mererdog

That would depend on the specifics of the situation. Of course the odds of that happening are miniscule. I don't assume theft is ok simply because I may someday be unable to find food without stealing. I simply do my best to lead a life that does not place me in situations where I feel compelled to steal.

It is your belief, therefore, that threats cannot be effectively handled in nonviolent ways. That belief is proven false by the many times threats have been effectively handled nonviolently. When people find themselves in situations where they think their only options are to fight or die, they usually have other options they just haven't thought of.And purely as a matter of theological consistency, I can believe you when you tell me that I am god and I create my own reality, or I can believe you when you tell me that there are times I have to resort to violence.

\Pacifism is the renunciation of the use of physical violence as a problem-solving tool. It would be antithetical to my nature to be anything else. It is a mistake to consider what is unusual to be unnatural. In nature, what is usual today is not usual tomorrow, because what is effective in today's environment is not effective in tomorrow's. If we do not do things that we have not done before -if we do not do things that no other animal has done before- we will not survive as a species. That is not meant to suggest that pacifism is necessary to prevent extinction, of course. Merely to point out a flaw in your reasoning...

No. There is no necessary for an all powerful God. It is really simple. You are trying to deem it necessary because it is the only way it could qualify as right under the qualifications you stated. That does not mean that God deems it necessary. Once again, if God is all powerful, God does what God want to. No ifs. No ands. No buts. As simple as that.

If there is nothing that God cannot do, that purpose could have been served without the flood or plagues- Because God could have done it differently. That is, once again, cut and dried. To get Biblical about it, note that Pharaoh was ready to give in before the final plague, but God hardened his heart. An all-powerful God does not do what is necessary, He does what He wants. There is simply no logical way around that.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are saying here. In order for it to be necessary for God to do bad to bring about a greater good, it must be true that God cannot get the greater good without doing bad. If there is anything God cannot do, under any circumstance, God is not all-powerful. That is pretty cut and dried. According to the Bible, God drowned the entire world and killed all the first-born sons of Egypt as part of His "correction." But that wasn't murder, right? Because it made a greater good?

That is always possible. There are few, if any, real guarantees in life. The thing is, I would rather die doing right than live doing wrong. How about you?

I saw a thing on the news once where a man with a gun burst into a home demanding money. Inside the home were a pair of ladies who calmly asked the man if he would sit down for a cup of tea and offered to talk to him about whatever was bothering him. The man ended up apologizing, and leaving the house in tears. It happens. Of course, the story only played once on the late news as a human interest puff piece. Had the man shot the two elderly women, the story would have been repeated more often. Had there been an attractive blond lady involved, it would have made the national news.There are two points to mentioning this. One is that peaceful solutions don't get press. The second is that not knowing a nonviolent solution to a problem is not the same a nonviolent solution to the problem not existing. And in the rush to excuse resorting to violence, we often discourage looking for nonviolent solutions. After all, once you have decided that nonviolence cannot work, you will never give it a real try, will you?

That sort of excuse can only apply to God if you assume that God is not all-powerful. Otherwise, nothing is "a necessity" for God, but merely wanted or unwanted. If the ends justify the means, there is nothing wrong with strangling a baby, provided that something good comes from it. I reject that idea, based on my conscience telling me in no uncertain terms that there is never a time when strangling a baby is not wrong.

Exodus also commands that witches and people who curse their parents are to be put to death. And that an ox that gores someone is stoned to death. Does it matter whether or not those rules are followed?You talk about Christ, so let me ask you if you think Matt 7:7-11 has anything to do with this subject....

Of course you do. Freedom of speech is a very basic right, without which freedom of religion is meaningless. If you choose not to exercise the right, perhaps because you believe that doing so would be wrong, you still have a very basic right to tell anyone you want how to worship, how to cut their hair, or what to eat for dinner.Evangelism is a central part of many religions. To speak of religious freedom without acknowledging the right to try to convince others of the merits of your faith is like wanting water that is never wet. You do not like evangelism. You don't have to. You have spoken out against evangelism. You are allowed to. But others are still free to decide for themselves that evangelism is the right thing to do.

It has always been true that more people buy books than write them....

Formal debates do, but Parliamentary debates can include chair-throwing.

Another thing that might be worth mentioning.... The forum sections dedicated to "discussion of things of concern or import to ULC members or affiliates" seem to currently be outnumbered by the forum sections dedicated to "the few posts that were not really related to the purpose of this forum". Is this just a case where policy hasn't caught up with a change in philosophy? Or did it sort of happen without anyone realizing that it happened?

You were ordained without question of what you believe. Yes, the ULC will support you. That does not mean that individual ULC ministers, congregations or bookstores will do the same. The freedom to consider things asinine is, after all, a two-way street.

I have nothing against cannibalism.

Can anyone think of somewhere on the web that has as much activity as this forum, but does not have not as much (or more) of that sort of activity? I can't think of one, which is a lot of why I frequent this board as much as I do. If you do know of some, a comparison of how moderators work there versus here might be beneficial.

Why? Many people disagree with you about that. What I have noticed is mostly basic disagreement over what constitutes "respectfully" leading to simple personality conflicts. As for the need to be right- Well, isn't that what causes people to react negatively to being told they are wrong?

The question at hand is not really whether or not you are wrong, but whether or not you are willing to allow others to tell you that you are wrong. Because there are others who believe that you are wrong. Not only that, there are people for whom belief that you (and others) are wrong is a central tenet of their faith. So are you willing to let them tell you what they believe? Are you willing to be told that you are wrong, even when you don't think it is possible that you are? That, to me, is the central issue of religious freedom. I agree completely.

Its been done. Fairly well, in a few cases. If eternal life is possible, there is no reason to believe that it is not possible to sustain an unlimited population. Perhaps instead of using the way things are as an excuse to stagnate, we should use the way things could be as motivation to innovate?

Our memories of the past seem to differ in important ways. My first lengthy post on this forum (well, technically, it was the forum that led to this forum) was about the need to be willing to let others tell you that you are wrong. I firmly believe that single character trait is absolutely necessary to allow others religious freedom. I also firmly believe that anyone who is not willing to allow others religious freedom is not ready for the ULC.

It would be interesting to see how much that remains true with the biological factors taken out of the equation?

Many businesses run successful models built around attracting loud, obnoxious drunks who cause a lot of trouble. While these are places I do not choose to frequent, there are obviously lots of people who want to do so. So the question is not necessarily about what it takes to be successful so much as what kind of success you want to have. Because a successful dive bar, a successful chain restaurant, a successful night club, and a successful church will all be doing very different things to attract the sort of customers who will be interested in the services they provide.... In terms of this forum, we would have more posts and more posters if the conduct standards were looser, but the majority of those posts would be things that Brother Kevin does not want to store on the servers he pays for. So, in my opinion, quality is a better goal than quantity.

Oh, that doesn't always mean anything...

I'm talking about safe from verbal abuse.