Peanut Gallery for JoshPantera vs. Endgarcito3

[WalterP]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

@Edgarcito would be doing much better in this debate if he would focus on building a case for his own spirituality and beliefs instead of just saying "nuh-uh" to everything Josh says.  I wonder why he isn't doing that.  Hey, Edgarcito, why aren't you building a case for what you believe in?

 

I'm afraid that I have to agree with the Professor.

 

If Edgarcito can present a better model for his spirituality than Josh, then the debate is his.

 

But to do that he's going to have to yield judgment on what Josh has or hasn't accomplished to the Professor.

 

The energy and effort Ed uses up naysaying and badmouthing would be better spent building his own case.

 

But, will he receive these comments well and change his game plan?

 

Or will Matthew 7 : 6 apply? 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[florduh]

I appreciate we have a Christian (of sorts) willing to duke it out here. I have to give him credit for hanging in.

[WalterP]

My feelings were always inner strength, inner resolve, adrenaline surges, goose bumps.....elevated emotions , associated with what I deemed a Spiritual connection.  Still get them today when I find unexpected confirmation bias or relationships I haven't seen before....believing it to be the Holy Spirit dispensing insight.  It's fun and I feel connected to God that I haven't been forgotten by the universe, Josh, that seemingly doesn't give a rat's rear. 

 

The problem with referring to feelings as signs of spirituality are as that they are entirely subjective.  Furthermore, followers of other faiths can claim exactly the same thing.  So, on their own, feelings are no real guide to anything, let alone a feasible model of spirituality.

 

Mine on the other hand, is a connection to a theoretical perfection that says the universe has blown holes into your soul, in your heart, but there exists a connection to a place that heals the imperfections in all of us.....live and love like that place is real now, and in the interim, here is the handbook, a connection, and guide to move you through, good or bad, and a crappy support group with good cooks. 

 

A 'subjective' connection.  And one that requires multiple leaps of faith.  One of which is that the universe is somehow broken.  Another is that we are broken.  Another is that we are in need of healing.  Another is that the bible is a handbook for this healing.  There are many other other leaps of faith required in this model of spirituality.

 

This is a house of cards held together by faith.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[alreadyGone]

7 minutes ago, WalterP said:

...

The problem with referring to feelings as signs of spirituality are as that they are entirely subjective.

 

Walter.

 

 

Amen.

 

 

People see what they believe.

If any of us manage to live as long as ~50+ years and haven't recognized this single near-universal aspect of human beings then you just haven't been paying attention.

 

[sdelsolray]

Christianity...making the perfect the enemy of the good for over two millennia.

[midniterider]

"Even IF we accept the theoretical connectivity claimed, for the seventeenth time, there is no mechanism between the gluons and a proposed mechanism for spirituality in the human body."

 

When there are "not two things" , there is no mechanism between them. There is no 'between' . They are one and the same. 

 

There seems to be some confusion that a spiritual thing has to be separate and of a different essence from a physical thing. I dont know why.

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

End said:

"My feelings were always inner strength, inner resolve, adrenaline surges, goose bumps.....elevated emotions , associated with what I deemed a Spiritual connection.  Still get them today when I find unexpected confirmation bias or relationships I haven't seen before....believing it to be the Holy Spirit dispensing insight.  It's fun and I feel connected to God that I haven't been forgotten by the universe, Josh, that seemingly doesn't give a rat's rear.  But I find these confirmations everywhere, and specifically pointing to what the Bible alludes to.  I've brought several to ExC over the years.  My ten or so has far exceeded Josh's one, that he doesn't really understand himself."

 

Well thats the sum of it. That feeling of connection applies to all forms of belief or religion. I'm assuming End knows that or maybe he doesn't. I dunno. I can see how this debate could be ruled a draw but not a clear win for end. Maybe this shouldn't have been debated from a spiritually superior standpoint. That is a harder argument to win. I guess my thought is that other religions have all the same aspects of spiritual connection as end has described without the rule book. But to Ends point, I always felt a connection just by holding the Bible in my hand until I figured out the Bible was bullshit. But I can also see how a belief without a rule book could be more freeing and give a deeper meaning than any Bible based religion could provide. There are really so many limitations the Bible puts on people. End obviously doesn't prescribe to strict bible rules for how life should be lived. Maybe that gives him the freedom needed to feel that greater connection. But in my experience. Sometimes I felt like I was walking on eggshells. Its hard for me to see (now that I'm out) how Christianity can provide a "superior" spiritual experience. How can YOU feel connect to something that basically doesn't accept YOU for YOU and wants you to be like someone else. 

 

But thats my opinion I suppose. I'm curious if the way the brain functions during a "spiritual" experience can be monitored. If it can be then that could be scientifically tested between various faiths. That would probably be to trivial a pursuit I guess. Though it would be interesting to me. I've always heard Tibetan monks can alter themselves physically through their meditative practices. If there is any truth to this. It seems that would be a greater manifestation of the spiritual than anything a Christian in today's time can do. 

[Myrkhoos]

7 hours ago, WalterP said:

My feelings were always inner strength, inner resolve, adrenaline surges, goose bumps.....elevated emotions , associated with what I deemed a Spiritual connection.  Still get them today when I find unexpected confirmation bias or relationships I haven't seen before....believing it to be the Holy Spirit dispensing insight.  It's fun and I feel connected to God that I haven't been forgotten by the universe, Josh, that seemingly doesn't give a rat's rear. 

 

The problem with referring to feelings as signs of spirituality are as that they are entirely subjective.  Furthermore, followers of other faiths can claim exactly the same thing.  So, on their own, feelings are no real guide to anything, let alone a feasible model of spirituality.

 

Mine on the other hand, is a connection to a theoretical perfection that says the universe has blown holes into your soul, in your heart, but there exists a connection to a place that heals the imperfections in all of us.....live and love like that place is real now, and in the interim, here is the handbook, a connection, and guide to move you through, good or bad, and a crappy support group with good cooks. 

 

A 'subjective' connection.  And one that requires multiple leaps of faith.  One of which is that the universe is somehow broken.  Another is that we are broken.  Another is that we are in need of healing.  Another is that the bible is a handbook for this healing.  There are many other other leaps of faith required in this model of spirituality.

 

This is a house of cards held together by faith.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Even IF personal exp could confirm the Bible , preaching seems useless. Talking as well. You either get that xp or you don't. End of story. Personal xp is evidence only for the one that experiences it.

     So, let's say Endgarcito has an xp than confirma his brand of Christianity. Anither guy comes that says he has an xp confirming Ismaili Islam. It is impossible for me really to know who is really who to trust. At the very least very hard. Like Walter said, these xp are found in many contradicting mutually exclusive religious systems and other circumstances like psychedelics, art, erotic encounters, politics, etc. I mean some trump rallies and blm protests seem rather filled with religious fervor and ecstatic.

[Myrkhoos]

2 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

End said:

"My feelings were always inner strength, inner resolve, adrenaline surges, goose bumps.....elevated emotions , associated with what I deemed a Spiritual connection.  Still get them today when I find unexpected confirmation bias or relationships I haven't seen before....believing it to be the Holy Spirit dispensing insight.  It's fun and I feel connected to God that I haven't been forgotten by the universe, Josh, that seemingly doesn't give a rat's rear.  But I find these confirmations everywhere, and specifically pointing to what the Bible alludes to.  I've brought several to ExC over the years.  My ten or so has far exceeded Josh's one, that he doesn't really understand himself."

 

Well thats the sum of it. That feeling of connection applies to all forms of belief or religion. I'm assuming End knows that or maybe he doesn't. I dunno. I can see how this debate could be ruled a draw but not a clear win for end. Maybe this shouldn't have been debated from a spiritually superior standpoint. That is a harder argument to win. I guess my thought is that other religions have all the same aspects of spiritual connection as end has described without the rule book. But to Ends point, I always felt a connection just by holding the Bible in my hand until I figured out the Bible was bullshit. But I can also see how a belief without a rule book could be more freeing and give a deeper meaning than any Bible based religion could provide. There are really so many limitations the Bible puts on people. End obviously doesn't prescribe to strict bible rules for how life should be lived. Maybe that gives him the freedom needed to feel that greater connection. But in my experience. Sometimes I felt like I was walking on eggshells. Its hard for me to see (now that I'm out) how Christianity can provide a "superior" spiritual experience. How can YOU feel connect to something that basically doesn't accept YOU for YOU and wants you to be like someone else. 

 

But thats my opinion I suppose. I'm curious if the way the brain functions during a "spiritual" experience can be monitored. If it can be then that could be scientifically tested between various faiths. That would probably be to trivial a pursuit I guess. Though it would be interesting to me. I've always heard Tibetan monks can alter themselves physically through their meditative practices. If there is any truth to this. It seems that would be a greater manifestation of the spiritual than anything a Christian in today's time can do.

Search neurotheology. There are studies and books about it. Our behaviour does influence our physiology, inluding our brain.

      But that would not tell the complete story. There is no sure way to get from brainwave to your exact subj exp. 

     

[WalterP]

There's an even bigger problem with Edgarcito's model of spirituality than its rampant subjectivity.

 

It doesn't agree at all with the New Covenant model of spirituality described in the NT.

 

 

The Gifts of the Spirit are given to believers by god for the building up of the Body of Christ, which is the Church.

 

Not for individual believers to have solitary experiences and subjective feelings of connection to god.

 

 

The Fruit of the Spirit are the outward sign in a believer's behaviour towards others that they alive in Christ.

 

A lone, isolated believer experiencing subjective feelings cannot display their spiritual fruit.

 

The fruit are only displayed by believers when they interact with other people.

 

 

The NT model of spirituality is communal, interactive and outward-looking, not solitary and inward-looking.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 hours ago, WalterP said:

There's an even bigger problem with Edgarcito's model of spirituality than its rampant subjectivity.

 

It doesn't agree at all with the New Covenant model of spirituality described in the NT.

 

 

The Gifts of the Spirit are given to believers by god for the building up of the Body of Christ, which is the Church.

 

Not for individual believers to have solitary experiences and subjective feelings of connection to god.

 

 

The Fruit of the Spirit are the outward sign in a believer's behaviour towards others that they alive in Christ.

 

A lone, isolated believer experiencing subjective feelings cannot display their spiritual fruit.

 

The fruit are only displayed by believers when they interact with other people.

 

 

The NT model of spirituality is communal, interactive and outward-looking, not solitary and inward-looking.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

I understand that completely. According to the biblical standard the way end has acted doesn't reflect the life of christ. But the debate here (if I'm not mistaken) is whether Josh's brand of spiritual is more superior to ends. And in that respect it doesn't matter. Its obvious that end has his own interpretation (I know, I know, 2pet1:20 any prophecy of scripture isn't of any private interpretation. And I agree. If your taking a completely biblical standpoint.) But its not the bibles brand of spiritual Josh is arguing against. Its ends own personal spirituality versus Josh's own personal spirituality. That is a bit harder to argue. Its all susceptible to both their imaginations.

 

From the outset we weren't able to define what spiritual meant to end. And I still think that in his mind he won't accept any argument that doesn't incorporate the Christian God as the one your getting the feeling from. Which is very condescending to anyone of any other faith. But thats the Christian way right? Its not our way so its the wrong way! CONVERT OR DIE!!!

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Why does end keep going back to gluons? Is this where he wanted to go from the beginning? Josh isn't even making that argument is he? Or did I miss something.

[WalterP]

You raise some interesting points DB.  Ones that I will attempt to address.

 

I understand that completely. According to the biblical standard the way end has acted doesn't reflect the life of christ. But the debate here (if I'm not mistaken) is whether Josh's brand of spiritual is more superior to ends. And in that respect it doesn't matter.

 

I respectfully disagree, DB. 

 

What Josh and Edgarcito believe they are describing spirituality, does matter.  It matters in terms of making a self-consistent argument. In this debate Edgarcito has described his spirituality as being Christian.  However, what he has been describing to us is NOT scripturally correct and so therefore cannot be a proper description of Christian spirituality.  A proper model of Christian spirituality MUST agree with scripture.  

 

So, what Ed has been describing to us is his own personal and subjective take on what he (falsely) believes Christian spirituality to be.

 

This represents a catastrophic failure on Ed's part.  He believes that he is describing and defending Christian spirituality, when in fact he isn't.  He's describing and defending something else.  Something that looks and sounds vaguely biblical and vaguely Christian, but which isn't.  Something of his own invention.  Something other than Christianity.

 

Therefore, Ed's whole position and argument has been inconsistent from get go.  And this brings us back to the point of what Josh and Ed believe they are describing in their competing models of spirituality.   Which I will go on to explain, below.

 

Its obvious that end has his own interpretation (I know, I know, 2pet1:20 any prophecy of scripture isn't of any private interpretation. And I agree. If your taking a completely biblical standpoint.) But its not the bibles brand of spiritual Josh is arguing against. Its ends own personal spirituality versus Josh's own personal spirituality. That is a bit harder to argue. Its all susceptible to both their imaginations.

 

Once again, I must disagree, DB.

 

Individual Christians do not have their own personal models of spirituality.  They either conform to Christ's model of spirituality or else they are not Christians.  And Christ's model cannot disagree with scripture.  So, unless a believer's model of spirituality agrees with scripture, they cannot call themselves a Christian, even if they fervently believe they are.

 

This is where Edgarcito is.  He seems to genuinely believe that he is a Christian, but his words, his actions and his misunderstanding of Christian spirituality say otherwise.

 

Compare Ed's fundamental inconsistency to Josh's model of spirituality. 

 

Josh has alluded to aspects of Eastern philosophy and to the science of quantum physics.  He brings these two paradigms together in a way that does not violate or contradict either.  Therefore, he sets his own standard of spirituality and has no rigid, exterior standard against which his beliefs can be precisely measured or compared.

 

So, he is being entirely consistent.  He sets his own spiritual standard and keeps consistently within it.

 

As we have seen, this is not true of Edgarcito.  The bible sets a very specific and binding spiritual standard against which all Christians should measure themselves.  Ed doesn't even have a decent understanding of what this standard is.  He is not spiritually alive in Christ and doesn't even comprehend what those words mean. His is inconsistent from end to end. (Pun intended!)

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[midniterider]

One religion makes you afraid to not believe it. It has a sky tyrant that sends you to eternal agony if you express individuality or disagree with it. 

 

The other one doesn't care if you accept it's teaching, has no eternal agony nor sky tyrant. 

 

Take your pick.

[WalterP]

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

Why does end keep going back to gluons? Is this where he wanted to go from the beginning? Josh isn't even making that argument is he? Or did I miss something.

 

He's being scathing and sarcastic towards Josh, DB.

 

No, Josh isn't making the argument Edgarcito thinks he is.

 

Which suggests that Ed doesn't understand Josh's position.

 

Or that he does, but he thinks that sarcasm is a spiritually acceptable behaviour for Christians.

 

Even though scripture says the opposite.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[WalterP]

Ok let's suppose that the gluon theory connects us all.....and that we might propose a mechanism for spirituality:

 

I'm understanding Josh saying spiritual cognition is C(s) = gluons x reality.

And we are going to separate spiritual cognition from routine cognition C(r) = reality.

 

If we accept the omnipresent gluon theory, then we now have C(r) = gluons x reality

 

Then a little quick math, we come up with C(s) = C(r).  Spiritual cognition is equal to routine cognition.

 

A couple of things.  I'm unclear how Josh proposes gluons are part of any separate cognition physiology than routine.  

 

If I plunder and pillage oneness, mentally or physically, is this spiritual?  <Insert Bible verse about you commit sin when you think about it>.  In the Josh theory, I guess it all the same from what I can tell.

 

I need more information Josh....or if I go rape oneness, I"m good with your superior spirituality?

 

 

Edit:  If we are discussing condescension, we use words like  I have more information, and superior.  And we have experienced many spiritualities,  and yours is lesser.  Lol, and for the record, science dictates everything is subjective.  

 

And it's the Christian who is condescending?  Really? 

 

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

 

Isn't it condescending to keep on referring to Josh's model of spirituality in a way that he has condemned as false?

 

 

[Myrkhoos]

You can call yourself a Christian without conforming to scripture. You might a vision of Christ telling that Scripture is corrupted and he personally reveals to you the correct message.

     Plus there are so many interpretations of Scripture plus traditions like Eastern Orthodoxy that place the Church community above Scripture.

    

[sdelsolray]

4 hours ago, WalterP said:

...

Individual Christians do not have their own personal models of spirituality.  They either conform to Christ's model of spirituality or else they are not Christians.  

...

 

 

 

Says you.  Your arguments are unconvincing.  Accordingly, I do not believe you.

[WalterP]

2 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

You can call yourself a Christian without conforming to scripture. You might a vision of Christ telling that Scripture is corrupted and he personally reveals to you the correct message.

     Plus there are so many interpretations of Scripture plus traditions like Eastern Orthodoxy that place the Church community above Scripture.

    

 

True, Myrkoos.

 

But your concerns, even though well founded, do not apply in Edgarcito's case.

 

He's on record as holding scripture to be god's perfect and inerrant word that defines what Christianity really is.

 

So, all I'm doing here is what's long been done in this forum.

 

Holding Christians accountable to the very things they profess to believe in.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[WalterP]

1 hour ago, sdelsolray said:

 

Says you.  Your arguments are unconvincing.  Accordingly, I do not believe you.

 

Says me.

 

But only because Edgarcito said it first, sdelsolray.

 

As I pointed out to Myrkhoos, Edgarcito himself has set the standard which he's being held to.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[WalterP]

My apologies to Myrkhoos and sdelsolray.

 

Apparently Edgarcito no longer holds to what End3 used to.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[Joshpantera]

On 5/9/2021 at 10:32 PM, midniterider said:

When there are "not two things" , there is no mechanism between them. There is no 'between' . They are one and the same. 

 

There seems to be some confusion that a spiritual thing has to be separate and of a different essence from a physical thing. I dont know why.

 

This is the debate in a nutshell. A spirituality of separateness versus a spirituality of interconnectedness. 

 

He asks what's spiritual about interconnection? 

 

I ask what's spiritual about separateness? 

 

Separateness is spiritually blind from the perspective I'm debating. It represents a short sided view of what is demonstrable about reality - through mystical insights as well as science. 

[Joshpantera]

On 5/10/2021 at 10:17 AM, DarkBishop said:

Why does end keep going back to gluons? Is this where he wanted to go from the beginning? Josh isn't even making that argument is he? Or did I miss something.

 

Ed introduced the gluon counter argument from who knows where? I never used the word. Or focused in on gluons in the first place. I only vaguely outlined that we are made up entirely of the fabric and structure of existence itself, and the nature of space helps put the interconnected aspect into greater focus. It's space out there and inside as well. Interconnecting all of existence. And space isn't void, literally. It's an interconnection of 'somethingness.' Just the vague facts of reality. 

 

From there he launched this gluon thing as a way of trying to degrade and belittle my point. Which doesn't make any sense and does nothing to degrade the point I'm making. I was talking about the entirety of space and interconnection at large scale, then Ed got focused only on particle matter within space and the binding of subatomic particles together by gluons, completely missing the point of gluons, and subatomic particles, and atomic particles, and everything in existence interconnected and whole:

 

noun

PHYSICS

 

1. a subatomic particle of a class that is thought to bind quarks together.

    

    

    

    

[Joshpantera]

On 5/10/2021 at 11:49 AM, WalterP said:

Isn't it condescending to keep on referring to Josh's model of spirituality in a way that he has condemned as false?

 

Yes it is. Especially considering the fact that it's demostrable straw man tossed at me. Ed constructs his own theory of what he thinks my point is, then goes on to try and belittle and debase his own constructed ideas of gluon spirituality as if he is belittling and debasing me. When that was never the case and it's a matter of public record that it wasn't. 

 

But that it exactly what many christians tend to do - create strawman arguments. That's all he's got so far....

 

 

 

[midniterider]

Ed never talks about Jesus. Not sure why he defends Christianity or calls himself a Christian. Of course you can call yourself whatever you want. I'm just not sure why he does.