Joshpantera

Regular Member
  • Content count

    1,490
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Joshpantera last won the day on October 22

Joshpantera had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

647 Outstanding

2 Followers

About Joshpantera

  • Rank
    Fire Dragon

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Florida
  • Interests
    surfing, paddle boarding, boating, fishing, musicianship, reading, philosophy, biblical criticism, comparative mythology and religion...
  • More About Me
    I was raised in a fundamentalist setting as a child and then went full atheist in my teens while off @ Christian boarding academy. I was very anti-theistic for years and then took interest in comparative mythology and religion and settled down a bit. I Never regained monotheism, instead I ended up rounding myself out as an agnostic-atheist with a philosophical pantheist leaning. My spiritual side is addressed to naturalism and the unity between man, earth, and cosmos as an interconnected whole. As for science, I support it completely.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    Not this, not that

Recent Profile Visitors

1,134 profile views
  1. Christianity Without Jesus

    I'm glad you pointed this out, because that's worthy of making note of. When I read that I immediately remembered discussions I've quote Campbell in, referring to precession and the old numeric based myths that point to cycles of time and where they can be found in the bible, along side of linear time thinking. Both are present in the texts. But the cyclical is concealed in the Biblical tradition. Because the cyclical time references are concealed in the OT, then it stems to wonder if indeed the Gnostic ideas were original, were based at least in part on understanding where they are concealed in the OT (Jewish Scriptures), and how they compare and contrast with the pagan mystery school teachings. Out side of that understanding of cyclical time, would come the linear references thrown in around it. Because ultimately, all the linear referencing in the bible is merely taking a short look, exactly 1/3 of the entire Great Year cycle, and treating that 1/3 as though it were a linear time line from a fixed beginning to a fixed end. Time, times and half a time perfectly covers the span of 4 out of 12 world ages - Taurus (world age), Aries, Pisces (world ages), and Aquarius (half a world age). Both references are repeated in Revelation as we know. 1/3 this, 1/3 that, etc. etc. Couple that with what Robert Buvual has found in Egypt about the Giza Necropolis oriented to Zep Tepi (the first time) the former age of Leo-Aquarius, and how it marks out half the precession cycle from one extreme to the other, and it would appear that a very old astronomical based mystery school tradition was on the mind of at least some of the NT writers. The age of Aquarius, is the opposite of Zep Tepi, and it marks instead the "last time." And it's the vernal age of Aquarius - Leo that we're currently heading into. This seems laid out in Revelation, by way of the tradition of outlining the lower 1/3 of the great year, ending with the age of Aquarius - Leo. All the clues to orient someone to the cyclical time models are there in Revelation. But the linear readings obscure that. Platonic thought was influenced by Egypt, of course, so this line of astronomical mysteries can be seen as coming from Egypt, to Greece, and then down to the beginning of the common era through Philo of Alexandria and other Jews who were 'learned and concerned' with Platonic thought and the ancient solar mysteries. Perhaps blending Judaism with the pagan mysteries because they knew where the mystery school content existed within the Jewish scriptures, and that it wasn't isolated simply to the pagan mysteries alone. Whether they understood well that Judaism arose from polytheism as of around the beginning of the common era time frame, doesn't seem so clear. It had been glossed over by monotheism for a long time by then. But perhaps they even understood that too. Possibly lending answers to why they were so willing to mix Judaism with the pagan mysteries, and apparently had no problem doing so.
  2. Christianity Without Jesus

    I find that entirely agreeable. I'm just picturing the scenario. This would be the outcome of those same Platonic ideas moving through time, but with some new edition. Such as the atheism. I imagine this as similar to Buddhism, following Campbell's analysis. The gods of Hinduism were viewed by some as real, but to the knowledgeable as metaphor and allegory. The historical setting, understood as a surface story line symbolic of depth lying below it. And atheistic outcroppings of Buddhism arose from more of this conscious analysis of the old gods of pantheistic Hinduism. And we know how similar the ideas of the Buddha's and Christ are, as metaphorical of the mystery of existence in Campbell's terms. In that way they represent time and the eternal principle, a relationship between the two, who are one. Platonic John, seemed very concerned with this mystical issue. It seems like a logical outcome to find christian's at some point reaching towards Buddhism as way of survival and maintaining relevance. The orthodox reading doesn't have it very good at all anymore. It trying to make final stands, as I see it. With so many claims of Israel as fulfillment of prophecy, the literalist's clocks will start running out in blatant ways when Jesus doesn't literally appear up in the sky, following the creation of modern Israel. People are bound to stop supporting those ideas more and more as they continuously fail. I really think orthodox christianity can expect nothing but decline, steadily, going forward. I'd expect the only way to gain numbers back is by reaching for the liberal life float through time, in all of the little fundie sects. What else but smothering out could we expect? Some liberal conception of christianity seems like the only real avenue for survival, IMO. Christianity without Jesus has got to be the final way one could possibly take it. Perhaps a final reformation in that way.
  3. @Anushka What a load of information to suddenly take it. I was reading through this imagining how it must feel to just recently have entertained real doubt. And the years, and years, and years of reading and sifting through information that it requires to really understand the answers to the questions you're asking. Bart Ehrman really seems like the go to in this instance, as suggested. Just dive in backwards tracing the question "who wrote the Bible" until you have a strong understanding of both the religious and secular biased sides. You know the joe average citizen version of blindly accepting what you've been told by religious authorities, now delve into their opposition. Your doubting things is the dinner bell ringing signaling that you're ready to go there. And you'll likely feel emotional at times about what you uncover. Good luck with it! Hopefully you stay the course without getting sucked back into religious based deception.
  4. Survey: What nationality is your personality

    Your personality is: American As an American, you are fearless and outgoing with a vigorous personality and optimistic outlook on life that is not easily crushed. Like the country itself, the American personality is popular and adaptable. While you are proud of who you are and are not shy about sharing your opinions, you are also tolerant of others who may be different. Share on Facebook
  5. Christianity Without Jesus

    Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. But your take on reformulating the Lord's Prayer is quite unique and innovative, I must say. I keep saying this, but I can't imagine any other way that people could go with all of this into the future. It seems that christianity is either destined to die off completely or radically change away from the usual orthodox readings which are so blatantly errant. I see people trying to adapt to all of the new information that keeps sweeping through society. This is one such way of adapting to the changing landscape. Again, that's one hell of an adaptation. And certainly a new an unique perspective to anything we've seen here before at ex-C.
  6. abortion...

    This is a good point as well. But I think what agnostic means is graphically explaining to women what goes into all of this at the clinic, prior to ok’ing the procedure, etc As well as a large scale public awareness in place. Which assumes that there’s not one in place now or that the current system falls short.
  7. abortion...

    Again, agnostic, I’m glad to have heard out your point of view. I like the fact that your concern is with all parties involved, not just biased toward the female alone. You’re consideration of the fetus as well as the males involved is admirable IMO. You represent the real thing, real humanism and not some biased half ass version which only takes into account part of the parties involved in the whole scenario. We’ll likely never see such a thing from the liberal camp. And obviously not the conservative either. I realize that the answers are not easy, but from what I see the current system is hardly even trying. Something doesn’t quite add up here. TS says that the courts have decided that because of abusive husbands, they won’t require notification. Why? Because the husband might beat his wife over it? Thats illegal. If a husband beats his wife he’s liable to be arrested and imprisoned. There are laws against beating ones wife. So the courts are worried that if they notify someone, that someone might do something illegal. That’s the logic I’m seeing here. So where does that logic end? Should employers not be able to fire employees because it’s ‘possible’ that the employees might get angry and do something illegal? There’s a history of fired employees getting mad and doing things which are illegal in retaliation. And yet employers are still allowed to fire employees despite the history and likelihood of it provoking illegal actions thereafter. What sort if logic goes into not informing some one of something relevant to their life, which could be bad news, because that bad news might, maybe, theoretically cause then to then do something illegal like become violent? I can’t think of any other scenario where this logic would be applied. Is there any other instance, aside from a married women having an abortion where it would be?
  8. Why is free will so sacred?

    And it turns out, we don’t really have much in the way of free will. Look up Sam Harris on free will. That pretty much steam rolls the ancient religious writers having no idea how illusory free will turns out to be in reality. They couldn’t have known, short of divine intervention. Which then opens another can of worms as far as eliminating the possibility of an all knowing god inspiring the Bible, who, apparently knew nothing about the reality of free will verses determinism and therefore can’t be all knowing... These idiots don’t just turn out wrong time and again, they’re layers and layers deep in wrong time and time again....
  9. White privilege?

    I’ve nick named my girlfriends ass, “White Privilege.” Because its white, and a real privilege to have. Now that’s become an ongoing joke. “Let me get a feel of some of that white privilege....” lol
  10. abortion...

    Then there’s the issue of psychological trauma to the women having abortions, because, in line with many points made by agnostic, they understand deep down that regardless of what anyone tells them, they did in fact kill off their baby. Liberals can’t sugar coat that reality. And when killing off another human being, regardless of its stage in life, there comes psychological issues - unless you’ve become numb to killing. I’d say that every instance of abortion that I’m aware of concerning people that I know, there was always some psychological fall out with the female. Even with miscarriages as well. I have women on face book that lament their babies miscarriage death annually. And have much to say about it as it affected them deeply. After my ex wife came home, she was laid up in bed crying for a week. And I knew she killed that baby, and I knew she felt incredibly guilty for having done it. She went through some personal hell thereafter. And she had diaper sized maxi pads in the bathroom, as she was bleeding out profusely for some time after. I went and looked into what would have happened. Apparently they have to dilate the cervics, and dismember the baby pulling out each limb piece by piece to get it out of her. She’s a Nurse Practitioner, so she knew dam well what was done and the detail to which it was done. So now she has that on her conscience forever. After the divorce hearing I went into graphic detail about what I know she did and that she’ll have to live with herself now. She completely broke down into hysterics our side the court house. I know too well the psychological trauma inflicted on many women who go through this. Relationships end thereafter, a lot of the time. Another big loose / loose for the system, for the pseudo liberal social justice warriors out there who have created this havoc in the name of social justice. I find that there’s little truth in the so called social justice warrior camp. TS basically admitting as much previously concerning no justice for a male with honerable intentions. We can add to that no justice for women who live psychologically traumatized over these liberal oriented policies. What a bunch of assholes! And, we have to just let it happen. Because the right can’t offer some better alternative....
  11. abortion...

    It’s been so dam hot in Florida. It’s nice waking up to cool weather for the first time since last winter. Agnostic, again, you’re thinking is sharp on many ways. I really enjoy you taking me into considerations I hadn’t been taking myself prior to this discussion. I don’t very often stand corrected, BTW. Because I put conscious effort into trying to maintain correct thinking, as far as sticking to the truth as closely as possible. If I’m not there, and that can be demonstrated, I’ll gladly reorient my position. I hope you don’t think I was mislabeling you previously as pro life, I had only to go on assumptions based your admonishing me - concerning the pro life camp. I took that to mean that you’re in some way a secular voice from within that predominately religious camp. And I was trying to wrap my mind around that and consider what it entails, and what validities it may hold. I rather enjoy outside of the box thinking, the variety that can transcend fixed sidelines and labeling. TS doesn’t want mid to late term abortions, he’s made that clear. He’s only pro choice if the choice is being made prior to clear cut brain function consciousness. I see that he’s not arguing that a zygote or first trimester fetus isn’t alive, he knows that it is. But he’s drawing a line of distinction between biological life and human consciousness life, so to speak. Of course that means he ok with terminating biological life prior to the formation of human consciousness. I only point that out to try and clarify and summarize what I interpret is being said. If that’s incorrect, then some one let me know. Just for the sake of putting this to a real life example, if TS’s ideas were put forward then my ex wife could not have gone in at 5 months and terminated a conscious, female baby. But she could have gone in much earlier and had it terminated prior. And the net effect would be the same - the only child that possibly was my own, would have been terminated regardless. And I’d still be here to today, fatherless because of someone else’s ability to have a life terminated, biological stage life or otherwise. That’s because a husband doesn’t in any way have to be notified, apparently. It’s a loose / loose for a male like myself. So let’s move on to how this would play out according to TS’s political thrust. Would there be changes made to the current system where the husband of a married women has to be notified, by law, in advance to an abortion? And if so, would it be feasible that it could be taken to court and the wife given rights to wave her motherhood status, legally removed as mother, and walk away free and clear - leaving the child to the care of the father, rather than allowing the baby to be terminated by the mother who simply doesn’t want the baby? And if there’s no way of doing that then the issue is a pretty closed case as loose / loose for a male like myself. Apparently we’re not very important in any of this and come in last in terms of consideration. So I guess this is but another reason to maintain my apolitical standing, because once again it doesn’t matter one bit what any one does, the net value is loose / loose..... Side with the secular left, loose. Side with the religious right, loose. I say fuck the whole lot.....
  12. abortion...

    This is one of those things like using the term, "proof." It gets misused a lot. I'd say that "life" is getting confused here in the same way. "Life" is a very broad spectrum term and includes even microbes. How is a zygote NOT alive? That's a better question to ask. Does non life magically become alive at some point, or is it simply part of a long, long unbroken chain of life that goes all the way back to the mysteries of the origin of the first living thing? That's what I mean about looking deeper at any given issue.
  13. abortion...

    I've had a huge day, working all weekend. I'm off to the mountains next week. I don't know where you're trying to go with this? Everything I've had to say about society is within the context of our society allowing women to make these choices. I've said nothing about society ITSELF making these choices on behalf of women, to abort their babies. So go ahead and pump the brakes there, Tex. Yes exactly, what's growing inside of a women is human baby, it's not some mosquito, or jellyfish, or ant or anything else that we'd easily disregard. And yet we find some women wanting to just as easily smash their child as one might crush an ant with no concern about doing so. Mine? Agnostic called it barbaric, I gave her credit for calling it as such and owned up to it. You're still pussy footing around not only not owning up to it, but emotionally attached in some way to resisting owning up to it. What drives me to call it barbaric, is simply agnostic telling me it's barbaric and me considering her admonishment and agreeing and standing corrected. But, and again, for the I don't what number the time is now, I've NOT crossed over to pro life and I've made that abundantly clear. In the very post you're quoting as a matter of fact. I've not become pro life. Again, maybe you didn't catch that. Even though my ex wife took off without me knowing and basically murdered a female baby at 5 months, even then, I've not gone over to the pro life camp. Did you hear that? Maybe one more time will do it. Just because I entertain some one's point of view on some particular opposing side doesn't mean that I'm on that side. Especially when I've declared, in black and white terms, more than once, that I've not crossed over. She may not like the fact that I've not crossed over to pro life, but I've not. With all that's happened I suppose some people think I should or would, but I simply haven't. I've still kept to the notion that a women has the right to choose for herself. But I will look at it deeper, where agnostic wants me to look at it deeper, if I so choose. And I did look it, I did analyze it, and I'll admit when there's truth to be found there. But I also declared that ultimately I have to err on the side of pro choice, while admitting at the same time that it's more or less barbaric as agnostic suggested that it is. Why are you so afraid of simply admitting to the truths that she's raised? Is it because you're too invested, politically, into left wing ideologies and simply can not entertain that she may have a valid point, even if that valid point isn't enough to over turn pro choice in and of itself? I don't care which way the party line goes, she said some things that make sense and ring as true. I'll recognize that, that you very much.
  14. Using "the lords" name in vain.....

    Yes, it's beyond stupid. And I'll readily correct those in such a hurry to try and correct others about it. That's the only way to deal with them. You have to let them know how little they actually know to back them down....
  15. Using "the lords" name in vain.....

    Who else would they be, "I will be what I will be, dammit!" This sounds exactly like my girlfriend and her narcissistic, ignorant SDA fundie mother. Almost to a T. I advise her the same in terms of setting the dumb ass straight, because fundies are exceptionally dumb, that's why they remain fundies and don't transcend that particular lower level human brain function. And the problem is that they think they know better than everyone else, they're on some high horse, and usually very manipulative bastards...