Seems the wider I open my eyes, the sillier it looks.
Quote:
But somehow I doubt you'll have either the moral fibre or the honesty to study those two links...
But that is why we are free-will creatures....\
Now, there's the standard old proselytizer's gambit... unless a prospective convert has devoted the kind of time and effort to a belief system that the proselytizer has, any negative comments made by the prospect can be dismissed as ignorant or evil nonsense. The proselytizer can simply claim that the prospect is lazy, weak, inherently flawed (lacking in moral fibre?), too much in love with their evil ways, hasn't "reached the right level of awareness yet", etc.
As far as the proselytizer is concerned, the TRVTH is so clear that any level of effort that does not produce conversion is by definition insufficient. In fact, however, the expected level of effort would never be carried out by anyone who wasn't (a) very receptive right from the start, or (b) desperate to "find meaning" in their lives, etc. -- in other words, feeling empty enough as to be easily susceptible to the next thing that comes along to fill the void.
You know what I see reading Urantia? Assertion. Lots and lots of assertion. Assertion of definitions. Assertions of facts. This means this, that is that, such and such is how it is... on and on. No proof, of course, although I guess one is supposed to be impressed by how meticulously all of these assertions are laid out.
My own direct reading of a bit of the material, plus comments like these from others who've spent more time on it are more than enough to tell me that more effort spent on Urantia would be a waste of my time, or anyone's time for that matter.
C'mon BR, that was THE WORST oversimplified train-wreck synopsis of Christianity I have EVER heard.
Christianity was pretty offensive to the early Romans---they called the Christians "atheists." Christianity was pretty much ass-backwards from the Greek thinking they were into.
I don't know, I think it's pretty much dead on. I mean Jesus sounds like a pretty nice dude, I have no beef with him. I'm pretty sure that if I met Jesus I'd take him out drinking or something. But all this 'son of God' talk is a bit out there for me.
I don't know, I think it's pretty much dead on. I mean Jesus sounds like a pretty nice dude, I have no beef with him. I'm pretty sure that if I met Jesus I'd take him out drinking or something. But all this 'son of God' talk is a bit out there for me.
I think the thing that a lot of people skip over was that prior to Christianity happening in the western world---and basically highjacking the rest of the world's thought in one way or another---metaphysics was WAY different. There were local deities---the whole concept of the chain of being shifted radically, how social orders handled themselves in terms of law--and especially how that shook out in real terms---not having life and death control of your wife, god-men, Caesar as a god, etc.
Today when people say "God", at least in the west, we have a unified picture of an all-powerful being, with irresistible control. That was not the case in AD 66. There is a HUGE difference that you can't ignore. We watch movies and TV shows plastered with anachronisms of thought that distort how people in those times thought and how they would have reacted to a revolutionary theology. You can't have an accurate picture of how things were back then by cutting-and-pasting our sensibilities on those times.
I think the thing that a lot of people skip over was that prior to Christianity happening in the western world---and basically highjacking the rest of the world's thought in one way or another---metaphysics was WAY different. There were local deities---the whole concept of the chain of being shifted radically, how social orders handled themselves in terms of law--and especially how that shook out in real terms---not having life and death control of your wife, god-men, Caesar as a god, etc.
Today when people say "God", at least in the west, we have a unified picture of an all-powerful being, with irresistible control. That was not the case in AD 66. There is a HUGE difference that you can't ignore. We watch movies and TV shows plastered with anachronisms of thought that distort how people in those times thought and how they would have reacted to a revolutionary theology. You can't have an accurate picture of how things were back then by cutting-and-pasting our sensibilities on those times.
I have always described myself as an adherent of Saint Thomas the Doubter...In that I question everything...
And I have followed this perspective for many years.
I want to make it clear..Christ is my saviour..full stop...
He showed us the way...
UB is about shedding light on our ultimate purpose & destiny as much as it is about seeking the truth..
But I stress..I am not about converting..I just think it important enough to provide the link..& if people bag me for doing so..that's Ok. Its a small price to pay for being a christian.
We may not agree in theological ways but I respect you for your constancy too..Its a good thing.
These choices are IDIOTIC. Isn't it possible he was neither the actual "Son of God" nor a wacko? How about simply the greatest teacher in history? Why is it always black and white with you superanturally religious folk? I don't believe the Bible was written as fact. I believe it was written as the most effective way to teach the values that Jews and Christians wanted to teach. Jesus was a man. Not a wacko. Not a God. But a very, very important man.
The problem you run into there is that if, say, the Book of John is only half true you have to take HUGE chunks of his teaching and pitch them----His authority, what he was doing in Earth, the concept of sin and redemption, and all of the references back to the "Law and the Prophets." That's a fairly tall order. If you didn't start with a fictional character, you'd end up with one by the time you were through.
Probably most important is that we don't really do that with any other historical figure. For any other historical figure with three chronicles by people who claim to be eyewitnesses (and Luke's collection of eyewitness accounts) one would probably be taken as fact and the others as manufactured. Or maybe they would be taken as fact in proportion to how they corroborated.
These choices are IDIOTIC. Isn't it possible he was neither the actual "Son of God" nor a wacko? How about simply the greatest teacher in history? Why is it always black and white with you superanturally religious folk? I don't believe the Bible was written as fact. I believe it was written as the most effective way to teach the values that Jews and Christians wanted to teach. Jesus was a man. Not a wacko. Not a God. But a very, very important man.
tonton I am not trying to put you on the spot here as I respect you but I must ask you the following:
If....... If Jesus was not the Son of God how could you not consider him a whacko? Just a "very important man" who will lie to people? Are you familiar with the statements Jesus made? Or is it that you believe people revised and edited what Jesus really said in the Bible?
I just was curious as to what exactly you are saying.
tonton I am not trying to put you on the spot here as I respect you but I must ask you the following:
If....... If Jesus was not the Son of God how could you not consider him a whacko? Just a "very important man" who will lie to people? Are you familiar with the statements Jesus made? Or is it that you believe people revised and edited what Jesus really said in the Bible?
I just was curious as to what exactly you are saying.
Fellowship
Is a leader that deifies himself a wacko? Not necessarily. It is one way to get people to follow you. It can be an effective leadership tool (especially when dealing with the ignornat or downtrodden).
Jesus taught to live with honesty, humility, patience, tolerance, kindness, sympathy and a desire to do good, and saw faith in an almighty God as the vehicle to reach his goals. Smart guy.
Then you get the people who wrote the bible who wanted power, wealth, fame, and immortality, and saw faith in an almighty God as the vehicle to reach these goals. Smart guys.
Comments
Originally posted by aquafire
If you want to mock..go ahead....
Okay... but only behind your back.
Would love you to post a similar set of remarks for Mahommet & see how far you get ?
But if you want to truly open your eyes..then you are welcome....
http://www.urantia.org
&
http://www..truthbook.org
Seems the wider I open my eyes, the sillier it looks.
But somehow I doubt you'll have either the moral fibre or the honesty to study those two links...
But that is why we are free-will creatures....
Now, there's the standard old proselytizer's gambit... unless a prospective convert has devoted the kind of time and effort to a belief system that the proselytizer has, any negative comments made by the prospect can be dismissed as ignorant or evil nonsense. The proselytizer can simply claim that the prospect is lazy, weak, inherently flawed (lacking in moral fibre?), too much in love with their evil ways, hasn't "reached the right level of awareness yet", etc.
As far as the proselytizer is concerned, the TRVTH is so clear that any level of effort that does not produce conversion is by definition insufficient. In fact, however, the expected level of effort would never be carried out by anyone who wasn't (a) very receptive right from the start, or (b) desperate to "find meaning" in their lives, etc. -- in other words, feeling empty enough as to be easily susceptible to the next thing that comes along to fill the void.
You know what I see reading Urantia? Assertion. Lots and lots of assertion. Assertion of definitions. Assertions of facts. This means this, that is that, such and such is how it is... on and on. No proof, of course, although I guess one is supposed to be impressed by how meticulously all of these assertions are laid out.
My own direct reading of a bit of the material, plus comments like these from others who've spent more time on it are more than enough to tell me that more effort spent on Urantia would be a waste of my time, or anyone's time for that matter.
From the review of the Urantia is a silly little cult book:
Ultimately, one can't resist saying, a massive sledgehammer is being brought to bear on a few minor nuts.
AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH!
Originally posted by ena
C'mon BR, that was THE WORST oversimplified train-wreck synopsis of Christianity I have EVER heard.
Christianity was pretty offensive to the early Romans---they called the Christians "atheists." Christianity was pretty much ass-backwards from the Greek thinking they were into.
I don't know, I think it's pretty much dead on. I mean Jesus sounds like a pretty nice dude, I have no beef with him. I'm pretty sure that if I met Jesus I'd take him out drinking or something. But all this 'son of God' talk is a bit out there for me.
Originally posted by BR
Bah you are getting to be worse than fship when it comes to evangelizing.
Peace
Fellows
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Peace
Fellows
Scary someone's beating you in that category. GET TO WORK! I EXPECT FOURTEEN THREADS BY SUNRISE TOMORROW!
Originally posted by BR
Scary someone's beating you in that category. GET TO WORK! I EXPECT FOURTEEN THREADS BY SUNRISE TOMORROW!
LOL
Love it.. Fellows
Originally posted by iBrowse
I don't know, I think it's pretty much dead on. I mean Jesus sounds like a pretty nice dude, I have no beef with him. I'm pretty sure that if I met Jesus I'd take him out drinking or something. But all this 'son of God' talk is a bit out there for me.
I think the thing that a lot of people skip over was that prior to Christianity happening in the western world---and basically highjacking the rest of the world's thought in one way or another---metaphysics was WAY different. There were local deities---the whole concept of the chain of being shifted radically, how social orders handled themselves in terms of law--and especially how that shook out in real terms---not having life and death control of your wife, god-men, Caesar as a god, etc.
Today when people say "God", at least in the west, we have a unified picture of an all-powerful being, with irresistible control. That was not the case in AD 66. There is a HUGE difference that you can't ignore. We watch movies and TV shows plastered with anachronisms of thought that distort how people in those times thought and how they would have reacted to a revolutionary theology. You can't have an accurate picture of how things were back then by cutting-and-pasting our sensibilities on those times.
Originally posted by BR
Bah you are getting to be worse than fship when it comes to evangelizing.
Yes, speak down to those you are trying to convert. That helps.
Comes from being 6ft 2 inches tall.
You obviously don't have irony nor sarcasm on your planet...
judging by some of your posts....
Originally posted by ena
I think the thing that a lot of people skip over was that prior to Christianity happening in the western world---and basically highjacking the rest of the world's thought in one way or another---metaphysics was WAY different. There were local deities---the whole concept of the chain of being shifted radically, how social orders handled themselves in terms of law--and especially how that shook out in real terms---not having life and death control of your wife, god-men, Caesar as a god, etc.
Today when people say "God", at least in the west, we have a unified picture of an all-powerful being, with irresistible control. That was not the case in AD 66. There is a HUGE difference that you can't ignore. We watch movies and TV shows plastered with anachronisms of thought that distort how people in those times thought and how they would have reacted to a revolutionary theology. You can't have an accurate picture of how things were back then by cutting-and-pasting our sensibilities on those times.
Well put ena.
Originally posted by aquafire
Comes from being 6ft 2 inches tall.
You obviously don't have irony nor sarcasm on your planet...
judging by some of your posts....
on your planet? Is one to take you serious?
The books you list over and over here I would suggest you evaluate the context of their origin a little further and ask some questions...
You are free to believe as you wish.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
on your planet? Is one to take you serious?
The books you list over and over here I would suggest you evaluate the context of their origin a little further and ask some questions...
You are free to believe as you wish.
Fellowship
I have, thanx for being concerned....
In case you want to know, it is an adjunct, not a replacement of the bible..
It illuminates much..& yes I have checked the sources .... thoroughly....
Cheers
Originally posted by aquafire
I have, thanx for being concerned....
In case you want to know, it is an adjunct, not a replacement of the bible..
It illuminates much..& yes I have checked the sources .... thoroughly....
Cheers
I respect your views and I respect you but I would continue to question those materials.
Fellowship
And I have followed this perspective for many years.
I want to make it clear..Christ is my saviour..full stop...
He showed us the way...
UB is about shedding light on our ultimate purpose & destiny as much as it is about seeking the truth..
But I stress..I am not about converting..I just think it important enough to provide the link..& if people bag me for doing so..that's Ok. Its a small price to pay for being a christian.
We may not agree in theological ways but I respect you for your constancy too..Its a good thing.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
on your planet? Is one to take you serious?
The books you list over and over here I would suggest you evaluate the context of their origin a little further and ask some questions...
You are free to believe as you wish.
Fellowship
Dude, when Fellows is questioning how sane your religion is, you KNOW there's a problem.
Originally posted by aquafire
I have always described myself as an adherent of Saint Thomas the Doubter...In that I question everything...
And I have followed this perspective for many years.
Originally posted by aquafire
I want to make it clear..Christ is my saviour..full stop...
Originally posted by tonton
These choices are IDIOTIC. Isn't it possible he was neither the actual "Son of God" nor a wacko? How about simply the greatest teacher in history? Why is it always black and white with you superanturally religious folk? I don't believe the Bible was written as fact. I believe it was written as the most effective way to teach the values that Jews and Christians wanted to teach. Jesus was a man. Not a wacko. Not a God. But a very, very important man.
The problem you run into there is that if, say, the Book of John is only half true you have to take HUGE chunks of his teaching and pitch them----His authority, what he was doing in Earth, the concept of sin and redemption, and all of the references back to the "Law and the Prophets." That's a fairly tall order. If you didn't start with a fictional character, you'd end up with one by the time you were through.
Probably most important is that we don't really do that with any other historical figure. For any other historical figure with three chronicles by people who claim to be eyewitnesses (and Luke's collection of eyewitness accounts) one would probably be taken as fact and the others as manufactured. Or maybe they would be taken as fact in proportion to how they corroborated.
Just a thought.
Originally posted by tonton
These choices are IDIOTIC. Isn't it possible he was neither the actual "Son of God" nor a wacko? How about simply the greatest teacher in history? Why is it always black and white with you superanturally religious folk? I don't believe the Bible was written as fact. I believe it was written as the most effective way to teach the values that Jews and Christians wanted to teach. Jesus was a man. Not a wacko. Not a God. But a very, very important man.
tonton I am not trying to put you on the spot here as I respect you but I must ask you the following:
If....... If Jesus was not the Son of God how could you not consider him a whacko? Just a "very important man" who will lie to people? Are you familiar with the statements Jesus made? Or is it that you believe people revised and edited what Jesus really said in the Bible?
I just was curious as to what exactly you are saying.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
tonton I am not trying to put you on the spot here as I respect you but I must ask you the following:
If....... If Jesus was not the Son of God how could you not consider him a whacko? Just a "very important man" who will lie to people? Are you familiar with the statements Jesus made? Or is it that you believe people revised and edited what Jesus really said in the Bible?
I just was curious as to what exactly you are saying.
Fellowship
Is a leader that deifies himself a wacko? Not necessarily. It is one way to get people to follow you. It can be an effective leadership tool (especially when dealing with the ignornat or downtrodden).
Tonton said:
Jesus taught to live with honesty, humility, patience, tolerance, kindness, sympathy and a desire to do good, and saw faith in an almighty God as the vehicle to reach his goals. Smart guy.
Then you get the people who wrote the bible who wanted power, wealth, fame, and immortality, and saw faith in an almighty God as the vehicle to reach these goals. Smart guys.