The Late Great Urantia Revelation

[Zeke]

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:

Yet they what others to drink from their polluted stream of historical mirages, based on the literal (shadows) letter that killeth.

 

[Caino]

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

The relvelation in the life of Jesus while he was on earth set the foundation for this most recent revelation about the Father and his friendly, carefully managed universe. More has been revealed.

Between one revelation and the next much speculation contaminates the mix. An attempt to fit Jesus into the OT put the new wine in the old wine skins witch compromised the original gospel of the kingdom of heaven.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

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?

LOL, Caught yourself and tried to clean up yer mistake, this is precious.

You went from, I may try the Urantia book next, to expert, to ooops I... UH..... mean I only know about it from debating a little on forums.


:luigi:

 

[journey]

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.

Good post - I agree with you and think that you have described things accurately.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

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.

Quite knowledgeable for somebody who never read the book.

This just proves that Pneuma was not assuming anything.

Your ego will not allow you to say I believe anything for fear of the possibility of being wrong.

:think:

PJ you literally believe nothing and know even less.

 

[freelight]

Comparing records.......

Comparing records.......

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.

Hi Sandy,

Not sure if you got my last response to you here

Part 4 of the papers is what it is, an expanded, paraphrased and enhanced version of Jesus life, much from and collaborating the NT gospel accounts. The revelators claim to be using all the extant knowledge and records and adding to it as they feel the need (from other sources), so that would naturally include any gospel-accounts existing, as well what was available from etheric records and the memories from other personalities present at the time of Jesus bestowal -

See - Previous written records

It is what it is,...believe it to be true by the revelators claim, or take it as inspired human embellishments or religious fiction,...each are free to take it or leave it.

One can equally contest the validity of the NT gospels on many levels, so there is no 'contest' really between the 2 works, except by what one might compare and conclude as to what might actually be Jesus real words or something just attributed to him. In any case we have a collaboration of records of Jesus life, and at least some key concept-themes that he supposedly taught. One is an updated, more complete record, per its own claim.

Atheism would probably not care either way, unless there is some kind of logic being used that would make one or the other appear more tenable or 'true', but you'd have to provide a 'criteria' by which you could qualify or disqualify these written records either way. To be fair, an investigator would have to read both account thoroughly and weigh what is written.


pj

 

[Sandycane]

LOL, Caught yourself and tried to clean up yer mistake, this is precious.

You went from, I may try the Urantia book next, to expert, to ooops I... UH..... mean I only know about it from debating a little on forums.

Quite knowledgeable for somebody who never read the book.

This just proves that Pneuma was not assuming anything.

Your ego will not allow you to say I believe anything for fear of the possibility of being wrong.

:think:

PJ you literally believe nothing and know even less.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what it is your trying to say to me in these two posts.
Are you being sarcastic? Are you calling me an imposter?

I NEVER said or even implied that I would read the UB - I wouldn't waste the time.
NEVER said I was an expert - on anything.

Do you suffer from paranoia, or have you been in this thread too long??

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Yet they what others to drink from their polluted stream of historical mirages, based on the literal (shadows) letter that killeth.

As Fats Domino said; "AIN'T THAT A SHAME!"

 

[Sandycane]

Hi Sandy,

... Part 4 of the papers is not what it appears to be, it's really an expanded, plagiarized and fictitiously embellished version of Jesus life, much from and contorting the NT gospel accounts. The fakers claim to be using all the extant knowledge and records and adding to it as they feel the need (from other sources), so that would naturally include any gospel-accounts existing, as well what was available from phony records and the delusions from other schizophrenics not present at the time of Jesus bestowal -

It is what it is,...believe it to be true by the revelators claim, or take it as inspired human embellishments or religious fiction,...each are free to take it or leave it since, in reality, it is meaningless anyway.
...

So, Freelight, how do you feel about embellishing?
(read carefully the quote)

 

[freelight]

Take it or leave it..............

Take it or leave it..............

So, Freelight, how do you feel about embellishing?
(read carefully the quote)

Hi Sandy, my former posts to you stand, you can address those if interested in responding to any particulars.

Not sure what 'quote' your referring to above, I think I explained the revelators statements concerning using the gospel records already extant and additional knowledge from other records. They freely admit to this. Whether you want to believe their 'testimony' is your own choice, besides evaluating the records by their own content, since you can judge for yourself if the teachings colloborate with what is written in the older gospels and/or if the additional information offers a greater enhancement or enlargement of the total gospel-story.

Again,....how can you determine what is not 'embellishments' to one degree or another from the synoptic gospels?, not to mention that non-canonical gospels give us additional tid-bits of information as well. You can either accept the UB narrative or dismiss it, its a free world

The allegories, analogies, metaphors, archetypes in any "story" serve their purpose to relate certain universal themes, concepts, principles, ideals, etc. Any information has value according to what it 'relates' to a particular person or faith-community.



pj

 

[freelight]

not seeing the forest for the trees.......

not seeing the forest for the trees.......

Quite knowledgeable for somebody who never read the book.

This just proves that Pneuma was not assuming anything.

Your ego will not allow you to say I believe anything for fear of the possibility of being wrong.

:think:

PJ you literally believe nothing and know even less.

Your posts have been properly treated and addressed here so far so readers can make their own evaluations with the data provided. Those looking with a freed mind and clear objective awareness can discern what is being shared as they learn and understand the terms, conceptual frames and philosophical perspective (context) illumined by the papers.

It does seem kind of unfair or presumptuous however to jump on the new poster here, an 'atheist' at that....just to be judgemental and condenscending for its own sake. :idunno:

Courtesy and common decency, goes a long way.



pj

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Your posts have been properly treated and addressed here so far so readers can make their own evaluations with the data provided. Those looking with a freed mind and clear objective awareness can discern what is being shared as they learn and understand the terms, conceptual frames and philosophical perspective (context) illumined by the papers.

It does seem kind of unfair or presumptuous however to jump on the new poster here, an 'atheist' at that....just to be judgemental and condenscending for its own sake. :idunno:

Courtesy and common decency, goes a long way.



pj

What's funny is you think you are getting your teaching out there by posting to yourself.

You haven't fooled anybody.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I NEVER said or even implied that I would read the UB - I wouldn't waste the time.

I'm on the last book of The Earth Children series (Ayla and Jondalar and clan are at her second Summer Festival!)

As soon as I finish with this, I may read some of your Urantia book...
I love good fiction!


Bwahhh-hahaha.
:devil:

I rest my case.

 

[meshak]

I think you should apologize, Sandy.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I think you should apologize, Sandy.

You should also, Meshak!

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I think you should apologize, Sandy.

Sandy is welcome to think I'm a paranoid whack if he/she likes.

My nose seldom lies.

 

[meshak]

Sandy is welcome to think I'm a paranoid whack if he/she likes.

My nose seldom lies.

You don't judge me fairly though. It is biased for some reason. I get the feeling because I am a woman.

Am I right?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

You don't judge me fairly though. It is biased for some reason. I get the feeling because I am a woman.

Am I right?

Nope, I dont judge anyone after the flesh.

If I were to be tempted to, it would be GT, not you.

 

[meshak]

Nope, I dont judge anyone after the flesh.

If I were to be tempted to, it would be GT, not you.

You have been slandering me many times. You don't remember? Even though I gave you many pos reps. I agree with you in many things. It is probably my anti-military position?

Are you pro-military?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

You have been slandering me many times. You don't remember? Even though I gave you many pos reps. I agree with you in many things. It is probably my anti-military position?

Are you pro-military?

Do you even know what slander means?