Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
MysticWolf

If The Devil fell from heaven to the earth...

516 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Luis Marco
6 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I have read the Urantia Book. Will and I have discussed it at good lenght, I'm not really wanting to repeat myself.

But I will say this, it's condrictory just like every other Religions doctrine. Before we take this further what do you define the following words as, fact, revelation and false.

Fact is in any dictionary, the same as false, and also revelation is defined thereby, but i must add that it is a giving of truth, knowledge, info, etc from celestial beings to mortals such as us. Why your query?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
danydandan
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Luis Marco said:

Fact is in any dictionary, the same as false, and also revelation is defined thereby, but i must add that it is a giving of truth, knowledge, info, etc from celestial beings to mortals such as us. Why your query?.

So you ascribe to the dictionaries definition of Revelation which is a surprising and previously unknown fact that has been disclosed to others, often by divine or supernatural disclosure to humans of something relating to human existence.

So you also ascribe to the definition of fact (not MrWalkers version)... a thing that is known or proved to be true.

And false that means the opposite of true. You ascribe to all these?

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luis Marco
2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

And false that means the opposite of true. You ascribe to all these?

Kinda, why ¿

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
2 minutes ago, Luis Marco said:

Kinda, why ¿

Then what's your definition of false? Because I can't make my point unless we are ascribing to the same definitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luis Marco

Yes, basically the opposite of true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, Luis Marco said:

Yes, basically the opposite of true.

Ok.

The UB claims to be a revelation, and that within it, it gives statements. These statements are meant to be taken as matter of fact. Some these are correct and true while others are false.

If even one of these statements are false how can it be a revelation based on the definitions we outlined earlier?

The Foundation acknowledged that the Book was incorrect about Tenskwatawa predictions. It makes errors regarding the Sun tempetature, Mercury and the Moons axial rotation,  the number of electrons allowed in each element in the elementary table. It says that only 100 are allowed we have many elements with over a 100 electrons. This was charged in the second printing of the book. It's wrong about the age of the universe, number of stars in our Galaxy. And loads of other stuff.

It's right about somethings too, like the crab nebula, it might be right about black holes.

But anyway like I said, if even one statement within this revelation is false, and a number are, it can no longer be a revelation. You can colourcoat it all you want by saying we just didn't understand what these being were talking about. But with that being said, it's still claimed as a revelation.

So how can anyone ascribe to it being a revelation when the foundation emphatically states that it makes errors? It's nonsense.

 

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luis Marco
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, danydandan said:

Ok.

The UB claims to be a revelation, and that within it, it gives statements. These statements are meant to be taken as matter of fact. Some these are correct and true while others are false.

If even one of these statements are false how can it be a revelation based on the definitions we outlined earlier?

The Foundation acknowledged that the Book was incorrect about Tenskwatawa predictions. It makes errors regarding the Sun tempetature, Mercury and the Moons axial rotation,  the number of electrons allowed in each element in the elementary table. It says that only 100 are allowed we have many elements with over a 100 electrons. This was charged in the second printing of the book. It's wrong about the age of the universe, number of stars in our Galaxy. And loads of other stuff.

It's right about somethings too, like the crab nebula, it might be right about black holes.

But anyway like I said, if even one statement within this revelation is false, and a number are, it can no longer be a revelation. You can colourcoat it all you want by saying we just didn't understand what these being were talking about. But with that being said, it's still claimed as a revelation.

So how can anyone ascribe to it being a revelation when the foundation emphatically states that it makes errors? It's nonsense.

OK.

No, the false statements and errors in URANTIA do not invalidate in the least whatsoever the claim of URANTIA as a divine revelation. Why? Because of this:

https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/paper-101-real-nature-religion#U101_4_0 ('The limitations of revelation')

That explains those URANTIA inconsistencies overall...

But regarding things such as the Tenskwatawa point, see for example this explanation from Urantia Foundation's website itself:

https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book/text-standardization#U90_2_9

Quote

Adopted: Tenskwatawa is the standard transliteration for the Shawnee prophet’s name; the spelling in the first edition may have been caused by a mistaken keystroke or may have been the result of an error in reading the original manuscript. (Regarding the latter possibility, see the note for 195:3.1).

Now what are you gonna say this time???, i'm curious enough!.

LM, 34, 'white', born and living in Mexico City

Edited by Luis Marco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
23 hours ago, Luis Marco said:

What examples particularly???. i already gave that, but here's one (from the scientific website i already linked to previouly): http://ubannotated.com/ubthenews/topics/magnetic_sensitivity/ (UBtheNEWS: Magnetic Sensitivity Report)...

That's not a scientific website by any means, and Franz Mesmer theorised connections between inanimate and animate objects scince the 18th century, and migration has been studied for centuries. 

I'd like to know why you avoid the questions already asked about major discrepancies like thosr of Venus Mercury The island of Stability the age of the universe etc etc. 

If you bandy about the passage as you have been, saying the UB is wrong in some scientific aspects, then that outright admits it took a guess on supporting the idea of Magnetoreception and lucked in. 

Which is not prediction of anything at all is it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
3 hours ago, Luis Marco said:

OK.

No, the false statements and errors in URANTIA do not invalidate in the least whatsoever the claim of URANTIA as a divine revelation. Why? Because of this:

https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/paper-101-real-nature-religion#U101_4_0 ('The limitations of revelation')

That explains those URANTIA inconsistencies overall...

But regarding things such as the Tenskwatawa point, see for example this explanation from Urantia Foundation's website itself:

https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book/text-standardization#U90_2_9

Now what are you gonna say this time???, i'm curious enough!.

LM, 34, 'white', born and living in Mexico City

It does not explain the inconsistencies. Its an admission that the book is made up. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

It does not explain the inconsistencies. Its an admission that the book is made up. 

 

Made up? 

Now why would you make up a thing like that?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
18 hours ago, danydandan said:

But anyway like I said, if even one statement within this revelation is false, and a number are, it can no longer be a revelation.

 

But what if the only real thing that's false is a person's interpretation of what the revelation really is? 

The Life and Teachings of Jesus was the fourth time our world received an epochal revelation and there were many then who said the same thing about him that you're saying about the Urantia Book. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Luis Marco said:

OK.

No, the false statements and errors in URANTIA do not invalidate in the least whatsoever the claim of URANTIA as a divine revelation. Why? Because of this:

https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/paper-101-real-nature-religion#U101_4_0 ('The limitations of revelation')

That explains those URANTIA inconsistencies overall...

But regarding things such as the Tenskwatawa point, see for example this explanation from Urantia Foundation's website itself:

https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book/text-standardization#U90_2_9

Now what are you gonna say this time???, i'm curious enough!.

LM, 34, 'white', born and living in Mexico City

It says nothing but, we can talk shyt and the sheep who believe us will still follow even if it's proven thst stuff in the book is incorrect. And I'm talking about the Predictions of Tanskwatawa being wrong in the UB by 2 years. Some unknown fact that was eh, and it was already well recorded at the time.

Open eyes if you made so many errors in an exam you'd fail. Or if you lied so much you'd go to jail if on trial. The whole thing is/was a money making scam.

Edit: I might add have you read through first print of the Urantia Book? I have and it says nothing about it's inconsistencies.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
19 hours ago, Luis Marco said:

OK.

No, the false statements and errors in URANTIA do not invalidate in the least whatsoever the claim of URANTIA as a divine revelation. Why? Because of this:

https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/paper-101-real-nature-religion#U101_4_0 ('The limitations of revelation')

That explains those URANTIA inconsistencies overall...

What is the explanation for giving false information? Your link is just passing the blame.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 8/27/2018 at 1:19 PM, Will Due said:

 

Made up? 

Now why would you make up a thing like that?

 

 

Its just a religiously orientated paperback. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
On 23/08/2018 at 4:22 PM, Will Due said:

 

That's the thing about the dumbass.

His power lies with those he's convinced that God is wrong.

 

 

Hi Will

I think that they are both constructs that describe us but use to deflect responsibility. You know what I have said in the past about potential so the internet belongs to the seeker and is responsible for it.

jmccr8 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MysticWolf

I'm convinced now they are referring to Earth as hell.
 

Quote

 

Rabbi Chain Richman, director of The Temple Institute, believes the time is ripe to build the Third Temple, following the birth of the red heifer, which will bring about the “the rapture”, where all Christian believers (living and dead) will rise into the sky and join Christ, while non-believers suffer never-ending punishment in hell.

rapture.jpg?as=1&w=400

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.