JustMe wrote:My premise accepts I am ignorant on an innumerable amount of ideas, things, and philosophies. But do I quit believing in what I think I know because I don't know something else? This is not IGNORING evidence against my beliefs.
In that case--and considering everything else you wrote this evening--it appears as though I may have been mistaken regarding the metacontext of your statement.
I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION that you made it as an addendum to admitting that there are weak parts of your testimony.
YOU, ON THE OTHER HAND, assert that you merely mean that (paraphrasing) you don't fear having opinions merely because there remain certain unknowns regarding prospect X or prospect Y.
IF MY IMPRESSION WAS INCORRECT, then I hereby declare that there isn't anything else for me to say. I can hardly call you to account for something that you don't actually believe. (On the other hand, providing you really did mean it the way you're now describing, what was the original context, since pretty much everyone else is the same way anyhow?)
JustMe wrote:Shades
Dr. Shades wrote:But shouldn't he put that knowledge to work by synthesizing it rather than just allowing it to collect dust in his brain?
Shades, I have always tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. Try not to devolve into a moron, k? This statement is just stoopid. YOU are above this type of non-thinking aren't you?
I'll admit it: You're right on all counts. I worried a little about posting it, but considering the direction Jersey Girl was taking this thread, I knew I had to be brief and to the point,
even if I had to take it to a rather absurd extreme.
I synthesize all the information I put into my brain. You know why I know this. Because scientifically, that is simply what brains do. Do you get that? No one can NOT synthesize the knowledge in their brains. In other words, you are simply insulting me here. Not that I mind, but it certainly works against your better interest, if that interest is getting me to intelligently engage in discussion with you instead of proving I can hurl insults with the best of em.
You're right, and I apologize. Perhaps I should've found a better way to get my point across. To salvage my argument, let me rephrase:
"Yes, JustMe is very well-read. But being well-read is not a guarantee that one's truth-detecting methodology is sound."
I hope that gets the same point across without being insulting.
JustMe wrote:Shades
Dr. Shades wrote:Name me one thing that Gordon B. Hinckley or Thomas S. Monson was wrong about. See? Told you so.
They were and are wrong about not administering the ability to extend our collective knowledge in this church about the Biblical Languages and learning them. All three, Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.
I wasn't asking Wheat for examples of things they were wrong
not to do; I was asking Wheat for examples of statements they made or policies they enacted which were/are wrong.
Anyway, to avoid veering further off the point, I really would like to know if my initial understanding of your statement was incorrect. You said that there are weak spots in your testimony; would you kindly go on a limb and share with us what they are?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
--Louis Midgley