Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Julie Rowe rumor


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Unbelievers have scriptures to interpret?

Yes.  Their prophets are Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Bennett, Sam Harris, Karl Marx, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bertrand Russell...

If you've ever visited the home of "practicing atheists" you'll find that their bookshelves are covered with books from the same authors.  Sounds like a common "Bible" to me.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, pogi said:

The difference is that believers actually believe what they are interpreting.  Anything less seems...disingenuous. 

An unbeliever practicing scriptural hermeneutics for a believer would be equivalent to a chemist interpreting the book of alchemy (if there was one) for an alchemist in his quest to turn led into gold.

Beyond disingenuousness, it is subtle mockery in the vein of Exiled’s sneering “follow the Brethren” remarks. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
23 hours ago, Exiled said:

Well he seemed taken aback by my interpretation and seemingly cannot understand why unbelievers would try and interpret scripture for believers. Yet, believers attempt to do this all the time through their missionary efforts and efforts to reclaim the "lost."

I think the better position is to just acknowledge that in the battle of ideas, the religious might be called out from time to time and the unbelievers as well. One shouldn't be surprised when an unbeliever weighs in when the believer's goal is to convert the world.

In the “battle of ideas” no one here is disputing your right to be a jerk. Such jerkhood is protected by the Constitution, as is religious freedom. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In the “battle of ideas” no one here is disputing your right to be a jerk. Such jerkhood is protected by the Constitution, as is religious freedom. 

Jerk? I disagree with you.  I disagree with your "follow the brethren" mantra that comes out in almost all of your comments but I don't think I was a jerk about it. I don't think people want to have an echo chamber here. So, disagreements will happen.

Link to comment
On 6/3/2019 at 11:13 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

I hope it’s not that long, but “no man knoweth the day nor the hour.” 

Of course, Ocasio-Cortez predicts the destruction of the planet in 12 years unless her radical socialist agenda is embraced — but now she’s saying she was only using “dry and sarcastic humor” that only someone with a “sea sponge” mentality would take seriously. Kind of a stinging indictment of a good number of Democrats, including some presidential candidates. 

There's no debating the issue of climate change and the radical right's attempt to undermine serious issues in favor of factories that cause serious harm in order to buy the vote.

We seriously shouldn't care when Armageddon happens. It's none of our business.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Valentinus said:

There's no debating the issue of climate change and the radical right's attempt to undermine serious issues in favor of factories that cause serious harm in order to buy the vote.

We seriously shouldn't care when Armageddon happens. It's none of our business.

And some people will say and look around at all the rain etc. and laugh and say "global warming", haha. But they are too dense to understand that our weather has been severely unusual because of global warming. 

Link to comment
On 6/5/2019 at 12:25 PM, Exiled said:

Jerk? I disagree with you.  I disagree with your "follow the brethren" mantra that comes out in almost all of your comments but I don't think I was a jerk about it. I don't think people want to have an echo chamber here. So, disagreements will happen.

I think it’s jerky to characterize “almost all” of my comments as a “follow the Brethren mantra.” That is transparently false and, as I said, mockery. 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Valentinus said:

There's no debating the issue of climate change and the radical right's attempt to undermine serious issues in favor of factories that cause serious harm in order to buy the vote.

We seriously shouldn't care when Armageddon happens. It's none of our business.

To say there’s “no debating” is a manifestation of groupthink. 

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/02/Groupthink.pdfr

But with the 12-year doomsday prediction, at least we have a time frame now for testing the groupthink. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it’s jerky to characterize “almost all” of my comments as a “follow the Brethren mantra.” That is transparently false and, as I said, mockery. 

Ok. So, you have to admit that "follow the brethren" is a main part of your comments here. Is there a problem with that?  Surely, you believe that following the brethren is the right course?  So, it shouldn't be a problem admitting this? I guess we can debate what "almost all" means. However, you're comments here reflect "follow the brethren" a lot.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Exiled said:

Ok. So, you have to admit that "follow the brethren" is a main part of your comments here. Is there a problem with that?  Surely, you believe that following the brethren is the right course?  So, it shouldn't be a problem admitting this? I guess we can debate what "almost all" means. However, you're comments here reflect "follow the brethren" a lot.

If “follow the Brethren” is a “mantra” in “almost all” of my posts, you ought to be able immediately to link to several containing that precise phrase. I’ve posted here quite a bit over the years and earned more than 17,500 “likes.” Can you come up with, say, five posts in, say, the last year or two where that phrase appeared and I’m not quoting you as making the allegation? Shouldn’t be difficult, should it?  Not if it’s a “mantra” in “almost everything” I post. Do you know the definition of “mantra”? 

We’ll call this a CFR. 

Edited to add: You said it is debatable what “almost all” means. How about “with rare exceptions”? Would you say that phrase is reasonably synonymous with “almost all”? 

So are you saying, then, that with rare exceptions my posts contain the phrase “follow the Brethren” uttered as a “mantra”? 

Again, can you cite five examples? If it occurs in “almost all” of my posts, it should be a fairly easy task for you. Just go back over my last posts in reverse sequence until you’ve come up with five. If “almost all” of my posts have the phrase, I’m thinking that, say, five out of the seven you inspect should contain it. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
On 6/6/2019 at 1:07 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

To say there’s “no debating” is a manifestation of groupthink. 

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/02/Groupthink.pdfr

But with the 12-year doomsday prediction, at least we have a time frame now for testing the groupthink. 

Groupthink can also be applied when someone says there's no debating that one religion is the most "true" above all others. Seven million people standing up and declaring their religion to be the one above all others is groupthink. 

I'll admit that saying "no debating" is a poor choice of words. There is in fact room for debate. However, I'm going to trust the majority of scientists who have done the work on this issue above those with capitalist interests and lobbyists. 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Valentinus said:

Seven million people standing up and declaring their religion to be the one above all others is groupthink. 

If each individual has come to that belief through personal experiences, simply because there is a group declaring the same thing does not equate automatically to "groupthink".

Link to comment
22 hours ago, Valentinus said:

Groupthink can also be applied when someone says there's no debating that one religion is the most "true" above all others. Seven million people standing up and declaring their religion to be the one above all others is groupthink. 

I'll admit that saying "no debating" is a poor choice of words. There is in fact room for debate. However, I'm going to trust the majority of scientists who have done the work on this issue above those with capitalist interests and lobbyists. 

Is the Latter-day Saint message that there is “no debating” the truthfulness of their faith? Not in my experience. I thought the message was more along the lines of “come and investigate it for yourself and see what you think.” Or, as Christ’s disciples said, “Come and see.”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2014/10/come-and-see?lang=eng

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
On 6/5/2019 at 9:25 PM, Exiled said:

I disagree with your "follow the brethren" mantra that comes out in almost all of your comments but I don't think I was a jerk about it. I don't think people want to have an echo chamber here. So, disagreements will happen.

The expression follow the brethren or follow the prophet can be problematic for the believing member  because it is a sign of blind obedience, if said by an exmember about believing members. Such expressions if said in such a way by exmembers is said to imply that believing members have no brain to think for themselves.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, why me said:

The expression follow the brethren or follow the prophet can be problematic for the believing member  because it is a sign of blind obedience, if said by an exmember about believing members. Such expressions if said in such a way by exmembers is said to imply that believing members have no brain to think for themselves.

Yup. Subtle mockery, just as I said. They think they can fly under the radar with such sly but scurrilous innuendo. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is the Latter-day Saint message that there is “no debating” the truthfulness of their faith? Not in my experience. I thought the message was more along the lines of “come and investigate it for yourself and see what you think.” Or, as Christ’s disciples said, “Come and see.”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2014/10/come-and-see?lang=eng

Likewise, no LDS person says that without a doubt the LDS church is God's one true church. So your point is correct.

Link to comment
18 hours ago, Calm said:

If each individual has come to that belief through personal experiences, simply because there is a group declaring the same thing does not equate automatically to "groupthink".

Likewise, individual people examining the evidence provided by many scientists concerning climate change is not groupthink. Climate change denyers are among those with tin foil hats.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, why me said:

The expression follow the brethren or follow the prophet can be problematic for the believing member  because it is a sign of blind obedience, if said by an exmember about believing members. Such expressions if said in such a way by exmembers is said to imply that believing members have no brain to think for themselves.

"Follow the prophet/brethren" is one of the superficially irritating contradictions of mormonism and if one is upset by it, then don't blame the messenger if the messenger points it out.  On the one hand, one is supposed to have free agency and on the other, one is supposed to cede to the prophet in an (almost) unquestioning fashion.  One has the "freedom" to subjugate oneself to the will of the brethren because they tell you what God says.  So, one should just submit.  To further complicate matters, the unquestioning obedience is never openly discussed but spoken of as if understood.  The claim is then made that one can question the brethren yet one cannot do so openly and will suffer excommunication if one pushes it too far and certainly if one has a following that openly questions the brethren.   The "follow the prophet" song is sung in primary, a lot.  Why is that?  Obedience is favored over independent thought.  The whole idea behind having a "prophet" is that God supposedly won't speak to the average son or daughter but will to his privileged spokesman about the various scheduling changes or program changes.  The system is set up to encourage obedience to the prophet, else why would God have such a system in the first place if He didn't want people to unquestioningly follow what he told his beloved chosen one? 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Valentinus said:

Likewise, no LDS person says that without a doubt the LDS church is God's one true church. So your point is correct.

Did the church change in the last year since I left for good?  Testimony meeting is full of "I know" instead of "I believe."  At least it was when I was there.  Does the statement "I know" imply doubt or without a doubt?  I think it is obviously the latter.  Sure, quietly question whatever, just don't do so openly and questions should be always in the past tense as in I questioned but came to my senses because the prophet truly knows the way.

Edited by Exiled
Link to comment
On 6/8/2019 at 2:59 AM, Calm said:

If each individual has come to that belief through personal experiences, simply because there is a group declaring the same thing does not equate automatically to "groupthink".

Yes, of course.  It doesn't "automatically" mean "group think."  But it is pretty darned close.  Across the world, people almost always are the religion of their parents and family.  Catholics are in South America.  Jews are in Israel.  Muslims are in Saudi Arabia.  Seems like "group think" definitely plays a role in how an individual comes to belief.  Almost always that "belief" ties into what the group believes.  We hear of the sacrifice people make in order to convert to mormonism because of "group think."  Likewise, people who leave mormonism will suffer a little or a lot in terms of backlash from the group they left.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Exiled said:

 The system is set up to encourage obedience to the prophet, else why would God have such a system in the first place if He didn't want people to unquestioningly follow what he told his beloved chosen one? 

I have no idea what you are talking about. Does the prophet have a daily radio program telling members what to do and not do? Even in conference, I am not hearing what I should do and not do from the president of the church. I just hear a nice talk. Likewise for the other GAs. So what does follow the prophet mean in real life? I know no one who follows the prophet like a zombie.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Exiled said:

Yes, of course.  It doesn't "automatically" mean "group think."  But it is pretty darned close.  Across the world, people almost always are the religion of their parents and family.  Catholics are in South America.  Jews are in Israel.  Muslims are in Saudi Arabia.  Seems like "group think" definitely plays a role in how an individual comes to belief.  Almost always that "belief" ties into what the group believes.  We hear of the sacrifice people make in order to convert to mormonism because of "group think."  Likewise, people who leave mormonism will suffer a little or a lot in terms of backlash from the group they left.

I don't see group think. I only see commonality. If people believe in the same organization, they have commonality. Not group think. If one is a member of the Lion's Club, there is commonality with the other members because of group membership. But what is group think? Sounds just like a negative word by someone who wishes to claim that people in all groups are zombies, without a mind of their own.

Link to comment
17 hours ago, why me said:

I have no idea what you are talking about. Does the prophet have a daily radio program telling members what to do and not do? Even in conference, I am not hearing what I should do and not do from the president of the church. I just hear a nice talk. Likewise for the other GAs. So what does follow the prophet mean in real life? I know no one who follows the prophet like a zombie.

It's tough to talk to the defensive but I will try anyway.  I think you know what I am talking about.  The idea is to keep people in the church boat.  The idea is to shut-down the wrong kinds of questions.  The idea is that in certain areas of life, such as paying tithing first and foremost, and going to the many meetings, etc. (20 to 25 hrs per week for some), one should follow the prophet unquestioningly and do these things.  Don't question why and follow the example of blind obedience given of Adam in the PofGP where he told the angel, heroically, that he didn't know why he was doing what he did, only that God commanded him.  Don't question the many areas of church history because it will be solved in the future at some point so keep on giving the tangible to the church today because some intangible reward awaits the faithful in some future world.  Don't listen to questionable podcasts or read questionable literature because they might give one ideas.  Don't think for yourself when it comes to the church.  Just believe, etc., etc.

Link to comment
On 6/7/2019 at 10:32 PM, Valentinus said:

Groupthink can also be applied when someone says there's no debating that one religion is the most "true" above all others. Seven million people standing up and declaring their religion to be the one above all others is groupthink. 

I'll admit that saying "no debating" is a poor choice of words. There is in fact room for debate. However, I'm going to trust the majority of scientists who have done the work on this issue above those with capitalist interests and lobbyists. 

So, you're saying that Groupthink can be applied when people say "the debate on climate change is over", or does that only apply to people you disagree with?  

Tell me, how is "I'm going to trust the majority..." any different than "my religion is true above all others"?

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...