The Late Great Urantia Revelation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lon

Well-known member
The Urantia Papers were sent by God
:nono: They were sent by Bill Sadler. The BoM was sent by Joseph Smith.

they teach repentance and accepting forgiveness
:nono: No they do not! They teach that you are 'evolving' and that what you need now may be completely different from what you need in the future. The UB teaches relative truth, therefore, there can be no absolute truth that it can give. Here is what I really think it is for you: You are listening to Bill Sadler and thinking "Hey, this guy thinks like me." Well, that's great if you need nothing and need do nothing different than you already do and are. It requires nothing of you but to keep all that you already had before ever reading the thing.

...teaching repentance and forgiveness from God
Not as far as I've read, it doesn't. It is very much against the New Testament and insists on Buddhism philosophy within yourself.

then taking up ones responsibility as a Son of God.
Bingo. Read Jonathan Livingston Seagull? Sure you have. This is all that 'higher consciousness' Buddhism philosophy.
Jesus was God very God, TOTALLY different than you, Eastern Mysticism, and Mormonism portray.

You seem to have a template that you apply to everyone who doesn't see things your way.
Yes, but neither here nor there for your concern because even you admit to being divergent from it. IOW, it is your template too, you are just trying to conveniently sweep it under the rug when it doesn't serve you. You've already distanced yourself from Christianity. Trying to 're-attach' is a strange desire but it is what you UBer's here on TOL long for. You can't be away from us. "If I didn't have bad attention, I'd have no attention at all." True! :up: Neither of you could stand to be away from here. You prefer dysfunctional to no attention. It is warped unless you really long for something we have. I hope that's true. Christianity is right, the UB is wrong. That's all you will get from us, but it is love. Kids want to be disciplined, I think your and FL's addiction to this site reveals that. Think about that: You two actually want to be here and hearing what we believe. Therefore, it is evident, you need us, not the other way around. Think long and hard about that.

The UB was sent to straighten out the errors accumulated during the past dispensation as well as reveal much more about God and his creation.
:plain: Supposedly, so was the BoM :noway: Yeah, you have a deep need to be with people because your cults ostracize you from us. You choose the weird, but then can't help but want our company again. It is part of human nature. I want nothing to do with the UB websites. I go there and here for only two reasons: 1) To correct error, and help a few who are trying to do the same thing and 2) To point you both back to truth and the Savior.
Your same argument was used by liked minded people to reject Jesus.
1) you don't 'value' Jesus like I do. He is God.
2) You aren't perfect as He is, no comparison
3) The UB claims a) that it may need to be fixed in the future :plain: and you claim b) that it isn't perfect.
no comparison

Though you claim neither is the Bible, there is a clear demarcation between what you believe and I believe simply because yours has no special claim to authority. You :loser:'ed
Truth is called blasphemy to those who are in error no matter how sweet one wants to state it. Maybe you are overly sensitive because your foundation is built on a compromise?
:chuckle: I know you are convinced of this, but try not to project. The only reason I can fathom you'd say this is to question your own faith in your foundation. I really do want you to see that 1) You need the Lord Jesus Christ as portrayed in the NT and 2) You need to leave the UB behind as I show you in thread that it is unworthy of your time and devotion.
 

TulipBee

BANNED
Banned
The Urantia Papers were sent by God, they teach repentance and accepting forgiveness from God then taking up ones responsibility as a Son of God. You seem to have a template that you apply to everyone who doesn't see things your way. The UB was sent to straighten out the errors accumulated during the past dispensation as well as reveal much more about God and his creation.
Yeah right. God wrote the urantia saying the bible is in error.
God wrote the bible saying the urantia is in error.
Lets vote
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Reconsider ........................

Reconsider ........................

Are you ignorant or a liar? Caino has often come against the gospel of Jesus Christ and especially against His work on the Cross. You too, skate around those terms. John 6 is nowhere compatible with your Urantia-propositions. As a reminder, they aren't given as the words of God either. They scriptures are.
"False charge" is the false charge here.


It still stands that the UB does agree with John 3:16, and it does so in an even more definitive way, since those who reject the offer of eternal life thru Jesus, actually suffer death, they 'perish' (they are distintegrated, they actually DIE, cease to exist as a living conscious personality). Therefore the UB holds to the 'conditional immortality' view on soul destiny. It rejects the traditional hell-fire concept of ECT (eternal conscious torment) which I challenge here and elsewhere. If you do not accept the eternal life offered by God thru his Son (choosing eternal survival),...you will 'perish'. The options for soul destiny are eternal survival(life) or death.

How convenient (like ALL of your quote mines). :plain:
:plain: :plain: :plain:

Just a matter of fact that many books/letters in the NT are pseudographical. The contention between Peter and Paul in Galatia was an indication of differences the original apostles had with Paul, then Paul goes further to proclaim "his own gospel" as a main player in pioneering 'Gentile Christianity' to the coming generations. One can 'dispensationalize' as they wish,...yet the differences between 'gospels' stand however one chooses to explain them.


MAD agrees with you. They aren't that many of them. I'm not disparaging them, but they would not support you here. I'll let them speak to this. For your and my conversation: :nono:

We've debated Paul in other threads, and he remains a controversial figure on many levels, mostly his anti-law views and issues of grace/works, dispensations, allegorical/metaphorical language, nature of resurrection issues, etc. His theology incorporates elements of Judaism, Greek philosophy, mystery religions, Gnosticism, synthesizing them. He had his own 'personal revelations'. Its also fair to say that Paul never thought his 'letters' were to be treated as the infallible 'word of God'(like books from the OT), since he openly shares his own opinions in them too, not to mention hes just a man like any other with imperfections.

We too can receive 'revelation' by the Spirit of God who indwells us, needing no intermediary in that respect. It just so happens that prophets, apostles, avatars, anointed ones, revealers, teachers are sent to us by divine providence.

You either build off the foundation of the Lord Jesus Christ, or you stumble from Him.

That's your NT opinion. If you read the papers, you'll see that Jesus is our Creator-Son, Savior, Sovereign Lord and Planetary Prince,...since he is our Creator, he is in this sense our 'universe-father'('God'), but he is not The Universal Father of all, the First Source and Center, from which all Creator-Sons spring. There is a divine hierarchy. The UB goes into the 'hierarchy' in depth.

Being a Mormon, you never understood Who He was.

One could argue that 'doctrinally', but only on that level. As to your assumption that you know my relationship with 'God', well that would be the height of presumption on your part, based on limited perception and distortion from what data-pool you happen to be fishing from at any moment in time. We can debate intellectual concepts of 'Christology' til the cows come home, this occupied centuries of church councils, splitting hairs over 'doctrine'. I'm quite familiar with the development of Christology within Christianity, and on an intellectual level most of it sits, but how such actually benefits one 'spiritually' is another story or application.

The same Unitarian/Trinitarian viewpoints exist within sects of Christendom today, so these intellectual concepts and philosophical perspectives still continue, which shows the 'relative' nature of such. You couldn't prove a particular view is 'absolute' (beyond assumption), since only Deity itself is 'absolute' in the truest sense, as an independent, unchanging reality. - all else is relative, subject to translation/interpretation.

As a Urantia, you are stumbling further. For you, He IS the stone of stumbling you outright reject. He isn't just a good guru. He claimed to be God very God- YOUR God.

The UB is just one book among many other interesting religious works out there, and more will be forthcoming since there is progressive revelation. I'm not a 'urantia' (whatever that is). If this world is known as 'Urantia' then we are all 'urantians', in that assigned context. Depends on one's choice of nomenclature.

We've already covered that Jesus as our 'Creator-Son' is 'God' to us,...but he is not The Universal Father. Creator-Sons are divine Sons who create universes in the evolving worlds of space-time, they originate out from The Universal Father who is the First Source and Center of all. To us, Jesus is our 'universe-father' as our Creator, of course. So in this sense Jesus is 'God', of course, as a Creator-Son, he


Bad for you: Peter and the other apostles accepted him.

I don't believe it fully,....Paul barely got out of Jerusalem alive most of the time, so he had to go out and preach 'his gospel' to Gentile audiences (remember Peter was the apostle originally preaching the gospel to gentiles). Peter and Paul had a major skirmish in Galatia, and for the most part Paul's anti-law gospel separated him from the original apostles of Jesus and the Jerusalem Community. Some Jewish followers of Jesus such as the Ebionites considered Paul an 'anti-christ' of sorts, since his gospel was so different, more pagan-gnostic in nature. I'm quite liberal on Paul, recognizing a complexity about him and his theology on different levels, and how it might differ from the pillars of the community at Jerusalem, led by James the Just, the Lord's brother. - remember they kept to much of the fundamental of Judaism, but for some innovations taught by Jesus. The UB holds to the seminal gospel of the kingdom proclaimed by Jesus, based on the Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of man, minus many of the Jewish customs and rituals. Part 4 in the UB fully covers this, in fact every year of Jesus life is chronicled.

See: The Paul Problem

This is a throw-over Mormon ploy. Get rid of it.

No its not, there you go again assuming things again. LDS theology is very different from the UB, we've been thru that here, with proper article resources and even videos.


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



You are TRYING to love yourself the way you are.

I value who I am as a child of God. God is love. You're super-imposing some presumed concept or belief about 'original sin' and must buy the whole blood-sacrifice redemption remedy that comes as a 'salvation-assurance' with it. Some don't buy the necessity of a 'blood-atonement' beyond it being 'conceptual' or 'theoritical', since 'repentance' and 'inner transformation' of mind/spirit is what is essential. If a religious ritual or observance can assist in 'repentance' and 'living the truth', then so be it.


I hate sin inside of me. You and God should hate sin inside of me too!
You are speaking against the very nature of God to suggest He should love sin.

This is your own your belief about 'sin' and the theology loaded into it. You're bringing these terms up, not me. I don't get where on earth you see me suggesting God should love sin. :idunno: This is baffling (again, your own presuppositions based on your preconceived theology).

Your concept of Him, is nowhere the same as mine, either.

That's your perception, but a thorough reading of the first 5 papers, essential reading for anyone interested in the fundamental theology about God's being and nature, may perhaps change your mind. Index here. The primary nature of 'God' in judeo-chrsitian theology is essentially the same as revealed in the UB, but the latter expands on God and the universe as a more expansive cosmsology, introducing some new terms and meanings, but the eternal values of religious ethic, morals and principles remain the same. Note the 'nature' of God is essentially the same as per classical theology. Side issues like whether this 'God' demands a blood-sacrifice to make an 'atonement' is another subject, which doesn't really affect the value of Jesus mission, apart from a religious belief about it. The value of Jesus bestowal of himself on the planet holds its significance as 'revealing' God to us, even more so as incarnating among us.


The UB is repackaged Buddhism, Hinduism, and other Eastern Mysticism. Ba'Hai is hardly different from the UB in that respect.

This again is your perception, however distorted that might be. The papers give descriptions of the world religions and their evolution, in relation to the 'epochal revelations' revealed in the papers. The papers approach religion universally and charts the human evolution of such religious teachings. Remember,....dispensational revelations came as 'epochal revelations' according to the papers.

See Paper 92 - 103 for the history of different religious traditions and their contributions to the planet.

Also a synopsis in Part 4 is given on the world religions, describing the religion of Jesus at the last paragraph here.

I gather before jumping to pre-conclusions and assumptions you learn a bit more before making statements, or just admit these are your opinions, or what 'seems' to be. Further research and discovery may cause you to change your mind.
 
Last edited:

journey

New member
Some people will believe almost anything, regardless of how silly it is. This is certainly true for the urantia UFO cult and its materials.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
stop contesting books, and consider concepts and values.......

stop contesting books, and consider concepts and values.......

Yeah right. God wrote the urantia saying the bible is in error.
God wrote the bible saying the urantia is in error.
Lets vote

A vote from the resident 'theology club' here wouldn't surprise anyone, as far as conclusions go. Points of view are subject to change. Again, this is more than a contest of religious books, but more a matter of terms, meanings, values, concepts, principles etc....as they relate to man's experience of reality. - this covers the 3 primary areas of religion, science and philosophy. Just like the 3 values of truth, goodness and beauty are also elaborated in the papers. I usually approach my engagements within the context of 'creative dialogue',...expanding consciousness, exploring new dimensions and possibilities.

The simple assumption above by TB is just that...a 'black n white' world enclosed by one's narrow concept of 'God'....the ole "putting God in a box" routine. 'God' can be claimed as being the author of several books, just cherry-pick those that fit your palate or religious upbringing. I'd remind those engaged here again, the papers offer their own cosmogony in relation to a larger expanded revelation of Deity, the cosmos and the ministry of Jesus. These subjects are 'seminal' and directly related to what developed as 'Christianity' in its various offshoots. Such an evolution of religious thought and philosophy is pertinent to 'religion'.

journey wrote:

Some people will believe almost anything, regardless of how silly it is. This is certainly true for the urantia UFO cult and its materials.

You just keep spouting the same thing basically over and over and over and over. Go here, and 'review'. Since you refuse to read the book you criticize, you cant really critique it, but need some 'target' to attack, to bolster your own religious belief-system, which being the only true one, must naturally see all other viewpoints as adversarial or "of the devil". So goes such a mentality.
 

Lon

Well-known member
It still stands that the UB does agree with John 3:16, and it does so in an even more definitive way, since those who reject the offer of eternal life thru Jesus, actually suffer death, they 'perish' (they are distintegrated, they actually DIE, cease to exist as a living conscious personality). Therefore the UB holds to the 'conditional immortality' view on soul destiny. It rejects the traditional hell-fire concept of ECT (eternal conscious torment) which I challenge here and elsewhere. If you do not accept the eternal life offered by God thru his Son (choosing eternal survival),...you will 'perish'. The options for soul destiny are eternal survival(life) or death.
:nono: Absolutely not. This is your prior poor Mormon understanding rearing its ugly head. You know you reject the Christian message of salvation completely. You know it and yet make as if to lie about it. Mormons ever have done so. It is a cognitive dissonance at best which is still lying. Maybe Mormons truly don't understand they are lying to us, because they lie to themselves, but they KNOW there is a difference that isn't agreeable at all. They and you KNOW this. :idunno: Looks like dishonesty to me, PJ
Just a matter of fact that many books/letters in the NT are pseudographical.
:nono: It is not even contested but by the ignorant. You fail to recognize this IS my history degree and are foolish to try to assert. It is ignorant and nothing more (don't go looking for equally ignorant links, not interested, have seen a good many of those inane works. Something they nearly all have in common? Bias. Confirmation bias - don't send them my way).


The contention between Peter and Paul in Galatia was an indication of differences the original apostles had with Paul, then Paul goes further to proclaim "his own gospel" as a main player in pioneering 'Gentile Christianity' to the coming generations. One can 'dispensationalize' as they wish,...yet the differences between 'gospels' stand however one chooses to explain them.
Not as far as most of Christianity is concerned. Realize nearly every one of your held beliefs are those of the minority and fringe. You really need to change your dialogue to accurate reflect who you are and what you believe: "A few of us think against the majority of academics and laymen Christians...." This is the reality and actual, even if you were a Mormon at 1% of the population, which you are not.
I realize you have to 'fluff' your statistics. Such exaggeration is, AGAIN, lying behavior, whether cognitively dissonant or of more dubious purposeful intent. Look to thyself:

We've debated Paul in other threads, and he remains a controversial figure on many levels, mostly his anti-law views and issues of grace/works, dispensations, allegorical/metaphorical language, nature of resurrection issues, etc. His theology incorporates elements of Judaism, Greek philosophy, mystery religions, Gnosticism, synthesizing them. He had his own 'personal revelations'. Its also fair to say that Paul never thought his 'letters' were to be treated as the infallible 'word of God'(like books from the OT), since he openly shares his own opinions in them too, not to mention hes just a man like any other with imperfections
.
Case in point. :nuke:
We too can receive 'revelation' by the Spirit of God who indwells us, needing no intermediary in that respect. It just so happens that prophets, apostles, avatars, anointed ones, revealers, teachers are sent to us by divine providence.
You missed the OT test for verification. Of course, like Paul, you reject it too. See the dishonesty? You try little ways to chip at a little of what you reject, but again, you are lying to yourself. It is all little conveniences and little misdirections, and little compromises. :nono:
Look to thyself. You embrace half-truths and lies. So does the UB. It is full of them. It is a 'compromise' religion. I wasn't the first to address you as Borg. That was PPS.


That's your NT opinion. If you read the papers, you'll see that Jesus is our Creator-Son, Savior, Sovereign Lord and Planetary Prince,...since he is our Creator, he is in this sense our 'universe-father'('God'), but he is not The Universal Father of all, the First Source and Center, from which all Creator-Sons spring. There is a divine hierarchy. The UB goes into the 'hierarchy' in depth.
Which is Unit-arian.

One could argue that 'doctrinally', but only on that level. As to your assumption that you know my relationship with 'God', well that would be the height of presumption on your part, based on limited perception and distortion from what data-pool you happen to be fishing from at any moment in time.
:nono: It comes from facts being facts and true, and having a bit of discernment where you are concerned. I'm sure you'd love to hide, but it is a bit too late for that. There are obvious things, things that are clear regardless...


We can debate intellectual concepts of 'Christology' til the cows come home, this occupied centuries of church councils, splitting hairs over 'doctrine'. I'm quite familiar with the development of Christology within Christianity, and on an intellectual level most of it sits, but how such actually benefits one 'spiritually' is another story or application.
:nono: Because you were and are dismissed. AGAIN, the only reason I'm here is not to give credence to your delusion, but to point out the problems and inconsistencies, to question your desire to be on a Christian website while rejecting us and our beliefs, and to point you to the Lord Jesus Christ and His salvation as defined and given in the scripture.

The same Unitarian/Trinitarian viewpoints exist within sects of Christendom today, so these intellectual concepts and philosophical perspectives still continue, which shows the 'relative' nature of such. You couldn't prove a particular view is 'absolute' (beyond assumption), since only Deity itself is 'absolute' in the truest sense, as an independent, unchanging reality. - all else is relative, subject to translation/interpretation.
Good, so only He can tell you what He is like and explain things to you. He has done so, not Bill sadler or Joseph Smith.


The UB is just one book among many other interesting religious works out there, and more will be forthcoming since there is progressive revelation. I'm not a 'urantia' (whatever that is). If this world is known as 'Urantia' then we are all 'urantians', in that assigned context. Depends on one's choice of nomenclature.
Or "Lamenites" :noway:
:plain:

We've already covered that Jesus as our 'Creator-Son' is 'God' to us,...but he is not The Universal Father. Creator-Sons are divine Sons who create universes in the evolving worlds of space-time, they originate out from The Universal Father who is the First Source and Center of all. To us, Jesus is our 'universe-father' as our Creator, of course. So in this sense Jesus is 'God', of course, as a Creator-Son, he
Paul was chosen by the Lord Jesus Christ. You and a very very very few oddballs (all of you) don't think so.
The rest of us totally reject that view as untenable, anti-intellectual, bias, agenda-driven, and not something we want to entertain again for the umpteenth time. It has been address and redressed ad nauseum. YOU need to rethink YOUR poor position on this.

I don't believe it fully,....Paul barely got out of Jerusalem alive most of the time, so he had to go out and preach 'his gospel' to Gentile audiences (remember Peter was the apostle originally preaching the gospel to gentiles). Peter and Paul had a major skirmish in Galatia, and for the most part Paul's anti-law gospel separated him from the original apostles of Jesus and the Jerusalem Community. Some Jewish followers of Jesus such as the Ebionites considered Paul an 'anti-christ' of sorts, since his gospel was so different, more pagan-gnostic in nature. I'm quite liberal on Paul, recognizing a complexity about him and his theology on different levels, and how it might differ from the pillars of the community at Jerusalem, led by James the Just, the Lord's brother. - remember they kept to much of the fundamental of Judaism, but for some innovations taught by Jesus. The UB holds to the seminal gospel of the kingdom proclaimed by Jesus, based on the Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of man, minus many of the Jewish customs and rituals. Part 4 in the UB fully covers this, in fact every year of Jesus life is chronicled.

See: The Paul Problem
Of course not! You'd HAVE to change your worldview if you didn't. See the agenda? Before you say the same back to me: No. I've already had to do that: see what I had wrong (and you still have wrong).
No its not, there you go again assuming things again. LDS theology is very different from the UB, we've been thru that here, with proper article resources and even videos.
And AGAIN let me correct you: EVERY religion is man's attempt to explain and reach God. EVERY ONE, except where God reaches down to man. Guess what? It makes all the others very similar. Very. Man is man and will explain what is in his heart and mind, like you do, and Bill Sadler did, and Joseph Smith did. Why does it happen? Simple: You don't like what you are hearing before that. It is always a rejection. Be honest: It doesn't matter if the OT/NT were true or not, you didn't grow up liking it. Mormonism was exactly that way. It certainly has influenced your thinking today. You 'think' like a Mormon still, as much as you'd like to leave them behind, they are still with you.

I value who I am as a child of God. God is love. You're super-imposing some presumed concept or belief about 'original sin' and must buy the whole blood-sacrifice redemption remedy that comes as a 'salvation-assurance' with it. Some don't buy the necessity of a 'blood-atonement' beyond it being 'conceptual' or 'theoritical', since 'repentance' and 'inner transformation' of mind/spirit is what is essential. If a religious ritual or observance can assist in 'repentance' and 'living the truth', then so be it.
Not still influenced by Mormonism huh? :plain:

This is your own your belief about 'sin' and the theology loaded into it. You're bringing these terms up, not me. I don't get where on earth you see me suggesting God should love sin. :idunno: This is baffling (again, your own presuppositions based on your preconceived theology).
:nono: Read the CARM link. You don't believe the same. Why you'd try to 'hide' or 'skirt' your differences I've no idea. Caino is honest about them and he's better at posting blatantly what is different. You? Subterfuge. You post whole pages of obfuscation.
The primary nature of 'God' in judeo-chrsitian theology is essentially the same as revealed in the UB, but the latter expands on God and the universe as a more expansive cosmsology, introducing some new terms and meanings, but the eternal values of religious ethic, morals and principles remain the same. Note the 'nature' of God is essentially the same as per classical theology. Side issues like whether this 'God' demands a blood-sacrifice to make an 'atonement' is another subject, which doesn't really affect the value of Jesus mission, apart from a religious belief about it. The value of Jesus bestowal of himself on the planet holds its significance as 'revealing' God to us, even more so as incarnating among us.
Again, I think Caino more honest with us and himself than you seem capable or willing to be. I question both of your sanity with this stuff so I'm not sure that I'd suggest you be more like Caino. I'm just making a comparison here. I think he at least sees in clarity that the UB and Christianity are incompatible.
That's your perception, but a thorough reading of the first 5 papers, essential reading for anyone interested in the fundamental theology about God's being and nature, may perhaps change your mind. Index here.
You know, I honestly (truly) think you have a mental deficiency. I've told you at least four times I've read this. For some reason you find it unfathomable that I could have and not have a change in perception. :idunno: If you have a mental deficiency, it would explain much.
God can help delusional people who cannot grasp reality on their own. You aren't like the rest of us, FL.

This again is your perception, however distorted that might be. The papers give descriptions of the world religions and their evolution, in relation to the 'epochal revelations' revealed in the papers. The papers approach religion universally and charts the human evolution of such religious teachings. Remember,....dispensational revelations came as 'epochal revelations' according to the papers.
I think I'm the 'normal' guy here :plain:

See Paper 92 - 103 for the history of different religious traditions and their contributions to the planet.
I've had this comparative religions class. I'm not sure Bill Sadler did.

Also a synopsis in Part 4 is given on the world religions, describing the religion of Jesus at the last paragraph here.
AND there are more religions now than in Sadler's day.

I gather before jumping to pre-conclusions and assumptions you learn a bit more before making statements, or just admit these are your opinions, or what 'seems' to be. Further research and discovery may cause you to change your mind.
"Gather?" I think you mean 'suggest' or something else... :think: I read, still not finding anything but what I already expected AND could have written myself from a Unitarian perspective. I understand the mindset and could write virtually all of your book myself. It is NOT from other worldly beings. "I" could write it and then lie all I like, as Sadler and co. did that it was given by some supreme being.

As I said, Urantianism is the same as Unity/Unitarian Ba'Hai etc. "Why can't we all just get along."
 

Lon

Well-known member
A vote from the resident 'theology club' here wouldn't surprise anyone, as far as conclusions go. Points of view are subject to change. Again, this is more than a contest of religious books, but more a matter of terms, meanings, values, concepts, principles etc....as they relate to man's experience of reality. - this covers the 3 primary areas of religion, science and philosophy. Just like the 3 values of truth, goodness and beauty are also elaborated in the papers. I usually approach my engagements within the context of 'creative dialogue',...expanding consciousness, exploring new dimensions and possibilities.
Prove them. You can't. There is more to man's experience than just religion, science, and philosophy. This is dismally simpleton, like much of the UB. Next: Values? Truth, Goodness, and beauty? Again, imho, too simplistic. I'd never settle for another's explanation and Sadler didn't seem to know much of his bible. Of course, neither did Joseph Smith.

The simple assumption above by TB is just that...a 'black n white' world enclosed by one's narrow concept of 'God'....the ole "putting God in a box" routine.
:doh: You mean like the BoM and Urant? Look, every time EVERY TIME we write, we are putting things in a box. That is of no interest. What IS of interest is what GOD puts in a box and hands to us. Sadler and Joseph Smith aren't it.

'God' can be claimed as being the author of several books, just cherry-pick those that fit your palate or religious upbringing.
HORRIBLE critical thinking skills. This is your 'simpleton' overworking and overcompensating again. We didn't 1) make the claim. 2) we don't cherry-pick. You, on your 'hunt' through books absolutely do. You are projecting your own inept ability as if. It is LITERALLY you who disclaim and claim God's authorship. We were handed it. We didn't cherry-pick. We were handed it. We didn't 'fit' it to our palate, He fitted us for His. See, you are literally and only describing YOURSELF. :doh:
I'd remind those engaged here again, the papers offer their own cosmogony in relation to a larger expanded revelation of Deity, the cosmos and the ministry of Jesus. These subjects are 'seminal' and directly related to what developed as 'Christianity' in its various offshoots. Such an evolution of religious thought and philosophy is pertinent to 'religion'.
Again "wrong answers" are NOT an 'expansion' :dizzy:

Note again, the term 'evolution' which is the haphazard secular worldview and your haphazard 'evolving' theology. It offers nothing. How could it? It'd be completely useless in a decade!

journey wrote: Some people will believe almost anything, regardless of how silly it is.
You just keep spouting the same thing basically over and over and over and over. Go here, and 'review'. Since you refuse to read the book you criticize, you cant really critique it, but need some 'target' to attack, to bolster your own religious belief-system, which being the only true one, must naturally see all other viewpoints as adversarial or "of the devil". So goes such a mentality.
Sure it does, absolutely it sees other 'viewpoints' as wrong, adversarial, and yes, any deception comes from a Deceiver. To bolster our own? Sort of, there can only be one truth, ever. You never seem to comprehend that. Your truth, is relative, evolutionary. You may not get this, but 'evolution' is a deal breaker. It automatically is relegated to not just wrong, but anti-Christian.
 

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
Hey, FL, have you received many telepathic messages from the "Mothership" lately? I hear your little green men friends in their UFOs are a wee bit upset with your handling of this thread. They may be getting ready to demote you and your little friend Caino?
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Discovering new potentially habitable planets........

Discovering new potentially habitable planets........

Code:
~*~*~

NASA’s Kepler Discovers 1,284 New Planets, 9 Potentially Habitable


From the above article -

Still, calculating with 100 billion stars in our galaxy, Batalha estimates there could be tens of billions of potentially habitable planets in the Milky Way.

Also see NASA's latest on the Kepler mission here :thumb:

Before the Kepler space telescope launched, we did not know whether exoplanets were rare or common in the galaxy. Thanks to Kepler and the research community, we now know there could be more planets than stars," said Paul Hertz from NASA.

Science validates UB Cosmology
 
Last edited:

TulipBee

BANNED
Banned
A vote from the resident 'theology club' here wouldn't surprise anyone, as far as conclusions go. Points of view are subject to change. Again, this is more than a contest of religious books, but more a matter of terms, meanings, values, concepts, principles etc....as they relate to man's experience of reality. - this covers the 3 primary areas of religion, science and philosophy. Just like the 3 values of truth, goodness and beauty are also elaborated in the papers. I usually approach my engagements within the context of 'creative dialogue',...expanding consciousness, exploring new dimensions and possibilities.

The simple assumption above by TB is just that...a 'black n white' world enclosed by one's narrow concept of 'God'....the ole "putting God in a box" routine. 'God' can be claimed as being the author of several books, just cherry-pick those that fit your palate or religious upbringing. I'd remind those engaged here again, the papers offer their own cosmogony in relation to a larger expanded revelation of Deity, the cosmos and the ministry of Jesus. These subjects are 'seminal' and directly related to what developed as 'Christianity' in its various offshoots. Such an evolution of religious thought and philosophy is pertinent to 'religion'.

journey wrote:



You just keep spouting the same thing basically over and over and over and over. Go here, and 'review'. Since you refuse to read the book you criticize, you cant really critique it, but need some 'target' to attack, to bolster your own religious belief-system, which being the only true one, must naturally see all other viewpoints as adversarial or "of the devil". So goes such a mentality.
Narrow is the way. You may shine the light all you want but the laser is the only way to get the papers hot enough to burn. You defuse the artifical lights and make your theories weak due to weak cellestals that lie to your soul
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Bull heading the data and scientific research........

Bull heading the data and scientific research........

That certainly does NOT validate the UB - STILL NO LIFE ANYWHERE

I only bring up recent discoveries of science and astronomy to show the logical probability of there being life on other planets, possibly in our own solar system and the millions of solar systems (stars that have revolving planets) in outer space beyond our galaxy. The UB posits millions of inhabited planets within our own galaxy, and likewise given the millions of galaxies out there with all their planets, at least billions of worlds that have evolving sentient life. Do the math. Granted NASA & SETI have their own methods and equations at coming to their probable conclusions, with ever on-going research in the search for extraterrestrial life. Have you considered the infinity of space and time potentials and probabilities for life to evolve and unfold in the cosmos?

Former astronaut and NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said,

"Do we believe there is life beyond Earth?" he asked. "I would venture to say that most of my colleagues here today say it is improbable that in the limitless vastness of the universe we humans stand alone."

Kepler telescope NASA site here.



Key figures and scientists at NASA disagree with your opinion that there is no life anywhere, but that given the odds and probabilities with how many galaxies and planets are out there (millions)...it is logically probable there is life elsewhere in the vast cosmos. What makes this little planet (a speck in what seems to be infinite space) so special to be the only planet that has life (life of any kind)?

FL, you are obviously stubborn, bull headed, wrong and stupid. I don't even feel sorry for you anymore.

:idunno: - continuing with my significant sharing of what our top NASA scientists and astronomers are aiming for in their aspirations and noble endeavors to explore space and make new discoveries,...perhaps you would benefit from sharing in their optimism and research (look at the data and science involved) instead of being a catalyst for the retardation of progress. Furthermore, it might also be to your advantage to have a greater conception of The Creator and Creation itself, before assuming you know all there is to know about each, in making hasty conclusions that there is no life anywhere else in the cosmos.

NASA scientists say they're closer than ever to finding life beyond Earth
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Narrow is the way. You may shine the light all you want but the laser is the only way to get the papers hot enough to burn. You defuse the artifical lights and make your theories weak due to weak cellestals that lie to your soul


'God' is INFINITE....and the unfolding-potential of CREATION, evolves/unfolds within a context of infinity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top