Urantia Book: Complications and Contradictions

[Turtle]

There are not 2 contradictions in the entire book of 2097 pages of fine print.

You don't know what you are talking about,.

 

Majestron, I have reported this post as a violation of our Forum rules. I meant to neg rep you for it as well, and hit the 'approve' button by error; my apologies to everyone on that.

 

The staff has extended every courtesy in allowing you the opportunity to provide support for your posts, and you have abused that kindness. Your time here is over. :hihi:

[Majeston]

Perhaps you might just simply show the contradictions.

[Majeston]

What did you find 'fine' about it?

 

Both articles are extraordinary and have the courage to address a very difficult issue of modern society. Anyone with an open mind can see that very clearly.

 

Modest, my apologies, I misjudged you.

[Majeston]

 

Who deserves to be categorized as "genetically deteriorated?"

 

I believe these 2 examples will suffice.

 

Romanian twins joined at the head to go to U.S. for consultation

Romanian twins joined at the head to go to U.S. for consultation - International Herald Tribune

 

 

Hindu Goddess Born With 4 Legs and 4 Arms

Hindu Goddess Born With 4 Legs and 4 Arms | Weird Asia News

[REASON]

I believe these 2 examples will suffice.

 

Romanian twins joined at the head to go to U.S. for consultation

Romanian twins joined at the head to go to U.S. for consultation - International Herald Tribune

 

 

Hindu Goddess Born With 4 Legs and 4 Arms

Hindu Goddess Born With 4 Legs and 4 Arms | Weird Asia News

 

I find these two examples to be a bit disingenuous. There is no real implication that instances such as these will actually be a threat to the overall human genome. They are oddities that occur throughout nature.

 

While I understand the desire to use advancements in genetic engineering in a way that can anticipate and correct these types of outcomes, it is difficult to imagine that this capability would not be abused if not kept in check.

 

Maybe that's the underlying goal of certain groups who have an interest in promoting this use of technology.

[freeztar]

I believe these 2 examples will suffice.

 

Romanian twins joined at the head to go to U.S. for consultation

Romanian twins joined at the head to go to U.S. for consultation - International Herald Tribune

 

 

Hindu Goddess Born With 4 Legs and 4 Arms

Hindu Goddess Born With 4 Legs and 4 Arms | Weird Asia News

 

It's called random mutation. Good luck getting rid of that. :hihi:

 

I must echo others' feelings that this is downright elitist. What we need to get rid of is not the "genetically deteriorated", but rather those that espouse eugenics. Eugenics is fine for plants, but is appalling to consider for humans (especially in light of recent history).

[Majeston]

It's called random mutation. Good luck getting rid of that. :hihi:

 

I must echo others' feelings that this is downright elitist. What we need to get rid of is not the "genetically deteriorated", but rather those that espouse eugenics. Eugenics is fine for plants, but is appalling to consider for humans (especially in light of recent history).

 

Well, I completely disagree.

 

I think the 2 papers posted by Chick Montgomery and David Kantor deal with the issues quite well and quite responsibly. Society's genetic problems will not go away by hiding your head in the sand and making believe they don't exist. Recent history is a fact of life. Your position is similar to banning all guns because one wackjob went nutzo at some school.

[freeztar]

I think the 2 papers posted by Chick Montgomery and David Kantor deal with the issues quite well and quite responsibly.

 

There's no way to deal with it responsibly in practice.

 

Society's genetic problems will not go away by hiding your head in the sand and making believe they don't exist.

 

Genetic "problems" will never go away, no matter how good our technology of genetic engineering. DNA and RNA are not perfect. New mutations would be entered into even a "perfect" genome. This is basic biology.

 

Recent history is a fact of life. Your position is similar to banning all guns because one wackjob went nutzo at some school.

 

No, my position (following your analogy) is that I don't trust a person, or group of people, to have all the guns and decide who lives or dies based on their subjective bias. :hihi:

[Eclogite]

Your position is similar to banning all guns because one wackjob went nutzo at some school.

I don't wish to divert the thread even further than it already is, so I shall just note in passing that this worked somewhat well in the UK. (Though the kitchen knife has now become the weapon of choice.;))

Society's genetic problems will not go away by hiding your head in the sand and making believe they don't exist.

Quite true. Allow me to make two independent sets of observations.

 

1. You are presuming that the Romanian twins constitute a genetic problem. I have issues with that presumption.

(a) I am no expert on developmental biology, but I understand such a situation could occur as a consequence of external influences within the womb. Humanely prohibiting these twins from procreating would, in such an instance, be a pointless exercise.

(:hihi: If it is a genetic defect it may be associated, causally or coincidentally, with a beneficial genetic 'advance' that we would not wish to lose from the gene pool.

© I raise the old chestnut of Stephen Hawkings: his motor neurone disease may well have a genetic component. Had his parents been aware of the defect when he was a foetus and had decided to abort, then science would have lost a great mind. Snaller, but cumulatively more significant examples would arise.

(d) But my biggest objection is that your apparent definition of a genetic 'problem' has a powerful emotional judgement based upon a biased view of what is 'normal' and 'good'.

 

The last item is really a segue into my second point. Humanity, in both sense of the word, should be - in my judgement - about the development of the human race by maximising the potential of each and every member, no matter how small or large that potential may be. It is not about selectively focusing on the best, where the best are defined by criteria that bear an uncanny resemblance to the self image of the proposer. The articles appear to me to be an apologist attempt to justify the fully discredited concept of social Darwinism. The authors are effectively saying "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses, longing to be free, and we shall painlessly euthenise them."

 

Count me out on that option.

[Turtle]

Last night and this morning, I looked at the Adam and Eve claim: ...

 

So, this book is a morally corrupt bunch of eugenics trash that finds no excuse in the time period it was written. It's inexcusable and intolerable and utterly shameful that people are supporting it. Turtle and Moontanman and everyone else who have put effort into showing this book for what it is - you are saints. I don't think I will any longer be debating nor critiquing it, but you are saints for doing so.

 

~modest

 

You're a saint yourself for reading as deeply as you did to see if what I keep saying is true. I tried for years before the internet to get to the bottom of this hoax, all to little effect. All bets are off now, and I intend to assertively pursue the attack on this perverse use and misrepresentation of science. :)

[Majeston]

It is quite obvious that my statement has been misunderstood.

 

I stated that there are not 2 contradictions in the entire 1097 pages of the book.

 

I stand by that statement.

 

The Urantia papers are "internally consistent".

 

Probably the most near perfect document as is possible for any text on Earth which encompasses a sceneriao beginning with God to a history of near-everything and up to and including a revelation of the Suprreme.

 

If I were to point out contradictions within, for example, the Bible, I could come up with hundreds.

 

God good to all, or just a few?

 

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

 

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

War or Peace?

 

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

 

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Who is the father of Joseph?

 

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

 

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:

 

MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

 

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

 

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

 

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

 

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Which first--beasts or man?

 

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

The number of beasts in the ark

 

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

 

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

 

 

 

I must admit I am a bit confused by this trait running through this thread by more than one person.

 

 

The staff has extended every courtesy in allowing you the opportunity to provide support for your posts, and you have abused that kindness. Your time here is over.

 

In relation to the people who have posted on this thread I would be considered the leading expert on the Urantia papers. If you would prefer to not have expert input and simply discuss your ideas of hoax's; complications and contradictions among yourselves that's fine with me. But, Let's not kid ourselves about what's going on here. Either you want to play on a fair level playing field or you prefer to play with a stacked deck.

No amount of negative reps or misconstrued convoluted warnings or tantrums will change the facts.

 

Freestar, I received a warning from you due to a misunderstanding and a quick trigger finger, I request that you retract the warning and take into consideration the underlying motives and drift in this thread. Might I also suggest that you all holster your guns and constrain the personal attacks and childish derogatory references. They do not contribute to a sincere search for truth.

[modest]

In relation to the people who have posted on this thread I would be considered the leading expert on the Urantia papers. If you would prefer to not have expert input and simply discuss your ideas of hoax's; complications and contradictions among yourselves that's fine with me. But, Let's not kid ourselves about what's going on here. Either you want to play on a fair level playing field or you prefer to play with a stacked deck.

No amount of negative reps or misconstrued convoluted warnings or tantrums will change the facts.

 

Freestar, I received a warning from you due to a misunderstanding and a quick trigger finger, I request that you retract the warning and take into consideration the underlying motives and drift in this thread. Might I also suggest that you all holster your guns and constrain the personal attacks and childish derogatory references. They do not contribute to a sincere search for truth.

 

You have received a warning which is different from an infraction. A warning cannot be retracted but is rather a tool used to allow you to adjust your style of posting before an infraction is warranted. Please understand we in the staff do our very best to apply the rules fairly, consistently, and appropriately.

 

There is a concern that you have been unwilling to debate this issue scientifically but rater resort to ad hominems. There are further concerns that freeztar outlined to you in the warning. Saying that you know more on this subject than everyone else after receiving this warning is not a good sign. I strongly advise you to substantively pursue the subject of the thread giving particular heed to what freeztar wrote.

 

I assure you, this is unrelated to the particulars of your opinion and the subject at hand. You can PM me, freeztar, or any other moderator or administrator if you have any questions or concerns.

 

~modest

[Majeston]

You have received a warning which is different from an infraction. A warning cannot be retracted but is rather a tool used to allow you to adjust your style of posting before an infraction is warranted. Please understand we in the staff do our very best to apply the rules fairly, consistently, and appropriately.

 

There is a concern that you have been unwilling to debate this issue scientifically but rater resort to ad hominems. There are further concerns that freeztar outlined to you in the warning. Saying that you know more on this subject than everyone else after receiving this warning is not a good sign. I strongly advise you to substantively pursue the subject of the thread giving particular heed to what freeztar wrote.

 

I assure you, this is unrelated to the particulars of your opinion and the subject at hand. You can PM me, freeztar, or any other moderator or administrator if you have any questions or concerns.

 

~modest

 

I'm sorry, I don't understand anything you have said. I have no idea where you are coming from. Please translate, provide examples and explain why my expertise on the U book is viewed ominously by you or anyone else.

[Majeston]

 

I must echo others' feelings that this is downright elitist. What we need to get rid of is not the "genetically deteriorated", but rather those that espouse eugenics. Eugenics is fine for plants, but is appalling to consider for humans (especially in light of recent history).

 

From Wikipedia-

 

Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[2] Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering.

 

 

.....Since the postwar period, both the public and the scientific communities have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced racial hygiene, human experimentation, and the extermination of undesired population groups. However, developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century have raised many new questions and concerns about what exactly constitutes the meaning of eugenics and what its ethical and moral status is in the modern era.

[modest]

I'm sorry, I don't understand anything you have said.

 

Support your claims. Don't resort to ad hominem arguments and private message me or any other moderator or administrator if you have further questions.

 

~modest

[freeztar]

I'm sorry, I don't understand anything you have said.

 

Well, in that case, we have a problem. As has been mentioned, if you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact any mod or admin. If you don't understand what we are telling you, we will happily expand upon it through PMs.

I have no idea where you are coming from. Please translate, provide examples and explain why my expertise on the U book is viewed ominously by you or anyone else.

 

We would welcome an honest debate, but ignoring the evidence that has been presented and asking for more is not acceptable here.

 

Once again, if you have problems with this, then please contact myself, or one of the other mods.

[Buffy]

Why do some of the comments regarding race and genetic deterioration made in the Urantia papers disturb us? Do we feel the ideas expressed misrepresent reality? Are we made uncomfortable because of the potential volatility of some of these comments if taken out of context?

Actually in spite of the comments of the last couple of pages and the bait offered and taken to color this aspect of the debate, the real issue is the fact that the success of a species over time has everything to do with the richness and diversity of the gene pool.

 

Whether you wish to examine "pure breed" dogs or European Upper Classes in the 18th-20th century, there are oodles of studies that show that "selection for traits" is a sure way to ensure that a sub population becomes sickly and dies from the effects of inbreeding.

 

The problem with Eugenics is not really the moral repugnance of it--which is surely still a valid argument--but the fact that over time trying to breed a "super race" is absolutely guaranteed to result in failure. Every study of selection backs it up.

 

The fact that Urantia places it on a pedestal does not speak well for its inerrancy...

 

Your betters have endur'd me say my mind, and if you cannot, best you stop your ears,

Buffy