The End Of The World

[SemmelweisReflex]

Just now, WalterP said:

 

As an atheist why would I be defending any religious teachings, as per your accusation?

 

Don't know. Don't care. 

 

[WalterP]

Just now, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Don't know. Don't care. 

 

 

Then why did you make the accusation?

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

10 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

This one appears to be dumping drafts of his website content here.  How clever.

 

Shortly after telling us all to stop giving him citation to read through and that arguing is futile. He's only here to see what other peoples beliefs are. 

 

The bible writers contradict themselves and one another. Bible fans tend to contradict themselves in lock step fashion. 

 

A ) 'No I don't want to read through citation. It's pointless. I have nothing to prove!' 

 

B )  'Here, read through a mountain of text and various citation from the bible as I try and prove my point!' 

 

 

*as I carefully refrain from citing exactly where he said this, per my agreement with him to stop using citation, so I won't contradict myself and that agreement*

 

 

[Joshpantera]

On 6/17/2021 at 7:02 PM, SemmelweisReflex said:

I'm looking for good quality responses that include the scholarly referenced wisdom of the Ex Christians and apparently I'm incapable of doing that myself since my content is so simple and obtuse or whatever the hell they keep saying. 

 

You're not looking for citation, then immediately after saying that in other threads you flip a switch and ask for scholarly referenced wisdom from members of this community??

 

You're all over the place, dude. You can hardy keep up with yourself.

 

On 6/17/2021 at 10:55 AM, SemmelweisReflex said:

Matthew 16:28 (KJV) - Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Also see Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27)

The Interpreter's Bible says: "The prediction was not fulfilled, and later Christians found it necessary to explain that it was metaphorical."

What believers and skeptics alike seem to have glossed over is the fact that in the very next verse Matthew reveals that just 6 days later this prophecy was fulfilled. Peter, James and John witnessed the transfiguration. (Matthew 17:1-2; Mark 9:1-8; Luke 9:27-36; 2 Peter 1:16-18)

 

Let's start here. Claiming that the transfiguration represents "The Son of man coming in his kingdom" looks like a pathetic attempt at apologetic's. 

 

First of all, leading into verse 16:28 are claims about the crucifixion to come. And it's clear that this bit about the Son of man coming in his kingdom with angels is directed to beyond the crucifixion, a time after being dead for 3 days and resurrected. There's no indication that the context is referenced to BEFORE the crucifixion. When you turn the page to chapter 17 and the transfiguration, the context is still BEFORE the crucifixion, there are NO ANGELS and NO KINGDOM appearing. There's only a reference to the law and prophets by way of moses and elijah. They are presented not in context of a coming kingdom surrounded with angels, but two men appearing and sitting with them on the earth and Peter wants to put up three physical shelters for them. 

 

You are grasping at straws. None of this is fulfilled via the transfiguration scene: 

 

 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

²⁸ “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

 

[SemmelweisReflex]

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

You're not looking for citation, then immediately after saying that in other threads you flip a switch and ask for scholarly referenced wisdom from members of this community??

 

I don't understand how so many people could think in such a low resolution. I'm looking for discussion on a discussion forum. Citation is great but it doesn't establish anything other than that someone else somewhere else said it. I don't subscribe to the concept of experts, religious, or the educated have any more to say than anyone else could say as well. Religious doctrine is established the same as the curriculum of education. Science is hindered by the same incentive as those. Money. Publishing, tenure, funding. To fully subscribe to the concept that experts know best obfuscates the very real practice of corruption of power primarily through monetary gain and even more so through the obfuscation it creates in and of itself. 

 

It's so simple! Just look at conspiracy theory being synonymous with crazy. It isn't. It's the way our world works. It's a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. Religion, politics, and now science. 

 

The very old winter solstice or Christmas before Christ celebrations were very similar to the Halloween celebrations of when I was a kid. Vandalism. The methodology of human nature. You scare people to get what you want. You can safely assume that when everybody says something is true it isn't true. Don't go swimming after eating, War of the Worlds, aliens are coming, everybody freaked out. Aliens weren't coming. Everybody didn't freak out. There's two myths in one. Don't go trick or treating because people are putting razors and poison in apples and candy. No they aren't. 

 

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

You're all over the place, dude. You can hardy keep up with yourself.

 

I know! And this goddamned laptop is slowing me down and I'm getting so old I can't remember anything and I'm tired of everyone around me being completely full of shit. 

 

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Let's start here. Claiming that the transfiguration represents "The Son of man coming in his kingdom" looks like a pathetic attempt at apologetic's. 

 

First of all, leading into verse 16:28 are claims about the crucifixion to come. And it's clear that this bit about the Son of man coming in his kingdom with angels is directed to beyond the crucifixion, a time after being dead for 3 days and resurrected. There's no indication that the context is referenced to BEFORE the crucifixion. When you turn the page to chapter 17 and the transfiguration, the context is still BEFORE the crucifixion, there are NO ANGELS and NO KINGDOM appearing. There's only a reference to the law and prophets by way of moses and elijah. They are presented not in context of a coming kingdom surrounded with angels, but two men appearing and sitting with them on the earth and Peter wants to put up three physical shelters for them. 

 

You are grasping at straws. None of this is fulfilled via the transfiguration scene: 

 

 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

²⁸ “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

 

 

Damn! That's really good . . . [scrolls to see who the hell this is] Josh! You almost have it! I guess where you fall short is where you assume that the son of man coming in his kingdom is some singular cataclysmic event. So when did Jesus begin his kingdom? From our perspective it would be the baptism, perhaps. Or the transfiguration which certain disciples witnessed personally. The crucifixion? Okay. It began earlier than that, though. Jesus came to earth to act as a prince for the people eventually culminating in the destruction of the world - society - and set up God's kingdom in heaven and earth. A new heaven and new earth meaning devoid of Satan and his angels and sin, death, sickness et cetera. 

 

By the way crucifixion means to be fastened to something. For example Prometheus was crucified by being fastened to rock or earth. The ground, basically. Jesus died on the Hebrew torture stake, not the Roman phallic symbol the cross. 

 

Everything I say is what I have learned from others. It could always be wrong. 

[Bedouin]

23 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Everything I say is what I have learned from others. It could always be wrong. 

Soooo, basically, you’ve posted hundreds of words just to ultimately say that you can’t support the veracity of any of the thoughts or ideas you posted? What a Colossal Waste of Your Time! Enjoy the only life we know man. I know I am. Today is Fathers Day and it’s grill time baby!

[alreadyGone]

"low resolution..."  "low resolution..."  "low resolution..."  "low resolution..."  "low resolution..."  "low resolution..."  "low resolution..."  "low resolution..."  "low resolution..."  "low resolution..."  "low resolution..."  "low resolution..."  "low resolution..."  "low resolution..."  "low resolution..."  "low resolution..."  "low resolution..."  "low resolution..."  "low resolution..."  "low resolution..."  "low resolution..."  "low resolution..."  "low resolution..."  "low resolution..."  "low resolution..."  "low resolution..."  "low resol....

[freshstart]

On 6/19/2021 at 11:50 AM, SemmelweisReflex said:

I don't subscribe to the concept of experts, religious, or the educated have any more to say than anyone else could say as well.

  So one doesn't need to be educated to make a statement about anything.  Agreed.

 

On 6/19/2021 at 11:50 AM, SemmelweisReflex said:

Science is hindered by the same incentive as those. Money. Publishing, tenure, funding.

  Science  - and world progress - may be hindered by many things. So what?  That does not invalidate the scientific progress we've made - or science, or scientific experts.

 

 

On 6/19/2021 at 11:50 AM, SemmelweisReflex said:

To fully subscribe to the concept that experts know best obfuscates the very real practice of corruption of power primarily through monetary gain and even more so through the obfuscation it creates in and of itself. 

 

On 6/19/2021 at 11:50 AM, SemmelweisReflex said:

Everything I say is what I have learned from others. It could always be wrong. 

So you've learned things from others, but clearly they must not be "experts" as experts are not to be trusted. 

So what humans (if any) do you trust to be truthful? Only the uneducated, unscientific, non-religious, conspiracy-theory believers of your particular flavor of Christianity? 

[midniterider]

Science makes new products,  new technology, and improves life...then a theist says "praise the lord ". 

 

Reading a Bible has not produced, innovated or improved squat. 

[alreadyGone]

Science revealed the truth that hand-washing and basic personal hygiene helps prevent disease and improves human health and well-being for all.

 

The closest the Bible came to that was teaching to remove yourself from the living area inhabited by others when you defecate.

Then science gave us toilets and municipal water-treatment.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

[Joshpantera]

On 6/19/2021 at 11:50 AM, SemmelweisReflex said:

You can safely assume that when everybody says something is true it isn't true. Don't go swimming after eating, War of the Worlds, aliens are coming, everybody freaked out. Aliens weren't coming. Everybody didn't freak out. There's two myths in one. Don't go trick or treating because people are putting razors and poison in apples and candy. No they aren't. 

 

Now put it all together. When a majority of the world says god exists, it's the group think. Most people say it's true, so by your reasoning that should be the first and foremost RED FLAG waving back and fourth advising you that it isn't true. By your own thinking processes. 

 

Why do you apply that logic to just about everything EXCEPT the majority belief in the existence of god, or a monotheistic majority here in the west?????

 

On 6/19/2021 at 11:50 AM, SemmelweisReflex said:

Everything I say is what I have learned from others. It could always be wrong. 

 

Yes. 

[SemmelweisReflex]

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Now put it all together. When a majority of the world says god exists, it's the group think. Most people say it's true, so by your reasoning that should be the first and foremost RED FLAG waving back and fourth advising you that it isn't true. By your own thinking processes. 

 

It is a red flag. It was the red flag that propelled me on my spiritual journey eventually bringing me here. Born of atheist / irreligious parents with a religious grandmother as caretaker and surrounded by ignorant, hypocritical and superstitious Christians who mistook their position as a moral police of the globe. So, I had no answers. I had to go out and find them. It's like the Marilyn Manson song  I embedded earlier. The god of the people wasn't the one true God. 

 

If everyone saying that God is real changes to everyone saying God isn't real the only way one can find the answer is to go out looking for it yourself. If you go to church you see sociopolitical and financial incentive and if you go to school you see the traditional bias, both of which points in the right direction so long as you don't buy into either one. You see? If you are looking for the things those paths offer then you can take of them or you can step back and look at what they really are. The deception, upon further investigation, leads to the possible truth. That's why I listen to critics like yourself. If they are reasonable. Phase 3. 

 

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Why do you apply that logic to just about everything EXCEPT the majority belief in the existence of god, or a monotheistic majority here in the west?????

 

You keep reading a quasi political ideological fixation  into my position. The majority are very often wrong. By wrong I mean they have an ulterior motive. Most people who say they believe don't really believe, they just cling to archaic tradition. Whether the Bible or vaccines. So I do apply this to the majority's belief in the existence of gods. My own beliefs as well as the majority, by the way, and not just the west. Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Scientology, Shintoism, and Taoism. I've looked at them all. 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

15 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

It is a red flag. It was the red flag that propelled me on my spiritual journey eventually bringing me here. Born of atheist / irreligious parents with a religious grandmother as caretaker and surrounded by ignorant, hypocritical and superstitious Christians who mistook their position as a moral police of the globe. So, I had no answers. I had to go out and find them. It's like the Marilyn Manson song  I embedded earlier. The god of the people wasn't the one true God. 

 

If everyone saying that God is real changes to everyone saying God isn't real the only way one can find the answer is to go out looking for it yourself. If you go to church you see sociopolitical and financial incentive and if you go to school you see the traditional bias, both of which points in the right direction so long as you don't buy into either one. You see? If you are looking for the things those paths offer then you can take of them or you can step back and look at what they really are. The deception, upon further investigation, leads to the possible truth. That's why I listen to critics like yourself. If they are reasonable. Phase 3. 

 

 

You keep reading a quasi political ideological fixation  into my position. The majority are very often wrong. By wrong I mean they have an ulterior motive. Most people who say they believe don't really believe, they just cling to archaic tradition. Whether the Bible or vaccines. So I do apply this to the majority's belief in the existence of gods. My own beliefs as well as the majority, by the way, and not just the west. Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Scientology, Shintoism, and Taoism. I've looked at them all. 

 

 

 

All belief systems that rely upon a foundation of faith (including SR's own beliefs) exist on a level playing field, where none can demonstrate superiority over another.

 

Any believer's self-recommendation (including SR's own) is insufficient to change what is happening on the playing field.

 

That is because any believer can make the same claims and assertions.

 

So, there is still nothing to choose between any of these belief systems.

 

Beyond self-recommendation, could SR please present something that breaks the deadlock between his and any other faith-based belief?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

On 6/28/2021 at 3:55 AM, walterpthefirst said:

On 6/27/2021 at 12:08 PM, SemmelweisReflex said:

My own beliefs as well as the majority, by the way, and not just the west. Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Scientology, Shintoism, and Taoism. I've looked at them all. 

 

 

 

All belief systems that rely upon a foundation of faith (including SR's own beliefs) exist on a level playing field, where none can demonstrate superiority over another.

 

Any believer's self-recommendation (including SR's own) is insufficient to change what is happening on the playing field.

 

That is because any believer can make the same claims and assertions.

 

So, there is still nothing to choose between any of these belief systems.

 

Beyond self-recommendation, could SR please present something that breaks the deadlock between his and any other faith-based belief?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

So this is something new we bring to the table. SR claims to have looked at all these possible beliefs, but he hasn't shown any familiarity with what you're presenting

 him with. He doesn't show any indication of understanding the issue of presupposition. These beliefs, including his own, which rest on faith claims, do so based on presupposing that something is true without first having established it as true. Their faith resting on a presupposition. 

 

Jew=presupposition.

Hindu=presuppostion. 

Christian=presupposition.

Muslim=presupposition. 

 

The jew's presupposition IS the christian's presupposition. It's an inherited presupposition. The jewish and christian presupposition IS the Islamic presuppostion. And the Mormon and Jehovah's Witness presupposition. It's a presupposition that has become a copy, of a copy, of copy. And what's more, is that rather than becoming truer as people copy it, it becomes more and more convoluted and obviously false as it's recopied. 

 

Faith in something that wasn't ever true to begin with. 

 

Faith in a lie. 

 

Belief in that which is obviously false. 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

It seems this website is running out of sream, and i believe the moderators need to give some serious thoght as to the effect these senseless "discussions" that quickly turn disrespectful, are having on helping people leave religion.  Too much of the "energy" here is negative, and i belive drives people away who are serious about moving on in life in a positive way.  There are too many "ego" battles going on.  If you dont get some positive energy going, i predict this site will die.

[Joshpantera]

On 6/19/2021 at 11:50 AM, SemmelweisReflex said:

Damn! That's really good . . . [scrolls to see who the hell this is] Josh! You almost have it! I guess where you fall short is where you assume that the son of man coming in his kingdom is some singular cataclysmic event. So when did Jesus begin his kingdom? From our perspective it would be the baptism, perhaps. Or the transfiguration which certain disciples witnessed personally. The crucifixion? Okay. It began earlier than that, though. Jesus came to earth to act as a prince for the people eventually culminating in the destruction of the world - society - and set up God's kingdom in heaven and earth. A new heaven and new earth meaning devoid of Satan and his angels and sin, death, sickness et cetera. 

 

By the way crucifixion means to be fastened to something. For example Prometheus was crucified by being fastened to rock or earth. The ground, basically. Jesus died on the Hebrew torture stake, not the Roman phallic symbol the cross. 

 

Everything I say is what I have learned from others. It could always be wrong. 

 

That doesn't seem to gel with the story at all. Jesus coming in his kingdom is laid out pretty straight forward. Certainly in Revelation.

 

We're looking at cruci-fiction, resurrection (which he's telling the disciples), then ascension. And that's just to get up to the kingdom in question. The kingdom comes to earth via the "New Jerusalem" part of the tale. After the second coming events described. I realize that people just make shit up as they go along and interpret the bible any lose way they fancy. But there's still a written story line woven together and what you're reaching for here is a long, long, reach against the existing patchwork of stories. 

 

First coming (references to a kingdom later to come) - cruci-fiction, ascension (more talk of later to come) - Second coming (talk of the kingdom to come finally arriving)

 

I will agree with you on your last point, everything you're saying does seem to have been learned from others, others who most certainly look to be wrong about a great many things. At least you're open to the possibility of being wrong via following along what these "others" have told you. 

[walterpthefirst]

21 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

So this is something new we bring to the table. SR claims to have looked at all these possible beliefs, but he hasn't shown any familiarity with what you're presenting

 him with. He doesn't show any indication of understanding the issue of presupposition. These beliefs, including his own, which rest on faith claims, do so based on presupposing that something is true without first having established it as true. Their faith resting on a presupposition. 

 

Jew=presupposition.

Hindu=presuppostion. 

Christian=presupposition.

Muslim=presupposition. 

 

The jew's presupposition IS the christian's presupposition. It's an inherited presupposition. The jewish and christian presupposition IS the Islamic presuppostion. And the Mormon and Jehovah's Witness presupposition. It's a presupposition that has become a copy, of a copy, of copy. And what's more, is that rather than becoming truer as people copy it, it becomes more and more convoluted and obviously false as it's recopied. 

 

Faith in something that wasn't ever true to begin with. 

 

Faith in a lie. 

 

Belief in that which is obviously false. 

 

 

Josh,

 

I don't disagree with what you say, but my position on what SR has claimed in this thread isn't the same as yours.  

 

I'm not saying that what he believes is obviously false, that it was never true to begin with nor that he doesn't understand the problems associated with presuppositions.

 

Rather, I'm asking that out of a multitude of beliefs that all rely upon faith, can he present anything other than self-recommendation to support his own?

 

There's no need for me to do or say any more than that.

 

The onus is upon SR to take it from there.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Rather, I'm asking that out of a multitude of beliefs that all rely upon faith, can he present anything other than self-recommendation to support his own?

 

There's no need for me to do or say any more than that.

 

The onus is upon SR to take it from there.

 

Judging by many of his other posts, I could see him laying back and agreeing that self-recommendation to support his own view is all that he has. But then continuing on anyways oblivious to what that means. 

 

I would be great if he'd just answer your question and not evade it. 

[walterpthefirst]

23 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Judging by many of his other posts, I could see him laying back and agreeing that self-recommendation to support his own view is all that he has. But then continuing on anyways oblivious to what that means. 

 

I would be great if he'd just answer your question and not evade it. 

 

If he did lay back as you suggest Josh, how does that answer anything or get us any nearer the truth?

 

Other people with their own faith-based belief systems can and do self-recommend, just as SR does.

 

So, we're back to a level playing field again.

 

But now it's personal preference on the part of the believer that's levelling the field.

 

I think he knows this - which could be why he has studiously avoided answering the question.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.