Pete

We do not know Dan if Luke is accurate although I acknowledge you strongly believe it. As for other points I think we are a church or assembly of people. However your latter point is (imo) true of many of us. It is this mix of people and views that gives such opportunity to ULC members to learn and grow. We are not afraid to tackle difficult questions straight on. true in my opinion.

It is just an ill informed attack on the ULC. As for the founder being illiterate part I think you would find Kirby achieved a lot for someone who this guy calls illiterate. I guess if he had stayed a pentecostal minister then he would be seen as well educated. It is just bias twaddle from this guy. Even then there is no evidence that Jesus was literate or could read and write. There is nothing written by him personally or statement he read something and yet for many he has have respect even from this guy. He feels it right to attack others and call them illiterate for not agreeing with him. As I understand the word Church it refers to an assembly and is therefore not owned by Christians alone. It comes from the greek word Ekklesia for an assembly, congregation, of meeting house. It is not exclusive to Christianity and rightly used by the ULC. He says the ULC is a Pagan cult and yet the ULC is open to all faiths and viewpoints including Christianity. Does he think the Christians on this forum are all Pagans? If he only read a bit about Paganism he may then have more respect than to try to use it as a term to insult someone, but my guess this guy has no idea about Paganism or any other faith group for that matter. He has not spoken to members of the forum or even the Christians here. So how does he know what constitutes the membership here. He says the UlC ordination is not legal and yet it is and this is even so in the few states where they do not allow ULC members to do a marriage ceremony. One does not need legal permission to call themselves a religious minister. It does seem he bases his idea of the ULC on the monastery but uses the term globally. He invites people to consult him for advice. I really think not so as I do not think he knows what he is talking about. .

Well said Luis. Thank you for reminding me what is important here.

Does not that definition make the ULC not a cult as we have no formal beliefs or ritual or adherence.

There is always one who puts their mouth into gear without knowing what they are talking about. Came across this:- See:- http://www.ministers-best-friend.com/Universal-Life-Church-The-TRUE-ONE-Beware-the-CULT-ONE.html We have millions of members from a broad spectrum of faiths and view points and yes some very earnest Christians and according to this guy we are also all a pagan cult. Being called pagan has no problems for me but on this - Well

You have a lot of questions there friend and I have no knowledge of Belgium law. However, I hope this helps. Basically the ULC ordains you for your ministry. What your ministry is depends on your values and beliefs. You are responsible for your ministry. The ULC does not tell you what that is or how to perform it other than to ask you to do what is right. You can wear what you like unless local national laws says you cannot. The ULC does not determine what that is. You can buy clothing from the ULC forum store but you do not have to be restricted to these only. Each nation has its own laws about how a Marriage, Exorcism or Baptism is conducted and I personally cannot say what that is in Belgium. The ULC does not prescribe what your ministry is and does not hold authority over it. It is not like authoritarian churches that hold you to a set of beliefs, creeds or practices and subjects you to be subservient to a hierarchy. I guess the question is what do you want your ministry to be like. After all it is yours.

No argument there Jonathan

Been there many times my friend. I hope things get better.

With respect my friend, I think I missed something. I understood their comments were directed at the artical which all seem to note it pretends to be scientific but is let down by its vague comments and ill defined use of words concepts like religion or spirituality and for that matter analysis and intuition. I thought all were saying the same thing as you were and giving the article a thumbs down. What you said was (imo) sound.

I am more with the issue of the idea of analysis being everything. I remember Star trek Captain Picard talking to Data. Data said it would be impossible and Picard replied a thing is impossible until it is not. I think of a view of a would be visitor who could see humanity when they hunted animals, lived in caves, and grunted to one another. Analysis would likely be they would not amount to much but later they would land on the moon, split the atom and peer into the farthest parts of the universe and still use intuition and ambition to continue in its pursuits. The problem I see is that analysis does not describe everything it is to be human. What about our dreams and hopes and views and the faiths of mankind that has carried us through many things where logic and analysis would have declared there was no hope. It may well be analysis does diminish religion or spirituality but in my mind when it is the only arbiter it also diminishes what it is to be human. Analysis may well be wonderful with what it reveals but intuition is also wonderful with what it achieves and I for one would not like to be ruled just by analysis and (imo) such narrow perception only. Analysis maybe a good tool but I believe we need intuition too. It is that which I found interesting about the article and those who seem to think analysis is all.

Maybe, but I think that was the point of random groups and control groups and repeating the experiment more than once. I have a lot of respect for analysis and intuition. I am not trying to make a point here except I found it interesting.

Research in the magazine "Scientific American" (April 25, 2012) suggests that people who use analytical thinking are less likely to be religious or believe in the supernatural whilst those who use intuition are more likey to be the opposite. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/losing-your-religion-analytic-thinking-can-undermine-belief/ I realise that both intuition and analysis are both useful traits in problem solving and useful skills to have in life. I also note the differences in the test results are marked but not overwhelming, but I find them interesting.

Would you have gone if you had real chance of going?

I see there are people competing to go to Mars and live there. I also note that this is likely a one way journey. So no hospitals and no one to care for you if you get ill. If you have a stroke or a heart attack then your on your own. No going out for meals or visiting friends. Years in a small place of living, Sand storms that can cover the planet for months and -20 c is as warm as it gets. If you get a leak in your space suit then you start to boil alive. On the plus side, there is plenty of rocks. Just wondering if anyone here would like to go if they got the chance.

Firstly you believe in a God. Whilst some would agree with you others do not. For some the connection with God and Santa is similar as neither can be proved and many see both as a myth. Now I know you do not but equally others have a right to beleive how they feel too. Its not meant to be insulting - it is just a fact of life that whatever you beleive someone somewhere will disagree and see things differently. You see the need for reverence to a God. Others do not see or percieve there is a God and will have differing views about those who do beleive in a God. Lets face it believers feel no concern over calling none believers sinners and unsaved dispite their beliefs about the issue.

I think you do not understand Atheist's. The only thing that connects them is a none acceptance of the idea of a God or Gods. Some believe in a soul and some in an after life and some do not. However, that said I think you will find the idea of proving you have a soul as difficult as you proving there is a God. You may have a belief but that is not the same thing as having varifiable proof. Therefore to some they see it as nonsense. Each to their own.

So you think atheists do not have a soul

Then there is the debate whether God is actually bothered by what we microbes on a speck of dust in a vast universe of possibly many. We only have human opinion that it is so.

My point was in response to your view of only God believing people recognising they have faults. In this I disagree with you

Ever tried to count all those who have been killed in the name of God by those who felt it was righteous to do so?

I agree. It is similar but more complex as Cuchulain points out.. There are things I have let go but know that they could crop up again and make it all come back. An example of this is in the one I gave. The lady concerned may have forced me to let it go but in the fact that I do not believe she has changed and could likely do this again (flooding and attempted arson) I have not fully forgiven.

I think so. It is often not possible for all to put right what has gone before but if all have let it go then I would call that forgiveness. That is not the same as forget.

Christianity kind of goes both ways. The Kingdom is within, it is entered at rebirth, and it is to come. How this is interpreted depends upon one's denomination but all suggest a change of heart needs to take place to enter it. So we are not just mentioning another form of nirvana that is achievable without a God. However if one changes the word Kingdom for Enlightenment we can get a similar scenario. In that many will say Enlightenment comes from within, it changes a person, and it rescues people from continual rebirth into a state of Nirvana. For me forgiveness is a letting go so that new growth can come about. If we hang onto the past and faults of ours or the fault of others then we remain in the past and do not move on. In this the question is does not necessarily referring to God but can you forgive one's self and others and free one's self of this.

Maybe we should have put the flags at half mast for Saddam Hussein.

Its about oil. If he had none no one would give a damn about him.