill a dog, you know?

    Yes, I understand all of those things. I would still make the same decision, based on my knowledge at the time. It would break my heart, but it's what would have to be done. I don't see my non-human family members as being all that different from my human ones, tbh,'s not a matter of that. The strong emotional attachments run deep for all of my family.


    So, that being said, be aware that this means that I would be asking questions, checking with veterinarians and/or human doctors, and discussing it with a goodly number of people who are in a position to know what's possible and what's not. Based on the best information available, I would do what was necessary to protect people. I would report the case to the County Health Department, because it's a public concern. (Rabies is a problem here, especially this time of the year; someone's cat just dragged in a bat that tested positive, so we're on alert. We also get bubonic plague here.) This would be a concern to far more than just my family.


    I should think that that's the best use of critical thinking skills, and the best possible decision, given the facts at the time. You can't unkill a dog, it's true. But you can't disengage from greater society, with something like this. It would still be horribly irresponsible not to act on what you have to work with. Even if it breaks a piece of your soul off. (I am NOT going to argue about souls, LOL!)

    I don't see it as an accusation. We're good, Mererdog! :)

  7. 3 hours ago, cuchulain said:

    It recently came up in another topic in the monotheism section that logic is independent of person.  It also came up with the person in particular that they had a degree and therefore knew.  

    I have been considering this position a great deal over the last few days.  I stated during that particular debate something along the lines of my logic vs theirs, and they insisted that logic is independent of person, and therefore the same regardless of who is using it.

    I don't know that I agree or disagree.  I can understand that logic is a process.  It is defined as reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.  Principles are defined as a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning: and also;  a fundamental source or basis of something.

    So I wonder, where do principles come from?  Are they extraneous of man, or dependent on man to form?  From the definition, it certainly sounds as if principles depend upon man to define them.  And logic with a strict set of principles seems to me to require a human mind to form.  So I do not believe logic to be independent of man.  I fully acknowledge the possibility of being wrong, and am very welcome to input proving such.  


    So far as claiming a degree grants a certain amount of authority over a subject...I say hockey.  There are lots of assumptions about the world and the people within it.  There are lots of people in lots of different flavors.  I have known people who couldn't figure things out easily at all, and had to be handheld the entire way through any process repeatedly to get it.  Some of those people had degrees.  One subject, my wife, has a degree in mass communications, specializing in recording technologies, and can't hook up the dvd player!  I have known people who could reason with the best of them, determining on so few facts as to seem almost amazing to me, who had no formal education whatsoever.  I had a great grandfather who could beat the register with calculations, including tax, and never graduated middle school.  A piece of paper as authority seems very weak to me.

    Agreed, about the piece of paper...especially when you consider that it matters what country, and how wealthy it is, that piece of paper came from. Even the pieces of paper are subject to being, well, subjective. (And ridiculously elitist, sometimes.)

  8. 3 hours ago, AmberLF said:

    The one thing about all this is there is no quick fix or fast start. Take your time, enjoy the things you are learning. There are studies and research books on her that lay out the line of where she came from and comparing her to others along the way... how she was worshipped in different eras, etc. Go to Amazon and put her name in the search. Click on a book, scroll all the way down to the reviews and read both good and bad reviews. The longer the better so you can get a good idea of what it's about. I do this often with books and then call the local stores to see if they can order them for me. Most stores are happy to. I get my book and the store is supported so it can stay in business.

    I do the same thing! I also get ahold of a lot of books through the public library- and make purchase requests with them, if a book is particulary promising. 

  9. 13 hours ago, mererdog said:

    Would it be fair to say that your response is not about being protective, but about being vengeful? I ask because it looks that way, but looks can be deceiving.


    Imagine that your dog gets rabies (if you have no dog, you'll need to start by imagining you have a dog) and so you put it down. Now imagine that you run across a news article from a few months back that reads "Rabies cure found. Simple procedure removes all symptoms at any stage of disease." How would this effect you, emotionally? Would you feel that your ignorance of the cure justified your killing the dog, or would you just feel like a murderer?

    In answer to your first question: Both. It could easily be vengeful. I can't guarantee that it wouldn't be...someone wiser than myself said that having a child is the first time that their heart lived outside of their own body, and that's dead-on. It changes you. Also, bear in mind that when an adult harms a child, the damage done is usually huge, in proportion to what it would be, adult-to-adult.

    We have a dog. If such a thing occurred, I would feel terrible, but not like a murderer. Pet owners have a responsibility, and if their fur-family is at risk of seriously harming or killing other people or their fur family, or spreading a deadly disease, they need to act on the best information that they have available.

    However, there's this, too- there's no way I'd miss an article like that. I often assist others with wildlife rescue work, as well as domestic animal rescue- I can guarantee you, the second something that wonderful happens, I will be ON IT! ;)


    Mererdog- I have a question for you: do you have any children? That can change your perspective rather a lot. I know it did for me.

    • Like 1

  10. 6 hours ago, mererdog said:

    Why not?

    Welllll...wish I could give ya a good answer to that. If, say, someone hurt a child, and in a sick way, and there was zero doubt...could I? (Yes.) Would I? (Quite possibly...and if it was one of mine, it shifts to Very Likely.)

    So much for pacifism, I guess.

    Failed the acid test, LOL! 

    • Like 1

  11. On 8/23/2017 at 8:54 AM, RevTom said:

    Greetings and Good Tidings; Isn't it fascinating that in our daily walk through life, we meet many people who we just have brushing acquaintances with...the lady in the supermarket you exchanged hellos with, the man walking his dog you nodded Hi to at the red light, the person from years ago you met on the street and struck up a conversation with. In each of these instances, we leave an impression of some sort. That person also leaves an impression of some kind upon us. It is up to us what kind of impression that will be. We can work together to help make each other's journey pleasant, or be a hindrance to that journey. In so doing, we affect our own path by the same measure.

    I love it when people randomly start talking to me. I'm never lonely- but I find it interesting and fun, especially now that I'm a little older. It's always cool to hear what the universe has to say, when it prompts others to chat with me, in random places. I don't generally seek to start conversations, but don't mind it when others do. :)

    • Like 1

  12. 6 hours ago, RevTom said:

    Well, I put forth my reasoning for actions, and it is there. It has been a spirited debate, and has tested the waters of perceptions, which is good. We discuss and debate, and respectfully acknowledge differing opinions, and sometimes in light of the discussions, alter our own. Whether we retain our opinions and/or beliefs or change them, the purpose is served, and we are the better for it, IMO. 

    This has been a really good thread so far, and I really liked what you said. Thanks, RevTom! :)

    • Like 1


    6 hours ago, mererdog said:

    Fear of punishment causes people to avoid punishment. While this can theoretically cause people to avoid doing wrong, what it normally does is cause people to change tactics. The bully who backs down to your face will often stab you in the back. The bully who backs away from a fight often comes back with a gun or a gang. Convince the bully he can not get the best of  you, and you usually just send him in search of a softer target.


    If these things were not true, prison recidivism rates would be zero, wouldn't they? Once the police stand up to the bully, why does the bully keep victimizing? And why is it not a rarity for this repeat offending to happen, instead of the norm?


    I'd like to interject something here, and it may not sit well with everyone. 

    Some things are hardwired...wrong. If a dog is mad, or vicious, you put it down, to prevent harm. That's harsh, because a mad dog, it's not the dog's fault, right? But the illness will spread (if the dog has rabies), the damage will be done. So, you shoot it. Few people will argue that choice, when faced with that decision.


    Some people, likewise, are hardwired wrong. I would argue that, for example, the mis-named "sexual predators" are, by and large, hardwired wrong. Child molesters aren't perpetrating a sexual act, so much as an act of violence. Ditto for your rapists, particularly rapist/murderers. The predators themselves often say that this is the only enjoyment that they can Hardwired wrong. Pacifism will not work with them.

    I would also argue that people who intentionally bully children, beat them, abuse people weaker than themselves (such as the elderly, women, etc.), these people are sometimes hardwired incorrectly, too. And while I can sympathize with rough childhoods, having been abused themselves, etc.? I have also seen people who were...well, not right. Some aren't created by bad circumstances, either. Who had what I can only call true evil, in them. Sociopaths exist, and according to some, there may be as many among the rest of us as 1 in 26. Do we shoot 'em? Well, no. But we don't have to be their punching bags, or their broken toys, either.


    There are exceptions to pacifism. And the recidivism? For some people, that's just the next chapter in the game, for them.

    • Like 1

  14. 14 hours ago, Dan56 said:


    How do you help a mugger by willingly becoming his victim? That's like saying your unwilling to let a baby learn to walk because they might fall down and hurt themselves. When a person decides to steal, murder, rape, or harm others, your really not assigning value to their lives by condoning their choices. Your simply tolerating an abusive person because you don't care enough to correct them. Becoming a victim yourself does not make you an advocate of peace, it simply emboldens an abusive person to claim more victims.. jmo

    Yep. Definitely.

    • Like 1

  15. 6 hours ago, cuchulain said:

    The punishment for awful behavior is the same as the reward for good behavior.  We all die.  I think a lot of people believe death is a negative thing, that it's a horror inflicted on us, that...well, you get the idea, I suppose.  A lot of people think coffee is horrible too.  I personally think liver is horrible.

    Having terminal stomach cancer, among other painful illnesses, is also a very negative thing. Having worked in end-care, in the past, death doesn't begin to look like the worst thing that can happen to a person. Just sayin'. 

    2 hours ago, Diego_008 said:

    I DO know about the Valley of Hinnom, later called Gehenna. Jews to this day do not believe in Hell as such. I also know about Sheol, which is known in LXX Greek as Hades.


    But that is not the point. The NT does speak of Hell, and at least part of it IS eternal. I am not sure how any Christian can get around that.

    Yet another reason for some of us to entirely avoid the path of Abraham...there's more trees, over here! ;)

  16. 8 hours ago, RevTom said:

    Well, you are correct in that I do not believe a mugger's life has the same value as a doctor. It may sound harsh, but people make choices. If the choices they make are to cause others harm and they are bent on their path of destruction, then yes, I will meet that affront with all the force necessary to subdue it. 

    I concur, RevTom. I have a certain predisposition towards protecting my own, as well. And I do think less, of men who hit women and children. *Shrugs* 

    Never claimed to be perfect! ;)

    • Like 1