Urantia Book: Complications and Contradictions

[Caligastia]

Again, that'a pretty broad brush.

 

What is mentally retarded mean to you?

 

Or how about criminally insane?

 

What are the measurements to make these kinds of determinations?

 

Who makes them, President Bush maybe? I mean, he already has the power to determine who is an "enemy combatant."

 

Do you see the trap you are setting up for yourself?

 

I think there are minimal standards that virtually everyone could agree on. If a person's mental capacity is such that they are unable to care for themselves, are they in any position to take care of children? To allow them to do so would be child abuse IMO.

[Moontanman]

This is hardly a call for a radical selective breeding program. According to the UB we don't have any competent judges of biological fitness.

 

I am sure that given time and the need for power many humans have you will find someone you approve of to do the job and they will be more than willing to give it their best shot, or gas chamber as the case may be.

[freeztar]

So a crack whore who has had 9 kids with fetal alcohol syndrome should not be stopped from having more?;)

 

Short answer: No

 

It's a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? Who would form the committee to decide where to draw the line? I'm quite surprised that you can't see this simple, and quite scary, problem.

[Caligastia]

It's complicated. There were originally 6 races that evolved on earth. Some were more intelligent than others some were physically stronger. It talks in length about how they interacted and what not for some half a million years. I haven't gotten too deep into it and what I have read is factually wrong.

 

The story turns on Adam and Eve coming to earth with special super racial qualities. Their job is to have kids that will mate with the best races of earth thereby creating a better overall population. It's eugenics - the whole theme is eugenics. The eugenics plan doesn't go quire right and is prematurely halted. Adam and Eve are white and they mostly bred with the white people on earth. The implication clearly is that white people are superior though I haven't seen that explicitly stated. However 1 + 1 = 2, so by implication that's what it's saying.

 

But, like any religious texts it's complicated and open to interpretation.

 

~modest

 

No, they don't mate with the "best races", they mate with the best of the races. Big difference. Also, Adam and Eve are not "white". Please stop making stuff up about what the UB says.

[Caligastia]

It's an enormous can of worms, Cali. A crack whore is an easy appeal, but boy that opens the door to to a whole lot of other unsavory situations that I'm sure someone will think needs to be regulated as well.

 

What if instead of being a "crack whore," she's just a pot smoker. Is there a decernable legal difference here?

 

The point is that this person has a long history of abusing her children - even before they were born! I don't agree with the current drug laws, but that's another issue.

[Caligastia]

I am sure that given time and the need for power many humans have you will find someone you approve of to do the job and they will be more than willing to give it their best shot, or gas chamber as the case may be.

 

Well, then maybe nobody should have any power over anyone else because they might abuse it? Sorry, but I don't agree with the "slippery slope" argument in this case. Yes, this power could be abused, but that doesn't mean we should do nothing.

[Moontanman]

I think there are minimal standards that virtually everyone could agree on. If a person's mental capacity is such that they are unable to care for themselves, are they in any position to take care of children? To allow them to do so would be child abuse IMO.

 

In your own way you have pointed out the flaw in your idea of eugenics. Child abuse is not a genetic thing it is a societal thing. People who truly cannot take of their children are dealt with within the laws we already have. The idea that the poor and unwashed are not capable of contributing to our society is the main stumbling block to them making a contribution. We should be educating people to do better not stopping the ones with out the necessary education from reproducing. Your whole premise of genes being responsible for all or most societal problems is fatally flawed and such an idea if given power would be used to stop the people society disapproves of from reproducing. Societal pressures to remove this basic right from people is already bad enough. my own ancestors were marginalized by such thinking and are now so few in number they have almost no influence at all. Was it because they were flawed in some way? no it was because the general public thought of them as some how inferior and that one idea allowed them to be lied to, concentrated, and even killed out of hand. I shudder to think what would happen with our advanced technology to anyone who wasn't part of the mainstream.

[Caligastia]

Short answer: No

 

It's a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? Who would form the committee to decide where to draw the line? I'm quite surprised that you can't see this simple, and quite scary, problem.

 

I think a line that the vast majority of people would agree with could be drawn at those who have a past history of child abuse.

[freeztar]

In your own way you have pointed out the flaw in your idea of eugenics. Child abuse is not a genetic thing it is a societal thing. People who truly cannot take of their children are dealt with within the laws we already have. The idea that the poor and unwashed are not capable of contributing to our society is the main stumbling block to them making a contribution. We should be educating people to do better not stopping the ones with out the necessary education from reproducing. Your whole premise of genes being responsible for all or most societal problems is fatally flawed and such an idea if given power would be used to stop the people society disapproves of from reproducing. Societal pressures to remove this basic right from people is already bad enough. my own ancestors were marginalized by such thinking and are now so few in number they have almost no influence at all. Was it because they were flawed in some way? no it was because the general public thought of them as some how inferior and that one idea allowed them to be lied to, concentrated, and even killed out of hand. I shudder to think what would happen with our advanced technology to anyone who wasn't part of the mainstream.

 

Very good points MTM. It's social darwinism engineering through eugenics.

[Caligastia]

In your own way you have pointed out the flaw in your idea of eugenics. Child abuse is not a genetic thing it is a societal thing. People who truly cannot take of their children are dealt with within the laws we already have. The idea that the poor and unwashed are not capable of contributing to our society is the main stumbling block to them making a contribution. We should be educating people to do better not stopping the ones with out the necessary education from reproducing. Your whole premise of genes being responsible for all or most societal problems is fatally flawed and such an idea if given power would be used to stop the people society disapproves of from reproducing. Societal pressures to remove this basic right from people is already bad enough. my own ancestors were marginalized by such thinking and are now so few in number they have almost no influence at all. Was it because they were flawed in some way? no it was because the general public thought of them as some how inferior and that one idea allowed them to be lied to, concentrated, and even killed out of hand. I shudder to think what would happen with our advanced technology to anyone who wasn't part of the mainstream.

 

I agree that everyone should be given a chance, and that environmental influences are very important. Restriction of reproduction need not be tied to genes. I think people want to have kids should want them badly enough to conform to some basic standards of living, and be willing to take the time to learn a few simple things about childcare. This alone would do some good genetically, as there is almost certainly a hereditary component to behaviour.

[freeztar]

I think a line that the vast majority of people would agree with could be drawn at those who have a past history of child abuse.

 

What did you think of Moontan's post right above yours?

He makes the very good point that our laws already deal with such things. If someone abuses a child, they go to jail. Jail is not typically a place where one reproduces.

[Pyrotex]

amen...

[Caligastia]

What did you think of Moontan's post right above yours?

He makes the very good point that our laws already deal with such things. If someone abuses a child, they go to jail. Jail is not typically a place where one reproduces.

 

I would include the birthing of children with fetal alcohol syndrome as child abuse.

[modest]

No, they don't mate with the "best races", they mate with the best of the races.

 

Yeah, the best of the races. Yup.

 

Also, Adam and Eve are not "white". Please stop making stuff up about what the UB says.

 

I honestly try my best to be informed of the topic I'm discussing and try not to be dishonest in order to advocate my position. They were white:

 

paper 76 line 76

Adam and Eve were the founders of the violet race of men, the ninth human race to appear on Urantia. Adam and his offspring had blue eyes, and the violet peoples were characterized by fair complexions and light hair color--yellow, red, and brown.

[Caligastia]

Yeah, the best of the races. Yup.

 

Meaning - the best individuals regardless of their racial background.

 

 

I honestly try my best to be informed of the topic I'm discussing and try not to be dishonest in order to advocate my position. They were white:

 

Some of their characteristics are visible in the so-called "white race", but they were not white. Here are some descriptions of "white people" in the UB:

 

1. The Caucasoid--the Andite blend of the Nodite and Adamic stocks, further modified by primary and (some) secondary Sangik admixture and by considerable Andonic crossing. The Occidental white races, together with some Indian and Turanian peoples, are included in this group. The unifying factor in this division is the greater or lesser proportion of Andite inheritance.

 

The modern white peoples incorporate the surviving strains of the Adamic stock which became admixed with the Sangik races, some red and yellow but more especially the blue. There is a considerable percentage of the original Andonite stock in all the white races and still more of the early Nodite strains.

 

These early Andites were not Aryan; they were pre-Aryan. They were not white; they were pre-white. They were neither an Occidental nor an Oriental people. But it is Andite inheritance that gives to the polyglot mixture of the so-called white races that generalized homogeneity which has been called Caucasoid.

 

As you can see, there is a considerable difference between whites and violets as described in the UB. I'm accusing you of dishonesty, but please make an effort to research a bit more before commenting.

[modest]

Yes, Caligastia found what I was looking for. This is what I was saying earlier:

 

The modern white peoples incorporate the surviving strains of the Adamic stock which became admixed with the Sangik races, some red and yellow but more especially the blue. There is a considerable percentage of the original Andonite stock in all the white races and still more of the early Nodite strains.

 

White people today are are the best mix of superior adam DNA and the blue race (which is wonderfully described in UB).

 

The implication is clearly that they are the best race. Meanwhile is says people in the south of Africa got none of Adams "stock". So, this is what I was saying. It's clearly implied. Not even implied, there it is.

 

~modest

[Caligastia]

I gotta go now, but I will pick this up later...