Peanut Gallery for WalterP vs. Pittsburghjoe

[florduh]

11 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Bless the Holy Farter.  Glory!  (nod toward Brother Jeff)

Amen.

[alreadyGone]

  

17 hours ago, pittsburghjoe said:

WalterP doesn't get to ask trick questions that require a yes or no. He is playing a game when he does this.

 

And here you see the essence of the thing.

Many aspects of this temporal life are in fact, binary in nature.

Some things are either this, or that.

 

Often in the real world, this temporal reality presents aspects which can be true and real only if other things are NOT real.

It happens sometimes that "that" is mutually exclusive of "this". Reality is just that way.

 

To accept that two things can be true when they are by nature mutually exclusive is to abandon all responsibility for truth or rational thought.

To refuse to accept this is inherently dishonest.

 

 

How Joe can believe this evident reality to be "a trick" is beyond me.

[alreadyGone]

14 hours ago, Hierophant said:

..they thought matter was evil or corrupted, therefore no god would take on the form of real matter.

 

Yeah.... that's rational.

Sure..

 

And so many today accept belief based on what some humans imagined in the absence of knowledge and understanding of the nature of matter,  2,000 years ago.

 

Makes you wonder how we ever managed electrical power generation, powered flight, or online porn.

 

[Hierophant]

51 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

 

Yeah.... that's rational.

Sure..

 

And so many today accept belief based on what some humans imagined in the absence of knowledge and understanding of the nature of matter,  2,000 years ago.

 

Makes you wonder how we ever managed electrical power generation, powered flight, or online porn.

 

 

That was how the Gnostics tried to come to terms with how the world was so screwed up, i.e., the suffering, violence, misery, etc. They rationed this world could not be the doing of an all powerful and good god, so it must be the product of something else.

 

Of course not all gnostics believed the same thing, but generally speaking they thought there was one true God that was perfect, ideal, etc. This being created, but everything it created was a little bit less divine than the true God. Over time, these other divine beings created, had offspring, etc. All the way to where Sophia (wisdom) either created or had the Demiurge (creator of the material world). The Demiurge was so far down from the one true God that it did not even know that God existed. Gnostics would quote the OT where it says, "besides me, there are no gods (Isaiah or Ezekiel I think) as proof the Demiurge did not know it wasn't the highest God.

 

Now, the gnostics themselves thought that they each had some kind of divine spark. Sophia looked into a body of water and it left divine sparks within the water. How the gnostics received this spark, I cannot remember, but I am sure it's crazy.

 

To awaken that spark in someone, it required a gnostic revealer. Gnostics would often feel (before conversion) like they did not belong in this world, something was off. Then when they met a gnostic revealer....boom, that's why they always felt something was amiss.

 

Christian Gnostics thought Jesus was a gnostic revealer. Apparently The Gospel of John contains some gnostic leanings and probably had more before a few redactors sanitized it so it was better suited for orthodoxy. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

"You are not translating it correctly. Knowing good and evil is knowing if something is physical."

 

He's right, you know.  In the original Aramaic, it was called "the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of physical and not-physical."  The King James translators fucked it up and here we are. 

[alreadyGone]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

..The King James translators fucked it up and here we are. 

 

Well those early digital scrolls and quills were tricky..

 

 

Do you suppose there was any room in the court of King James for "political" and personal prejudice on the part of the King and others around him to influence the translation, the deliberation over which verses to keep and which not...   ?

 

Nah...

 

[Hierophant]

I wouldn't concede to Gnostic Joe's definition of evil. Sin, by biblical definition means to miss the mark. According to Gnostic Joe, something bad is not necessarily evil when it comes to YHWH's standards. I cannot agree to that definition and I do not think the Bible supports it either.

[◊ Krowb ◊]

Joe certainly has a unique spin on this.  I hold out hope at some point he re-reads what he is writing in these threads and realizes just how overly complicated he has made the entire thing. 

 

It's like he's recreating those ancient pantheons involving gradations among "higher beings" without realizing it.  Angels, demons, and Satan all have the capacity to disobey, yet their transgressions are not physical.  They can be decoherent, but live in a realm lesser than heaven and higher than (or invisible to) earth. Having the ability to interact with us mere physical mortals when it suits their individualized (read: free will) purpose.

 

[[edited to remove an unnecessary comment]]

[◊ Krowb ◊]

If Joe were more charismatic, and he were speaking this confidently to a group of illiterate and superstitious people I can imagine this is how religions formed. As people came to believe his claims, it inflates his position, increasing his confidence, which in turn is a feedback loop to his followers and their dedication.  Ol' Joe here might be the next Joseph Smith, Ron L. Hubbard, or Li Hongzhi.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Hence the name "Lion's Den."

 

And sometimes it gets sadomasochistic.  I don't see that as healthy for either side.  Joe, have you read Matt. 10:14?  This is playing the game of "whack a mole" with the christian, and you are playing the part of a martyr.  But if you are enjoying it, go for it.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, Weezer said:

And sometimes it gets sadomasochistic.  I don't see that as healthy for either side.

Your concern is noted.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

5 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Your concern is noted.

 

Would you make fun of a severely addicted person?  One so drunk, and dependent upon his "Liquor" that he makes things up as he goes along in an effort to maintain his drunken state?   Joe is not making sense because he unable to do so in his present state of mind.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

This ain't a god damn democracy, @Weezer.  This is a personal, private website and we are all guests on it.  Just because this website is open to the public, doesn't mean the public has a say in how it's run.  

 

Now, your concerns have been noted; and if you're offended by this thread or by this forum, you can exercise some of that good ol' free will and choose to not be here.  

 

As for using addiction as an analogy with me, I'd recommend knowing your audience a bit better.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@pittsburghjoe,  your comment concerning Weezer was deleted.  Any more shenanigans like that and you will be banned.  You will keep yourself on task in your thread with WalterP or you will have your ass handed to you.

Have a good day, 

John

[◊ Weezer ◊]

6 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

Now, your concerns have been noted; and if you're offended by this thread or by this forum, you can exercise some of that good ol' free will and choose to not be here.

I am not offended, but will give some thought as to whether I want to be here or not.  It's not the first time I have considered such.

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, Krowb said:

If Joe were more charismatic, and he were speaking this confidently to a group of illiterate and superstitious people I can imagine this is how religions formed. As people came to believe his claims, it inflates his position, increasing his confidence, which in turn is a feedback loop to his followers and their dedication.  Ol' Joe here might be the next Joseph Smith, Ron L. Hubbard, or Li Hongzhi.

 

Herald Camping did this prior to 2011. 

 

He had a following and it inflated his ego. He went full D-K effect sure of himself. And when there was no rapture, he claimed that he was "flabbergasted." He had deviated away from the written scripture on several points. No man knows the day or the hour became apologized away as only the unsaved will not know the day or the hour. But that's not what it says. It says no one will know the day or the hour with no specific grouped named. That alone should have red flagged his movement. But followers were blind to thinking for themselves. Camping said it, so it's golden. Until it wasn't. 

 

Joe could do the same thing if wanted to. And with the big pressing issue to try and convince people he may want to. It would appear that he wants converts to his message of truth. Which diverts from the written scripture just like Camping and similar people. So christians should reject it based on scripture, to be honest. Freethinkers obviously have reason to reject it based on sound logic and reason stemming from questioning Joe at the very premise of his presupposition. 

 

Both presuppostions:

 

1) God exists.

 

2) God solves the issue of particle - wave duality. 

 

He want's to move forward acting as if these two presuppositional premises are a given, when they are both far from a given. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Herald Camping did this prior to 2011. 

Joe could do the same thing if wanted to.

This is exactly why The Den is, and needs to be, a brutal place at times.  I have every bit of compassion for people with obsessions, addictions, and afflictions of any kind; but that doesn't blind me to the fact that some of them are downright dangerous.  We can't just kid-glove every christian who wanders in here with his mania on his sleeve.  Because we don't know who else might be lurking.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

@pittsburghjoe,

 

This is a debate on the BIBLE! As @WalterP has already stated. You claim to be Christian. YOU as a Christian must use what your God has given you to prove your points. YOU have offered no references to support your argument.  YOU keep saying phrases like "I think" and "I believe" and "you are interpreting it wrong". When you say these phrases then you are indicating a "private interpretation yourself". Do you know what the word. The supposed word of YOUR God says about that? 2 pet 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." 

 

YOU are privately interpreting your own Gods word against his own instructions. You MUST support all of your assertions with (as my old church once said), "Bible, chapter, verse"! You MUST reference your QM opinion to legitimate research and support it with Biblical scripture. (I say opinion because what you are saying can't even be supported as a theory) You can't because this is YOU Joe. It is no one else. No other religion that I have ever heard of teaches this vomit that you are spewing in this forum. Unless you can give legitimate support to your assertions. You should probably leave or in my native tongue. "Move the Fuck on, and leave us alone." 

 

Sincerely,

DarkBishop

 

[Joshpantera]

Joe: "You are not translating it correctly. Knowing good and evil is knowing if something is physical."

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Big problem.

 

Genesis 1:1 is the story of the origin of "the physical" world if not the entire physical universe. It's about the creation of the earth, and the skies separated from the seas, and land appearing. The living creatures in the seas and skies. Then land creatures ending with Adam. All of this is to explain the origin of the physical earth and it's living creatures. All physical, including Adam. 

 

Only after all of the physical world is created and established, and creatures are named, does this story of the tree of knowledge of good and evil come about. Well after an entire material universe has been established. It's materialistic within this garden full of plants, animals, seas, skies, and man. Everything is physical already leading into the setting of the fall of man. 

 

Big red flag for a theology of physicality only coming into being AFTER eating the forbidden fruit. 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Joe: "Consider what you are doing. You are searching for any reason possible not to believe. You desperately do not want what I have said to be true.

I am showing you a path to see the light. Have you attempted to look into the double slit at all?

I am not in this for fame, I'm here to wake the sleeping. Take my ideas and claim them as your own, but know of the dangers of fame before doing so."

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Joe is speaking like a Herald Camping or similar here. You're dam right that this can be dangerous!

 

People who challenge his presuppositions are accused of "searching for any reason possible not to believe." That is the mind of a very deluded religionist. Thinking that opposition and argument equate to people stubbornly rebelling against his revealed truth. Completely unable to step back, look at the situation objectively, and reconsider the subjective premises he's setting forward. A well balanced person would step back and try and view it from another perspective. Maybe understand and admit that he has no evidence to support these claims and that people are free to take his ideas or leave them. This is not a well balanced presentation at all. 

 

It's deluded and it's potentially dangerous in terms of psychological abuse of others. 

 

What do we do? 

 

For now, we're bullying the bully right back. He's trying to bully people with threats for not believing his unsupported subjective based presuppositions. 

 

 

 

 

[WalterP]

It's over folks!

 

Joe's unable to discipline himself enough to engage in polite and reasonable discourse.

 

So I'm out of the thread and waiting for it to be shut down.

 

Thank you for taking an interest.

 

All the best.

 

Walter.

[sdelsolray]

17 minutes ago, WalterP said:

It's over folks!

 

Joe's unable to discipline himself enough to engage in polite and reasonable discourse.

 

So I'm out of the thread and waiting for it to be shut down.

 

Thank you for taking an interest.

 

All the best.

 

Walter.

 

I greatly appreciate your patience and ability to stay on topic, as well as the quality of the substance of your posts.  You are an inspiration.

[WalterP]

Just now, sdelsolray said:

 

I greatly appreciate your patience and ability to stay on topic, as well as the quality of the substance of your posts.  You are an inspiration.

 

Thank you, sdelsolray. 

 

You've been a member of Ex-C far longer than I have, so that's quite a compliment you're paying me.

 

I really appreciate it.

 

Thanks again.

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Okay, folks, that show is over.  Would anybody else like a mano y mano with joe?  We'll go in a first-come-first-served basis.

[Hierophant]

I am asking him about his theology. It's not a debate, I am generally curious to know what he believes, why he believes it, and how he defines things. 

[WalterP]

1 minute ago, Hierophant said:

I am asking him about his theology. It's not a debate, I am generally curious to know what he believes, why he believes it, and how he defines things. 

 

Hierophant,

 

You might not be 'feeding the troll' but you might inadvertently be giving Joe the audience and airtime he wants.

 

Walter.