Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor 6,950 Posted February 3 Super Moderator Report Share Posted February 3 This thread is created specifically for comments/responses to the WalterP vs. Pittsburghjoe thread. We encourage all participants to freely voice their thoughts. However, should this thread begin to take the attention of either participant away from their designated thread, it will be this thread that gets locked. Thanks for your cooperation. Have whatever kind of day you choose, John 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor 6,950 Posted February 3 Author Super Moderator Report Share Posted February 3 @WalterP is allowed to ask any kind of question he wants and @pittsburghjoe is allowed to give any kind of answer he can come up with. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
◊ Krowb ◊ 177 Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 And our participant first to the stage chooses to not expound his hypothesis with support such as he can give it, but instead attempts to dictate the terms of the conversation. Ladies and gents, the advocate is not off to a strong start. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Super Moderator florduh 5,907 Posted February 3 Super Moderator Report Share Posted February 3 I confess I don't understand the attraction. Have fun, guys. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pittsburghjoe 15 Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 12 minutes ago, Krowb said: And our participant first to the stage chooses to not expound his hypothesis with support such as he can give it, but instead attempts to dictate the terms of the conversation. Ladies and gents, the advocate is not off to a strong start. Maybe you haven't witnessed his behavior for 17 pages. I give an answer and then when I don't fall for the tick he acts like child. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
midniterider 5,198 Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 Peanut checking in... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
◊ Krowb ◊ 177 Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 48 minutes ago, pittsburghjoe said: Maybe you haven't witnessed his behavior for 17 pages. I give an answer and then when I don't fall for the tick he acts like child. @pittsburghjoe, Now is your opportunity to stake out your position in full, uninterrupted by the rest of us. You get to have an actual conversation with @WalterP. You have strong beliefs and you clearly want us to join you in those beliefs. We have literally given you the floor to make your case the best you can and limited interruptions to one interlocutor. Imagine this as a defense of your doctoral thesis or that you are the plaintiff in a civil case. Be prepared to defend your position and assertions against a single person instead of a whole gaggle of us dragging you in multiple directions. You have the benefit of a single respondent and it is incumbent on you to stay to the task of defending and supporting your premises. I wish you well, but please keep the task of showing us why your position is the right one we should adopt. In the event you don't know, take the honesty (godly route) and admit it. There is no shame in admitting ignorance, for we are all ignorant of many things. The shame comes from either deceitfully not acknowledging our limitations, or from continued, willful ignorance. May we all gain a better understanding of the extent and limits of our knowledge by your colloquy with WalterP. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor 6,950 Posted February 3 Author Super Moderator Report Share Posted February 3 53 minutes ago, pittsburghjoe said: Maybe you haven't witnessed his behavior for 17 pages. I give an answer and then when I don't fall for the tick he acts like child. Joe, if you choose to spend all of your time in this thread instead of the one specifically for yourself and Walt, I WILL BAN YOU. This will be the only warning I give you. This is your one opportunity. Do NOT fuck it up. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moderator Hierophant 445 Posted February 3 Moderator Report Share Posted February 3 Gnostic Joe is equivocating with the whole "living in a state of good" and knowledge of good and evil. He fails to understand that Adam lacked agency to know what good was. Adam would not even be able to evaluate what he was experiencing as good. It would simply be what is without any kind of judgement by an agent. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moderator Hierophant 445 Posted February 3 Moderator Report Share Posted February 3 I have rebranded PittsburghJoe as Gnostic Docetist Joe, first of his name, High King of Double Slit Theory and creation. May he outwit the Demiurge and his hylics. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sdelsolray 2,275 Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 Joe "answers" one of Walter's questions with a deflective question. So much for rational discourse. But we already knew that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moderator TABA 1,795 Posted February 3 Moderator Report Share Posted February 3 3 minutes ago, Hierophant said: I have rebranded PittsburghJoe as Gnostic Docetist Joe, first of his name, High King of Double Slit Theory and creation. May he outwit the Demiurge and his hylics. Can you explain the terms Gnostic and Docetist for the Irish among us? Gnostic in particular has a couple of distinct meanings. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moderator Hierophant 445 Posted February 3 Moderator Report Share Posted February 3 Gnostics thought they had "special knowledge" and were enlightened about the real world. They thought they had a spark that came from the real high God from the pleroma. They considered the maker of the material world (the demiurge) to be a ignorant being who thought they were the most high God. Doectist thought that Jesus was more of an illusion or could change his form. Essentially Jesus was really without form, but appeared real. If I remember correctly, like the gnostics, they thought matter was evil or corrupted, therefore no god would take on the form of real matter. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor 6,950 Posted February 3 Author Super Moderator Report Share Posted February 3 1 minute ago, Hierophant said: Gnostics thought they had "special knowledge" and were enlightened about the real world. They thought they had a spark that came from the real high God from the pleroma. They considered the maker of the material world (the demiurge) to be a ignorant being who thought they were the most high God. Contrariwise, an Eggnostick is a person who uses cooking spray to keep eggs from sticking to the skillet. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moderator Joshpantera 3,265 Posted February 4 Moderator Report Share Posted February 4 51 minutes ago, Hierophant said: Gnostic Joe is equivocating with the whole "living in a state of good" and knowledge of good and evil. He fails to understand that Adam lacked agency to know what good was. Adam would not even be able to evaluate what he was experiencing as good. It would simply be what is without any kind of judgement by an agent. If the tree represents duality, then the garden represents non-duality. Where Joe is really off here is where he's speaking of a transcendent, non-dual, as if it is dual. In other words, beyond the paired opposites of "good and evil" is transcendent of paired opposites like "good and evil." It's not one of the two pairs of opposites in the absence of the other. As in "all good" in the absence of evil. That's taking one of two paired opposites. But transcendent is beyond paired opposites. As in eastern philosophy where you have Brahman described as the "transcendent non-dual." And entire schools of thought around the idea of non-duality. They'd laugh their asses off at someone suggesting that in the absence of one of two paired opposites, the one of the pair reigns supreme. Which is what Joe is suggesting with the idea that in the absence of evil equals "all good." That shows a complete ignorance of the deeper philosophical levels of understanding non-duality. 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor 6,950 Posted February 4 Author Super Moderator Report Share Posted February 4 Walt has ground the skin completely off of his forehead from the sheer number of facepalms he has inflicted upon himself this evening. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor 6,950 Posted February 4 Author Super Moderator Report Share Posted February 4 "Before" and "after" is one of them duality dooflochets, isn't it? Like, "how could they sin before there was sin?" "Oh, they became sin after they sinned, because decoherent flatulence waves." Seriously, how is he confused by this simple concept? joe is either intentionally obfuscating or he's dumber than a monkey fucking a football. 2 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
☆ DarkBishop ☆ 894 Posted February 4 Report Share Posted February 4 8 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said: flatulence waves I wonder if flatulence still stinks in wave form lmao!! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
midniterider 5,198 Posted February 4 Report Share Posted February 4 I like this one here: Joe: Eating the physical apple made them physical themselves. The tree was fallen. ..welcome to this fallen reality. How does something non-physical eat something physical? I checked with the Flying Spaghetti Monster and he said Joe just made that up. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
☆ DarkBishop ☆ 894 Posted February 4 Report Share Posted February 4 wow just read his opening statement and that is a lot of assertions with zero references to support his theory. So far I've only seen the one article. He really needs to give his argument some support other than the "this is what I believe, it makes sense to me, so you should believe it to" tactic. You can't make something true by repeating it over and over. I'm sure Joe is watching this thread and I have to reply to your last comment to me Joe. I told you that I had earnestly studied the Bible and began seeing issues to which you replied, " is it better to memorize it, or to see the light." What you fail to realize is that ExC isn't made up of (FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE) weak, confused, or ignorant lay members of the church. There are many people that spent years in the church and Bible college. There are ex pastors, reverends, bishops, youth ministers, evangelists, musicians, etc, and yes also lay members. It wasn't about memorizing. I believed the Bible was God's word and that when I was reading it I was reading something Holy and true. For many people here our loss of faith was a devastating event in our lives that some of us are still feeling repercussions from. So to say I was just "memorizing it" is a gross misunderstatment. I was doing as the Bible said. "Searching the scriptures" trying to become a well versed soldier for my Lord. DB 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor 6,950 Posted February 4 Author Super Moderator Report Share Posted February 4 1 hour ago, DarkBishop said: I wonder if flatulence still stinks in wave form lmao!! Flatulence isn't physical, therefore it must be as one with god and his wave. Bless the Holy Farter. Glory! (nod toward Brother Jeff) 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Astreja 1,253 Posted February 4 Report Share Posted February 4 In the comment right after Walter's "Good night" post, Joe has asserted that someone can be made of good, as if it's some kind of substance. WTAF? Last I checked, good and bad referred to actions, not some form of matter. Pursuing this rather odd hypothesis ad absurdum, that suggests that the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was tainted with some bad substance. Is Joe suggesting (be it accidentally or on purpose) that the knowledge necessary for informed morality is itself tainted and evil? If so, where does that leave Biblegod and the unknown entities who were upset about Adam and Eve becoming "like us"? 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
★ Weezer ★ 1,116 Posted February 4 Report Share Posted February 4 I am very uncomfortable with this exercise. It reminds me of a cat playing with a wounded mouse. I think laughing at Joe is pathetic. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor 6,950 Posted February 4 Author Super Moderator Report Share Posted February 4 7 hours ago, Weezer said: It reminds me of a cat playing with a wounded mouse. Hence the name "Lion's Den." 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Super Moderator florduh 5,907 Posted February 4 Super Moderator Report Share Posted February 4 14 hours ago, Hierophant said: Gnostic Docetist Joe GD JOE. God Damnit, I like it. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.