The content presented in the article lacks the rigor and depth expected from a scholarly discourse on this subject. It is evident that the author has not sufficiently engaged with the existing literature, which undermines the credibility of their arguments. For instance, in examining contemporary perspectives on media influence, one must consider the comprehensive analysis provided by McLuhan (1964), who posits that ‘the medium is the message’, highlighting how media formats shape societal perceptions. Furthermore, recent studies have emphasized the intricate relationship between media consumption and cognitive development (Valkenburg & Peter, 2011). The article’s superficial treatment of these foundational theories is concerning. Additionally, it fails to address counterarguments or alternative viewpoints that are crucial for a balanced discussion. As noted by Smith (2015), engaging with dissenting opinions not only enhances scholarly debate but also fosters critical thinking among readers. The lack of citations to authoritative sources further diminishes the academic integrity of the post. A more nuanced exploration of empirical data would significantly strengthen its claims regarding media effects. Overall, while there may be some merit in addressing contemporary issues within media studies, this article falls short due to its lack of comprehensive engagement with established scholarship and failure to provide a well-rounded examination of the topic at hand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rgUA1LQbUU Steve Stevens whoever posted this this is JUST crazy when you listen to it Philip Williams Scotty Searan John Mushenhouse BUT what IF GOD is actually saying ALL these things? Jared Cheshire Brett Dobbs and @followers Given the nature of the request, which involves interpreting and critiquing a prophetic message from a video, it’s important to approach this critically while ensuring we adhere to truthfulness and avoid unfounded assertions. Here’s an argumentative and negative resume of the claims potentially reflected in the video, referencing scientific, prophetic, and political rhetoric:
Unverified Prophetic Record: Claims to have been prophesying since 2007 with messages directly from God. However, no substantial evidence or peer-reviewed validation exists for these prophecies. As stated by Michael Shermer in “Why People Believe Weird Things,” “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” which is evidently missing here.
Lack of Scientific Validation: The method of receiving messages through dreams, visions, and biblical stories lacks empirical support. Science, as Carl Sagan noted, “delivers the goods” with methodologies that can be tested, repeated, and scrutinized. This prophetic method does not align with scientific inquiry where claims can be falsified or verified.
Political Exploitation: While claiming no political affiliation, the timing and nature of prophetic messages often coincide with political narratives. For instance, Donald Trump’s speeches often include language that resonates with those looking for divine endorsement of political actions, such as his speech in 2016 where he claimed, “I am your voice,” which could be seen as aligning with prophetic rhetoric about leadership in America.
Selective Interpretation of Biblical Texts: The interpretation of biblical stories for modern prophecy is subjective and often tailored to fit current events. This mirrors the warnings by scholars like Bart Ehrman in “Misquoting Jesus,” where he discusses how texts can be manipulated to serve contemporary agendas, not divine foresight.
Ambiguity in Prophecies: Prophecies, as described, are notoriously vague, allowing for multiple interpretations. This aligns with a critique from the scientific community on the nature of prophecy, where James Randi famously debunked many self-proclaimed prophets by highlighting the lack of specificity in their predictions.
Self-Taught Prophetic Methods: No formal theological or academic training is mentioned, which raises concerns about the depth of biblical and historical understanding. This self-proclaimed divine communication bypasses centuries of theological scholarship, as critiqued by scholars in fields like Religious Studies who emphasize the importance of context and historical-critical methods.
Cultivation of a Following: Has managed to gather an audience, which might indicate a persuasive communication skill rather than prophetic accuracy. This is reflective of social dynamics where, as noted in contemporary news around charismatic leadership, followers often seek validation of their own beliefs or fears.: By speaking in absolutes about America’s divine fate, there’s an implicit or explicit involvement in the cultural and political polarization. This is especially poignant in an era where, according to recent political analyses, such rhetoric can deepen divides rather than unite.
This is a prophetic revelation message that I received from God regarding America. I am not a conspiracy theorists nor politician nor ties to any party in America. I don’t have any political agenda or interests. I am a genuine messenger of God that God sent to America to speak God’s Truth and prophetic words for America as a nation. I have been propecying about America since 2007. And most all of my messages that I published I received directly from God personally through dreams, prophecy, visions, story from Bible that is revealed by God to me prophetically.
The article presents an overly simplistic view of the complex interplay between social media and mental health. Numerous studies indicate that the relationship between social media use and psychological outcomes is multifaceted, shaped by various factors including individual differences and the context of use. For instance, a meta-analysis by Primack et al. highlights that while some users may experience increased feelings of loneliness or anxiety, others report enhanced social connectivity and support through these platforms. Thus, it is erroneous to generalize the impact of social media without considering these nuances.
The reductionist perspective offered in the post fails to account for the dual nature of social media platforms as both beneficial and detrimental to user well-being. Research conducted by Kross et al. emphasizes that individuals often curate their online personas in ways that may lead to social comparison and subsequent feelings of inadequacy. This indicates that not all interactions on social media are created equal; some can foster community engagement while others may exacerbate feelings of isolation. It is critical to adopt a more balanced view that acknowledges these contrasting experiences rather than vilifying digital interaction as inherently harmful.
In critiquing the content of this article, one must acknowledge the extensive body of literature that suggests a more nuanced understanding of online interactions is necessary. As highlighted by Twenge et al., there are varying degrees of impact based on demographic factors such as age and socio-economic status; adolescents from lower socio-economic backgrounds may derive different levels of benefit or detriment from online engagement than their affluent counterparts. Thus, blanket statements regarding the negative implications of social media usage overlook critical disparities in how different populations interact with technology.
It is disconcerting how this article seems to disregard empirical evidence demonstrating positive outcomes associated with social media usage. Research by Seabrook et al. has found that certain aspects of online communication can lead to improved mental health outcomes through enhanced support networks and opportunities for self-expression. The tendency to focus solely on negative effects perpetuates a narrative that ignores these significant benefits and diminishes our understanding of how technology can be leveraged for positive change in individuals’ lives.
This article presents an overly generalized portrayal of social media’s impact on mental health, neglecting critical distinctions within user experiences and contexts. As discussed in research by Rosen et al., while excessive use can correlate with negative psychological outcomes such as anxiety or depression, moderate engagement often fosters community ties and provides users with resources for emotional support. Such scholarly insights underscore the importance of considering individual differences when assessing the role technology plays in our lives rather than adopting a blanket condemnation approach.
‘The simplistic dichotomy drawn between positive and negative experiences related to social media fails to encapsulate its multifaceted nature.’ This sentiment aligns with findings from Vannucci et al., which reveal that young adults navigate their digital landscapes in varied ways influenced by personal circumstances and peer dynamics. To assert unequivocally that social media usage leads predominantly to adverse mental health outcomes does a disservice to those who utilize it constructively for connection, information sharing, or even activism.
‘Analyzing mental health trends requires careful consideration beyond mere technology use.’ The post’s analysis lacks depth as it does not consider how offline factors like family support systems or pre-existing mental health conditions interact with online behaviors as articulated by Lin et al., who suggest a more holistic approach when studying these phenomena is essential for truly understanding their implications on well-being.
Steve Stevens Neil Steven Lawrence Terry Wiles John Mushenhouse Brett Dobbs @highlight William DeArteaga Michael Buban Oscar Valdez Jose Salinas Jared Cheshire Given the nature of the request, which involves interpreting and critiquing a prophetic message from a video, it’s important to approach this critically while ensuring we adhere to truthfulness and avoid unfounded assertions. Here’s an argumentative and negative resume of the claims potentially reflected in the video, referencing scientific, prophetic, and political rhetoric:
Unverified Prophetic Record: Claims to have been prophesying since 2007 with messages directly from God. However, no substantial evidence or peer-reviewed validation exists for these prophecies. As stated by Michael Shermer in “Why People Believe Weird Things,” “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” which is evidently missing here.
Lack of Scientific Validation: The method of receiving messages through dreams, visions, and biblical stories lacks empirical support. Science, as Carl Sagan noted, “delivers the goods” with methodologies that can be tested, repeated, and scrutinized. This prophetic method does not align with scientific inquiry where claims can be falsified or verified.
Political Exploitation: While claiming no political affiliation, the timing and nature of prophetic messages often coincide with political narratives. For instance, Donald Trump’s speeches often include language that resonates with those looking for divine endorsement of political actions, such as his speech in 2016 where he claimed, “I am your voice,” which could be seen as aligning with prophetic rhetoric about leadership in America.
Selective Interpretation of Biblical Texts: The interpretation of biblical stories for modern prophecy is subjective and often tailored to fit current events. This mirrors the warnings by scholars like Bart Ehrman in “Misquoting Jesus,” where he discusses how texts can be manipulated to serve contemporary agendas, not divine foresight.
Ambiguity in Prophecies: Prophecies, as described, are notoriously vague, allowing for multiple interpretations. This aligns with a critique from the scientific community on the nature of prophecy, where James Randi famously debunked many self-proclaimed prophets by highlighting the lack of specificity in their predictions.
Self-Taught Prophetic Methods: No formal theological or academic training is mentioned, which raises concerns about the depth of biblical and historical understanding. This self-proclaimed divine communication bypasses centuries of theological scholarship, as critiqued by scholars in fields like Religious Studies who emphasize the importance of context and historical-critical methods.
Cultivation of a Following: Has managed to gather an audience, which might indicate a persuasive communication skill rather than prophetic accuracy. This is reflective of social dynamics where, as noted in contemporary news around charismatic leadership, followers often seek validation of their own beliefs or fears.: By speaking in absolutes about America’s divine fate, there’s an implicit or explicit involvement in the cultural and political polarization. This is especially poignant in an era where, according to recent political analyses, such rhetoric can deepen divides rather than unite.
Neil Steven Lawrence @followers John Mushenhouse Terry Wiles Jared Cheshire Cheryl Bridges Johns Brett Dobbs Paul King William DeArteaga Dale M. Coulter J.D. King took sometime this morning to listen to this cog video prophet and put some review/observations together about the video as outlined here
Here’s the text with three brief counterpoints added under each paragraph:
Paragraph 1:
Text:
Okay, I’m going to continue. I don’t know what’s happening; all of a sudden, the live video cut off. I don’t know whether I’m being censored or maybe cut off, but I feel this is strange, very strange. Because I put everything on different platforms, but I want to share this.
Arguments Against:
Technical glitches are far more likely than deliberate censorship, especially on live platforms prone to interruptions.
Jumping to conclusions without evidence can foster unnecessary fear or misinformation.
Distributing content on multiple platforms reduces the likelihood of total suppression, suggesting redundancy, not censorship.
Paragraph 2:
Text:
When the Babylonian attack happened on the Israelites, during this time, they took most of the nobles, most of the kings, and many of the citizens of the country. They left some remnants, and these remnants were divided into two groups. One group was governed by the leadership installed by the enemy, who had taken over the territory. They installed a governor named Gedaliah, appointed by Nebuchadnezzar of the Babylonian Kingdom. They also left behind the poorest people, women, children, and some army captains who later fled and joined this remnant.
Arguments Against:
The text oversimplifies the complexities of the Babylonian exile and its impact on class divisions within Judah.
Assigning the leadership solely to enemy motives ignores the possibility of practical governance to stabilize the region.
Suggesting division into only two groups disregards other possible socio-economic or cultural divisions within the remnants.
Paragraph 3:
Text:
Let’s read from Jeremiah 40:7-8. When all the captains of the armies who were in the field heard that the king of Babylon had made Gedaliah the governor in the land, they came to Gedaliah at Mizpah. Those included Ishmael, son of Nethaniah, Jonathan, son of Kareah, Seraiah, son of Tanhumeth, the sons of Ephai the Netophathite, and Jezaniah the son of Maacathite, with their men. These were the remnants left after the invasion, becoming the remnant in Judah. This army belonged to the original kingdom of Judah, whose king was Zedekiah during this invasion.
Arguments Against:
Focusing on names and lineage without context may not provide insights into the broader historical or cultural dynamics.
The connection between Gedaliah’s appointment and loyalty to Babylon could be viewed as necessary collaboration rather than betrayal.
Interpreting these remnants as homogenous ignores individual motivations or allegiances among the groups.
Paragraph 4:
Text:
There was also another group, the Israelite army, who had fled to the desert or lived in foreign lands when Babylon took over Judah and took the king and leaders captive. This group left the city during the invasion, fleeing to desert lands or foreign territories.
Arguments Against:
Labeling the fleeing Israelites as a cohesive group fails to account for diverse reasons for their departure (e.g., survival vs. resistance).
The narrative doesn’t explore how exile experiences might have reshaped identities or loyalties.
Overemphasis on military context may overlook civilian perspectives during the exile.
Paragraph 5:
Text:
Let’s read Jeremiah 40:11-12 about this second group. Likewise, when all the Jews in Moab, among the Ammonites, in Edom, and who were in all the countries heard that the king of Babylon had left a remnant in Judah, they returned out of all places where they had been driven, and came to the land of Judah to Gedaliah at Mizpah, gathering wine and summer fruits in abundance.
Arguments Against:
The focus on returning Jews and their agricultural success oversimplifies the challenges of reintegration and survival.
Ignoring the potential resentment between returning exiles and those who stayed might distort the social dynamics of the period.
Assuming unity among returning groups overlooks possible factionalism or differing motivations.
Paragraph 6:
Text:
Now, the word “insurrection” in government and military contexts has become very familiar, especially after events like the January 6th riot. This term appears even in the Book of Jeremiah, which to me seems like a revelation from God, not a coincidence.
Arguments Against:
Drawing parallels between ancient Judah and modern political events risks oversimplification and ignores vast contextual differences.
Claiming divine revelation in such parallels can alienate those with differing theological or historical interpretations.
The use of “insurrection” as a term in both contexts may be purely linguistic and unrelated to prophecy.
Paragraph 7:
Text:
The insurrection against Gedaliah was an assassination conspiracy by Ishmael, son of Nethaniah from the household of Judah, planning to rebel against the government established by Nebuchadnezzar. This plot was supported by foreign interference, specifically from the Ammonites, with Baalis, their king, sending Ishmael to assassinate Gedaliah. This action was part of God’s judgment on Judah, a judgment prophesied by many prophets like Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Jeremiah over many years.
Arguments Against:
Attributing all events to divine judgment may overlook political, social, and economic factors driving actions.
Focusing on prophecy risks sidelining human agency and accountability in historical events.
Describing foreign interference as divine will oversimplifies the geopolitical strategies of neighboring nations.
Paragraph 8:
Text:
This narrative underscores a historical pattern where God uses foreign nations to judge His people when they turn away from Him. This leads me to consider if similar judgments are planned for America, with events possibly starting around 2007, though Donald Trump’s presidency might have been a grace period.
Arguments Against:
Comparing America’s modern political history to ancient biblical judgments assumes a direct parallel that may not exist.
Claiming specific dates for divine judgment risks being speculative and lacks broad evidence.
Labeling specific leaders as part of a “grace period” may reflect personal bias rather than objective analysis.
Paragraph 9:
Text:
In Jeremiah 40:13-16, we see the conspiracy unfolding. Johanan, son of Kareah, warned Gedaliah about Ishmael’s plan, but Gedaliah did not believe him. Despite this warning, Gedaliah was assassinated, leading to further chaos, betrayal, and civil unrest among the remnants in Judah, much like the political and social turmoil we see today in America.
Arguments Against:
Comparing ancient civil unrest to modern-day politics disregards key differences in societal structure and governance.
The argument overlooks modern complexities, such as democratic systems and global influences.
Historical examples are not direct templates for current events; analogies must be nuanced.
When the Babylonian attack happened on the Israelites, during this time, they took most of the nobles, most of the kings, and many of the citizens of the country. They left some remnants, and these remnants were divided into two groups. One group was governed by the leadership installed by the enemy, who had taken over the territory. They installed a governor named Gedaliah, appointed by Nebuchadnezzar of the Babylonian Kingdom. They also left behind the poorest people, women, children, and some army captains who later fled and joined this remnant.
Arguments Against US Babylon Philip Williams Jared Cheshire
The text oversimplifies the complexities of the Babylonian exile and its impact on class divisions within Judah.
Assigning the leadership solely to enemy motives ignores the possibility of practical governance to stabilize the region.
Suggesting division into only two groups disregards other possible socio-economic or cultural divisions within the remnants.
Troy Day all you have to do is look at the money. The same Insignia is used on the coinage of America that was used on the coinage of Britain Rome Greece Assyria and Babylon. The statue in the harbor in New York tells who America serves. It is the Asherah, Innana, Ishtar, Venus, Lucifer, Diana, Isis, Juna, Queen of heaven that takes on the masculine atribites, and the papacy of Rome is her Ba’al consort. Her tree or pole stands in DC symbolizing the phallus of the masculine deity she controls through manipulation and fear. Many churches hold service under that same symbol showing who they are in bandage to and serving, even as they think they are serving the Most High. The 501c3 status of those churches shows who owns them. Yes, America is a part of that Babylonian Whore’s system of control, and has become the seat of her power.
Troy Day the Babylonians did not attack Israel. Israel had fallen to Assyria in in a series of Conquest concluding in 721 BC. Babylon overthrew Judah. It is important to maintain the distinction between the two houses of Jacob (Kol Isreal) the house of Israel was the 10 tribes under the leadership of Ephraim, identified in scripture as Ohola, Samaria, Joseph, Rachel, Ephraim, the desolate woman or just plain Israel.
Judah is an identified as a halibut, Jerusalem, the married woman, and Judah
Conflating the two houses creates a lot of confusion today. People think that the word Jew is referring to all the descendants of Abraham or Jacob and that is just not true.
Jared Cheshire well bud there is this and there is that Philip Williams will tell you its both Then he will tell you 3 Babylonian lies in 2 sentences all contradicting each other But my point to you both is this – DID YOU actually watch the video and what do you think about the prophecy John Mushenhouse rejected?
In evaluating the content presented in the video, one cannot ignore the critical implications of media representation and its role in shaping public perception. As argued by Hall (1997), media does not merely reflect reality; it actively constructs it, influencing societal norms and individual beliefs. The portrayal of complex issues within a simplified or sensationalized framework can lead to a distorted understanding among viewers, resulting in oversimplification of multifaceted social problems. Furthermore, the phenomenon of confirmation bias, as elucidated by Nickerson (1998), suggests that audiences tend to favor information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs while dismissing contradictory evidence. This psychological tendency is exacerbated in the age of digital media, where algorithms curate content based on user preferences, thus creating echo chambers that reinforce existing biases. Such dynamics warrant a critical examination of how narratives are shaped and disseminated in contemporary media landscapes. Additionally, drawing on Foucault’s theory of power/knowledge (1980), one could argue that control over information dissemination plays a pivotal role in determining whose voices are amplified and whose perspectives are marginalized. This imbalance raises ethical questions regarding responsibility in content creation and distribution. Therefore, while the video seeks to engage with pressing issues, it is essential for viewers to approach such content with a critical lens, questioning not only the information presented but also its broader implications within societal discourse.
Vernell Waterson
The content presented in the article lacks the rigor and depth expected from a scholarly discourse on this subject. It is evident that the author has not sufficiently engaged with the existing literature, which undermines the credibility of their arguments. For instance, in examining contemporary perspectives on media influence, one must consider the comprehensive analysis provided by McLuhan (1964), who posits that ‘the medium is the message’, highlighting how media formats shape societal perceptions. Furthermore, recent studies have emphasized the intricate relationship between media consumption and cognitive development (Valkenburg & Peter, 2011). The article’s superficial treatment of these foundational theories is concerning. Additionally, it fails to address counterarguments or alternative viewpoints that are crucial for a balanced discussion. As noted by Smith (2015), engaging with dissenting opinions not only enhances scholarly debate but also fosters critical thinking among readers. The lack of citations to authoritative sources further diminishes the academic integrity of the post. A more nuanced exploration of empirical data would significantly strengthen its claims regarding media effects. Overall, while there may be some merit in addressing contemporary issues within media studies, this article falls short due to its lack of comprehensive engagement with established scholarship and failure to provide a well-rounded examination of the topic at hand.
Steve Stevens
The title of this is evidence of deception! 2nd Tim. 2:4. John 18:36. 2nd Cor. 6:17.
Troy Day
Steve Stevens how do you mean
Steve Stevens
These are WORDLY kingdoms! “My Kingdom IS NOT of this world!”
Troy Day
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rgUA1LQbUU Steve Stevens whoever posted this this is JUST crazy when you listen to it Philip Williams Scotty Searan John Mushenhouse BUT what IF GOD is actually saying ALL these things? Jared Cheshire Brett Dobbs and @followers Given the nature of the request, which involves interpreting and critiquing a prophetic message from a video, it’s important to approach this critically while ensuring we adhere to truthfulness and avoid unfounded assertions. Here’s an argumentative and negative resume of the claims potentially reflected in the video, referencing scientific, prophetic, and political rhetoric:
Unverified Prophetic Record: Claims to have been prophesying since 2007 with messages directly from God. However, no substantial evidence or peer-reviewed validation exists for these prophecies. As stated by Michael Shermer in “Why People Believe Weird Things,” “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” which is evidently missing here.
Lack of Scientific Validation: The method of receiving messages through dreams, visions, and biblical stories lacks empirical support. Science, as Carl Sagan noted, “delivers the goods” with methodologies that can be tested, repeated, and scrutinized. This prophetic method does not align with scientific inquiry where claims can be falsified or verified.
Political Exploitation: While claiming no political affiliation, the timing and nature of prophetic messages often coincide with political narratives. For instance, Donald Trump’s speeches often include language that resonates with those looking for divine endorsement of political actions, such as his speech in 2016 where he claimed, “I am your voice,” which could be seen as aligning with prophetic rhetoric about leadership in America.
Selective Interpretation of Biblical Texts: The interpretation of biblical stories for modern prophecy is subjective and often tailored to fit current events. This mirrors the warnings by scholars like Bart Ehrman in “Misquoting Jesus,” where he discusses how texts can be manipulated to serve contemporary agendas, not divine foresight.
Ambiguity in Prophecies: Prophecies, as described, are notoriously vague, allowing for multiple interpretations. This aligns with a critique from the scientific community on the nature of prophecy, where James Randi famously debunked many self-proclaimed prophets by highlighting the lack of specificity in their predictions.
Self-Taught Prophetic Methods: No formal theological or academic training is mentioned, which raises concerns about the depth of biblical and historical understanding. This self-proclaimed divine communication bypasses centuries of theological scholarship, as critiqued by scholars in fields like Religious Studies who emphasize the importance of context and historical-critical methods.
Cultivation of a Following: Has managed to gather an audience, which might indicate a persuasive communication skill rather than prophetic accuracy. This is reflective of social dynamics where, as noted in contemporary news around charismatic leadership, followers often seek validation of their own beliefs or fears.: By speaking in absolutes about America’s divine fate, there’s an implicit or explicit involvement in the cultural and political polarization. This is especially poignant in an era where, according to recent political analyses, such rhetoric can deepen divides rather than unite.
Steve Stevens
2nd Tim. 2:4, 1st John 2:27, John 8:31-32, “…to SHOW unto HIS SERVANTS…!” Rev. 1:1-3, Isaiah 55:11, Amos 3:7, 1st Cor. 2:5-14-16, 2nd Cor. 4:17-18, 1st Thess. 5:1-6, 2nd Thess. 2:5, Hebrews 2;1-3, Hebrews 1:1-2.
.
Troy Day
Steve Stevens Did you actually see the video? or you are just posting random verses from an software internet search ?
Troy Day
Steve Stevens Did you actually see the video? or you are just posting random verses from an software internet search ?
Steve Stevens
Troy Day I really am not interested in more rhetoric.
Pentecostal Theology
Steve Stevens so you did not see the video but judged quickly with few random verses from the Bible ? What a shame!
Troy Day
This is a prophetic revelation message that I received from God regarding America. I am not a conspiracy theorists nor politician nor ties to any party in America. I don’t have any political agenda or interests. I am a genuine messenger of God that God sent to America to speak God’s Truth and prophetic words for America as a nation. I have been propecying about America since 2007. And most all of my messages that I published I received directly from God personally through dreams, prophecy, visions, story from Bible that is revealed by God to me prophetically.
Anonymous
The article presents an overly simplistic view of the complex interplay between social media and mental health. Numerous studies indicate that the relationship between social media use and psychological outcomes is multifaceted, shaped by various factors including individual differences and the context of use. For instance, a meta-analysis by Primack et al. highlights that while some users may experience increased feelings of loneliness or anxiety, others report enhanced social connectivity and support through these platforms. Thus, it is erroneous to generalize the impact of social media without considering these nuances.
Vernell Waterson
The reductionist perspective offered in the post fails to account for the dual nature of social media platforms as both beneficial and detrimental to user well-being. Research conducted by Kross et al. emphasizes that individuals often curate their online personas in ways that may lead to social comparison and subsequent feelings of inadequacy. This indicates that not all interactions on social media are created equal; some can foster community engagement while others may exacerbate feelings of isolation. It is critical to adopt a more balanced view that acknowledges these contrasting experiences rather than vilifying digital interaction as inherently harmful.
Charles' Pager
In critiquing the content of this article, one must acknowledge the extensive body of literature that suggests a more nuanced understanding of online interactions is necessary. As highlighted by Twenge et al., there are varying degrees of impact based on demographic factors such as age and socio-economic status; adolescents from lower socio-economic backgrounds may derive different levels of benefit or detriment from online engagement than their affluent counterparts. Thus, blanket statements regarding the negative implications of social media usage overlook critical disparities in how different populations interact with technology.
Troy Day
It is disconcerting how this article seems to disregard empirical evidence demonstrating positive outcomes associated with social media usage. Research by Seabrook et al. has found that certain aspects of online communication can lead to improved mental health outcomes through enhanced support networks and opportunities for self-expression. The tendency to focus solely on negative effects perpetuates a narrative that ignores these significant benefits and diminishes our understanding of how technology can be leveraged for positive change in individuals’ lives.
Chris Crisco
This article presents an overly generalized portrayal of social media’s impact on mental health, neglecting critical distinctions within user experiences and contexts. As discussed in research by Rosen et al., while excessive use can correlate with negative psychological outcomes such as anxiety or depression, moderate engagement often fosters community ties and provides users with resources for emotional support. Such scholarly insights underscore the importance of considering individual differences when assessing the role technology plays in our lives rather than adopting a blanket condemnation approach.
Marco Bo
‘The simplistic dichotomy drawn between positive and negative experiences related to social media fails to encapsulate its multifaceted nature.’ This sentiment aligns with findings from Vannucci et al., which reveal that young adults navigate their digital landscapes in varied ways influenced by personal circumstances and peer dynamics. To assert unequivocally that social media usage leads predominantly to adverse mental health outcomes does a disservice to those who utilize it constructively for connection, information sharing, or even activism.
Jack Bowers
‘Analyzing mental health trends requires careful consideration beyond mere technology use.’ The post’s analysis lacks depth as it does not consider how offline factors like family support systems or pre-existing mental health conditions interact with online behaviors as articulated by Lin et al., who suggest a more holistic approach when studying these phenomena is essential for truly understanding their implications on well-being.
Troy Day
Steve Stevens Neil Steven Lawrence Terry Wiles John Mushenhouse Brett Dobbs @highlight William DeArteaga Michael Buban Oscar Valdez Jose Salinas Jared Cheshire Given the nature of the request, which involves interpreting and critiquing a prophetic message from a video, it’s important to approach this critically while ensuring we adhere to truthfulness and avoid unfounded assertions. Here’s an argumentative and negative resume of the claims potentially reflected in the video, referencing scientific, prophetic, and political rhetoric:
Unverified Prophetic Record: Claims to have been prophesying since 2007 with messages directly from God. However, no substantial evidence or peer-reviewed validation exists for these prophecies. As stated by Michael Shermer in “Why People Believe Weird Things,” “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” which is evidently missing here.
Lack of Scientific Validation: The method of receiving messages through dreams, visions, and biblical stories lacks empirical support. Science, as Carl Sagan noted, “delivers the goods” with methodologies that can be tested, repeated, and scrutinized. This prophetic method does not align with scientific inquiry where claims can be falsified or verified.
Political Exploitation: While claiming no political affiliation, the timing and nature of prophetic messages often coincide with political narratives. For instance, Donald Trump’s speeches often include language that resonates with those looking for divine endorsement of political actions, such as his speech in 2016 where he claimed, “I am your voice,” which could be seen as aligning with prophetic rhetoric about leadership in America.
Selective Interpretation of Biblical Texts: The interpretation of biblical stories for modern prophecy is subjective and often tailored to fit current events. This mirrors the warnings by scholars like Bart Ehrman in “Misquoting Jesus,” where he discusses how texts can be manipulated to serve contemporary agendas, not divine foresight.
Ambiguity in Prophecies: Prophecies, as described, are notoriously vague, allowing for multiple interpretations. This aligns with a critique from the scientific community on the nature of prophecy, where James Randi famously debunked many self-proclaimed prophets by highlighting the lack of specificity in their predictions.
Self-Taught Prophetic Methods: No formal theological or academic training is mentioned, which raises concerns about the depth of biblical and historical understanding. This self-proclaimed divine communication bypasses centuries of theological scholarship, as critiqued by scholars in fields like Religious Studies who emphasize the importance of context and historical-critical methods.
Cultivation of a Following: Has managed to gather an audience, which might indicate a persuasive communication skill rather than prophetic accuracy. This is reflective of social dynamics where, as noted in contemporary news around charismatic leadership, followers often seek validation of their own beliefs or fears.: By speaking in absolutes about America’s divine fate, there’s an implicit or explicit involvement in the cultural and political polarization. This is especially poignant in an era where, according to recent political analyses, such rhetoric can deepen divides rather than unite.
Troy Day
Neil Steven Lawrence @followers John Mushenhouse Terry Wiles Jared Cheshire Cheryl Bridges Johns Brett Dobbs Paul King William DeArteaga Dale M. Coulter J.D. King took sometime this morning to listen to this cog video prophet and put some review/observations together about the video as outlined here
Here’s the text with three brief counterpoints added under each paragraph:
Paragraph 1:
Text:
Okay, I’m going to continue. I don’t know what’s happening; all of a sudden, the live video cut off. I don’t know whether I’m being censored or maybe cut off, but I feel this is strange, very strange. Because I put everything on different platforms, but I want to share this.
Arguments Against:
Technical glitches are far more likely than deliberate censorship, especially on live platforms prone to interruptions.
Jumping to conclusions without evidence can foster unnecessary fear or misinformation.
Distributing content on multiple platforms reduces the likelihood of total suppression, suggesting redundancy, not censorship.
Paragraph 2:
Text:
When the Babylonian attack happened on the Israelites, during this time, they took most of the nobles, most of the kings, and many of the citizens of the country. They left some remnants, and these remnants were divided into two groups. One group was governed by the leadership installed by the enemy, who had taken over the territory. They installed a governor named Gedaliah, appointed by Nebuchadnezzar of the Babylonian Kingdom. They also left behind the poorest people, women, children, and some army captains who later fled and joined this remnant.
Arguments Against:
The text oversimplifies the complexities of the Babylonian exile and its impact on class divisions within Judah.
Assigning the leadership solely to enemy motives ignores the possibility of practical governance to stabilize the region.
Suggesting division into only two groups disregards other possible socio-economic or cultural divisions within the remnants.
Paragraph 3:
Text:
Let’s read from Jeremiah 40:7-8. When all the captains of the armies who were in the field heard that the king of Babylon had made Gedaliah the governor in the land, they came to Gedaliah at Mizpah. Those included Ishmael, son of Nethaniah, Jonathan, son of Kareah, Seraiah, son of Tanhumeth, the sons of Ephai the Netophathite, and Jezaniah the son of Maacathite, with their men. These were the remnants left after the invasion, becoming the remnant in Judah. This army belonged to the original kingdom of Judah, whose king was Zedekiah during this invasion.
Arguments Against:
Focusing on names and lineage without context may not provide insights into the broader historical or cultural dynamics.
The connection between Gedaliah’s appointment and loyalty to Babylon could be viewed as necessary collaboration rather than betrayal.
Interpreting these remnants as homogenous ignores individual motivations or allegiances among the groups.
Paragraph 4:
Text:
There was also another group, the Israelite army, who had fled to the desert or lived in foreign lands when Babylon took over Judah and took the king and leaders captive. This group left the city during the invasion, fleeing to desert lands or foreign territories.
Arguments Against:
Labeling the fleeing Israelites as a cohesive group fails to account for diverse reasons for their departure (e.g., survival vs. resistance).
The narrative doesn’t explore how exile experiences might have reshaped identities or loyalties.
Overemphasis on military context may overlook civilian perspectives during the exile.
Paragraph 5:
Text:
Let’s read Jeremiah 40:11-12 about this second group. Likewise, when all the Jews in Moab, among the Ammonites, in Edom, and who were in all the countries heard that the king of Babylon had left a remnant in Judah, they returned out of all places where they had been driven, and came to the land of Judah to Gedaliah at Mizpah, gathering wine and summer fruits in abundance.
Arguments Against:
The focus on returning Jews and their agricultural success oversimplifies the challenges of reintegration and survival.
Ignoring the potential resentment between returning exiles and those who stayed might distort the social dynamics of the period.
Assuming unity among returning groups overlooks possible factionalism or differing motivations.
Paragraph 6:
Text:
Now, the word “insurrection” in government and military contexts has become very familiar, especially after events like the January 6th riot. This term appears even in the Book of Jeremiah, which to me seems like a revelation from God, not a coincidence.
Arguments Against:
Drawing parallels between ancient Judah and modern political events risks oversimplification and ignores vast contextual differences.
Claiming divine revelation in such parallels can alienate those with differing theological or historical interpretations.
The use of “insurrection” as a term in both contexts may be purely linguistic and unrelated to prophecy.
Paragraph 7:
Text:
The insurrection against Gedaliah was an assassination conspiracy by Ishmael, son of Nethaniah from the household of Judah, planning to rebel against the government established by Nebuchadnezzar. This plot was supported by foreign interference, specifically from the Ammonites, with Baalis, their king, sending Ishmael to assassinate Gedaliah. This action was part of God’s judgment on Judah, a judgment prophesied by many prophets like Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Jeremiah over many years.
Arguments Against:
Attributing all events to divine judgment may overlook political, social, and economic factors driving actions.
Focusing on prophecy risks sidelining human agency and accountability in historical events.
Describing foreign interference as divine will oversimplifies the geopolitical strategies of neighboring nations.
Paragraph 8:
Text:
This narrative underscores a historical pattern where God uses foreign nations to judge His people when they turn away from Him. This leads me to consider if similar judgments are planned for America, with events possibly starting around 2007, though Donald Trump’s presidency might have been a grace period.
Arguments Against:
Comparing America’s modern political history to ancient biblical judgments assumes a direct parallel that may not exist.
Claiming specific dates for divine judgment risks being speculative and lacks broad evidence.
Labeling specific leaders as part of a “grace period” may reflect personal bias rather than objective analysis.
Paragraph 9:
Text:
In Jeremiah 40:13-16, we see the conspiracy unfolding. Johanan, son of Kareah, warned Gedaliah about Ishmael’s plan, but Gedaliah did not believe him. Despite this warning, Gedaliah was assassinated, leading to further chaos, betrayal, and civil unrest among the remnants in Judah, much like the political and social turmoil we see today in America.
Arguments Against:
Comparing ancient civil unrest to modern-day politics disregards key differences in societal structure and governance.
The argument overlooks modern complexities, such as democratic systems and global influences.
Historical examples are not direct templates for current events; analogies must be nuanced.
Troy Day
When the Babylonian attack happened on the Israelites, during this time, they took most of the nobles, most of the kings, and many of the citizens of the country. They left some remnants, and these remnants were divided into two groups. One group was governed by the leadership installed by the enemy, who had taken over the territory. They installed a governor named Gedaliah, appointed by Nebuchadnezzar of the Babylonian Kingdom. They also left behind the poorest people, women, children, and some army captains who later fled and joined this remnant.
Arguments Against US Babylon Philip Williams Jared Cheshire
The text oversimplifies the complexities of the Babylonian exile and its impact on class divisions within Judah.
Assigning the leadership solely to enemy motives ignores the possibility of practical governance to stabilize the region.
Suggesting division into only two groups disregards other possible socio-economic or cultural divisions within the remnants.
Philip Williams
Troy Day Mystery Babylon is this present money-driven world. It exists across the globe, but sits upon the government in Washington, DC.
Troy Day
Philip Williams how so – pls prove your point right this instance today
Philip Williams
Troy Day it’s power comes from controlling buying and selling, the economic sanctions placed on nations and individuals.
Referring to the beast upon which the woman sits. The false prophet is Science!
Jared Cheshire
Troy Day all you have to do is look at the money. The same Insignia is used on the coinage of America that was used on the coinage of Britain Rome Greece Assyria and Babylon. The statue in the harbor in New York tells who America serves. It is the Asherah, Innana, Ishtar, Venus, Lucifer, Diana, Isis, Juna, Queen of heaven that takes on the masculine atribites, and the papacy of Rome is her Ba’al consort. Her tree or pole stands in DC symbolizing the phallus of the masculine deity she controls through manipulation and fear. Many churches hold service under that same symbol showing who they are in bandage to and serving, even as they think they are serving the Most High. The 501c3 status of those churches shows who owns them. Yes, America is a part of that Babylonian Whore’s system of control, and has become the seat of her power.
Troy Day
Philip Williams what about the prophecy from the video?
Philip Williams
Troy Day the video was Trump’s inauguration speech
Jared Cheshire
Troy Day the Babylonians did not attack Israel. Israel had fallen to Assyria in in a series of Conquest concluding in 721 BC. Babylon overthrew Judah. It is important to maintain the distinction between the two houses of Jacob (Kol Isreal) the house of Israel was the 10 tribes under the leadership of Ephraim, identified in scripture as Ohola, Samaria, Joseph, Rachel, Ephraim, the desolate woman or just plain Israel.
Judah is an identified as a halibut, Jerusalem, the married woman, and Judah
Conflating the two houses creates a lot of confusion today. People think that the word Jew is referring to all the descendants of Abraham or Jacob and that is just not true.
Troy Day
Jared Cheshire well bud there is this and there is that Philip Williams will tell you its both Then he will tell you 3 Babylonian lies in 2 sentences all contradicting each other But my point to you both is this – DID YOU actually watch the video and what do you think about the prophecy John Mushenhouse rejected?
Jared Cheshire
Troy Day the video is unavailable.
Troy Day
Jared Cheshire BOTH videos are still available
and you should watch them
BOTH
Jared Cheshire
Troy Day then maybe the link is bad.
Media: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10170529734700564&set=p.10170529734700564&type=3
Pentecostal Theology
NO WAY
https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/trump-saved-by-god-to-make-america-great-again/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANTVo196mIY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rgUA1LQbUU
Philip Williams Steve Stevens Ricky Grimsley John Mushenhouse @link hudson
Shelby Boese
Or just another Antichrist
Jack Bowers
In evaluating the content presented in the video, one cannot ignore the critical implications of media representation and its role in shaping public perception. As argued by Hall (1997), media does not merely reflect reality; it actively constructs it, influencing societal norms and individual beliefs. The portrayal of complex issues within a simplified or sensationalized framework can lead to a distorted understanding among viewers, resulting in oversimplification of multifaceted social problems. Furthermore, the phenomenon of confirmation bias, as elucidated by Nickerson (1998), suggests that audiences tend to favor information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs while dismissing contradictory evidence. This psychological tendency is exacerbated in the age of digital media, where algorithms curate content based on user preferences, thus creating echo chambers that reinforce existing biases. Such dynamics warrant a critical examination of how narratives are shaped and disseminated in contemporary media landscapes. Additionally, drawing on Foucault’s theory of power/knowledge (1980), one could argue that control over information dissemination plays a pivotal role in determining whose voices are amplified and whose perspectives are marginalized. This imbalance raises ethical questions regarding responsibility in content creation and distribution. Therefore, while the video seeks to engage with pressing issues, it is essential for viewers to approach such content with a critical lens, questioning not only the information presented but also its broader implications within societal discourse.