The Late Great Urantia Revelation

[meshak]

Freelight,

Do you know why I am not with the organization? It is because they make Jesus' simple teachings complicated and pervert His noble teachings.

It seems that you are doing the same thing.

I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt because of your civil manner. I guess it was only the surface I have seen.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

In the modern world of Freelight and Caino, quickly, goes hand in hand with 100,000 years.

It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, these two get smarter by the minute.

These two give new meaning to the height of conceit instilled in all gullible fools.


It's beginning to get boring.


Know this O gullible ones......

The kingdom of heaven has come near you.

Shakin' the dust.

 

[freelight]

In the modern world of Freelight and Caino, quickly, goes hand in hand with 100,000 years.

It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, these two get smarter by the minute.

These two give new meaning to the height of conceit instilled in all gullible fools.


It's beginning to get boring.


Know this O gullible ones......

The kingdom of heaven has come near you.

Shakin' the dust.

:wave:




pj

 

[Caino]

In the modern world of Freelight and Caino, quickly, goes hand in hand with 100,000 years.

It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, these two get smarter by the minute.

These two give new meaning to the height of conceit instilled in all gullible fools.


It's beginning to get boring.


Know this O gullible ones......

The kingdom of heaven has come near you.

Shakin' the dust.

Don't let the thread dour hit you in the country bumpkin. :wave:

 

[freelight]

Love and war............

Love and war............

Freelight,

Do you know why I am not with the organization? It is because they make Jesus' simple teachings complicated and pervert His noble teachings.

It seems that you are doing the same

You're looking at this one-dimensionally, and bypassing the 'points' I made within the total context of considering the teaching of Jesus and how those are to be applied in this current 21st century with our present world-conditions. To evaluate a subject, we must consider all points of view, in every situational-context. I think this is a rational, logical approach to the subject.

I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt because of your civil manner. I guess it was only the surface I have seen.

Civil manners, respect, decency, being kind and courteous is a virtue unto itself, so ought to be practiced because of its own principle, which accords with the love-ethic of Jesus as well. As far as 'surface' issues go, you need to look deeper into the greater context on this subject, which can be complex, and involves more than just some general or vague concept of "loving your enemies".

Jesus in the papers does address this in his Urmia address, which I am going over currently, and shall give a commentary on soon I usually avoid 'politics' and all the hoopla involved in that, but suppose 'religious-politics' are not so different. This like other subjects deserves an open-minded approach, since there are 'situational' aspects to consider in the application of principles.



pj

 

[Sandycane]

Twisting YOUR Words...

Twisting YOUR Words...

Hi Sandy,

It appears you are 'posing' here under another 'guise' as it were, with an ulterior motive perhaps? Lets revisit my former post to you here and then do some corrections below as you're twisting my words to suit your own preconceptions, rather stealthily I might add -





No, why would something be wrong with paraphrasing anything? Multiple bible versions are a 'paraphrase' of passages. Did you not read that the revelators state they are using the gospel accounts in the NT and other planetary sources that are available to compile a more complete portrayal of the life and teachings of Jesus?

Then you deliberately 'paraphrase' my former commentary below with your own 'interjections' -

The bold is what you placed into my commentary, to make it seem I was saying what you've 'implanted' into the text.



So we see how you've interpolated and superimposed a commentary I wrote to misrepresent me. There you go folks.




Not at all when the facts and statements of the revelators are taken into account, plainly stated. You're free to believe as you wish after the facts are considered, although not sure what an 'atheist' would care on a particular level concerning the UB or the Bible for that matter, except he/she has a penchant to dismiss the papers on some preconceived grounds.



pj

Congratulations, it's about dam time you noticed my embellishment of your posted reply... sheesh, I had to post it twice even.
And, by the title you gave your reply to me, "Twisting my words," it appears you got my meaning:
When you take an original document, or book, and "embellish," or add to it, you are "twisting the words" and most certainly changing the meaning - as I did with your reply (which I thought was pretty funny)
The UB is twisting the words of the bible, trying to piggy-back on the historical authenticity and authority of the bible, and claiming the UB to be a god-sanctioned sequel to the bible. It is not. It is pure fiction.

Total deception.

 

[Sandycane]

Freelight,

Are you here to discredit Jesus?

I thought you trust Jesus as pure and righteous Savior.

Freelight is a believer of the UB... not the same thing at all.

 

[freelight]

what is your ulterior motive here?

what is your ulterior motive here?

Congratulations, it's about dam time you noticed my embellishment of your posted reply... sheesh, I had to post it twice even.
And, by the title you gave your reply to me, "Twisting my words," it appears you got my meaning:
When you take an original document, or book, and "embellish," or add to it, you are "twisting the words" and most certainly changing the meaning - as I did with your reply (which I thought was pretty funny)
The UB is twisting the words of the bible, trying to piggy-back on the historical authenticity and authority of the bible, and claiming the UB to be a god-sanctioned sequel to the bible. It is not. It is pure fiction.

Total deception.

Already addressed this in my previous post, since the revelators are using the gospel accounts and other sources to compile, articulate a more correct, comprehensive account of the life of Jesus. Not sure how much clearer we can make that point.

Whats peculiar is your claim from a religious perspective as if to defend or apologize for the 'Bible' in this case, being an 'atheist'. I think the piggy-backer here is the claimer in this case....who is the one 'squealing' over this in the first place :crackup:

Furthermore, if you claim it is fiction, would you not also claim that the Biblical accounts (or gospels) are more or less 'fiction' as well, or do you as an 'atheist' somehow sanction them as being 'authentic' historical records with no embellishments at all? Major disconnect here, unless you can justify your claim.

Lastly,....your pompous claim of such being a 'total deception' seems peculiar again for an self-claimed atheist, who would give that 'label' also the the bible and most other religious works. You're a real marvel so far

Could you answer the questions above?



pj

 

[Sandycane]

Ok, I cannot argue with this kind of worldly mind set. You apparent don't know Jesus much.

You are not willing to understand what Jesus is saying in His "love your enemy". It is self-explanatory.

Isn't people who are attacking you is your enemy?

Did Jesus and His followers kill anyone for self defense?

You need to know that what Jesus and His followers did in the NT is the example for His followers to imitate.

This is very basic principle of Christianity.

This is insane. So, if some Roman came knocking at your door and carted you off to be crucified, you're saying you would not object?
If someone attacked your child, you would not defend?

You didn't ask me, but I'll tell you anyway; I wish there were no such thing as "war." I wish there were no soldiers. I wish "patriotism" would disappear and everyone on the entire planet would consider themselves citizens of Earth.

 

[freelight]

Freelight is a believer of the UB... not the same thing at all.

Actually I'm a student of truth, religious philosophy, metaphysics and comparative religions, a 'universalist' at heart, a theosophist in scope, and a gnostic as far as 'experiential' things go, since the individual experience of 'God' is the essential key here, as Jesus himself teaches, since the kingdom of heaven is realized within and amongst us.....spiritually. The central theme of Jesus gospel is the kingdom of heaven, founded on the principle truth of the Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of men...this being the emphasis of the papers which is what the thread is about.

So, the assumption that I'm a UB believer exclusively is false, you having apparently little knowledge of my personal theology or extensive studies and interests in the field of 'religion' in general, and its various particulars.



pj

 

[meshak]

[

This is insane. So, if some Roman came knocking at your door and carted you off to be crucified, you're saying you would not object?
If someone attacked your child, you would not defend?

You didn't ask me, but I'll tell you anyway; I wish there were no such thing as "war." I wish there were no soldiers. I wish "patriotism" would disappear and everyone on the entire planet would consider themselves citizens of Earth.

So this is your reason not to obey Jesus' commands? I guess your Lord is not Jesus.

I don't twist Jesus' word to suit worldly mentality and practice. The violence is of the world. Jesus' followers are not of the world. They don't kill anyone even for self defense.

I am Jesus' follower, BTW.

 

[meshak]

You're looking at this one-dimensionally, and bypassing the 'points' I made within the total context of considering the teaching of Jesus and how those are to be applied in this current 21st century with our present world-conditions. To evaluate a subject, we must consider all points of view, in every situational-context. I think this is a rational, logical approach to the subject.



Civil manners, respect, decency, being kind and courteous is a virtue unto itself, so ought to be practiced because of its own principle, which accords with the love-ethic of Jesus as well. As far as 'surface' issues go, you need to look deeper into the greater context on this subject, which can be complex, and involves more than just some general or vague concept of "loving your enemies".

Jesus in the papers does address this in his Urmia address, which I am going over currently, and shall give a commentary on soon I usually avoid 'politics' and all the hoopla involved in that, but suppose 'religious-politics' are not so different. This like other subjects deserves an open-minded approach, since there are 'situational' aspects to consider in the application of principles.



pj

I am Jesus' follower, not philosopher.

Jesus is the greatest teacher of love and peace. That's why I am His follower.

You cannot convince me otherwise.

good day.

 

[Sandycane]

Already addressed this in my previous post, since the revelators are using the gospel accounts and other sources to compile, articulate a more correct, comprehensive account of the life of Jesus. Not sure how much clearer we can make that point.

Whats peculiar is your claim from a religious perspective as if to defend or apologize for the 'Bible' in this case, being an 'atheist'. I think the piggy-backer here is the claimer in this case....who is the one 'squealing' over this in the first place :crackup:

Furthermore, if you claim it is fiction, would you not also claim that the Biblical accounts (or gospels) are more or less 'fiction' as well, or do you as an 'atheist' somehow sanction them as being 'authentic' historical records with no embellishments at all? Major disconnect here, unless you can justify your claim.

Lastly,....your pompous claim of such being a 'total deception' seems peculiar again for an self-claimed atheist, who would give that 'label' also the the bible and most other religious works. You're a real marvel so far

Could you answer the questions above?



pj

Since this thread is all about the UB, that's what I'm trying to focus on. Just because I feel that the UB is "total deception" doesn't mean I'm defending the bible as total fact.
You are my target at the moment.

Even if the bible is total fiction, there are passages in the bible that state it is complete, the word of god, and not to be added to.
By your admitting, "using the gospel accounts and other sources to compile, articulate a more correct, comprehensive account of the life of Jesus," by this admission alone, the UB can not be inspired by the same god who wrote the bible... can it?
Did god say one day after he finished the bible account, Oh dam, I forgot to say something...think I need to embellish a bit?"

Another thing, when arguing with a Christian over something Jesus said, you need to admit that your Jesus of the UB is not the same Jesus of the bible.

 

[Sandycane]

Actually I'm a student of truth, religious philosophy, metaphysics and comparative religions, a 'universalist' at heart, a theosophist in scope, and a gnostic as far as 'experiential' things go, since the individual experience of 'God' is the essential key here, as Jesus himself teaches, since the kingdom of heaven is realized within and amongst us.....spiritually. The central theme of Jesus gospel is the kingdom of heaven, founded on the principle truth of the Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of men...this being the emphasis of the papers which is what the thread is about.

So, the assumption that I'm a UB believer exclusively is false, you having apparently little knowledge of my personal theology or extensive studies and interests in the field of 'religion' in general, and its various particulars.



pj

Can you say you are a born-again Christian who believes the bible is the inspired word of god?

 

[freelight]

Versions.................

Versions.................

Since this thread is all about the UB, that's what I'm trying to focus on. Just because I feel that the UB is "total deception" doesn't mean I'm defending the bible as total fact.
You are my target at the moment.

But your claim of 'fiction' is based on a comparative of the bible somehow not being fiction, since that's the criteria your providing in the context of the 'claim'.

Even if the bible is total fiction, there are passages in the bible that state it is complete, the word of god, and not to be added to.

I don't agree, since there is nowhere really that says the Bible as a whole is the 'inerrant, perfect, infallible word of God', a 'slogan' touted by some believers to bolster their appraisal of the Bible as a literal whole, a kind of 'bibliolatry'.

Also note that the passage in Revelation of not adding anything to the text is speaking ONLY or most directly to the book of revelation itself, so does not apply to the whole canon of scripture necessarily.

Furthermore the UB teaches that the scriptures were more or less inspired, but have also been tampered and modified by the imperfections and 'doctoring' of men to their own ends (enter redactions, interpolations, ommissions, literary devices, outright fictionalizing in some passages, etc.)

By your admitting, "using the gospel accounts and other sources to compile, articulate a more correct, comprehensive account of the life of Jesus," by this admission alone, the UB can not be inspired by the same god who wrote the bible... can it?

I don't see why it cannot be, based on the points previously made.

Did god say one day after he finished the bible account, Oh dam, I forgot to say something...think I need to embellish a bit?"

Remember that the Bible is a collection of books written by fallible, mortal finite men, some with their own agendas....so that a belief that 'God' somehow is writing all these books with his own hand is somewhat fantastic on the face of it. The papers and other liberal religionists do admit the bible is more or less inspired, some books and authors more than others. The Bible is a collection of writings from different authors of different intellectual capacities and spiritual aptitudes, besides other modifiers.

Another thing, when arguing with a Christian over something Jesus said, you need to admit that your Jesus of the UB is not the same Jesus of the bible.

Not necessarily, unless you can provide some solid 'criteria' in which to prove the difference Why would an enhanced, paraphrased, expanded, more comprehensive/corrected version of previous documents necessarily be portraying a 'different' Jesus?



pj

 

[meshak]

[/B]

Since this thread is all about the UB, that's what I'm trying to focus on.

Caino and freelight are saying it is Jesus' word.

that's why I was interested in but I am finding out it is not Jesus' teachings.

Jesus did not teach trinity, Jesus did not advocate killing your enemy.

 

[Sandycane]

So this is your reason not to obey Jesus' commands? I guess your Lord is not Jesus.

I don't twist Jesus' word to suit worldly mentality and practice. The violence is of the world. Jesus' followers are not of the world. They don't kill anyone even for self defense.

I am Jesus' follower, BTW.

Just so I understand... you would not defend a child who was being attacked? And If someone said they were going to kill you, you would not try to save yourself, even if it meant killing them?

 

[meshak]

[/B]

Caino and freelight are saying it is Jesus' word.

that's why I was interested in but I am finding out it is not Jesus' teachings.

Jesus did not teach trinity, Jesus did not advocate killing your enemy.

In fact, their Jesus is the same as main-streamer's' Jesus which I have been protesting against.

 

[meshak]

I just informed about your Jesus to mainstreamers. Here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103814

 

[Sandycane]

[/B]

Caino and freelight are saying it is Jesus' word.

that's why I was interested in but I am finding out it is not Jesus' teachings.

Jesus did not teach trinity, Jesus did not advocate killing your enemy.

You see? This is my objection to the UB and why I call it total deception...
Innocent Christians who get sucked into discussions with readers of the UB are being led astray from what they believe to be the inspired word of god in the bible into arguments about "What Jesus said" when what "Jesus" says in the UB is not at all connected to what "Jesus" says in the bible - except for that UB readers claim it to be so.

I see the UB as a cleverly devised distraction for Christians who don't know any better... and that is what is so disturbing about it to me.