Search results

We believe what we want to be. Some people apparently would like to see God sustain the unreality of error-identified personalities.

Did your thinking mind shut down, or did you get lost in a mystical fog? As a response, this makes no sense whatsoever.

Well, we can certainly agree that it is not for me. However, I don't find it's underlying message confusing at all, just its theology. There's nothing new in it, but it can be confusing to the uninitiated and be a roadblock to genuine seekers. Like I said, The Impersonal Life presents the same...

Yes, exactly. There must be balance. There are posters in TOL, both atheistic and Christian, that exemplify the linear line of thought, which is materialistic in nature. Others lean heavily on the mystical. Me? I don't know. Logic is a tool but not the determiner of my religion. I'm interested...

Actually, there's too much. If it wants to be Zen, it should be Zen. When I was in the Air Force, I was stationed at a base whose commander tried to make it a cross between civilian life and the military. It didn't work. Some people adapted, but overall, it created confusion and morale dropped...

Sounds like Zen, but ACIM has too much "metaphysical speculation" to be Zen. The Course appeals only to some who are on the "mystical quest." The UB is much more balanced; it does not disregard the rational mind.

I would most certainly think so! The authors make no bones about it.

I lean heavily toward the UB's version of Jesus' divinity (God of our local universe), but am not entirely convinced even though I would think along the same lines even as a child, long before I heard of the UB. No, I do not think it is particularly important. Jesus answers the question himself...

Chrys, I won't speak for Caino, but I assume you have read my criticisms of ACIM and the negative resonance I get from it. The Urantia Book evokes a very different response. It resonates with me in a very positive way. I am drawn to it like a moth to a flame. I have left it on several occasions...

(1304.7) 118:10.5 It is the importance of the function of the creature that occasions providential intervention, not the importance of the creature as a person. (1305.1) 118:10.6 Nevertheless, the Father as a person may at any time interpose a fatherly hand in the stream of cosmic events all in...

Ain't that the truth!? It's amazing what they will believe in order to disbelieve.

Give it up Stuu. Your concerns have been shown to be completely and totally irrelevant. You do know the definition of insanity, don't you? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. :dizzy:

Well, it was between that quote and this one: (969.5) 88:2.7 In olden times the fetish word of authority was a fear-inspiring doctrine, the most terrible of all tyrants which enslave men. A doctrinal fetish will lead mortal man to betray himself into the clutches of bigotry, fanaticism...

The UB is not sacrosanct. (1109.2) 101:4.1 Because your world is generally ignorant of origins, even of physical origins, it has appeared to be wise from time to time to provide instruction in cosmology. And always has this made trouble for the future. The laws of revelation hamper us greatly...

Probably an oversight. The UB says "God is love" 14 times. However, according to Aimiel, this must be a lie. ;)

Interesting, Caino. Thanks. I was unaware of that. Ever notice that when atheists or agnostics get stuck on a question or problem they ask for definitions? They call theism “stupid” but, apparently, don’t know how to use a dictionary. And what part of “what must be in order for what is to be...

Did you not read what I said: "Rreality is not a concept"? That you would require a definition for the Infinite-Eternal serves as proof that you have not contemplated it -- that you worship concepts, exactly like I said.

The UB rightly points out that a rational thought pattern depends on a universe frame in which to think, but the idolatress belief and trust people have in concepts is bewildering to me. Reality is not a concept. Concepts are only tools: Mind can never hope to grasp the concept of an Absolute...

So much for the fantasy of billions of years of random reactions in warm ponds brimming with fecund chemicals leading to life. “Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into...

If some idiot comes along who wants to challenge what the UB says on the grounds that it does what it says it does (i.e., that it "plagiarizes ideas"), let them. It's just a case of a fool proving to the world they are a fool.