The Late Great Urantia Revelation

[meshak]

heir .
The Late Great Urantia... August 15th, 2014 12:05 AM

Tambora .
Excessive Post... August 14th, 2014 11:19 PM

Tambora

these are neg rep from mainstreamers.

this is what I mean. Now GM is gone, Tam and other taking his place giving neg repping for truth sayers.

You guys have no shame and calling yourselves true and saved Christians.

 

[Zeke]

At some point when all this yackity-yack subsides a bit, I'd like to hear your story about your experiences in churches and beyond.

You had evidently pursued quite a bit of study about Kabbalah and Zionism, and the Eschaton Agenda in regards to the whole world stage of events unfolding; and all that was while you were still "in the faith" (my general reference).

So how much of your awakenness came before or after your departure from Christianity? Was your exodus more abrupt or gradual? And at what point did you abandon the more Christian view related to "awakening", and what was the difference after being on the opposite side of the fence (again, just descriptors)?

Were you functioning devoid of your fictious legal name and all the rest while you were still professing Christianity? How did that whole timeline play out of leaving Christianity and embracing Esotericism relative to being aware of the false dialectic and duality of the System?

I've never heard you really address any of the transition, just the either/or of before/after. So if you get a chance and have any inclination to share that progression, let me know and I'll read along.

I have read most of the anti new age stuff back in the eighties, traveled the dispensation road to the 28 position then Universalism, and now see the scripture as allegory for the innerman, and not a literal history lesson where another had to die for my own responsibility to take care of my own temple, lost the fear factor that holds most chained to some strict theological box where God is some ego maniac demanding doctrinal purity which is a mental trap, the image in the mirror is the only one I need to be concerned about.
Have no other Gods before "ME", the temple of God.

 

[Caino]

I have read most of the anti new age stuff back in the eighties, traveled the dispensation road to the 28 position then Universalism, and now see the scripture as allegory for the innerman, and not a literal history lesson where another had to die for my own responsibility to take care of my own temple, lost the fear factor that holds most chained to some strict theological box where God is some ego maniac demanding doctrinal purity which is a mental trap, the image in the mirror is the only one I need to be concerned about.
Have no other Gods before "ME", the temple of God.

So, every new generation of scripture authors were all just adding to the allegory?

 

[Daniel1611]

The "New Age" is the lie created by the serpent in the Garden of Eden that we will not die and that we can be god.

 

[Caino]

The "New Age" is the lie created by the serpent in the Garden of Eden that we will not die and that we can be god.

.....and they said the exact same thing about Jesus and he had the same answer we would give:


From the scripture

Jesus and Beelzebul

22 Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23 All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”

24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”

25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

29 “Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house.

30 “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. 31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

33 “Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. 35 A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. 36 But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”

 

[Caino]

This is a link to the Lucifer rebellion papers, it explain who Lucifer, Satan and the other rebel leaders were and what the rebellion was all about.

http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/paper-53-lucifer-rebellion

 

[Tambora]

I am going to count all the names and derogatory terms used by you and free light , then I am going to use my free will and decide for myself who is the real Christian here and who is a walking mess of hate and confusion...

So grow up and find your own demon, find the plank in your eye, and realize there is only one person in this life you have to figure out and he/she is the one right behind your eyes that is reading this.

 

[Caino]

NOTE: I removed the "World Net Daily" story as it may be a fraud story. While there is other evidence of early Vikings in America this story is on hold for now.


UB 1955

(884.2) 79:5.8 "The red and the yellow races are the only human stocks that ever achieved a high degree of civilization apart from the influences of the Andites. The oldest Amerindian culture was the Onamonalonton center in California, but this had long since vanished by 35,000 B.C. In Mexico, Central America, and in the mountains of South America the later and more enduring civilizations were founded by a race predominantly red but containing a considerable admixture of the yellow, orange, and blue.

(884.3) 79:5.9 These civilizations were evolutionary products of the Sangiks, notwithstanding that traces of Andite blood reached Peru. Excepting the Eskimos in North America and a few Polynesian Andites in South America, the peoples of the Western Hemisphere had no contact with the rest of the world until the end of the first millennium after Christ. In the original Melchizedek plan for the improvement of the Urantia races it had been stipulated that one million of the pure-line descendants of Adam should go to upstep the red men of the Americas."​

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I have read most of the anti new age stuff back in the eighties, traveled the dispensation road to the 28 position then Universalism, and now see the scripture as allegory for the innerman, and not a literal history lesson where another had to die for my own responsibility to take care of my own temple, lost the fear factor that holds most chained to some strict theological box where God is some ego maniac demanding doctrinal purity which is a mental trap, the image in the mirror is the only one I need to be concerned about.
Have no other Gods before "ME", the temple of God.

I'm truly interested in a more autobiographical expose of your adult life, reaching back to whatever point. Though I see the result of where you've ended up in your ideology (or whatever neutral term is descriptive), I've just been somewhat curious about the transition over time and the "landmarks" along the way, so to speak.

You're much different than others here in a number of ways, even though you're loosely affiliated to whatever degree that I wouldn't assign for you. I just see more of a general before and after from your posts, and I thought it might be enlightening to know more of how it all played out "during" between the before and after.

If it's too tedious or personal, just ignore my comments. They're innocuous, not pejorative. Purely points of information for the overall database of anthropology.

At some point, you became versed in the minutiae of modern Zionism and Kabbalah. I'm just wondering how that and many other things dovetailed in the overall process of your transition(s). I'd presume it was in "stages", and more like a rheostat than an on/off switch, or series of them.

 

[meshak]

Tambora So worldly of you to keep talking about reps.
Don't say Robin... August 15th, 2014 09:27 AM

Tambora You are so worldly by always talking about reps.

Some more from Tam, who is true and saved Christian.

 

[freelight]

proofs...............

proofs...............

No. The fact remains...

You have never once presented ANY valid form of textual criticism for ANY writings you've ever posted, linked, referenced, or alluded to.

Go back to here. My post and challenge to Journey stands,...which also applies to you, if you would claim the same thing, since you're pursuing this.

Also I don't need to provide any 'textual criticism' for anything, since what is shared speaks for itself. You're bringing in your own prerequisites or qualifications, which are not necessary.

No script-flipping, though that's your forte as the Jell-O master. Do as you attempt to demand by "challenge" of others.

Present the scrutinous verification for the UB and ANY other of your writings.

Feel free to place me on Ingore at any point, now or later. I'm not concerned in the least one way or the other.

Everyone knows you can't answer your own challenge, which is why you make it. I, on the other hand, could represent volumes of textual criticism for scripture (and I'm even rational enough to present the higher critical challenges TO scripture, because I'm just unbiased like that).

You'll dodge and evade and avoid and posture and preen. But you won't dare actually broach attempting to take your own challenge. That's because there's no valid means of ANY of those writings surviving textual criticism according to canonical standards.

My ire is from the fact that you exhibit constant inequities, and present them in the most heinous passive-aggressive manner that is humanly possible.

Textual criticism is a time-consuming process, and it requires a mutuality of preliminary understanding to even converse. I'd gladly set aside the time in the next few days to do so.

But only in response to YOU doing the same FIRST for ALL the writings you've represented in any manner, beginning with the UB.

My commentary on the UB or any related subject shared in this thread or elsewhere stands. It is what it is. If you have issues with them, respond to points or specifics.

It's your thread. You should bring the goods and support what you propagate and endorse or practice or adhere to or recommend.

Caino started this this thread, I've never begun a UB thread here myself,...only served as a commentator/expounder. The UB is one religious text among hundreds. It is limited to its own 'informational-context', given during a time-period, like other writings.

So get to it.

Read the thread, I've contributed amply already. I don't need to prove anything to you. I responded to the claim that the UB was made up fabricated lies, and has no facts, and counter-challenged it. Journey can attempt to offer his 'proof', as well as yourself, which cant really be had, outside of your own pre-figured 'criteria' in which to determine such (with its pre-loaded conclusions), being your own religious-belief, bias, interpretation, translation, etc. Journey hasn't even read enough of the papers to have an adequate knowledge of its contents, at least the fundamental papers like the first 10...dealing directly with God and the Creation, to say nothing of Part 4, one of the most complete, extensive records on Jesus life that exists.

But you won't. You can't. That's why you distract with your "challenge". Your only hope is to skirt any necessity of you having to do what you insist of others.

Go ahead. Engage in validation of the UB through scrutinous textual criticism as Christian scripture has been put through for nearly two millennia.

Fail. Already before you give all the double-standard posturing excuses. Cuz it can't and won't happen. Ever.

Your recommendation misses the mark, here's why. 'Textual criticism' as applied 'biblically' in its own field cannot necessarily apply to the UB, since the book is different in content and scope, therefore cannot be held to the same standards, unless you can prove that such applies to a 20th century literary production such as the papers. Judge a book by its contents, ideals, principles, values,....if the concepts be sound, logical, reasonable, consistent, integrous, etc. That's the general standard,...any other intellectual bench-mark or 'qualification' is something being added.

The challenge stands. Its not a double-standard at all, since I've never claimed the Bible was a book of non-facts, lies or fabrications. NEITHER have I ever claimed the UB was the perfect inerrant 'word of God', neither a finality of revelation since future dispensations will continue on in the continuum of 'progressive revelation'.


pj

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Go back to here. My post and challenge to Journey stands,...which also applies to you, if you would claim the same thing, since you're pursuing this.

Also I don't need to provide any 'textual criticism' for anything, since what is shared speaks for itself. You're bringing in your own prerequisites or qualifications, which are not necessary.

My commentary on the UB or any related subject shared in this threads stands. If you have issues with them, respond to those if interested.

Caino started this this thread, I've never begun a UB thread here myself,...only served as a commentator/expounder. The UB is one religious text among hundreds. It is limited to its own 'informational-context', given during a time-period, like other writings.

Read the thread, I've contributed amply already. I don't need to prove anything to you. I responded to the claim that the UB was made up fabricated lies, and has no facts, and counter-challenged it. Journey can attempt to offer his 'proof', as well as yourself, which cant really be had, outside of your own pre-figured 'criteria' in which to determine such (with its pre-loaded conclusions), being your own religious-belief, bias, interpretation, translation, etc. Journey hasn't even read enough of the papers to have an adequate knowledge of its contents, at least the fundamental papers like the first 10...dealing directly with God and the Creation.

Your recommendation misses the mark, here's why. 'Textual criticism' as applied 'biblically' in its own field cannot necessarily apply to the UB, since the book is different in content and scope, therefore cannot be held to the same standards, unless you can prove that such applies to a 20th century literary production such as the papers. Judge a book by its contents, ideals, principles, values,....if the concepts be sound, logical, reasonable, consistent, integrous, etc. That's the general standard,...any other intellectual bench-mark or 'qualification' is something being added.

The challenge stands. Its not a double-standard at all, since I've never claimed the Bible was a book of non-facts, lies or fabrications. NEITHER have I ever claimed the UB was the perfect inerrant 'word of God', neither a finality of revelation since future dispensations will continue on in the continuum of 'progressive revelation'.

pj

Always the inequities and double standards of script-flipping, insisting that "all you've contributed stands".

You've become the junior-jedi master of evasion to hide behind the fact that you have no foundation whatsoever for anything except bare assertion of opinion.

You set yourself and your mindset up as the defacto standard and status quo. It doesn't work that way.

The very history of textual criticism stands on its own. You don't. You're just a guy from Sacramento (or wherever). And you're chasing your own mind in its own vortex of nothingness.

Passive-aggressive doesn't work on me. I'm immune.

There is no proof for anything you say. It's so much wind from you beating the air. You're like the holodeck on the fictitious Enterprise, fabricating facsimiles according to programming. But you can die there when the safety protocols aren't engaged, which yours aren't.

IOW... You can't and won't be able to actually defend ANYTHING you've ever posted or linked. It's all suggestive and declarative bare assertion from your own reasoning as the defacto standard.

You don't get to make the rules or determine the boundaries. Your passive-aggressive narcissism has run amok. You've hijacked the bus and made yourself Chief Logician, but in a feigned love and false humility.

There's really no worse character trait, and you're as blind to that as to any subject matter that could be mentioned. Your rehearsed tactics may be soft-spoken, but you're a coiled cobra who's just learned to strike subtly.

I tried to engage you some time ago in an intensely copious manner about all the disciplines and teachings. You pandered to some excuse and wandered off quickly because I was asking for things much beyond your paygrade.

You just gloss and merge. There's no real merit to anything you present. You've become about the process and presentation instead of any real content or substance.

 

[freelight]

Always the inequities and double standards of script-flipping, insisting that "all you've contributed stands".

You've become the junior-jedi master of evasion to hide behind the fact that you have no foundation whatsoever for anything except bare assertion of opinion.

You set yourself and your mindset up as the defacto standard and status quo. It doesn't work that way.

The very history of textual criticism stands on its own. You don't. You're just a guy from Sacramento (or wherever). And your chasing your own mind in its own vortex of nothingness.

Passive-aggressive doesn't work on me. I'm immune.

There is no proof for anything you say. It's so much wind from you beating the air. You're like the holodeck on the fictitious Enterprise, fabricating facsimiles according to programming. But you can die there when the safety protocols aren't engaged, which yours aren't.

Try again. Same ole drill.



pj

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

NOTE: I removed the "World Net Daily" story as it may be a fraud story. While there is other evidence of early Vikings in America this story is on hold for now.

Always looking for some vague authentication for the UB revisionism since there isn't any valid means of examining it for veracity by textual criticism.

Keep posting National Enquirer frauds and hoaxes. It's already lent the appropriate air of credibility. None.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Try again. Same ole drill.

pj

There's your perpetual script-flip.

This isn't a stalemate.

Try again yourself, Mr. Herman. "I know you are, so what am I." ad infinitum.

Meet the demands for veracity for ANYTHING you've ever said or read beyond mere opinion and bare assertion.

Go ahead. It'll do a body good.

 

[glorydaz]

What this demonstrates, though, is an utter lack of knowledge in the field of textual criticism. The Urantia Papers can't even begin to stand up to the rigorous scrutiny that the Christian canon has been subjected to, both from within and without the faith.

Higher (textual) criticism, as a formal segment in the field of study, may still deny veracity in many ways, but there are many caveats regarding inherent bias and methodology, etc. to return criticism. Higher criticism must begin with a negative predisposition and assertions demanding unreasonable alleged proofs.

Lower (textual) criticism, as the formal segment of that field of study, has proven quite consistent and concise in demonstrating all facets of consideration for validity according to UNrevised history on canonicity. Lower criticism begins with a neutral and unbiased examination that virtually universally yields unquestioned veracity for the existing canon and its rigorous processes.

The Urantia Book has no historical significance or veracity whatsoever. There can't even really BE a field of textual criticism regarding the Papers because they have NO precedent of the many factors that would be involved in any true and valid rigorous canonization process.

The entire thing is nothing BUT redaction of a variety of historical revisionist ways. To compare the "text" of the Urantia Book to the actual canon of Christian scripture is like apples and dumpsters, the latter being the UB.

You can't possibly be the remotest bit rational to even suggest such a comparison simply on the grounds that the UB refers to subject matter in the same general category. It's infinitely beyond laughable, and erodes your credibility to being negligible.

The Urantia Book has NO qualifications as a "sacred" writing. It could stand up to no more scrutiny than a series of novels compiled in aggregate. To even propose such a comparison based on genre alone is possibly the most overwhelmingly and overbearingly inane and outright stupid thing I may have ever heard come from a living human.

Even if the absolute worst case scenario of the greatest deluded and hate-mongering higher textual critics were true, it STILL lends NO veracity whatsoever to any such "canonicity" of the UB.

As bright as you are in your absolute delusion in certain ways, this exposes you as a simpering moron for even suggesting such a contrast of scripture to the UB for valid historicity. It's beyond plausibility to even suggest such a thing, and makes one want to ask how long you've been on such a high dosage of psychotropics.

Most. Epic. Fail. Ever. Get real. This is monumentally worse than your frustrated criticism of Christians not reading the Papers and still bashing the UB. You're not even an amateur yet in the field of textual criticism, much less an expert or professional.

Seriously? This deserves scathing ad hominem, though I don't need to employ it. Come on, PJ. Totally bogus. Marvel Comics have more historicity than the UB, fer cryin' out loud. And that's not me equivocating content, it's just to illustrate the silliness of your tact in attempting to toss out Christian scripture that YOU constantly quote selectively for your own purposes.

Arrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhh!!!! Just stop with the circus portion. It should be beneath even you.

:e4e:

 

[freelight]

There's your perpetual script-flip.

This isn't a stalemate.

Try again yourself, Mr. Herman. "I know you are, so what am I." ad infinitum.

Meet the demands for veracity for ANYTHING you've ever said or read beyond mere opinion and bare assertion.

Go ahead. It'll do a body good.

Sadly this is your very 'script', projecting it on others. Yes, its an auto-loop,...as all you have is 'mere opinion/bare assertion'.


Moving along.......


:wave:



pj

 

[Caino]

Always looking for some vague authentication for the UB revisionism since there isn't any valid means of examining it for veracity by textual criticism.

Keep posting National Enquirer frauds and hoaxes. It's already lent the appropriate air of credibility. None.

The spirit of Caiaphas is still with us, tradition and "authority" still trumps truth and even just a little common sense.

We already have verification of the statements concerning the Vikings.

http://www.ubthenews.com/topics/vikings.htm#sdfootnote8sym

 

[Caino]

Sadly this is your very 'script', projecting it on others. Yes, its an auto-loop,...as all you have is 'mere opinion/bare assertion'.


Moving along.......


:wave:



pj

People of the talking donkey, unicorns and child rape challenge veracity......:rotfl:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Sadly this is your very 'script', projecting it on others. Yes, its an auto-loop,...as all you have is 'mere opinion/bare assertion'.

Moving along.......

:wave:

pj

Yes, you must move along lest you have to provide anything of substance.

Run. You couldn't even converse when I broached the intricate topic of all forms of Mysticism and Esotericism throughout history.