Aldeban said:
All you did here was state opinions, which are not facts.
This part which you have bold is my evaluation, and thus opinion based on the facts as I have presented. The facts upon which I base my evaluation are obviously not opinion.
Colter said:
You are just being difficult, acting like an overaggressive prosecutor, you don't want to understand, you just seem to want to argue, find some technical fault.
You said that all celestial beings have a mother and a father. Lucifer's mother and father are the Son and Mother Nature Spirit. I asked you who their parents are and you said it is I AM. But that doesn't make sense if they don't have a mother and a father.
You say that Lucifer is an atheist. But you also say he was born of divine beings. You say he knows who is parents are. Therefore he cannot be atheist since he knows the divine exists.
You say that Lucifer is a celestial being. However, in explaining Lucifer's poor decision-making, you referred to him as a man. This seems to be contradictory. Lucifer cannot be a man and a celestial being at the same time.
These are simple things that can be answered once you invent more story for your religion (or someone else does it for you). Don't be mad at the questions, be mad at the lack of fiction.
I have explained it clearly to you, Lucifer had to live by faith in the Unseen Father of his celestial parents, no magic, you made that up.
So his celestial parents didn't have parents?
To the I AM nothing is a miracle, he just knows how to do it. I will provide the entire Lucifer manifesto from the 1955 Urantia Revelation
Here are some ways in which the Urantia Book is wrong scientifically and reveals itself to have been written by people with early 1900's understandings of the universe (not celestial beings):
The described formation of the solar system is consistent with the Chamberlin-Moulton planetesimal hypothesis,[103] which though popular in the early part of the 20th century, was discarded by the 1940s after major flaws were noted.[104] The currently accepted scientific explanation for the origin of the solar system is based on the nebular hypothesis.[103]
According to the book's descriptions, the universe is hundreds of billions of years old and periodically expands and contracts — "respires" — at 2-billion-year intervals. Recent observations suggest that the true age of the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years.[105] The book does not support the big bang theory.[106]
A fundamental particle called an "ultimaton" is proposed, with an electron being composed of 100 ultimatons. The particle is not known to be described anywhere else and the concept is not supported by modern particle physics.[107]
The Andromeda Galaxy is claimed to be "almost one million" light years away, repeating the understandings of the 1920s,[108] but the galaxy is now understood to be 2.5 million light years away.
The book repeats the mistaken idea that planets close to a sun will gradually spin slower until one hemisphere is left always turned to the sun due to tidal locking, citing Mercury as an example. Scientists at the time of the book's origin thought one side of Mercury always faced the sun, just as one side of the Moon always faces the Earth. In 1965, radio astronomers discovered however that Mercury rotates fast enough for all sides to see exposure to the sun.[106] Scientists further established that Mercury is locked in this spin rate in a stable resonance of 3 spins for every 2 orbits, and it is not slowing and so will never have one side left always turned to the sun.[109]
Some species are said to have evolved suddenly from single mutations without transitional species.[110] The theory originated with Dutch botanist Hugo De Vries but was short-lived and is not now supported.[111]
The book erroneously says that a solar eclipse was predicted in 1808 by the Native American prophet Tenskwatawa. The eclipse actually was predicted in late April 1806 and occurred on June 16, 1806.[112] In 2009, Urantia Foundation acknowledged the error and revised the book.[c]
Controversial statements about human races can be found in the book.[114] Gardner believes that William S. Sadler, who wrote some eugenicist works, had a hand in editing or writing the book, and that this is how the ideas were included.
--
The Urantia Book - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So go ahead and whine about it being a Wikipedia article, then feel free to answer the issues.
