Josh "The Panther" Versus Edgarcito "The End3" : A Grudge Match, No Holds Barred

[Joshpantera]

9 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Tell me Josh what you would like me to do at this point if anything.  It’s frustrating for me, almost to a level of anger, to participate.  Your knowledge base is probably impressive but appears little to do with being spiritual.  

 

This is because what you think of as spiritual doesn't even really classify as spiritual to the people in the world on the right side of the scale I've mapped out. 

 

Literalistic thinkers ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Symbolic thinkers

 

Mainstream christianity-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------eastern and western mysticism

 

So this is the very heart of the issue and debate.

 

These people who don't read their scriptures as literalist's are much more into the spiritual side of religion. Whereas people who read their religious writings as some sort of historical book and agree to believe the history haven't gotten to the point of anything spiritual in the process. 

 

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

 

Thou Art That: transforming religious metaphor

 

Editors forward XV

 

"Many elements of the bible seem lifeless and unbelievable because they have been regarded as historical facts instead of metaphorical representations of spiritual realities. They have been applied in a concrete way to great figures, such as Moses and John the Baptist, as if they are real time accounts of their actions. That this heavy emphasis on the historical rather than spiritual should have continued into the 21st century illustrates the lag-time that the leaders of institutional religions have allowed to open up between their static ideas and the rapidly developing understandings of solid new scholarship...

 

...There is little evident progress in formal religious teaching. 

...The spiritual needs of people are neglected by religious leaders who insist on the historical-factual character of religious metaphors, thereby distorting and debasing their meaning." 

 

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

 

It all starts with Genesis. You seem to be hung up on a historical, as opposed to "spiritual" reading of Genesis.

 

This automatically places you as a literalistic thinker and takes you to the opposite side of the spectrum on the spiritual religious scale. You're starting out as a literalist thinker from the outset. You're reading a creation myth 'as if' it were literally true and historical, when, it's demonstrable not. And the people to the right of the spiritual scale would readily admit and agree that it's not to be taken literally in the first place. Origen of Alexandria was branded a heretic after admitting as much. He pointed out that it's nonsensical to read Genesis 1 literally. The orthodoxy pushed him back for it. 

 

This is true even of the eastern religions. Some people don't even get hung up on the historical existence of the Buddha. Because the historical existence is completely besides the point of any attempt at a "spiritual" teaching. What this boils down to is that what myself, you, and the rest of us reading along were taught as "spiritual," wasn't even on the register in the first place when compared to what other people in this world have conceived of in their spiritual practices and traditions. It's akin to a Buddhist saying,' I believe the Buddha really existed and did everything ascribed in these texts, so I'm spiritual for that reason and I will be saved from fear and desire because of it.' 

 

That's foolish nonsense from a deeper spiritual perspective! And yet, that's exactly what christians are doing! 

 

The spiritual part has to do with man and existence itself unified, whole, and one (as outlined previously).

 

Genesis does not start out very spiritual. The gods are NOT omnipresent in Genesis. They are plural, and they aren't everywhere at once. They appear to be up in a fixed location above the earth with the ability to travel down and walk around in the garden. When one of the gods asked Adam why he is hiding, that shows the writers intent that the god asking this question wasn't all knowing and didn't exist as omnipresent. This is older mythology. It predates the more sophisticated philosophical and spiritual concept of "omnipresence" within the jewish religion. They didn't seem to have it yet. Whereas the ancient pantheists of the east had already long had the concept of omnipresence through Brahman by that time. 

 

The eastern pantheists were more 'spiritually sophisticated' than the western polytheists who hadn't yet conceived of their monotheism at that time. Western polytheists eventually evolved to monolatry and funneled down to monotheism. They adopted some of the more sophisticated concepts like omnipresence eventually. But it wasn't there at the outset. And it probably came from interaction with the more sophisticated cultures as adoption. 

 

But even though the more sophisticate spiritual concepts were probably adopted and worked in, they have always held a contradictory status in the western traditions. On the one hand they want to claim that god is one, and that the one is omnipresent. But then contradict themselves where ever the logic that follows presents problems to their political religious views. God is all-present, but god is absent from this, that, or the other thing. We don't want god present in that direction, so he isn't. We just want to claim that god is all present but not deal with all of the necessary logic that then follows. 

 

As this continues you will be faced with the reality of christian sprituality in the world compared to the more sophisticated renditions of spirituality that do exist. There wouldn't be a problem here if christians simply confessed that no, they do not have a superior scripture, religion, or spirituality above and beyond anyone else in the world. But since the claim has been made christianity is subject to this kind of rigorous scrutiny and analysis. 

[Joshpantera]

8 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I’ll tell you what Josh, let's do this, I’d like you not to disclose all you know, but disclose what you personally have had and believe to be spiritual connections/experiences.  And then I’ll reciprocate.  And then I’ll explain my take on spirituality.  Thx.  

 

Yes, we can both do so in light of the mountain of knowledge that will be rising up during the exchange. 

 

The spiritual aspect of this learning for me was intense. I became caught up in what appears to be a synchronistic rabbit hole of connections, realizations, and experiences. It really took off when I decided to start reading up on pantheism. Both ancient and modern and the varieties that exist now today which are not theistic. All of this unfolded to me in no different a way than you would ascribe to being led by the holy spirit. It was exactly the same sort of happenstances and seemingly guided and directed type of situation. I was being led around from one realization to the next almost in a clear order. Another piece of the puzzle would present itself at just the right time. 

 

I had the mystical realization of interconnection with the totality of existence. I embraced myself as part of the whole in the same way that these myths are promoting through stories such as the Buddha, jesus in the sense of John 10:30, Al Hallaj the Sufi mystic, and similar. Except I was way past the point of thinking that the experience was literally to do with a mythic god. It was more broken down and stripped bare of the metaphorical symbolism. The simple fact that I exist makes me an aspect of existence, the whole. Existence is the entire shebang. It's the fabric and structure of everything, myself not withstanding. There's no beginning or end to existence the totality. And it became clearer, and clearer, that at the base level, what I really am is simply the fabric of existence itself living out an experience from an egocentric perspective - as is the case with all living things. 

 

All of the myths then made more sense after that. I understood the metaphorical, or "spiritual" direction of the myths in question. But what led me into this wasn't anything literal from the myths. It was my own conscious mind and subconscious mind working it all out. Laying out paths. Seemingly like I was guided along a path. It was synchronicity. And none of these experiences led towards clinging to the theistic belief or the mystic gods. It actually did the opposite. It reaffirmed that they were never literally true in the first place. And brought me to place of understanding and peace with it all. 

 

Following these mystical experiences and knowledge acquisitions, I began to formulate my firm agnostic atheist position taking. Before I was still a little confused. But it became clearer to me exactly why agnostic atheism is the most sensible place to land. No one can prove the existence or non existence of the mythic gods. So there's no reason to even try. And I do know that mythology is metaphor and I don't believe in the mystic gods in any literal sense whatsoever. So there's no reason to try and straddle a theistic belief for spiritual reasons. Because I had already transcended all of that. I was way past that point already. Much more advanced in spiritual thinking than I every could have been as a christian or anything else for that matter. 

 

I had figured out everything to the edge of what human beings are capable of figuring out - that we are the fabric of existence itself as we sit here existing day to day. That's a the apex of human spiritual experience which is described in these myths from around the world. The jesus myth and the others. So in the myths when jesus and similar avatars from around the world hit this apex, that's it. That's as far as these myths take you. They can take you to the point of self discovery, and self recognition of yourself as THE totality here, incarnate, right now. 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Yes, we can both do so in light of the mountain of knowledge that will be rising up during the exchange. 

 

The spiritual aspect of this learning for me was intense. I became caught up in what appears to be a synchronistic rabbit hole of connections, realizations, and experiences. It really took off when I decided to start reading up on pantheism. Both ancient and modern and the varieties that exist now today which are not theistic. All of this unfolded to me in no different a way than you would ascribe to being led by the holy spirit. It was exactly the same sort of happenstances and seemingly guided and directed type of situation. I was being led around from one realization to the next almost in a clear order. Another piece of the puzzle would present itself at just the right time. 

 

I had the mystical realization of interconnection with the totality of existence. I embraced myself as part of the whole in the same way that these myths are promoting through stories such as the Buddha, jesus in the sense of John 10:30, Al Hallaj the Sufi mystic, and similar. Except I was way past the point of thinking that the experience was literally to do with a mythic god. It was more broken down and stripped bare of the metaphorical symbolism. The simple fact that I exist makes me an aspect of existence, the whole. Existence is the entire shebang. It's the fabric and structure of everything, myself not withstanding. There's no beginning or end to existence the totality. And it became clearer, and clearer, that at the base level, what I really am is simply the fabric of existence itself living out an experience from an egocentric perspective - as is the case with all living things. 

 

All of the myths then made more sense after that. I understood the metaphorical, or "spiritual" direction of the myths in question. But what led me into this wasn't anything literal from the myths. It was my own conscious mind and subconscious mind working it all out. Laying out paths. Seemingly like I was guided along a path. It was synchronicity. And none of these experiences led towards clinging to the theistic belief or the mystic gods. It actually did the opposite. It reaffirmed that they were never literally true in the first place. And brought me to place of understanding and peace with it all. 

 

Following these mystical experiences and knowledge acquisitions, I began to formulate my firm agnostic atheist position taking. Before I was still a little confused. But it became clearer to me exactly why agnostic atheism is the most sensible place to land. No one can prove the existence or non existence of the mythic gods. So there's no reason to even try. And I do know that mythology is metaphor and I don't believe in the mystic gods in any literal sense whatsoever. So there's no reason to try and straddle a theistic belief for spiritual reasons. Because I had already transcended all of that. I was way past that point already. Much more advanced in spiritual thinking than I every could have been as a christian or anything else for that matter. 

 

I had figured out everything to the edge of what human beings are capable of figuring out - that we are the fabric of existence itself as we sit here existing day to day. That's a the apex of human spiritual experience which is described in these myths from around the world. The jesus myth and the others. So in the myths when jesus and similar avatars from around the world hit this apex, that's it. That's as far as these myths take you. They can take you to the point of self discovery, and self recognition of yourself as THE totality here, incarnate, right now. 

 

 

Thinking spiritual is a relationship, communing, knowing, realizing our existence, with respect to the whole, attempting to marry this to our condition as humans.  The problem is the "condition as human" aspect, each person possessing and with unique conditions.  Christianity specifically provides a standard and mechanism to know the greater, "God", through the human condition, through Christ.  I won't deny that there are an infinite number of relationships to commune with creation, that people may find connectivity, meaning, etc., through those varied relationships......nature, music, possibly some artifact from their past, but unless they are adept at seeing relationships, patterns, analogous to the human condition, I'm uncertain whether those relationships/observances adequately resolve our need to see more.

 

Additionally, given we are not completely the whole, although a part, the relationship and ability of the Holy Spirit to DIRECT us in the endeavor from the perspective of Completeness seems unique.  Granted I don't have the vault of comparative religion knowledge that you possess....but it does strike me as unique. 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

Then the question becomes why are we not connected all the time...given we are physically present with creation.  Christianity makes room for this as well.  Again, this goes back to conditions.  We are different physically and are subject to completely unique conditions at any given instance.  These conditions keep us from constant recognition from many different facets....family, relationships, health issues as examples.  But enter grace and forgiveness for ours and others around us, realizing we are incomplete and face with trial.  Yet, the Bible says keep practicing, keep meeting together, keep praying......encouraging and admonishing us at the same time to complete the race.....that we WILL know completeness....amen.

[Edgarcito]

But, I think the tree analogy shows how we may be connected yet lacking a more secure connection/constant connection, based on the different manifestations we seen in reality.  Leaves are not stems, are not branches, are not sap, are not roots, nor the heartwood.  All parts of the tree, but subject to uniqueness and conditions.  Not even sure if science can resolve lignification....becoming heartwood via the intercessor part of the tree supporting the new growth....believers becoming the Cross, the Staff, the Tree itself.  So yeah, I can see where people argue we are part of the whole, but here we have an almost exact example of Christianity, Jesus, and the Church,  in the Tree of Life analogy we find in a historic document.  Makes it more real for me seeing this than wandering around pretending I'm completely God...  

 

Edit:  The analogy goes even further....they don't make leaders in the church from part of the tree that are untested...i.e., leaves are not elders.  Elders have demonstrated their function and efficacy in the tree.  

 

This level of woo tires me.  Gonna take a break waiting for another file drawer of information to be downloaded from Josh.  Pass the plate in the mean time....I have to eat.

[Joshpantera]

11 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Thinking spiritual is a relationship, communing, knowing, realizing our existence, with respect to the whole, attempting to marry this to our condition as humans.  The problem is the "condition as human" aspect, each person possessing and with unique conditions.  Christianity specifically provides a standard and mechanism to know the greater, "God", through the human condition, through Christ. 

 

I'm trying to figure out if we agree or disagree here. 

 

In the thinking I've laid out (citing Alan Watts on the real gospel) the christ myth is giving the mystical realization out to common people through the symbolism of the texts. It is about the human condition. People seek after their gods. But the god has been there all along, 'within them.' What the god represents as totality and absolute is what is 'within' them. 

 

In the Thomas gospel where it says, "...the kingdom of the Father is spread upon the earth but men do not see it!" 

 

In christianity as it's preached today, however, the point is that people don't get to this mystical realization easily. It's not taught from the pulpit. And it's branded heretical when people do start to get it. So rather than being a superior form of delivering the mystical realization to common people, in this sense, it works as the opposite. It blinds more than it helps. And Alan Watts broke that down. When the interpreter's changed out "a" for "the" son of god, it dumbs down the message if not outright debases it. Maybe originally some one intended for everyone to get the mystical realization content. But it was later obscured and covered over. 

 

The covering over aspect is pandering to people's sense of discrete separateness and isolation, more so than unifying everything together. Eastern mystics looks at these type of scriptures and see them as sub standard, or hardly even religious. Campbell spoke of an eastern mystic who gave a speech and said that when he travels to a new country he likes to read up on the religious beliefs. The speaker then stated that he read the bible, but couldn't find any religion in it. 

 

Because where he came from, god is not such an adolescent tantrum throwing ego maniac. The god he is familiar with is transcendent of all description and human oriented emotions. You read the bible and the god is presented as favoring some, hating others, jealous, and all of that. To someone from a much more sophisticated philosophical tradition, the bible's a lot of nonsense. And most christians have no idea about it. Because they only know what they've been told. They don't personally understand comparative world mythology and religion because they've been given an extremely biased sense of religion in the world. 

 

If someone tells you that you're religion is the only true religion from birth, why then look at any other? You have the best there is, there's no reason to look at anything else. 

 

But if you do, well, there's a few surprises to be found. 

 

9 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Then the question becomes why are we not connected all the time...given we are physically present with creation.  Christianity makes room for this as well.  Again, this goes back to conditions.  We are different physically and are subject to completely unique conditions at any given instance.  These conditions keep us from constant recognition from many different facets....family, relationships, health issues as examples.  But enter grace and forgiveness for ours and others around us, realizing we are incomplete and face with trial.  Yet, the Bible says keep practicing, keep meeting together, keep praying......encouraging and admonishing us at the same time to complete the race.....that we WILL know completeness....amen.

 

I think we exist in an interconnected realm of existence, where we are always connected all the time. 

 

From my perspective, you are demonstrating above how the bible and christianity offers a carrot-on-a-stick where you're always striving towards something that remains constantly out of your reach. And enlightenment and the mystical realization is never really attained unless you break away on your own and see what they are not allowing to see.

 

It's dumbed down ancient solar mystery school content where the allegories and metaphors are sort of guarded and obscured through the literalistic interpretation of the mythological symbols. The point is not to allow people to get it, the point is to keep them out of reach of getting it. It's esoteric content guarded by exoteric religionist's who are more concerned with a religious system of politicalization rather than the mystical realization. 

 

And that's why the mystical realization is often branded as heretical and satan. But why would the unifying message be satan and the message that promotes isolation and discrete separateness between things holy? It's flipped around backwards of what makes the most sense. Holy would be the unifying and interconnection message if you ask me. 

 

8 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

So yeah, I can see where people argue we are part of the whole, but here we have an almost exact example of Christianity, Jesus, and the Church,  in the Tree of Life analogy we find in a historic document.  Makes it more real for me seeing this than wandering around pretending I'm completely God...  

 

This sound like your mind is trying to expand into new territory of thinking while trying to carefully tow along what is familiar. Opening up to a broader view then you had been given but in baby steps that are cautious and careful. You sort of understand where pantheism has it's points, but you're still unsure of the whole 'we are god' thing. You're not to the hard left of the religious spiritual scale I presented. You're more towards the middle probably. Some literalism. Some symbolic thinking. Holding to the exoteric but reaching in the direction of the esoteric. 

 

The confusion about the 'we are god' issue only comes from viewing god as something other. Something out there far away.

 

But here's the problem. An omnipresent god can not be other. Can not be out there far away completely separate from our own existence. That's all there is to it. If all-present has any meaning, then it can't point to partial presence. If god is completely everything, due to omnipresence, which means "all-present," how in the world do you figure that you aren't completely god? 

 

You are not completely something that is necessarily everything? 

 

Tell me how that works. 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

48 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I'm trying to figure out if we agree or disagree here. 

 

In the thinking I've laid out (citing Alan Watts on the real gospel) the christ myth is giving the mystical realization out to common people through the symbolism of the texts. It is about the human condition. People seek after their gods. But the god has been there all along, 'within them.' What the god represents as totality and absolute is what is 'within' them. 

 

In the Thomas gospel where it says, "...the kingdom of the Father is spread upon the earth but men do not see it!" 

 

In christianity as it's preached today, however, the point is that people don't get to this mystical realization easily. It's not taught from the pulpit. And it's branded heretical when people do start to get it. So rather than being a superior form of delivering the mystical realization to common people, in this sense, it works as the opposite. It blinds more than it helps. And Alan Watts broke that down. When the interpreter's changed out "a" for "the" son of god, it dumbs down the message if not outright debases it. Maybe originally some one intended for everyone to get the mystical realization content. But it was later obscured and covered over. 

 

The covering over aspect is pandering to people's sense of discrete separateness and isolation, more so than unifying everything together. Eastern mystics looks at these type of scriptures and see them as sub standard, or hardly even religious. Campbell spoke of an eastern mystic who gave a speech and said that when he travels to a new country he likes to read up on the religious beliefs. The speaker then stated that he read the bible, but couldn't find any religion in it. 

 

Because where he came from, god is not such an adolescent tantrum throwing ego maniac. The god he is familiar with is transcendent of all description and human oriented emotions. You read the bible and the god is presented as favoring some, hating others, jealous, and all of that. To someone from a much more sophisticated philosophical tradition, the bible's a lot of nonsense. And most christians have no idea about it. Because they only know what they've been told. They don't personally understand comparative world mythology and religion because they've been given an extremely biased sense of religion in the world. 

 

If someone tells you that you're religion is the only true religion from birth, why then look at any other? You have the best there is, there's no reason to look at anything else. 

 

But if you do, well, there's a few surprises to be found. 

 

 

I think we exist in an interconnected realm of existence, where we are always connected all the time. 

 

From my perspective, you are demonstrating above how the bible and christianity offers a carrot-on-a-stick where you're always striving towards something that remains constantly out of your reach. And enlightenment and the mystical realization is never really attained unless you break away on your own and see what they are not allowing to see.

 

It's dumbed down ancient solar mystery school content where the allegories and metaphors are sort of guarded and obscured through the literalistic interpretation of the mythological symbols. The point is not to allow people to get it, the point is to keep them out of reach of getting it. It's esoteric content guarded by exoteric religionist's who are more concerned with a religious system of politicalization rather than the mystical realization. 

 

And that's why the mystical realization is often branded as heretical and satan. But why would the unifying message be satan and the message that promotes isolation and discrete separateness between things holy? It's flipped around backwards of what makes the most sense. Holy would be the unifying and interconnection message if you ask me. 

 

 

This sound like your mind is trying to expand into new territory of thinking while trying to carefully tow along what is familiar. Opening up to a broader view then you had been given but in baby steps that are cautious and careful. You sort of understand where pantheism has it's points, but you're still unsure of the whole 'we are god' thing. You're not to the hard left of the religious spiritual scale I presented. You're more towards the middle probably. Some literalism. Some symbolic thinking. Holding to the exoteric but reaching in the direction of the esoteric. 

 

The confusion about the 'we are god' issue only comes from viewing god as something other. Something out there far away.

 

But here's the problem. An omnipresent god can not be other. Can not be out there far away completely separate from our own existence. That's all there is to it. If all-present has any meaning, then it can't point to partial presence. If god is completely everything, due to omnipresence, which means "all-present," how in the world do you figure that you aren't completely god? 

 

You are not completely something that is necessarily everything? 

 

Tell me how that works. 

 

 

Just skimmed this Josh and I will give it a good read tomorrow but let me ask you this please.  Those apex moments where I have felt like I have been the recipient of something from God... which are very distinct to me.... do you in your everyday reality walk around with a “I Am”, connected to God feeling ... because I’m very skeptical that you do.

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Just skimmed this Josh and I will give it a good read tomorrow but let me ask you this please.  Those apex moments where I have felt like I have been the recipient of something from God... which are very distinct to me.... do you in your everyday reality walk around with a “I Am”, connected to God feeling ... because I’m very skeptical that you do.

 

God equates to the greater thing all around us in my view. The greater existence of everything. "I am that I am." The name of god tends to outline this.

 

So I don't look at it as a literal being of some type, like a person out there who is bigger than we are. Being connected some person outside of space and time which looks like us but is simply bigger or super in comparison, really doesn't make sense. 

 

If we get away from the personal god idea and go back towards the impersonal concept of infinite and eternal existence as a beginning-less, endless, and timeless realm, we're obviously an interconnected aspect of that. "I am." It's what simply is. It's what exists. And we exist. So there's no possible separation. There's no way that we are not that. 

 

In sankrit they have the term, "Tat Tvam Asi," meaning "You are that." 

 

Now once you get it, of course you live your life day to day like everyone else. You may have an insight that others may not share, but you're still just a person experiencing life through the perspective of looking outward from a finite body or point of center. You do not experience everything in existence all at once.

 

But the insights you speak of, where it seems divine and you're having a god experience, that is comparable to the brief moments where I have fully embraced the eternal and had physical feelings from it. The difference is that I recognize it as a consciousness experience that has to do with the subconscious and conscious mind. People take this as a god experience. I identify the mind and consciousness aspects of these experiences. But I understand why people who don't identify them that way see it as something from a god. It's beyond what they can explain.

 

But at the same time, these consciousness and mind issues are only beyond what they can explain if they're not already privy to them. Synchronicity is something that has been played with. To provoke situations like this on purpose. See them unfold as guided. And then learn the action - reaction play by play. To where it seems as though you're being guided along. If not really and literally the Holy Spirit then what? 

 

Try reading all the way through this book sometime and let it all digest: 

 

https://www.amazon.com/Synchronicity-Coincidence-Choice-Unlocking-Your/dp/1601631839

 

 

So you can have the mystical realization, you can acknowledge the truth of it, and then carry on living your life from the vantage point of that gnosis.

 

Will you fight someone? You could. In fact the martial arts are practiced by enlightened Buddhist monks in many instances. They understand the mystical realization, and will also beat your ass under the circumstances that they deem worthy of an ass beating. Even though they believe in unity and oneness. The unity doesn't end the need for self defense. It just means that things that appear separate are actually more connected than they appear, that's it. 

 

It can go in any number of ways, spiritual independence.

 

Meaning that it's not dependent on any fixed religious belief, organization, or anything. A person can be completely independent of all of it and answer to no one but themselves. Who cares what the christians think? Who cares what the Buddhists think? It doesn't matter what they think. Because we are all independently capable of having and understanding the mystical realization because it's a HUMAN based experience not particular to any one religion or organization. 

 

I live as a free man completely independent of organized religions, creeds, and what-have-you. I chose to align with the morals of modern society in the contemporary period, realizing that they are evolved through human social interaction. I don't care about outdated religious beliefs that no longer apply to modern society's ongoing evolution of moral standards. I don't care what the bible says, I see slavery as immoral and not god sanctioned. I see misogyny as misguided and completely out of date, even though it's heavily promoted in the bible. Homophobia in the biblical sanctioned sense is out as well. No longer relevant in today's society. 

 

I'm independent of the need or want for organized religions. I can manage my life just fine completely on my own. Using my own intuition and better judgement on a case by case scenario. If I fuck something up, I can give myself grace and forgiveness and move on. 

 

Hint, hint, which is what christians are doing all the time anyways without realizing what it is they are actually doing in their own minds as they pray off into the aether for forgiveness from afar........

[Edgarcito]

10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

The confusion about the 'we are god' issue only comes from viewing god as something other. Something out there far away.

 

But here's the problem. An omnipresent god can not be other. Can not be out there far away completely separate from our own existence. That's all there is to it. If all-present has any meaning, then it can't point to partial presence. If god is completely everything, due to omnipresence, which means "all-present," how in the world do you figure that you aren't completely god? 

 

You are not completely something that is necessarily everything? 

 

Tell me how that works. 

 

 

Let's just discuss one thing at a time please...I'm old, hard to shoot my arrows multiple directions at once....or just shoot for that matter.

 

If you think about it Josh, spirituality requires manifestation(s).  There would be no division of anything given we didn't perceive the manifestations.  A mystic reading of the Bible vs. a fundamental interpretation requires resolution in your opinion, that one is superior.  

 

Off the cuff, let's look at marriage.  Common universe, common earth, common atoms, two manifestations, a man and woman, and even I would think you would agree, two souls.  The two people are omnipresent as they reside together, but separate manifestations.  Without belaboring the point, I could develop 100 examples of how she is separate and in need of my spiritual adeptness, and hers for me.  The intimacy when we are spiritually and physically connected vs inadequacy of not understanding the connection.....a learning, a growing, a commitment...  Point being, there may be omnipresence, but there is no constant omnipresent oneness...  It's just not realistic.

 

In other words, if I were one with God, there would be essentially no levels/types of spirituality, because there would be nothing relative...

 

Are you willing to say this about our reality?

[Joshpantera]

11 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

If you think about it Josh, spirituality requires manifestation(s).  There would be no division of anything given we didn't perceive the manifestations.  A mystic reading of the Bible vs. a fundamental interpretation requires resolution in your opinion, that one is superior.  

 

My premise for one being superior to the other has been laid out. The literalistic can be eliminated as valid in most cases.

 

We can keep it limited to one thing at a time. And this spiritual issue parallels my other Genesis 1 debate. If we have two people, let's say an SDA who believes that the world is 6 thousand years old and created literally in 6 days and someone like Origen of Alexandria the early church father who readily confessed that the literature isn't literal and explains the nonsense of taking it literally, and explains that spiritual language is symbolic and metaphorical, the SDA is going to land opposite of what the spiritual reading entails. 

 

But the SDA, no doubt, will stubbornly insist that the literal IS the spiritual reading. 6 literal days = the spiritual interpretation. They would not see it otherwise. And if we had no other example to compare it to, then no one could say much of anything. There would be only one option. But there's more than one option in this instance. 

 

What it boils down to is that myths have depths and levels of understanding. There is the "surface storyline." And then there are deeper running things symbolized within the story line that only apparent and understandable to someone who is able to read the symbolic level of the surface storyline. Exoteric religion (which is what modern christianity represents) deals in terms of the surface storyline at face value, as if it were literal and as if it were the only aspect of the stories. But that's not correct. They run down into deeper levels with further understanding as you delve down into the lower levels that are not apparent to the general public. Those are the esoteric levels where the 'spiritual meanings' are claimed to be found. 

 

Someone who operates on a surface level only is necessarily understanding and knowing less than others who have proceeded further and understand much more. And who know that the spiritual meanings are further down.

 

The person at the surface is naive to the fact that there's anything further to know or understand. Just these stories that have to be taken literally true or you won't be saved. One person has no depth of comparison to understand that what they're into isn't the spiritual content yet. Like riding a bike with training wheels thinking that's the only way anyone can ride a bike. Naive to everything thereafter. One person is necessarily tuned into the spiritual dimension of the mythic framework than the other. In fact, the person who is completely unaware of the depth of the issue doesn't even stand a chance. They are completely ignorant of where they stand. 

 

And where someone is at and whether they are ignorant or knowledgeable is objective enough to be determined. We can objectively see that the SDA literalist in comparison to someone like Origen, hasn't gone past square one yet. Nevertheless, the SDA would rant and rave about how superior they are in a religious and spiritual sense because they have the 7th day sabbath as the seal of god, which, is completely founded in non-spiritual oriented literalism. The person never crosses the threshold. Never gets it. Never sees it. But nevertheless, takes an arrogant attitude of being superior by affiliation with a denomination who claims to be superior. But they'r clearly not superior. They believe in a dumbed down interpretation of the scriptures. That's not superior. And they never get off the ground in terms of understanding spiritual content in the way that other people can and do. They are demonstrably inferior in X number of ways. Regardless of what they claim. 

 

So how could one then argue that the literal is either equal or surpasses the esoteric type who's so much more knowledgeable and experienced in the mystical side of the SAME religion?

 

We're just comparing christians right now. 

 

Then it's christians versus Vedic traditions and Taoism and such......

[Edgarcito]

17 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

My premise for one being superior to the other has been laid out. The literalistic can be eliminated as valid in most cases.

 

We can keep it limited to one thing at a time. And this spiritual issue parallels my other Genesis 1 debate. If we have two people, let's say an SDA who believes that the world is 6 thousand years old and created literally in 6 days and someone like Origen of Alexandria the early church father who readily confessed that the literature isn't literal and explains the nonsense of taking it literally, and explains that spiritual language is symbolic and metaphorical, the SDA is going to land opposite of what the spiritual reading entails. 

 

But the SDA, no doubt, will stubbornly insist that the literal IS the spiritual reading. 6 literal days = the spiritual interpretation. They would not see it otherwise. And if we had no other example to compare it to, then no one could say much of anything. There would be only one option. But there's more than one option in this instance. 

 

What it boils down to is that myths have depths and levels of understanding. There is the "surface storyline." And then there are deeper running things symbolized within the story line that only apparent and understandable to someone who is able to read the symbolic level of the surface storyline. Exoteric religion (which is what modern christianity represents) deals in terms of the surface storyline at face value, as if it were literal and as if it were the only aspect of the stories. But that's not correct. They run down into deeper levels with further understanding as you delve down into the lower levels not apparent to the general public. Those are the esoteric levels which is where the spiritual meanings are claimed to be found. 

 

Someone who operates on a surface level is necessarily understanding and knowing less than others who have proceeded further and understand much more. And who know that the spiritual meanings are further down. The person at the surface is naive to the fact that there's anything further to know or understand. Just these stories that have to be taken literally true or you won't be saved. One person has no depth of comparison to understand that what they're into isn't the spiritual content yet. Like riding a bike with training wheels thinking that's the only way anyone can ride a bike. Naive to everything thereafter. 

 

One person is necessarily tuned into the spiritual dimension of the mythic framework than the other. In fact, the person who is completely unaware of the depth of the issue doesn't even stand a chance. They are completely ignorant of where they stand. 

 

And where someone is at, and whether they are ignorant or knowledgeable, is objective enough to be determined. We can objectively see that the SDA literalist in comparison to someone like Origen, hasn't gone past square one yet. Nevertheless, the SDA would rank and rave about how superior they are because they have the 7th day sabbath as the seal of god, which, is completely founded in non-spiritual oriented literalism. The person never crosses the threshold. Never gets it. Never sees it. 

 

So how could one then argue that the literal is either equal or surpasses the esoteric type who's so much more knowledgeable and experienced in the mystical side of the SAME religion. 

 

We're just comparing christians right now. 

Look I am myself a read between the line mystic type when it come to the Bible.  I myself have encountered what I believe you are describing.  My main contention with your stance is you have failed with Oneness despite your pleadings... simply because you don’t read between the lines with me.  Secondly, I’ve pointed out how Oneness likely doesn’t even exist in our condition.... but you want me to somehow stay in this conversation while you unload another file drawer of knowledge... and then direct me into staying with your outline?  Better make it quick... I can’t see you have much to argue...

[Edgarcito]

Let’s get past this part... the evangelical nature of the church puts it typically in the forever fundamental stage.  We agree.  That does not make one superior... it does speak to maturity but not superiority.

[Edgarcito]

Don’t make me return to the tree analogy... I will.

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Look I am myself a read between the line mystic type when it come to the Bible.  I myself have encountered what I believe you are describing.  My main contention with your stance is you have failed with Oneness despite your pleadings... simply because you don’t read between the lines with me.  

 

You seem to be between the two ends of the spectrum. 

 

Maybe you can elaborate on your encounter of what you believe I'm describing. I take it you mean the mystical realization which I've been discussing. 

 

You will have to tell me how I've failed with Oneness despite my pleadings. Just saying it doesn't get us anywhere. You have to make your claim demonstrable in some way. I've gone into graphic detail about interconnection and the unity of the totality. So claiming that I've failed will be hard claim for you to substantiate won't it? 

 

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

but you want me to somehow stay in this conversation while you unload another file drawer of knowledge... and then direct me into staying with your outline?  Better make it quick... I can’t see you have much to argue...

 

My outline, btw, is a basic breakdown of human spiritual traditions in comparison with one another. And who goes deeper into it than who. And what's demonstrable about it all. In fact you do need to stick to the outline. Because that's what we're debating here - who's superior when it comes to human spiritual insights, concepts, beliefs, etc., etc. 

 

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Let’s get past this part... the evangelical nature of the church puts it typically in the forever fundamental stage.  We agree.  That does not make one superior... it does speak to maturity but not superiority.

 

Good we agree that the fundamentalist literalism isn't a superior spiritual outlook. But we know this based on comparisons that can be made. That's why we have to continue making comparisons as we go along. We have to compare to see who ranks where and by what measure. 

 

I would say that what you're calling maturity IS superior in fact to opposite of being immature on the topic of spirituality. 

 

Spiritually mature and spirituality immature sets up a situation of inferior and superior knowledge, understanding, experience, insight, intuitions, etc., etc. 

[Edgarcito]

9 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

You seem to be between the two ends of the spectrum. 

 

Maybe you can elaborate on your encounter of what you believe I'm describing. I take it you mean the mystical realization which I've been discussing. 

 

You will have to tell me how I've failed with Oneness despite my pleadings. Just saying it doesn't get us anywhere. You have to make your claim demonstrable in some way. I've gone into graphic detail about interconnection and the unity of the totality. So claiming that I've failed will be hard claim for you to substantiate won't it? 

 

 

My outline, btw, is a basic breakdown of human spiritual traditions in comparison with one another. And who goes deeper into it than who. And what's demonstrable about it all. In fact you do need to stick to the outline. Because that's what we're debating here - who's superior when it comes to human spiritual insights, concepts, beliefs, etc., etc. 

 

 

Good we agree that the fundamentalist literalism isn't a superior spiritual outlook. But we know this based on comparisons that can be made. That's why we have to continue making comparisons as we go along. We have to compare to see who ranks where and by what measure. 

 

I would say that what you're calling maturity IS superior in fact to opposite of being immature on the topic of spirituality. 

 

Spiritually mature and spirituality immature sets up a situation of inferior and superior knowledge, understanding, experience, insight, intuitions, etc., etc. 

no sir, there is a distinct difference between immature and superior.  Not only that... you have no way of discerning an absolute interpretation... so don’t go there...

[Joshpantera]

10 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

no sir, there is a distinct difference between immature and superior.  Not only that... you have no way of discerning an absolute interpretation... so don’t go there...

 

Would you describe for me what it means to be spirituality immature versus spirituality mature in your own words? 

[Edgarcito]

7 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Would you describe for me what it means to be spirituality immature versus spirituality mature in your own words? 

I will please sir, but will have to be in the morning, thx.

[Edgarcito]

Let's summarize please.  You have no physiological mechanism for any of your claims, which from an ExChristian-science standpoint, the conversation should have ended.    I then proposed that the touted Oneness, as opposed to the Christian myth, was unrealistic....assuming existing constantly as One, would be spiritually moot given nothing relative to ONE feeling.  We are again today pushing these points aside, still grasping at a surface reading of Scripture vs. a "read between the lines" approach as validating your argument......all mind you, with no means of discerning inferior/superior through no absolute definition of the Standard nor means of verification.  Seriously, logically, these are valid points that can not be dismissed in this discussion...yet here we are.

 

You've lost three times now by my count, but if you would like to shoot for more (typically three times is sufficient in the Bible), here we go:

 

You angered me because your post in the other thread....you egotistically claimed intellectual understanding of me without knowing me.  The point is very similar to what is happening in this discussion.  You have Josh's big book of understanding without actually having a relationship with the object to be understood. 

 

An immature, surface reading is just that....that you have made claims without any participation in the experience. I.e, here's the book of knowledge, I read it, I know,  vs. the experience as the leaf, then the stem, then the branch, then the heart of the Tree through a process, to become mature......where you can then claim ,  I know, and I AM.

 

It's a decent mental exercise starting with the leaf as the new believer and comparing all the parts and processes of a tree to the church.  I don't want write it all down, but again, the interesting part to me is liginfication.....where the active part of the tree transforms to the heartwood.....which would be the layers of generations of believers layed down to form the Tree, the Cross, Mose's staff.  Fun stuff for me, meaningless bs for others.  That's the mystical reading......the rest is just, no a stick in the water can't purify it, a man on a cross is dead, the tree has nothing magical (per MWC).  

 

I digress.

 

Take care.  

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Let's summarize please.  You have no physiological mechanism for any of your claims, which from an ExChristian-science standpoint, the conversation should have ended.    I then proposed that the touted Oneness, as opposed to the Christian myth, was unrealistic....assuming existing constantly as One, would be spiritually moot given nothing relative to ONE feeling. 

 

There are different ways of making this more concrete. One way is that we closely analyze space itself. The common medium of all existence as we understand it. Outer space is also inner space. It has an interconnecting factor that is something we can analyze. When I say that we are the fabric and structure of existence itself, that means space, matter, and any other contributing aspect of existence. These are the fabric's that make up the foundation of everything in existence. And we are something that exists. 

 

There is more volume of space per individual atom than particular matter: https://interestingengineering.com/due-to-the-space-inside-atoms-you-are-mostly-made-up-of-empty-space

 

Let's go over a few philsophical, religious, spiritual and mystical implications. There is something common and interconnecting everything in existence. The whole universe. And it's often neglected by it appears to be "nothing." But that perceived nothing or void is at the basis of all existence in the universe. If we break down what we are, this is where it breaks down to. I can self identify with space as something more substantial to visualize as part of the argument that we are fabric and structure of existence itself. I do have mechanism's for claiming and visualizing what "Oneness" means. There is one space as the common factor, not two or three difference spaces. Just space. 

 

Your claim that I have physiological mechanism for my claims is incorrect. 

 

Your propose that my touted Oneness is un-realistic is also incorrect. 

 

Here we are, existing as an aspect of space itself (which is why we say in pantheistic philosophy we are the universe incarnate - space and matter) There IS a unity, interconnectivity, and oneness going on regardless of our day to day mundane experience of separate, discrete objects with void between it all. This is a modern version of the ancient mystical realization unfolding. Same exact realization, different ways of visualizing and conceiving of it. 

 

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

You've lost three times now by my count, but if you would like to shoot for more (typically three times is sufficient in the Bible), here we go:

 

You angered me because your post in the other thread....you egotistically claimed intellectual understanding of me without knowing me.  The point is very similar to what is happening in this discussion.  You have Josh's big book of understanding without actually having a relationship with the object to be understood. 

 

You are incorrect again. I haven't lost anything at all. Not yet. 

 

You being angered by my pointing out that you exist in a demonstrable position on a scale of human spiritual conception and achievement, is just you being angry. It's not proving my assessment of you wrong.

 

To prove it wrong you have to show that either (1) there is no scale of spiritual depth among humans that we can judge by or (2) that there is such a scale, but that I have misjudged your position on that scale, or (3) that the scale of spiritual insight and depth showing spiritual maturity through spiritual immaturity has no bearing on whether someone has a more superior spiritual grasp as spiritually mature versus an inferior spiritual grasp as spiritually immature. 

 

That breaks down to whether ignorance is inferior to knowledge and experience, basically. Or whether ignorance is superior or equal to knowledge and experience. 

 

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

An immature, surface reading is just that....that you have made claims without any participation in the experience. I.e, here's the book of knowledge, I read it, I know,  vs. the experience as the leaf, then the stem, then the branch, then the heart of the Tree through a process, to become mature......where you can then claim ,  I know, and I AM.

 

Let me tell you about a Banyan tree. And I will propose that IT is the real tree of knowledge. 

 

It's a Vedic tale about a father and his son. The boy wants to know where did it come from. The idea here is where does anything come from? So the enlightened father asks the boy to break open the fruit. He asks what do you see. The boys says seeds, increasingly small. The father tells the boy to keep breaking them open. The boy breaks the last seed and the father asks what do you see now? The boy responds, "nothing."  

 

The father then tells the boy that from that apparent "nothing" the great Banyan tree arises. 

 

This is much deeper religion than christianity. From the void, all things arise and return. To where the ultimate truth "transcends" all manner of human thinking, conceptualization, names, and descriptions and melts into a mystery so deep that it's untouchable. But from that depth of inconceivable mystery, everything in existence arises. 

 

"Tat Tvam Asi" 

 

It's no coincidence that we find space, the void, as an interconnecting core of our individual existence, physiology, or what-have-you. I have the experience as the leaf, the stem, the branch and the heart of the tree! But I also have the experience of something beyond that.

 

I have the experience of unity with the void from which the tree has actually arisen! 

 

'I am that void, I am.'

 

And so are you, but you haven't matured to the point of knowing it yet.......

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

There are different ways of making this more concrete. One way is that we closely analyze space itself. The common medium of all existence as we understand it. Outer space is also inner space. It has an interconnecting factor that is something we can analyze. When I say that we are the fabric and structure of existence itself, that means space, matter, and any other contributing aspect of existence. These are the fabric's that make up the foundation of everything in existence. And we are something that exists. 

 

There is more volume of space per individual atom than particular matter: https://interestingengineering.com/due-to-the-space-inside-atoms-you-are-mostly-made-up-of-empty-space

 

Let's go over a few philsophical, religious, spiritual and mystical implications. There is something common and interconnecting everything in existence. The whole universe. And it's often neglected by it appears to be "nothing." But that perceived nothing or void is at the basis of all existence in the universe. If we break down what we are, this is where it breaks down to. I can self identify with space as something more substantial to visualize as part of the argument that we are fabric and structure of existence itself. I do have mechanism's for claiming and visualizing what "Oneness" means. There is one space as the common factor, not two or three difference spaces. Just space. 

 

Your claim that I have physiological mechanism for my claims is incorrect. 

 

Your propose that my touted Oneness is un-realistic is also incorrect. 

 

Here we are, existing as an aspect of space itself (which is why we say in pantheistic philosophy we are the universe incarnate - space and matter) There IS a unity, interconnectivity, and oneness going on regardless of our day to day mundane experience of separate, discrete objects with void between it all. This is a modern version of the ancient mystical realization unfolding. Same exact realization, different ways of visualizing and conceiving of it. 

 

 

You are incorrect again. I haven't lost anything at all. Not yet. 

 

You being angered by my pointing out that you exist in a demonstrable position on a scale of human spiritual conception and achievement, is just you being angry. It's not proving my assessment of you wrong.

 

To prove it wrong you have to show that either (1) there is no scale of spiritual depth among humans that we can judge by or (2) that there is such a scale, but that I have misjudged your position on that scale, or (3) that the scale of spiritual insight and depth showing spiritual maturity through spiritual immaturity has no bearing on whether someone has a more superior spiritual grasp as spiritually mature versus an inferior spiritual grasp as spiritually immature. 

 

That breaks down to whether ignorance is inferior to knowledge and experience, basically. Or whether ignorance is superior or equal to knowledge and experience. 

 

 

Let me tell you about a Banyan tree. And I will propose that IT is the real tree of knowledge. 

 

It's a Vedic tale about a father and his son. The boy wants to know where did it come from. The idea here is where does anything come from? So the enlightened father asks the boy to break open the fruit. He asks what do you see. The boys seeds, increasingly small. The father tells the boy to keep breaking them. The boy breaks the last seed and the father asks what do you see now? The boy responds, nothing. 

 

The father then tells the boy that from that apparent "nothing" the great Banyan tree arises. 

 

This is much deeper religion than christianity. From the void, all things arise and return. To where the ultimate truth "transcends" all manner of human thinking, conceptualization, names, and descriptions and melts into a mystery so deep that it's untouchable. But from that depth of inconceivable mystery, everything in existence arises. 

 

"Tat Tvam Asi" 

 

It's no coincidence that we find space, the void, as an interconnecting core of our individual existence, physiology, or what-have-you. I have the experience as the leaf, the stem, the branch and the heart of the tree! But I also have the experience of something beyond that. I have the experience of unity with the void from which the tree has actually arisen. 

 

'I am that void, I am.'

 

And so are you, but you haven't matured to the point of knowing it yet.......

You do realize "void" between something doesn't support connectivity, right?  "We are connected by a void"??....I see. Perhaps we are adjacent to a void or we reside together within a void....or there are specific organizations of matter within a void.  What is the "interconnecting factor" please.  Factor and void are non-equal.

 

You're gonna have show me proof where space is something more than space.  I suggest you "phone a physics friend" here on this site and discuss more than THEORY given your claim was knowledge is superior with regard to spirituality.  (Don't forget the Dark Matter part.....I like to think it has to do with the devil....lol).

 

Thx.

[Joshpantera]

On 4/11/2021 at 7:10 PM, WalterP said:

Galatians 5 : 19 - 25.

 

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 

20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 

21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 

23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 

24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 

25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.

 

Colossians 4 : 5 & 6

 

 5 Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. 

6 Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone

 

In the Eden thread I noticed that Edgarcito 'salted' his posts with insults and foul language.  Examples can be cited if required.  The above quotes from scripture make it abundantly clear that Christians who have been spiritually blessed by god do not use impure and filthy language.  They have crucified their fleshy passions and desires because they live by the spirit.  It therefore follows that anyone using dirty and insulting language does not live by the spirit and does not keep in step with god's spirit.

 

If Edgarcito has claimed to be 'spiritual' in a Christian sense, then his claim is not matched by his behaviour.  His unspiritual behaviour reveals that he is not spiritually alive in Christ, but spiritually dead to Christ.

 

I'm not picking on you with the above, because I don't believe in these christian standards for spiritual maturity.

 

These guys are spiritually immature along side of any number much more developed people like Yogananda, or Watts, or Joseph Campbell. Especially the last two because they started out christian and then matured into much more well rounded spiritual minded authorities on human spirituality, for lack of a better term. Knowing how shallow the christian theology is in comparison. 

 

But as it stands, as long as you profess christianity you're subject to the biblical standards illustrated above. And what that reveals about you is that you are necessarily spiritually immature by the standard of the bible. 

 

And the bible itself, is spiritually immature in comparison to what it means to go beyond it's narrow confines. That puts you several rungs down the spiritual maturity ladder. It's not rocket science to see who's where and why in this exchange.....

[Joshpantera]

8 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

You do realize "void" between something doesn't support connectivity, right?  "We are connected by a void"??....I see. Perhaps we are adjacent to a void or we reside together within a void....or there are specific organizations of matter within a void.  What is the "interconnecting factor" please.  Factor and void are non-equal.

 

 

A perceived void. Not a literal void. Did you read the link and it's content: 

 

 

 

And the truth is, we have no idea what space actually is in the full extent of knowing. We seem to have an immature understanding of space at this point, as a species. Our knowledge of the nature of space would rank as "inferior" in comparison to a more advanced species who may be much more mature in knowledge than we are and who would have a much deeper understanding of the nature of space than we do. Where maturity in this sense means a superior knowledge or understanding thereof. 

 

But none of that matters to this debate. Space is the one thing that is common to everything. It doesn't matter WHAT space is. The fact is that space IS. And it's an interconnecting factor between everything that exists.

 

But to our spiritual debate, we can add that if god is to be viewed as "omnipresent," then the presence has to be in all space, all matter, dark matter, souls and spirits if they exist, and anything else that may exist. It has to mean "all-presence" as opposed to partial or exclusionary presence. Otherwise "all-present" has no meaning. 

 

Going back to the analogy, if 99% of every atom is space, and to be "all-present" god must be everywhere, that necessarily makes god everything.

 

Because everything in existence has these traits in common. Without getting into theoretical dark matter issues. That doesn't matter to the point either. If it exists, then it's part of existence and therefore part of an "omnipresent" god as well. And part of space as well. Just as much a part of space as visible matter. 

 

8 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

You're gonna have show me proof where space is something more than space.  I suggest you "phone a physics friend" here on this site and discuss more than THEORY given your claim was knowledge is superior with regard to spirituality.  (Don't forget the Dark Matter part.....I like to think it has to do with the devil....lol).

 

Thx.

 

Did you not see this coming? 

 

Like most christians, you still don't understand the issue of proofs in math. Not science. Science isn't proving things with proofs. I understand why you're trying to go there like other christians do, but at the same time I know you've been involved in countless threads with BAA and now Walter on this very issue. Science doesn't work like that. 

 

So I don't have to show you proof where space is something more than space because of the problem with the question itself.

 

But even more to the point, I don't have to show you proof where space is something MORE than space, because space is whatever it is.

 

And it doesn't matter what space really is. What matters is that makes a good analogy that illustrates the enlightenment doctrines and mystical realization of one thing common to everything. It shows how something that looks like a void, is actually the base essence of our very existence (99.9999999% percent of the atoms that compose our bodies, the atmosphere, and the whole earth). 

 

"That which you do not see, from that, this great Banyan tree arises. Thou art that!" 

 

It's sort of the point that we arise from the mystery of existence itself, the void, or the great unknown if you will. That's what the Vedic text is saying. Everything in existence proceeds from an ineffable mystery source. The space analogy shows how strangely close to reality those old Vedic texts can be. That we don't know the answer to the true nature of space or the question of absolute origins is the very point of the issue. 

 

That's the mature end of the spectrum. The knowing that ultimately we don't know side of things. Which comes from intellectual, and even spiritual maturity. And it's an experience which ranks as superior to any previous experience where the person in question had previously been ignorant, or naive to, the point of the mystical realization and enlightenment issue.  

 

 

[Edgarcito]

Truthfully Josh, uncertain how old you are, but feel like you have absolutely no original thoughts on spirituality yourself... which means you aren’t spiritual.  I’m not going to joust with all your references.  Bottom line is a void, an emptiness, is what you have chosen as life vs. a human that has taken on iniquity, that we might have hope of doing better, becoming more aware tomorrow... bringing hope and life to someone through communion... not just a profession of physics.  I don’t want to be tied to people through the void between us but by the shared experiences of life that get us to the end... an potentially farther.
 

I enjoyed the exercise.  Thanks for the discussion.  If something worth sharing comes to mind, I’ll holler.  Thx again.   Adios.

[Joshpantera]

11 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Truthfully Josh, uncertain how old you are, but feel like you have absolutely no original thoughts on spirituality yourself... which means you aren’t spiritual.  I’m not going to joust with all your references.  Bottom line is a void, an emptiness, is what you have chosen as life vs. a human that has taken on iniquity, that we might have hope of doing better, becoming more aware tomorrow... bringing hope and life to someone through communion... not just a profession of physics.

 

You are illustrating an obvious lack of comprehension in these exchanges. And this isn't just to pick on you. I'm trying to teach you something through the exchange, if it's possible.

 

I do have original thoughts on spirituality, I started developing "Axial-Theism," the central god belief. By extending my own thoughts and insight beyond the sort of comparative mythology and religion work Joseph Campbell and Alan Watts were working on last century. I take consciousness to contemporary advancements in research and understanding. Look in closer on the physics side of modern spiritual thinking into areas that weren't available to last centuries modern mystics. It covers pantheism, but extends beyond the confines that exist within the pantheisms. And summarized pretty much all theistic belief into one easy to understand package. Like the "theory of everything" for religion and spirituality, basically. 

 

While we're talking about originality, what do you have that's original? Did you originate the bible or christianity? We know that's not true. And we also know, as former christians, that if you have taken off in an original direction outside of the bible and christian doctrine, you have then left christianity and the bible behind. And are not christian. 

 

So please explain the problem you're facing on the issue of originality? 

 

We haven't moved past the first issue of enlightenment and mystical realization in the ancient world. We haven't moved past that point to how it applies to life and day to day living. You have to understand the issue of the void in ancient mythology and religion to then move forward with that understanding and apply it to anything else. You wouldn't have any way of knowing right now how this relates to anything else. Because it hasn't been related to anything else yet at this point. 

 

And it does apply to life, obviously. It has to do with formulating a world view. Based on knowledge of what can be known. How everything compares in the world of religions. What spiritual means to people in exoteric terms, and what spiritual means to people in esoteric terms. The difference between theistic spiritual minded people and non-theistic minded spiritual people. In short, how to make sense of the contemporary period as it stands, with what's available to us for consideration and contemplation. 

 

11 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

 I don’t want to be tied to people through the void between us but by the shared experiences of life that get us to the end... an potentially farther.
 

I enjoyed the exercise.  Thanks for the discussion.  If something worth sharing comes to mind, I’ll holler.  Thx again.   Adios

 

So in other words, you don't understand anything I've said so far. Can't wrap your mind around how any of this can relate to your pseudo-christian views. And want to wave of the hand dismiss the entire thing and exit stage left. I warned you that there'd be an ass kicking and that you'd lose. Quitting forfeits the debate. 

 

Whether or not you WANT to be tied to people through what looks like a void, doesn't matter one bit to the fact that you are tied to everything in this way. What you are doing right now is rejecting the mystical realization from entering your own consciousness. You're pushing it out. Not only are you not already spiritually enlightened, but you're rejecting spiritual enlightenment tooth and nail with conscious resistance. You're doing the same thing that you would accuse someone else of denying the holy spirit. You are denying human enlightenment and self realization awareness. Which in my opinion is far greater than any bronze age holy spirit myth concept. 

 

Where exactly does that place someone on the scope of human spirituality scale?????

 

Here's another issue. I'm going to call on @WalterP to explain what the real issues are with the particle - wave duality and what the double slit experiment has shown us about interconnectivity in the universe. There's another depth of understanding that needs to be mentioned here. Especially if this is the last word of the debate as it were. 

 

[Edgarcito]

20 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

So in other words, you don't understand anything I've said so far. Can't wrap your mind around how any of this can relate to your pseudo-christian views. And want to wave of the hand dismiss the entire thing and exit stage left. I warned you that there'd be an ass kicking and that you'd lose. Quitting forfeits the debate. 

 

I've already read Walter's influence in your posts.  This to me is very unimpressive because it suggests you need help.  That's not a good look for you.  Secondly, I DO understand everything you have mentioned but you have failed to move the ball forward on the field despite me prodding you to do so.  

 

Do you not understand that upon discovery of something small, there exists an infinite amount of small that we will never discover.  Do you not understand that upon discovery of something large, there exists an infinite amount of large that we will never discover?  You would like me to see your relationship with the void, but you will not accept the Bible talking about God, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and end, yet won't make the jump to infinitely small and infinitely large?  I mentioned this several times in my history here at ExC.  Yet you plod on, STEPPING ON, TRAMPLING ON, a connection you tout as viable through information.  In other words, you keep saying I don't see it, when in fact, I do see what you are describing, but it just falls flat for me.  And the fact that you don't recognize this speaks directly to your hypothesis and scientific prowess.

 

My introductory statement about a counselor and woo expert was an attempt at levity, not a real request from these men......although I do believe them more than qualified.  If I catch one whiff of Walter's bullshit influence in your words, I'm done.  

 

I suggest you/we discuss the void as you seemingly want to help me see the MECHANISM to the organization of me, and individual, and you, and our connectivity.  Please carry on.