The Late Great Urantia Revelation

[Lon]

Not true again, there is death in the UB, but you talk out ignorance. Those who don’t survive are destroyed. No hell torture place.

So I'm NOT ignorant then

It’s says God caused Pharaoh to harden his heart, change his mind. It says God killed a bunch of children.

Nope. It doesn't say that. You made up 'changed his mind' to fit your preferred narrative. Why did you?

Next: Do YOU have a 'right' to life? Yes or no. If your thinking is wrong, your conclusions will be (are) as well. It means, as I said, that 1) you don't really think critically and 2) that your assumptions craft your theology. If wrong, so are your conclusions. You'll have to be open to that or our conversations will always just be you caught in fleshly concerns.

A critical thinker can conclude that Pharaoh simply changed his mind. Had nothing to do with God getting into his brain.

No. It doesn't say that, Caino. While you are thinking beyond the text, you yet need help with critical thinking skills. You are missing it.

A critical thinker with any common sense knows that God didn’t kill a bunch of kids just for show.

No. You don't have critical thinking and 'common sense' in the same breath. One isn't the other. In fact, it is often what the UB means by "Only natural." You could place 'common sense' right over the top of 'only natural.' "Common" is flesh. It is by definition, what we all have in "common." Your UB was mostly interested in what was 'only natural, common sense.' It wasn't interested in those few who have God's Spirit.

You confuse critical thinking for makeing bad excuses that may satisfy you in group think but not rational people.

I realize your thinking, thus assessment is this shallow, Caino. I really am a better reader and better at critical thinking than you. Fact. It doesn't matter if you don't want to believe that but it is true. You say 'rational' but you mean 'common' and 'only natural.' Rational people work through 1) that God is love 2) that some things don't 'look' loving, and 3) evaluate the two. You? You 'assumed' (not rational but for a veneer of time without investment). It was 'only natural' for you to use your 'common sense' because that is what all men come equipped with, but wives tales come from those assumptions. The UB is full of uncritical sentiment (platitudes). As I said, I literally don't have to read your book (though I did, for your and Freelight's sakes alone, I have no other desire at all for it). It doesn't require anything from me, just tries to 'teach me something' and at the end of the day, I'm left exactly where I was before I ever started reading it: No change whatsoever. THAT is critical thinking. I'm right about this one. I've a good chunk of it. It is really difficult to read junk I don't like seeing its façade, but I did it for you. Don't forget that. You don't see love in me, the same way you don't with God, but that is because your concept is idealistic and demanding from your own head. Its wrong. That is the best I can tell you at this moment. -Lon

 

[Caino]

So I'm NOT ignorant then

Nope. It doesn't say that. You made up 'changed his mind' to fit your preferred narrative. Why did you?

Next: Do YOU have a 'right' to life? Yes or no. If your thinking is wrong, your conclusions will be (are) as well. It means, as I said, that 1) you don't really think critically and 2) that your assumptions craft your theology. If wrong, so are your conclusions. You'll have to be open to that or our conversations will always just be you caught in fleshly concerns.

No. It doesn't say that, Caino. While you are thinking beyond the text, you yet need help with critical thinking skills. You are missing it.

No. You don't have critical thinking and 'common sense' in the same breath. One isn't the other. In fact, it is often what the UB means by "Only natural." You could place 'common sense' right over the top of 'only natural.' "Common" is flesh. It is by definition, what we all have in "common." Your UB was mostly interested in what was 'only natural, common sense.' It wasn't interested in those few who have God's Spirit.

I realize your thinking, thus assessment is this shallow, Caino. I really am a better reader and better at critical thinking than you. Fact. It doesn't matter if you don't want to believe that but it is true. You say 'rational' but you mean 'common' and 'only natural.' Rational people work through 1) that God is love 2) that some things don't 'look' loving, and 3) evaluate the two. You? You 'assumed' (not rational but for a veneer of time without investment). It was 'only natural' for you to use your 'common sense' because that is what all men come equipped with, but wives tales come from those assumptions. The UB is full of uncritical sentiment (platitudes). As I said, I literally don't have to read your book (though I did, for your and Freelight's sakes alone, I have no other desire at all for it). It doesn't require anything from me, just tries to 'teach me something' and at the end of the day, I'm left exactly where I was before I ever started reading it: No change whatsoever. THAT is critical thinking. I'm right about this one. I've a good chunk of it. It is really difficult to read junk I don't like seeing its façade, but I did it for you. Don't forget that. You don't see love in me, the same way you don't with God, but that is because your concept is idealistic and demanding from your own head. Its wrong. That is the best I can tell you at this moment. -Lon

You claim to be a critical thinker, above the natural man, yet you protest the thought of dining with Hitler but have no problem dining with the God of the Old Testament?

Your doctrine convinces you to suspend critical thinking with extraordinary prejudice towards the OT portrayal of God. Anyone who points that out is the problem in your mind. That is shallow on steroids.

 

[Lon]

You claim to be a critical thinker, above the natural man, yet you protest the thought of dining with Hitler but have no problem dining with the God of the Old Testament?

No. BECAUSE I am a critical thinker. I asked you a question. Listen to it again and answer if you are honest enough, or capable, or can think, to do so:
Do you have a "right" to life from God? Yes or No? Very simple question.

Your doctrine convinces you to suspend critical thinking with extraordinary prejudice towards the OT portrayal of God

Nope, wrong. I just don't hate God. You hate 'that' God. You do!

.Anyone who points that out is the problem in your mind.

Wrestle with me, then, if not God at the moment! I don't hate like you think I do!

That is shallow on steroids.

ONLY YOUR assessment is. You do not think critically like I do. You just don't! I WANT you to do so! I've worked very hard in this thread and a HUGE chunk of it for you and Freelight. That's a sacrifice, Caino.

 

[Caino]

No. BECAUSE I am a critical thinker. I asked you a question. Listen to it again and answer if you are honest enough, or capable, or can think, to do so:
Do you have a "right" to life from God? Yes or No? Very simple question.

Nope, wrong. I just don't hate God. You hate 'that' God. You do!

Wrestle with me, then, if not God at the moment! I don't hate like you think I do!

ONLY YOUR assessment is. You do not think critically like I do. You just don't! I WANT you to do so! I've worked very hard in this thread and a HUGE chunk of it for you and Freelight. That's a sacrifice, Caino.

No.

Life is a gift, a creation of God.

"Nature confers no rights on man, only life and a world in which to live it. Nature does not even confer the right to live, as might be deduced by considering what would likely happen if an unarmed man met a hungry tiger face to face in the primitive forest." UB

 

[Lon]

No.

Life is a gift, a creation of God.

Then if we belong to Him, there is no atrocity if He does as He will with us. You often argue as if we have rights to live. In some ways, I grasp this, we are given a mind to grasp the devastation of an ended life, but we cannot judge God. Are you this upset about abortion? Scriptures express to us that God desires none to be lost. If this part of the discussion helps you grasp the O.T. (also not written about my people either, and simple there to give expressions of one chosen people and their failures as well as God's ability to bring life from messes), then you'll have begun to think more critically, and better.

"Nature confers no rights on man, only life and a world in which to live it.

Uhggg, "only natural" again. I hate this stuff, Caino. It wasn't nature, it was God.

Nature does not even confer the right to live, as might be deduced by considering what would likely happen if an unarmed man met a hungry tiger face to face in the primitive forest." UB

Same as above. Nature is about 'what is.' "Only natural" is a god of the elements. Sadler and the sleeping guy (not a prophet) were trying to start a religion without the Spirit, not very well as you are today learning to think critically. -Lon

 

[Caino]

Then if we belong to Him, there is no atrocity if He does as He will with us. You often argue as if we have rights to live. In some ways, I grasp this, we are given a mind to grasp the devastation of an ended life, but we cannot judge God. Are you this upset about abortion? Scriptures express to us that God desires none to be lost. If this part of the discussion helps you grasp the O.T. (also not written about my people either, and simple there to give expressions of one chosen people and their failures as well as God's ability to bring life from messes), then you'll have begun to think more critically, and better.

Uhggg, "only natural" again. I hate this stuff, Caino. It wasn't nature, it was God.

Same as above. Nature is about 'what is.' "Only natural" is a god of the elements. Sadler and the sleeping guy (not a prophet) were trying to start a religion without the Spirit, not very well as you are today learning to think critically. -Lon

God has a nature, God is Good. God cannot do the ungodlike thing.

The nature of God the Father can best be seen in his Son who dwelt among us an revealed the true character and nature of the Father.

Man has a human nature and by design. Man could not dynamically choose the divine life if there were no self-life to forsake.

The incarnate Son had a human and divine nature. He showed us that the human nature can be overcome.

The UB has extensive coverage of the spirit.

 

[Lon]

God has a nature, God is Good.

You are compensating AND not doing so critically. Your book fails and you know it.

God cannot do the ungodlike thing.

Which means what? Whatever YOU don't like? God is Good. It doesn't mean we EVER get to judge Him. Doing so, an unholy creature trying to 'value' a wholly holy God, is pointless. It is recasting Him in our poor image. We make poor gods, Caino.

The nature of God the Father can best be seen in his Son who dwelt among us an revealed the true character and nature of the Father.

Agree but the UB throws him out, just keeps the bits and pieces it likes "Only naturally." You've read and read and read this over the past two weeks of our discussion, Caino. The UB is ONLY interested in what is 'only natural.' Don't make excuses for it. Don't gloss over for it apologetically, uncritically. When you join me, you'll be back to wrestling with the God who is, rather than the God Sadler and Kellogg pals' "only natural" version.

Man has a human nature and by design.

That isn't what "only natural" means, Caino! It isn't what "common sense" means. Both are bound in flesh. As a human, I have marks of Spirit and my Creator by design BUT there is something broken. Jesus said He came for 'the sick.' Your book denies you are sick. According to it, you already have all you need inside of you. "Er, NO! Thanks."

Man could not dynamically choose the divine life if there were no self-life to forsake.

You'll need to unpack this. If you mean we are infected by sin, thus 'sick' as Jesus said, well and good.

The incarnate Son had a human and divine nature. He showed us that the human nature can be overcome.

Nope. You've detested the life and record of the Israelites that show just the opposite. It didn't work AND humans killed Jesus. If it was 'only natural' and 'common sense,' Jesus would have been successful (He was, in dying to save men) in turning all men, as God's representation. They killed Him.

The UB has extensive coverage of the spirit.

Just the 'only natural' spirit of man. Read it. It is all an expression of a philosophical idea/inspiration. That is all he (Sadler's name on it btw, not a prophet or extraterrestrial beings) understood. He didn't know the Holy Spirit is a Being that indwells men at new birth.

2 Corinthians 5:17 “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”
Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

The UB knows next to nothing of this. It repeatedly quips 'natural/only natural.'

You can tell Sadler wrote the UB, from that link btw. It has the same poor English and grammar structures. " local universe headquarters world" Sadler was crazy.

 

[Caino]

You are compensating AND not doing so critically. Your book fails and you know it.

Which means what? Whatever YOU don't like? God is Good. It doesn't mean we EVER get to judge Him. Doing so, an unholy creature trying to 'value' a wholly holy God, is pointless. It is recasting Him in our poor image. We make poor gods, Caino.

Agree but the UB throws him out, just keeps the bits and pieces it likes "Only naturally." You've read and read and read this over the past two weeks of our discussion, Caino. The UB is ONLY interested in what is 'only natural.' Don't make excuses for it. Don't gloss over for it apologetically, uncritically. When you join me, you'll be back to wrestling with the God who is, rather than the God Sadler and Kellogg pals' "only natural" version.

That isn't what "only natural" means, Caino! It isn't what "common sense" means. Both are bound in flesh. As a human, I have marks of Spirit and my Creator by design BUT there is something broken. Jesus said He came for 'the sick.' Your book denies you are sick. According to it, you already have all you need inside of you. "Er, NO! Thanks."

You'll need to unpack this. If you mean we are infected by sin, thus 'sick' as Jesus said, well and good.

Nope. You've detested the life and record of the Israelites that show just the opposite. It didn't work AND humans killed Jesus. If it was 'only natural' and 'common sense,' Jesus would have been successful (He was, in dying to save men) in turning all men, as God's representation. They killed Him.

Just the 'only natural' spirit of man. Read it. It is all an expression of a philosophical idea/inspiration. That is all he (Sadler's name on it btw, not a prophet or extraterrestrial beings) understood. He didn't know the Holy Spirit is a Being that indwells men at new birth.

2 Corinthians 5:17 “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”
Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

The UB knows next to nothing of this. It repeatedly quips 'natural/only natural.'

You can tell Sadler wrote the UB, from that link btw. It has the same poor English and grammar structures. " local universe headquarters world" Sadler was crazy.

Of course it doesn't mean whatever I don't like, it means whatever is not true, whatever is not Godlike. I don't believe God wrote the Old testament, I believe men did and it reflects their opinions about what their God is like. You are defending someone elses opinion not Gods real behavior.


You left off the other half: Jesus answered, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 32I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”
There were already saved, righteous people, but your (everybody is a piece of crap with a hopeless original sin nature) doctrine has to leave that off.

Sin is deliberate disloyalty to deity. Once restored one no longer lives in Sin.

A statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul, presented at the 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform, Summer 1987.

"Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness."


God has a nature but you've said he's really arbitrary, not guided by anything, can do whatever he wants like a chaotic dysfunctional family God.

Your concept of God, an extrapolation of the Israelites concept, is not a God to be loved and respected rather its a God to be feared. Not a God who sets a respectable example. Not kind, not Loving, not trust worthy, not moral, not fair etc.

Jesus revealed the true God.



The God revealed by Christ can be trusted, he is a Loving Father and far more consistent then the ideology that actually rejected the Son and prophets of the true God.

 

[Lon]

Of course it doesn't mean whatever I don't like, it means whatever is not true, whatever is not Godlike.

According to you. So you become the arbiter regardless of how "I" or anyone else feels or thinks. It is tyranny, Caino. You'd lord over us YOUR values. Of COURSE it means whatever you don't like, specifically.

I don't believe God wrote the Old testament,

It doesn't matter. Jesus opened those books and preached from them. YOUR belief or mine is of no account after that.

I believe men did and it reflects their opinions about what their God is like.

EXCEPT God very God, became flesh, and dwelled among us. He revealed the Father. Neither you, nor I, nor Sadler GET to rewrite Him! The UB is a a rewrite and edit of God very God. "IF" I can get you to say "NO!" to men for that, such would be the goal and joy I'd have of even entering this thread!

You are defending someone elses opinion not Gods real behavior.

SAYS WHO???? I don't "GET" to rewrite the Bible. That isn't a luxury. I can but deal with the hand I've been dealt, not change the rules. God GETS to be God in my life and dictate to me what He wants. Jesus is FULLY capable of doing His own speaking. A spirit being supposedly speaking to a guy sleeping in his bed for days on end ("If he will not work, he shall not eat") is NOT an acceptable substitute. I just read more of the UB regarding 'spirit beings" btw. I can barely read this stuff. I would simply dismiss the very poor grammar structures and elementary incomplete concepts, BUT for you (and Freelight and any others caught in this web).

You left off the other half: Jesus answered, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 32I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

Right! And the UB says you are neither 'sick' nor 'unrighteous' and don't need a Savior. You just need to be pointed in the right direction :C

There were already saved, righteous people, but your (everybody is a piece of crap with a hopeless original sin nature) doctrine has to leave that off.

Sorry. I WAS, and without Christ still would be unrighteous. I know it. You? Apparently Mr. Wonderful, getting to dictate to God how He must be and all that. Yeah, I'm not on par with Him in my personal holiness, Caino. I'm definitely one of the sick and unrighteous without Grace. "But for the Grace of God...."

Sin is deliberate disloyalty to deity. Once restored one no longer lives in Sin.

It is always awkward to hear something that is an idea in scripture, but not from it, like this. We have been talking about being born of Spirit. Sadler literally had no idea about God very God coming into Him, indwelling Him, and making him something new, entirely different than he was. He never described such a thing. It means flesh comprehending flesh and no grasp of Spirit at all. I HOPE better for you.

A statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul, presented at the 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform, Summer 1987.

"Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness."

Good. Listen to them.

God has a nature but you've said he's really arbitrary, not guided by anything, can do whatever he wants like a chaotic dysfunctional family God.

No. I rather said WE get our cues from HIM regarding righteousness because we aren't. We are finite. We are caught in the flesh. Don't tell me for a second when you were doing drugs, you were "righteous." Jesus said, that 'evil' fathers gave good things to children, comparing such to a Holy Father. We don't GET to judge God for anything, Caino. Do you not see yourself as audacious for telling God how HE must behave for YOUR satisfaction?

Your concept of God, an extrapolation of the Israelites concept, is not a God to be loved and respected rather its a God to be feared.

I don't care what God demands as long as I'm a creature and He is God. I don't believe the God of the O.T. was evil. I wrestled long and hard, like I'm supposed to do, I didn't run away and make a whole new god I thought I 'could' follow instead. That 'god' would have been just my simpleton desire. BETTER the God who is, even if mean, than one I made up. The made-up one is just a fantasy I'd have made up in my head. Jesus IS the center and focal point of all revelation. He is the ONLY place where the buck stops. I either deal with Him there, or everything else is just men. Jesus did call some of the O.T. on the carpet at times. How much of it? Not much, but He endorse the Law at that point. The story is just 'what happened' more than instruction. When I read the Old Testament, I never read 'go and do likewise' as you seem to do. I'm not a Jew. It isn't the place I need to be overtly worried. As a gentile, I've a different story, but the buck stops with Jesus. The UB abandoned Him and rewrote a humanistic plastic version.

Not a God who sets a respectable example. Not kind, not Loving, not trust worthy, not moral, not fair etc.

Which sets YOU up as God's arbiter. I don't rate that high, Caino. I'm just a human, with a good mind better than many, but not so much that I forget I'm the creation, He the Creator, me LEARNING holiness, He already Holy. I don't GET to dictate to Him what He must be before I'll ever follow Him. He is God. I'm His property. He doesn't give account to me, I do to Him.

Jesus revealed the true God.

But He READ from the O.T. Caino! I'd have had this same conversation with Sadler, if he'd have listened. His version is just a whitewash. It doesn't work or hold up.

The God revealed by Christ can be trusted,

Then why look to 'spirit beings' speaking to Dr. Sadler?

he is a Loving Father and far more consistent then the ideology that actually rejected the Son and prophets of the true God.

Well yes. We agree here. You've just not thought critically about what the UB gets very wrong. At this point your argument 'could' be considered an apologetic for the New Testament. As such, there are Messianic (Jesus believing) Jews today that buy that argument, but realize the difference. No Messianic Jew thinks the UB is is anything but a work of fiction that I'm aware of. Getting you to see the same is the drive of my discussion with you (and others) here. I want you to see with good eyes, how critically you need to think when reading Dr. Sadler. He wasn't a prophet nor did he listen to one. He is wrong on so many counts. Anyone who had only a semblance of reading in the Old and New Testament would buy such stuff. It is horrible literature on many fronts. -Lon

 

[Caino]

According to you. So you become the arbiter regardless of how "I" or anyone else feels or thinks. It is tyranny, Caino. You'd lord over us YOUR values. Of COURSE it means whatever you don't like, specifically.

"A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available."

You've established a false dichotomy and pronounced me guilty of disagreeing with God. I don't believe God wrote the Bible, I believe holy men, priests and scribes constructed the Old Testament and that the concept of God therein represents their concepts and bias.

The OT reflects Israelite values in the age they lived in. I believe they fictionalized portions of their history in order to inspire loyalty, faith and national pride among the common Israelite. It worked!

I'm not disagreeing with God, im disagreeing with your "belief" that God wrote the Bible.

It doesn't matter. Jesus opened those books and preached from them. YOUR belief or mine is of no account after that.

Jesus selected what was true in the OT scriptures and left us to decide what isn't.

EXCEPT God very God, became flesh, and dwelled among us. He revealed the Father. Neither you, nor I, nor Sadler GET to rewrite Him! The UB is a a rewrite and edit of God very God. "IF" I can get you to say "NO!" to men for that, such would be the goal and joy I'd have of even entering this thread!

God the Son did become flesh, he presented a very different picture of God contrasted with the OT God.

Right! And the UB says you are neither 'sick' nor 'unrighteous' and don't need a Savior. You just need to be pointed in the right direction :C

Not true, the UB talks extensively about salvation and rehabilitation. The word salvation appears 238 times in the revelation.

It is always awkward to hear something that is an idea in scripture, but not from it, like this. We have been talking about being born of Spirit. Sadler literally had no idea about God very God coming into Him, indwelling Him, and making him something new, entirely different than he was. He never described such a thing. It means flesh comprehending flesh and no grasp of Spirit at all. I HOPE better for you.

Read more of the book, eventually you will refute your own false claims:

155:6.3 I have called upon you to be born again, to be born of the spirit. I have called you out of the darkness of authority and the lethargy of tradition into the transcendent light of the realization of the possibility of making for yourselves the greatest discovery possible for the human soul to make—the supernal experience of finding God for yourself, in yourself, and of yourself, and of doing all this as a fact in your own personal experience. And so may you pass from death to life, from the authority of tradition to the experience of knowing God; thus will you pass from darkness to light, from a racial faith inherited to a personal faith achieved by actual experience; and thereby will you progress from a theology of mind handed down by your ancestors to a true religion of spirit which shall be built up in your souls as an eternal endowment." UB

No. I rather said WE get our cues from HIM regarding righteousness because we aren't. We are finite. We are caught in the flesh. Don't tell me for a second when you were doing drugs, you were "righteous." Jesus said, that 'evil' fathers gave good things to children, comparing such to a Holy Father. We don't GET to judge God for anything, Caino. Do you not see yourself as audacious for telling God how HE must behave for YOUR satisfaction?

I have sinned, I have repented, I'm committed to doing Gods will. If I fall short, rinse and repeat.

I don't care what God demands as long as I'm a creature and He is God. I don't believe the God of the O.T. was evil. I wrestled long and hard, like I'm supposed to do, I didn't run away and make a whole new god I thought I 'could' follow instead. That 'god' would have been just my simpleton desire. BETTER the God who is, even if mean, than one I made up. The made-up one is just a fantasy I'd have made up in my head. Jesus IS the center and focal point of all revelation. He is the ONLY place where the buck stops. I either deal with Him there, or everything else is just men. Jesus did call some of the O.T. on the carpet at times. How much of it? Not much, but He endorse the Law at that point. The story is just 'what happened' more than instruction. When I read the Old Testament, I never read 'go and do likewise' as you seem to do. I'm not a Jew. It isn't the place I need to be overtly worried. As a gentile, I've a different story, but the buck stops with Jesus. The UB abandoned Him and rewrote a humanistic plastic version.

There will always be things difficult to understand when it comes to Gods ways and wisdom, but that doesn't mean we have to swallow outrage and untruth.

159:4.5 "Nathaniel, never permit yourself for one moment to believe the Scripture records which tell you that the God of love directed your forefathers to go forth in battle to slay all their enemies—men, women, and children. Such records are the words of men, not very holy men, and they are not the word of God. The Scriptures always have, and always will, reflect the intellectual, moral, and spiritual status of those who create them. Have you not noted that the concepts of Yahweh grow in beauty and glory as the prophets make their records from Samuel to Isaiah? And you should remember that the Scriptures are intended for religious instruction and spiritual guidance. They are not the works of either historians or philosophers.

Well yes. We agree here. You've just not thought critically about what the UB gets very wrong. At this point your argument 'could' be considered an apologetic for the New Testament. As such, there are Messianic (Jesus believing) Jews today that buy that argument, but realize the difference. No Messianic Jew thinks the UB is is anything but a work of fiction that I'm aware of. Getting you to see the same is the drive of my discussion with you (and others) here. I want you to see with good eyes, how critically you need to think when reading Dr. Sadler. He wasn't a prophet nor did he listen to one. He is wrong on so many counts. Anyone who had only a semblance of reading in the Old and New Testament would buy such stuff. It is horrible literature on many fronts. -Lon

Your claims about what's in the UB have been very wrong because you disagreed with it before you ever heard of it.

 

[Caino]

THE VISIT WITH NICODEMUS​

142:6.1 One evening at the home of Flavius there came to see Jesus one Nicodemus, a wealthy and elderly member of the Jewish Sanhedrin. He had heard much about the teachings of this Galilean, and so he went one afternoon to hear him as he taught in the temple courts. He would have gone often to hear Jesus teach, but he feared to be seen by the people in attendance upon his teaching, for already were the rulers of the Jews so at variance with Jesus that no member of the Sanhedrin would want to be identified in any open manner with him. Accordingly, Nicodemus had arranged with Andrew to see Jesus privately and after nightfall on this particular evening. Peter, James, and John were in Flavius's garden when the interview began, but later they all went into the house where the discourse continued.

142:6.2 In receiving Nicodemus, Jesus showed no particular deference; in talking with him, there was no compromise or undue persuasiveness. The Master made no attempt to repulse his secretive caller, nor did he employ sarcasm. In all his dealings with the distinguished visitor, Jesus was calm, earnest, and dignified. Nicodemus was not an official delegate of the Sanhedrin; he came to see Jesus wholly because of his personal and sincere interest in the Master's teachings.

142:6.3 Upon being presented by Flavius, Nicodemus said: “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher sent by God, for no mere man could so teach unless God were with him. And I am desirous of knowing more about your teachings regarding the coming kingdom.”

142:6.4 Jesus answered Nicodemus: “Verily, verily, I say to you, Nicodemus, except a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Then replied Nicodemus: “But how can a man be born again when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born.”

142:6.5 Jesus said: “Nevertheless, I declare to you, except a man be born of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. But you should not marvel that I said you must be born from above. When the wind blows, you hear the rustle of the leaves, but you do not see the wind—whence it comes or whither it goes—and so it is with everyone born of the spirit. With the eyes of the flesh you can behold the manifestations of the spirit, but you cannot actually discern the spirit.”

142:6.6 Nicodemus replied: “But I do not understand—how can that be?” Said Jesus: “Can it be that you are a teacher in Israel and yet ignorant of all this? It becomes, then, the duty of those who know about the realities of the spirit to reveal these things to those who discern only the manifestations of the material world. But will you believe us if we tell you of the heavenly truths? Do you have the courage, Nicodemus, to believe in one who has descended from heaven, even the Son of Man?”

142:6.7 And Nicodemus said: “But how can I begin to lay hold upon this spirit which is to remake me in preparation for entering into the kingdom?” Jesus answered: “Already does the spirit of the Father in heaven indwell you. If you would be led by this spirit from above, very soon would you begin to see with the eyes of the spirit, and then by the wholehearted choice of spirit guidance would you be born of the spirit since your only purpose in living would be to do the will of your Father who is in heaven. And so finding yourself born of the spirit and happily in the kingdom of God, you would begin to bear in your daily life the abundant fruits of the spirit.”

142:6.8 Nicodemus was thoroughly sincere. He was deeply impressed but went away bewildered. Nicodemus was accomplished in self-development, in self-restraint, and even in high moral qualities. He was refined, egoistic, and altruistic; but he did not know how to submit his will to the will of the divine Father as a little child is willing to submit to the guidance and leading of a wise and loving earthly father, thereby becoming in reality a son of God, a progressive heir of the eternal kingdom.

142:6.9 But Nicodemus did summon faith enough to lay hold of the kingdom. He faintly protested when his colleagues of the Sanhedrin sought to condemn Jesus without a hearing; and with Joseph of Arimathea, he later boldly acknowledged his faith and claimed the body of Jesus, even when most of the disciples had fled in fear from the scenes of their Master's final suffering and death.

 

[Lon]

"A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available."

See, this is why I don't believe you have the tools. You have no idea when rules apply and it doesn't here. YOU and the Urantia people you admire, want to dictate to God how He must behave before YOU will : Plain: "let" Him be God, as "IF" you have any say in the matter at all. Learn to 'T-H-I-N-K' Caino. You are woefully behind regardless of what you think your prowess (wrong btw) is.

You've established a false dichotomy and pronounced me guilty of disagreeing with God.

No. I said you'd not follow Him UNLESS He is exactly as you 'wish' Him to be. He is Good. He is loving. You and I, however, don't GET to qualify that. Listen/pay attention: A/THE God of all things dictates to us. That is the end of it.

I don't believe God wrote the Bible

It doesn't matter what you believe! Jesus read from it! THAT IS ALL you get to say or understand. Sadler didn't like it either, and was just this audacious. He became a god in his own image.

I believe holy men, priests and scribes constructed the Old Testament and that the concept of God therein represents their concepts and bias.

At least you believe them holy. Let me restate: Jesus read from them.

The OT reflects Israelite values in the age they lived in.

NOT your call. YOU don't GET to evaluate that. Jesus read from the O.T. What you 'can' do, is say like me: "I'm not a Jew, the O.T. is written to teach me a little bit but not to get caught up in trying to be a Jew."

I believe they fictionalized portions of their history in order to inspire loyalty,

Who cares? Belief is something different. Moreover? How "Only Natural" of you!

I'm not disagreeing with God, im disagreeing with your "belief" that God wrote the Bible.

No, you are disagreeing with Jesus, thus God. Paul said all scripture is guided by God. Peter said all of Paul's writing is scripture. You and the UB? Lose. Frankly.

Jesus selected what was true in the OT scriptures and left us to decide what isn't.

Ah. Look at Caino the little god who gets to decide.... lain: NO WONDER the UB appeals to you! I get it now. It literally doesn't matter if it is primitive and amateur. It only matters that it empowers you. Got it

God the Son did become flesh, he presented a very different picture of God contrasted with the OT God.

YET, HE read from the O.T. Caino! You think more highly of your reading skills than you ought. Obviously, with your transparency, I'm not going to reach you. Unlike you, I pray. God can reach you, one way or the other.

Not true, the UB talks extensively about salvation and rehabilitation. The word salvation appears 238 times in the revelation.

I've read enough of it to see it's 'philosophy/teaching.' To date, in all of my reading, it literally doesn't give any directions, just 'lays ideas out.' It doesn't advise anything.

Read more of the book, eventually you will refute your own false claims:

You have said this for 8 years. I've NEVER met your claim. EVER. It literally has been no further up than everything to date I've ever read, subpar and incredibly poorly written: so bad it actually hurts. I'm ever wanting to get away from such childish drivel every time. It is horrible. AT LEAST today, you've made plain why you'd settle for such junk: 1) to believe what you want with some (poor and elementary) excuse, and to help delude yourself to being your own god. Good luck with that in the life to come. You are going to be trembling on your death bed for this. You have to stand that day and realize your 'made up' idea and fantasy isn't likely to be the real God and you'll have to meet the One that day, that actually exists.

155:6.3 I have called upon you to be born again, to be born of the spirit.

Uhm, no. Jesus didn't 'call upon' man to do something man cannot do. It was instruction to inform: "You must be born-again." One cannot 'born' selves nor 'born' yet 'again' oneself. It is something that happens to you, the later by God alone.

I have called you out of the darkness of authority and the lethargy of tradition into the transcendent light of the realization of the possibility of making for yourselves the greatest discovery possible for the human soul to make—the supernal experience of finding God for yourself, in yourself, and of yourself, and of doing all this as a fact in your own personal experience. And so may you pass from death to life, from the authority of tradition to the experience of knowing God; thus will you pass from darkness to light, from a racial faith inherited to a personal faith achieved by actual experience; and thereby will you progress from a theology of mind handed down by your ancestors to a true religion of spirit which shall be built up in your souls as an eternal endowment." UB

Stupidity of Sadler's. Don't buy it Caino. It literally hurts my brain to have to read this tripe.

I have sinned, I have repented, I'm committed to doing Gods will. If I fall short, rinse and repeat.

No 'born-again.' It is simply refocusing, according to the UB and Sadler. They and you do not grasp that the Son must literally (literally) come in and guide you by His Holy Spirit. You guys literally have no idea what that means. It means you are stuck in your flesh. The WHOLE description you just gave me is from the flesh, in this UB.

There will always be things difficult to understand when it comes to Gods ways and wisdom, but that doesn't mean we have to swallow outrage and untruth.

It SURELY doesn't mean 1)stuck in the flesh and 2) Ignoring Jesus. He read from the O.T. YOU don't GET to pick and choose what you randomly want to believe, especially when I've shown you, your reading comprehension is subpar.

159:4.5 "Nathaniel, never permit yourself for one moment to believe the Scripture records which tell you that the God of love directed your forefathers to go forth in battle to slay all their enemies—men, women, and children. Such records are the words of men, not very holy men, and they are not the word of God.

Says Sadler the man. He isn't God so who cares? I ONLY care what God has to say about His Own Matters about Himself.

The Scriptures always have, and always will, reflect the intellectual, moral, and spiritual status of those who create them. Have you not noted that the concepts of Yahweh grow in beauty and glory as the prophets make their records from Samuel to Isaiah? And you should remember that the Scriptures are intended for religious instruction and spiritual guidance. They are not the works of either historians or philosophers.

See? An appeal to scripture. The UB is mostly a 'commentary' of what Sadler thinks about the Bible. Such thoughts aren't scripture and always up for some critical scrutiny. I'd not have purchased this commentary, though. It isn't anywhere near as helpful as my other ones I used while in Bible college.

Your claims about what's in the UB have been very wrong because you disagreed with it before you ever heard of it.

Nope. You can keep deluding yourself, the thing is horrible. I realize I can't be the one to convince you. I'll leave you in God's hands for awhile. -Lon

 

[Caino]

"The Old Testament records one of these ordeals, a marital guilt test: If a man suspected his wife of being untrue to him, he took her to the priest and stated his suspicions, after which the priest would prepare a concoction consisting of holy water and sweepings from the temple floor. After due ceremony, including threatening curses, the accused wife was made to drink the nasty potion. If she was guilty, "the water that causes the curse shall enter into her and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thighs shall rot, and the woman shall be accursed among her people." If, by any chance, any woman could quaff this filthy draught and not show symptoms of physical illness, she was acquitted of the charges made by her jealous husband.

70:10.7 These atrocious methods of crime detection were practiced by almost all the evolving tribes at one time or another. Dueling is a modern survival of the trial by ordeal.

70:10.8 It is not to be wondered that the Hebrews and other semicivilized tribes practiced such primitive techniques of justice administration three thousand years ago, but it is most amazing that thinking men would subsequently retain such a relic of barbarism within the pages of a collection of sacred writings. Reflective thinking should make it clear that no divine being ever gave mortal man such unfair instructions regarding the detection and adjudication of suspected marital unfaithfulness." UB

 

[ok doser]

... the Hebrews (were a) semicivilized tribe ...

What comic book are you getting this from?

 

[Caino]

What comic book are you getting this from?

The Bible.

 

[ok doser]

The Bible.

Yeah, about that

No

 

[Lon]

"The Old Testament records one of these ordeals, a marital guilt test: If a man suspected his wife of being untrue to him, he took her to the priest and stated his suspicions, after which the priest would prepare a concoction consisting of holy water and sweepings from the temple floor. After due ceremony, including threatening curses, the accused wife was made to drink the nasty potion. If she was guilty, "the water that causes the curse shall enter into her and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thighs shall rot, and the woman shall be accursed among her people." If, by any chance, any woman could quaff this filthy draught and not show symptoms of physical illness, she was acquitted of the charges made by her jealous husband.

Sadly, all mean-spirited paraphrasing. Actually read (critically):
…26Then the priest is to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial portion and burn it on the altar; after that he is to have the woman drink the water. 27When he has made her drink the water, if she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then the water that brings a curse will enter her and cause bitter suffering; her belly will swell, her thigh will shrivel, and she will become accursed among her people. 28But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will be unaffected and able to conceive children.

Science? A much better explanation. Sadler didn't know his Bible that well, "Sadle"y.

70:10.7 These atrocious methods of crime detection were practiced by almost all the evolving tribes at one time or another. Dueling is a modern survival of the trial by ordeal.

So SADLER the 'brilliant' doctor thought this was 'crime detection....' He was lousy Caino. He duped you. Don't be duped by someone with this low academic level.

70:10.8 It is not to be wondered that the Hebrews and other semicivilized tribes practiced such primitive techniques of justice administration three thousand years ago, but it is most amazing that thinking men would subsequently retain such a relic of barbarism within the pages of a collection of sacred writings.

Er, because Sadler goofed. It doesn't say that. He literally made that part up.

Reflective thinking should make it clear that no divine being ever gave mortal man such unfair instruction

Ah, 'Only Natural' "Common Sense" again

regarding the detection and adjudication of suspected marital unfaithfulness." UB

...like a pregnancy test... Since I'm not a Hebrew, I'm not privy. I don't know a lot of natural medicine. I'm not a doctor either. Sadler? He was some semblance of a doctor but at this point I could never entrust him.

Continued prayers you wake up, Caino. -Lon

 

[Caino]

Sadly, all mean-spirited paraphrasing. Actually read (critically):
…26Then the priest is to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial portion and burn it on the altar; after that he is to have the woman drink the water. 27When he has made her drink the water, if she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then the water that brings a curse will enter her and cause bitter suffering; her belly will swell, her thigh will shrivel, and she will become accursed among her people. 28But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will be unaffected and able to conceive children.

Science? A much better explanation. Sadler didn't know his Bible that well, "Sadle"y.

So SADLER the 'brilliant' doctor thought this was 'crime detection....' He was lousy Caino. He duped you. Don't be duped by someone with this low academic level.


Er, because Sadler goofed. It doesn't say that. He literally made that part up.

Ah, 'Only Natural' "Common Sense" again

...like a pregnancy test... Since I'm not a Hebrew, I'm not privy. I don't know a lot of natural medicine. I'm not a doctor either. Sadler? He was some semblance of a doctor but at this point I could never entrust him.

Continued prayers you wake up, Caino. -Lon

I’ve been “awake” for a long time. In reality you are asking me to go to sleep, you want me to imbibe with you in the opiate of irrational sentimentality, religious indoctrination, biblical idolatry. As much as you talk about “critical thinking” you actually want me to set it aside and except the claims of the kind of blind politicians that rejected the Son of God. I didn't believe in Santa Clause for the same reason I don't believe in parting seas, sticks to snakes, murder from the sky, Noah's flood etc.

The Jews (with scripture in hand) used your brand of so called "critical thinking" to withstand Jesus but you don’t think critically enough to see that.

I can see why you are so defensive about the writings of the Israelites. I have no doubt about their behavior, this way of thinking was universal among the evolving religions in that age. The belief in curses, spells etc. was part of the mystical age of evolving Judaism.

Judaism is an evolved religion, it developed after the very real agreement between Melchizedek (Gods visible representative on earth) and Abraham. The revelators provide extensive insight into how religions evolve.

Numbers 5:11-31

​

​

The Test for an Unfaithful Wife​

11 Then the Lord said to Moses,12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.
16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse.19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b]among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offeringand burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water.27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”

 

[Caino]

The revelators of the UB were realistic and respectful towards the evolution of largely man made religions.

92:2.3 When modern man wonders at the presentation of so much in the scriptures of different religions that may be regarded as obscene, he should pause to consider that passing generations have feared to eliminate what their ancestors deemed to be holy and sacred. A great deal that one generation might look upon as obscene, preceding generations have considered a part of their accepted mores, even as approved religious rituals. A considerable amount of religious controversy has been occasioned by the never-ending attempts to reconcile olden but reprehensible practices with newly advanced reason, to find plausible theories in justification of creedal perpetuation of ancient and outworn customs.” UB 1955

 

[Lon]

The revelators of the UB were realistic and respectful towards the evolution of largely man made religions.

92:2.3 When modern man wonders at the presentation of so much in the scriptures of different religions that may be regarded as obscene, he should pause to consider that passing generations have feared to eliminate what their ancestors deemed to be holy and sacred. A great deal that one generation might look upon as obscene, preceding generations have considered a part of their accepted mores, even as approved religious rituals. A considerable amount of religious controversy has been occasioned by the never-ending attempts to reconcile olden but reprehensible practices with newly advanced reason, to find plausible theories in justification of creedal perpetuation of ancient and outworn customs.” UB 1955

Oh Caino, you know this is a lie. We've talked about it. Praying for you.