Here is a link that explains everything about why you are wrong. It is very similar in its nature to what you call ADDRESSING a point.
http://www.google.com
Stuart
The Late Great Urantia Revelation
- Thread starter Caino
- Start date
- Status
http://www.google.com
Stuart
Which definition did the Sandler / Kellogg crackpots or you have in mind? No. 1 in regards to the natural claim on the intellectual origin of the science stolen by these nutcases? No. 3, which would have involved NAMING the scientists they were thanking?
No, they acknowledge their Imaginary Friends, then pretend they have acknowledged real people by referring to humans in general in an absurdly patronising way. Shame on your for apologising for them.
Religious platitude. What is a god? How does it "know" things?
Another good question to do with the other two. Why do you refer to this thing as "he"?
You really are tedious, aren't you. Did you not pay attention when I claimed I had read about 60% of it??
Did your nose grow longer when you wrote that?
I promise you I am very interested in the truth. It is you who would like to deny it.
From http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/The_Urantia_Book#cite_note-gardner-4 and Wikipedia we get:
| W. F. G. Swann writes on page 64 of The Architecture of the Universe (italics indicate edits, bolding indicates deletions): Starting from any one of them [i.e., chemical elements], and noting some property such as the melting point, for example, the property would change as we went along the row, but as we continued it would gradually come back to the condition very similar to that which we started ... The eighth element was in many respects like the first, the ninth like the second, the tenth like the third, and so on. Such a slate of affairs point Contrast with The Urantia Book's version: Starting from any one element, after noting some one property, such a quality will exchange for six consecutive elements, but on reaching the eighth, it tends to reappear, that is, the eighth chemically active element resembles the first, the ninth the second, and so on. Such a fact of the physical world unmistakably points to the sevenfold constitution of ancestral energy and is indicative of the fundamental reality of the sevenfold diversity of the creations of time and space. |
This is plagiarism of the ideas of Mendeleev; I don't have evidence of it but I would certainly bet that Swann would have acknowledged Mendeleev publicly in front of his students, or in print in some form at some stage, and were he or his students to be asked, they would acknowlwedge Mendeleev straight away. The UB acknowledges neither Swann nor Mendeleev. That is plagiarism, the passing of another's words or ideas as your own.
In the Book of Theft in Paper 12 we have:
| Spectral lines are displaced from the normal towards the violet by an approaching star; likewise these lines are displaced towards the red by a receding star. Many influences interpose to make it appear that the recessional velocity of the external universes increases at the rate of more than one hundred miles a second for every million light-years increase in distance. |
This is the unacknowledged idea of the HUMAN SCIENTIST Edwin Hubble, as described in Wikipedia:
| Hubble's law is the name for the astronomical observation in physical cosmology first made by American astronomer Edwin Hubble, that: (1) all objects observed in deep space (interstellar space) are found to have a doppler shift observable relative velocity to Earth, and to each other; and (2) that this doppler-shift measured velocity, of various galaxies receding from the Earth is proportional to their distance from the Earth and all other interstellar bodies. In effect, the space-time volume of the observable universe is expanding (from a smaller past to a larger future); and Hubble's law is the direct physical observation of this process, as it unfolds.[1] The law was first derived from the General Relativity equations by Georges Lemaître in 1927.[2] Edwin Hubble derived it empirically in 1929[3] after nearly a decade of observations. The recession velocity of the objects was inferred from their redshifts, many measured earlier by Vesto Slipher (1917) and related to velocity by him.[4] It is considered the first observational basis for the expanding space paradigm and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model. The law is often expressed by the equation v = H0D, with H0 the constant of proportionality (the Hubble constant) between the "proper distance" D to a galaxy (which can change over time, unlike the comoving distance) and its velocity v (i.e. the derivative of proper distance with respect to cosmological time coordinate; … A recent 2011 estimate of the Hubble constant, which used a new infrared camera on the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) to measure the distance and redshift for a collection of astronomical objects, gives a value of H0 = 73.8 ± 2.4 (km/s)/Mpc. … |
In paper 42 we have this:
| Matter — energy — for they are but diverse manifestations of the same cosmic reality…The increase of mass in matter is equal to the increase of energy divided by the square of the velocity of light. |
This is the unacknowledged discovery of the HUMAN SCIENTIST Albert Einstein.
More from Chapter 12:
| The relative integrity of matter is assured by the fact that energy can be absorbed or released only in those exact amounts which Urantia scientists have designated quanta. |
That this is the unacknowledged work of the HUMAN SCIENTIST Max Planck.
| The formation of all matter is on the order of the solar system. There is at the center of every minute universe of energy a relatively stable, comparatively stationary, nuclear portion of material existence. This central unit is endowed with a threefold possibility of manifestation. Surrounding this energy center there whirl, in endless profusion but in fluctuating circuits, the energy units which are faintly comparable to the planets encircling the sun of some starry group like your own solar system. |
This is exactly the analogy the unacknowledged HUMAN SCIENTIST Ernest Rutherford gave on HIS discovery of the structure of the atom, copied without credit by Sandler in a brazen act of plagiarism.
Do you need more? There is tons scattered amongst the other laughably wrong claims made of the natural world.
I suppose if you have nothing original and useful to say to the world you can always plagiarise someone else. It is dishonest and illegal, but hey probably most people won’t know, and if you can dupe enough people into joining your cult then some of them will make extraordinary efforts to defend your theft.
Like you are doing here.
Stuart
No theft, the celestial beings know much more then the scientist do, but the revelation mandate doesn't allow them to disclose humanly undiscovered facts in that area.
You are to pig headed to realise that there is spirit and there is matter.
Caino
Lost Comet
New member
If some idiot comes along who wants to challenge what the UB says on the grounds that it does what it says it does (i.e., that it "plagiarizes ideas"), let them. It's just a case of a fool proving to the world they are a fool.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
:thumb:
A more wise endeavor would be contemplating its contents recognizing the meanings and values that contribute to man's condition and destiny, principles which include the fields of religion, philosophy and science....AS they relate to the total cosmology of Life and the grand purpose behind the evolving universes of time.
pj
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Specific articles, the celestials themselves and knowledgable UB readers have already addressed this issue in detail. Your response above is ignorant.
pj
Last edited:
Furchizedek
New member
It's not plagiarism, Stuu no matter how many times you stamp your feet and get your panties in a twist and say it is. And the man's name is Sadler, not Sandler. And you must have picked up Kellogg's name from some Martin Gardner writing. You really know very little about this subject.
Main Entry: plagiarize
Function:verb
: to present the ideas or words of another as one's own
The Urantia Book does not present those science ideas as its own. It acknowledges that it uses human concepts and ideas. Anyway, as noted, God already knows all things. (You are apparently an atheist?)
Here's one of the ones you listed, from that site you gave:
Starting from any one of them [i.e., chemical elements], and noting some property such as the melting point, for example, the property would change as we went along the row, but as we continued it would gradually come back to the condition very similar to that which we started ... The eighth element was in many respects like the first, the ninth like the second, the tenth like the third, and so on. Such a slate of affairs point
Contrast with The Urantia Book's version:
Starting from any one element, after noting some one property, such a quality will exchange for six consecutive elements, but on reaching the eighth, it tends to reappear, that is, the eighth chemically active element resembles the first, the ninth the second, and so on. Such a fact of the physical world unmistakably points to the sevenfold constitution of ancestral energy and is indicative of the fundamental reality of the sevenfold diversity of the creations of time and space.
(If you notice, the Urantia Book takes that concept and comes to a different, and specific conclusion, namely: "Such a fact of the physical world unmistakably points to the sevenfold constitution of ancestral energy and is indicative of the fundamental reality of the sevenfold diversity of the creations of time and space.")
Block and many believers do not see the use of human source materials as plagiarism. Block writes:
One probable reason that the human sources were left undisguised was to enable students to discern, through comparative analysis, how this coordination of planetary knowledge was actually effected. As mentioned above, the initial analyses have already proved tremendously illuminating in this regard. Another reason was to keep us aware of the book’s anchorage in a specific time and place. While a very large part of the book is of timeless value and perennial applicability, some of its discussions directly address and respond to the world situation of the early 20th century. Thus, every generation will have to determine the relevance and applicability of certain of the book’s teachings to its own situation.
Emerging from all these discoveries is the gratifying realization that the Urantia Book is exactly what its authors claim it to be....
It should be noted that the wording and phraseology is not identical to the alleged source materials.
Some ideas do not have to be credited, Stuu. They have simply passed into being common human knowledge. I can use the wheel (my car has 4 of them on the ground) without having to credit the inventor of the wheel. I can say the distance to Alpha Centauri is 4.3 light years without having to name the scientist or astronomer who first figured that out.
Here's a review of Martin Gardner's book, btw: http://www.freeurantia.org/mgreview.htm
And I don't believe you've read 60% of The Urantia Book. You're getting too many talking points from other sources. You don't even know the name of the principle player, thinking his name was "Sandler." How sloppy is that? I think you just want something to argue about.
You have created a false dichotomy about this subject. A straw man. The sum total of your "scenic overlook" concept of God, based on a shifting foundation of logic, is that it has made you consistently angry and bitter.
Caino
No, it is exactly the same as yours. You just posted a link to the front page of an apology site for the UB.
What point did you mean to make? Your replies are as ridiculous as this fatuous Book of Theft you defend.
Its stealing and crackpottery are also yours.
Stuart
Plagiarism is theft of intellectual property. You are defending a thief, or rather a committee of thieves.
Stuart
The usual attempts to obscure.
Your book has used the same words as a science writer, also modifying his phrases to something absurd in the process. It has evidently (on the evidence I presented) used the ideas of other scientists without permission or reference. That is DEFINED as PLAGIARISM. If Sadler had approached him and asked, the terms of using the material would have been to reproduce it without alteration and acknowledge the source. But since the nutcases wanted to copy wholesale from up to 125 contemporary published works but also modify all that stolen work to fit their lame sci-fi story, they did not approach the authors and just went ahead stealing others' work and defecating all over it.
Would it have been so hard to do the decent thing? Of course if you are going to be clear about scientific explanations, you are not going to be able to maintain religious mystery, so the whole thing has to be made into a big pile of sci-fi woo. But the world is not stupid and it eventually realises that the Sadler / Kellogg nutcases were stealing the work of greater minds and passing it off as their own, pathetically.
My god does not have to answer to mere mortals, your honour.
They close the slammer behind you regardless, and that is the ethical thing to do. Especially when you have trained your own thinking to the point where you cannot tell what stealing really is.
Stuart
I'm just stating the facts as defined in any dictionary. Quoting others or using their ideas without reference is the definition. Your denial is just really sad. What moral point are you trying to make by so tenaciously defending thieves?
Yes, my mistake. That's what it must feel like to be misrepresented by another, don't you think?
Sadler married John Harvey Kellogg's niece, as in the famously nutcase Kellogg. Are you saying they didn't know one another?
It does not acknowledge them, so it is presenting them as its own. Further, the writing of Swann is copied but altered. Was it altered by a god? The textual evidence says it was altered by Sadler. Open and shut case, off to jail with him.
A shame we could not have asked a criminal court. The law was different back then I gather but the ethical principle wasn't.
What a load of bollocks. Caino writes apology in exactly the same obscurantist way.
Theft is GRATIFYING? We are dealing with kleptomaniacs then.
No, as I wrote earlier, they did not follow the convention of quoting intact with acknowledgement, they shamelessly stole the basic structure of Swann's writing then changed it. Without his permission.
Absolutely. But this book does not have references through it like most honest books of non-fiction do which indicate the originator of the work. That would be fine if it was not confusing the issue of who is getting acknowledged in the section ENTITLED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT!
Believe what you like mate. This is not a valid argument against plagiarim. Unlike Sadler, I have actually quoted and given the sources of both his writing and the names or the authors or sources of the writing he stole in the examples I gave you. The extent of my reading or otherwise is irrelevant, but my estiamte is that it was a little under 2/3. And it was a tedious wade to get that much done. Should people believe me, who has no particular track record of dishonesty or motive to lie, or people who are defending prima facie plagiarists?
I only found the Swann source elsewhere, which I referenced you note. The rest is original research into the contents which I quoted for you. Really your apology is pathetic and is dodging the obvious.
Very careless on my part.
Stuart
So have you ever wondered just how a man like Judas, a man who had spent so much time with Jesus could arrive at a place in his mind wherein he saw Jesus as the enemy and envisioned a heroic place for himself in Jewish society for turning the master in to the authorities?
What leads a person to slowly begrudge a friend? To begin to perceive kindness as a negative?
.
After my walk with God began I started to realise that I had some of these very same character defects. It was difficult to face them.
193:4.1 It was in the first part of the Master's farewell message to his apostles that he alluded to the loss of Judas and held up the tragic fate of their traitorous fellow worker as a solemn warning against the dangers of social and fraternal isolation. It may be helpful to believers, in this and in future ages, briefly to review the causes of Judas's downfall in the light of the Master's remarks and in view of the accumulated enlightenment of succeeding centuries.
193:4.2 As we look back upon this tragedy, we conceive that Judas went wrong, primarily, because he was very markedly an isolated personality, a personality shut in and away from ordinary social contacts. He persistently refused to confide in, or freely fraternize with, his fellow apostles. But his being an isolated type of personality would not, in and of itself, have wrought such mischief for Judas had it not been that he also failed to increase in love and grow in spiritual grace. And then, as if to make a bad matter worse, he persistently harbored grudges and fostered such psychologic enemies as revenge and the generalized craving to "get even" with somebody for all his disappointments.
193:4.3 This unfortunate combination of individual peculiarities and mental tendencies conspired to destroy a well-intentioned man who failed to subdue these evils by love, faith, and trust. That Judas need not have gone wrong is well proved by the cases of Thomas and Nathaniel, both of whom were cursed with this same sort of suspicion and overdevelopment of the individualistic tendency. Even Andrew and Matthew had many leanings in this direction; but all these men grew to love Jesus and their fellow apostles more, and not less, as time passed. They grew in grace and in a knowledge of the truth. They became increasingly more trustful of their brethren and slowly developed the ability to confide in their fellows. Judas persistently refused to confide in his brethren. When he was impelled, by the accumulation of his emotional conflicts, to seek relief in self-expression, he invariably sought the advice and received the unwise consolation of his unspiritual relatives or those chance acquaintances who were either indifferent, or actually hostile, to the welfare and progress of the spiritual realities of the heavenly kingdom, of which he was one of the twelve consecrated ambassadors on earth.
193:4.4 Judas met defeat in his battles of the earth struggle because of the following factors of personal tendencies and character weakness:
193:4.5 1. He was an isolated type of human being. He was highly individualistic and chose to grow into a confirmed "shut-in" and unsociable sort of person.
193:4.6 2. As a child, life had been made too easy for him. He bitterly resented thwarting. He always expected to win; he was a very poor loser.
193:4.7 3. He never acquired a philosophic technique for meeting disappointment. Instead of accepting disappointments as a regular and commonplace feature of human existence, he unfailingly resorted to the practice of blaming someone in particular, or his associates as a group, for all his personal difficulties and disappointments.
193:4.8 4. He was given to holding grudges; he was always entertaining the idea of revenge.
193:4.9 5. He did not like to face facts frankly; he was dishonest in his attitude toward life situations.
193:4.10 6. He disliked to discuss his personal problems with his immediate associates; he refused to talk over his difficulties with his real friends and those who truly loved him. In all the years of their association he never once went to the Master with a purely personal problem.
193:4.11 7. He never learned that the real rewards for noble living are, after all, spiritual prizes, which are not always distributed during this one short life in the flesh.
193:4.12 As a result of his persistent isolation of personality, his griefs multiplied, his sorrows increased, his anxieties augmented, and his despair deepened almost beyond endurance.
193:4.13 While this self-centered and ultraindividualistic apostle had many psychic, emotional, and spiritual troubles, his main difficulties were: In personality, he was isolated. In mind, he was suspicious and vengeful. In temperament, he was surly and vindictive. Emotionally, he was loveless and unforgiving. Socially, he was unconfiding and almost wholly self-contained. In spirit, he became arrogant and selfishly ambitious. In life, he ignored those who loved him, and in death, he was friendless.
193:4.14 These, then, are the factors of mind and influences of evil which, taken altogether, explain why a well-meaning and otherwise onetime sincere believer in Jesus, even after several years of intimate association with his transforming personality, forsook his fellows, repudiated a sacred cause, renounced his holy calling, and betrayed his divine Master.UB
caino
What leads a person to slowly begrudge a friend? To begin to perceive kindness as a negative?
.
After my walk with God began I started to realise that I had some of these very same character defects. It was difficult to face them.
CAUSES OF JUDAS'S DOWNFALL
193:4.1 It was in the first part of the Master's farewell message to his apostles that he alluded to the loss of Judas and held up the tragic fate of their traitorous fellow worker as a solemn warning against the dangers of social and fraternal isolation. It may be helpful to believers, in this and in future ages, briefly to review the causes of Judas's downfall in the light of the Master's remarks and in view of the accumulated enlightenment of succeeding centuries.
193:4.2 As we look back upon this tragedy, we conceive that Judas went wrong, primarily, because he was very markedly an isolated personality, a personality shut in and away from ordinary social contacts. He persistently refused to confide in, or freely fraternize with, his fellow apostles. But his being an isolated type of personality would not, in and of itself, have wrought such mischief for Judas had it not been that he also failed to increase in love and grow in spiritual grace. And then, as if to make a bad matter worse, he persistently harbored grudges and fostered such psychologic enemies as revenge and the generalized craving to "get even" with somebody for all his disappointments.
193:4.3 This unfortunate combination of individual peculiarities and mental tendencies conspired to destroy a well-intentioned man who failed to subdue these evils by love, faith, and trust. That Judas need not have gone wrong is well proved by the cases of Thomas and Nathaniel, both of whom were cursed with this same sort of suspicion and overdevelopment of the individualistic tendency. Even Andrew and Matthew had many leanings in this direction; but all these men grew to love Jesus and their fellow apostles more, and not less, as time passed. They grew in grace and in a knowledge of the truth. They became increasingly more trustful of their brethren and slowly developed the ability to confide in their fellows. Judas persistently refused to confide in his brethren. When he was impelled, by the accumulation of his emotional conflicts, to seek relief in self-expression, he invariably sought the advice and received the unwise consolation of his unspiritual relatives or those chance acquaintances who were either indifferent, or actually hostile, to the welfare and progress of the spiritual realities of the heavenly kingdom, of which he was one of the twelve consecrated ambassadors on earth.
193:4.4 Judas met defeat in his battles of the earth struggle because of the following factors of personal tendencies and character weakness:
193:4.5 1. He was an isolated type of human being. He was highly individualistic and chose to grow into a confirmed "shut-in" and unsociable sort of person.
193:4.6 2. As a child, life had been made too easy for him. He bitterly resented thwarting. He always expected to win; he was a very poor loser.
193:4.7 3. He never acquired a philosophic technique for meeting disappointment. Instead of accepting disappointments as a regular and commonplace feature of human existence, he unfailingly resorted to the practice of blaming someone in particular, or his associates as a group, for all his personal difficulties and disappointments.
193:4.8 4. He was given to holding grudges; he was always entertaining the idea of revenge.
193:4.9 5. He did not like to face facts frankly; he was dishonest in his attitude toward life situations.
193:4.10 6. He disliked to discuss his personal problems with his immediate associates; he refused to talk over his difficulties with his real friends and those who truly loved him. In all the years of their association he never once went to the Master with a purely personal problem.
193:4.11 7. He never learned that the real rewards for noble living are, after all, spiritual prizes, which are not always distributed during this one short life in the flesh.
193:4.12 As a result of his persistent isolation of personality, his griefs multiplied, his sorrows increased, his anxieties augmented, and his despair deepened almost beyond endurance.
193:4.13 While this self-centered and ultraindividualistic apostle had many psychic, emotional, and spiritual troubles, his main difficulties were: In personality, he was isolated. In mind, he was suspicious and vengeful. In temperament, he was surly and vindictive. Emotionally, he was loveless and unforgiving. Socially, he was unconfiding and almost wholly self-contained. In spirit, he became arrogant and selfishly ambitious. In life, he ignored those who loved him, and in death, he was friendless.
193:4.14 These, then, are the factors of mind and influences of evil which, taken altogether, explain why a well-meaning and otherwise onetime sincere believer in Jesus, even after several years of intimate association with his transforming personality, forsook his fellows, repudiated a sacred cause, renounced his holy calling, and betrayed his divine Master.UB
caino
Stuu, what are your credentials for calling Saddler a "crackpot" ? Here is his bio, what's yours?
Dr. William S Sadler
Professional background
Sadler was a professor at the Post-Graduate Medical School of Chicago, consulting psychiatrist at Columbus Hospital, and for over twenty-five years, a professor and chairman of the department of pastoral psychology at McCormick Theological Seminary. He held memberships in the following associations: Life Fellow, American College of Surgeons; Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Fellow, American Medical Association; Fellow, American Psychiatric Association; Member, American Psychopathological Association; Member Illinois Psychiatric Association; Member; Chicago Society for Personality Study; Member, Chicago Medical Society; Member, Illinois State Medical Society; Board member, W. K. Kellogg Foundation; National Association of Authors and Journalists; founder member and governing board, Gorgas Memorial Institute in Tropical and Preventive Medicine. He was a professor at the Post-Graduate Medical School of Chicago, director of the Chicago Institute of Research and Diagnosis, consulting psychiatrist at Columbus Hospital, and for thirty years, a lecturer in Pastoral Counseling at McCormick Theological Seminary. As a pioneer he interested ministers in improving their work of personal counseling through profiting by the experience of psychiatric practice.
Sadler was a humorous orator and was a member of the Eugene Field Society, the National Association of Authors and Journalists, and International Mark Twain Society. He was a fantastic story teller and could take the roof off a building with laughter when he got going. As was common practice for those associated with the Battle Creek Sanitarium, the Sadlers were speakers for the Chautauqua assemblies, introducing the modern concepts of mental medicine and physical hygiene for the prevention of disease. For many years, at the Chicago Institute, Sadler taught clinics for physicians, ministers, and laity that covered the entire field of mental medicine that he liked to term "personology." Writing more than 42 books and numerous magazine articles, he authored such works as: Theory and Practice of Psychiatry, Psychiatric Nursing, The Mind at Mischief, Growing Out of Babyhood, Piloting Modern Youth, and The Quest for Happiness.
Sadler did not adhere to purely mechanistic or materialistic views of psychology and psychiatry and was a consistent advocate of broad and rational principles of psychiatry; he was among early American psychiatrists who placed an emphasis upon the importance of the preventive aspects of mental hygiene.[2]
Dr. William S Sadler
Professional background
Sadler was a professor at the Post-Graduate Medical School of Chicago, consulting psychiatrist at Columbus Hospital, and for over twenty-five years, a professor and chairman of the department of pastoral psychology at McCormick Theological Seminary. He held memberships in the following associations: Life Fellow, American College of Surgeons; Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Fellow, American Medical Association; Fellow, American Psychiatric Association; Member, American Psychopathological Association; Member Illinois Psychiatric Association; Member; Chicago Society for Personality Study; Member, Chicago Medical Society; Member, Illinois State Medical Society; Board member, W. K. Kellogg Foundation; National Association of Authors and Journalists; founder member and governing board, Gorgas Memorial Institute in Tropical and Preventive Medicine. He was a professor at the Post-Graduate Medical School of Chicago, director of the Chicago Institute of Research and Diagnosis, consulting psychiatrist at Columbus Hospital, and for thirty years, a lecturer in Pastoral Counseling at McCormick Theological Seminary. As a pioneer he interested ministers in improving their work of personal counseling through profiting by the experience of psychiatric practice.
Sadler was a humorous orator and was a member of the Eugene Field Society, the National Association of Authors and Journalists, and International Mark Twain Society. He was a fantastic story teller and could take the roof off a building with laughter when he got going. As was common practice for those associated with the Battle Creek Sanitarium, the Sadlers were speakers for the Chautauqua assemblies, introducing the modern concepts of mental medicine and physical hygiene for the prevention of disease. For many years, at the Chicago Institute, Sadler taught clinics for physicians, ministers, and laity that covered the entire field of mental medicine that he liked to term "personology." Writing more than 42 books and numerous magazine articles, he authored such works as: Theory and Practice of Psychiatry, Psychiatric Nursing, The Mind at Mischief, Growing Out of Babyhood, Piloting Modern Youth, and The Quest for Happiness.
Sadler did not adhere to purely mechanistic or materialistic views of psychology and psychiatry and was a consistent advocate of broad and rational principles of psychiatry; he was among early American psychiatrists who placed an emphasis upon the importance of the preventive aspects of mental hygiene.[2]
SovereigntyIsGods
New member
School and accolades don't make a man right.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
the fundamental issue.............
the fundamental issue.............
False -
The 2 articles HERE deal specifically with the claims of plagarism and human sources that the celestials freely admit was used in their presentation.
Concerning your atheistic view and continued aversion towards religious values and personal spiritual experience -
the fundamental issue.............
False -
The 2 articles HERE deal specifically with the claims of plagarism and human sources that the celestials freely admit was used in their presentation.
Concerning your atheistic view and continued aversion towards religious values and personal spiritual experience -
pj
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Of course. However concerning a volume or collection of religious writings or inspired literature,...it is the content and their inherent value, prinicples, philosophy and instruction that is to be considered and evaluated as to their worth and meaning.
pj
That's a given, a carpenter from Nazareth changed the entire western world.
Stuu has repeatedly slammed Sadler's character, I just want to know how Stewart's credentials stack up.
Caino
- Status