points.......
points.......
The following was quoted from Bill Kochman, who wrote
THIS ARTICLE:
You see, now you are beginning to understand why the Urantia Book is so demonic and dangerous. In fact, I would even call it the Devil's 'Solution Book'. You see, if we believe what is written in its pages, it acts as a soothing balm which takes away all of the ugliness and the uncomfortable feeling that is associated with Christ's Sacrifice. It tells us that this is not why Jesus died on the Cross. It tells us that His Act of Love was not really necessary for our Salvation. It tells us that our God is not the primitive God of the Old Testament who was constantly ordering the Israelites to kill people and offer animal sacrifices. It informs us that the 'real' God in fact finds belief in the Crucifixion of His Son as Atonement for our sins disgusting, repulsive and barbaric. The Urantia Book offers a new, peaceful, more civilized 'God' for a new age.
In short, the Urantia Book resolves all of the main problems that some people have with the Bible, and provides us with a much more comfortable and acceptable faith without all of the violence and blood, and without the necessity of the bloody Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Many people find this a lot more appealing. This is the true power of the Urantia Book. This is why so many people like it and believe in it. By just accepting what it teaches, we are rid of the guilt and the hard questions. It also makes it so much easier to share our faith with other people, because we no longer have to deal with animal and human sacrifices, and the messy Crucifixion. The Urantia Book sounds so good, but beware, because it is a damnable and dangerous heresy exactly as the Apostle Peter wrote!
It was a very enlightening article. I found no disagreement with what he wrote.
We've already covered the blood-atonement theory
here (several dialogues linked back).
With Bill's articles I see the usual special pleading from a traditional evangelical perspective and polemic. He spouts the typical demonizing and disparaging against satanic deception. He maintains a few misconceptions, one concerning the UB's teaching on Jesus being the archangel Michael, assuming it holds the same view of JWs and SDAs that these are the same person. In the UB they are not.
Jesus is a Creator-Son, of the Order of Michael, being a 'Michael'....so he is recognized as 'Michael of Nebadon'....the Creator-Son of our local universe. He is traditionally also known as 'Christ-Michael' on this planet, an appellation noting his being identification as the 'messiah' as well as being our Creator-Son. Various archangels serve Creator-Sons, and some biblical passages may refer to an 'archangel
of Michael'. So we are clear, Jesus is not an archangel, and is called 'Michael' because he is a Creator-Son, who are also called Michaels. There is assmed to be at least 700,000
Creator Sons in existence...these are 'personalized' as Michaels.
As to our traditional concept of Michael being one of the archangels, this would be interesting research, if there is an actual archangel by this name or the name was confused between Creator-Sons and lower ranking angels in the hierarchy.
See:
here.
pj
