Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

  • Moderator
4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

So we are on a round disturbance with a billions of unbalanced blips waiting to potentially reform in harmony with the River of Life, which we already know as Dr. Pepper. 

 

I potentially see it Josh, and I appreciate the effort, truthfully, I just think we are trying to figure out how to reform in harmony and don't get absorbed in a permanent unformed state.  I like the harmonious portions of my coexistence with the fabric.....

 

Maybe we could collaborate on a sci-fi movie.... 

 

In a way, I wish that there could be a good way of illustrating this point visually. That would make it so much easier to relay the points being made. If you could illustrate the fabric of space-time as something visual, not transparent. And then illustrate what it looks like for a sub atomic particle to form in the medium-like substance of space. And then collect with other particles in this not-void medium substance that interconnects everything. And then watch the building blocks build one step at a time. Atoms. Cells. Crude life forms. And follow it through to humanity. Never losing sight of the initial building blocks stacking up while proceeding forward. 

 

You get to a human being as what has always been an interconnected aspect of the earth, and universe, and any greater existence extending beyond observation. 

 

There it is. A conscious, living being, formed up out of the very fabric of existence itself, as Watts once put it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In this corner, weighing in as an agnostic atheist, with several title debates under his belt, the Panther from South Florida.... @Joshpantera   And in this corner, coming on strong as a lon

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 wh

Point of Order:   Thou shalt not take the name of the Prof thy Mod in vain.

  • Moderator

 

This is a basic look at the situation through Hinduism. The idea of dissolving into it. We just looked at trying to illustrate the fabric of existence forming into particles, atoms, and life forms. Reverse the situation and that's what they are getting at when talking about dissolving into it. Dissolving back into that which you arose from. 

 

And this is considered a great spiritual insight. 

 

Remove the spiritual concepts and take a materialist view, and we're looking at the same situation. We don't call it god, we call it reality, existence, the universe and so on. By whatever way looking at it, we arose from something. Reverse that, and you're looking at the mystical realization. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So here's what I'm thinking.  I'm gonna go with Einstein's statement, that organization seems to play a role, that our organizations might learn to consider other organizations.  I can't see that your explanation still doesn't point to some lack of, or a need for an effort by the organization to join to "god"......realization, meditation, practice, etc.., rather than just Is, a constant state of "god".  

 

So, a couple things....your explanations are not accepted by science and don't seem to offer something superior in the capability do deliver woo to the masses.... so you're please gonna have convince me and our subscriber list that your organization is spiritually superior because I truthfully don't see it.  Different, yes, better, I believe it's unique to the organization......like the Bible says, fearfully and wonderfully made... 

 

 

  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crappy kind of spirituality anyhow Josh.  You said you had experienced both, you apparently know enough about science, but then you allowed me to argue within the framework of science KNOWING your stance was not truly housed there.  

 

Kind of lends itself to EGO.

 

On the other head, although I cuss, I am here communing with you, compromising myself, continuing the discussion, which in turn will likely make us better understand each other, be more forgiving and gracefilled, and makes me feel better about myself....Rather than spiritually cussing someone I don't understand, it's now, those are my atheist, agnostic, disgruntled lawyer, woo discovering, bastard friends, and one incessant Brit.  

 

I kind of like that idea more than gonna kick your Texas butt with my superior fabric... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

So here's what I'm thinking.  I'm gonna go with Einstein's statement, that organization seems to play a role, that our organizations might learn to consider other organizations.  I can't see that your explanation still doesn't point to some lack of, or a need for an effort by the organization to join to "god"......realization, meditation, practice, etc.., rather than just Is, a constant state of "god".  

 

I need a refresher on this one. Can you cite or repost the Einstein quote about organization? I don't remember anything about organizations coming up with respect to Einstein. I only remember the quote about, 'a human being is part of the whole, called by us the universe.' Where he is talking about how understanding 'ourselves' as part of the 'whole' should lead to treating one another better. 

 

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

So, a couple things....your explanations are not accepted by science and don't seem to offer something superior in the capability do deliver woo to the masses.... so you're please gonna have convince me and our subscriber list that your organization is spiritually superior because I truthfully don't see it.  Different, yes, better, I believe it's unique to the organization......like the Bible says, fearfully and wonderfully made... 

 

On the first thing, science doesn't deal in terms of spirituality. So that isn't nor can have anything to do with the debate. The science only serves for making analogies. Do you understand the difference between looking at mystical concepts and cross referencing with analogies like the one about the nature of space?

 

Science doesn't prove hinduism or christianity. But the discoveries of science do show how the general notion of unity or interconnectivity in the universe have a basis in the objective world. That doesn't prove that gods exist - because the universe is interconnected. But it's paralleling what pantheistic philosophers have been reaching towards. They had no science to look at as they were realizing these things in the past. They were going on intuitive thinking, insights from meditation, and being very observant of things. They didn't have the science. But now that we do, the big conclusions run in the same direction where unity and interconnection are concerned. Not the existence of gods, though. 

 

Which leads into where I am headed next. 

 

Secondly, I don't have any organization. Again, I'm not sure what you are referring to. I said that I'm completely independent of any spiritual organizations. To the point where I've pioneered my own philosophy that I'm working out. And named it axial-theism. The belief that the mythic gods are symbolic, allegorical, metaphorical, and not to be taken in a literal sense.

 

That's a positive belief that gels with lack of belief in the existence of gods. The reason for this is because theists will often press atheists about what they DO believe. And so I set out to pioneer something in the way of a formal set of 'positive beliefs' that compliment the negative of lacking belief in gods. And in this I take from whatever is relevant. Pantheistic philosophy is one of those things. As is agnostic atheism. 

 

The debate is between monotheistic belief versus pantheistic philosophy. And between the two I maintain that the pantheistic philosophy is superior in ways like being self consistent as opposed to self contradicting of it's own claims. Or that self realization (as the whole) is superior to self ignorance (as only a discrete and isolated part). 

 

Does that make sense? 

 

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Crappy kind of spirituality anyhow Josh.  You said you had experienced both, you apparently know enough about science, but then you allowed me to argue within the framework of science KNOWING your stance was not truly housed there.  

 

Kind of lends itself to EGO.

 

On the other head, although I cuss, I am here communing with you, compromising myself, continuing the discussion, which in turn will likely make us better understand each other, be more forgiving and gracefilled, and makes me feel better about myself....Rather than spiritually cussing someone I don't understand, it's now, those are my atheist, agnostic, disgruntled lawyer, woo discovering, bastard friends, and one incessant Brit.  

 

I kind of like that idea more than gonna kick your Texas butt with my superior fabric... 

 

Like I said, I don't care about the cursing. What does that mean against the pantheistic spiritual views? Not much of anything. We are both the fabric of existence incarnate, and no amount of cursing or anything else can change the facts. But with christianity, cursing equals evidence of non-spiritual person. That's how the myths (scripture) read. The tradition you have embraced describes you as not spiritual at all. Not christ-like. By your words and actions. Spirituality dead, I think is how it goes. 

 

Lucky for you christianity is bullshit anyways, so it doesn't matter very much what the myths say about you. Or whether or not you live up to their standard of what constitutes spiritual or not-spiritual. But don't kid yourself, Walter substantiated where your own religion pretty much rejects you as 'not spiritual' by your words and actions. And this is the same tradition that you're trying to debate in favor of. 

 

That, Ed, is a pretty crappy form of spirituality if you ask me. How shallow. You curse, you're out. That's not all inclusive at all.....

 

@WalterP

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

You have tried to make a connection between the science of epigenetics and the spiritual concept of sin.

 

Both as Edgarcito and as End3.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/search/?q=epigenetics&quick=1

 

And I think you need to ask yourself if that's a double standard against what you're saying now: 

 

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

So, a couple things....your explanations are not accepted by science and don't seem to offer something superior in the capability do deliver woo to the masses.... so you're please gonna have convince me and our subscriber list that your organization is spiritually superior because I truthfully don't see it. 

 

It's odd that you post this when you have repeatedly, with both BAA and @WalterP, tried making the connection between epigenetics and the spiritual concept of sin. Which, is 'not accepted by science and doesn't offer anything superior in the capability to deliver woo to the masses.' 

 

You are the one doing this, not me. 

 

You're trying to deliver woo to the masses. I'm just looking at what can be shown as factual and what speculations can be deduced logically from there. That's a pretty big difference, Ed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

“A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”

 

Look at what I highlighted Josh....if you can't get my point, then I'm sorry.

 

I've presented numerous analogies over the years Josh....thinking I have mentioned a few of them in this thread even.  Anecdotal evidence.  EVEN started a thread about types of viable evidence....to be dismissed by ExChristians here.  Now, NOW, when it's your eyes that want to see a relationship, "BAM" as you put it, it's a miracle, EVIDENCE pointing to what you would like people to see.  Glad you caught the train Josh before it left the station....

 

Christianity is not pantheistic.  My mind can visualize what you are saying....not a biggie.  What I see is you have made a cool picture for REALITY, but my God, is just that, supernatural. It's just not a label on a theory of reality.  It's ok though, it paints a decent picture in my mind.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

You have tried to make a connection between the science of epigenetics and the spiritual concept of sin.

 

Both as Edgarcito and as End3.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/search/?q=epigenetics&quick=1

 

And I think you need to ask yourself if that's a double standard against what you're saying now: 

 

 

It's odd that you post this when you have repeatedly, with both BAA and @WalterP, tried making the connection between epigenetics and the spiritual concept of sin. Which, is 'not accepted by science and doesn't offer anything superior in the capability to deliver woo to the masses.' 

 

You are the one doing this, not me. 

 

You're trying to deliver woo to the masses. I'm just looking at what can be shown as factual and what speculations can be deduced logically from there. That's a pretty big difference, Ed. 

Yeah Josh, I've been doing it for years, but now it's viable when YOU present the analogies? (It was never viable before at ExChristian.net).  I don't think so from a rigid science standpoint unless you can then take the "points to" message and run it through the scientific process.  NO, there is no difference.  You actually used the words "points to" in your texts.....which I believe is straight from the definition of anecdotal evidence.  It makes sense that if a Christian were wanting to demonstrate woo to a bunch of science people, that he would use science to sell the thoughts.  NOT the other way around.  You should have used HARD science to demonstrate woo, not woo to demonstrate woo.  You have just successfully added to my list......fat gluon paths are like the omnipresence of God.  Congratulations.

 

So let's sum up.  Josh has found a speculative piece of scientific research and has assigned the observations as evidence for his spirituality and labels his analogy and spirituality superior.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
On 5/1/2021 at 5:26 PM, Joshpantera said:

So here's what I'm thinking.  I'm gonna go with Einstein's statement, that organization seems to play a role, that our organizations might learn to consider other organizations.  I can't see that your explanation still doesn't point to some lack of, or a need for an effort by the organization to join to "god"......realization, meditation, practice, etc.., rather than just Is, a constant state of "god".  

 

I asked for a citation. You gave it below: 

 

11 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

“A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”

 

Look at what I highlighted Josh....if you can't get my point, then I'm sorry.

 

I've presented numerous analogies over the years Josh....thinking I have mentioned a few of them in this thread even.  Anecdotal evidence.  EVEN started a thread about types of viable evidence....to be dismissed by ExChristians here.  Now, NOW, when it's your eyes that want to see a relationship, "BAM" as you put it, it's a miracle, EVIDENCE pointing to what you would like people to see.  Glad you caught the train Josh before it left the station....

 

There's nothing in bold about "organizations." It's about individuals relating to one another seeing the truth of their personal identity as the universe incarnate, basically. Not organizations or institutions. Individuals. What do you mean? 

 

Now about evidence, you need to consider what Walter posted in the peanut gallery: 

 

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

 

For Edgarcito's faith-based model of spirituality to be true, the following would have to be true.

 

1.   An eternal god would have to exist 'before' time and space began to exist.

2.  Time and space would not be eternal, but would require this god to create them.

3.  This eternal creator god would also be the creator of heaven, which exists differently from time and space.

4.  This god creates the earth, a garden and two innocent people to look after it.

5.  A rebel angel who has been cast out of heaven tricks the two people into disobeying god.

6.  Disobedience (sin) separates god from his people.

7.  God offers himself to himself as a sin sacrifice to bring people back into communion with god.

8.  Communion with god by faith is the basis of Edgarcito's model of spirituality

 

All of the eight steps listed above are required for Edgarcito's faith-based model of spirituality to be true.

 

Furthermore, none of these steps can be tested or verified with evidence.

 

They are all believed to be true by Edgarcito, by faith.

 

 

 

For JoshPantera's knowledge-based model of spirituality to be true, the following would have to be true.

 

1.  Josh would have to have some knowledge that the universe exists.

2.  Josh would have to have some knowledge that every part of the universe is interconnected with every other.

3.  Josh would have to have some knowledge that this interconnectedness is spiritual.

 

Josh has satisfied 1; he does know that the universe exists.

 

Josh has inferred from quantum science that 2 is true.

 

Josh has claimed that 2 indicates spirituality.

 

 

Summary

 

Occam's Razor suggests that Josh's model of spirituality is more likely to be true than Edgarcito's because it is simpler.

 

Furthermore, the first step of his model is open to testing and can be verified with evidence.

 

The second step, though inferential, suggests a mechanism through which the universe is interconnected with itself.

 

Josh's third step is no more testable than any of Edgarcito's eight steps.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Josh's model of spirituality wins by virtue of being simpler and by being partially verified with evidence.

 

Edgarcito's model of spirituality loses because it is more complex and relies exclusively on faith, not evidence.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

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

 

Your argument is inferior on the basis of evidence. By this standard, you've already lost some time ago. We'll have to wait and see how it's decided. It's inferior on the basis of internal consistency as well, which I've demonstrated with the inconsistent "omni" approach of christianity. God is everywhere, but not in this place or that place. That's internally inconsistent. And inferior against someone else who suffers no such internal inconsistency. And that's just one of many, many examples of internal inconsistency. 

 

10 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

It makes sense that if a Christian were wanting to demonstrate woo to a bunch of science people, that he would use science to sell the thoughts.  NOT the other way around.  You should have used HARD science to demonstrate woo, not woo to demonstrate woo.  You have just successfully added to my list......fat gluon paths are like the omnipresence of God.  Congratulations.

 

Walter's list makes clear who has the woo and where it's involved. 

 

There's only one point of clarification on my list. And it's the 3rd. 

 

"3.  Josh would have to have some knowledge that this interconnectedness is spiritual."

 

This needs corrected. Because I only need to show knowledge that this interconnectedness is CONSIDERED spiritual in the world by anyone. And I've demonstrated time and again that it is. The Vedic traditions set this out. And it's considered spiritual in Hinduism, Advaita Vedanta specifically, and forms of Buddhism. And we find lesser obvious traces of it in the bible, possibly as part of the overall usurping of the pagan religions and retelling mythology from the pagan cultures. 

 

So I have the 3rd point well covered. We're talking about what IS considered as spiritual in this world by various people and spiritual traditions. There's no sense of having to prove that space is god or anything like that. Just that 1) there does exist interconnecting factors in the existence of the universe and all of it's inhabitants, and 2) there are in fact people in the world who consider the interconnection of the universe very sacred and spiritual. 

 

@WalterP

 

Consider the correction above if you will. 

 

10 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I'd like to call in my aging, disgruntled counsel at this time to wrap up the insanity, and send this case to the judge and jury....

 

We're well on the way there, Ed. It's all mapped out above. If someone wants to argue the content of what's been laid out, then call them in by tagging their name and letting us know who it is and what they're judgments are. 

 

You have the internally inconsistent argument, the evidence lacking lacking argument, and the woo woo argument. Some might say, meh, such is the case with spiritual matters. But that would neglect to acknowledge the fact that a different type of spiritual argument has been laid out here which doesn't suffer the same fate as yours. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Florduh, sdelsolray, and the Prof I think would be a fair judge and jury.  I’m thinking this is more of an inside joke on the resident Christian to have him argue traditionally ex Christian views.  Basically Josh, you have no science that defines spirituality and only anecdotal evidence to show for your initial claim of superiority through information.  Mind you, your evidence points also to the claims of Christianity.  If you would like a list of evidences, then I have presented several through the years of how our reality points to Christianity.  Several is superior to one.  And it seems your ego is vested... and your team... which is telling of your spirituality.  I’m gonna rest my case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to add that during the course of the discussion your peers kept hinting that you didn’t have a case, or no means to qualify.  Secondly, your team member literally separated himself from your opinion.  And third, you separated yourself through actual acknowledgment, from science/knowledge, pleading with me to continue the discussion.  Pretty straightforward verdict here J, you have no accepted knowledge that makes your case outside of your own subjectivity...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
7 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Basically Josh, you have no science that defines spirituality and only anecdotal evidence to show for your initial claim of superiority through information.  Mind you, your evidence points also to the claims of Christianity.  If you would like a list of evidences, then I have presented several through the years of how our reality points to Christianity.  Several is superior to one.  And it seems your ego is vested... and your team... which is telling of your spirituality.  I’m gonna rest my case.

 

That's exactly wrong. The evidences I have presented come from spirituality and science. I've shown where they merge, which is in the concept of interconnectedness. They arrive at a similar conclusion, one through intuitive feelings, experience, and insight, the other by particle physics and cosmology. 

 

This points not to christianity. 

 

And that needs to be clarified even further considering how badly you still comprehend what I've been saying. 

 

The conclusion of what I've been arguing are that: 

 

1) Christianity sets forward contradiction from the outset of the bible. 

2) Christianity is internally inconsistent with it's claims about god. 

3) Christianity is all ego, demonstrated by the great commission. 

4) Christianity is made nonsense by following through with it;s own claims about god. 

 

And it's time to start throwing harder punches on the 4th point. 

 

If god is omnipresent, then god is present in all light and darkness. 

If god is omnipresent, then god is present in heaven, earth, and hell. 

If god is omnipresent, then god present within not only the material universe, but in satan and his angels. 

If god is omnipresent, then god destroying sin, death, and the grave amounts to god destroying aspects of his own presence in the process. 

If god is omnipresent, then there is no other game in town, there is only god. 

 

And so it goes. The very notion of any real conflict between light and darkness, has no meaning against the claim of an omnipresent god. 

 

If god is loving, then god loves satan, sin, and the grave. 

If god is loving, then god loves everything. 

If god is loving, then god can not hate anything, at all. 

 

If god is powerful, then nothing can escape the power of god. Nothing can oppose god. Especially considering that everything IS god, satan notwithstanding. 

 

If god is all-knowing, then there isn't anything that god couldn't already know. For instance, in Genesis 1, god could not be unaware of the location of Adam & Eve hiding from his presence in the garden. Furthermore, there would be no hiding from the presence of a god who is 'everywhere present.'

 

And the list can go on, and on, and on, and on. This is grade A spiritual tradition self inconsistency. And whoever take up christianity spirituality, also takes up the inherent self inconsistency which is the foundation of christianity spirituality. 

 

The same is not true for pantheistic philosophy. Brahman is viewed as everything. Including all of the light and darkness. There is no actual conflict between the two. Because, of course, they are interconnected in the unity of existence itself. 

 

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I need to add that during the course of the discussion your peers kept hinting that you didn’t have a case, or no means to qualify.  Secondly, your team member literally separated himself from your opinion.  And third, you separated yourself through actual acknowledgment, from science/knowledge, pleading with me to continue the discussion.  Pretty straightforward verdict here J, you have no accepted knowledge that makes your case outside of your own subjectivity...

 

And that means what? 

 

Walter hasn't gone through pantheism like I have and doesn't necessarily claim as I would do. So what? He still thinks that I've won. And that judging the case, I have the superior spiritual format laid out. He doesn't have to subscribe to pantheistic philosophy as a believer to see and understand that I've laid out something superior in X ways to christianity. 

 

The people who don't think I can make a case, are people with an opinion. I've made a case, so that pretty much settles that opinion. The case is laid out and it exists. If someone doesn't believe the case exists, that's their problem. The case is matter of public record at this point. 

 

My case about subjective spiritual views, crosses over into objective factual views about the nature of space and reality in the universe. Intuition, experience, and knowledge all come together in the big conclusion: 

 

Reality is an interconnected realm where nothing is literally or factually separate from anything else. 

 

That's a long standing eastern and western mystical view which has a basis in science. And cuts off christianity at the ankles. 

 

Sort of tough to make a case that christianity is superior or even equal considering the facts of both human spiritual insights and science both coming together on one very big point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

That's exactly wrong. The evidences I have presented come from spirituality and science. I've shown where they merge, which is in the concept of interconnectedness. They arrive at a similar conclusion, one through intuitive feelings, experience, and insight, the other by particle physics and cosmology. 

 

Do you realize Josh, that because you cite the/your gluon theory/research, that this gives you absolutely no authority to claim science and spirituality merge, until you have the steps in between to connect the two?  Do you not have a fundamental understanding of science?  That's a HUGE no no in science.  They would disqualify a third grade science fair project for what you are suggesting. 

 

We are going to give you a star for your ability to recognize things similar.  "Can you tell me now how to get to Sesame Street?"  Or maybe we can go hang with Mr. Rogers..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
12 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Do you realize Josh, that because you cite the/your gluon theory/research, that this gives you absolutely no authority to claim science and spirituality merge, until you have the steps in between to connect the two? 

 

Edward, you're the devils tool in this scenario. 

 

Deny, deny, deny!!!! Anything to look away and not accept yourself as you actually are. Anything to grasp at to try and deny what it ultimately true. 

 

Authority???

 

I have all of the authority of existence behind my argument. 

 

12 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Do you not have a fundamental understanding of science?  That's a HUGE no no in science.  They would disqualify a third grade science fair project for what you are suggesting. 

 

 

You don't lecture me about science, Genesis boy!!!!!!!!

 

You have the authority behind you of what, this book of myths that I've demonstrated as false? Get thee behind me deceitful one!!!!

 

 

12 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Or maybe we can go hang with Mr. Rogers..

 

You've been rogered for the last 5 pages, British rogered!!!

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Edward, you're the devils tool in this scenario. 

 

Deny, deny, deny!!!! Anything to look away and not accept yourself as you actually are. Anything to grasp at to try and deny what it ultimately true. 

 

Authority???

 

I have all of the authority of existence behind my argument. 

 

 

You don't lecture me about science, Genesis boy!!!!!!!!

 

You have the authority behind you of what, this book of myths that I've demonstrated as false? Get thee behind me deceitful one!!!!

 

 

 

You've been rogered for the last 5 pages, British rogered!!!

 

 

 

 

It's Edgar.  I go by Ed.  Edgarcito is Spanish for "little Edgar".  I am the III matter of fact.  You have so much authority, you don't know Spanish either.  Adiosmf.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
On 5/4/2021 at 11:09 AM, Edgarcito said:

It's Edgar.  I go by Ed.  Edgarcito is Spanish for "little Edgar".  I am the III matter of fact.  You have so much authority, you don't know Spanish either.  Adiosmf.

 

Yes I do! 

 

"All" of the authority of existence itself, which, is fallible as opposed to infallible. Reality is quite fallible. And at the same time all present. The whole idea is to see and understand reality as it actually is to the best of one's ability. Which is always a work in progress. The truth is elusive and must be sought after, as it isn't handed down in full from the clouds. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Yes I do! 

 

"All" of the authority of existence itself, which, is fallible as opposed to infallible. Reality is quite fallible. And at the same time all present. The whole idea is to see and understand reality as it actually is to the best of one's ability. Which is always a work in progress. The truth is elusive and must be sought after, as it isn't handed down in full from the clouds. 

 

 

Didn't want to have to pull this out of my spiritual hat Jake, but you remember in Christianity, the phrase, "that person is on fire for the Lord".  I think you have just earned that cringy designation.....on fire with oneness.  I'm just gonna throw up a photon fence to bust up whatever gluon shit you are vibing my direction for my own safety.....thanks Jake.  Happy anniversary sir. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

'Myself, please forgive me (in the form called Edgar), for I (as Edgar) known not what I do...' 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

'Myself, please forgive me (in the form called Edgar), for I (as Edgar) known not what I do...' 

Ok, serious question please sir.  When you feel spiritual, what feelings do you have towards the rest of reality.  Please be honest.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Yes I do! 

 

"All" of the authority of existence itself, which, is fallible as opposed to infallible. Reality is quite fallible. And at the same time all present. The whole idea is to see and understand reality as it actually is to the best of one's ability. Which is always a work in progress. The truth is elusive and must be sought after, as it isn't handed down in full from the clouds. 

 

 

And what is truth in the context you use it here.  Why is it elusive? One’s ability?? This is almost diametrically opposed the the bs you are spewing Josh.  Is an educated person more spiritual??  Than a child?  Should a larger person be more spiritual because they have more gluon potential?  Bottom line, you’re full of shit and have no clue the connections/relationships you are espousing.  Consult your buddy... he doesn’t know either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.