Jump to content

Peanut Gallery for JoshPantera vs. Endgarcito3


Recommended Posts

  • Moderator
41 minutes ago, Robert_Tulip said:

Everything in the Bible should be viewed in this light, as a symbolic representation for something quite abstract and mysterious. 

·       For example, the figure of Jesus Christ was invented to represent the connection between time and eternity, the presence of eternity within time. 

 

The very case and point of Alan Watts lecture on the "Real Gospel." 

 

Looking even closer, John is saying this: 

 

I (time) and the Father (eternity) are one! 

 

And works as: 

 

I (finite) and the Father (infinite) are one! 

 

The Kingdom of the Father (eternity) is spread upon the earth (time), but men do not see it. 

 

 

41 minutes ago, Robert_Tulip said:

Yes, this continues to open up the deficiencies of all forms of fundamentalism, especially the Bibliolatry that insists the Bible is historically accurate even where there is no corroboration and the stories make far better sense as parables than history. 

·       The ancient mystics who wrote the Bible had a sociology rather like the divisions of Plato’s Republic between rulers, managers and plebians, or Orwell’s Inner Party, Outer Party and Proles.  Each of these social structures involves a 1:10:90 ratio.  For the mystics, the division was between the spiritual 1%, the religious 10% and the materialist 90%.  This mystical sociology defined these three groups as pneumatic (spiritual), psychic (religious) and hylic (materialist). 

·       The reason the mystics were crushed by Rome was that this model set up an alternative power structure that the empire saw as seditious.  Since Roman Christendom has so thoroughly polluted Christian thinking, the current mainstream of faith basically rejects spiritual awareness in favour of the religious dogmatism that refuses to see the symbolic intent of the original language, and as a result allows the materialist majority to rightly perceive religion as totally incoherent.

 

Yes. This gives depth to what I've lightly touched on in terms of the original mystical realization message being obscured. It seems to have begun with the Roman Catholic orthodoxy. I think it's pretty straight forward that there was symbolic intent in the original language. And equally straight forward that it has been rejected by the mainstream of faith. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

I think I can follow my own path of Eastern religion, find peace and enlightenment and not bother with any flavor of Christianity, right?

 

why follow the East?  or the West?  perhaps it is wise to follow the truth that you sense at present -- if that seems good, while keeping a somewhat open mind towards learning more at any time or place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, florduh said:

Is there any evidence for this? I'd love to see it.

 

the evidence is with those who seek, i would say.  and it depends maybe on how we seek also.  and if on any part of the journey we become sidetracked and/or deluded too much into thinking we have found all the truth, but it's not exactly the whole of truth, if its just a piece of the greater puzzle -- one side of the argument or picture when in fact there might be 2 or more... then there we might stay, for who knows how long until we are able to or decide to or learn how to move on from that piece or pieces of the puzzle, from those points of view and ways of being -- because both are going on -- growing from there and expanding and changing our understanding(s) of things while also working on ourselves -- overcoming and disciplining, evolving ourselves into better people -- in order to grow our spirit/soul/consciousness toward wholeness in word/deed/and thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, v__a__s__t said:

 

the evidence is with those who seek, i would say.  and it depends maybe on how we seek also.  and if on any part of the journey we become sidetracked and/or deluded too much into thinking we have found all the truth, but it's not exactly the whole of truth, if its just a piece of the greater puzzle -- one side of the argument or picture when in fact there might be 2 or more... then there we might stay, for who knows how long until we are able to or decide to or learn how to move on from that piece or pieces of the puzzle, from those points of view and ways of being -- because both are going on -- growing from there and expanding and changing our understanding(s) of things while also working on ourselves -- overcoming and disciplining, evolving ourselves into better people -- in order to grow our spirit/soul/consciousness toward wholeness in word/deed/and thought.

 

So its back to me and my experience again?

 

I, me, my, myself at the centre of everything?

 

I am the measure of everything?

 

Solipsistic, much?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, v__a__s__t said:

 

why follow the East?  or the West?  perhaps it is wise to follow the truth that you sense at present -- if that seems good, while keeping a somewhat open mind towards learning more at any time or place.

 

I sense that advaita vedanta is true. I believe those words are sanskrit so are of Eastern origin. It could also be called non-duality in the west. 

 

I'm not drawn to Christianity. I sense that it is bs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
15 hours ago, v__a__s__t said:

 

the evidence is with those who seek, i would say.  and it depends maybe on how we seek also.  and if on any part of the journey we become sidetracked and/or deluded too much into thinking we have found all the truth, but it's not exactly the whole of truth, if its just a piece of the greater puzzle -- one side of the argument or picture when in fact there might be 2 or more... then there we might stay, for who knows how long until we are able to or decide to or learn how to move on from that piece or pieces of the puzzle, from those points of view and ways of being -- because both are going on -- growing from there and expanding and changing our understanding(s) of things while also working on ourselves -- overcoming and disciplining, evolving ourselves into better people -- in order to grow our spirit/soul/consciousness toward wholeness in word/deed/and thought.

 

So no, then.

 

I am genuinely curious why some people think life is a journey, that it has a destination, that you're supposed to be "better" each step of the way. Why do some assume we all have "lessons" to learn and should "advance" spiritually through certain exercises and disciplines. Why do those who think we are so much in need of fixing think we can fix ourselves with yoga, meditation or something? Again, where is the evidence that we are on a journey, and one with a purpose?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed: You have no physiological mechanism for any of your claims, which from an ExChristian-science standpoint, the conversation should have ended. 

 

...

 

Ed requires Josh provide physical evidence for his claim.

Ed requires only thought evidence for his own claim. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed: 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.

 

.......

 

I believe Josh participated in the SDA experience. I  wonder what 'experience' Ed is participating in now? Chilling with the Ex-c's experience, for sure. 

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2021 at 5:19 PM, WalterP said:

Hmmm...

 

So, Josh and Ed are both claiming to be the other's spiritual superior.

 

But things are going to get messy if they have different understandings of what 'spirituality' is.

 

There can be no winner and no loser in this fight unless they are both using the same spiritual standard.

 

All that'll happen is that each will hold to their own standard and claim that it they are the winner.

 

If the Mods try to impose a common standard on them then, most likely, they won't agree to it.

 

So I can't see this thread going anywhere until both parties agree to a common 'spiritual' standard.

 

For what it's worth, I can suggest one and I also have an idea as to how it might be applied.

 

But unless I'm consulted I'll keep quiet about it.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I don't like to say that I told you so, but...

 

 

 

I told you so.

 

Things are getting messy, neither party will accept the others definitions of the spiritual, neither will accept the others spiritual standards and both are effectively saying, 'No. I'm right and you're wrong.'

 

This pattern will continue until some common ground can be established.

 

That is, until both parties can agree on a common understanding of the spiritual.

 

As I mentioned, I have an idea about how this could be done.

 

But, until I'm asked by them I won't volunteer it.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Edgarcito, here's where you screwed up.

 

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.

 

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

 

You've been told about this before and you've seen this explained to other Christians in the Den.

 

The only branch of science that deals with proofs is mathematics.

 

The sciences that investigate the nature of space are astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology.

 

So, they don't deal with proofs, they deal only with evidence.

 

You can ask Josh for evidence about the nature of space, but you can't ask him for proof.

 

That's a no-no.

 

Please bring yourself up to speed on where and when proofs can be used in science.

 

Here...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

https://theconversation.com/wheres-the-proof-in-science-there-is-none-30570

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Did we ever get to an agreed upon definition of spirituality? Josh proposed one but I don't think they ever agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Did we ever get to an agreed upon definition of spirituality? Josh proposed one but I don't think they ever agreed.

 

I dont see that occurring. Walter has something up his sleeve though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

I dont see that occurring. Walter has something up his sleeve though. 

 

I do.

 

But because I'm a member of Josh's counsel team the RedneckProf would have to rule on whether my idea is permissible.

 

If he ok's it, fine.

 

But all of this might well be moot.

 

It looks like Edgarcito's withdrawing from the debate.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's Edgarcito's parting shot.

 

 

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.

 

 

Anyone else see his spiritual blind spot?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
20 hours ago, WalterP said:

As I mentioned, I have an idea about how this could be done.

 

But, until I'm asked by them I won't volunteer it.

 

4 hours ago, WalterP said:

I do.

 

But because I'm a member of Josh's counsel team the RedneckProf would have to rule on whether my idea is permissible.

 

If he ok's it, fine.

If you really have some great and awe-inspiring revelation about the debate, you can post it in this thread, which was created specifically for people to post great and awe-inspiring revelations about the debate.  Another alternative would be to challenge Edgarcito to a debate of your own, reveal your wonderful and mysterious idea, and pick up where Josh left off. 

 

Both of these options would demonstrate a higher level of maturity than the self-serving, attention-seeking exercises in hyperbole which you are currently employing.  I also wonder why someone who speaks of our lurkers with such noble intentions would play these silly games if they really had information that might be of service.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Walter has some relevant science to add to the issue of the nature of space and the particle - wave duality. I've asked him to present it behind my last post. 

 

And if there is a way of solving the definition of spirituality issue I'd like to hear it. 

 

I just presented a universal definition that applies to anyone from christians to modern new age thinkers. That seemed good enough. A very generalized definition of the contemporary landscape of spiritual thinking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nice thing about Eastern spirituality is being able to freely enjoy it without being afraid that a sky tyrant disapproves. 

 

But to each his own.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
32 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

Walter has some relevant science to add to the issue of the nature of space and the particle - wave duality. I've asked him to present it behind my last post. 

 

And if there is a way of solving the definition of spirituality issue I'd like to hear it. 

 

I just presented a universal definition that applies to anyone from christians to modern new age thinkers. That seemed good enough. A very generalized definition of the contemporary landscape of spiritual thinking. 

If you are officially calling in your second phone-a-friend, then Walt can post in ever-which thread he pleases.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

Walter has some relevant science to add to the issue of the nature of space and the particle - wave duality. I've asked him to present it behind my last post. 

 

And if there is a way of solving the definition of spirituality issue I'd like to hear it. 

 

I just presented a universal definition that applies to anyone from christians to modern new age thinkers. That seemed good enough. A very generalized definition of the contemporary landscape of spiritual thinking. 

 

I think you did a good job. 

 

What irritates me is the general Christian indoctrination that makes good people like Ed fear or loathe things that dont mention Jesus. Ed is a good guy but his totalitarian religion has done a disservice to him.

 

I studied and enjoyed advaita while still a fundamentalist Christian. Advaita didnt care. I like pagan stuff. Paganism doesnt care how you believe or what other religions you might like. There's no New Age hell either. :) I'm happy to not let an evil belief system run my life.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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..."

 

I believe certain bible scriptures were acknowledged by Josh ... those passages supported his universal spirituality. Universal spirituality is not personality worship and I think that is the sticking point. Christians look for the Jesus label on everything. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

If you really have some great and awe-inspiring revelation about the debate, you can post it in this thread, which was created specifically for people to post great and awe-inspiring revelations about the debate.  Another alternative would be to challenge Edgarcito to a debate of your own, reveal your wonderful and mysterious idea, and pick up where Josh left off. 

 

Both of these options would demonstrate a higher level of maturity than the self-serving, attention-seeking exercises in hyperbole which you are currently employing.  I also wonder why someone who speaks of our lurkers with such noble intentions would play these silly games if they really had information that might be of service.  

 

There are no silly games going on, Prof.

 

As Josh's counsel I cannot just interject without being asked.

 

Also, I cannot introduce something into the Peanut Gallery that would have would have a significant impact on the debate thread without first obtaining the permission of yourself.

 

Everything must be done according to protocol so that I do not unduly influence what goes between Josh and Ed.

 

So, aside from messaging you privately, the only other conduit of communication open to me is this thread.

 

If you feel that I should have run this past Josh first and then you privately, then I apologize for not being sufficiently au fait with the protocols.

 

There was no intentional hyperbole on my part.

 

My role here is to assist Josh, not to serve my interests in any way.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RedneckProfessor has given me permission to suggest a way in which common ground could be found between Josh and Edgarcito, specifically regarding the issue of spirituality.

 

Thus far in their debate neither party has agreed a common standard or measure of what spirituality is, what it means and how it works.

 

In a nutshell, there is no overlap between them.

 

Yet, each remains convinced of the integrity of their own models of spirituality and equally convinced of the faults and flaws of the other.

 

But, there is a way out of this stand off.

 

 

 

What has happened here is that both Josh and Ed have made claims about their own respective spiritualties.

 

Here in Ex-Christian.net, when a member makes a claim they are usually expected to support their claim with evidence.

 

Therefore, I suggest that this principle be applied to the debate.

 

Rather than the two parties attempting to take each other down, each should try to make their own case in favour of their own claim.

 

So, both Josh and Ed should be given time to support their claims about spirituality with evidence.

 

I suggest that they be asked to fulfil two different criteria.

 

1.  Is their model of spirituality internally self-consistent?

 

This is important because if their model is shown to flawed with contradictions, then, despite them believing fervently in it, the bottom line is that it cannot be true.  

 

2.  Is their model of spirituality supported by any empirical evidence that can be cited to make their case?

 

A model of spirituality that isn't supported by empirical evidence is less persuasive than one that is.

 

 

Here ends my proposal.

 

It is now up to the RedneckProf, Josh and Edgarcito to decide if it is appropriate, feasible and acceptable.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
1 hour ago, WalterP said:

Rather than the two parties attempting to take each other down, each should try to make their own case in favour of their own claim.

All you're really suggesting here is that they follow the original rule laid down in the opening post of the debate thread.  Granted, you've added a couple of extra stipulations, as is your bent; but, even having done so, such a suggestion required neither my permission nor the hoopla of a build-up.

 

Why are you so weird, dude?

 

 

 

 

20210415_133656.jpg

Link to comment
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.