Originally posted by FMF
Why on Earth would you want to admit that, or equate "doing all things for God’s glory" with "there's hardly being a thought in your head that is not strictly in accordance with the ideology of your religious organization"?

Aren't you endlessly insisting that you are a free and independent moral agent? How can that be compatible with uniformity of thoughts? ...[text shortened]... anization's corporate stance and teaching on events such as the Olympic opening ceremony?

being a free moral agent does not exclude the ability to think for oneself, on the
contrary, one is more inclined to be a reasoning person, given that we have a set of
principles to weigh in the balance. I have no idea what the organisations stance is on
the Olympics.

Originally posted by FMF
What about all the Olympics prior to 2012?

dont know, all i have read about is the Nuremberg Olympics of 1936, because it was in
that very stadium that Hitler, on another occasion stated that he would wipe us out, and
yet we live.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The post, the quotation, the Olympics has absolutely nothing to do with my
organisation. It is perhaps a reflection of the weakness of your stance that you seek to
make it so.

The S&G quotation made your comment sound quasi-religious and/or suggesting that things like the Olympics are are to questioned for being quasi-religious. Are you sure such a perspective on your part would have "absolutely nothing to do with [your] organisation"? Are there some religious or quasi-religious aspects to your thinking that you keep separate from the ideology and guidance of your religious organization? You've never given that impression before.

Originally posted by FMF
The S&G quotation made your comment sound quasi-religious and/or suggesting that things like the Olympics are are to questioned for being quasi-religious. Are you sure such a perspective on your part would have "absolutely nothing to do with [your] organisation"? Are there some religious or quasi-religious aspects to your thinking that you keep separate from the ...[text shortened]... ology and guidance of your religious organization? You've never given that impression before.

yes, as far as I am, aware, we have never quoted , the sound of silence, in respect to
any event. Yes i am capable of independent thought.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
being a free moral agent does not exclude the ability to think for oneself, on the
contrary, one is more inclined to be a reasoning person, given that we have a set of
principles to weigh in the balance.

You extol your "ability to think for [your]self" and yet you are also happy to accept what I put to you, which was that "there's hardly a thought in your head that is not strictly in accordance with the ideology of your religious organization"?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes, as far as I am, aware, we have never quoted , the sound of silence, in respect to
any event. Yes i am capable of independent thought.

If you are right to suggest that events such as the Olympic opening ceremony are to questioned for having a quasi-religious air, as your Simon quote suggests, why hasn't your religious organization commented on it? Have they commented on competitive sports more generally?

Originally posted by FMF
You extol your "ability to think for [your]self" and yet you are also happy to accept what I put to you, which was that "there's hardly a thought in your head that is not strictly in accordance with the ideology of your religious organization"?

Your post is not entirely accurate as it fails to recognise, once again, the faculty of
conscience and the role that the Bible plays in giving principles and examples for the
conscience to weigh in the balance.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Your post is not entirely accurate as it fails to recognise, once again, the faculty of
conscience and the role that the Bible plays in giving principles and examples for the
conscience to weigh in the balance.

So for you, the "ability to think for oneself" can result in a group of different people having hardly any thoughts in their heads that are not strictly in accordance with the ideology of their religious organization? The latter can be a natural, autonomous result of the former, is that it?

Originally posted by FMF
If you are right to suggest that events such as the Olympic opening ceremony are to questioned for having a quasi-religious air, as your Simon quote suggests, why hasn't your religious organization commented on it? Have they commented on competitive sports more generally?

There is nothing in my post to suggest anything of right and wrong, if it suggests to you
that there is a quasi religious aspect to the London Olympics opening ceremony then
good and well, if not, then that is also fine. I need to go to work.

Originally posted by FMF
So for you, the "ability to think for oneself" can result in a group of different people having hardly any thoughts in their heads that are not strictly in accordance with the ideology of their religious organization? The latter can be a natural, autonomous result of the former, is that it?

I have described the process, if that's your assessment, then that's your assessment.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
There is nothing in my post to suggest anything of right and wrong, if it suggests to you
that there is a quasi religious aspect to the London Olympics opening ceremony then
good and well, if not, then that is also fine. I need to go to work.

What did you mean by the Simon quote then? If you are not suggesting with it that there is a quasi-religious aspect to something like the London Olympics or its opening ceremony, then perhaps you don't know what the Simon quote means. Either way, you should probably explain what you thought you meant.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have described the process, if that's your assessment, then that's your assessment.

I would say that the "ability to think for oneself", practised autonomously and independently by a group of different people resulting in them having hardly any thoughts that differ from an organization's ideology is counter intuitive. Don't you? History is not kind to the idea - I think - that a genuine "ability to think for oneself" is actually in play when we see it manifest itself in ideological uniformity among millions and millions of people.

Originally posted by FMF
What did you mean by the Simon quote then? If you are not suggesting with it that there is a quasi-religious aspect to something like the London Olympics or its opening ceremony, then perhaps you don't know what the Simon quote means. Either way, you should probably explain what you thought you meant.

to explain means to place limitations, better is the sound of silence 🙂

Originally posted by FMF
I would say that the "ability to think for oneself", practised autonomously and independently by a group of different people resulting in them having hardly any thoughts that differ from an organization's ideology is counter intuitive. Don't you? History is not kind to the idea - I think - that a genuine "ability to think for oneself" is actually in play when we see it manifest itself in ideological uniformity among millions and millions of people.

history?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
to explain means to place limitations, better is the sound of silence 🙂

On the contrary, to explain might salvage something from your bodged quote. You seem to be trying to distance yourself from Simon's intended meaning whilst refusing to shed light on what alternative meaning you are seeking to attach to it.