Are ya gonna place one of your "personal judgments" on me?
MOVIE TITLES THAT RELATE TO THE URANTIA BOOK?
- Thread starter Grosnick Marowbe
- Start date
Are ya gonna place one of your "personal judgments" on me?
Thanks for noting
What are those "Cosmic Voices" in your head, saying these days?
And, your "little green men in their UFOs" have given you, your agenda!
An upstart or busy-body needs a target or subject to obsess over. While 'rant' might fit into the equation,....'runt' also might have a place there
pj
I'll bet your, "Entities" told you to say that. Tell them to send me a "Cosmic E-Mail" some day?
Kindly advice, especially for some in particular
pj
Like yourself perhaps? :dead:
No surprise eh. But then neither is the tolerance here putting up with your 'buffoonery'
I'd call your 'word-switch' to 'brilliance' a major typo. If there wasn't a more wonderful oxy-moron.
pj
Start writing down ALL the words the voices in your head are saying.
Then, put out a book entitled; "The Urantia Book-Volume Two?"
Freelight, is it true, you've been receiving messages from Europa?
(One of the Moons that orbit Jupiter) Furthermore, have those
messages been from Caino?
(One of the Moons that orbit Jupiter) Furthermore, have those
messages been from Caino?
Freelight, Is it true that the, 'Entities' that spoke through the 'human conduit' were from another planet located, 500 Trillion 'Ultra-light years' away from planet earth; otherwise known as, Urantia?
Freelight, if one considered travelling to the Sun, would it
be best to go at nighttime, when it's cooler?
be best to go at nighttime, when it's cooler?
Freelight, Would your "Cosmic Entity Friends"
allow you to take a "Cell-phone" picture of them?
Nothing fancy, just sitting around contemplating
their next book, perhaps?
allow you to take a "Cell-phone" picture of them?
Nothing fancy, just sitting around contemplating
their next book, perhaps?
Do you speak to them telepathically?
Lon
Well-known member
Yep. You say a lot when all you needed to say was "I agree with Caino."To slice one portion of a pie, then decorate, accessorize and worship it, as the whole pie,...is a bit short-sighted or self-aggrandizing. Truth includes the totality of all, because it encompasses ALL THAT IS. This gets more absurd as one considers the OMNIPRESENCE of 'God'. But I'll save my usual meta-tations for another time
pj
It amounts, again, to picking and choosing your theology rather than having God dictate it to you. You can't ever get around that. This Judeo-Christian God has answered miraculous prayers in a way only He could do and only according to scriptural parameters. Such 'authenticates' His message as consistent and true. The little I've read of the uB is worse than simple, it makes awful painful mistakes and walks through Jesus' fictitious life like a middle schooler wrote it (and I've proofread a LOT of term papers).
The BoM is better and it is terrible!
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
No Comparison.................
No Comparison.................
Not quite. My theology is quite personalized, much more eclectic and avante garde than Caino's, - I suspect you haven't read much of my work here over the decade? At any rate,...we don't agree on everything, - one could see this just on our vocabularies alone. Elaborating on parts of the UB, of course there may be some similarities on principles, but we all have our own 'language' so to speak, with its own terms.
Nah. The Spirit of truth/wisdom of course is the teacher,...'God' is the only source and authority of reality existing, so naturally....He is the leader, guide, teacher...using certain vessels in the process.
Yes, 'God' answers prayer, responds to faith.
That's Part 4 on the life and teachings of Jesus, added later to the UB. It has its own style. I agree there are some sophomoric passages in the UB, in certain parts, but quite grand and prolific ones as well, on the majority. I recommend the first 5 - 12 papers at least if you want the 'meat' of the UB, the fundamentals.
There is no comparison whatsoever of the BoM to the UB,....the latter being much more comprehensive, prolific, consistent, innovative, etc. Until you read a significant amount of BOTH books, you cant really judge beyond bias or assumption. I grew up LDS so know the BoM...there is NO COMPARISON. I'm afraid your working with an incomplete picture Lon.
Again, the challenge....if u want the fundamentals of UB theology (learn what it actually teaches about God and the soul's relationship to God...and MORE)....the first 5 - 12 papers will cover that. Cherrypicking a few verses at the end of the book, and judging the entire 2,000 pages on that is lousy scholarship. Lets up the standard here.
The UB is a diverse book, with many interesting papers. It FAR excels the BoM on many levels on a revelatory and epochal scale, by far. In fact some liberal LDS who have discovered the UB, consider it a newer additional revelation adding onto the LDS revelations, BUT the UB does not agree or mention many of the odd personal revelations of Joseph Smith at all, and the cosmology is different, but all agrees in the universal principle of souls on a journey of eternal progression. -just the details differ.
Yes, the BoM is 'terrible', well...I'd just say a little 'dry'. Again, no comparison to the UB. The BoM is really just an old romantic religious novel to get prospects into the door of the church so to speak, to get one 'into the system'.
pj
No Comparison.................
Not quite. My theology is quite personalized, much more eclectic and avante garde than Caino's, - I suspect you haven't read much of my work here over the decade? At any rate,...we don't agree on everything, - one could see this just on our vocabularies alone. Elaborating on parts of the UB, of course there may be some similarities on principles, but we all have our own 'language' so to speak, with its own terms.
Nah. The Spirit of truth/wisdom of course is the teacher,...'God' is the only source and authority of reality existing, so naturally....He is the leader, guide, teacher...using certain vessels in the process.
Yes, 'God' answers prayer, responds to faith.
That's Part 4 on the life and teachings of Jesus, added later to the UB. It has its own style. I agree there are some sophomoric passages in the UB, in certain parts, but quite grand and prolific ones as well, on the majority. I recommend the first 5 - 12 papers at least if you want the 'meat' of the UB, the fundamentals.
There is no comparison whatsoever of the BoM to the UB,....the latter being much more comprehensive, prolific, consistent, innovative, etc. Until you read a significant amount of BOTH books, you cant really judge beyond bias or assumption. I grew up LDS so know the BoM...there is NO COMPARISON. I'm afraid your working with an incomplete picture Lon.
Again, the challenge....if u want the fundamentals of UB theology (learn what it actually teaches about God and the soul's relationship to God...and MORE)....the first 5 - 12 papers will cover that. Cherrypicking a few verses at the end of the book, and judging the entire 2,000 pages on that is lousy scholarship. Lets up the standard here.
The UB is a diverse book, with many interesting papers. It FAR excels the BoM on many levels on a revelatory and epochal scale, by far. In fact some liberal LDS who have discovered the UB, consider it a newer additional revelation adding onto the LDS revelations, BUT the UB does not agree or mention many of the odd personal revelations of Joseph Smith at all, and the cosmology is different, but all agrees in the universal principle of souls on a journey of eternal progression. -just the details differ.
Yes, the BoM is 'terrible', well...I'd just say a little 'dry'. Again, no comparison to the UB. The BoM is really just an old romantic religious novel to get prospects into the door of the church so to speak, to get one 'into the system'.
pj
However, both you and Caino share a belief in little green men riding
around the Galaxy in their UFOs!!
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Put a cork in it..............
Put a cork in it..............
Ah, decided to hit the 'show post' button to see if you're still tooting the same horn, and whala. Same ole tune. Putting you on 'ignore' is refreshing, gives one a vacation from battery. I've repeatedly corrected your ignorances, presuppositions and plain delusions more than once,...no need to reinvent the wheel here. - its a circular event.
See HERE. ---buy a few clues already. You're a day late and a dollar short. (and that's being kind )
It goes without saying I have no affiliation whatsoever with the little green men of your imagination, and don't forget in that thick numbskull of yours (yes its pretty thick),.....the UB has no affiliation or association with UFO, and there is no official or central cult or church built upon the UB. Your ignorance and trollery is indefensible. But it probably thrills you being 'served' again, as it gives your ego another chance to respond in shotgun fashion to spout nonsense, ridicule and satire...in a 3-5 spattered post array per your usual MO. So knock yourself out.
pj
Put a cork in it..............
Ah, decided to hit the 'show post' button to see if you're still tooting the same horn, and whala. Same ole tune. Putting you on 'ignore' is refreshing, gives one a vacation from battery. I've repeatedly corrected your ignorances, presuppositions and plain delusions more than once,...no need to reinvent the wheel here. - its a circular event.
See HERE. ---buy a few clues already. You're a day late and a dollar short. (and that's being kind
)It goes without saying I have no affiliation whatsoever with the little green men of your imagination, and don't forget in that thick numbskull of yours (yes its pretty thick),.....the UB has no affiliation or association with UFO, and there is no official or central cult or church built upon the UB. Your ignorance and trollery is indefensible. But it probably thrills you being 'served' again, as it gives your ego another chance to respond in shotgun fashion to spout nonsense, ridicule and satire...in a 3-5 spattered post array per your usual MO. So knock yourself out.
pj
Lon
Well-known member
You don't mean "God" when you say God. Just to make sure: Do you believe in the Judeo Christian God as exclusively given in the Old and New Testaments?
Panentheism or Pantheism?
You forget a lot. I've read your portions and found them wanting as well. Horrible grammar. Terrible writing. Horrible references to history on par with BoM Lamenites. Just really horrible and terrible. Sorry, that is my professional academic assessment.
Again, sorry. Incorrect. I was the one who went and found the uB online and read it without your prompt. I've sampled it, read the portions you and Caino have plastered and it is terrible. I've read most the of the BoM. It is better grammatically and is still an error ridden read. So, the BoM gets some grammatical points where the uB fails on both error and poor grammatical structure.
You have a poor short memory for this kind of discussion. You can cart out a few of your choicest quotes (which you've already done in that thread and I found wanting). I can easily do so with the New Testament and Paul's writings as well as John's. In about 11 verses, you get the whole picture of the gospel message and our need for a Savior.
Sadly, you just can't do that with the BoM or the uB. There is no overall redemption message.
True. EVERY religion of man is about his vain efforts toward perfection like Jonathan Livingston Seagull. Jonathan Livingston Seagull is the parable of this reaching up by your own bootstraps feel-good but stay the same you, religion.
The only religion of God coming to earth was Jesus. End of discussion, right?
It makes sense that you came from Mormonism. You need to leave all of those man-made, man-conceived futilities and meet God on His ground where you must remove your shoes, and He gets to dictate what you believe and how you will worship Him. He is a jealous God because there are no other Gods before Him and NONE who come after. Beside Him there is no other God. In any sense we are called 'gods' it is NOT the Mormon or other religions' understanding of the concept. It is merely that we are created in a significant way, to fellowship with that one True God but ever as creations/creatures. He was never made by anything. Whatever philosophy you try to conceive is poor and inaccurate because He doesn't think like a man and is not a man. The JudeoChristian worship is the only one where Jesus Christ said "we worship what we know."
Mormonism created and opened an esoteric door for you and many other Mormons that needs to be closed by the God of the universe, and you need to let Him close it and dictate to you how you will live and believe. John 15:5 and Colossians 1:16 "Apart from Me, you can do nothing."
There are some similarities between Scientology and the UB! Both are UFO Cults, and
were both written in the mid 50s!
were both written in the mid 50s!
Hey Freelight, did ya get your UFO fixed?
How's your little green men buddies doing?
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Serving the word..............
Serving the word..............
I do. 'God' is JUST A WORD. I write God often as 'God', showing it is just a word-symbol denoting Deity or divinity. Remember, the word is not the reality, only a representation, pointer or description.
I do not believe 'God' is limited by the Bible or to it, since 'God' is Infinite. 'God' revealed in the OT/NT is just one presentation of 'God' amid many others. God is One. God is all. Universal Light is expressed thru and as the total spectrum of all colours....the Universal Spirit in many forms. Spirit is omnipresent. Consciousness is all-inclusive.
My former comment holds. Now if you want to contextualize that within a pan or pan-en-theist context, that can be done, but you'll have to be a little more clear on what you're asking here.
You'll have to prove the above specifically, and then compare that to the whole of the UB which you haven't read to be fair. I hardly think your assessment is 'professional' or 'academic', but biased/bigoted...yes.
Disagree, and if you'd like to prove that, you'll have to compare the entirety of the UB text with the BoM showing where the BoM is better grammatically. Giving Joseph Smith a better 'score' than the celestials that gave the UB is rather extraordinary. That's a pretty tall order, considering the BoM is a product of the early 19th century, while the UB uses human source-knowledge gathered from the early 20th century in the fields of science, philosophy and religious principles...as well as gives some new concepts, terms and revelations as the 5th epochal revelation to the planet. As far as scope and content, its like comparing a river to the ocean. Again, your missing the forest for the trees, and in your zeal to discount the papers are either lumping it together with the BoM, or making the latter better. Its far from it.
The UB has vast material covering the fields of science, philosophy and religion (its over 2,000 pages). The BoM does NOT (its just over 500 pages), but what the BoM does have is a very protestant presentation of 'redemption' thru 'Christ', since it borrows from the NT in its theology, and the current theology of its time (19th century Protestantism).
More presuppositions.
The UB heralds the true religion that men ought to LIVE...is the religion that Jesus lived. To be more specific, to adhere to the religion OF Jesus (not just a religion ABOUT Jesus, which Paul seemed to focus on in his gospel). Remember,...Jesus said "be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect" (he meant this as in letting your love be perfect as God's love is perfect....see Matt. 5) - such means loving without partiality, but letting your love be towards all people, good or evil....so that people will see your actions and know that you are sons of God. Its all about doing God's will.
You're again assuming things based on presuppositions here. I have a diverse religious background, and a vast expansion therefrom. I came out of Mormonism thru my own research and help along the way. The journey of life is for learning.
A lot of preconceptions there, too much to wade thru.
Don't know where to begin there, but lumping things up again in a 'potpourri' fashion.
Good grief, my studies in occult/esoteric science and principles go way beyond Mormonism. You don't know my religious history and apparently a lot of other things, so I suggest you cut back on all the presuppositions/assumptions, and if you want to debate specifics, stick with that,...instead of the shot-gun spray method.
In any case,....if you want to attack the theology of the UB, find something that is terribly wrong in both content and grammar in the first 12 papers. The theology is clearly defined, profound, consistent thru-out. Remember, 'God' and his relationship within the Paradise Trinity, the cosmos, and individual souls is pretty fundamental, so go for it, if you would disprove the principle, ethic, meanings, values and information contained in those papers. Otherwise, we've got a lot of hot air and claims based on "because I say so" and I believe "only the Bible' is true. That's kind of narrow lane mentality doesn't make it in the larger world of reality, but you're welcome to trod that path, until you find a better one.
I would remind you, the UB merely serves as a catalyst to challenge people about their religious beliefs, opinions and assumptions. Its information. Any part can serve to do that, on a variety of levels,...as touching all other religious points of view in the experience of man. Such is life. It is what it is. Information is information,.....each will process it in their own way, in whatever context.
pj
Serving the word..............
I do. 'God' is JUST A WORD. I write God often as 'God', showing it is just a word-symbol denoting Deity or divinity. Remember, the word is not the reality, only a representation, pointer or description.
I do not believe 'God' is limited by the Bible or to it, since 'God' is Infinite. 'God' revealed in the OT/NT is just one presentation of 'God' amid many others. God is One. God is all. Universal Light is expressed thru and as the total spectrum of all colours....the Universal Spirit in many forms. Spirit is omnipresent. Consciousness is all-inclusive.
My former comment holds. Now if you want to contextualize that within a pan or pan-en-theist context, that can be done, but you'll have to be a little more clear on what you're asking here.
You'll have to prove the above specifically, and then compare that to the whole of the UB which you haven't read to be fair. I hardly think your assessment is 'professional' or 'academic', but biased/bigoted...yes.
Disagree, and if you'd like to prove that, you'll have to compare the entirety of the UB text with the BoM showing where the BoM is better grammatically. Giving Joseph Smith a better 'score' than the celestials that gave the UB is rather extraordinary. That's a pretty tall order, considering the BoM is a product of the early 19th century, while the UB uses human source-knowledge gathered from the early 20th century in the fields of science, philosophy and religious principles...as well as gives some new concepts, terms and revelations as the 5th epochal revelation to the planet. As far as scope and content, its like comparing a river to the ocean. Again, your missing the forest for the trees, and in your zeal to discount the papers are either lumping it together with the BoM, or making the latter better. Its far from it.
The UB has vast material covering the fields of science, philosophy and religion (its over 2,000 pages). The BoM does NOT (its just over 500 pages), but what the BoM does have is a very protestant presentation of 'redemption' thru 'Christ', since it borrows from the NT in its theology, and the current theology of its time (19th century Protestantism).
More presuppositions.
The UB heralds the true religion that men ought to LIVE...is the religion that Jesus lived. To be more specific, to adhere to the religion OF Jesus (not just a religion ABOUT Jesus, which Paul seemed to focus on in his gospel). Remember,...Jesus said "be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect" (he meant this as in letting your love be perfect as God's love is perfect....see Matt. 5) - such means loving without partiality, but letting your love be towards all people, good or evil....so that people will see your actions and know that you are sons of God. Its all about doing God's will.
You're again assuming things based on presuppositions here. I have a diverse religious background, and a vast expansion therefrom. I came out of Mormonism thru my own research and help along the way. The journey of life is for learning.
A lot of preconceptions there, too much to wade thru.
Don't know where to begin there, but lumping things up again in a 'potpourri' fashion.
Good grief, my studies in occult/esoteric science and principles go way beyond Mormonism. You don't know my religious history and apparently a lot of other things, so I suggest you cut back on all the presuppositions/assumptions, and if you want to debate specifics, stick with that,...instead of the shot-gun spray method.
In any case,....if you want to attack the theology of the UB, find something that is terribly wrong in both content and grammar in the first 12 papers. The theology is clearly defined, profound, consistent thru-out. Remember, 'God' and his relationship within the Paradise Trinity, the cosmos, and individual souls is pretty fundamental, so go for it, if you would disprove the principle, ethic, meanings, values and information contained in those papers. Otherwise, we've got a lot of hot air and claims based on "because I say so" and I believe "only the Bible' is true. That's kind of narrow lane mentality doesn't make it in the larger world of reality, but you're welcome to trod that path, until you find a better one.
I would remind you, the UB merely serves as a catalyst to challenge people about their religious beliefs, opinions and assumptions. Its information. Any part can serve to do that, on a variety of levels,...as touching all other religious points of view in the experience of man. Such is life. It is what it is. Information is information,.....each will process it in their own way, in whatever context.
pj