mererdog

By the same token, a minister is also not trained to determine who does and does not have "real psychogical issues," nor to determine which "real psychological issues" require specialized treatment outside of the minister's ability to perform. As such, denying someone the same services given to others, solely on the basis of a presumption of "real psychological issues," could be nothing more than discrimination against the disabled (or the presumed disabled), which is illegal. Now, if someone's actions or personality make you feel they won't benefit from your services, that is a perfectly reasonable thing to say, and it can be done without resorting to an amateur psychological diagnosis. Bear in mind that a minister will necessarily be faced with a lot of people who are under severe psychological stress. The grieving and those in existential crisis tend to flock to the church, and their temporary emotional states can mimic the symptoms of some pretty nasty disorders. So, really, if a minister refuses to help anyone who seems crazy, he makes himself able to only help those who need his help the least.

Hello

If you are on a phone or tablet using cell data instead of Wi-Fi, my advice won't help and I have none better to give you. That said.... Unplug the box or boxes connecting your computer to the internet. They will be the ones attached to your cable or phone line... Or your satellite, if you are really rural. Wait a minute, plug everything back in, and wait for it to boot back up. The box may have the wrong numbers associated with the words ulc.net, like a Rolodex with outdated phone numbers. Turning it on after it has no power for a moment clears out the old numbers. And it can't hurt, so its worth a try. Doing the same with your computer on a semi-regular basis is also usually a good idea.

Got that one yesterday, but it went away. If memory serves, you may need to power cycle your modem/router to clear the old DNS entries.

Objective evidence is an impossibility. The subjective nature of observation cannot be avoided or eliminated- it can only be accounted for. Remember that objective facts don't become evidence until they are filtered through that subjective observation. If noone sees it, it can't prove anything to anyone. You have a unique perspective that limits the hows and whats of your observations. A man with a microscope and a man with a telescope simply cannot gather the same evidence as each other. Being aware of this is crucial to properly designing experimental controls, which is what allows for at least some semblance of objectivity in the interpretation of evidence.

Empirical evidence is evidence based on experience or observation, both of which have an inherently subjective nature. It will necessarily differ from person to person. That can actually be useful, as long as it is properly accounted for... Imagine two people standing on opposite ends of a fairly short length of train track. As a train moves along the track, each person has a distinct perspective which leads to a distinct experience: The noise gets progressively louder to one and progressively quieter to the other. By understanding the hows and whys bethind the observational difference, you can figure out which way the train is going, and maybe even how fast. One of the reasons that reproduction is so important to the scientific method is that we can potentially learn more when everyone gets different results than when everyone's results are the same...

My very cursory research indicates that is not true. This looks like one of those cases where a literal translation makes literally no sense, which is usually caused by figurative and/or idiomatic language in the original text. The problem stems from the translation of one Greek word, “eisenènkes,” said Massimo Grilli, a professor of New Testament studies at Gregorian University in Rome. “The Greek verb ‘eisfèro’ means ‘take inside,’ and the form used in the prayer, ‘eisenènkes,’ literally means ‘don’t take us inside,’ ” he added. “But that’s a very literal translation, which must be interpreted,” Grilli said. A 4th century Latin translation of the Bible by St. Jerome, which was adopted by the Catholic Church, sticks to the literal meaning, using the Latin “inducere,” which means “bring in.” https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-vatican-our-father-20171208-story,amp.html

Why? I mean, I can understand not removing it simply for the sake of removing it, but are you sure there isn't a more accurate translation?

Ok. I still think that the wording of an oft-repeated prayer has the power to shape faith.

The wording of a prayer oft-repeated has the power to shape faith.

The way you ended your post suggests to me that it boils down to an interpersonal hot-cold empathy gap. If those words are unfamiliar, it's worth the time to look it up. The research is fascinating.

Only if they want violence, or the threat thereof, to be used to prevent them from being offended. Otherwise, it makes send that they would take the complaint directly to the offending person. When my neighbor's music was preventing me from sleeping, I went next door, explained the situation, and asked him to turn it down. He apologized and it hasn't been an issue since. Per local noise ordinance, he was within his rights to be loud at noon on a Tuesday, but I keep weird hours and he was nice enough to accomodate me... Small favors make the world go round...

Like the International Jewish Conspiracy?!? Sorry. I know its a cheap shot, and likely to offend the irony-blind, but it made me laugh to type it, so it might brighten someone's day... Anyway, disgust is a personal reaction that is not really about the object of the disgust. What I find disgusting, a gay man may find sexy (and vice versa). What I find disgusting, you may find delicious (and vice versa). To thrive in a free society requires a combination of controlling how we express our disgust, and controlling how we disgust others. Personally, I HATE seasonal decorations. Every year, people joyfully stick the tackiest garbage in their yards and on their walls under the pretext of being "festive." Being out at night can feel like the world is trying to turn me elileptic, what with a million out of sync blinking lights screaming for attention from every direction. To sum up: It is disgusting and hard to ignore. And yet, I like living in a society- II don't long for the hermitage. So I exercize patience and I practice tolerance. And,also, because I know how visceral my reactions to decorations can be, I try to remain cognizant of how my decorating affects others.

Is it safe to assume that part of that involved making an occasional small sacrifice just to keep the peace? Even if was unfair, or even if the other guy was just being stupid?

Will that happen before or after we get beaten up for saying the wrong thing to the wrong guy? "Carrying a firearm has taught me great patience with fools, reduced my road rage and made me very polite. Should I ever have to use my firearm to defend myself, family or property, I can never be seen to have picked a fight or incited others to violence."

You know that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy? There seem to be two separate threads to your argument. One seems to be that you shouldn't be nice to other people, because other people arent nice. The second seems to be that you have no responsibility to avoid harm to yourself, provided you can say that the harm is someone else's fault. Does my interpretation of your position seem accurate to you?

Of course. And if we never avoid doing things that will offend?

Once someone complains about your actions, you have been warned that those actions produce a negative reaction from that person. At that point, if you choose to continue those actions, you are choosing to provoke a negative reaction. As such, any harm that arises due to the negative reaction you provoke is an avoidable consequence of your decision. So the key question to ask is "Are the potential rewards of this course of action worth the potential costs?"

Sometimes. Often, it begins with competition for limited resources. You know... two guys fighting over the same girl... that sort if thing? Often, it begins with a base prejudice of the "He looks like a punk" variety. Often, it starts with an inherited grudge, because someone's grandfather did something to someone else's grandfather.

Ah, the age old "I can't think of a better answer, so it must be God." To be fair, though, I've seen atheists point to mosquitoes as proof that God doesn't exist. Conclusion-vaulting is not limited to any specific religious perspective.

I live with the reality that exists, not the reality that should exist. My neighbor should have the common courtesy to clean up after his dog, but that doesn't mean I dont have to watch where I step... Assuming that I want clean shoes more than I want an excuse to be angry at my neighbor...

Be ready for more complaints, and for the possibility that someone will escalate.

According to Von's account, "She was passing by and told me putting out a Buddha like that was offensive.... especially at Christmas time." So we know what caused the offense is the statue being out the way it was. Removing the statue from where the neighbor can see it would seem an effective way to prevent that offense, if preventing offense is the goal.

Not quite. You can only have one supreme individual per category of individuals, but you can also have a category of individuals that is supreme. Cookies are the best kind of food. Oreos are the best kind of cookie. The Oreo in my hand is the best Oreo. If no other kind of being is equal to or greater than gods, gods are supreme beings. If one god is superior to all other gods, that god is the supreme being.

Polytheism often involves gods of limited power. Gods that struggle and war and generally don't get their own way all the time. If that were the case, the world would not necessarily look the way the gods want it to.