The Late Great Urantia Revelation

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

On universal law.

Hmmm... Bare assertion to allegedly support bare assertion.

Its a principle found in scripture

That's completely inferential, eisegetic, and presuppositional as... bare assertion.

as well in many places ("ask and you will receive, seek me with your whole heart, call upon me and I will answer you", etc.),

You've superimposed your presumptions again as... bare assertion. Nowhere are these identified as principles of an alleged universal law that you propagate as... bare assertion.

plus since 'God' is Love and is our Father,

He's only a Father to His sons. Not to bastards.

...he would naturally respond to our deepest soul longings.

It's bare assertion that God is subject to the longing of our souls rather than longing for us to be conformed to His.

What is the motive behind the question?

To ascertain what you presume to be didactic that is merely dialectic. There's nothing here but bare assertion from presumption, presupposition, and inferential postulation.

Do you discount THIS answer?pj

Yes, until there's some valid authority for all that you say. You've presented none. Only your inference and subsequent assertions.

All you've done is present your preferred opinions as concepts to define truth for yourself. You've yielded yourself to nothing, but have forced all to yield to your conceptual perceptions.

There is no authority behind your deductions, projections, and assertions.

Why are you not rational enough to present EVERYTHING you say with the careful and constant caveat of "I (freelight) believe..." or "My opinion is..." or some other qualifier?

Instead, you adamantly and absolutely assert everything without there being ANY foundational authority beyond your speculative opinions and preferences and deductions and inferences.

You don't get to be the one to declare absolute or relative truth. You can only express your opinionated views and clearly declare them as such. You have no authority. Nor do your opinions.

At most, you could offer a stalemate by rejecting all Christian authority. But then you couldn't even refer to Christian tradition or scripture for inclusion in your assertions.

The fact that you're not honest and reasonable enough to see this and admit it leaves you without any credibility by any real standard. Bare assertion based upon adamant presumption and presupposition is just an opinionated view informed only by a limited perspective.

Why can't you see that? Why can't you admit that? Instead, you insist none are your equals, and you're the final arbiter of truth in this manner; no matter how universalistically you phrase your rhetoric.

Capiche? (I can only hope.)

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

So, Meshak believes that, God created Jesus! That's sort of the way Keypurr
believes! It's false but interesting none the less!

Hey this just popped into my mind.(beware)

If Jesus is not God.

Which he clearly tells us he is not.

Where did he come from?

Another question.

If he is God, was he pulling a ventrilloquist act when he spoke at his baptism?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Hey this just popped into my mind.

If Jesus is not God.

Which he clearly tells us he is not.

Where did he come from?

Another question.

If he is God, was he pulling a ventrilloquist act when he spoke at his baptism?

There is; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit yet,
these 3 are one! Find that hard to believe, don't ya?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Nope, no sock puppet here.
Caino recently contacted me on another forum - it was about 10 years ago when we last "spoke" in a forum.

Back then I was a zealot Christian and he and I and another named Bro Dave got into some heated debates over the UB.
As I recall, if I recall correctly, there came a point when Caino actually admitted that the Jesus of the UB is not the same Jesus of the Christian bible. I don't know if he is willing to confirm or deny that now.

I am now an atheist and I thought it might be fun to get back into some forum debates. I was wrong.
It took me only a day to realize I would rather stick needles in my eyes than spend my precious time debating religion.... which is pretty good since it took me an entire week to decide Facebook is useless.


I'm sorry, Caino, but I'm just not interested in this battle anymore.
it was good to hear from you and maybe well cross paths on some other thread in the future.
:rapture:
I've got to get back to Ayla and Jondalar at the Summer Meeting now.

Bye - bye.

:wave::BillyBob::chuckle:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

There is; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit yet,
these 3 are one! Find that hard to believe, don't ya?

How is it you accuse me of what you find hard to believe?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

How is it you accuse me of what you find hard to believe?

Could you 'articulate' that a little better?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Well, thanks anyway!

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Well, thanks anyway!

Any time.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Could you 'articulate' that a little better?

Only if you answer my questions.

Unlike Freelight's they are point blank and need no articulation.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Only if you answer my questions.

Unlike Freelight's they are point blank and need no articulation.

Ask!

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Ask!

Are you a bot? :kookoo:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Are you a bot? :kookoo:

Does that question make you feel smart?

 

[freelight]

Hmmm... Bare assertion to allegedly support bare assertion.

That's completely inferential, eisegetic, and presuppositional as... bare assertion.

You've superimposed your presumptions again as... bare assertion. Nowhere are these identified as principles of an alleged universal law that you propagate as... bare assertion.

He's only a Father to His sons. Not to bastards.

It's bare assertion that God is subject to the longing of our souls rather than longing for us to be conformed to His.

To ascertain what you presume to be didactic that is merely dialectic. There's nothing here but bare assertion from presumption, presupposition, and inferential postulation.

Yes, until there's some valid authority for all that you say. You've presented none. Only your inference and subsequent assertions.

All you've done is present your preferred opinions as concepts to define truth for yourself. You've yielded yourself to nothing, but have forced all to yield to your conceptual perceptions.

There is no authority behind your deductions, projections, and assertions.

Why are you not rational enough to present EVERYTHING you say with the careful and constant caveat of "I (freelight) believe..." or "My opinion is..." or some other qualifier?

Instead, you adamantly and absolutely assert everything without there being ANY foundational authority beyond your speculative opinions and preferences and deductions and inferences.

You don't get to be the one to declare absolute or relative truth. You can only express your opinionated views and clearly declare them as such. You have no authority. Nor do your opinions.

At most, you could offer a stalemate by rejecting all Christian authority. But then you couldn't even refer to Christian tradition or scripture for inclusion in your assertions.

The fact that you're not honest and reasonable enough to see this and admit it leaves you without any credibility by any real standard. Bare assertion based upon adamant presumption and presupposition is just an opinionated view informed only by a limited perspective.

Why can't you see that? Why can't you admit that? Instead, you insist none are your equals, and you're the final arbiter of truth in this manner; no matter how universalistically you phrase your rhetoric.

Capiche? (I can only hope.)

False assumptions are many above, since I've never claimed to be a final arbiter of truth (that's ridiculous), and am fully cognizant that my sharings are based on my own interpretations, recognitions and perceptions which are indeed 'relative' and 'conditioned' by my own limitations and abilities to articulate at any given moment.

Haven't you read my posts and sharing of the papers explanations of truth being 'relative' and 'conceptual frames? hmmm. Your piping hot air above, which does not apply. Naturally a lot of commentary is shared as a given, - that does not mean its being shared as absolute truth, so its unnecessary and uncalled for to ASSUME such. Information is subject to 'distortion' via 'translation' and 'interpretation'. So, your hyperbole above is presuming things, then drawing misconceived conclusions based on that.

I don't have to preface every statement or observations with "this is my opinion", unless I feel the need to in relating anything. Likewise, I dont put out a claim in each statement that this is absolute, final and perfect, as much of my philosophical sharings are like poetry,...they are creative expressions of soul and spirit. They speak for themselves, and need no qualifiers except what is required within the terms and context. All information/knowledge coming thru an imperfect 'medium' will suffer from 'distortion' to one degree or another. I don't see the need for your 'hang-up' on this issue, apparently a pet-peeve. For one spouting about 'bare assertions' so much, your projecting your own 'bare assertions'. This loop could go on and on :idunno:

Divine Truth and Beauty


2:7.1 All finite knowledge and creature understanding are relative. Information and intelligence, gleaned from even high sources, is only relatively complete, locally accurate, and personally true.

2:7.2 Physical facts are fairly uniform, but truth is a living and flexible factor in the philosophy of the universe. Evolving personalities are only partially wise and relatively true in their communications. They can be certain only as far as their personal experience extends. That which apparently may be wholly true in one place may be only relatively true in another segment of creation.

2:7.3 Divine truth, final truth, is uniform and universal, but the story of things spiritual, as it is told by numerous individuals hailing from various spheres, may sometimes vary in details owing to this relativity in the completeness of knowledge and in the repleteness of personal experience as well as in the length and extent of that experience. While the laws and decrees, the thoughts and attitudes, of the First Great Source and Center are eternally, infinitely, and universally true; at the same time, their application to, and adjustment for, every universe, system, world, and created intelligence, are in accordance with the plans and technique of the Creator Sons as they function in their respective universes, as well as in harmony with the local plans and procedures of the Infinite Spirit and of all other associated celestial personalities.

The Relativity of concept-frames

115:1.1 Partial, incomplete, and evolving intellects would be helpless in the master universe, would be unable to form the first rational thought pattern, were it not for the innate ability of all mind, high or low, to form a universe frame in which to think. If mind cannot fathom conclusions, if it cannot penetrate to true origins, then will such mind unfailingly postulate conclusions and invent origins that it may have a means of logical thought within the frame of these mind-created postulates. And while such universe frames for creature thought are indispensable to rational intellectual operations, they are, without exception, erroneous to a greater or lesser degree.

115:1.2 Conceptual frames of the universe are only relatively true; they are serviceable scaffolding which must eventually give way before the expansions of enlarging cosmic comprehension. The understandings of truth, beauty, and goodness, morality, ethics, duty, love, divinity, origin, existence, purpose, destiny, time, space, even Deity, are only relatively true. God is much, much more than a Father, but the Father is man’s highest concept of God; nonetheless, the Father-Son portrayal of Creator-creature relationship will be augmented by those supermortal conceptions of Deity which will be attained in Orvonton, in Havona, and on Paradise. Man must think in a mortal universe frame, but that does not mean that he cannot envision other and higher frames within which thought can take place.

115:1.3 In order to facilitate mortal comprehension of the universe of universes, the diverse levels of cosmic reality have been designated as finite, absonite, and absolute. Of these only the absolute is unqualifiedly eternal, truly existential. Absonites and finites are derivatives, modifications, qualifications, and attenuations of the original and primordial absolute reality of infinity.

 

[Caino]

Nope, no sock puppet here.
Caino recently contacted me on another forum - it was about 10 years ago when we last "spoke" in a forum.

Back then I was a zealot Christian and he and I and another named Bro Dave got into some heated debates over the UB.
As I recall, if I recall correctly, there came a point when Caino actually admitted that the Jesus of the UB is not the same Jesus of the Christian bible. I don't know if he is willing to confirm or deny that now.

I am now an atheist and I thought it might be fun to get back into some forum debates. I was wrong.
It took me only a day to realize I would rather stick needles in my eyes than spend my precious time debating religion.... which is pretty good since it took me an entire week to decide Facebook is useless.


I'm sorry, Caino, but I'm just not interested in this battle anymore.
it was good to hear from you and maybe well cross paths on some other thread in the future.
:rapture:
I've got to get back to Ayla and Jondalar at the Summer Meeting now.

Thanks Sandy, but don't let the bitter clingers get you down. You can see they have no fruits, it's like talking to Obama at a press conference.

Anyway, enjoy your book, take care.

 

[Caino]

I am the bread of life.

I am the living water.

I am the light of the world.

I am the desire of all ages.

I am the open door to eternal salvation.

I am the reality of endless life.

I am the good shepherd.

I am the pathway of infinite perfection.

I am the resurrection and the life.

I am the secret of eternal survival.

I am the way, the truth, and the life.

I am the infinite Father of my finite children.

I am the true vine; you are the branches.

I am the hope of all who know the living truth.

I am the living bridge from one world to another.

I am the living link between time and eternity.​

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I am the bread of life.

I am the living water.

I am the light of the world.

I am the desire of all ages.

I am the open door to eternal salvation.

I am the reality of endless life.

I am the good shepherd.

I am the pathway of infinite perfection.

I am the resurrection and the life.

I am the secret of eternal survival.

I am the way, the truth, and the life.

I am the infinite Father of my finite children.

I am the true vine; you are the branches.

I am the hope of all who know the living truth.

I am the living bridge from one world to another.

I am the living link between time and eternity.​

Are ALL of these from the Bible?? Be honest now! Some don't sound familiar to me?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Caino, you're mixing Scripture with Urantia trash! Why don't you
delete the urantia garbage from the Scripture?

 

[Sandycane]

Caino, you're mixing Scripture with Urantia trash! Why don't you
delete the urantia garbage from the Scripture?

Yeah, yeah, I know, I said I was leaving... but this is what I was referring to earlier;
The characters in the UB have the same names as those in the bible, but they are not the same people... yet those who support the UB mix and mingle references from both sources in an attempt to give the UB the appearance of having some kind of authority - which it does not.

I have issues with the bible, but the UB is nothing more than a plagerized mutated version of the bible, imo of course.

When UBers talk about "Jesus" they are not talking about Jesus of the bible, but instead "Jesus" the character mentioned in the UB.

It was my conclusion way back then, and it still holds true, that to debate "scripture" with a UBer is more than a waste of time since each side of the debate is defending a totally different source.

It's like comparing apples and ... some kind of GMO fruit.

 

[steko]

Yeah, yeah, I know, I said I was leaving... but this is what I was referring to earlier;
The characters in the UB have the same names as those in the bible, but they are not the same people... yet those who support the UB mix and mingle references from both sources in an attempt to give the UB the appearance of having some kind of authority - which it does not.

I have issues with the bible, but the UB is nothing more than a plagerized mutated version of the bible, imo of course.

When UBers talk about "Jesus" they are not talking about Jesus of the bible, but instead "Jesus" the character mentioned in the UB.

It was my conclusion way back then, and it still holds true, that to debate "scripture" with a UBer is more than a waste of time since each side of the debate is defending a totally different source.

It's like comparing apples and ... some kind of GMO fruit.

:thumb:

I came to the same conclusion when I read Urantia in the 70's.

 

[Sandycane]

:thumb:

I came to the same conclusion when I read Urantia in the 70's.

I've only read bits and pieces posted in forums, but even from that little bit it was clear to me what the UB is - and more importantly, what it is not.
Thanks for the thumbs-up. It's nice to know someone agrees with me.


So, what does this say about the UB and those who support it?
Matthew 7:15 doesn't seem to specifically apply and it's not exactly blasphemy... are those who believe it to be "godly" simply confused, or is there a real intentional underlying intent to confuse others who believe the bible to be godly?