Joshpantera

Moderator
  • Content Count

    3,530
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

Joshpantera last won the day on January 13

Joshpantera had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,864 Wow

5 Followers

About Joshpantera

  • Rank
    ancient X

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    US of A
  • Interests
    A plethora...
  • More About Me
    I'm an over 25 year deconvert. Gone off exploring a lot of science, religion, philosophy, biblical criticism, archaeology, eastern mystical content, and esoteric comparative content. Atheistic about gods with a spiritual side about nature.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    I don't believe in god(s)

Recent Profile Visitors

2,897 profile views
  1. That settles it! If this happened to a pig, then Jesus rose from the dead! Case closed!
  2. That's a good point. I wouldn't be surprised if it meant something different originally.
  3. After getting out of Seventh Day Adventism, I went through some studies by ex-SDA pastors who put it up against a cult identification framework. The only point that didn't seem to fit is encouraging members to leave their families. Every other point seems to fit. And the take away is that SDAism is far too close to a cult for their comfort. But having said that, let's turn for a moment in our bibles to Matthew 10:34. As to the general cult-like origins of christianity, enough said. Matthew 10:34-36 English Standard Version (ESV) Not Peace, but a Sword 34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.
  4. This is a real good take away. You're there. You see it. That's why some of us discuss all of these other topics along with christianity. It is very much a human issue that can cloud just about every area of life - religious, secular or otherwise. But I would add that it's not necessary to live in a panic or stress too much over it. Not that you do, I'm just saying for general purposes. Understanding just how wide reaching uncertainty actually is, can be scary on one hand but beneficial on the other.
  5. Not a bad edition. As far as the "big stick" goes, I take that to mean a visible object (or something well known) that people see and understand will be used on them if they were to cross a line and try and hurt you in any way. That's how I'm taking Roosevelt's brief point. It's to ward off any evil that may come your way. Not an act of forward aggressive action, but a defensive oriented mechanism. A reaction to someone else's action. And that's the part that I like about it. Peaceful from the outset, but not a push over. That's all I'm saying. It's strikes me as much more realistic than the jesus genre. in my opinion. Agree with this as well. This defence recognises that people have a right to defend themselves against violence or threats of violence, so long as the force used is no more than is reasonable for that purpose. The law does not require people to wait until they have been attacked before taking action to protect themselves. But the law also acknowledges the attacker’s right to life and bodily integrity and requires the force used in self-defence to be no more than is necessary to prevent the violence or threatened violence. Imagine a theocracy where the law of the land states that in keeping with the divinely inspired mandate of the gods inerrant word, all citizens are required to "turn the other cheek" if approached by an intruder, confronted by a rapist, or terrorist?
  6. Oh boy! Good move, BTW. Dash cam and all! These days road rage isn't what it once was. Much more likely to get shot over it now than probably ever before. Another example of the weight of danger having the ability to outweigh the desire to engage conflict. I agree with this too. You didn't exactly turn the other cheek. You went after the guy through acceptable channels. Didn't let him keep slapping everyone's cheeks over and over again with the illegal dumping.
  7. This and other comments remind of one of the lesson points worked into the new Point Break film: The minute someone follows a path, it becomes their own path, their own choice. I didn't see clips that extend into the following section but those are the points made - if anyone has seen the film then they know what follows. The points are somewhat relevant to this thread. Utah kept wanting to blame himself for other peoples choices and Bodhi brought in a wider perspective. Johny Utah was finally able to let go and find peace of mind.
  8. @Margee Maybe she'll check in soon. I'm sorry to hear this. I don't know if masculine hugs and sympathy's will do at this time, but you have them from me. I'm getting remarried early May and her parents are SDA's. I have similar prospects ahead. Where I'm in your position and she is in your husbands. They know that I don't attend church anymore but are more or less foggy on the details. They know that my grand father was dis-fellowship'd and that we all pulled our memberships from the Florida conference of SDA's years ago. It's a sore enough issue to keep them pussy footing around the issue of the church, for now. They're in their 70's. Let's face it, I'm just hoping to ride this out until they pass on. Beyond their generation it's over and done. Her brothers are agnostics and atheists. The kids don't believe any of it. And the old folks loath the fact that everyone's dropped out. So that's why the attention is on her because she hasn't drawn any line in the sand about the church with them.
  9. I don't know why I didn't see this earlier, but with all the talk of Yang being Trumps opposite as a joke, it's literally a "ying and yang" situation. He is literally the Yang to Trumps Yin. Funny how that works out.....
  10. At face value I understand why the golden rule seems to have appeal. Because generally speaking, people want to be treated kindly. So be kind to others, so that they will model your example and be kind to you. But if anyone likes strife, drama, controversy, enjoys pain, then they will put out what they want (even if subconsciously) coming back at them. It's a philosophical suggestion with loopholes to contend with. I guess the main issue I have with it is that the golden rule isn't a blanket statement that can actually be used to broad brush the human race, as it's used to try and do. I guess I would change it to say, 'treat people descent for the sake of smooth social interaction, regardless of your own personal views.' If you're a masochist, set that aside and for the sake of smooth social interaction. Don't treat people literally how you yourself would like to be treated (with pain, etc.) I would want that too, but I'm not talking about idealism as much as the reality of life on earth. My problem with these wisdom sayings adopted into the bible is that they are mostly out of touch with reality. As it turns out, the ability to flatten out evil is an effective method to face off with it. Turning the other cheek to terrorists and what not is pretty ill advised. I might re-frame it as, 'if someone strikes you on the cheek, strike them back immediately on both of theirs and as hard as you can hit. If they try and come back again, hit them even harder until they fold and stop trying to wrong you.' That sounds pretty dark, honestly. But it's just the reality of conflict. The shame, humiliation, fear, another factors are what actually keep evil doers at bay. I think of the highlander series. Duncan McCloud (of the clan McCloud) was the good guy. But he had to get his hands dirty fighting the bad guys because there's really no other way of doing it. Evil has to be over powered and forced down, or it will prevail. I don't know, this is all just for fun and exploring new or unorthodox ways of looking at things.
  11. Good questions. My opinion used to be that the bible was the inspired word of an all knowing god. That opinion turned out to be errant. When I realized that my opinion was errant, I moved on and changed my opinion. Now, in my opinion, the bible is a horrible attempt at describing reality and truth. Which is the basis for the OP videos which detail many of the reasons why an inerrant hypothesis of the bible (which I used to subscribe to) fails in very specific ways. The greater issue here is that the bible merely exists as one of a great many other human productions, all of which are subject to varying levels of errancy. How do we know? By locating the errors involved. So this isn't a topic that takes down the bible as errant in order to uphold something else as inerrant. This is a topic that outlines errors and allows that it's entirely possible that everything is errant, the bible not withstanding. That said, would you like to focus in on the errors of the bible mentioned?