followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
74, joined May. 2012
|
Assertions "R" Us.
When people make assertions, should they be challenged? Is it OK to ask for proof of their assertions?
When Ludlow says, "Mary is the Queen of Heaven," is it OK to ask for proof of that statement?
And is this proof?
"I can prove that Mary is the Queen of Heaven. The Catholic Church says so, and the Church is infallible about things like this." -Ludlow
Is it then OK to ask for proof of the Catholic church's infallibility? Is the Catholic church infallible because the Catholic church says it's infallible? And that's proof? Or is that out of line to even ask and one should just accept all such assertions without question?
The same applies to everyone including brashdoc.
brashdoc recently said he "had seen some outlandish & unintelligent false teaching on here, like the Urantia book..."
Like what false teachings? Outlandish how? You mean like talking snakes and talking bushes and fish that swallow men and regurgitate them in good health three days later? Like that outlandish? Is it OK to ask about brashdoc's Urantia Book smearing assertion? It it OK to point out that no one here can prove that any of their beliefs are correct?
Outlandish like this?: "She lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." Ezekiel 23:20 NIV
Talk about outlandish! There's nothing like that holy smut in The Urantia Book.
Why do so many assert that other people's beliefs are "outlandish & unintelligent false teachings" etc., when they can't even prove their own?
Why smear another's unprovable beliefs when you can't prove your own? Be honest. Instead of saying, "Your beliefs are 'outlandish & unintelligent false teachings,' which you cannot prove or back up logically, just say:
"Your beliefs are wrong because they are not what I already believe."
Be honest.
Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
|
isna_la_wica
Brantford, ON
63, joined Mar. 2012
|
From the "Who Wrote The Urantia Book? - The Urantia Book Fellowship
www.urantiabook.org/archive/mjs_archive/who-wrote-urantia-book.htm
The first account of the origin of The Urantia Book lies within its own pages. We are told the papers were authorized by high deity authorities and written by numerous supermortal personalities. These papers are designated as the Fifth Epochal Revelation to our planet, Urantia. Dated from 1934 A. D., the five epochal revelations are: (1) Dalamatia—500,000 years ago; (2) Adam and Eve—37,848 years ago; (3) Melchizedek—1980 B. C.; (4) Jesus—7 B. C.; and The Urantia Book —1934-35 A. D.
OK, "prove it".
|
isna_la_wica
Brantford, ON
63, joined Mar. 2012
|
Is it then OK to ask for proof of the Catholic church's infallibility? Is the Catholic church infallible because the Catholic church says it's infallible? And that's proof? Or is that out of line to even ask and one should just accept all such assertions without question?
The same applies to everyone including brashdoc.
brashdoc recently said he "had seen some outlandish & unintelligent false teaching on here, like the Urantia book..."
Like what false teachings? Outlandish how? You mean like talking snakes and talking bushes and fish that swallow men and regurgitate them in good health three days later? Like that outlandish? Is it OK to ask about brashdoc's Urantia Book smearing assertion? It it OK to point out that no one here can prove that any of their beliefs are correct?
Outlandish like this?: "She lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." Ezekiel 23:20 NIV
Talk about outlandish! There's nothing like that holy smut in The Urantia Book.
So its "outlandish to follow the Bible when on a Christian forum?
Urantia does not even claim to be Christian, right here from the opening page :
The Urantia Book is a new revelation of truth, not an amplification of Christianity nor of any other religion on Earth. The Urantia Book does not claim to be Christian; it does claim to be Jesusonian — to be an accurate restatement of Jesus' life and teachings, devoid of religious dogma.
The True Gospel of Jesus Christ and God's Love - The Urantia Book
www.urantiabook-intro.org/jesus.html
So what may seem 'outlandish " to a non Christian, is not to a practicing one.
For example, an Atheist would say, "prove " the Bible is inspired. But most Christians do believe it is, so when Christians talk with each other, they do not say 'prove" what they believe already.
And are there "outlandish " teachings in Urantia? Not necessarily if one is not a Christian.( Although their race stuff sure sounds whacky at time).
But in the context of a Christian forum? Yep, it sure is. In fact they do not accpet scripture or Christianity !
The Unintentional Causes of Differences Between Christianity and Jesus' Religion
Paul by James Tissot The Apostle Paul, in his efforts to bring the teachings of Jesus to the favorable notice of certain groups in his day, wrote many letters of instruction and admonition. Other teachers of Jesus' gospel did likewise, but none of them realized that some of these writings would subsequently be brought together by those who would set them forth as the embodiment of the teachings of Jesus. And so, while so-called Christianity does contain more of the Master's gospel than any other religion, it does also contain much that Jesus did not teach. Aside from the incorporation of many teachings from the Persian mysteries and much of the Greek philosophy into early Christianity, two great mistakes were made:
The effort to connect the gospel teaching directly onto the Jewish theology, as illustrated by the Christian doctrines of the atonement —the teaching that Jesus was the sacrificed Son who would satisfy the Father's stern justice and appease the divine wrath. These teachings originated in a praiseworthy effort to make the gospel of the kingdom more acceptable to disbelieving Jews. Though these efforts failed as far as winning the Jews was concerned, they did not fail to confuse and alienate many honest souls in all subsequent generations.
The second great blunder of the Master's early followers, and one which all subsequent generations have persisted in perpetuating, was to organize the Christian teaching so completely about the person of Jesus. This overemphasis of the personality of Jesus in the theology of Christianity has worked to obscure his teachings, and all of this has made it increasingly difficult for Jews, Mohammedans, Hindus, and other Eastern religionists to accept the teachings of Jesus. We would not belittle the place of the person of Jesus in a religion which might bear his name, but we would not permit such consideration to eclipse his inspired life or to supplant his saving message: the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. ~ The Urantia Book, (149:2.2)
But the greatest mistake was made in that, while the human Jesus was recognized as having a religion, the divine Jesus (Christ) almost overnight became a religion. Paul's Christianity made sure of the adoration of the divine Christ, but it almost wholly lost sight of the struggling and valiant human Jesus of Galilee, who, by the valor of his personal religious faith and the heroism of his indwelling Adjuster, ascended from the lowly levels of humanity to become one with divinity, thus becoming the new and living way whereby all mortals may so ascend from humanity to divinity. Mortals in all stages of spirituality and on all worlds may find in the personal life of Jesus that which will strengthen and inspire them as they progress from the lowest spirit levels up to the highest divine values, from the beginning to the end of all personal religious experience. ~ The Urantia Book, (196:2.4)
So, what constitutes "proof"?
Doc is very good at backing up his beliefs with scripture. He and I disagree about some stuff, but I have never seen him fail to do that.
So while "scripture " is not "proof" to a non Christian, it is considered so with most Christians.
And so is not "outlandish", any more than you believing in celestial beings when you are talking to a fellow Urantia`n .
[Edited 5/15/2017 8:03:31 AM ]
|
cupocheer
Assumption, IL
68, joined May. 2010
|
"She lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." Ezekiel 23:20 NIV
Holy Smut, Liplock
You'd think EZEKIEL was attempting to assert an understandable, comparative explanation about those of the Assyrian Empire destroying northern Israel and abdoning God, wouldn't you?
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
74, joined May. 2012
|
From the "Who Wrote The Urantia Book? - The Urantia Book Fellowship
www.urantiabook.org/archive/mjs_archive/who-wrote-urantia-book.htm
The first account of the origin of The Urantia Book lies within its own pages. We are told the papers were authorized by high deity authorities and written by numerous supermortal personalities. These papers are designated as the Fifth Epochal Revelation to our planet, Urantia. Dated from 1934 A. D., the five epochal revelations are: (1) Dalamatia—500,000 years ago; (2) Adam and Eve—37,848 years ago; (3) Melchizedek—1980 B. C.; (4) Jesus—7 B. C.; and The Urantia Book —1934-35 A. D.
OK, "prove it".
You seem to be exceptionally confused. I never asked brashdoc to prove his biblical views. If you will look back you will see that. You have twisted what I wrote. I said he could NOT prove them. And you rightly pointed out that I could not prove mine, which I readily agree to. I never said I could prove them. You posted a strawman implying I said something I never said. Tsk, tsk.
The issue was, which you have lost sight of, was brashdoc's assertion that he "had seen some outlandish & unintelligent false teaching on here, like the Urantia book..."
His assertion that The Urantia Book is "outlandish & unintelligent false teaching" is the issue.
I asked him to back up his statement about The Urantia Book. And why does he even mention The Urantia Book? No one brought it up until he did. It's like how atheists spend so much time talking about a God they say they don't believe in. What is brashdoc's fascination with The Urantia Book? If he doesn't like it, why does he bring it to everyone's attention?
What he can only mean is that "the Urantia Book is "outlandish & unintelligent false teaching." because it's not what he already believes. He obviously can't show that it's any more outlandish or unintelligent than talking snakes and fish that swallow men and regurgitate them in good health three days later. Talk about outlandish and unintelligent.
The Urantia Book is no more outlandish & unintelligent false teaching than what he believes and he can't prove otherwise.
I NEVER asked him to prove any of his bible beliefs. That's where you have flipped the issue around. I don't even think you are clever enough to do that on purpose, I think you are just confused. And no, of course I won't be proving any of the material you posted above. I have no interest in proving it and it's not my job to prove it. In fact, it's no one's job to prove it to anyone. And I have not asked you or brashdoc to prove any of your bible beliefs, even though you try to make it seem as though I have.
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
74, joined May. 2012
|
"She lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." Ezekiel 23:20 NIV
Holy Smut, Liplock
Exactly.
|