Right Divider
Body part
A whole bunch more silliness from you Caino. Your "reasons to believe" the UB are no more valid than any of the arguments from "Christian" cults and their "new" revelations.
The Late Great Urantia Revelation
- Thread starter Caino
- Start date
- Status
Aimiel
Well-known member
God gives us His Witness.
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
It is His Presence in us that gives us faith in His Holy Word. The Holy Bible IS His Word. The UB is NOT. We know these things intuitively, from down on the inside of us, in our spirit.
They recognized the Truth when they met Him. They had The Holy Ghost and He brought to their memory the things Jesus had said.
That same Spirit of The Father Who does not verify the UB.
It's because the darkness of your understanding agreed with the same spirit which inspired the UB: a spirit of lies. You have not been born again, but have an un-regenerate spirit which is NOT The Spirit of Christ. If you were Christian, you would rely upon God's Word, not the lies of a demon.
Aimiel
Well-known member
Your decision NOT to follow those books shows your poor abilities of discernment and decision-making.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Epistemology................
Epistemology................
We've covered this here and elsewhere. A principle, idea or concept is true by itself or within a certain context where its value and meaning is accentuated. Truth is truth wherever you find it, in whatever book. A human sanction on a particular religious book does not make it perfect, let alone final. Revelation is progressive.
Do you follow all the laws of 'God' (YHWH-Elohim) of the Jews as prescribed in the Torah? Not even the Jews today do, because some of those laws are illogical and obsolete in our modern times, showing that 'adaptations' must be made as humanity progresses. Yet we have some Christians toting the OT lumped with their NT "additions" as God's infallible, inerrant word, which is presumptuous. They cant even define 'God' let alone 'prove' what is His (or Her?) word
Again,...one must consider a book by its content and CONTEXT. That's key, among other factors. If you want to know the UB's teaching on God, READ the first 5 papers....for starters and see for yourself. Otherwise you're just tossing guesses in the air playing pin the tail on the donkey, but you're double-missing it, because both your 'tail' (pointer) and 'donkey' are not properly 'mapped' or 'misguided'. Familiarizing yourself with the material could help lift the blindfold :idea:
Something is true relative to its contextual frame or reference, and must be in any sphere of space-time creation, points of view vary according to space-time conditioning, which is why 'truth' perceived in this dimension is relatively true within the 'context' being 'related'.
The papers expound on this concerning 'conceptual frames' and 'universe perspectives'....rather marvelously I might add. Readers can research the thread here for such information. How many are intellectually honest or courageous enough to think outside the box?
A major foul in this discussion is the blindfolded critics stuck in a one-dimensional space-time warp not taking the opportunity here for some creative thinking or expansion of consciousness beyond their dogma and preferred golden calves.
pj
Epistemology................
We've covered this here and elsewhere. A principle, idea or concept is true by itself or within a certain context where its value and meaning is accentuated. Truth is truth wherever you find it, in whatever book. A human sanction on a particular religious book does not make it perfect, let alone final. Revelation is progressive.
Do you follow all the laws of 'God' (YHWH-Elohim) of the Jews as prescribed in the Torah? Not even the Jews today do, because some of those laws are illogical and obsolete in our modern times, showing that 'adaptations' must be made as humanity progresses. Yet we have some Christians toting the OT lumped with their NT "additions" as God's infallible, inerrant word, which is presumptuous. They cant even define 'God' let alone 'prove' what is His (or Her?) word
Again,...one must consider a book by its content and CONTEXT. That's key, among other factors. If you want to know the UB's teaching on God, READ the first 5 papers....for starters and see for yourself. Otherwise you're just tossing guesses in the air playing pin the tail on the donkey, but you're double-missing it, because both your 'tail' (pointer) and 'donkey' are not properly 'mapped' or 'misguided'. Familiarizing yourself with the material could help lift the blindfold :idea:
Something is true relative to its contextual frame or reference, and must be in any sphere of space-time creation, points of view vary according to space-time conditioning, which is why 'truth' perceived in this dimension is relatively true within the 'context' being 'related'.
The papers expound on this concerning 'conceptual frames' and 'universe perspectives'....rather marvelously I might add. Readers can research the thread here for such information. How many are intellectually honest or courageous enough to think outside the box?
A major foul in this discussion is the blindfolded critics stuck in a one-dimensional space-time warp not taking the opportunity here for some creative thinking or expansion of consciousness beyond their dogma and preferred golden calves.
pj
We've covered this here and elsewhere. A principle, idea or concept is true by itself or within a certain context where its value and meaning is accentuated. Truth is truth wherever you find it, in whatever book. A human sanction on a particular religious book does not make it perfect, let alone final. Revelation is progressive.
Do you follow all the laws of 'God' (YHWH-Elohim) of the Jews as prescribed in the Torah? Not even the Jews today do, because some of those laws are illogical and obsolete in our modern times, showing that 'adaptations' must be made as humanity progresses. Yet we have some Christians toting the OT lumped with their NT "additions" as God's infallible, inerrant word, which is presumptuous. They cant even define 'God' let alone 'prove' what is His (or Her?) word
Again,...one must consider a book by its content and CONTEXT. That's key, among other factors. If you want to know the UB's teaching on God, READ the first 5 papers....for starters and see for yourself. Otherwise you're just tossing guesses in the air playing pin the tail on the donkey, but you're double-missing it, because both your 'tail' (pointer) and 'donkey' are not properly 'mapped' or 'misguided'. Familiarizing yourself with the material could help lift the blindfold :idea:
Something is true relative to its contextual frame or reference, and must be in any sphere of space-time creation, points of view vary according to space-time conditioning, which is why 'truth' perceived in this dimension is relatively true within the 'context' being 'related'.
The papers expound on this concerning 'conceptual frames' and 'universe perspectives'....rather marvelously I might add. Readers can research the thread here for such information. How many are intellectually honest or courageous enough to think outside the box?
A major foul in this discussion is the blindfolded critics stuck in a one-dimensional space-time warp not taking the opportunity here for some creative thinking or expansion of consciousness beyond their dogma and preferred golden calves.
pj
Truth is found by itself?
The same could be said of you, Christianity started out as a cult inside Judaism. Jews persecuted and murdered Christian cultist. One can only imagine the difficulty followers of Jesus endured from family and friends. If there were Internet forums back then, people like you would be saying the same shallow things.
If the Noah flood story were not in the bible but recently discovered in an attic in London, would you believe it? Or do you only believe it because it's associated with other books of prophets who were validated?
I know it's the truth if the bible said it but I don't know if it symbolic or represents something. We do know the bible is inspired by God. If you say it meant something else, we can look into it but if you say God didn't inspired men to write then you're among many that believes that.
But no more can be added to the bible. So the London story will stand on its own.
Right Divider
Body part
:spam:
How incredibility ignorant of one SOOOOOO enlightened.
Tell me what was ignorant in my post? You can't, you are just another drive by TOL troll with insults but no substance.
Drive by troll is a good one. Lots of them here .
Daniel1611
New member
Peter said people would scoff at the Genesis account and the return of Christ in the last days.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Truth on an absolute level, and all else being 'relative' perception of 'truth'....
Truth on an absolute level, and all else being 'relative' perception of 'truth'....
I was relating 'truth' as we 'perceive' or 'intuit' it within any given 'context'.
Remember,...the relativity of 'concept frames' and language as 'symbolic' is elaborated in the papers quite clearly. Truth indicates and relates to what is actual/real/substantial within any given context of perception/knowledge. Truth being filtered or modified thru space-time perception, limited to a certain dimensional construct, is 'relative' to that context. Once you begin with a reality prior to any given 'relation' or transcending any particular dimensional context,...you're touching the infinite.
Absolute reality is what IS, here, NOW. - it is always already Being.....timelessly so, and omnipresently within every moment of time. - all other segments or extensions of perception/knowledge pertain ONLY in their own special context of 'relations', from whence their 'meaning' and 'value' is perceived.
Also see 'The relativity of concept frames' here.
Without knowledge of the general typography (map), its terms (keys/legends/codes)....you cant really comprehend the terrain, being a 'foreigner'. This goes for any information-system, school or cosmology. 'Terms' are important where info. is being 'related'.
pj
Truth on an absolute level, and all else being 'relative' perception of 'truth'....
I was relating 'truth' as we 'perceive' or 'intuit' it within any given 'context'.
Remember,...the relativity of 'concept frames' and language as 'symbolic' is elaborated in the papers quite clearly. Truth indicates and relates to what is actual/real/substantial within any given context of perception/knowledge. Truth being filtered or modified thru space-time perception, limited to a certain dimensional construct, is 'relative' to that context. Once you begin with a reality prior to any given 'relation' or transcending any particular dimensional context,...you're touching the infinite.
Absolute reality is what IS, here, NOW. - it is always already Being.....timelessly so, and omnipresently within every moment of time. - all other segments or extensions of perception/knowledge pertain ONLY in their own special context of 'relations', from whence their 'meaning' and 'value' is perceived.
Also see 'The relativity of concept frames' here.
Without knowledge of the general typography (map), its terms (keys/legends/codes)....you cant really comprehend the terrain, being a 'foreigner'. This goes for any information-system, school or cosmology. 'Terms' are important where info. is being 'related'.
pj
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Against retardation......
Against retardation......
'God' would have one use their own 'intelligence' in ascertaining what books have any spiritual meaning or value, and that will be relative and conditional on so many levels, just like some aspects of older religious writings (scriptures of all world-religions) have rules and conduct that is no longer appropriate or sane in a modern world, so even these 'writings' are 'interpreted' in the light of modern cultural advances, common sense and spiritual intelligence. Don't forget,....'revelation' is 'progressive' :surf:
The world is full of religious/metaphysical writings outside of the 'Bible', since men have been illumined or inspired to varying degrees in almost EVERY religious culture and tradition on the planet. Christianity (any of its polished or orthodoxed versions) certainly has NO monolopy on truth,...to believe such is retarded
pj
Against retardation......
'God' would have one use their own 'intelligence' in ascertaining what books have any spiritual meaning or value, and that will be relative and conditional on so many levels, just like some aspects of older religious writings (scriptures of all world-religions) have rules and conduct that is no longer appropriate or sane in a modern world, so even these 'writings' are 'interpreted' in the light of modern cultural advances, common sense and spiritual intelligence. Don't forget,....'revelation' is 'progressive' :surf:
The world is full of religious/metaphysical writings outside of the 'Bible', since men have been illumined or inspired to varying degrees in almost EVERY religious culture and tradition on the planet. Christianity (any of its polished or orthodoxed versions) certainly has NO monolopy on truth,...to believe such is retarded
pj
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
journey
New member
It takes a troll to post urantia UFO cult junk on a Christian forum, and nobody made you do it.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
served......
served......
This is the 'Religion' section on TOL, it allows for all religious discussions, and you've been 'served' already about the false assumption that the UB has anything to do with modern Ufology, or is a 'cult' per se, when it is not. Go back in the thread and 'review'.
Being a 'troll' is one thing, being an 'ignoramous' about the subject is another although the two often go together.
pj
served......
This is the 'Religion' section on TOL, it allows for all religious discussions, and you've been 'served' already about the false assumption that the UB has anything to do with modern Ufology, or is a 'cult' per se, when it is not. Go back in the thread and 'review'.
Being a 'troll' is one thing, being an 'ignoramous' about the subject is another although the two often go together.
pj
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
timelines......
timelines......
I think if you're banking on Peters writings (at least the 2 epistles 'attributed' to him), you may end up a bit short-changed, since both are probably 'pseudographical', more especially 2 Peter. I don't know if this matters any even if it is a late 1st century production reflecting doctrine or church-theology of that particular time, if Peter himself did not write it, we cant be sure it accurately reflects his thoughts.
The Genesis account is another subject, but we've already covered the UB's account of the second coming here. It certainly affirms Jesus' promise to return. Since 2 millennia have already passed by .....we are still left without. Interesting eh? Seeing that Jesus has NOT returned is a factual observation, it doesn't have to include any 'scoffing'. 'Christ' in spirit is ever-present and 'appearing' to souls on an inner level anyways,....so 'Christ' is ever coming (presencing), in a figurative way "Lo, I am with you always".
Curiously if we use the {1 day = 1000 years equation}....then Jesus from a heavenly perspective has only been gone from the earth about 2 days, so from that purview,...not too much time has gone by. If the Father chooses to allow him to come back in 3 days, then it would be around 3000 A. D. For whatever reason I remember drawing up some probable dates using an apocryphal time-table of Jesus return being around 2500 - 3000 A.D., in a study done years ago. If that is so,....we have over 400 -900 years to go. If we stretched this out to 7 days from the heavenly perspective, that's 7000 earth years,....what if Jesus didn't return til 7000 A.D.? Is such likely? A 3 day time-radius or context seems more appropriate with Jesus returning sometime in the third millennium A. D, our current age.
pj
timelines......
I think if you're banking on Peters writings (at least the 2 epistles 'attributed' to him), you may end up a bit short-changed, since both are probably 'pseudographical', more especially 2 Peter. I don't know if this matters any even if it is a late 1st century production reflecting doctrine or church-theology of that particular time, if Peter himself did not write it, we cant be sure it accurately reflects his thoughts.
The Genesis account is another subject, but we've already covered the UB's account of the second coming here. It certainly affirms Jesus' promise to return. Since 2 millennia have already passed by .....we are still left without. Interesting eh? Seeing that Jesus has NOT returned is a factual observation, it doesn't have to include any 'scoffing'. 'Christ' in spirit is ever-present and 'appearing' to souls on an inner level anyways,....so 'Christ' is ever coming (presencing), in a figurative way
"Lo, I am with you always".Curiously if we use the {1 day = 1000 years equation}....then Jesus from a heavenly perspective has only been gone from the earth about 2 days, so from that purview,...not too much time has gone by. If the Father chooses to allow him to come back in 3 days, then it would be around 3000 A. D. For whatever reason I remember drawing up some probable dates using an apocryphal time-table of Jesus return being around 2500 - 3000 A.D., in a study done years ago. If that is so,....we have over 400 -900 years to go. If we stretched this out to 7 days from the heavenly perspective, that's 7000 earth years,....what if Jesus didn't return til 7000 A.D.? Is such likely? A 3 day time-radius or context seems more appropriate with Jesus returning sometime in the third millennium A. D, our current age.
pj
Peter denied Christ 3 times even though Jesus forewarned him. Peter wasn't perfect, but he did appear to believe in the OT account of creation in that age. I don't fault him for that, he was sincere, the religious authorities of his day impressed upon him that their writing were from God.
Besides, I don't "scoff" at Christ at all, to the contrary, I promote his life and the original gospel of the kingdom of heaven.
Aimiel
Well-known member
Actually, you do scoff at Christ; since you discount the reason He came, which was to seek and to save the lost relationship with men that was lost in the garden. His Blood is a ransom to those who believe in Him. If you don't eat His Flesh and drink His Blood: you have NO LIFE in you.
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
He didn't say: "Verily." He said: "Verily, verily." That means this Truth is important. He wasn't joking and His Words were not misquoted. You've fallen for the lie of UB and have no faith in the True Gospel of Christ which cleanses us from sins through His Blood.
- Status