Urantia Book: Complications and Contradictions

[modest]

So, as you say Modest, what about the Gospel of Judas? What about the Gospel of Thomas? The Gospel of James? The Gospel of Mary Magdalene? What about the Nag Hammadi library? What we are looking for in the UB section on Jesus is what is not there; any mention of these Gnostic writings. Why aren't they there? Because humans wrote it before these texts were found. Big complication make for big contradiction. ;)

 

Yeah, I of course see that as a problem. An expected one given the circumstances. But, I'm afraid a UB supporter could wiggle out of that much as the Catholic church does. It is one more example in any case that this author/these authors are human and subject to human constraints.

 

Quite right you are Turtle

 

~modest

[modest]

The science is not "all wrong", it just conflicts with our current understanding in certain aspects, and I don't see the recognition of the limited nature of humankind and the changing nature of scientific conclusions as a failure on my part. I can see that this offends you greatly though.

 

I think it requires a gigantic leap of faith to believe that modern science has all the answers to the scientific topics touched on by the UB. I'm sure this will only serve to irritate you further, but I feel compelled to give you an honest answer. To me, the science in the UB is just an interesting aside - the overall cosmology is the really incredible and fascinating thing. There's really nothing that can overshadow the beauty of that (in my mind) so perhaps it's fruitless for you and I to discuss this further - I don't like to see you aggravated.

 

Beautiful as Urantian cosmology is or is not... I heard the claim that scientific theories were predicted before they became known. The claim was pronounced with such authority that I first started reading Urantia expecting to find some clever science that might even have been ahead of its time.

 

What I found was blatantly untrue. A complete mismatch of everything we've found out in the last 50 years. Trying to explain this I've both seen people here say modern science is wrong and say Urantia means other than it says. Hardly a prediction of modern science, is it? If the question is who could have hoaxed this - anyone with a moderate understanding of science and religion. A geologist or medical doctor or psychologist with a religious background. Any one of a million people could have hoaxed this.

 

If it's beautiful cosmology we're after we might as well believe Xenu visited earth 75 million years ago in his DC-8 to toss people into volcanoes than this. It's exactly as believable isn't it?

 

~modest

[Caligastia]

Beautiful as Urantian cosmology is or is not... I heard the claim that scientific theories were predicted before they became known. The claim was pronounced with such authority that I first started reading Urantia expecting to find some clever science that might even have been ahead of its time.

 

What I found was blatantly untrue. A complete mismatch of everything we've found out in the last 50 years. Trying to explain this I've both seen people here say modern science is wrong and say Urantia means other than it says. Hardly a prediction of modern science, is it? If the question is who could have hoaxed this - anyone with a moderate understanding of science and religion. A geologist or medical doctor or psychologist with a religious background. Any one of a million people could have hoaxed this.

 

Not really. The science contained in the UB covers a variety of areas. The idea that one person came up with all of it is infinitely more implausible to me than the idea of human authorship.

 

If it's beautiful cosmology we're after we might as well believe Xenu visited earth 75 million years ago in his DC-8 to toss people into volcanoes than this. It's exactly as believable isn't it?

 

~modest

 

I'm not asking you to read the whole book, but I hope you can at least admit that your knowledge of its contents are rather limited until you do. The comparison you've made is totally off base.

[modest]

Not really. The science contained in the UB covers a variety of areas. The idea that one person came up with all of it is infinitely more implausible to me than the idea of human authorship.

 

Your faith in humanity is unduly limited.

 

I'm not asking you to read the whole book, but I hope you can at least admit that your knowledge of its contents are rather limited until you do. The comparison you've made is totally off base.

 

Is it? How is this:

987,000,000,000 years ago associate force organizer and then acting inspector number 811,307 of the Orvonton series, traveling out from Uversa, reported to the Ancients of Days that space conditions were favorable for the initiation of materialization phenomena in a certain sector of the, then, easterly segment of Orvonton.

Any less ridiculous than Scientology? Honestly you are going to say the story of Xenu is more ridiculous than what I've quoted here? And to say that one person couldn't make this stuff up? Honestly - think about what you're supporting.

 

"Inspector number 811,307" ;)

 

~modest

[Caligastia]

As you will. :D There was a method to my madness, but maybe you can't teach an old coyote new tricks after all.

 

The complication lies in the fact that the UB authors' aside I quoted says authoritively that the 'following' are the only human written records of Jesus. The 'following' then are the Acts/Gospel/whatever of Andrew and then Matthew, Mark , Luke, and John.

 

That's not what it says at all. It states that those are the human records that they used, not that those are the only human records. Slight difference.;)

 

Nice try.

 

At the time of the UB's writing (the only date the book gives for the 'transmission' of the papers is 1934), as well as the first printing in 1955, these indeed were the only openly known such human records. Moreover, the authors make clear that they have rules saying they can't use supernatural sources without special permission, and that the human record is primary. [The author gets a few digs in this prefacing passage of UB on us stupid human's inability to figure out anything complex. :doh:)

 

Again with the "stupid humans" perceived insult...:lol:

[Caligastia]

Your faith in humanity is unduly limited.

 

 

 

Is it? How is this:

Any less ridiculous than Scientology? Honestly you are going to say the story of Xenu is more ridiculous than what I've quoted here? And to say that one person couldn't make this stuff up? Honestly - think about what you're supporting.

 

"Inspector number 811,307"

 

~modest

 

 

You can take pieces here and there that sound "out there", but it all fits into the overall cosmology. Just because something initially sounds strange/wierd is no reason to immediately reject it. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons I would reject Scientology or Xenu that have nothing to do with "sounds crazy" stuff. The Bible has some far-out stuff in it, but that's not what I object to.

[REASON]

The Bible has some far-out stuff in it, but that's not what I object to.

 

Briefly, what is it you object to in the Bible?

[Turtle]

That's not what it says at all. It states that those are the human records that they used, not that those are the only human records. Slight difference.:D

 

Nice try.

 

Again with the "stupid humans" perceived insult...;)

 

Do you see that you have provided no support? That you have only made jest and statements of negation? Do you see that doing that is a sophomoric debate tactic and not up to snuff here at Hypography? Do you see the mountain of contradictions and complications growing against the idea that supernatural beings authored this work?

 

Please do not make a hasty reply. If you're not familiar with the Gnostic writings, please read them. I recommend Elaine Pagels' books as a good start. If you have not read any of these works or scholarly reviews of them, you won't be prepared to compare them to TUB as I am set to do, and that is obviously an empty argument from ignorance stratagem. You may as well familiarize yourself with decades of Biblical Archaeology Review magazines, as I intend to employ information from that resource in comparison to TUB as well. :doh: ...........:lol:

 

PS page 1343 from the author(s): bolding mine.

[Acknowledgement: In carrying out my commission to restate the teachings and retell the doings of Jesus of Nazareth, I have drawn freely upon all sources of record and planetary information. ...

[modest]

You can take pieces here and there that sound "out there", but it all fits into the overall cosmology. Just because something initially sounds strange/wierd is no reason to immediately reject it. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons I would reject Scientology or Xenu that have nothing to do with "sounds crazy" stuff. The Bible has some far-out stuff in it, but that's not what I object to.

 

You have now made it clear that you're not going to reject this book because it is filled with incorrect information that is proven wrong by modern science. Nor because it is filled with strange, crazy, and unbelievable descriptions that make Lord of the Rings look like a documentary on the History Channel. So that's fine. It's a faith you have, as you say - like the bible. But that is not the standard by which things here are held. This is a science website. Claims of scientific accuracy have been made - and refuted.

 

So, what is the argument that you're making? That you have faith in this book? Is that it? Is that all you're saying? If you want to support the book as accurate or believable or whatever then you need to put out evidence and support it. If you're just saying that you personally have faith because it has beautiful cosmology and whatnot then stop interjecting when people do use evidence and scientific reasoning to deduce the truth of this thing.

 

Either give us something or stop giving us nothing.

 

~modest

[modest]

Do you see that you have provided no support? That you have only made jest and statements of negation? Do you see that doing that is a sophomoric debate tactic and not up to snuff here at Hypography? Do you see the mountain of contradictions and complications growing against the idea that supernatural beings authored this work?

 

Please do not make a hasty reply. If you're not familiar with the Gnostic writings, please read them. I recommend Elaine Pagels' books as a good start. If you have not read any of these works or scholarly reviews of them, you won't be prepared to compare them to TUB as I am set to do, and that is obviously an empty argument from ignorance stratagem. You may as well familiarize yourself with decades of Biblical Archaeology Review magazines, as I intend to employ information from that resource in comparison to TUB as well. :lol: ...........

 

PS page 1343 from the author(s): bolding mine.

 

Of course it would be very difficult for Urantia to agree with both the canonical gospels and the gnostic ones as they do not agree amongst themselves. I just searched for Judas in UB and found contradictions with the gnostic gospel such as:

Among this group were many of the Greeks who were at Gethsemane when the soldiers arrested Jesus and Judas betrayed him with a kiss.

Which differs in that Judas was not a betrayer.

 

I'm curious if there is a God in UB and what his nature is.

 

~modest

[Majeston]

Modest,

 

I have been reading a bit of your writing on other topics. I have respect for your abilities as well as your search for truth and your manner of discourse. I cannot say the same for some of the others that post in these U related threads.

 

I do not believe that the U science has been disproved from what I have seen so far. We have had one bit about Mercury which at best is a problematic sentence structure and I believe we can skip the whole thing with no loss pro or con and find something we could all agree upon.

 

We have had one bit about Rodinia and Mirovia which hasn't been resolved and certainly the theory from Wegener doesn't negate the U inclusion in it's timeline.

 

Let's quote Mcmenamin again...."Assuming for the moment that space voyagers are not responsible for life’s origin and history on this planet, one wonders how the Urantia Book authors arrived at the concept of a Proterozoic supercontinent, and the link between breakup of this supercontinent and the emergence of complex life in the ensuing rift oceans, 30 years before most geologists accepted continental drift and nearly four decades before scientists had any inkling that Rodinia existed"

 

We've also had a genetic "co-incidence" of 37,000 years ago which fits perfectly with the U rendition of Adam & Eve, and attracted the attention of Kary Mullis for one. A better scientific description of the A & E event "co-incidence" which I posted before and you probably read was at Urantia News - Verifying Science and History in The Urantia Book

To simply conclude that A & E story was a myth/fairy tale simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. A singularity theory with the Big Bang for an explanation of universe matter must also take into account a similar explanation for Life, even if one or both are false.

 

Mullis also pointed out the U age of 4.5 billion years at a time when this was also an unaccepted theory.

 

Our study of the U so-called hoax scientifically has not been "blown out of the water" as far as I can see and might I suggest that we reserve judgement on the issue until we can scientifically assess more data and so-called co-incidences which have not been presented yet and also until such time as you become more familiar with this rare event. IIRC you said you had only read 20-30 pages so far.

 

Everybody who reads the Urantia papers comes into it with a certain amount of pre-programming from any number of sources and they evaluate it by any number of criteria bias or professional or religious preference or upbringing. IIRC, the scientific method is designed to find the best truth for any given situation and judgement is usually reserved until that process exhausts all possibilities.

 

One simply cannot measure temperature with a yardstick.

 

In order to properly assess the content of U, the searcher of truth must understand and take into account as much of the situation as one can. This includes the time frame of the 1920's- 40's as well as an understanding of the people involved.

 

Credibility-

 

About Dr. William S. Sadler-

"His theological training took place at the Moody Bible Institute. He met Lena Kellogg in 1893, when she was a student nurse. They married in 1897. The Sadler's lost their first son a few years later, who died at the age of 11 months. Soon after that, both Sadlers decided to become doctors, and attended different medical schools. This was virtually William Sadler, Sr.'s first formal education. After a few years as a successful surgeon, he decided to become a psychiatrist. After passing the required examination, he went to Europe (circa 1911) and studied with Freud in Vienna for almost a year. He told Dr. Sprunger that he was a member of Freud's "fair-haired boys ' club" along with Jung and Adler, meeting weekly with Freud for informal debates. All three men were to later break with Freud, Dr. Sadler going on to become the "father of American Psychiatry" and recognized in the International Who's Who as a "pioneer in the popularization of preventative medicine." For all of his accomplishments, Dr. Sadler told Meredith that he considered his most important contribution to the world to be his leadership of a little-known group called the "Forum," which received the gift of the Urantia Papers from celestial beings and published it as The Urantia Book.

 

Sadler was also quite interested in debunking "mediums" and psychics and worked in this area with the famous magician Howard Thurston. Sadler also wrote the popular book "The Mind at Mischief" which has the first believed printed reference to The Urantia material in 1929 in its appendix.

 

In any good scientific study of U and the events and material, one must also take into account the technology available at the time. There were no computers, no internet, and virtually no means whereby any person or group of people could have up to the minute accounts of worldwide breaking events regarding all the differing areas of science and expertise which the U material encompasses.

 

Any legitimate study of Dr William S. Sadler and his wife Dr. Lena Sadler will show two people of the highest ethical standards and integrity. A hard bill to fill in todays society and one I believe you personally could appreciate in any sincere evaluation.

[REASON]

So in a nutshell:

 

Since the jury is supposedly still out on the science, Adam and Eve can still be plausible by some stretch of the imagination, and Sadler and his wife are good people.....

 

.....it has to be aliens that did it.

 

Sorry, not a very convincing argument to me.

[Majeston]

Any assessment of the U science should include the following paper by Ken Glaziou

 

http://www.ubhistory.org/Documents/AISSSSSSSS_GlasziouK_196.pdf

[Majeston]

The Nature of God; The Urantia Book: Paper 2

pdf

Foreword

1. The Universal Father

2. The Nature of God

3. The Attributes of God

[freeztar]

Any assessment of the U science should include the following paper by Ken Glaziou

 

http://www.ubhistory.org/Documents/AISSSSSSSS_GlasziouK_196.pdf

 

Why is it not good enough to invalidate the UB on it's own merit? I was not aware that ammendments were needed...

[REASON]

Any assessment of the U science should include the following paper by Ken Glaziou

 

Why? He's not objective. He has a Kool-Aid mustache.

 

Any assessment of the science of the UP should be conducted by qualified scientists that are objective in their analyses.

 

Presenting PhD's who are UP believers serving as "qualified" spokesman by default cannot be objective. They are there for people who have a propensity to be UP believers, not the skeptics.

[modest]

I do not believe that the U science has been disproved from what I have seen so far.

 

And I'm positive you see it that way. However, there are 2 issues that brings up.

1. If a person can not accept that modern science proves earth was larger than 1/5th its current size two billion years ago then what can modern science prove? In other words, nothing of U can be disproved if the best modern science doesn't prove anything.
   
2. As Carl Sagan popularized: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In other words, this book is assumed false simply for making extraordinary claims. And, it's nobody's job to prove it's false. Until U is proven correct with an extraordinary amount of evidence - it is assumed wrong. That's not unique to Urantia or religion. Every scientific hypothesis is subject to that saying.
   

We have had one bit about Mercury...

 

We have had one bit about Rodinia and Mirovia ...

 

We've also had a genetic "co-incidence" of 37,000 years ago...

 

Let me look back at these and the others you mentioned. It might take a bit of time but I will respond. Before I do, however, can you clarify this one:

 

Mullis also pointed out the U age of 4.5 billion years at a time when this was also an unaccepted theory.

 

I don't remember seeing that in paper 57 which is where I would assume it is.

 

Our study of the U so-called hoax scientifically has not been "blown out of the water" as far as I can see and might I suggest that we reserve judgement on the issue until we can scientifically assess more data and so-called co-incidences which have not been presented yet and also until such time as you become more familiar with this rare event. IIRC you said you had only read 20-30 pages so far.

 

I don't have a problem with investigating the thing in more depth. Bring it on, bring on the evidence. You're correct, I've not read much. I am not going to ignore or fail to recognize something that makes sense because of preconceptions. If there is something that makes sense or is looks correct, I'll say so. You've pointed out some things for me to read and I will. Let's see what can be validated and verified. But please realize, validating some of the claims in that book would require an extraordinary amount of evidence. More than some coincidences. Until that extraordinary evidence presents itself I will hold to my presumptive opinion that the book is fiction. This is not a matter of failing to reserve judgment but is rather normal in a scientific investigation. Science is skeptical.

 

IIRC, the scientific method is designed to find the best truth for any given situation and judgement is usually reserved until that process exhausts all possibilities.

 

Careful what you wish for. The big bang theory is not conclusive by your standards. If we hold this book up to the same scrutiny how will it compare?

 

~modest