Search results

Just wondering...do you think that's consistent with how Jesus portrayed the Father?

I agree. The "law," as you put it, is a guide on how to live in such a way that it benefits us, not God. It's not harmless to us, but I don't think God worries about it. Why should he even acknowledge its existence? God is above all that. Agreed. Agreed. Could it be that they saw the attacks...

What if they passed a law and nobody obeyed? If you do that, more fish will die and sink to the bottom than rise to the surface. Not only is that not appealing, but it is unconscionable. I think most people today see in that a good reason to not believe in God. Again, I'm not saying you're...

Okay. Since it is clear that you you do not want to "reason together," let's discuss one of the few of the things you have been willing to talk about. There is no question that we all fall short of God's glory. But right or wrong, true or false, the need for sacrifice in order to be forgiven...

Then let's do as you suggest: reason together. Let's discuss the teachings. What is said in the suggested papers that you disagree with?

Reason would read the suggested papers, if for no other reason than to properly refute them.

It's interesting you would say that considering you claim to have read the entire book.

It seems some people prefer to say, "To hell with Reality! I live for drama and controversy!"

Welcome, Jim. All I can say is, "Damn! I wish I could be that articulate." :BRAVO:

Of course they didn't have copyright laws when the books of the Bible were written. It was not uncommon to write something and attribute it to someone else on order to do him honor. If they did had copyright laws, it would to see who would win the lawsuits between Matthew, Mark, Luke, and...

I, for one, am concerned only with spiritual growth. But if if a biblical-oriented person is going to concern themselves with something as trivial as "plagiarism," they had better learn something about the Bible itself, particularly Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

It is his prerogative, but is also my prerogative to call that kind of irrational skepticism "stupid, counterproductive and unbelievably selfish and trivial" even if doing so makes me :kookoo: or :troll: :D

Dingodile is not interested in genuine discourse except, perhaps, to verify my "insults."

Yeah? So? Care to discuss the teachings anyway, or continue on in proving that my "insults" are statements of facts? Unless you want to actually discuss something in a meaningful way, my accusing you of "copping-out" stands.

That's a cop-out. It's not the source you don't trust, but you own "reality response." The UB's copyrights have served to protect it long enough so that there can be no doubts in the minds of future generations as to what it actually says, and it does say it uses human sources wherever...

The introduction to your link pretty much says it all: I don't know about dingodile or Aimiel, but I live on a planet where people are bombarded by lies every day, not to mention being pulled in every direction by inane trivialities. When we filter out all the crap, we are left with just one...

They did? And even if they did I'd say, "Yeah, so?" It is your judgment, then, that legalism has precedence over the merit of ideas. You would let the "hypocrisy" of the "celestials" deter you from expanding your awareness. You are free to do that, of course, but like I said, it is stupid...

I don't see the point of this debate about plagiarism. The belief that rights of ownership can or should be extended to texts whose purpose is to benefit humankind is stupid, counterproductive and unbelievably selfish and trivial. Why can't we allow ourselves to be free to reflect on what...

Great site. Thanks.

So? None of this invalidates the truths it presents nor is it anything the book denies. Quite the contrary, it flat-out says it uses the highest ideas of the (Urantia) realm.