[Turtle]

___The Urantia Book, first published in the early 1950's, purports to contain discertations delivered by "angels" on God, creation, science, spirits, Jesus, etc.. At some 3,000 plus pages it's no easy read!
___So I want to know if you have heard of it? Read it? Have an opinion on it?
___I believe it is a hoax for the record so my question is "who could have hoaxed this?". Even though it was published in the 50's, it seems to have been written earlier; possibly in the 30's. By the writing style which is so cleverly convolute, & the broadness of the topics covered, I tend to think it is the work of an enclave rather than a single author.
___I do heartily recommend people read it in any case because it is if nothing else a very fine work of mystical science fiction.

Addendum: 30,000+ hits on Urantia

[Biochemist]

Never heard of it. Where did it come from?

[Turtle]

___Indeed! The book claims for itself supernatural origin. The book also says to readers don't make a religion of it but spread it by word of mouth in little reading groups. The foundation that publishes it generates millions of dollars all of which is supposedf to go into translating it into other languages (it appeared first in English) as well as placing copies in libraries & prisons. It's quite the little religious enterprise by any estimation.

[Biochemist]

I just glanced over the Urantia.org site. This is pretty bizarre. Have you read this book much?

[Freethinker]

Been there, done that. Read Urantia back in the '60's. Had a freind that got very seriously into it. It was published by some guy from Chicago. Yep same claims to divine revelation of all the others, Bible, Torah, Book of Moron, ... And same level of factuality.

Though I've yet to hear of anyone killed by a Urantian following it's tenets. This places it well above the others in terms of societal value.

[Turtle]

___I don't quite know how to put a value on Urantia or the other works either. Since their effects continue to unfold, first up then down, the net value appears to me in the fluttering.
___A departed friend gave me a copy in the early 1980's & in my usual brute force manner I started at the beginning & read it straight through; in 3 years. As a writer, I have to say the author(s) stuck to their formula assiduously in the attempt to give an "angelic" tone to the work. Another contrivence in the writing is the deliberate misorganisation of supporting exposition, e.g. introducing a character as if they were already known, but not developing the character until later.
___After reading it completely, I reread certain sections looking for a clinch on some falsity; this I found to my satisfaction a year or so ago & since gave the book over to a friend as a great science fiction read.
___Among the many papers in the book is the discussion (angelic explanation) of Earth's formation & conspicuously absent is the mention of plate techtonics. Whoever wrote this exhibits considerable scientific knowledge of the day, i.e. cutting edge for early 1900's, but as plate tectonics did not emerge until the 1960's, it is absent. The supposed angels dropped the ball & it's a house of cards falling from there.

[Freethinker]

Don't worry. If god keeps at it, he will get a book right one of these times.

[Turtle]

___If we continue to hone our writing skills here, God may pick us to write the next book.
___Maybe this IS the next book? Has anyone printed it out & put it in a mud jar yet?
___Back on topic though, I find the very project of writing so large a tome of academic interest. Who possesed these skills? What is their motivation? How long did it take? Who did they trust to edit it?

[ab-de]

Turtle said:

Among the many papers in the book is the discussion (angelic explanation) of Earth's formation & conspicuously absent is the mention of plate techtonics.

You are mistaken.

The Urantia Book -- Part III. The History Of Urantia
PAPER 58: Section 5.
The Continental Drift

http://www.urantiabo...k/ppr058_5.html

[Helper]

Perhaps, another way of looking at this could be the asking of the question, "Why?" Was it such a sinister plot to claim that there much truth in all religions and that we as humans might consider that finding common ground could lead to better understanding of us all?
When looking at the syntax and phraseology of many paragraphs, can one find the symmetry in other writings of individuals or collective projects. One might find it also interesting that a number of items that were stated as fact were not proved true until years after its publication. Also it is not correct to state that millions have been generated as income when only 150,000 books have been printed since 1954 and many have been given at no charge. Further, translations were slowly and tediously done most by volunteers, and that money collected for translations was in small increments from readers. I grant that the reading of this text is a true task, and that few will start and fewer will finish, but that does detract from the truth that the value of anything is what it gives one, not what it does not.

[Turtle]

___The Urantia Book -- Part III. The History Of Urantia
PAPER 58: Section 5.
The Continental Drift
___I believe I made no mistake; there is only here a wishy-washy description of continents slowly rising & falling. There is no mention of subduction or sub-ocean spreading centers or any of the hallmarks of plate techtonics. The text takes the best data of the day (as early as the 1920's/1930's) & then squishes it around with a bunch of mumbo jumbo so as to make it near indeciperable by the ignorant & unchallengable by the experts; until new data came along anyway.
___As to Helper's question "Perhaps, another way of looking at this could be the asking of the question, "Why?" Was it such a sinister plot to claim that there much truth in all religions and that we as humans might consider that finding common ground could lead to better understanding of us all?" Here is a ubiquitous sinister aim wadded up in this book; eugenics. Just read the sections on the origins of races.

[Helper]

[QUOTE] The text takes the best data of the day (as early as the 1920's/1930's) & then squishes it around with a bunch of mumbo jumbo so as to make it near indeciperable by the ignorant & unchallengable by the experts; until new data came along anyway.
Does this mean that you do not understand it or disagree with it? When the book was written, circa 1934, the scientific community agreed that continental drift was not a viable or accepted theory. The Urantia Book stated that it was a fact, which was later proven true by the 1960s technology you mentioned. I understand that you choose not to accept certain parts of the book because they conflict with your view of the universe, and sane people often disagree on many fields, but you will find that the Urantia book is on very sound scientific footing at this time

[ab-de]

Turtle said:

I believe I made no mistake; there is only here a wishy-washy description of continents slowly rising & falling.

And "sliding".

Turtle said:

Here is a ubiquitous sinister aim wadded up in this book; eugenics. Just read the sections on the origins of races.

I don't recall reading about rounding anyone up and killing them. Eugenics is now a dirty word like communism, terrorism, socialism, democrat, ect. We have been selective breeding every other species on the planet for thousands of years. No one is suggesting building camps and enforcing a government sponsored Hitler-era breeding program. What it is suggesting is awareness, you still have free will to do as you please. Every website espousing this ridiculous "eugenics" angle against the UB is just copying the ideas of Martin Gardner.. I could use the same argument against the Bible just as I could easily discredit every other book I've ever read based on some statement within that I held a bias towards. These are semantic arguments that unforunately serve to block curious inquiry from the truth, which is found in fragments all over the place.

[Turtle]

___The devil is in the details; I read the book; sliding is strike slip/San Andrea, or locked/Himalayas, or subduction. For all the little things they jumbled together that is right, the whole is still a jumble.
___I arrived at the eugenics conclusion on my own, thank you very much. I agree Urantia is no better than any written work purporting to come from angels/gods/spirits what have you.
___Yes of course I have a bias; a scientific bias. I read the work, I anylized the work, the work is good science fiction.

[ab-de]

No one is questioning "scientific bias", but one should take into account the book recognizes its own inferiority by warning the reader against worshipping it - especially on scientific grounds. I'm less apt to denounce personalities who recognize and forewarn me of the imperfections of their enterprise. Science fiction? Maybe so, but we can still learn quite abit from such literary works.