For a mereLemmie
That’s my new motto, if you don’t mind me borrowing it!
I don’t know you from Adam, but I’d hazard a guess and say that you would fit within the confines of the secular/humanist camp. You would then be part of the group that Holland is referring to in his address. Those, that if there are enough of them, and over a period of time, will disrupt traditional values and change the fabric of society. And not for the better.
That's a strong yet vague claim. You should do better to make an actual case for why rather than say, "Because wrong way Holland said so."mentalgymnast wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 9:37 pmIn the here and now and in individual situations, lives based upon secularism may not be injurious to society as a whole. But that day may very well come if some worrisome trends continue. And that, my friend, is what concerns me when I communicate with those such as yourself. The agnostic/atheist crowd does not hold up well for the overall health, progress, and development of a free and open society.
Hindi beliefs have been around longer than than the the basis of Judeo-Christian beliefs by a couple thousand years. The version of Christian offshoot cult you believe has eternal value is hardly been around 70 years in its current form, scarcily resembling the religion it was at its origin not quite 200 years ago. Mormon views regarding race and women are remnants of archaic and barbaric beliefs from that era combined with a white, Christian nationalism barely held in check by it's appeal to the New Testiment that came to power in the church through the cold war era. Your Holland speech is more of the same.The long term ramifications of being wrong are catastrophic.
mentalgymnast wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:46 pm
I don’t know you from Adam, but I’d hazard a guess and say that you would fit within the confines of the secular/humanist camp. You would then be part of the group that Holland is referring to in his address. Those, that if there are enough of them, and over a period of time, will disrupt traditional values and change the fabric of society. And not for the better.
Again, if you take issue with anything he addresses or think that agnostic/atheists/secularists are not part of the problem he refers to, stand up for yourself. But don’t point fingers and shoot the messenger outright.
The CofJCofLDS is an institution along with many others that, if many had there way, would be torn down and replaced with...well, something. Not sure I’d want to be around to have to live within the confines of whatever that is, but the problem is, my kids or their kids would have to live with it.
And no, a tin foil hat is not necessary to make dark prognostications about what will happen if people don’t work together for the common good and promote traditional values and religious practice and belief.
Damn you, Martin Buber, and your subversive "I, thou" chicanery!mentalgymnast wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:46 pmI’d hazard a guess and say that you would fit within the confines of the secular/humanist camp. You would then be part of the group that Holland is referring to in his address. Those, that if there are enough of them, and over a period of time, will disrupt traditional values and change the fabric of society. And not for the better.
Agreed. It would be interesting to hear the actual case you are making, MG, rather than just unsupported statements. Especially your last sentence. What is your evidence for that?honorentheos wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:38 amThat's a strong yet vague claim. You should do better to make an actual case for why rather than say, "Because wrong way Holland said so."mentalgymnast wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 9:37 pmIn the here and now and in individual situations, lives based upon secularism may not be injurious to society as a whole. But that day may very well come if some worrisome trends continue. And that, my friend, is what concerns me when I communicate with those such as yourself. The agnostic/atheist crowd does not hold up well for the overall health, progress, and development of a free and open society.
Again, you’re the one making the argument, Mentalgymnast. You need to make your case. Exactly how is this group (I.e. the ones you lump together with your lazy slash use) the problem?MG wrote:
Again, if you take issue with anything he addresses or think that agnostic/atheists/secularists are not part of the problem he refers to, stand up for yourself.
Well said.honorentheos wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:38 amHindi beliefs have been around longer than than the the basis of Judeo-Christian beliefs by a couple thousand years. The version of Christian offshoot cult you believe has eternal value is hardly been around 70 years in its current form, scarcily resembling the religion it was at its origin not quite 200 years ago. Mormon views regarding race and women are remnants of archaic and barbaric beliefs from that era combined with a white, Christian nationalism barely held in check by it's appeal to the New Testiment that came to power in the church through the cold war era. Your Holland speech is more of the same.MG wrote:The long term ramifications of being wrong are catastrophic.
And despite all these foibles of powerful, dull men, the world persists and civilization hangs on. If y'all can't kill it despite your best effort I think you underestimate the resilience of human ingenuity, capability, and spirit.
Let's be honest about it, MG. Your concern is about the death of an outmoded attempt to hang on to power. Nothing more, nothing less.
Lol. Speaking of the I and Thou, I read an explanation of missionary work recently that seems quite applicable to this thread:Morley wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 1:25 amDamn you, Martin Buber, and your subversive "I, thou" chicanery!mentalgymnast wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:46 pmI’d hazard a guess and say that you would fit within the confines of the secular/humanist camp. You would then be part of the group that Holland is referring to in his address. Those, that if there are enough of them, and over a period of time, will disrupt traditional values and change the fabric of society. And not for the better.
Q: Why do people get angry when I try to share the word of God with them?
A: The entire process is not what you think it is.
It is specifically designed to be uncomfortable for the other person because it isn’t about converting them to your religion. It is about manipulating you so you can’t leave yours.
If this tactic was about converting people it would be considered a horrible failure. It recruits almost no one who isn’t already willing to join. Bake sales are more effective recruiting tools.
On the other hand, it is extremely effective at creating a deep tribal feeling among its own members.
The rejection they receive is actually more important than the few people they convert. It causes them to feel a level of discomfort around the people they attempt to talk to. These become the “others”. These uncomfortable feelings go away when they come back to their congregation, the “Tribe”.
If you take a good look at the process it becomes fairly clear. In most cases, the religious person starts out from their own group, who is encouraging and supportive. They are then sent out into the harsh world where people repeatedly reject them. Mainly because they are trained to be so annoying.
These brave witnesses then return from the cruel world to their congregation where they are treated like returning heroes. They are now safe. They bond as they share their experiences of reaching out to the godless people to bring them the truth. They share the otherness they experience.
Once again they will learn that the only place they are accepted is with the people who think as they do. It isn’t safe to leave the group. The world is your enemy, but we love you.
This is a pain reward cycle that is a common brainwashing technique. The participants become more and more reliant on the “Tribe” because they know that “others” reject them....
