Clarifying some important points.....
Clarifying some important points.....
Freelight, I was responding to Pops comment about your post being unbiased. That struck me as being absolutely hilarious.
Hi Jamie,
My sharings here so far, and in most the Unitarian/Trinitarian debates (my first post here I link many of those threads),
are within the direct context and vein of the historical biblical issues at hand, and I propose and expound on those particular points. I'm openly for the sake of discussion espousing a more traditional
Unitarian Christology, but can wax metaphysically liberal with a Trinitarian concept of Deity, or even beyond it. 'God' is INFINITE. My posts, just like any others,
will naturally reflect their own personal bias, more or less, because you cannot share a point of view, without coming from a particular
viewpoint. Therefore I try to be clear and descriptive of communicating particulars and relating it within a given 'context'.
I like your posts just fine, but I know where you're coming from, just like I know where Jehovah Witnesses are coming from when they claim Jesus is the incarnation of Michael, the angelic person who is just one of 700,000 creator sons.
Awesome,...I enjoy writing, I approach it as an art, an expression of logos. All is the gift of God. BUT as I shared, I am not approaching my discussion on Christology from a UB background or POV(point of view), but from the mainline traditional orthodox Unitarian/Trinitarian debate CONTEXT. We've discussed the UB view of Christology and those particulars on the UB thread. I do not like or find it even logical that some people pigeonhole or have a preconception of you referencing things from a prefigured theological context, because that is NOT the case with me, since I'm always engaging any particular subject
within the given 'context' of knowledge pertinent to the discussion, biblically, historically, etc.
If I'm correlating a subject with other schools or other source perspectives, I usually NOTE or indicate that I'm doing so. Hence in this thread, and in most all threads debating whether Jesus is God (Unitarian/Trinitarian debate), its within a 'biblical' and traditional Christian historical context.
A UB Christological context is not even in my mind for the most part, and needn't not be. A UB view brings many interesting and unique nuances to the fore, but they don't pertain to much of the traditional debate engaged here, unless I bring such points into the discussion, finding reason to. I'll be diving into that in that thread, when space and time affords.
When I was a teenager I read some Isaac Asimov writings but I never did read Ray Bradbury or L. Ron Hubbard. I'm just not much into science fiction ever since I realized UFO's do not exist as being from other worlds.
I have never watched any of the Star Trek things and I've never watched Star Wars, but I feel sure the Urantia concept outdoes all of them.
I enjoy sci-fi too, and metaphysical studies in general, but mostly studies in consciousness, since 'consciousness' is at the base and context of all life,....in fact...consciousness is the very medium, the substrate in which all reality inheres and is referenced. There is nothing that exists outside of consciousness as far as we know.
To reiterate again....
the Urantia Book is NOT associated with UFOs, neither is it a UFO Cult, although it has been put on a list of 'Ufo Religions' on a Wiki page only because of its contents being a series of messages from celestial personalities, its descriptions of life on other worlds, and its greater cosmological context and sharing of knowledge from a 'Grand Universe' perspective.- in this sense its a textbook of 'cosmic' or universal theology. For direct refutation and education on this my post to GM
here holds.
I did read the Celestine Prophecy and like John Denver used to say ... far out!
:crackup: - I did too, but not too impressed over all, as it just touches on some basic universal principles common to new age perspectives. The author wrote a sequel at least continuing in the same vein.
All that to say I like your "unbiased" posts, they are hilarious, keep 'em coming.
They are mostly 'unbiased' from a UB perspective, because that's not even in view in these discussions, my argument is traditional and biblical, yet universal in scope. You therefore may be projecting a presupposition
that is not existing in my posts here, when no UB element is even referenced or related here at all. I just tire of people defining me, when they haven't seen the forest for the trees, and wrongly assume my motive, theological background, philosophical context, especially newer posts here who have only seen a small slice of my posts here, and then presume to judge me based on such limited information. Hence I call them out freely on that, without trying to too harsh, but I must call ignorance, presumption and bigotry as I see it.
My commentary speaks for itself. So, I let it do the talking. The problem may be in my articulation at times, but some of it is in translation and interpretation of it (there are many dimensions engaged in dialogue affecting translation). That's why one ought to be careful in any online discussion as to understand and interpret as correctly as we can, in the process of 'dialogue', but unfortunately you have some folks who jump the gun, presume prematurely, are judgemental, bigoted and biased to an an extreme that is unnecessary and erroneous. That is where you have to be careful.
- If i was discussing Urantia Book Christology I'd clearly note that, or if referring to anything UB related. Indeed, UB Christology is different. My commentary thus far is considering standard traditional orthodox Unitarian and Trinitarian debate, the main issues and differences. We deal more with UB related issues on the UB thread itself, and I'll clearly note if I'm adding a view, insight or perspective from other sources, if needed.
