The ten commandments says that you should stone to death adulterers.
No, they don’t. Commandment Seven states “Thou Shall Not Commit Adultery”. No punishment is outlined.
Doing work on the sabbath was also punishable by stoning.
Not by the Ten Commandments. Commandment Four states “Keep Holy the Sabbath Day.” Again, no punishment was outlined.
God's "commandments" are the rules of physics,
Not in Judaism. And if not even Jesus
could break the laws of physics, it would go without saying. But he
did supposedly rise from the dead, and that is physically impossible.
I don't have to use "your" words. You can't get your way with the universe. It's not yours.
Your linguistic usage is wrong in the instance given. This is a fact, not an opinion.
I should stop assuming things about you? No thanks, it's fun.
Fine, but past this post I’ll simply report
ad hominem from you. I’ve little patience for blatant immaturity.
I have nothing to teach YOU. No one can fill a cup that is already full.
An ignorant man thinks that all he knows,
When he sits by himself in a corner;
But never what answer to make he knows,
When others with questions come.
~Hávamál s.26
You said "believing things without solid evidence", not, "belief that is not based on proof". If you want your meaning to be clear, then use clear language.
“Solid evidence” means the same thing as “proof”. Far different than saying that “traditions” mean “rituals.” But cute try.
You want me to discuss the UB, rather than have you do your own research on it?
As I have said many times, yes.
String Theory can be simplified where children can understand it? That's my point. I did simplify the UB.
To the point of uselessness, where it was indiscernible from any Abrahamic religion. Then when pressed you said that it is too complex. If String Theory can be simplified so that a child can
understand it, then you ought to be able to simplify the Urantia Book. Or, better yet, you could not treat adults like children, and simply give a condensed impression so that they know what they’re reading into. Have a little trust, rather than condescend and assume that everyone is far inferior to you.
How do I know you haven't read the UB? It's 1,800 pages, that's how I know.
So you assume, yet again. You don’t know how fast I can read. Not everyone is you, after all.
It's funny, I think you're trying to prove that God doesn't exist?
Yes, it is. Because you’re quite obviously latching onto a straw man argument (a fallacy, mind you,) rather than address the criticisms that I put forward about your book. You refuse to acknowledge my criticisms, instead asserting that I have some grudge against Christianity and your shared god. It is also funny in that I am a theist; why would I have any interest or desire to disprove your god?
Armaggedon? So that's it, you're afraid, finally, the reason you don't like Christianity.
How, again, is asking about the return of your prophet Jesus, or your motives in spreading “knowledge” fear? Try again, and this time perhaps answer the question. It will remain there, so you needn’t ask for it again.
the earth will be destroyed in about 2.8 billion years when the sun expands into a red giant.
I’m sure you mean 7.6 billion years, as is the current scientific estimation. There is also the theory that as the sun expands into a Red Giant, it will inevitably lose mass, and as such the Earth will be pushed outward into a lengthier orbit. So maybe it won’t be destroyed.
I can't understand how the universe works with outdated and wrong information? Yep, it's all wrong. Only you are right. You have everything you need to be successful in the universe. Good luck with that.
Did I say anything about me? No, you just assume so. Snide accusations make for a poor argument. No, the Urantia Book’s science is decried as outdated by modern science, and known scientific evidences.
Your book claims that the universe is hundreds of billions of years old, when the only observable evidence states 13.7 billion. But I guess “god did it” is the great trump card, right?
Your book claims that planets closer to the sun will experience a slowing of their rotation, citing Mercury. Yet Mercury shows no degrade in its rotation, remaining at a constant.
Your book also claims that the “Universal Father” is known on all planets in our local system. Extrasysytem life notwithstanding, every planet in our solar system save ours is devoid of intelligent life. This is verified not only by probes sent past the planets observing no signs of life, but also by analyzing their atmospheres (or lack thereof) and finding them inhospitable for any carbon-based life.
Your book is also incorrect in assuming that humanity thinks the Sol System is stationary, while the rest of the universe expands around us. This is plainly preposterous, as it is well acknowledged that the Sol System, and the entirety of the Milky Way galaxy, expands with the rest of the known universe.
Matter can disappear into one place, a black hole? But that does not violate the law of gravity.
If matter can be drawn into such a singularity – and it can, this has been observed – then it stands just as much to reason that ejection of matter from a similar such singularity would not violate “laws of gravity.”
I should stop straw manning? I knew you wanted to argue logic. Well, your arguments are Ad Hominem's, so there.
No, actually they are not. My arguments focus and criticize your book, not
you. You, on the other hand, have quite taken to criticizing
me, and making many crass assumptions in what I can only assume is an attempt to discredit me.
This isn't about God, it's about "my" book? No, it's about you not getting the life you wanted and you're really, really upset about it.
Like this. I am quite happy with the life I have, make no mistake.
Explain how nothing can expand? I didn't say nothing expanded, I said space
To clarify, you supposed space experiencing a “big bang” – a rapid expansion of matter – with
no particles. Which would be
nothing. So please, explain how nothing can expand.
That is the reason behind all hate, if you can put down a whole group of people, who are not like you, well, it makes you feel better about yourself.
And do you not see the parallel to what you’ve been doing here? Statements like “you won’t ascend”, words like “initiated” – these are all buzz-words indicating a held sense of superiority. If you’re no better, how can you hold the solution?
If you are an American, don't you have an American "ego"? Don't you have a sense that we are the world leaders and have more responsibility in world affairs than other nations?
No.
There are some people who have extremely open minds. What am I to do with them? They're on the path.
Apparently not, because everything that Quintessence mentioned – thinking that higher life exists elsewhere, that humans aren’t superior to the rest of nature – they apply to me. And yet you yourself have told me that I’m a “full glass”, that I won’t be “ascending” because I’m not on your path. Make up your mind.
How do I know that no one knows their god exists? … No one has been to heaven and come back to the Earth so they don't have any direct evidence of God.
Now, how do you know? You also assume that the Gods do not walk among us. This universe isn’t yours; it’s not all about you.
Am I a telepathic mind reader? I have some abilities, yes. It takes a while and it's not always correct.
So far you’re at nothing correct, telepathically. Seems to me that you more assume and project.
Religions by their very nature have to assume that they are "right". Otherwise, why bother.
Simply not true. Many religions are quite content to live and let live, not claiming any sort of “absolute truth” or condemning the others as false. Only the Abrahamic religions really do this. Why bother, then? Because a religion is a faith group, to worship ones god(s) with others who believe the same. To celebrate as a group, and build a society to thrive in. Because not all religions are “We’re right, you’re wrong” clubs.
