New York Marriage Laws - Get Ordained Online

One of the several business I run is a wedding planning/venue.
I'm also an ordained minister and officiate weddings, but I don't view that as part of the business. I cannot marry most of the people who rent our place or use my planning services, as it's a religious ceremony and I'm an actual minister, not one of those people who got ordained online. Anyone can can rent our property, and I'll plan anyone's wedding, but I am selective about who I officiate for. I won't marry anyone if it seems like they are unequipped for a healthy long term marriage, and we hold somewhat similar convictions about marriage. (i.e. it's lifelong, mutual obedience and equality, a commitment to the community and God as well as each other, etc.)
Anyway, business has been slow in 2020 and most of our weddings have been canceled. We had a couple of beautiful small/intimate weddings with fewer than a dozen people... which is why I even agreed to plan/host the wedding for this awful woman.
I had worked at a great job at a private school for two years when she hired to be my boss, and for the next two she made my life a living hell. She would call me into her office, make me sit down on a too small chair, and proceed to scream in my face for hours. Literally hours. (I'm 6'8, she is probably 5 foot, but we were eye to eye when she would make me sit in this chair.) She also would come into the break room on my breaks and end up yelling at me. She bad talked me to everyone, and was a big part of the reason I left that job and started my first business back 2010. (I guess I owe her as I now make more money with less stress.)
Anyway, her wedding is scheduled for Jan 1 and her Pastor has Covid-19. She called a few days ago begging me to marry them. Yes, we probably hold similar convictions about marriage, but I can't imagine anyone staying with her for a lifetime, and I feel like I would be doing huge disservice to her fiancé.
She then asked if she could change the date, but a lot of things are already paid for and in motion. I reminded her that I tried to convince her to get event insurance.
She went off on me and I started to have flashbacks to when I worked for her, so I hung up the phone. I won't answer the number and I keep getting abusive emails. I emailed her back an apology for hanging up, and explained that I no longer let people to speak to me that way. I also emailed her a list of officiants to call to see if they will work with her. I also sent her a link where a friend or family member could get a fake-yet-legal ordination.
Yet she called me an AHole for not just doing it myself.
I have regretted agreeing to work with woman again for every moment.
EDIT: I wanted to clarify what I mean by "Fake-but-legal" ordination, but post got locked and can't respond. In nearly every major religion, it takes significant preparation, education, training and commitment to be an ordained minister. For me, it took about ten years of hard work. Even secular officiates like judges study for years. A card you get for 25 dollar fee online is simply not the same. Nothing wrong with having them officiate your wedding, but calling these people "ordained" is disparaging to people who actually worked for that title. (Whether they are Rabbi, Imam, Priest, Pastor or even non-religious chaplains.)
I also clarified what I meant by "I won't marry people who won't make it." I didn't go into detail because it wasn't the main topic of my post. I don't mean that I sit around and decide ahead of time "Oh this marriage will end in divorce." I mean that marriage is very hard, but there are certain skills that make marriage doable. Before I marry anyone, I make sure they have basic communication skills, know how to budget, can set boundaries, etc. Without those skills, marriage can't stay good for long.
UPDATE: The first guy I told her to call came and officiated. Apparently she didn't call anyone, just tried to get me to do it when her original pastor couldn't. I also had my staff handle it, so I didn't have to. I told my staff to walk away if she started being abusive, but I was told she wasn't worse than some of the other "bridezillas" we've had in the past.

" On February 12, 1873, the Coinage Act was passed which demonetized silver, by removing the silver dollar as a unit of account. This was the next stage in the banker’s war on America, the removal of silver and eventually gold as well, from the United States money supply. Since the coinage laws in the Constitution explicitly gave Congress alone the power to coin money, this was the last block the bankers needed to remove by legislation. Congress had reduced the amount of gold and silver in the coins so that American metals would not be exported to foreign countries, because they would not meet international weights and measures. The act of March 3, 1853 created the gold and silver certificates which were fully redeemable in either gold or silver at any time. These were Treasury issues, not the borrowed credit of bankers. " Starting on Page 55 of this online book. https://thepoliticsofpot.com/chapter-8/
On February 12, 1873, the Coinage Act was passed which demonetized silver, by removing the silver dollar as a unit of account. This was the next stage in the banker’s war on America, the removal of silver and eventually gold as well, from the United States money supply. Since the coinage laws in the Constitution explicitly gave Congress alone the power to coin money, this was the last block the bankers needed to remove by legislation. Congress had reduced the amount of gold and silver in the coins so that American metals would not be exported to foreign countries, because they would not meet international weights and measures. The act of March 3, 1853 created the gold and silver certificates which were fully redeemable in either gold or silver at any time. These were Treasury issues, not the borrowed credit of bankers. Quoting from The Coming Battle, Walbert writes: “Prior to 1861, the annual production of silver in the United States never exceeded the value of $100,000, on the other hand, the amount of gold produced in the mines of California, from 1848 to the outbreak of the war, amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars. The greatest amount of gold produced from American mines in any one year was in 1853, when it reached the enormous sum of $65,000,000. The total product of gold from the mines of the United States, from 1848 to 1861, inclusive, reached the grand total of $700,000,000. In the year 1859, that great deposit of silver, was discovered in Nevada, and from this period the United States is reckoned among the greatest producers of silver in the world. In 1860 the production of silver had risen to $150,000, which, up to this period, was the greatest amount ever produced in the United States in any one year. In the same year the production of gold in California alone was $45,000,000 in value. In 1863, the value of the product of silver had risen to $8,500,000. In 1867, silver to the amount of $13,500,000 was produced from the mines of the west – chiefly in Nevada. The production of gold that same year was $51,725,000.
At this period the national debt had reached the enormous sum of $2,700,000,000, the interest of which was payable in coin. The whole annual product of gold mines in the United States would scarcely suffice to pay one half of the annual interest charge upon the national debt held by the national banking money power.” (4) Silver was more like the common man’s gold. It was easier to use in most, smaller transactions and therefore the rising supply of silver in circulation was a direct threat to the banking cartel. This led to a huge conspiracy to manipulate and eventually remove silver as a standard for the dollar. An act of March 3, 1853 had provided that the Secretary of the Treasury issue gold and silver certificates. In 1867 a great international exposition was held to which the nations of the world were invited by the Emperor of France. The goal was to establish a common system of weights and measures related to metal currency. It was believed a common gold standard would regulate silver coinage. Essentially, the bankers were attempting to set the value of gold in relation to silver, since gold was a far more easily controllable commodity. There were efforts underway at this time to remove silver dollars from the currency supply of the United States. Today, many anti-Federal Reserve and people who are against the central banking would have us believe a gold standard is the answer. Apparently, the bankers are the ones who originally pushed for a gold standard, so this would probably not be a good idea, after all. On February 12, 1873 the Coinage Act was passed through Congress. On July 13, 1876, just three years following this act, two Senators made important speeches before Congress, referencing this act. Mr. Holman stated: “I have before me the record of the proceedings of this House on the passage of that measure, a record which no man can read without being convinced that the measure and the method of passage through this House was a ‘colossal swindle.’ I assert that the measure never had the sanction of this House, and it does not possess the moral force of law.” (Cong. Record, Vol. IV, Part 6, Appendix P. 193, 1st Session 44th Congress)
(4) Coming Battle p. 75 55
Another Congressman, Mr. Birchard, a member from Illinois, stated the following: “The coinage act of 1873, unaccompanied by any written report upon the subject from any committee, and unknown to the members of Congress, who without opposition allowed it to pass under the belief, if not assurance, that it made no alteration in the value of the current coins, changed the unit of value from silver to gold.” (Page 4,560) And yet another Congressman, Mr. Cannon, from the same state, had the following words to say: “This legislation was had in the Forty-second Congress, February 12, 1873, by a bill to regulate the mints of the United States, and practically abolish silver as money by failing to provide for the coinage of the silver dollar. It was not discussed, as shown by the Record, and neither members of Congress nor the people understood the scope of the legislation.” (Page 197) Mr. Bright, from Tennessee had this to say: “It passed by fraud in the House, never having been printed in advance, being a substitute for the printed bill; never having been read at the Clerk’s desk, the reading having been dispensed with by an impression that the bill made no material alteration in the coinage laws; it was passed without discussion, debate being cut off by operation of the previous question. It was passed to my certain information, under such circumstances that the fraud escaped the attention of some of the most watchful as well as the ablest statesmen in Congress at the time. … Aye, sir, it was a fraud that smells to heaven, it was a fraud that will stink in the nose of posterity, and for which some persons must give account in the days of retribution.” – (Cong. Record, Vol VII, Part 1, Page 584, 2nd Session, 45th Congress.)
And finally, Senator Thurman, on February 15, 1878, in debate, states the following: “I cannot say what took place in the House, but know when the bill was pending in the Senate we thought it was simply a bill to reform the mint, regulate coinage, and fix up one thing and another, and there is not a single man in the Senate, I think, unless a member from the committee from which the bill came, who had the slightest idea that it was even a squint towards demonetization.” – (Cong. Record Vol. VII, Part 2, Page 1064, 2nd Session, 45th Congress.) During the period of 1873 through 1879 the country went through the Long Depression, triggered by the Panic of 1873. It was during a speech delivered before the Chamber of Commerce, of New York City on March 6, 1876, that Senator Sherman admitted the Congress had done work for Great Britain: “Our coinage act came into operation on the 1st of April 1873, and constituted the gold one dollar piece the sole unit of value, while it restricted the legal tender of the new trade dollar and the half dollar and subdivisions to an amount not exceeding five dollars in one payment. “Thus, the double standard previously existing was finally abolished, and the United States as usual was influenced by Great Britain in making gold coin the only standard. This suits England, but does not suit us. I think with our large silver producing capacity, we should return to the double standard, at least in part, and this will constitute one of the means by which we will enable to resume specie payments.” – (Cong. Globe, Vol. IV, Part 2, Page 1,481, 1st Session, 44th Congress) (5) This should immediately be recognized as Treason committed by the Senators and House members. The Specie Resumption Act of 1875 set this country onto the gold standard, officially. In 1878, when the bloody aftermath and carnage of the coinage laws was visible, John G. Carlisle, Speaker of the House and later Secretary of the Treasury, made the following statement: “According to my views of the subject, the conspiracy which seems to have been formed here and in Europe, to destroy by legislation and otherwise, from three-sevenths to one-half, of the metallic money of the world, is the most gigantic crime of this or any other age.” The United States, by 1878 and the close of the Civil War, had been decimated financially on one hand, due to the influence of the bankers, and left in a state of trauma from the War. Other factions of the same power structure took hold of political manipulations through the war between the North and the South. Once again, the entire event was engineered in part by the Freemasons and their allies.
(5) Coming Battle P. 107-08 56
In the following case, from 1884, the sovereign powers of the United States and the ability to coin money are contemplated once again. This is Juilliard v. Greenman, Supreme Court (1884): “It would be difficult to believe, even in the absence of the historical evidence we have on the subject, that the framers of the Constitution, profoundly impressed by the evils resulting from this kind of legislation, ever intended that the new government, ordained to establish justice, should possess the power of making its bills a legal tender, which they were unwilling should remain with the States, and which in the past had proved so dangerous to the peace of the community, so disturbing to the business of the people, and so destructive of their morality. The great historian of our country has recently given to the world a history of the Convention, the result of years of labor in the examination of all public documents relating to its formation and of the recorded opinions of its framers; and thus he writes: “With the full recollection of the need or seeming need of paper money in the Revolution, with the menace of danger in future time of war from its prohibition, authority to issue bills of credit that should be legal tender was refused to the general government by the vote of nine States against New Jersey and Maryland. It was Madison who decided the vote of Virginia, and he has left his testimony that `the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender, either for public or private debts, was cut off.’ This is the interpretation of the clause made at the time of its adoption, alike by its authors and by its opponents, accepted by all the statesmen of that age, not open to dispute because too clear for argument, and never disputed so long as any one man who took part in framing the Constitution remained alive. History cannot name a man who has gained enduring honor by causing the issue of paper money. Wherever such paper has been employed it has in every case thrown upon its authors the burden of exculpation under the plea of pressing necessity.” – Bancroft’s History of the Formation of the Constitution, 2 vol., 134
“And when the Convention came to the prohibition upon the States, the historian says that the clause, “No State shall make anything but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts,” was accepted without a dissentient State: “So the adoption of the Constitution,” he adds, “is to be the end forever of paper money, whether issued by the several States or by the United States, if the Constitution shall be rightly interpreted and honestly obeyed.” Id. 137.
“For nearly three-quarters of a century after the adoption of the Constitution, and until the legislation during the recent civil war, no jurist and no statesman of any position in the country ever pretended that a power to impart the quality of legal tender to its notes was vested in the general government. There is no recorded word of even one in favor of its possessing the power. All conceded, as an axiom of constitutional law, that the power did not exist. “Mr. Webster, from his first entrance into public life in 1812, gave great consideration to the subject of the currency, and in an elaborate speech on that subject, made in the Senate in 1836, then sitting in this room, he said:
“Currency, in a large and perhaps just sense, includes not only gold and silver and bank bills, but bills of exchange also. It may include all that adjusts exchanges and settles balances in the operations of trade and business; but if we understand by currency the legal money of the country, and that which constitutes a legal tender for debts, and is the standard measure of value, then undoubtedly nothing is included but gold and silver. Most unquestionably there is no legal tender, and there can be no legal tender in this country, under the authority of this government or any other, but gold and silver, either the coinage of our own mints or foreign coins at rates regulated by Congress. This is a constitutional principle, perfectly plain and of the highest importance. The States are expressly prohibited from making anything but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts, and although no such express prohibition is applied to Congress, yet, as Congress has no power granted to it in this respect but to coin money and to regulate the value of foreign coins, it clearly has no power to substitute paper or anything else for coin as a tender in payment of debts and in discharge of contracts. Congress has exercised this power fully in both its branches; it has coined money, and still coins it; it has regulated the value of foreign coins, and still regulates their value. The legal tender, therefore, the constitutional standard of value, is established and cannot be overthrown. To overthrow it would shake the whole system.” — – 4 Webster’s Works, 271 57
“When the idea of imparting the legal tender quality to the notes of the United States issued under the first act of 1862 was first broached, the advocates of the measure rested their support of it on the ground that it was a war measure, to which the country was compelled to resort by the exigencies of its condition, being then sorely pressed by the Confederate forces, and requiring the daily expenditure of enormous sums to maintain its army and navy and to carry on the government. The representative who introduced the bill in the House, declared that it was a measure of that nature, ‘one of necessity and not of choice;’ that the times were extraordinary and that extraordinary measures must be resorted to in order to save our government and preserve our nationality. (Speech of Spaulding, of New York, Cong. Globe, 1861-62, Part 1, 523.) Other members of the House frankly confessed their doubt as to its constitutionality, but yielded their support of it under the pressure of this supposed necessity.
“The wants of the government could never be the measure of its powers. But in the excitement and apprehensions of the war these considerations were unheeded; the measure was passed as one of overruling necessity in a perilous crisis of the country. Now, it is no longer advocated as one of necessity, but as one that may be adopted at any time. Never before was it contended by any jurist or commentator on the Constitution that the government, in full receipt of ample income, with a treasury overflowing, with more money on hand than it knows what to do with, could issue paper money as a legal tender. What was in 1862 called the “medicine of the Constitution” has now become its daily bread. So it always happens that whenever a wrong principle of conduct, political or personal, is adopted on a plea of necessity, it will be afterwards followed on a plea of convenience.
“The framers of the Constitution, as I have said, were profoundly impressed with the evils which had resulted from the vicious legislation of the States making notes a legal tender, and they determined that such a power should not exist any longer. They therefore prohibited the States from exercising it, and they refused to grant it to the new government which they created. Of what purpose is it then to refer to the exercise of the power by the absolute or the limited governments of Europe, or by the States previous to our Constitution? Congress can exercise no power by virtue of any supposed inherent sovereignty in the general government. Indeed, it may be doubted whether the power can be correctly said to appertain to sovereignty in any proper sense as an attribute of an independent political community. The power to commit violence, perpetrate injustice, take private property by force without compensation to the owner, and compel the receipt of promises to pay in place of money, may be exercised, as it often has been, by irresponsible authority, but it cannot be considered as belonging to a government founded upon law. But be that as it may, there is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. It is a government of delegated powers, supreme within its prescribed sphere, but powerless outside of it. In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution, entrusted to it; all else is withheld. – Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 Supreme Court (1884) (6)
(6)https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/91050/juilliard-v-greenman/

I was raised Catholic until I was 12 or so after which my family started going to Congregationalist churches. I was never confirmed Catholic, though I was baptized and received first holy communion. A few years after that I fell away from religion and Christianity altogether. I became an agnostic person who really didn’t even think about religion for about the next 20 years. Lately I have felt a calling back to the Catholic Church, have been studying, trying to learn (re-learn) and come to terms with what rejoining might look like for me.
In my twenties some non religious friends wanted to have their wedding officiated by a friend and asked me to do it. I got ordained online by the “Universal Life Church” and performed their wedding as well as a handful of others in the years after. I never considered my weddings to be religious ceremonies, nor did I speak in any terms that were even remotely spiritual. That’s not what anybody wanted from me. I simply considered it an exercise of the First Amendment (USA) and used the online ordination as a legal way to help my non religious friends get legally married. I have since removed myself from that “church”. Which I considered to be pretty much a legal construct only.
Now that I am moving toward the church again, I’m taking stock of what sins I have committed in these last years and I remembered this, with embarrassment. I am wondering how bad/grave a sin this is considered and whether I will be able to reconcile it.

Official results from nearly 100% districts:

1. Andrzej Duda 43,54%
   
2. Rafał Trzaskowski 30,44%
   
3. Szymon Hołownia 13,86%
   
4. Krzysztof Bosak 6,77%
   
5. Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz 2,37%
   
6. Robert Biedroń 2,22%
   
7. others 0,8%
   

Turnout - 64%.
Remaining districts are mostly urban and abroad, so final results will probably weaken Duda, but very slightly.
Based on polls, 2nd turn remains very close, 50/50 overall.
Official turnout at 17.00 - 47,9% (it was 34,4 in 2015).
Official turnout at 12.00 - 24,1% (14,6 in 2015).
Local breakdown available here. Final turnout will be around 22.00.
Today (Sunday, June 28th) Poles head to the polls, casting their votes in first round of the presidential elections. Around ~30M people are eligible to vote (citizens above 18 years of age), taking part in probably the most bizarre election in Poland, at least since 1989.
Wikipedia page | Opinion polling
Electoral system
Presidential candidates must be of 35 years of age, have no criminal record and must collect 100K citizens' signatures to be eligible for running for office. If any candidate gets above 50% votes in 1st round, he would be elected immediately. If it doesn't happen, 2nd round between two first candidates will happen in two weeks (so, July 12th). Polls will open at 7:00, and close at 21:00. Campaign silence is ordained throughout whole Saturday and Sunday until the 21:00, so exit polls will be revealed only after that hour. We can expect only turnout data during the day. Official results will be available probably late Monday. Official website of PKW (electoral authority) is available HERE.
Background
While PKW is responsible for elections, act of calling for them is a prerogative of Speaker of the Sejm (lower house of parliament). In early February, she announced election day Sunday, May 10th 2020. In the meanwhile, COVID-19 pandemic started in Poland (mid-March). As part of the response, a special Anti-Pandemic bill has been passed, which also covered changes to the electoral law. It’s highly unusual because the law applied to the current elections as well (which was a breech of Constitution). The most unusual part was that the entirety of votes was supposed to be cast through the mail, and responsibility was taken from the PKW and redirected to the National Postal Service and the Minister of State Assets. This lead to opposition due to risk of fraud (lower control). Instead, opposition called for government to use constitutional measures, which meant introducing of state of emergency, or natural disaster, which would naturally lengthen current presidential term and postpone elections by 3 months. "Postal elections" law was blocked by opposition-controlled Senate until last moment (May 6th), which ended government unprepared (they ignored any other option). On that day, minor PiS' coalition partner threatened Kaczyński with withdrawal (which would end government in minority), so eventually no elections were held (albeit many people think, they wouldn't be possible anyway; no time left for preparations, and if held, would end heavily unconstitutional, and a disaster to our reputation abroad). So, nothing happened on May 10th, but these elections were never officially cancelled. On June 3th, new date of the elections were announced, to June 28th. By the way - current term ends on August 6th.
In the end, elections are held in "hybrid" regime. Majority of Poles abroad (nearly 400K registered), and citizens of two heavily pandemic-affected communes (only ~20K voters) are able to vote only by post. In few countries abroad, personal voting will be possible (e.g. Sweden or Lithuania). Everyone else is allowed to either vote by post, or traditionally, in voting precincts. According to polls, latter option will be chosen by overwhelming majority, with only 2-3% voting by post (including those who have no other choice). Members of electoral commissions will wear PPE (masks, visors and gloves), voters are intended to wear a mask or visor (which actually follows still-in-force warrant of masks compulsory in inside public areas). Voters might be asked for momentary unmasking, for identification purpose. There will be limit or voters' allowed inside at given moment. However, in case of congestion, everyone present in the queue at 21:00 will be still allowed to vote.
Contenders
There are 11 registered candidates; each had to admit 100K citizens' signatures. Nine were already registered for May 10th "unelections", one (Trzaskowski) replaced candidate who dropped in meanwhile (Kidawa-Błońska), being able to get record 1,6M signatures in just 4 days; and one (Witkowski) was allowed to combine signatures gathered in both "stages".
Six are major candidates (those, who poll at least 1-2%):
Robert Biedroń (44). Candidate of the Left). Currently a MEP. Progressive left, pro-EU. Openly gay. 2-5% in recent polls, way below his party. This is mostly blamed on low trust and weak campaign, and isn't related to his personal life. Not married (for obvious reasons), has a long-term partner.
Krzysztof Bosak (38). Candidate of the Confederation. Right-wing, nationalist (in the past was even catched sharing 8values test with "fascist" result), anti-EU; but also the candidate of only libertarian (economically) major party, so will also gather such voters. Never really worked outside politics; interestingly, seems to also own next to nothing, which is weird for candidate of party focused also on enterpreneurs' votes. On the other hand, he held a solid, well prepared campaign. 6-9% in recent polls. Expected to end in 4th place, but could rise to 3rd. Recently married.
Andrzej Duda (48). Incumbent, candidate of the ruling PiS. Social conservative populist, generally following his party stance (albeit he's officially no longer a member). 39-43% in recent polls. Recently endorsed by Trump. Nearly surely will end 1st in 1st round, but could lose 2nd. More about it below. Married, daughter.
Szymon Hołownia (43). Independent. No past experience in politics, but known as journalist, writer, TV personality (co-host of Got Talent) and humanitarian activist. Case roughly similar to Zelensky. Wide tent centre, moderately conservative, pro-EU. Worth noting, that he has the most "green" agenda (and is vegetarian himself). Fun trivia, his wife is a fighter pilot; they have a kid daughter. 9-13% in recent polls, expected to end 3rd in 1st round. Was going to end 2nd before Trzaskowski appeared (mostly thanks to very solid, direct online campaign during lockdown period), and according to polls had very high chance to win 2nd round.
Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz (38). Leader and candidate of Polish Coalition. Centre right, moderately conservative, pro-EU. 3-6% in recent polls. Physician, married (second time, wife is a dentist), daughter.
Rafał Trzaskowski (48). Candidate of the Civic Coalition), major opposition force. Current mayor of Warsaw, replaced Małgorzata Kidawa-Błońska as candidate after May 10th. Centre (party is more centre-right, him personally more centre-left), moderately progressive, pro-EU (and highly experienced in EU affairs). Trivia: speaks quite a few languages, including not only fluent English (was a teacher and translator), but also French. 28-33% in recent polls, widely expected to end 2nd and get into 2nd round. Married, daughter and son.
Remaining five are: Marek Jakubiak (right-wing conservative, probably registered thanks to PiS, to prevent scenario if all opposition candidates dropped to protest May 10th "postal elections"), Mirosław Piotrowski (paleoconservative), Paweł Tanajno (centre libertarian, active in anti-lockdown protests), Waldemar Witkowski (social democrat), and Stanisław Żółtek (right-wing libertarian).
Turnout is expected to be between 60-64%.
Possible scenarios for 1st round (order by expected probability)

1. Duda ends 1st with <50%, Trzaskowski 2nd - both end against each other in 2nd round. Widely expected result. HAPPENED.

2. As 1., but with Trzaskowski ending 1st. Highly unprobable.
3. Duda crosses 50% and ends elected in 1st round. Barely probable.
4. As 1., but with Hołownia ending 2nd. Next to impossible.
What will happen in 2nd round?
It's unknown. If Hołownia somehow ends in 2nd turn, he would most probably win against Duda. Between Duda and Trzaskowski - both could win. Polls switch between 48-52% for each one. It's widely expected to be a close call (unless sth changes heavily in next two weeks), which is actually a worrying news, because whoever wins, his result will be seriously contended by other side.
How will others' voters behave in 2nd round?
Assuming that it's Duda and Trzaskowski ending there:

• Biedroń, Hołownia and Kosiniak-Kamysz voters will mostly support Trzaskowski (70-90%), few Duda (10-15%), and remaining few will abstain.
  
• Bosak voters are the biggest mystery. Based on polls, they will more or less divide into three roughly equal groups, one abstaining, and other two supporting either of two candidates.
  
• Another mystery are voters, who will abstain from 1st round, and vote only in 2nd one.
  

As you can see, while Duda is probably going to win 1st round with safe margin... he will struggle to gather more votes in 2nd one. That's why what will be more interesting, is his result, and difference to Trzaskowski's one. Roughly counting, 45% or more for Duda will mean him winning on 12th; while 39% or less - losing. Unfortunately, it's probably going to end somewhere between these two numbers.
Was the campaign fair?
Hell no. TVP (public TV) is used as blatant propaganda tool, showing Duda heavily (even during lockdown, and even today, during election silence), and attacking other candidates, especially Trzaskowski (recently), as well as ignoring Bosak (considered a competition from right side).
It's worth noting, that only one TV debate was held before today elections, by the mentoned state-owned TVP. Private stations didn't held any, because Duda declined to appear, and Trzaskowski declined to appear without Duda present. There were few minot, topical online debates, organised by private Internet portal, with major candidates, but Duda haven't appear there too (and these weren't widely watched anyway). This TVP "debate" (quotation marks, because candidates answered only questions asked by TVP host, and couldn't ask each other) has sparked multiple controversies. Many people think that the main goal of the TVP was not to hold a just debate but to shame Trzaskowski. There were only five questions, with only one barely related to current situation, and three indirectly focused on attacking him. The questions were: about taking in refugees (remember, it's 2020 not 2015); allowing kids to prepare for First Communion in schools (Trzaskowski admitted that he allowed his son to skip FC); changing złoty to euro (not a current issue at all); LGBT marriages (Duda recently attack "LGBT ideology", while Trzaskowski was "caught" supporting these in the past); and whether Cov2 vaccine should be obligatory (this one is the was probably hoped to gather anti-vac crowd votes). However, effectiveness of the debate, at least towards two major candidates, isn't expected to really matter. But it does put a shadow on possible one before 2nd round.
Are elections fair?
Generally yes, there is a multipartial control and electoral authority is independent (so far), so while fraud is possible, it would be extremely difficult to hide it. There are some serious worries about postal votes though. Also, in theory, PiS could not recognize the elections (thanks to control over special courts), but results of such move could be devastating, and would probably end like similar attempt done by Turkish government during mayoral elections in Istanbul.
What will happen, if Duda loses?
While it won't stop PiS rule (parliament's term ends in Oct 2023, and they have majority in Sejm), it would de facto stop any legal (or illegal) changes they plan. While role of Senate (controlled by opposition) could be compared to speed limiter, president is directly a brake, mostly thanks to his veto power, which can stop any new bill (except general annual budget), and can be overruled only with 60% majority (which PiS wouldn't have even with support of Confederation or Polish Coalition; and neither would be easy anyway).
PS. I would like to thank u/TypicalPolishGuy1 and u/koziello for help in above write-up, especially the Background part.

My brother-in-law asked me to officiate his wedding. OK, no big deal. I called the Jefferson County Clerk's office, and they had a recording that specifically said that online ordinations are valid and they do not require any prior registration or documentation for the officiant. Great!
So I was trying to find an appropriate place for online ordination. I know Universal Life Church is the really popular one, but for dogmatic reasons, I wasn't interested in something that's not overtly Christian. I found an organization called Minister Now!, which is a part of an organization called Global Christian Outreach. According to their website,:

There was a constant call from service men and women who sought to be ordained, but were not connected to a church wherever they were serving. We also began to research the needs of those who had a call on their lives for ministry, but whose family, work and life schedules did not allow them the opportunity for a lengthy ordination process or seminary program.
There are many online sites that will ordain anyone of any faith, or no faith. We only ordain those seeking to be Christian ministers.

That sounded good to me, so I paid the $25 fee they asked and filled out the forms. Later I started second guessing myself, so I dug a little deeper on their website and found this:

We are not a nonprofit ministry, and we do not accept donations or charitable contributions of any kind. Our mission is to provide ministerial information and support. The purchase of any product or service through this ministry is not tax deductible.

That struck me as a red flag. If they are a for-profit corporation, then is any certification they sell legitimate in any legal sense? Is this going to invalidate my BIL's wedding?

We are going to do the paperwork to get legally married at some point in the next month—the real wedding is delayed until 2022 by guess what. Had one officiant (out-of-town friend) lined up and then she decided she couldn’t come down. Plan B officiant is ordained by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which I strongly suspect will not be recognized by the state of Louisiana when he goes to register.
Is anyone here ordained by a legit online ministry, or an IRL one, and already registered with the state, with at least one legal marriage under their belt? We are not looking for an actual ceremony, just someone to sign a piece of paper while we are all standing there. We will of course provide a modest fee and/or free lunch for your trouble!

Hope this is the right place to ask:
I’ve been asked to officiate a wedding in the state of Indiana, and I’m unsure if I am legally able to do so. The state code says:

Marriages may be solemnized by any of the following: a member of the clergy of a religious organization (even if the cleric does not perform religious functions for an individual congregation), such as a minister of the gospel, a priest, a bishop, an archbishop, or a rabbi....[Indiana Code Title 31. Family Law and Juvenile Law 31-11-6-1]

I attended a Southern Baptist university and graduated with a degree in student ministry. I am a member of a nondenominational church, which does not require student ministers/youth pastors (same thing, just a different way to say it) to be ordained ministers. I do not actively work as a student minister, but I am qualified to do so and I have in the past. My friends are not religious and are not getting married at a public venue. The state code does not implicitly state that the minister must be ordained, but I’m unsure if that’s an assumption here. I can obtain an online ordination thing, if needed—we are just confused about what is required.
I’ll be marrying my best friend from high school and the last thing I want to do is screw it up. Any guidance would be appreciated, as well as a legit place to get ordained if necessary.

My husband’s cousin and her fiancé asked me to officiate their wedding which is truly the greatest honor I can imagine and I am STOKED. Their wedding won’t be for a while (all you Covid brides/grooms get it, God bless ya) but I decided to get ordained just to make sure I had everything ready. I’m having a hard time figuring out what exactly I need to have on the day to make sure its all totally legal. I got ordained today online via the Universal Life Church. TIA!

Introduction

Ever since I first got serious about the question of how we as Christians know the Bible is true, it has seemed to me that the most urgent question is not how to provide arguments that convince modern atheists (like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens), but rather, how it is that an uneducated Muslim villager in the bush of Nigeria, or a pre-literate tribesman in Papua New Guinea, can know that the message of the Bible is true and be justified in their newfound belief, despite a lack of philosophical or rational proofs convincing them as such?
That, to me, is a far more urgent question than how to answer secular skeptics. Is there a way for uneducated, ordinary people around the world to have a well-founded confidence that the Bible is true?
One of the reasons this question began to be so relevant for me was because I was at one time wrestling with the issues of Biblical certainty myself. It's not that uneducated people are more precious than educated people, or more in need than educated people. That’s not true. The reason had to do with my own quest for confidence. When I was exposed to the best arguments for the reliability of the Bible, I was wonderfully encouraged and helped. They seemed right to me. They were compelling, even. But what I discovered was that a week or two after studying them, I couldn’t remember all the pieces of the argument. I remembered that the argument seemed solid, but I couldn’t reproduce the argument in the present moment. I couldn’t remember all the steps in the argument for the sake of the debate. And on top of that, there was the nagging sense that I would meet some highly educated person who would point to something in my argument that I had overlooked, and I would be stumped. So basing my confidence on a fairly sophisticated sequence of history and logic felt fragile to me.
So you can see that my question about how a pre-literate villager with no formal education can know the Bible is true is very similar to the question, "How can I know for sure that the Bible is true in a way that doesn’t depend on complicated historical and logical arguments?" How can a tribesman — with no knowledge of history, or of the wider world, or any ability to read or any formal training in logic — be able to have a well-grounded confidence in the message of Scripture? Thus, this issue is not about heady debates with the new atheists or other educated skeptics. This issue is about the task of winning souls itself, and the possibility that there may be a Biblical method concerning it that applies to everyone across the board (regardless of how learned one may or may not be).
So here's the problem: If a Christian’s knowledge that the Bible is God’s Word depends on being able to marshal various arguments and evidences, then surely only a small minority of Christians actually know that the Bible is God’s Word. The majority of Christians may believe it, but they don’t know it, simply because they’re not familiar with the most scholarly of apologetic evidences. They’ve never been asked to justify their beliefs in that way, and they wouldn’t know how to do it if they were asked.
Obviously, it would be very unfortunate if it turned out that most Christians don’t actually know that Christianity is true. It also seems quite implausible. To believe this would come off as rather elitist, since it would imply that only those Christian believers who attain to a certain level of intellectual sophistication can enjoy knowledge of the divine inspiration of the Bible. Yet, that would be very much at odds with the practice of Jesus and the apostles, who routinely appealed to Scripture on the assumption that their audience knew that Scripture was divinely authored and therefore divinely authoritative.
Fortunately, we don’t need to set such a high bar for knowledge of basic Christian truths. There’s a more generous view — indeed, a more gracious view — that has been the mainstream perspective among Bible believing Christians. But, before I fully dive into said view, it's probably best that I make clear what the Bible even claims about itself to begin with.

The Divine Canon

"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."-2 Peter 1:19-21

There is incredible unity to the Bible. The Bible is one book, and yet it is made up of 66 books, was written by at least 40 different authors over a period of about 1600 years, in 13 different countries and on three different continents. It was written in at least three different languages by people in all professions. Some kings, some shepherds, and some tax collectors. The Scriptures, in their entirety, are inspired by God and are inerrant in the original manuscripts. The inerrancy of the Scriptures extends to every category to which they speak, including faith, practice, science, and history. This was accomplished, not by dictation, but by God superintending the human authors in such a manner that, using their individual personalities, they composed and recorded, without error, God’s revelation to man. The Scriptures are our full and final authority being the complete revelation of God (Pro. 30:5-6, Isa. 40:7-8, Jer. 31:31, Matt. 5:18, John 10:35, Rom. 3:3-4, 2 Tim. 3:16-17, 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:15-16, Heb. 1:1-2, Rev. 22:18-19).
In both Testaments, the Bible claims to be God’s communication to humanity; the only divine revelation from the one true God. But is this claim true? How do we know for certain that the Bible is what it claims to be—the Word of God?
To many people (including I), the issue of the Bible’s authority is something that should not be debated. The authority of the Bible must be believed because the Scripture says so. This is usually argued in the following ways:

"How Can We Know the Bible is From God?"

When Jesus walked the earth about 2000 years ago, He was faced with a very similar question when the people who heard Him teach wondered if His teaching was truly from God. Jesus answered them by giving this simple, yet profound answer, “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself" (John 7:16b-17). We can apply this same principle to knowing that the Bible is truly from God. All those who desire to obey God will know by the very words of the Bible that it is indeed from God Himself.
This is an astonishing argument, since most people would claim that simply hearing Jesus’ teaching could never be enough. They would have to see miracles before they could believe Him to be from God. Jesus even challenged His hearers to believe because of the miracles He had performed (John 14:11). Yet, did everyone believe in Jesus when they saw these undeniable miracles? No, even when faced with miraculous proof, many remained in their unbelief (John 12:37). The reason for this is found in Jesus’ original answer—only those who truly want to do God’s will shall know the truthfulness of Christ’s message (John 7:17).
The Bible itself is sufficient proof for all who desire to know if it is from God. This can be clearly seen in a story that Jesus told about a rich man and Lazarus, found in Luke 16:19-31. As Jesus concludes the parable, He explains that if they will not believe the message of the Word of God based on its inherent authority, neither will they believe that message if an undeniable miracle was performed:

“And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”-Luke 16:31

The Bible itself is all the proof that is needed; it is self-authenticating. There is no need for additional proofs or miracles to establish the authority of God’s Word. It stands on its own.

Circular Reasoning?

This argument seems circular—and it is. When speaking about an ultimate authority (which the Bible claims to be), circular reasoning is required by its very nature. If a claim is proved to be true by appealing to some other authority, then that authority must be more authoritative than the claim that was proven by it. To prove something as a supreme authority, one needs to appeal to that supreme authority alone. This principle of authority is illustrated in Hebrews 6:13 when God made a promise to Abraham, “[...] because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself." This same reasoning applies to the Bible as a whole. Since the Word is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16), it cannot be subjected to lesser authorities, but must be authenticated by God himself. It carries within itself the character and marks of being the Word of God. The Bible remains authoritative, even if there were none to hear or believe it.

The Problem

If the Bible proves itself as divine, then why do most people still not believe it? The problem arises from the condition that Jesus explained in John 7:17, only the person who desires to do God’s will can see that the teaching of Christ is from God. The foundational problem is that sinful humans do not want to do God’s will because they are blinded by the darkness of sin and the devil (2 Cor. 4:4). Therefore, they cannot see the self-authenticating glory of the Scriptures. The person who has their will set on doing what is evil will not submit to God’s authority, since they think of it as foolishness (Rom. 8:7). They love the darkness, instead of turning to the light of the Word, which would expose their evil deeds (John 3:19-20).
There is no lack of proof for the truthfulness of the Bible, rather the problem lies in the sinful blindness of all those who willfully continue in their rebellion against God. A sinner asking for proof for the truthfulness of the Bible is like a man who made himself blind and now demands proof for the existence of the sun. He cannot see the glory of Christ because of his darkened mind, which he is fully responsible for (Rom. 1:18-21; 26; 32, Eph. 4:18, Matt. 13:15, Tit. 1:15, 2 Thess. 2:10-12). The solution to this problem cannot come from within oneself, since we are unable to give ourselves sight.
In other words, the problem with providing evidence for the Bible is that human beings are both sinful and finite. They must still evaluate any evidence offered for the truthfulness of the Christian faith apart from having eyes open to judge fairly (1 Cor. 2:9-16). Again, this places some sort of human standard as the final authority. Whether it is scientific or historical accuracy, human reasoning or some other standard, what we are doing is placing Scripture under that standard (all of which are fallible, and do not provide the certainty that faith requires). Evidence gathered from other sources may be useful (in the sense that it provides the already-believer something more to enjoy from their already existing faith), but it has nothing convincing to say about the truth of Christianity due to sin impairing the rational faculties of men. (And no, this is not an inherently irrationalist position to hold. It is not irrational to use reason to show that reason has its limits in matters of faith).

The Solution

If all men by their nature have an inclination to reject God and His Word, how can one come to believe that Jesus and His teachings are from God? The answer to this is the very reason that Jesus came to earth in the first place—to bring us to God (1 Pet. 3:18).
In Scripture, we encounter two kinds of hardening. Self-hardening is where a morally accountable person, who is able to refrain or not refrain from given moral actions (contra-causally free), grows stubborn or calloused in his own ways. Self-Hardening of the heart goes beyond the tragic obtuseness of our inherited condition in the Fall of Man. Working on the fertile soul of our innately immoral hearts, the act of sinning hardens the heart into a stubborn rebellion against all that is good. So, people may harden their own hearts, in sinful rebellion, in bitterness, or in sheer self-will (Exo. 9:34-35, 2 Chron. 36:13, Zech. 7:12, Dan. 5:20, Eph. 4:18, Heb. 3:12-15). Judicial-hardening is God’s active role in blinding an already rebellious person in their rebellion so as to prevent their repentance for a time. God’s motive is ALWAYS to accomplish a greater redemptive purpose through their rebellious actions (often including the potential redemption even of those being judicially blinded). In a few instances such as Pharaoh and the Egyptians (Exo. 7:3; 9:12), Sihon, king of Heshbon (Deut. 2:30), and the Hivites living in Gibeon (John 11:19-20), it is said that God hardened their hearts. Apparently, these people were so irremediable in their rebellion against God that God entered into the hardening process so that He could accomplish His purposes in spite of, and yet in and through, that hardenness. It is God’s prerogative, as God, to do this (Rom. 9:18-21). That they are morally responsible for their condition is a theological given, and we are warned not to harden our hearts as they did, a command that would make no sense if hardening were simply God’s act (1 Sam. 6:6). Could God have stepped into the 1st century and clearly shown Himself in Christ to make all the Jews of that time believe Him? Of course. He could have ordained a “Damascus road experience” with each individual Jew if He wanted to. He didn’t.
Instead we see Christ telling His disciples to keep things quiet until the right time (Matt. 16:20). We see Him hiding the truth in parables (Mark 4:11). WHY? If all people are born deaf, blind, and unable to understand to the truth, why would He need to do this? He did it because He did not want them to come to repentance YET (not until after He is crucified and raised up does He draw all men to Himself; John 12:32). This PROVES that Jesus knew the truth was more than sufficient to draw the lost to repentance. He had a bigger redemptive purpose to accomplish through them first, so He blinded them from that enabling truth. Don’t allow the context of that judicial hardening of the Jews (who God still plans to humble and redeem in the end, by the way; Rom. 11) cloud your view of men’s inherent nature. Men are very much capable of hearing, seeing, and repenting when confronted by the powerful gospel truth if they have not been judicially blinded to that truth (see Acts 7:51 cf. 28:27-28). Only the Word of God has the power to cut or pierce a hardened heart (Heb. 4:12) and He has given that Word through His Son, the apostles, the Scriptures, and by His Spirit. All of which can be resisted and ignored as seen throughout the Bible as the hardness and callousness of the heart only grows thicker with each act of rebellion. Since the Bible itself, and the gospel message found within it, is the very power of God (Rom 1:16), the best way to come to know the truth of God is to read the Bible and pray that God would give us eyes to see the wonder of His Word (Psa. 119:18). However, without faith, it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). Sometimes people miss evidence of God because of a refusal to believe (see Mark 6:1-6)—it’s hard to see when you refuse to open your eyes. If you're an unbeliever reading this, perhaps consider giving God a chance His way, rather than yours for once. You might be surprised at the results...

The Inner Testimony of the Holy Spirit

The Bible is the Word of God simply because it is authored by God, and therefore it has intrinsic authority regardless of what anyone says or thinks about it. Scripture is God’s Word as a matter of objective historical fact. In order to have an assured knowledge that the Bible is God’s Word, however, there must also be what theologians have called the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit (ITHS): an “inward work” of the third person of the Trinity in the heart and mind of a believer, bringing about a kind of direct apprehension that the Bible is God’s Word.
One of the Biblical texts cited in connection with ITHS is John 10:27, where Jesus says, “My sheep hear my voice [...]” According to Jesus, the reason many of His Jewish critics didn’t believe His claims was because they were “not of my sheep” (vs. 26). What then defines Jesus’ sheep? They hear His voice. Jesus is referring here to a spiritual apprehension rather than a mere physical reception of His words. The sheep are those who recognize the voice of the Shepherd. As they hear His voice, they know His true identity. But this knowledge cannot come through merely natural means.

"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."-Matthew 16:16-17

An analogy may help here. I imagine most readers have had the experience of receiving a phone call where the caller’s opening words are simply, “Hey, it’s me!” Even though those words could be said by anyone, I’d wager that nearly every time you’ve received an “It’s me!” call, you knew immediately and certainly who the caller was. But how did you know, since the speaker didn’t give a name? It’s simple: you recognized the person’s voice. You didn’t engage in some process of deduction from various “evidences” that you identified in their speech. You directly perceived the identity of the caller. And in order to hear them in the first place, you had to at least make the decision to pick up the call.
Something analogous takes place when the Spirit bears witness to Scripture. The Bible bears all the objective marks of a divine revelation, but we nevertheless need “eyes and ears” to recognize it as such. That spiritual apprehension is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit when one decides to make themselves willingly receptive to the gospel message (if they have not yet been, or are no longer, even, judicially kept from receiving that message itself). When we read or hear the words of the Bible, the indwelling Spirit brings about in our hearts and minds a conviction that these aren’t merely human writings.
Our knowledge of the great truths of the gospel, which are revealed in the Bible and by which we are saved, doesn’t rest on our own intellectual abilities or efforts. ITHS puts all believers on an equal footing. Anyone, regardless of their level of intellect or education, can know that the Bible is God’s Word.

"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:"-John 15:26

The Bible does more than merely claim to be God’s Word. The witness of the Spirit shows the reader that the Bible is the Word of God. When the truths of the Bible are personally applied, the credibility of the Bible is demonstrated.

"The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple."-Psalm 19:7

As people read the Bible, they find the Holy Spirit giving confirmation that what they are reading is God’s Word. Therefore, we not only have the claim of Scripture, we also have the witness of the Holy Spirit that the things written in Scripture are true.

"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:"-Romans 8:16

In short, the Holy Spirit will show the truth of its claim to anyone who is interested in knowing. Nothing else is necessary. This way the Bible is not made subject to any other type of authority.

"For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."-Romans 3:3-4

"Is This Method of Apologetic Biblical?"

In other words, is this approach to convincing others of the truthfulness of Christianity inherent to our worldview itself? I would argue that, yes, it is.
The non-Christian comes to the question of Christ with his own worldview, his presuppositions, his criterion by which he will evaluate all claims and interpret all facts. Every claim that is made will be subjected to his own criterion. The problem with modern apologetics is that it is the attempt to compel a man, by rational means, to assent to the truth of Christianity. But the man has his basic beliefs. And those beliefs are, top to bottom, in opposition to Christ. And if that is true, Christian apologetics is wide of the mark in its efforts to convince men that Christianity is reasonable or that it is a belief system that ought to be viewed by the Academy as intellectually respectable. The apostle Paul, (who wrote most of the New Testament), could not have been clearer in 1 Corinthians 1-2 that the human intellect will hold Christianity in the highest contempt. To the unregenerate mind, Christianity is intellectually bankrupt. Therefore, apologetics must take a different approach if it is to be successful.
The alternative is fideism. Fideistic apologetics begins with the experience of faith as self-attesting, arguing that unless men are honestly seeking the truth in humility (and therefore, regenerate), they cannot know that Christianity is true. The unregenerate mind is usually unwilling and unable to give Christian belief a fair assessment due to the noetic effects of sin. For this reason, deductive, inductive, and even transcendental arguments will not convince the non-Christian that Christianity is true.
Contrary to popular belief, fideists do not approach the task of apologetics by simply saying "just believe." It's much deeper than that. In fact, even amongst themselves are there varying ideas about what exactly the term "fideism" means. One popular definition, (and one I personally hold to), is that fideism can be described as the belief that faith can go beyond the limitations of reason in order to achieve certain truths not able to be grasped within the confines of human logic. In this sense, faith isn't "irrational," but rather supra-rational.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen [...] Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear [...] But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."- Hebrews 11:1, 3, 6

Fideists approach the question of the knowledge of God from the starting point that God is personal. To prove that God exists is insulting, because He is someone we already know personally, and unreasonable, because God by His nature transcends our world and is beyond proof (1 Tim. 1:17, Psa. 115:2-3, Isa. 66:1-2, John 4:24). Rather than try to prove that God exists, fideists urge Christian apologists to call on non-Christians to hear God revealing Himself personally to them in His Word.

"And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."-1 Corinthians 2:1-5
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."-Romans 1:16
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."-Hebrews 4:12
"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."-1 Corinthians 1:17-21
"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."-Romans 10:17

In response to what I said concerning the immateriality and transcendent nature of God, many atheists will protest saying rather that God’s ‘activity’ should be detectable in the physical world, not His actual Being. Fair enough, but when presented with evidences of God’s activity in the world these same atheists roundly reject them, regardless of the soundness of said evidence. There simply seems to be no evidence of God’s activity in the world that passes the jury of popular atheist opinion. And if something ever does seem to get through, depending so heavily on evidence instead of sound doctrine to convert others carries with it the risk of someone falling to Catholicism or, God forbid, Mormonism or JW theology, rather than simply getting saved.
Furthermore, if God's 'activity' should be detectable, isn't this a bit of a redundant point if the argument being raised here has to do with claiming that the Bible is authoritative, and the Bible itself already claims that only those who are honestly pursuing the truth will find it (and thus experience the active ministry of God's Spirit in their life firsthand, whether it be implicitly or explicitly)?

"Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you. And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart."-Jeremiah 29:12-13

You don’t need to be a scholar to know the Bible is true. God makes this confidence available to every Christian by the self-authenticating nature of the Scriptures. Arguing otherwise is entirely counterintuitive to the Christian faith itself according to our Lord and Saviour Himself.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God [...] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit [...] Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"-John 3:3, 6-8, 11-12

Objection: "Muslims Could Make the Same Argument for Their Religious Book. Mormons Would Say That the Holy Spirit Spoke to Them, or That They Felt a 'Burning in Their Bosom' That Gave Them Reason to Believe in Their Faith."

1. The argument given here was never meant to 'prove' the object of our faith actually exists to those outside of it. It's merely meant to justify the faith of the one in possession of it, and encourage others to actually try Christianity for themselves.

What is discouraging when engaging with atheists in debate, particularly online, is the constant charge that faith is somehow illogical or irrational. However, faith is simply the conviction that something is true. The cut-and-dried distinction atheists attempt to make between religious belief and other forms of knowledge is ultimately untenable. There is no universal, rational foundation upon which indubitably certain knowledge can be built. All human knowing is built on believing. This is the human condition. What should instead be our main concern is whether or not one's faith in something is justified. This is how we discuss the validity and oreasonableness of any other conclusion made by the human mind. To take this away would be to destroy science, and result in nothing more than unfiltered hyper-skepticism (otherwise known as solipsism...).

1. The inner testimony is not a feeling.

Firstly, the inner testimony of the Spirit is not a mystical feeling believers get in order to confirm their place in God’s household. Feelings are fleeting, unreliable, and originate within our own inner man. This does not mean that feelings are bad and should be avoided. Emotions are an inevitable and God-given function of our inner man that helps us to know what is truly happening in our hearts. The more our hearts are submitted to the influence of the Spirit, the more Christ-like our emotions will be. That said, God did not design how we feel to be the barometer of our relationship with Him or the basis of our assurance. The testimony of the Spirit is not some kind of undefined emotion you should be waiting on before you can be certain you are saved.
Secondly, the testimony of the Spirit is not additional revelation believers should anticipate some time after their salvation. As Christians, we have received everything that we need for life and godliness when the Spirit granted to us the promises of Scripture and brought us into union with Christ. There is nothing more that we need to rest secure in Christ! We don’t need more revelation to tell us that we are the children of God when, by faith, we already possess the gospel which actually makes us the children of God.
Finally, to bear witness about something means to demonstrate that it is true, which is exactly what the Spirit does with the gospel for us. The Spirit testifies to our inner man that we are God’s children by convincing us of the truth of the gospel. That's what Romans 8:16 means when it says, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.”
Interestingly, the only other two times the phrase "bear[ing] witness" is used in Romans is when it refers to being convinced of something in your conscience (Rom 2:15; 9:1). So, if you are convinced of the truth of Christ, it is because of the ministry of the Holy Spirit on your inner man.

1. There are differences between the Bible and every other religious book:

• It's actually true.

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."-John 17:17

• The Bible makes fundamentally unique claims about both God and man amongst all other religious texts.

"For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."-1 Corinthians 11:19

I highly reccomend others check out the post in the hyperlink given for the latter point, as it contains within it a fuller explanation and description of each of the following ideas I present concerning this specific argument.
In that post, I argued that others should believe in the Bible based on how incredibly unique the Christian message is in comparison to every other religion or belief system. The point I made was that, whereas every other religion would have one to believe that their good deeds simply need outweigh their bad in order to enter into Paradise (in whatever form that is, whether it be moksha in Hinduism, nirvana in Buddhism, or heaven in Islam), Biblical Christianity is the only religion that teaches us that we can't pay the infinite debt we owe to an eternally existing God for falling short of His perfect standard, and that we have to instead believe (i.e. have faith/trust) that God already paid the price for our salvation through the person and infinite merit of Jesus Christ. Doing so allows a "transfer" (of sorts) to happen, in where God punishes His Son (the second person of the Trinity i.e. Godhead) in your place, so that His righteousness may be imputed onto you solely on the one conditon that you believe He did this for you. Nothing can be done to either earn nor maintain one's salvation, because God finished the work at the cross at Calvary and promised that He would never take it away (no matter the way one lives before, or after, one's legal justification in the sight of God the Father).

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."-John 5:24
"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory."-Ephesians 1:13-14
"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;"-Titus 1:2

An atheist once tried to deflect this point with the following objection:
"If you think about it, Christianity is just another religion that’s all about doing the right things to earn God’s approval. The only difference is that the Christian God requires 'correct belief' while other gods may require 'good behaviour,' or perhaps some combination of good behavioucorrect belief."
In other words, the atheist here tried to argue that faith is still inherently a work.
This is how I responded:
"[...] Assuming you drive, are you saying that it takes work for you to have faith every single time you step into your car and believe (without evidence or certainty) that you'll reach your destination without a scratch on you?

"Boast not thyself of to morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth."-Proverbs 27:2

Let's do a thought experiment.
Let's say someone rich comes up to you and says, 'Hey, you didn't do anything to deserve this but since I like you so much I went ahead and bought you a Ferrari. I'll even pay your monthly insurance on it. Here's the keys, go crazy.' You then accept the keys, but when the time comes to explain to others how you recieved this rather expensive car, you tell them what happened, but argue, 'Yeah some rich guy bought it for me, BUT I had to accept the keys!! I had to do something too so that means I partially earned it!1!1'
...
These are precisely the reasons the Bible says faith is not something one can boast about.

"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."-Romans 4:1-3
"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?"-1 Corinthians 4:7
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."-Ephesians 2:8-9

Furthermore, the Bible says one can actually be assured of their salvation, because belief is of the essence of assurance, (and God cannot lie nor contradict Himself, especially pertaining to His promises).

"If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."-1 John 5:9-13

Grace is unmerited favor, my friend."
Lastly, I'm inclined to believe that, if God were to save every single individual without said individuals fulfilling the specific condition of faith in His Son (i.e., universalism), then people would be forced to be in the presence of a God Whom they did not want to know.
In other words, without the condition of faith, salvation would be a direct violation of our free will and capacity to choose God. In such a world, such a violation could be considered more repugnant to unbelievers in heaven than simply being separated from their Creator in hell (no matter how awful the torment there). One often hears from atheists, "I'd rather spend eternity in hell than have to worship the God of Christianity forever."

Summary

The Bible claims in various ways that it is the word of God Himself. At times, God spoke directly to the prophets of old and told them to write His words down, even going as far as to write His law Himself and give it to Moses. The New Testament claims that God “inspired” all Scripture and that those who wrote it were guided by the Holy Spirit; these claims constitute both the Old and New Testaments as God’s own words. Rather than being convinced by multiple rational proofs, Christians are ultimately convinced of the truthfulness of these claims by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit to their validity. The Spirit enables Christians to trust in God’s Word and gives us assurance in the face of doubt that God assuredly speaks to us through the pages of Holy Scripture.

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."-John 6:63
"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid."-John 14:26-27
"And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life. These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."-1 John 2:25-27

As Karl Barth (a fideist and theologian) once said, "Belief cannot argue with unbelief, it can only preach to it."

Since restrictions started lifting, I’ve been joking with my extended family about getting ordained online so we could turn our family Christmas party into a religious ceremony and we’d still be able to have it at someone’s house.
I went ahead and registered with Universal Life Church, which apparently makes me an ordained minister and able to perform weddings & funerals. We’ve all had a good laugh about it but now one of my cousins wants me to perform her wedding at some point in the future.
Is this something I can do as it stands and have the marriage be legally recognised or are there extra steps involved?

To cut a long story short, my brother and his fiancé were due to be married on Saturday 7th November. Unfortunately due to the covid restrictions just announced about the lockdown, they’re unable to do so. What I need to know is: is it possible for me to get ordained online before Thursday so i can legally marry them? If so, what is the process for this? I am over 18 and live in England (specifically the East Midlands).

TL;DR Bisexual preacher's son, (me), marries girlfriend after only 5 days of divorce from 1st marriage. The preacher that married us had an unusual connection to me, and my bride. We had been messaging his son online. We had been discussing having a threesome, and swapping nudes just a week prior. This story is like an episode of Jerry Springier, read below for all the details. Also want to discuss a law in my state that makes it difficult for atheists, and gays in my state to marry.
My girlfriend and I just got married yesterday, and we couldn't be happier! We are both atheists, so we didn't want to get married in a church, or have a religious service of any kind. So, we both decided that we would just get married at the court house. For some background, she's been a lifelong atheist. I woke up at 24, about 3 months after my ex left. We are also both healthcare workers; I'm an RN, and she is a CNA. We didn't want to be spreading covid with a huge get together. My family is super religious, and I'm the only atheist. I'm very open about my atheism and being bisexual. It does cause a bit of tension in the family, but i don't care if it does, Its on them not me. Anyways, we wanted to focus on each other's love for one another when we got married, without worrying about an audience gawking and judging us. It was the ideal romantic quarantine wedding.
We would have gotten married sooner than we did, but we had an obstacle to overcome, I was still legally married to my 1st wife. The divorce would have been over and done a long time ago, but my ex had to throw a wrench into that. She got pregnant by her new bf, the one she left me for. Since we were still legally married, the judge wanted to wait until the baby was born and have a paternity test done. We waited 9 months for the baby to be born. Then we had to wait an addition 2 months for my lazy fat-ass ex to take the child for DNA sampling. There was a slight possibility it could have been mine. I was with another gf at the time, and my ex joined us in the bedroom for a night. (horrible decision btw). The kid ended up not being mine, thank science. The judge granted the divorce just 6 days ago, as of this writing.
Unknown to us before this, we had yet another hurdle to get over. In the State of Tennessee, you have to get an ordained minister to sign your marriage certificate for it to be legal. This law was basically created to make it more difficult for gays to marry. inadvertently, this also makes it more difficult for atheists to marry too. This law just seems to be in direct conflict to the first amendment, but what do I know.
After the court house told us about the requirement of a minister's signature, the receptionist gave us a list of names we could call. We called a couple of the number's, and we finally got a minister that would sign our papers. We waited outside the courthouse for him to arrival. I was a bit nervous while waiting. My dad was a preacher of a large church in this town for 15 years. The chance of me getting recognized was very high, I mean its a small town.
We hadn't been waiting very long, and we saw a man holding a bible to his side approaching us. We waved, and started up some small talk while he was signing our papers. He didn't even look at my name, which amazed me. The last name is not common, which makes it worse. As we were talking, he said "hey, you might know my kids, I think they're about y'alls ages. Do you maybe know Sue, or Mike, or Jon?" Then Wife replied "wait, you say Jon ____?" "yep that's him" he said. Wife and eye both made immediate eye contact and gasped. We may know more about the preacher's son than he would like to imagine.
We had both been messaging Jon online saying some pretty naughty things. We had all been swapping nudes and sexting. We were making plans to meet up for a threesome. While all this is now flooding my mind, he starts to pull out his bible from under his arm. "he starts asking us "y'all go to church anywhere?" We both shook our heads and adamantly said no together. Wife and I both just looked at each, trying not to laugh.
As we were finishing up talking, and heading back to our cars, preacher said "hey, you do look really familiar, do you know Goeff?" My heart sank a bit as I let out a long sigh. I reply, "yep, that's my dad" "oh..." preacher said. "why didn't your dad do it for you?" "He doesn't know, no one knows except us 3" He had quite the shocked look on his face. Then after a few moments he looked at us again looking more and more surprised. "ooooooh..." he said one more time. It felt like the longest time to have eye contact accompanied by more silence. Not a soul said another word until we made it back to our cars.
We posted the picture of our marriage licence to facebook, right after we got in the car. I sure got tons of calls from family that were totally in the dark. I don't care if they wanted us to do a big ceremony, we did what we wanted. That's something to be proud of I think. Names in this story were changed for obvious reasons. Thanks for reading, I figured some of you might think it was interesting.

Last night I (40F) was searching our State’s (MD) Judiciary Case search because I wanted to see if a judgement had been recorded as paid off so my husband and I can apply for a mortgage. To my dismay I discovered that my husband (48M) had an entry in which he, the plaintiff, filed for divorce from his son’s mother (30F) in August of last year. Important note we got married in October of last year. Needless to say I was beside myself and immediately confronted my husband. He told me he had no idea and immediately tried calling his son’s mother. My husband sent her a screenshot of the on line divorce entry and told her to call him immediately.
She called back this morning very upset and crying saying that when her grandmother died over a year ago she needed to be married in order to receive the inheritance. She then stole his social security card and birth certificate, applied for a marriage license, convinced one of her friends to become ordained online who then signed the marriage certificate and filed it with the court, thus making them legally married. My husband had no knowledge of this, nor did I, or else we would have delayed our own wedding until theirs was annulled. When she received the inheritance she filed for divorce with my husband as the plaintiff. A hearing date was set to which he didn’t show up to of course so the case remains open and they are still legally married.
Of note, this woman has a history of spending addiction, being evicted on several occasions, and was sent to inpatient rehab and counseling to address this issue. Obviously she has not overcome her demons.
She has told my husband she will contact a lawyer and make arrangements to get it annulled ASAP but of course this can’t happen for quite some time due to the courts being closed for the foreseeable future.
My question is, are my husband and I not married? Are we breaking the law? Can I be cited for insurance fraud due to placing my husband on my insurance and him using those services? Can his son’s mother face any repercussions for doing this selfish and heinous act? I’m going out of my mind and so extremely upset, shocked, and devastated.

Hey, my fiancee and I want to get married on a date that isn't available by appointment at any of the nearby marriage courts, but I have a family member who would be willing to take one of those online certifications to be ordained to get us married.
Her only worry is that the status of officially being a minister will affect her somehow in filing taxes or some other way. So, I ask: are there any special legal considerations (either in US federal, or Illinois state law) that someone has to worry about once they're a minister, or is it something you can do frivolously and then not have to worry about it afterward?
(Bonus question if this isn't running afoul of the rule against "Advertising or Recommending a Lawyer or Business"- can anyone recommend a good simple place my family member can go to to be ordained to get someone legally married? It's a gay marriage so obviously we can't go with anything affiliated with a religion that says that marriage is only between a man and a woman)

Ok y’all so I need some advice preferably from someone who knows SC law. My fiancée and I were supposed to get married this September but are moving our wedding til next year. Before covid got bad we just figured we would go to the courthouse to do the ceremony so at least we are legally married. We have completed the marriage license (they did this over video chat with us) and we have the license in possession.
Courthouse is now closed til further notice. We’d like to get married within a month. My brother offered to get ordained online for us but he lives in California. Would it be legal for us to just talk on video chat and mail him the documents have him sign and mail back to us? I recognize it’s kind of the Wild West right now with everything happening. Based on my research I found that the officiant doesn’t need to reside in SC I just wonder about them not physically being in SC when they sign the document. But how would anyone even know?
EDIT: thank you all for your help! I reached out to a friend who was rumored to be an officiant. She is! If it doesn’t work with her I’ll try UPS lol that would be a great story.

Hi everyone — I’m in kind of a unique situation and needed some help with my nikah questions.
My fiancé (American Convert) and I (Pakistani Muslim) are postponing our wedding until next year due to covid but are going to do our nikah this year. My family lives overseas and will be coming to America for the nikah. The earliest we can have both immediate families together to perform the nikah will be the first week of November.
However, bc of covid I am unemployed as of 2 months ago and lost my health insurance but really need to have a doctor evaluate a recent injury. Luckily, my fiancé is in the military and I will be eligible to receive healthcare through him upon marrying. Because I wanted to try and get my injury looked at soon, we were considering getting married at the court next month and have the nikkah later once my family gets here. My parents and his parents are okay with this as they want me to receive care.
My questions:
1) How does it work if I get married at the court and receive my marriage certificate PRIOR to my nikah? Will the nikanama contract still need to be filed or registered or will the nikkah just be ceremonial/symbolic rather than legal?
2) My father or brother thought it would be sweet if one of them could perform my nikah. I read online that a nikah only has to be performed by an adult Muslim male, an imam is just what is culturally popular. What would they need to do to perform the nikah? Would they need to be ordained by an imam first?
I ask that everyone stay open minded and I invite any constructive advice and help!
Thank you!

Recently, a friend of mine proposed to their partner and asked me to officiate their wedding. The problem is, I live in California, my friend lives in Manitoba Canada and is not a US citizen, and their partner lives in South Carolina and is not a Canadian citizen. Ive done some research so I know it is fairly easy to get ordained in the states, but its a lot longer process in Canada and not really an option for me right now because I am not a Canadian citizen. I also know that some places are allowing weddings to be officiated online, over live video calls. I would very much like to be able to do this for my friend, but I am not sure under what circumstances I would be allowed to. My question is: What would I have to do, and where would the couple have to be, in order for them to be legally married?

Hey wedding, I had question I was hoping y'all could help me with or point me in the correct direction of. My fiance and I are planning on getting married in the OBX of North Carolina at a family member's house on the Sound. We are hoping to get a family friend of ours to perform the ceremony but we're a bit confused by which online ordinations are legit. It seems like you can get ordained online, but does anyone know which online ordinations are accepted by the state of NC? Specifically, the first result that pops up is 'Universal Life Church' but it isn't clear that would be accepted and my fiance is concerned with the legality of the marriage. Anyone have experience with this? Thanks!

My SO and I want to get married on a specific day and have that be the official, legal date that’s reflected on the certificate. We’re in California and will be doing it via the court. We’ll be applying for the license online and having a friend get ordained for a day to perform the ceremony. Is the day of the ceremony the date that’s reflected on the certificate? Is it the date we all sign it? Or is it the day we return the signed marriage license the date on the certificate?
Can the license be filed on a Saturday? That’s when the date falls on, and courts are closed on weekends.

Here are some from the last time we had this thread, and I only remember because I had it saved. Credit to all the people that I'm stealing these links from back in that thread.
Gemologist http://www.gia.edu/gem-education?gclid=CLKwgIDW55sCFQZlswodSCxp6A Dog Psychologist http://www.opencollege.info/dogpsychology.html Medical Terminology Certification http://www.aama-ntl.org/cma-aama-exam/study/medical-terminology-practice-test Boating (Maryland only) http://dnr.maryland.gov/nrp/Pages/BoatingSafety/Safety_Certificate.aspx Interpreting http://www.panoltia.com/Interpreter_Certification.htm beer judging http://www.bjcp.org/index.php lactation consultant http://iblce.org/certify/certification-application-information/ SQL http://www.w3schools.com/sql/sql_quiz.asp career readiness https://www.act.org/certificate/faq.html purchasing http://www.american-purchasing.com/default.asp?t=applycert piping design http://www.spedweb.com/index.php/component/content/article/98.html Haz-mat certificate https://extweb.missouri.edu/courses/default.aspx?courseid=103
Get Ordained by Universal Life Church (+Doctorate of Metaphysics) http://www.themonastery.org/ordination For other cool stuff check out http://www.themonastery.org/catalog/ Get Ordained by the Church of Latter Day Dude http://dudeism.com/ordination-form/ OSHA Certification http://www.360training.com/free-online-courses/ Lots of other courses as well. Canadian OSHA Equivalent http://www.ccohs.ca/products/courses/course_listing.html Lots of free courses there FEMA http://training.fema.gov/ Powered Actuated Tool License http://www.ramset.com/ramtest/a001_begin.html Accredited Boating License in Canada (costs C$) http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/debs-obs-paperwork-paperwork_operator-3718.htm http://www.boaterexam.com/canada/ Notary http://justice.alberta.ca/programs_services/official/Documents/NotaryPublicApptAppProcessReviewCriteria.pdf XSeries Courses (Certification Courses from Various Accredited Universities) https://www.edx.org/xseries Project Management Professional (PMP certification from PMI) https://www.pmi.org/certifications WHMIS (Canada) http://www.whmis.ca/ Fall Arrest (also WHMIS, Transportation of Dangerous Goods) (Canada) http://www.fallarresttraining.ca/ Active Listening Certificate http://www.7cupsoftea.com/ Google Apps Certification http://certification.googleapps.com/ Knight/Dame of Sealand http://www.sealandgov.org/title-pack/knight Unicorn Hunting License: https://www2.lssu.edu/banished-words-list/unicorn-hunters/ https://www1.kaplanuniversity.edu/degree-programs/online-certificates/ beer server http://www.cicerone.org/ Management and Leadership http://www.masterclassmanagement.com/ CPR course http://www.firstaidweb.com/ A Pokemon professor http://www.pokemon.com/us/play-pokemon/organize/become-a-professo Magic The Gathering Judge https://blogs.magicjudges.org/o/judge-levels/become-a-magic-judge/ ordained by the Universal Life Church http://www.themonastery.org/ Forensic consultant training http://www.acfei.com Powder actuated tool certification http://www.ramset.com/patlicensing
These aren't all certs, but some free classes/resources. http://education-portal.com/academy/course/index.html http://101science.com/ https://iversity.org/ http://www.openculture.com/freeonlinecourses https://www.coursera.org/ https://www.edx.org/course-list http://www.dliflc.edu/products.html use the GLOSS link http://www.coursehero.com/subjects/ http://oli.cmu.edu/ http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/find-by-topic/ http://www.saylor.org/ http://ocw.jhsph.edu/ http://www.open.edu/openlearn/ http://ocw.tufts.edu/ https://itunes.stanford.edu/content/rss.html http://webcast.berkeley.edu/# http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/3-websites-started-learning-programming-language/ https://www.futurelearn.com/ http://www.flashcardmachine.com/ http://freerice.com/category It quizzes you on the basics of a subject o your choosing, and donates rice for each answer you get right once you turn off adblock http://openstaxcollege.org/ http://justenglish.me/2012/09/01/free-books-100-legal-sites-to-download-literature/ http://blog.boundless.com/2013/04/the-cost-of-textbooks-is-too-damn-high-so-boundless-made-free-ones/ http://freescience.info/index.php
Edit: some top responses from another thread
http://www.deputyheartattack.org/
The Digital Garage by Google. It shows that you have knowledge of how Online Marketing (Analytics, Adwords, E-mail marketing etc) works. It's a good introductory certificate and you can put it up on LinkedIn.
Openclassrooms has some certifications, it's also a pretty good site
Psychological First Aid Online. Free, about six hours long. Hosted by the National Child Traumatic Stress Network and promoted by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
You learn how to help disaster survivors get referenced to the professionals they need and how to triage those with more damaging psychological distress before it gets worse. Learn the signs, symptoms, etc., and know where to forward the survivors to the proper agencies. Additionally there are some things on how to secure relief sites in consideration for physical and mental health.
There are also free courses on the website regarding helping children and military families with specific issues, but since I have not taken them yet I cannot comment on those classes.
The course is tailored to the U.S., but the ideas should be easily applicable anywhere. Anyone may register for a class online and take it at their own pace. If there are any issues, please let me know so I may update this post.
Psychological First Aid is more designed towards a large-scale response. For individual psychological training, consider the QTR Institute which trains you in suicide prevention techniques in multiple different settings and environments. PFA for large-scale, QTR for small-scale.
On the EPA website, you can get a certificate for NPDES, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. Will be good for any environmental, energy, chemical, or related field job.
https://www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-training Click recordedscroll down section 1.
Hope this helps you guys. I know this is not the usual but if you read this visit either one of my subreddits and tell me what you think. PareidoliaArt and judgeyourcover

Theory #1: Red Really Is Real Raymond Reddington. Or something.
After a protracted and tedious back and forth with another redditor last night about this very theory, it became clearer to me how bogus this theory is, both at heart and face. Let's be clear at the outset. There either was or was not an actual person named Raymond Reddington whose life and identity was completely absorbed by Red (the Spader persona who keeps turning up on this show every week). If there was not a Real Raymond Reddington, then there is zero reason for Red to be alarmed or panicked at anyone discovering his "identity". His panic of being discovered is pointless when the person he claims to be never actually existed. There is also zero reason for the show to go to lengths of concocting such a ploy that he's a fraud if all of this amounts to someone making up a simple alias moniker. It's a dry husk to claim Red as RRR is a simple matter of semantics. Christopher Hargrave being renamed Tom Keen has no consequences; there was no price for Hargarve absorbing the name Tom Keen - they were the same guy. It's just a name change for its own sake, like Norma Jean Baker becoming Marilyn Monroe. Maddie Tolliver however was an actual human being, and did pay an exacting price for Katarina Rostova to assume her identity when she was murdered by Orion Relocation (we can rightly surmise the same fate befell some real person named Constance Drucker). These two examples are not the same!! Hargrave morphing into Keen is irrelevant and inconsequential; Rostova morphing into Tolliver is precisely the opposite, chock full of consequences, made especially more potent would Maddie Tolliver have been involved in a lot of high styled and high minded espionage. Like say, a real Raymond Reddington. The fact Maddie Tolliver and Raymond Reddington actually existed is precisely what complicates the lives of those who stole their identities and stepped into their lives. There are remains left behind to cause trouble. You know, like...bones. To say that it was simply a matter of assigning an alias name with no specific individual attached to that name makes the name change meaningless. And inconsequential. The only way there can be any consequences to Red today is the knowledge Raymond Reddington was once alive, well and engaged in living his life.
Speaking of those bones, the redditor in question remained adamant that there was no "proof" that said bones were those of Real Raymond Reddington. Such a claim was staked upon the idea it was "impossible" for Real Raymond Reddington's "DNA" to have been included into CODIS because no such "DNA" of Raymond Reddington was "on file" prior to the 1990 advent of CODIS, which this redditor claimed was simply a database for "criminals". A simple 20 minute dig online revealed quite a bit of factual data to destroy this idea as having any truth. In brief, Raymond Reddington's DNA would absolutely have been available to the US Government, since he was the exclusive property of the US Government as both a student at the naval academy and an officer once he graduated. The time frame of his stints in school and in the navy coincide with required testing for all government personnel in the 1980's because by then the AIDS situation was present, growing, and global. Moreover, there is a serum depository in Maryland which actually stores samples taken from US military personnel. Prior to the refinement and improvements of DNA testing, matching blood to identify remains was still one of the few ways at the time the military had for any of its members who died and could not be readily identified. Further, it was US military DNA data that also was part of the CODIS pilot program when it began in the lat 1980's. Since CODIS can only exist from an act of Congress signed into law by a president, the legislation had to dodge any legal challenges that would have arisen from infringement of 4th Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure by having DNA entered into such a database used by law enforcement without their consent. So it was determined the way to avoid that was to include DNA only of those whom governments (federal and state) owned: employees, criminals and military - and the Maryland depository would have supplied the saved DNA for those in military service. So Raymond Reddington's DNA would have easily been available to his employer at that time, the US Government. This is simple factual data.
But this redditor persisted that because of some utterance by Samar two years earlier about Reddington's DNA not being "on file". As a fiction show, they can write whatever they like. In this case what they wrote is simply inaccurate. If I can do a simple internet search for 20 minutes and unravel the entirety of their claim, you wonder why they couldn't do the same search to tighten it down. But this redditor's belief underscores the real problem: treating this narrative as if it were some kind of flawlessly designed, meticulously crafted gospel of "clues" for an audience, while remaining error-free (and there are a lot of people here of that belief). A mystery is written into the narrative for the characters, not the audience. It's their mystery to solve; the audience is just along for the ride. Far from being this tightly woven story dripped out week by week, the opposite is far more likely true. This issue of CODIS in Season 5 and "not on file" from Season 3 is a simple inconsistency - a hole - in the narrative born from the reality that writing a TV show necessitates. One of the unintended plot holes springing up at one stage that simply most be glossed over and ignored if you're still dealing with the show years later. This is just a fact, and such plot holes happen on just about every single show in every single country in the world. Anyone who claims otherwise has no knowledge of what it's like to write a weekly series. So many agendas from so many voices are written into each script that to treat this as though it's merely a plug-and-play pre ordained series of clues trotted out week after week is simply misguided. This isn't a novel being carved out by one person. It's a TV series of many masters to serve: show runners, writers, actors, the production company and the network. All of them have their input. When gaps appear, so be it. You can't go back two years ago and "erase" or "edit out" something that contradicts where you are now, or where someone (or someones) decides to go. Season Three was already a slide down in ratings, and by Season Five the possibility was very real that this show was at its end, and everyone connected to the show knew it. Had the 11th-hour NBC-Sony deal fallen through then The Blacklist would already have been canceled two years ago, and all gaps remain unexplained. So during Season Five, not knowing where your future is - or even if you have one - you end up writing what you have to work with over 22 weeks. It becomes "damn the torpedoes" & full steam ahead, get it all in no matter what because the end of the line looked very real. The way such gaps are always dealt with in show business - TV, films, plays etc. - you move forward despite the inconsistencies. In the case of a series, you have a show to shoot that has to air in a preset time frame. You hope the audience just doesn't realize those gaps when they appear. That's the reality.
The light bulb shone brightly for me once the redditor disputed my contention that it was in Season Five the audience came to understand that there actually was a real Raymond Reddington, and Red is not him. The redditor's claim was that since no actual dialogue exists whereby Garvey and Red discuss how Garvey actually came to know these were the remains of Raymond Reddington, this buttressed this redditor's claim that the CODIS hit is somehow suspect. Let's state the obvious briefly: if there is no Raymond Reddington, then the bones mean nothing to Red in terms of why he was so hysterical to acquire them. If "Raymond Reddington" is just a name and nothing else, then there would be no way for Garvey to ever know that these remains belong to "Raymond Reddington". This redditor went on to say that Red had a panicked motive to collect the bones that had "nothing to do" with "Raymond Reddington". Which is bizarre, since Garvey only knew these bones as belonging to Raymond Reddington, making that aspect their sole value. If there is no Raymond Reddington match in CODIS for Garvey to see, then there's no reason for Garvey to seek out Red in the first place. He'd have no idea who the bones belong to. the CODIS hit was simply a plot device to connect Garvey to the bones and give him the need to keep them. But we know for fact these are the bones of the Real Raymond Reddington, and Red's own words and actions in Season 5 tell us they are. They tell that he knew it, and he knew Garvey knew it.
In the middle of the season, Red and Garvey have their first confrontation in a motel room, and Red essentially gives up the game:
GARVEY: I want the truth.
RED: You have the bones. You already know the truth.
This simple exchange becomes crucial on more than just the surface. The concession from Red is confirmation to Garvey that these are the bones of Raymond Reddington. Had Garvey not gotten the CODIS match to the name Raymond Reddington, he would have no need to seek out Tom, Pete and Lena demanding to reach the impostor "Raymond Reddington". We further know that Red is aware Garvey knows the truth from this passage to Tom from S5E6:
RED: You asked Nik to identify the bones, and he was killed for his trouble by someone who knows their identity and, therefore, their value*. That killer is likely searching for a way to contact me since, knowing their value,* he knows they are most valuable to me*. I will allow myself to be found, recover the suitcase, eliminate the man for his troubles, and rebury the body in a place where it will be lost to the sands of time, as originally intended.*
This makes it abundantly clear: Red knows someone knows the "identity" of the bones, and because of that, he knows the killer is trying to reach him, because the killer knows the bones are the most valuable to RED. But why? Because Red is living the Raymond Reddington lie. Since Red is posing as Raymond Reddington, this is why they are "most valuable" to him, and that whoever has them understands that. If Red was actually Reddington, not only would none of this matter to him, this passage to Tom would make no sense. That Red tells Tom outright this killer knows what story the bones tell, and that Nik's killer will be looking to contact him is further concession that these bones are in fact Raymond Reddington. But if that's not enough, we know Red understands Garvey knows full well these are the bones of Raymond Reddington because....in a last ditch attempt to recover them, Red turns up to see..... Jennifer. He begs her to take him to Naomi, because Red believes Garvey would take these bones to her. And lest we forget, Naomi Hyland is one of the few in this series who knew full well Red is not Raymond Reddington. She knew he was masquerading as her dead husband. Which explains fully why Red believed Garvey would try to reach her and hand the bag off to her. The bones of anyone other than Raymond Reddington would mean nothing to Naomi Hyland. This further underscores Red's earlier concession to Garvey: "You have the bones. You already know the truth". That's why Red went to Jennifer. He was right thinking Garvey would go to Naomi, and had she been alive she would have. The fact Red knew Garvey would reach out to Naomi is the proof red knows Garvey fully understood the identity of the bones. It makes no sense for Garvey to try to get the bones to Naomi or Jennifer if the bones belonged to anyone other than Raymond Reddington. But Garvey already knew what Red didn't: Naomi was long since dead. So he did the next best thing, getting them to Jennifer. All of this proves Red understood Garvey knew the truth, and that's why he told him so in the motel.
Red is not the Real Raymond Reddington. He assumed the identity of the real Raymomd Reddington, sometime after Raymond Reddington's disappearance in 1990. It's also highly doubtful Red is the one who attended the naval academy as Raymond Reddington, which some seem to think. Looking at the requirements for admission, it states that, among other things, you have to be at least 17 but no older than 23; you also need a GPA of 3.6 or better; and you have specific SAT and ACT scores to meet. This eliminates anyone from entry that's a runaway wayward protege of The Major, like Tom Keen, from entry. Two pieces of canon fix the ages of both Raymond Reddington and Red. For Red, he confesses to the manage of the bank he just robbed in Season 6 that he'd be "turning 60" this year (the show runs a year ahead of audience time because of Liz's 10 month coma). For Reddington it's the Most Wanted Poster, saying he was born in 1960. Since we have his graduation from the academy at age 24, this means he left the academy in 1984, meaning his latest entry into the academy would have been 1980 at age 20. He could have entered somewhat earlier, but no later than 1980. So to make the claim Red decided to absorb the identity of what was basically a kid barely out of high school is way, way out on the thin part of the branch. It also calls into question just how, exactly, Raymond Reddington as a 24 year old freshly graduated in1984 could somehow have become a target of surveillance by Katarina Rostova at that time, to the extent she would have gotten pregnant by this 24 year old kid sometime in 1984 to have squeezed out Masha/Liz in 1985 (Liz's birth year from show canon). This is extremely sketchy. There's no way a cadet fresh out of the navy's college would ever be given assignments deep enough to warrant a KGB honey trap to tail him. How they plan to tie up that will be...interesting, to say the least. Since we have Red as the same age roughly, where he fits into Katarina's life is another matter. Whether Red is KGB-FBI-CIA or something else, it's unclear to what his proximity was to Katarina.
Redarina - The Most Idiotic of Idiocies
Let's set aside the most obvious logistical problems with this, such as Spader's Red being 5'10" tall medium frame and Verbeek's Katarina coming in at barely 5'6" tall petite frame. Talk all you want about gender reassignment - increasing your height by 4 full inches isn't part of the process. Among a host of other implausibilities of converting Red to Katarina. Let's also set aside Red's stint in prison would have fully exposed any gender reassignment surgery instantly. Even a full-on incompetent quack of a prison doctor would know they were looking at a tranny - the scarring would give it away - in which case he would have to report such a thing to the warden, DA and all the rest. Let's even set aside how - if this is Katarina - she would ever know a thing such as the location of Dechambeu's lovely freckle, since Red reminded Dechambeu - the lovey former French Intelligence woman gone to the criminal side in "The Courier" - he knew where it was. Unless you want to make the claim Katarina's a dyke. Let's just concentrate of show dialogue over the years. Red has a coterie of core confidants to whom he has entrusted with everything about his life and his business: Dembe, Kate and Dom. To think he would keep such a thing from any of them - especially Dembe - is ridiculous. Examining the dialogue among them, here are a few passages that make this theory sheer lunacy when you look at the world within the story of characters speaking to each other
S3E20 - The Artax Network
RED (To Dom): I was just imagining young Katarina covered in glitter.
So here we have "Katarina" talking about herself in the 3rd person, in front of her own father. Unless the Redarina crowd want to claim she's never told her own father she's a tranny, done to save her life. Or Masha's. Or something. In any event, with this passage Redarina's truth is based on her talking to her own father who doesn't know this is his daughter. It's absurd.
Dom: No, not just like me. She’s gone because of choices you made for both of them. First Katarina and then Masha. As far as I’m concerned, you killed my entire family! No, you’re not like me.
If you want to have even more fun with this Redarina nonsense, let's say Dom does know he's talking to his tranny daughter (which he would) and rethink these two passages from the same episode. Now what you have is Red and Dom, alone on the wilderness with nobody around for miles, openly referring to "Katarina" as a separate entity between themselves when they both know she is in fact Red, who's standing there. As if they cannot be open about it between themselves when only they are in the room. Both bizarre and idiotic. And that's being charitable.
S4E17 - REQUIEM
Red: As I feared would happen, elements from Katarina’s past are circling Elizabeth like a pack of wolves in the night. I put Tom Keen in her life to keep an eye on her, and he married her.
In this flashback, we have Red again babbling about Katarina in what would be the 3rd person. Only this time both Kate and Dembe are sitting in the room. These two would know this is Katarina, such is the trust put into both of them. So with each of them listening to Red utter the word Katarina in the 3rd person yet again, they would have to conclude by this point she's just crazy. And mind you, this episode was written by the biggest proponent of Redarina in the writer''s room - Daniel Cerrone. So we again have two of Red's closest confidants either not knowing this is Katarina - which is absurd. Or even worse, they both do know and stand idly by as she continues to speak about herself in the 3rd person in a room full of people where that would be totally unnecessary. As if she was losing her mind more and more by the day and they're helpless to do anything. At a minimum, you would think they'd shoot her a glance to let her know how crazy she is. But, no. Just let her be as crazy as a loon. Kate and Dembe will just suck it up. If she keeps paying them well, then hell, let her think she's Alice in Wonderland for all they care!
S4E22 - Mr. Kaplan (conclusion)
Dembe: [ Sighs ] Raymond I’m not sure Elizabeth will ever be ready to learn about what you did to Katarina.
So if the Redarina idiocy is true, then this passage indicates Dembe has just decided to jump into the deep end of the insanity pool along with her. Evidently he's grown weary of trying to let her know talking about herself in the 3rd person isn't necessary when they're together, so now he's all in with her detachment craziness. A humoring of the mentally ill.
The list can go on, but it's abundantly clear: Redarina is the single-most idiotic theory put forth about this show.

Hello! My fiancé and I just got engaged yesterday (We are so excited!!). We live in Tennessee and have talked about having our close friend who actually set us up officiate for our wedding. Last year in Tennessee, a law was passed that does not allow online ordained ministers to officiate weddings, but we also know that was paused in court. My question is, is it still paused and technically legal or not? Everything I've seen online has been conflicting information and I'm very confused about whether its currently legal. I was just wondering if there was anyone on here who was legally married in Tennessee after that was passed by a friend who was ordained online and how you went about that? Any information you can give me would be greatly appreciated! Thank you!