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 -

'What do you know about 'The Urantia Papers'?'


Luis Marco
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

The apostles did have it more or less memorized. But the shock of Jesus' death was more than they could bear. Then, after he appeared to them in a new form, as he promised he would, all they could do on the day of Pentecost was to be focused on that. Which was purely natural. So in their excitement they forgot themselves (and what they were taught to do) in overemphasizing his resurrection. Thereby inadvertently making it the cornerstone of what became a new religion about him instead of the religion he taught them to proclaim. Which is to simply have faith in the Fatherhood of God and the corresponding childhood relationship men and women have with him. 

 

 

Andrew's notes, as well as the personal notes of the sayings of Jesus made by others, were not intended to ever be used as a basis for canonizing a new religion. It is noteworthy that Jesus never wrote down anything, except for the few times he did it (for the edification of certain troubled individuals) on the ground and in the sand. The notes you're referring to, were not definitive of his teachings in the way you're thinking, if I understand you correctly. Not to mention that his teachings are much more than just words. The true significance of his teachings is laid up in a knowledge of how he lived his life (and not only what he said) which is comprehensive, in it's presentation in the papers.

 

 

It's a matter of comprehension. When taking instruction regarding something that's being taught, it's the degree that a person can teach it to someone else that it then becomes proof that the lesson was learned satisfactorily by the one who teaches it. The teachings of Jesus, although all encompassing in their simplicity, will take the time it takes to fully unfold in a person's mind. So notwithstanding that the Gospel writers did have in their possession the notes of the sayings of Jesus, it was only a beginning. A rough draft sort of speak.

 

 

That is very nicely and intelligently composed Will, but I would like to add one thing.

Buddha told his followers to believe nothing even if it comes from his lips, and this was very confusing to his followers that the Buddha would say that to them. The moral here is to believe nothing until you understand it, and to use our own personal critical thinking skills to decide if we can believe and understand it. If you choose not to believe or still are unable to understand it ask questions of those more knowledgeable than ourselves so can try to fully appreciate what you were taught. If at this point you are still unable to comprehend, understand or believe it move on because it’s not required to believe everything we are told!:tu:

Peace Will!:tu:

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

@eight bits

 

Quoting myself:

Instead it emphasizes what Jesus' followers chose to do in initiating a new religion based on a lot of mistaken ideas about him, whereas the entirety of the papers emphasizes who he is, what his teachings are, what happened during his life, and so on, before it became lodged into the religion that now bares his name.

 

- How did that work? His followers would have had access to him. How did they form "mistaken ideas about him," especially about things that would be directly observable, like his teachings and what happened during his life? I understand that "who he is" might ultimately exceed the ready understanding of ancient fishermen, but the basic facts should still be square.

Whenever a group of people take instruction, it works like it always works. Some absorb more than others. But when it comes to something as interpretive as spiritual teachings, it seems to me, very few will get the gist of it off the bat. Even if the same things are taught repeatedly, then from different points of view for enhancement, still, there are limitations to how much will actually be realized by those listening to what is being taught. This situation was clearly demonstrated when Jesus exclaimed to his apostles (more than once) "How long shall I bear with you?" In other words, how long will it take for you to understand what it is I'm trying to teach you? And then, after he departed, the situation of having not understood enough, exasperated the loss of focus which precluded the apostles kicking the ball off in an unnecessary direction, proclaiming his resurrection as the "good news" instead of proclaiming the good news Jesus taught them to proclaim, that men and women only need to have faith in their being God's children and that God is a Father to all, on the day of Pentecost

 

 

 

- What happened to those "notes of Andrew," that were accurate enough for the UB to cite them, but were unable keep the gospels on track? Those notes must have been available to somebody back when the canonical gospels were written in the form we have them today (sometime in the interval 65-125 CE, give or take).

Andrew's notes were not cited by the writers of the papers. Although the personal records of the sayings of Jesus, as compiled by Andrew and some of the other apostles, were used as a source for the earliest Christian documents, the writers of the papers didn't use them. They didn't need to. They have their own record.

 

 

 

@Liquid Gardens

 

- You mention our 'local universe', does Urantia teach more of a meta/multi-universe cosmology, where there are several universes?  

There is only one universe (a universe of universes) compromised of many different universes of varying sizes and constitution.

 

 

 

- When we say that Jesus is 'one of many' but definitely outranks everyone but the Father, is that for this specific universe?

Yes.

 

 

 

- Do other universes have their own 'one of many'/Jesus who is the creator?  

Yes. Each local universe has its own universe creator. Each one is unique yet similar in many ways to all of the others.

 

 

 

- Is there just one Father above all universes?

Yes. 

 

 

 

- I find that to be a significant improvement over other common conceptions where things you do unknowingly and non-deliberately, like being born, are also sinful.  

Tell me about it. We are the only ones in control of doing what's right and wrong and not anyone else. Especially not our ancestors.

 

 

 

- Is/was Jesus necessary for salvation at all?  

Yes. He blazed the only trail that works to follow. "No man goes to the Father except through me." I liken it to mean the same thing that happens with a drop of water that falls in the mountains. There are prescribed pathways saved, like streams and rivers, that will bring it secured to join the ocean. 

 

 

 

- The main reason that salvation is available for Christians is because of Jesus' sacrifice.  

Yes. It's a common and fiercely held idea that many Christians hold onto.

 

 


- You mentioned that faith is what earns you salvation in Urantia, to put it basically, faith in what? In the Father? 

Faith in the fatherhood of God. Faith, that is similar to that of a small child in its good and loving parents (when it has them).

 

 


- Faith that Jesus is our savior? I don't think it's the latter since you mention that sin is separate from religion.

Faith in being the Father's child. And learning what it means to be entrusted with the daily responsibility of learning how to be about the business of the doing of his will. Just like all good children do 

 

 


- To be clear I'm not asking these questions to mock, all I know about Urantia is what I remember from your posts.  I looked a little at I think it was the Wayfarers link earlier and to a non-believer parts of Urantia definitely sound somewhat science-fiction-ish and far out (part of its appeal to Jimi I'd bet), but it's no more unbelievable than the other major religions and their assorted beasties and concepts.  Thanks for the quotes on being unselfish, that's what I expected and not much there that it teaches that I disagree with.  I especially liked, "Then must mortal man live face to face with the incessant clamoring of an inescapable self for recognition and honor"; very apt and well put, and wow do many of us mortal men and women on this board know the truth of this 'incessant clamoring' all too well in regard to other posters here.

Well at least it shows that people care. :)

 

 

I'm getting confused. You are saying the Bible is inferior to the Urantia Book? Yet, many parts of the Urantia Book are taken from the New Testement. Which parts are not in and which ones are? How does the Urantia Book get this information? Is it from literary sources mysterious or known, or is it from direct communication with Jesus Christ and his angels? If the original Apostles are not the progenitors of Christ, than how can the Urantia Book be any better? It sounds like it is trying to rob Jesus out of the Bible and then just not give credit to the whole 2,000 years of work that has been done that is actually the only real support the Urantia Book has. Kind of like Judas Iscariot trying to steal all the glory for himself.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Its not incorrect You just desperately need to believe that it is 

Huh?  The above by the way is why I just laugh at your lack of self-awareness when you whine about being insulted here.  I desperately need to believe that I don't 'accept' that you had peanut paste for breakfast, or something, because?  What is your evidence that I desperately need to believe it is, how do you know this?

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I realise tha t you and others think  I lie a lot.

Yet another thing you are wrong about, but I guess these diversions keep you from having to address points that make you uncomfortable.

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You do NOT know the CC exists 

I do know that  it exists  (it's as real as peanut paste ) 

You have chosen to disbelieve  that humans can become one with the CC, despite the hundreds of individuals who have written about, and described, their experiences with it .

Your last line is mostly correct (except your continuing errors about 'choosing to disbelieve') and my position is well justified; the statements you made about me above are false so no reason to think you are any more accurate in your assessment of much else.  Your claim wasn't that you know that it exists, you've already shared your faith with us on this many many times.  Your claim, again, was that you have the same evidence for the cc/god as you have for dogs.  Sorry, I know this is tough for you to emotionally digest but you are still wrong - you have no pictures of the cc but probably have some of dogs - thus the evidence is not 'the same' contrary to what you claimed - the end.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Basically you have it, except  that you knowing peanut paste exists does NOTHING to increase the probability that i am telling the truth about having it for breakfast 

The fact that you know dogs exist does NOTHING to prove that i own one  This discussion is not about the existence of things, but about the abilty of one person to prove to another that they had contact/experience   with a thing  ( god /dog/wife /peanut paste/  cosmic consciousness)

Your disbelief in, and lack of experience with, a couple of those doesn't lessen the probability  that I know them.

Ie your disbelief in their general existence is what causes you to disbelieve that  I have contact with them.

  If the y don't exist, then I can't have contact   That's a problem with your  faith/belief, and lack of personal  experiences, not with the truth/reality   

I can't prove a single one of those to a doubter who is sceptical of any evidences I might produce.

Me having peanut paste for breakfast is no more/less possible /plausible  than me having contact with the cosmic consciousness, given that both exist and are real physical things  

Only when you don't believe one exists, does it become less plausible in your mind 

 

 

It is very basic MW according to logic when one evaluates an argument for validity this basically means the conclusion follows from the premise(s), the proposition (s), the statement(s) being advanced, or the assumption(s) being drawn. So, if the premises can be proven to be true and the conclusion can be shown to follow from the premise then the conclusion will necessarily be true. 

Ex 1: Peanut paste is a food (premise)

all humans eat food, therefore, (premise)

Paul (a human) eats peanut paste. (conclusion)) 

Ex 2: dragons are fictitious  (P)

all dragons are made up, therefore (P)

Paul’s dragon is fictional. (C)

Both syllogisms offer enough reason to convince anyone that one could eat peanut paste and that  dragons are fictional, nothing is required beyond this, in other words, it is really immaterial if you eat peanut paste or not because it is “possible’ that you could. 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Will Due said:

There is only one universe (a universe of universes) compromised of many different universes of varying sizes and constitution.

Thanks Will, and I'll add to the chorus here that your most recent posts have been excellent.  I understand far more about Urantia from you explaining it in your own words than I ever did from reading quotes from the UB posted here.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Thanks Will, and I'll add to the chorus here that your most recent posts have been excellent.  I understand far more about Urantia from you explaining it in your own words than I ever did from reading quotes from the UB posted here.

You mean to tell me that Will is conversing now?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sherapy said:

Yes, he has come along way. 

Interesting. Well I hope he keeps it up. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Ex 1: Peanut paste is a food (premise)

all humans eat food, therefore, (premise)

Paul (a human) eats peanut paste. (conclusion)) 

 

One thing here is that I am not sure that it is such that the conclusion follows from the premise. If all humans eat food, does that necessitate that a human will eat a specific type of food? If it were a food that all humans ate then I could see it, for sure. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

One thing here is that I am not sure that it is such that the conclusion follows from the premise. If all humans eat food, does that necessitate that a human will eat a specific type of food? If it were a food that all humans ate then I could see it, for sure. 

This is a fair point, IMHO one “could” eat peanut paste if they chose to.
 

Thank you for the feedback.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, eight bits said:

Increase compared with what? The definite existence of peanut paste does contribute to the higher plausibility of your report about eating it compared with there really having been a doorway in the sky as told in your report about that.

If your point is that you could be fibbing about both, then thanks for the heads-up, but that thought had already occurred to me. Which doesn't change that one report is more plausible than the other, for the reason stated.

Other posters, most recently (I think) @Liquid Gardens, have pointed out that "proof" is not the focus of interest. Neither of us can prove anything to one another in the strongest sense of the word. That has nothing to do with some claims being more plausible than others, nor does it prevent the presentation of evidence when such is available.

As to dogs, I am on record as being less than fully confident that you do own any dogs, since you profess not to notice aspects of their species-typical behavior that seem to me hard to miss. There are other explanations of that, so I still accept your statements about dog ownership, an acceptance in which the definite existence of dogs looms especially large.

I'm the wrong person to raise that with. I have had at least one of your experiences, an unplugged radio playing for a short while. I did not interpret that as a supernatural event nor as an alien intervention. Also, as just mentioned, I have lots of experience with dogs, and that doesn't help at all with my acceptance of some of your statements about your interactions with them. I accept that you own dogs despite some of your reports, not because of them.

The experiment's been done, Mr W. The results don't increase my estimate of the probability of your interpretation of reality being correct.

(Emphasis added.) You've almost got it. Hypothetically (what given that means), if both definitely existed, then there would be no difference in plausibility between reports about them attributable to a factor that by hypothesis wasn't different.

Your remaining difficulty is that that isn't the given in the real world. In the real world, peanut paste definitely exists, and flying doorways remain to be established. Given that you say you saw one, it's on you to furnish evidence that there was one for you to have seen. Given that you haven't done so, the plausibility of there having been such a doorway is pitiful.

=

@Will Due - you really are doing much better lately with finding your own words, and are more effective in discussion for doing so. I thank you again for your answers to my questions.

Actually it does  not  contribute to higher plausibility or certainty 

That is based on an assumption that, while peanut paste exists,  the things I speak of do not.

  When both are real it is equally possible that I am speaking truth or lies about either.

When both are accepted as real, then the plausibility for my encounter with either  should be the same.  (but plausibility is a subjective individaul thing) 

Yes i could be( but was not ) fibbing about either 

Indeed it would be more credible for me to con you about something you are willing to accept than something you are not. 

Ok then we agree (but i dont think some others do as the y keep asking for proof and claim tha t without proof, "it never happened" )

Of course claims outside of a commonly held reference are treated with greater skepticism but that does not make them inherently untrue or impossible 

Eg  i was chased, while skiing, by a 20 foot great white shark    manyyears before "jaws" ever came out 

Implausible  ? sure,  yet absolutely true  

You tend to have it both ways  Sometimes suggesting that i am simply lying /mistaken about my individual encounters and sometimes suggesting they are impossible because such things do  not exist Ie sometimes you hint that you might believe someone else but not me (which is ironic really as i know i am telling the truth, but can never be sure that anyone else is) 

I see the same behaviours  in animals as you do, but as part of my academic education I was trained in cognition, linguistics, consciousness, and behaviours 

Thus i do not see the behaviours as you do but as evolved drivers   beyond a dogs control.

A dog simply cannot love as you do. It doesn't have the language or self  awareness to love as you do 

However it will bond with you as a child will and you will become a part of its pack 

IMO you have a (positive and constructive)  romantic and non-scientific belief about the nature of dogs and other animals, which is also ironic given your failure to accept other  things 

 To put it simply, as a human I have a duty to care for other animals, to protect them and see the y do not suffer However no other animal has such a duty to me  and is not capable of formulating one.

  and I guess your radio was one which held a charge in it's capacitors?  Did it save your life by the message you heard? Were you told to listen to it before it came on and to take note of the message  

Yes ?

No? 

No? 

Then of course it was very different to my own experience .

Indeed, and both DO exist :) The plausibility or implausibility is only your own construct, based on your own lack of experiences and also on the nature of your world view.

It is impossible for dogs to have some of the attributes you confer on them, yet you find it entirely plausible, from  your observations, and your  (romantic and anthropomorphic)  preexisting beliefs about animals  

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Then you did a poor job of explaining your point, as you said "You can not know", which we obviously can know, given the right tools and circumstances. 

I don't need to observe you to prove you had peanut butter. That can be objectively proven otherwise. Love for your wife is not the same as being able to verify stomach contents.

Neither do you, so that makes two of us. But sure, whatever floats your fantastical boat. :unsure2:

No you CANNOT know, what ever tools you use, unless you take on faith the evidences. Only by being there can you KNOW the truth.

Otherwise where is the evidentiary chain? Who checks it from beginning to end how are the videos and physical  evidences verified as to time and place?.

Where are the date stamps?   Do you trust every single person along the chain?   

Explain to me how you can prove to me, now, what you had for breakfast this morning.

  Then explain to me how you can prove anything which happened to you 10 years ago, IF I choose not  to believe what you call your evidences 

Life is not a controlled laboratory experiment.

We know things from  the physical evidences available to us not by evidences provided by  others

Thus if you have loved you know love is real. If oyu have not, NO one can prove it to you

 You (generic) know what you ate this morning ( unless you are delusional  or possibly badly hung over  ) but you cannot prove it to anyone else, outside of being in a laboratory experiment at the time. Even then it is proven only to those involved in observing the experiment, and contingent on the experiment being rigorously monitored/conducted .  

ah  but i do know it exists, in the same way I  know everything exists from  love to my dogs. 

Thats the basic difference between us.

It is no more fantastical than being able to read or write. 

 

 

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Explain to me how you can prove to me, now, what you had for breakfast this morning.

"Now" is irrelevant--what's important is that it is possible to prove what one ate for breakfast, via technological means. Whether or not it's "now" makes no difference lol

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

ah  but i do know it exists, in the same way I  know everything exists from  love to my dogs. 

No you don't.

 

5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

It is no more fantastical than being able to read or write. 

You can prove two of those and can't prove the other, tho

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sherapy said:

It is very basic MW according to logic when one evaluates an argument for validity this basically means the conclusion follows from the premise(s), the proposition (s), the statement(s) being advanced, or the assumption(s) being drawn. So, if the premises can be proven to be true and the conclusion can be shown to follow from the premise then the conclusion will necessarily be true. 

Ex 1: Peanut paste is a food (premise)

all humans eat food, therefore, (premise)

Paul (a human) eats peanut paste. (conclusion)) 

Ex 2: dragons are fictitious  (P)

all dragons are made up, therefore (P)

Paul’s dragon is fictional. (C)

Both syllogisms offer enough reason to convince anyone that one could eat peanut paste and that  dragons are fictional, nothing is required beyond this, in other words, it is really immaterial if you eat peanut paste or not because it is “possible’ that you could. 

 

you just love putting words into my mouth dont you? 

Logic is an ordered  progression of cognitive steps.

A correct premise will more  often logically led to a correct conclusion. A false premise will more often  logically lead to a false conclusion However false  premises can produce correct conclusions and correct premises can lead to false conclusions 

Logic only operates within the constraints of the data or knowldge available to the mind of the thinker  it was logical to assume tha t malaria was air borne, given the evidences, until the mosquito vector was discovered 

your examples are classic examples of poor logic 

just because all  humans eat food, and peanut paste is a food, does not mean tha t all humans eat peanut paste 

The second relies on an assumption or premise which may or may not be true,  depending on personal experience 

Ie it is likely tha t all dragons are  fictional but not known or certain. (the dragons I encountered exist on other planets and thus are outside what we know about earth )

Thus the premise is flawed  it is possible that, via projection of consciousness i could ride a dragon on another  world while piggybacking in the mind /body f its rider  (or fix a light sail or spend time on difernt planets ) Just because you don't believe it is possible doesn't make it impossible.

  There is nothing illogical in either the premise or the conclusion. or the logic chain. It is just outside your experience. 

It is not provable, but its not impossible 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

No you don't.

 

You can prove two of those and can't prove the other, tho

and tha t s where it ends.

Your beleif/disbelief makes further rational discussion impossible. 

You wont or can't believe  in something  I know absolutely to be real and true (and powerful)

I can DO all 3 and I have, in the past, many times proven my abilty to do all 3. 

Thus I know they are all possible.

You know 2 are possible 

Some isolated tribesman from the middle of the amazon might not  believe the first 2 are possible, but have experienced the 3rd 

I respect your right to believe as you need to, but i feel  some sorrow that your life (and that of many others ) only encompasses a part of its capability and potential

 From my perspective, and with my knowledge, it is like a person who CANNOT  read or write and  doesn't believe the y could learn to, or doesn't want to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Based on the last couple of pages I am compelled to ask did peanut paste originate on Urantia?

Nup Canada. But interestingly it had a connection to one of the "great revival" characters from the 19th century  who WAS involved in a couple of new  religions at the time 

quote 

In 1884 Marcellus Gilmore Edson of Canada patented peanut paste, the finished product from milling roasted peanuts between two heated surfaces. In 1895 Dr. John Harvey Kellogg (the creator of Kellogg's cereal) patented a process for creating peanut butter from raw peanuts.

 

the Mayans and Incas had a more organic version 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I can DO all 3 and I have, in the past, many times proven my abilty to do all 3. 

On a scale of 1 to blitzed, how high were these people that you “proved” these abilities to? Asking for science, which you don’t understand. 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Nup Canada. But interestingly it had a connection to one of the "great revival" characters from the 19th century  who WAS involved in a couple of new  religions at the time 

quote 

In 1884 Marcellus Gilmore Edson of Canada patented peanut paste, the finished product from milling roasted peanuts between two heated surfaces. In 1895 Dr. John Harvey Kellogg (the creator of Kellogg's cereal) patented a process for creating peanut butter from raw peanuts.

 

the Mayans and Incas had a more organic version 

Hi Walker

Is the the peanut paste and did I eat it for breakfast thread or the Urantia thread? :huh:

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Nup Canada. But interestingly it had a connection to one of the "great revival" characters from the 19th century  who WAS involved in a couple of new  religions at the time 

quote 

In 1884 Marcellus Gilmore Edson of Canada patented peanut paste, the finished product from milling roasted peanuts between two heated surfaces. In 1895 Dr. John Harvey Kellogg (the creator of Kellogg's cereal) patented a process for creating peanut butter from raw peanuts.

 

the Mayans and Incas had a more organic version 

Yet again you demonstrate your Google cut-and-paste prowess

826536594_wheredidpeanutpasteoriginate-GoogleSearch.thumb.png.fa46e5247f7196c7fa22f16c2868da37.png

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

That is based on an assumption that, while peanut paste exists,  the things I speak of do not.

The relevant fact is that the existence of doorways in the sky has not been established. That is an observation, not an assumption. That I have my suspicions about why their existence hasn't been established is all very interesting, but irrelevant to the problem at hand.

22 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

  When both are real it is equally possible that I am speaking truth or lies about either.

I would hope that lies would be considerably rarer than 50%, but you would know better than I.

28 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

(but plausibility is a subjective individaul thing) 

Yes, but with a fair amount of interpersonal agreement, especially when adequate evidence is available.

30 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Ok then we agree (but i dont think some others do as the y keep asking for proof and claim tha t without proof, "it never happened" )

You have my permission to assume that when people ask you for proof they mean evidence (as ordinary English usage allows), more than your say-so, and more than a claim that somebody who doesn't post here would back you up if they did post here. (For example, your dogs and the doorway in the sky).

35 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Eg  i was chased, while skiing, by a 20 foot great white shark    manyyears before "jaws" ever came out 

Implausible  ? sure,  yet absolutely true

Sharks existed many years before Jaws came out. See how much that helps the credibility of your story?

38 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You tend to have it both ways  Sometimes suggesting that i am simply lying /mistaken about my individual encounters and sometimes suggesting they are impossible because such things do  not exist Ie sometimes you hint that you might believe someone else but not me (which is ironic really as i know i am telling the truth, but can never be sure that anyone else is)

We've had this discussion before. Briefly: years ago, I assumed that your stories referred to events that actually happened, and that the only problem was the way you interpreted what happened. As time went on, however, at least some of the things you said seemed to me to conflict with other information I was getting from your posts, from your challenges to look you up off-line, and from some things that emerged when some people took you up on your challenge.

That does put you at a disadvantage compared with some other posters here. Those are the breaks, Mr W.

Quote

A dog simply cannot love as you do.

Nor I as a dog does. All the same, many of them put up with me anyway. For which I am grateful.

56 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

However it will bond with you as a child will and you will become a part of its pack 

Actually, I am packmates with only a very few dogs. Puppies are child-like (of course), but in my experience, they grow up, and our relationship grows up with them. Most of the dogs I interact with are neither packmates nor individuals I've known since puppyhood, but just like-minded adult friends.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

IMO you have a (positive and constructive)  romantic and non-scientific belief about the nature of dogs and other animals, which is also ironic given your failure to accept other  things 

You are of course entitled to your opinion, and it's good that you have some sense of irony, too.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

  and I guess your radio was one which held a charge in it's capacitors  Did it save your life by the message you heard? 

No guesswork is involved. No, my life wasn't in danger at the time.

What has that to do with the radio functioning despite not being plugged in? You haven't claimed (that I recall) that there was anything supernatural about your being in the path of an advancing forest fire. What was supposedly supernatural (or alien orchestrated, or whatever the current Walkerian theory is) was that the radio worked breifly when you were baffled how it could work at all.

Many other posters here would have been glad to learn something new to them.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reputation of institutions for higher education across Australia just crumbled to peanut dust... 

~

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

What was supposedly supernatural (or alien orchestrated, or whatever the current Walkerian theory is) was that the radio worked breifly when you were baffled how it could work at all.

Or the mayor seeing his house explode at a distance of 30km through thick, black smoke, using a pair of binoculars from his office in the civic building on the foreshore of Port Lincoln. I’m not gonna get into too many details but I discovered (through a very reliable source, with strong evidence provided) that that was also a false story so I have no reason to suspect that the operation of the radio was anything but another falsehood. 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, SHaYap said:

The reputation of institutions for higher education across Australia just crumbled to peanut dust... 

~

:tu:

20 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Or the mayor seeing his house explode at a distance of 30km through thick, black smoke, using a pair of binoculars from his office in the civic building on the foreshore of Port Lincoln. I’m not gonna get into too many details but I discovered (through a very reliable source, with strong evidence provided) that that was also a false story so I have no reason to suspect that the operation of the radio was anything but another falsehood. 

 

Oh no. :wacko:
 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.