LA was going to town on those "Predictions" of his! Be-headings, burning's, and
death by arrows! Those were his specialties!
death by arrows! Those were his specialties!
MOVIE TITLES THAT RELATE TO THE URANTIA BOOK?
- Thread starter Grosnick Marowbe
- Start date
He was warned to "STOP!"
No more "Predictions" for you, LA!!
Without your "death predictions" LA, what else are ya gonna talk about?
132:7.3 "It was on the visit to Switzerland, up in the mountains, that Jesus had an all-day talk with both father and son about Buddhism. Many times Ganid had asked Jesus direct questions about Buddha, but he had always received more or less evasive replies. Now, in the presence of the son, the father asked Jesus a direct question about Buddha, and he received a direct reply. Said Gonod: “I would really like to know what you think of Buddha.” And Jesus answered:
132:7.4 “Your Buddha was much better than your Buddhism. Buddha was a great man, even a prophet to his people, but he was an orphan prophet; by that I mean that he early lost sight of his spiritual Father, the Father in heaven. His experience was tragic. He tried to live and teach as a messenger of God, but without God. Buddha guided his ship of salvation right up to the safe harbor, right up to the entrance to the haven of mortal salvation and there, because of faulty charts of navigation, the good ship ran aground. There it has rested these many generations, motionless and almost hopelessly stranded. And thereon have many of your people remained all these years. They live within hailing distance of the safe waters of rest, but they refuse to enter because the noble craft of the good Buddha met the misfortune of grounding just outside the harbor. And the Buddhist peoples never will enter this harbor unless they abandon the philosophic craft of their prophet and seize upon his noble spirit. Had your people remained true to the spirit of Buddha, you would have long since entered your haven of spirit tranquillity, soul rest, and assurance of salvation.
132:7.5 “You see, Gonod, Buddha knew God in spirit but failed clearly to discover him in mind; the Jews discovered God in mind but largely failed to know him in spirit. Today, the Buddhists flounder about in a philosophy without God, while my people are piteously enslaved to the fear of a God without a saving philosophy of life and liberty. You have a philosophy without a God; the Jews have a God but are largely without a philosophy of living as related thereto. Buddha, failing to envision God as a spirit and as a Father, failed to provide in his teaching the moral energy and the spiritual driving power which a religion must possess if it is to change a race and exalt a nation.”UB 1955
132:7.4 “Your Buddha was much better than your Buddhism. Buddha was a great man, even a prophet to his people, but he was an orphan prophet; by that I mean that he early lost sight of his spiritual Father, the Father in heaven. His experience was tragic. He tried to live and teach as a messenger of God, but without God. Buddha guided his ship of salvation right up to the safe harbor, right up to the entrance to the haven of mortal salvation and there, because of faulty charts of navigation, the good ship ran aground. There it has rested these many generations, motionless and almost hopelessly stranded. And thereon have many of your people remained all these years. They live within hailing distance of the safe waters of rest, but they refuse to enter because the noble craft of the good Buddha met the misfortune of grounding just outside the harbor. And the Buddhist peoples never will enter this harbor unless they abandon the philosophic craft of their prophet and seize upon his noble spirit. Had your people remained true to the spirit of Buddha, you would have long since entered your haven of spirit tranquillity, soul rest, and assurance of salvation.
132:7.5 “You see, Gonod, Buddha knew God in spirit but failed clearly to discover him in mind; the Jews discovered God in mind but largely failed to know him in spirit. Today, the Buddhists flounder about in a philosophy without God, while my people are piteously enslaved to the fear of a God without a saving philosophy of life and liberty. You have a philosophy without a God; the Jews have a God but are largely without a philosophy of living as related thereto. Buddha, failing to envision God as a spirit and as a Father, failed to provide in his teaching the moral energy and the spiritual driving power which a religion must possess if it is to change a race and exalt a nation.”UB 1955
Last edited:
Now, Now be nice...or rather don't include me in your childish name-calling rants.
I was just in a weird mood when I typed it....trying to be witty....more than likely failed.
Aimiel
Well-known member
Sorry, but Urantia CANNOT be from God, about Christ or helpful at all to Christianity, since it drops the MOST fundamental Truth found in The Holy Scriptures: The Life-Giving Blood of The Lamb of God, Christ Jesus. Thinking it has ANY goodness in Urantia is sheer foolishness. It's good only for use as recycle material, toilet paper or a firestarter. :thumb:
WizardofOz
New member
Without a Urantia thread, what else are you going to talk about? :think:
You've certainly put the 'rant' back into Urantia :blabla:
You and Grosnick are 2 pees in a pod, you just get more angry and nasty when confronted with facts. Jesus preached a gospel to the Jews, they rejected that gospel and killed him. Killing him as a sacrifice was attractive to the Pagans in Rome because they already had that in their theology. The Pagans found Pauls compromised version attractive.
Christianity is a compromise of the original religion of Jesus, therefor your false, self righteous judgment of my faith in Jesus is meaningless ranting no matter how many times you repeat the same pagan theories.
LOL! The "rant" back in Urantia, that's a good one.
It really is true, Grosnick doesn't post much except the UB troll stuff. The truth of the UB has gotten into Grosnicks head, he obsesses over it.
Aimiel
Well-known member
That's a bald-faced lie, and I don't like being compared to urine, thank you. Jesus' Blood was shed as a ransom for many, just as Jesus said, Himself. He also said that if one does NOT eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, ceremonially, one does NOT have ANY life in them. You're dead, due to rejection of His Blood as cleansing agent for your sins. You cannot enter His Presence without being washed in His Blood. You have a 'form' of Godliness, but deny The Power thereof. You cannot escape the damnation that is upon you by repentance, good works is just filthy rags without His Blood. You're deceived if you think otherwise. There is nothing in Urantia but darkness, obviously.
Your so-called 'faith' in Jesus might as well be in Judas, because he has just as much power to save you from your sins as you will find in Jesus without The Blood. Eternal life is ONLY found in The Blood. You can deny it all you want, but since you've tread His Blood under your feet and denied His Words, He will deny you His Presence in Heaven. I only hope you repent before you find out the hard way: eternal torment in the Lake of Fire and Brimstone.
Christianity is un-tarnished by your mud-slinging and many historical documents have proven that The Gospels are exactly as they have been since they were written and their agreement is more profound proof of their Truth than you realize. You should read Dr. Simon Greenleaf's book: "The Testimony of the Evangelists, Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice," which examines and expounds the unique evidence corroborated by the words in The Gospels and proves beyond shadow of doubt that they were accurately recorded. It's available online in electronic format for free.
Lon
Well-known member
Blasphemy but you stand against Christianity in a straightforward, in your face, truthful manner. Some uBer's would hide/distance from the truth.
You are correct, the Ub and Christianity are completely incompatible.
Blasphemy, but at least you aren't hiding behind half-truths and are honest. This whole Urantia propaganda of your's and others on TOL is against Christianity. :up:
And for the third time, blasphemy. I do appreciate you aren't hiding behind skirts of half-lies and blatant lies.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Brining up points concerning Caino's recent banning....
Brining up points concerning Caino's recent banning....
~*~*~
Calling out the 'moderating' here on Caino's post, for which he got banned for here.
First off, anyone who reads Caino's posts knows he does at times have 'typos'. So his writing 'pees' instead of 'peas' WHICH IS WHAT HE MEANT, does not imply anything to with urine. Aimiel, you're a real piece of work, if you think he was referring to urine :idunno: You're the one referring to the UB as 'toilet paper',...that's way worse than a typo of 'pees'. Good grief.
Second,...its peculiar how the word 'pagan' unsettles some Christians, as a good study on what the term means, in the broad-spectrum would do you well. I have no problems with the term 'pagan', as I share here. (study up on it). Orthodox religions have borrowed, integrated, adopted or synthesized aspects of their own teachings with pagan religious concepts that they've intermingled with,...its a common part of the evolution of religious cult-ure.
Caino was simply stating that those more favorable to pagan philosophies and concepts accepted Paul's teachings over Jesus and his original disciples (who stayed truer to Jewish custom/theology), since Paul's gospel incorporated aspects of gnostic, pagan, mystery-religion, Hellenistic greek philosophical concepts, and his own personal revelations/visions, etc. 'Pagan' generally refers to any other philosophical/belief-systems outside of the traditional Judeo-Christian spectrum in their orthodox form and culture, besides other nuances, which one can research for themselves.
Also, the whole 'blood-atonement' doctrine CAN be argued to have pagan roots and origins which were merely adopted by the Jews from other nations or traditions, and given the 'stamp' of approval by them, purporting such to be ordained by 'God', - this is an area of further study and research. Blood-atonement itself can be challenged on its principle/ethic/implications alone, which we've done elsewhere. I also had an charter thread called 'Atonement without blood' once upon a time, so quite familiar with the pros and cons of it. I don't see a religion needing bloodshed. That 'blood' is symbolic in religious meaning, reference and applications has been discussed and accepted elsewhere.
pj
Brining up points concerning Caino's recent banning....
~*~*~
Calling out the 'moderating' here on Caino's post, for which he got banned for here.
First off, anyone who reads Caino's posts knows he does at times have 'typos'. So his writing 'pees' instead of 'peas' WHICH IS WHAT HE MEANT, does not imply anything to with urine. Aimiel, you're a real piece of work, if you think he was referring to urine :idunno: You're the one referring to the UB as 'toilet paper',...that's way worse than a typo of 'pees'. Good grief.
Second,...its peculiar how the word 'pagan' unsettles some Christians, as a good study on what the term means, in the broad-spectrum would do you well. I have no problems with the term 'pagan', as I share here. (study up on it). Orthodox religions have borrowed, integrated, adopted or synthesized aspects of their own teachings with pagan religious concepts that they've intermingled with,...its a common part of the evolution of religious cult-ure.
Caino was simply stating that those more favorable to pagan philosophies and concepts accepted Paul's teachings over Jesus and his original disciples (who stayed truer to Jewish custom/theology), since Paul's gospel incorporated aspects of gnostic, pagan, mystery-religion, Hellenistic greek philosophical concepts, and his own personal revelations/visions, etc. 'Pagan' generally refers to any other philosophical/belief-systems outside of the traditional Judeo-Christian spectrum in their orthodox form and culture, besides other nuances, which one can research for themselves.
Also, the whole 'blood-atonement' doctrine CAN be argued to have pagan roots and origins which were merely adopted by the Jews from other nations or traditions, and given the 'stamp' of approval by them, purporting such to be ordained by 'God', - this is an area of further study and research. Blood-atonement itself can be challenged on its principle/ethic/implications alone, which we've done elsewhere. I also had an charter thread called 'Atonement without blood' once upon a time, so quite familiar with the pros and cons of it. I don't see a religion needing bloodshed. That 'blood' is symbolic in religious meaning, reference and applications has been discussed and accepted elsewhere.
pj
Thanks for your support!
Caino needed a vacation anyway! I hear he was planning a trip
to another Galaxy with one of his "little green men friends, anyway!"
It seems as if Freelight likes to defend the indefensible? At least when it comes to Caino!
??? I don't speak French?
Blood atonement began in Genesis, firstly with Adam and Eve.
Gen 3:21 Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.
Yes people are prone to worship the blood instead of Him who gave it.
Heb 9:11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.
Heb 9:12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh,
Heb 9:14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Heb 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.
LA
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Questioning one's definition of 'blasphemy'......
Questioning one's definition of 'blasphemy'......
~*~*~
Lon, in your reporting of Caino's post shared above, I find this laundry list a bit over-dramified to say the least.
I've already addressed Aimiels issue over a typo. I'm really amazed he felt offended over a TYPO,....the word 'pees', a simple misplacing of the finger, when the word 'peas' was meant. But that was enough ridiculousness for you to add the list above to it. Wow. From 'pees' (a typo) to full out 'blasmphemy'. This is bordering comical.
From a higher view, one sees clearly thru all these religious games,..but the show must go on.
pj
Questioning one's definition of 'blasphemy'......
~*~*~
Lon, in your reporting of Caino's post shared above, I find this laundry list a bit over-dramified to say the least.
I've already addressed Aimiels issue over a typo. I'm really amazed he felt offended over a TYPO,....the word 'pees', a simple misplacing of the finger, when the word 'peas' was meant. But that was enough ridiculousness for you to add the list above to it. Wow. From 'pees' (a typo) to full out 'blasmphemy'. This is bordering comical.
From a higher view, one sees clearly thru all these religious games,..but the show must go on.
pj