Youch
-
Posts
6,005 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Youch
-
-
Happy, as a retired Officer, I am sure you never liked giving Art15s, but it was sometimes required
True that! Such a comment brings many memories/stories to the forefront of my mind.
Nevertheless, does site management want to expand membership and participation?
-
awesome!!!
-
I've been doing some thinking about this a lot, of late.
There's always going to be room for improvement.
Of course we'd like more actively posting members. Of that, there is no doubt. While I don't really want to just open the floodgates and let everyone attack each other at whim, I prefer to have members that can be civil to each other. I'm not saying they always have to agree with each other (far from it), but be civil when they DO disagree.
I recently had a discussion with a moderator who we felt was coming off a bit more harsh than probably intended. In my attempts to explain how I felt members should be treated when they come to us, I explained that, in that sense, we'd treat them as we would a customer coming to us with a complaint.
Well, you can imagine how that went over. Not well at all. And I've been blasted for it ever since! (
) In hindsight, I probably phrased the whole thing poorly. I can accept fault for that.Truth is, while yes, this forum is attached to the ULC.net website, which is a for profit bookstore for the ULC, I don't CARE about the sales side of the site.
While I have immeasurable respect for Kevin and his bookstore, it makes no difference to me whether or not he sells one more minister credential or saint certificate. I just don't care. This forum is NOT a focus for the main website.
I'd like to find a balance between having decent members, and a decent member count.
I like to think this place is a community for the members. Not the customers, not the "numbers", but the people behind the screens.
I also agree that in the past, we had a more vibrant community. However, nature of the beast, people come and go. Many (thousands) of our members sign up, maybe thinking it's a requirement of the ordination process, and then never return. Many register, look at the content of some of the threads, and think that maybe it's not the type of environment that they are searching for. Which is cool, our posting styles may not be for everyone. It's impossible to be able to cater to every person who signs up.
We have very detailed rules in place, and sometimes people feel they are unable to abide by those rules. Some people leave on their own, sometimes it's necessary to remove their access priviledges. Those who know me, know that I'm reluctant to bring that power to bear, tho, because often, the members that I end up having to remove for rule violations are indeed some of the more colorful and interesting people.
Being a forum administrator is not an exact science. I fully admit, before you and everyone, that I can make mistakes. I'm human, as far as you know, and things happen.
I have a couple of background forum issues brewing right now that have been going on for months, and I still don't know how to correct them without ticking a large number of people off.
My desires, really, are simple: I want a community of people that are able to discuss topics of varying natures, with the abilty to remain civil when disagreements arise (as they inevitably will.) I really DON'T want a bunch of people flingin crap at each other just because they can't agree.
Murph, thank you for taking the time to address my concern/post/questions.
Also, some of the more “exciting” people (Trevor/Clueless Git, JohnE, fruitloup, Lord Occultis, Old Nick, and Hyper Real) were banned.
Yes, I miss those folks. But rules are rules, and personal decisions are personal decisions.....
But was Hyper Real really banned? Must have been recent..... I always cringe at the thought, even when I know such a decision is necessary.
-
With only a handful of repetitive members, a good question to the Forum might be to ask, why so few posting members? Why only a handful of regular participants? Is this a tolerant social forum that wants to attract more members? Is it a personal whim? Is it a business model that isn't working?
I don't know about the rest of you, but this forum used to be much more exciting, engaging, diverse and stimulating. Tolerant might be a term used loosely at various times over the years......
While I have been on this forum for a long time, I don't know anything about Kevin, and precious little about Murph. I would be interested to know what the motives, goals and desires are of the "managment team" of this forum. Is it even wrong to ask the question?
and 
,
-
Isn't 'class warfare' just a catchy shorthand for people who want to end discussions about inequality and legal jiggery pokery by claiming that even suggesting that the poor are being treated comparatively unfairly is an aggressive act bordering on hate crime?
No. It has to do with pitting one "class" against the another. It is the cornerstone of liberal politics. If you want me to elaborate, I will.
-
Envy, jealousy and class warfare......
Isn't 'class warfare' just a catchy shorthand for people who want to end discussions about inequality and legal jiggery pokery by claiming that even suggesting that the poor are being treated comparatively unfairly is an aggressive act bordering on hate crime?
No, as that would not even make any sense.
When poor people look for ways to reduce their taxes and effectively increase their income from the government it gets called benefit fraud and leaching off the system.
No it isn't.. That would be called voting conservative Unless of coure your point only reflects the recipients of the entitlement society. In which case, you are more a statist activist rather than an advocate for the underemployed.
When rich people do it the government loses even more money, but that's just good business.
Let's take your dangerous assumption that the "government loses even more money." ITS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS MONEY. The government cannot lose money that is not theirs to begin with. Get it??? Seriously, do you understand this?
I see nothing wrong with challenging the perceptions of society on matters such as this. If challenging predominant societal philosophies regarding the rich and the poor is class warfare, then so be it.
Yes liberalism, and the inevitable progressivism or socialism, or the catch-all 'statism' is definately class warfare. It's all they got. Divisiveness. Class warfare......
-
Purpose of existence? To exist. It is life's prime directive.
A better question would be why so many humans act in a manner completely antithetical to this prime directive.
Because we have free will--and a very highly untamed ego which disconnects us from --well for me it is called God--for others maybe called reason--to you, well you only know.
blessings,
Suzanne
So, to you the ego is disconnected from the mind?
-
While many dear ULC members can't wait to cry foul when a person at the bottom of society takes a double dip on some charities making a couple of hundred dollars to make ends meet let's see how the rich deal with it.
They do not want to break the law, and even while the judges frequent their country clubs the judges still cannot be too biased in favor of their polo buddies.
So what do you do?
Simple: You construct things in such a way it is lawful.
After all, isn't the spiel for them to rig the system within the limits of the law, who cares about morality, it is lawful end of story!
Who cares about right and wrong, these things are for dreamers, we are talking about higher things like creativity and entrepreneurial spirit here! The big wrong is welfare mothers getting an extra few hundred dollars unlawfully not those who rig the system within the law and collect millions, no they are the entrepreneurial and smart, Michael Milken like, role models.
Introducing DUI driving 'polo' billionaire.John Goodman.
Looks like is he going to lose some pennies from his over 1 billion net worth.
What a heartbreak and taxes are already so high for him!
Is it greed?
No, it is not greed, really he needs all that money, times are tough you know!
Yes, welfare needs to be cut because we see welfare mothers with cell phones, enough said!
So what do you do, well, you adopt a child!
Well aint that a nice thing, looks like the man has a good heart after all!
Well really?
The adopted girl is not particularly a girl anymore, more like a girlfriend.
Her age: only 42 and she is his girlfriend.
Envy, jealousy and class warfare......
-
This is the reason why I think it is a good idea to know about different religions if we want to live in peace with each other.
Three responses:
1. Your underlying assumption is that religion is both protagonist and antagonist in the play for peace on earth?? I find that fascinating, and also probably true.
2. Why would I need to know anything about your religion to live in peace with you?????
If members of a religion are not causing you harm in any way, you have no basis to judge your peaceability with them based on religiosity. The converse must then also be true.....since radical members of a particular religion are currently waging war against, for the lack of a more concise term, western culture, and using religious imperative as their justification, then clearly degrees of peaceability can based on religion and supports your notion that knowing more about the underlying philosophy is important to find peace in a hostile environment. Hope I've made my thoughts on the subject clear!!
Then again, some would say it is peaceability via various religions that promotes the peaceful environment not to care what someone else's religion is!
3. Beyond that, if you want to know about a particular religion, Google might be the best portal to find Mormonism to mean whatever you want it to mean, ya know what I mean?
But what you won't find are credible references to Mormons causing anything resembling the hate, intolerance, terrorism, oppression, and dysfunction that we find in another. I mean, wouldn't some OTHER religion in the world be MORE of a concern for you to "learn and understand" for peace in the world??? -
As I age I find I question myself and my motivations for why I do, think and respond as I do in all aspects of my life, I also wonder how I came to the beliefs I have today.
Of course I also ponder why others think, do and respond as they do, sometimes this seems simple and obvious, like: one of my sisters who lives in Florida was planting a few fruit trees several years ago in her yard and I asked if she was going to plant any orange trees, she reacted at once very harshly with "Oh no I HATE orange trees" so I asked her "why" and she could find no real cause, first she said they were messy, but all fruit bearing trees drop ripe and over ripe fruit so are messy, then she said they stink but admitted she loved oranges and the smell of oranges, so left it as "I don't know why I don't like them i just don't like them" even as she was planting other citrus trees, but I later recalled on a trip to Florida one year when she was young and we went to an orange grove to pick our own oranges and there she was stung many times after stepping in the opening for an underground yellow jackets nest, I called her and reminded her of this event, and we concluded this could be the root cause of her hatred of Orange trees, even as the tree was not to blame, she laughed a lot and in the end bought her two different kind of orange trees which now give her fruit each year and she loves them as does her grandkids.
Sometimes I cant let things go in my pondering of why I do what I do, think as I think, and it drives me crazy, which leads me to wonder why I do it
So now I am wondering if this is not something most people go through as they age.
Do you spend time pondering why you believe what you do? Why you might hate the color yellow or believe only Fords are good cars, or that all spiders should be killed as soon as they are spotted, or that a bird in the house means someone will soon die (that one from a friend of mine who lost her mind with worry when a bird flew into my house while I talked with her on the phone) so many beliefs, including the ones we choose to believe in regard to origin of mankind, the planet and what happens to us when we die.
Where do we get all those beliefs we have which are so strong we might fight or die in defense of even as they are just personal views, opinions and beliefs. For some it is political party for some it is religion for some it is vehicle make, race-car driver, ball team, scientific theory for others it is how to stack dishes in a dishwasher, fold a towel or make a sandwich (I have personally witnessed people loose it on those particular subjects, fighting that they had the ONLY right way) but most of us have something we keep fighting for (or against) to the point of at the very least the potential for violence if not actual violence. We can disown people, shun friends or look upon people as enemies just for having the same strength of opposing stance, and yet it is really all in our heads from our own personal motivations.
Just pondering life I guess, and wondering if others ponder the same things.
Time being what it is, I seldom read long forum posts such as these. But I read yours in it's entirety with the intent to understand.
Realistically, I'm on the downhill side of the proverbial mountain of life. I can relate to what you state and question.
I think it (what you describe) is probably common. It must be. For we as the superior species are a thinking and discerning and reasoning animal who ponders such introspection as a manner of adaptation to our ever-changing environment. There are a lot of simplitons in the world, but I consider the vast majority of humans to be as introspective and retrospective as the next guy or gal as they age and wisen and gain a broader perspective that begs the very questions you pose.
Thanks to the backspace button, that is about as succinct as I can possible be.
-
I have read a channeling today--that was rather enlightening to me. I am sure may think channeling is a farce, or some may think there maybe something to it, however that is not the point of my question.
It is actually --not a religious one, though it maybe--but it can is rather more of a philosophical one...
Yes--I know the universe is unfolding as it should--a rather a flowery, corny hippy term, but in reality there is much truth to it --neither philosophy, science nor religion really has the answer--as to date none of us has caught our God/Gods/ or whomever in the act
1. Why are we actually here and what is it exactly apart from the biochemical and other components that we are?
2. What is the point and purpose of existence? --this is for all believers, and non believers inclusive?
3. If we presume --as some, that there is no afterlife, then why are we (most) clinging to life? If we go with that theory is it not easier and better to end it sooner or later?
4. Why have children--simply to perpetuate the cycle of suffering??--if we presume that is no God, no spirituality, no faith as Hyper surmises--which maybe correct, non of us can prove the `pro or contra` for it is simply personal experience of experiencing the divine.
5. Why are we killing each other, the planet and all of creation deliberately?
Thee are a few points to consider here--but really one; EXISTENCE.
Well--that`s is folks--maybe I shall learn something from you wise people--and this is truly not a sarcastic remark!! I do believe we all have much to contribute to some sense of understanding of spirit.Many here have it as it is an individual thing--but one may get that `ah-ah` moment when perhaps hearing an other view.
blessings and peace,
S
Purpose of existence? To exist. It is life's prime directive.
A better question would be why so many humans act in a manner completely antithetical to this prime directive.
-
After a little thought, I've decided to exit the forum. I'd like to thank everyone for all the interesting discussions that I've enjoyed participating in. I'd also like to apologize to all the members that I've managed to tick-off, and that's probably most of you at one time or another. Never-the-less, I'd like to say that I've genuinely enjoyed discussing the bible because I believe it, but its become very evident that my views have upset quite a few members, even Christians, and that was never my intent. I don't apologize for my beliefs, but I do apologize for being too blunt when expressing my opinions. I guess part of my personality is to not mince-words, which tends to make me a direct person who says exactly what he thinks, and that doesn't exactly make me Mr Congeniality. So it seems wise to voluntarily step-out and avoid the inevitable boot-out. Again, thanks for the opportunity to learn from different perspectives, I'm certain I've grown spiritually from the views many have shared here and am confident I'm a better person from the experience. I may stop back in a few months, but swear I'll never comment on anyone else's beliefs. I'll leave this picture for everyone who indulged my many postings, I think you all demonstrated remarkable patience. God's speed, Dan
Patients is a Virtue
Agreed.
This is partly why simplicities-brother has decided to back away, and why I seldom post here anymore.
Good luck Dan, I always enjoyed your posts.....
In my opinion, you leaving would be a shame; if for no other reason than your beliefs are grossly underrepresented here on the ULC forum.
Now isn't THAT a statement to ponder!!!
-
Is Mormonism a Christian religion or is it a cult?
``Mormonism is not a Christian religion. It is not even a Christian heresy. It is a religion that has no real connection with Jesus Christ, except at a semantic level. It has been allowed to pass itself off as another manifestation of American Protestantism – some Catholics have been remarkably lax on this front – but it is nothing of the sort, denying as it does the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith – the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and the exclusivity of revelation in Christ. Oddly enough, Mormonism is further from Christianity than Islam itself. There are indeed interesting parallels between the two. ``
http://www.catholich...stian-religion/
http://en.wikipedia....onism_and_Islam
peace,
S
Who cares????
-
I do believe you're missing something. I kill all kinds of things, but I do not kill other people. I'm a pacifist, Most animals are the same, they'll kill different species, but not their own kind. Using this logic, it is pacifism that is natural. Of course I don't see what natural has to do with it.
Further, if you're going to bring evolution into the picture, you're wrong. A creature that will not kill any other creature is exactly what evolution has created ... through survival. Being something that doesn't kill is what survives best.
Verisoph, long time no speak.....
So, "you kill all kinds of things!!!" As you stated?? How is that pacifism? Sounds like rationalisation to me......
Regarding your view of evolution.... the creatures you mention that will not kill to further their life are fictional. Life is different than books!
-
Founded on and influenced by are two very close sounding statements but are worlds apart on actual impact.
I would agree that the US was not founded on the Christian Religion. However, I would find it hard to argue against that the large majority of the founding fathers were not greatly influenced by their Christian faith, and that influence (along with several other writings, philosophers, etc) served as the springboard they used when founding the US.
Founded on and influanced by
I agree many of the founding fathers (although not many of the most influential or well known ones) were influenced by their faith. However, the government is secular and the constitution is a secular document. I would agree with your assertion fully if they had not seen fit to add "in any sense" to the statement.
I again go back to the difference between founded on and influenced by.
Our founding fathers were of course influenced by their faith. They were also influenced by their experience and by history; compared to today's boobs our founding fathers were quite learned and well read. Faith played a HUGE role in crafting our Declaration and Constitution. I again request people read the Federalist Papers and other contemporary correspondance to understand their intent and purposes.
-
As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion.............. Treaty of tripoli
Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it. If it ever was adopted, therefore, into the common law, it must have been between the introduction of Christianity and the date of the Magna Charta. But of the laws of this period we have a tolerable collection by Lambard and Wilkins, probably not perfect, but neither very defective; and if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. ~Jefferson
On the contrary:
http://www.lawandliberty.org/founders.htm
http://oneclimbs.com/2012/03/12/the-founding-fathers-were-overwhelmingly-religious-men/
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5243
http://acheritagegroup.org/blog/?p=321
http://www.quora.com/How-many-of-the-U-S-Founding-Fathers-were-Christian
http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2011/07/myth-15-founding-fathers-were.html
On the contrary, any of these citations are only a vey small part of the whole; our founding father's were very devout and heavily influenced. The degree's to which their dedication is almost irrelevent. The overall influence is unargueable. Funny, in these discussons there is almost never a reference to any other religious/philosophical point of view. It is a DUH moment.....
-
Which religion did the idea of democracy come from? Or republics, or senators? I'd love to know how these concepts are based on the Bible.
Please don't tell me that these terms are not religious, because I have done my homework regarding ancient democratic processes.
If you had done your homework, as you suggest, then you would've already known the answers to your questions.
As an aside, which influences all these discussion, is have you read Plato's Republic? I have, but more importantly so did the Founding Fathers, who were quite learned in both political philosophy and the history of man. It is a debate, I agree, but to me that answer is exceedingly obvious!!
It is importantly to know the difference between the difference of the terms you cite.
-
Exactly which of these Constitutional morals are exclusive to the Bible and Christianity?
The founders were influenced by a variety of religions.
No, they actually were not influenced by "a variety of religions," which is why I directed you to their own writtings!! Read their own writtings....
Why would you assume/ssert my posts are not factually based?? I have no contrarian reputation!!!!??!?
At worst the FFs conflicted between Christianity and the Jeffersonian theist position. But in large mesaure they were conjoined in their moral and historical belfief! Either way, it does not change my post or the position at all...... Read the FF's own documents......And can you find any confliction in the US Constitution??? Or course not....
-
Is Mormonism a Christian religion or is it a cult?
``Mormonism is not a Christian religion. It is not even a Christian heresy. It is a religion that has no real connection with Jesus Christ, except at a semantic level. It has been allowed to pass itself off as another manifestation of American Protestantism – some Catholics have been remarkably lax on this front – but it is nothing of the sort, denying as it does the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith – the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and the exclusivity of revelation in Christ. Oddly enough, Mormonism is further from Christianity than Islam itself. There are indeed interesting parallels between the two. ``
http://www.catholich...stian-religion/
http://en.wikipedia....onism_and_Islam
peace,
S
Why not research/ask/quote/cite the Morman Church?
-
I have seen some interesting discussions on this topic and would like to open up the topic here as well.
Did the suppression of Scientific Discoveries and suppression of free thought create the environment that led to the Dark Ages?
Yet, that title of the thread is this:
What Level Of Responsibility Does Christianity Hold For The Dark Ages?
Isn't that different than asking this:
Did the suppression of Scientific Discoveries and suppression of free thought create the environment that led to the Dark Ages?
Christianity is responsible for a lot of things, most of which has been fantastic for the human experience. Our very own U.S. Constitution derives much of it's morals from the Bible (this isn't debateable, look to their own writtings).
To your second, more specific question........ I find it far more interesting than your titled question. My re-phrasing: Did religious motivations prevent/prolong the Enlightenment and thus the Industrial Revolution and thus the Technological Revolution?? I think yes is the only answer. Corportions do the same thing. It's a human thing called competitiveness.
-
So you both agree that some animals kill for reasons other than hunger. Sure, it also happens as a result of protection, defense, and even randomness. Animals are animals. But I don't think that is the point. The point is, is it natural to be a pacifist? And of course the natural answer is no.
All animals will kill if they have to. Most human animals will kill when they have to. Some animals and humans will kill because it is fun. Some humans will not kill animals even to eat. Some humans marched peacefully into the gas chambers even after being told where they were going. (let us please not let this become a Hitler discussion)
Humans are animals.
And I agree with your post; this is a frequent occurrence.
Could you please define 'natural'.
Meaning, in terms of my above and all posts, to be found in nature. I am not aware of any species that will refuse the act of violence over survival of one’s self or their offspring.
Now, you may cite some obscure spider or the radical human progressive that has lost his/her survival instincts, to which I would concede that there may be that odd and naturally evolving dysfunction. But there is sufficient data and knowledge to support that within the animal kingdom the notion of pacifism is a contrived pipe dream, and certainly a dead-end on any evolutionary chart.
-
if it were antithetical to human endeavour, it wouldn't happen.
Let's pretend that progessivism has the best interests of the human existence in mind.....
Got an historical proof? Other than the utopian dream, I mean.....
-
How do you feel about objectivism of Ayn Rand?
I have yet to hear or read an effective, actionable and sustainable alternative to her adaptation of this basic conservative philosophy. Utopian alternatives don't exist for long, and are an antithesis to natural human endeavor. This falls on deaf ears when presented in terms of voting criteria, however.....which means we're screwed!!
-
Very few animals kill for sport--man does . Generally animals do not hunt more than they eat. So infact animals are pacifists in a way.I equate pacifism with unnecessary violence before exploring other alternatives to resolving the issue. This does not mean that one should not defend oneself especially when it comes to survival. One can be a survivalist and a pacifist.
As for the mind of God--no one knows--I agree with you--not even Einstein, Hawking, Dawkins, Davies nor I.
Einstein said: `God is the garden and the gardener`. Perhaps that is the closest then we shall come to it.
Hawking puts it rather succinctly: `If we do discover a theory of everything...it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason--for then we would truly know the mind of God`. Will it happen? We all have our personal beliefs--all of us are correct. Maybe Bohr was correct in that God does play dice, but then maybe Einstein was right in that God just dosn`t.
peace and blessings,
S
Cats kill for pleasure. All animals will fight to the death to survive, with the exception of some humans.
So you both agree that some animals kill for reasons other than hunger. Sure, it also happens as a result of protection, defense, and even randomness. Animals are animals. But I don't think that is the point. The point is, is it natural to be a pacifist? And of course the natural answer is no.
Ulc Forum: Members, Friends, Or Customers?
in * Welcome - ULC Minister's Introduction Junction *
Posted
I don't believe that would be an effective way to expand participation.
I agree with some of those comparisons.
Okay, so how do so many other forums, by the scores, ney thousands, have so much more active participation? It may have to do with the marketing that comes with/from banners and links and the like, but to the extent that content (or, to your point the quality and taste of our well-stocked shelves) has something to do with it, is there anything we (meaning everyone) can do?
Or, is that not the desire? I have read that most of the current ULC Forum population considers this a nice, little, cozy, personal community, and that most folks likes it just the way it is!!! If that is true, then the current population has indeed created a nice, little, cozy, personal community
which perhaps from time to time some of us may pop in to say hello.
PS: I trust my motives for bringing all this up are properly understood.