mererdog

You aren't actually disagreeing with me. I am not saying that is their purpose, but simply that it is something they rely on. A degree is not a guarantee of competence, nor does lack of a degree indicate a lack of competence. The same is true of an ordination. The ULC ordains all, without question. One justification often given for this comes in the form of the rhetorical question "What seminary did the Apostles attend?"

I don't know what the actual motive is, but my best guess is that it brings in money. However unseemly that may be, money is critical for the continued operation of any organization, so it is a worthy motive. That said, the degree programs fit perfectly within the ULC's goal of freedom through equality. Ministers can't get special treatment if everyone is a minister. A religious degree won't get you special treatment if those are easy to get. With both the ordination and the degrees, it isn't so much a legitimization of the person bearing the title as it is a delegitimization of the hierarchical systems that rely on an assumption that a title indicates some degree of superiority.

Somewhat. Definitions are context specific. This means that the right definition to use depends on the context of the use. For the purposes of studying and scrutinizing someone else's work, it is important to (as much as possible) use the same definitions as they did. If I am using specialized jargon, dictionary definitions won't help you understand what I say, you know? Scientific studies often rely on unusual and very specific definitions for terms commonly used with much broader definitions- but they normally tell you when they are doing so. Most people do the same, from time to time, but they rarely give you the heads up. So we often have to go through the trouble of sussing out their meaning by examining context clues or *shudder* asking them. In terms of proving a claim, the person doing the proving should provide the definition for their terms. Others defining their terms for them (even by defining them as indefinable) becomes a quick case of building strawmen.

This is a public forum. I am not the only one reading your words. You are not the only one reading mine. When you use dangerous rhetoric to demonize others, I feel obligated to speak fairly and attempt to humanize those you have demonized. If for no other reason than the fact that it makes it less likely that others will pile on and turn this into a topic about why Christians are bad people.

Which means that you cannot prove a soul exists. It does not mean that no one can. To assert otherwise is to invoke the Argument From Ignorance.

They have been defined. There are simply multiple, conflicting definitions for each. It is not uncommon to have multiple, conflicting theories about how things work, prior to someone producing conclusive evidence. And where you have competing theories, you will usually have competing definitions for for at least some of the theoretical concepts involved.

Not directly. However, current mores say the proper way to respond to terrorism is with violence. So to call someone a terrorist is to encourage violence against them.

I have no idea. I do not even know where you would begin. I also don't have a strong desire to know, so I'm not real motivated to put much effort into finding out. I'm afraid if society relied on guys like me for scientific progress, there would be very little scientific progress.

Trying to do the impossible is the only way to learn what is possible.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but aren't you basically just saying that we should allow fear of unjust persecution limit how we exercise our First Amendment rights? Stay in the closet so you won't get hurt?

It signifies that you met standards set by an educational body. Nothing more and nothing less. The real meaning of any credential comes from the credentialing body. A degree from Chico State means something drastically different than the same degree from Harvard. A degree from the ULC means something drastically different than the same degree from Harvard Divinity. That people do not understand this is not the fault of the ULC, or of those who hold ULC degrees. It is not stolen valor when people assume the Surgeon General must be in the Army.

Huh. I got the "mediator" result with five sets of slightly different answers. Guess they are pretty sure about me...

"We should embrace diversity because we are all the same, really." - A high school teacher I saw on the news one time...

I am a pacifist. I take a stand against violence every day. I have no special hate or fear of terrorists. I don't believe in a lesser evil, remember? It is normal for pacifism to be misconstrued as cowardice, however, so you aren't exactly breaking new ground by calling me spineless and trying to shame me into attacking someone. Water under the bridge.

You seem to be trying to bully me into standing up to people you feel bully you. Its kind of gross. Am I missing something?

It would be nice if life were simpler, wouldn't it? Everything the way it seems. Everything we think is true, true. It would be nice. Kinda boring, though.

I don't know. I take it as a given that a danger can be real whether I realize it or not. And while some encourage fear of Hell as a coercion technique, others do it for the same basic reasons you would encourage a child to fear a hot stove. They believe the danger is real and they care enough about others to warn them.

Yes. You are convinced that they are wrong, and that their beliefs cause harm. This does not put you in a position to easily respect them. Of course, they are convinced that you are wrong, and that your beliefs cause harm, which makes it hard for them to respect you. It isn't the ideal basis for social justice, peace, and harmony, n'est-ce pa?

It is an O'Henry-style irony that when preaching inclusivity of belief it is common to marginalize and demonize beliefs that are exclusive in nature. I strongly suspect that the reason for this disconnect lies in the difference between tolerance and apathy. It is easy to overlook differences that do not matter to us. It is easy to allow someone to do what does not effect us. It takes mental effort to put up with the things we don't like. It is downright difficult to allow someone to do what we believe harms us. There are many paths up the mountain. But some of them require swimming in lava, and some of them require knocking rocks onto the heads of the people taking the paths below you.

It makes perfect sense that Italians would take offense at all the negative stereotypes that get thrown at them, and that a "We're not all gangsters" movement would be started. It makes even more sense that gangsters would see such a movement as the perfect way to build a legitimate public image for themself while simultaneously bullying law enforcement into softening their tactics. Aren't group identity and guilt by association fun? The more we focus on groups, rather than on individuals, the farther away justice is....

It had nothing to do with Italians facing up to anything. I suggest a quick search using the phrase "Apalachin Meeting". The Mafia had a very public unveiling, making it too embarrassing for people like J Edgar Hoover to keep saying there is no such thing. Why he denied it so fervently prior to that is a good question, and the start of many a conspiracy theory, but I find it highly doubtful that guys like Hoover were motivated by a desire to avoid being politically incorrect...

The notion that being a pacifist means being passive, or that being an anarchist means being destructive. I suppose the biggest misconception is the notion that you can know who someone is by knowing who they are not.

Really?

The Liars Paradox doesnt exist in the real world because of that "mostly" word. Even if we take as a given that 99.9999% of what I say is wrong, you still have to watch out for that little bit of truth creeping in....

Stereotypes work by exploiting flaws in how we perceive averages. They exist as distorted representations of what is typical. You see mostly black balls, so you assume that most balls are black. But you have not seen most balls, and the black balls are more noticeable to you than the white balls- so your assumption is based on faulty data.