Urantia Book: Complications and Contradictions

[rmmcclay]

And why, pray tell, would I want to read it? Let alone, "study" it?

 

That's for me to know and you to find out. =)

[freeztar]

That's for me to know and you to find out. =)

 

Wrong.

 

If you claim the UB aligns with science on many predictions, then you need to cite where in the book it does so. Claiming that one needs to read the whole book to see this is disingenuous. We can discuss parts of the book without reading the whole thing. For example, we can argue the creation story of the Old Testament without reading the entire bible.

 

Make your claim and back it up. Show us what you're talking about, with links and quotes. If you feel strongly about it, put some effort in to do this.

[rmmcclay]

If you claim the UB aligns with science on many predictions

 

I've never claimed that the UB aligns itself with many predictions.

 

Where in the world did you read that?

 

Besides I was responding to Pyrotex's question: "And why, pray tell, would I want to read it? Let alone, "study" it?"

 

And again, I'll reply: That's for me to know and you to find out.

 

-rmm

[freeztar]

I've never claimed that the UB aligns itself with many predictions.

 

Where in the world did you read that?

 

The Urantia Book contains much scientific information that was revealed between 1925 and 1935 to an individual who cared little about the material. Some of this information disagreed with science's version. Half a century later, some of this originally conflicting information now agrees with science, and some still does not. The information deals primarily with creation of the universe, the Earth and man, as well as the fundamentals of matter and energy. Theories about these kinds of subjects evolve as science matures, and some of science's ideas change. These changes have brought about the new agreement between science and The Urantia Book, and the now agreeing Urantia information can be considered to have been predictions.

 

The authors consider about thirty predictions that are in their areas of expertise or interest, but there are many others in the book. Science does not now know some of the information in the book. There is a distinct possibility that some of this Urantia information may also turn out to be scientific predictions in the future. If more of these predictions ultimately agree with science, it will give the scientific part of The Urantia Book an authenticity that will enhance the believability of the rest of the book. The authors examine about thirty scientific predictions in The Urantia Book, compare them with science's versions, see how much agreement we can find, and how much more we can anticipate. Those predictions that now agree with science and that partly agree constitute about one-third of all the predictions considered.

 

Perhaps my wording threw you off. In any case, let's start with that bolded sentence above. You've made the claim. Now show us with examples.

 

Better yet, show us how Urantia predictions later being predicted by science proves that the UB is true, or at least worthy of consideration.

 

Besides I was responding to Pyrotex's question: "And why, pray tell, would I want to read it? Let alone, "study" it?"

 

And again, I'll reply: That's for me to know and you to find out.

Why you would want to repeat this is beyond me.

 

It's like someone asking why it's useful to study soil and answering with your reply. What good comes of that? Someone trained in studying soils (a soil scientist) would likely explain the benefits and show why we must study soil. It would be absurd if they handed someone a textbook and said "read this and then you will understand like I do".

 

Is it too much to ask that you become a "Urantia Scientist" and explain why we should study it? Again, starting with my first paragraph in this post would be prudent.

[rmmcclay]

Perhaps my wording threw you off. In any case, let's start with that bolded sentence above. You've made the claim. Now show us with examples.

 

I didn't make the claim. It was quoted material.

 

Frankly I think you would be better off not reading the Urantia Book.

 

I think you should move along to more interesting endeavors.

 

That's all I've got to say for the moment on this thread.

 

The last word's yours.

 

Cheers,

Russ

[modest]

Frankly I think you would be better off not reading the Urantia Book. :)

 

Having read large portions of UB, I'm afraid I agree. I could give several reasons why—not the least of which would be religious aspirations of eugenics, but as an overall recommendation, I'd say the book is hardly worth reading.

 

~modest

[Furchizedek]

And why, pray tell, would I want to read it? Let alone, "study" it? :QuestionM

 

Seventy-plus years have gone by since it was written.

It has had ZERO impact on modern scholarship, except as an amusing novelty.

It has had ZERO impact, despite having been read and touted and extolled by, I'm sure, hundreds, perhaps thousands of people over the decades.

The fact that only (I'm guessing here) one in 20 "predictions" turn out to be correct, or almost correct, or slightly correct if you interpret it just so, indicates to me that these "hits" are just fortuitous accidents...

 

The reason anyone would want to read and/or study anything, generally speaking, is so that when they talk about it they know what they are talking about.

 

The book was published in 1955, 54 years ago.

 

Hard to say what impact it has had, but here we are.

 

What predictions?

 

Norm.

[Furchizedek]

Having read large portions of UB, I'm afraid I agree. I could give several reasons why—not the least of which would be religious aspirations of eugenics, but as an overall recommendation, I'd say the book is hardly worth reading.

 

~modest

 

What "large portions" have you read? And what do you mean by the " religious aspirations of eugenics."?

 

Norm.

[modest]

What "large portions" have you read? And what do you mean by the " religious aspirations of eugenics."?

 

Norm.

 

Read the thread. I'm not going to rehash everything for you.

 

~modest

[Furchizedek]

So having myself both read in entirety and studied the tome and instigated these discussions, I point you to my last post in this thread (#381 ) which refers to a detailed analysis of Ginsburgh's writings. Here is the link again for your reading pleasures. >> :QuestionM A REVIEW OF IRWIN GINSBURGH=S ASCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS OF THE URANTIA BOOK--PART II@

 

Wow! You've read the whole Urantia Book?

 

But your link goes to a critique by one Dale E. Essary. What do you know about him? What makes him qualified to review Irwin Ginsburgh?

 

I'll tell you what I know about him. I have had um, "discussions" with him about TUB (The Urantia Book) in the past. Dale is a C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N. Big time. Fundamentalist. A "My way or the highway" type Christian. I have read his anti-Urantia book essays and have rebutted (some of) them on my site. I was surprised to see the "review" above because it was so different from his other critiques, which were all based on religious differences, not on science. Dale can go on for page after page refuting TUB and do you know what it all boils down to? 'The Urantia Book is false because it's not biblical.' That's it. That's all Dale has and that is the agenda that he brings to any review of Irwin Ginsburgh's material. For Dale, any place TUB and the Bible disagree, that means TUB is wrong. Dale can "prove" TUB is wrong with Bible quotes. And that's all he does.

 

In short, I seriously doubt if Dale E. Essary is scientifically qualified to review Ginsburgh, or to review TUB on any basis other than the fact that TUB is "not biblical."

 

(Apparently I had to remove the link in the quoted text to post this.)

 

Norm.

[Furchizedek]

Thanks staff for moving the off-topic series of posts from the authorship thread. :) The move did push back a post I made earlier in response to Modest's comment on paleontology, and as it garnered no comment I'm posting it again on the presumption it is overlooked. :lol:

:QuestionM

 

I am unable to post the link at this time. This is excerpted from TIME magazine, Aprit 27. Science marches on:

 

Maybe an Asteroid Didn't Kill the Dinosaurs

By Jeffrey Kluger Monday, Apr. 27, 2009

 

When a scientific principle is common knowledge even in grammar school, you know it has long since crossed the line from theory to established fact. That's the case with dinosaur extinction. Some 65 million years ago — as we've all come to know — an asteroid struck the earth, sending up a cloud that blocked the sun and cooled the planet. That, in turn, wiped out the dinosaurs and made way for the rise of mammals. The suddenness with which so many species vanished after that time always suggested a single cataclysmic event, and the 1978 discovery of a 112-mile, 65-million-year-old crater off the Yucatán Peninsula near the town of Chicxulub seemed to seal the deal.

 

Now, however, a study in the Journal of the Geological Society throws all that into question. ...

[Turtle]

So having myself both read in entirety and studied the tome and instigated these discussions...

Wow! You've read the whole Urantia Book?

 

Did I stuuuuutter? :QuestionM

 

But your link goes to a critique by one Dale E. Essary. What do you know about him? What makes him qualified to review Irwin Ginsburgh? .

 

I'll tell you what I know about him. I have had um, "discussions" with him about TUB (The Urantia Book) in the past. Dale is a C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N. Big time. Fundamentalist. A "My way or the highway" type Christian. I have read his anti-Urantia book essays and have rebutted (some of) them on my site. I was surprised to see the "review" above because it was so different from his other critiques, which were all based on religious differences, not on science. Dale can go on for page after page refuting TUB and do you know what it all boils down to? 'The Urantia Book is false because it's not biblical.' That's it. That's all Dale has and that is the agenda that he brings to any review of Irwin Ginsburgh's material. For Dale, any place TUB and the Bible disagree, that means TUB is wrong. Dale can "prove" TUB is wrong with Bible quotes. And that's all he does.

 

In short, I seriously doubt if Dale E. Essary is scientifically qualified to review Ginsburgh, or to review TUB on any basis other than the fact that TUB is "not biblical."

 

(Apparently I had to remove the link in the quoted text to post this.)

 

Norm.

 

I guess we need to look at specifics of Mr. E's review to see if they have corroboration outside the religious bias you assign him.

 

If you reach 10 posts, you gain the ability to add links. Just a spam discouragement measure here. :) :lol:

[Furchizedek]

So, "Turtle" is "Tartar" and "Furchizedek" is "Furry Cheek" ? :QuestionM.

 

And there's 40 pages on this thread and I've only looked at #39 and #40?

 

And there's another Urantia thread entitled: Urantia Book - Who Could've Hoaxed This?

 

(It could be true too, and not hoaxed.)

 

And someone refers to The Urantia Book as, "the Urination book"?

 

I feel so conflicted. Where to start!

 

:lol:

 

Are there any other "True Believers" here?

 

Norm.

[Furchizedek]

Read the thread. I'm not going to rehash everything for you.

 

~modest

 

Well, it's 40 pages. I'll work on it, but it seems like you should be able to make a simple statement, one sentence, about the eugenics material in the book. Are you one who thinks that it's wrong for humanity to breed out the degenerates and people with severe mental and physical genetic diseases, from all the races on earth? What if criminality for instance has a genetic component? Just don't worry about it and let everyone breed as they wish, forever? How come you need to pass a test and get a license to drive, but to breed and create new humans, you just need 5 minutes and a hard-on?

 

Norm.

[Furchizedek]

Majeston, why do you keep posting the very things that have already been debunked in earlier threads? do you think repeating these things will make them true? the science in the book of urinatia is not true,

 

And how do you know that?

 

it does not follow main stream science theory

 

So what? Main stream science theory is a moving target. In the 1960s "they" said there were 100 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy. They knew precisely, because they had taken meticulous counts of star field photos and extrapolated from there. Now, however, "main stream science" says there are 400 billion stars in the galaxy. You probably overlook these changes, but you cannot. Now, "science" has recently admitted that it has NO IDEA what makes up 96% of the universe. (Google "dark energy") Isn't that amazing? They don't have any idea what makes up 96% of the universe on the one hand, but on the other hand they can tell you that the "Big Bang" happened 13.372 billion years ago, give or take 10 minutes.

 

nor does any evidence support these claims. all you do is state that science is wrong and that when we learn more we will know it. that is so lame it's not even funny.

 

It remains to be seen who is wrong. Just because YOU say science is right and TUB (The Urantia Book) is wrong doesn't make it so.

 

either back up these claims with evidence or stop maintaining they are true. Being written in the book of urinatia doesn't constitute evidence:naughty:

 

"Evidence" is over rated and the term is abused. As noted, in the 1960s, "science" had solid "evidence" that there were 100 billion stars in the galaxy. They were wrong. George Tenent said it was a "slam dunk" and that the "evidence" showed that Saddam was about to launch a nuclear attack on the US on 45 minutes notice. New "evidence" is now proving the old "evidence" wrong concerning the nature of the dinosaur extinction. Science is a moving target and "evidence" changes from day to day. And what does referring to The Urantia Book as the Urination book get you? It makes you seem childish, and perhaps you have another agenda too. Are you a Christian? The Urantia Book really torques some fundie Christians off.

 

Norm.:QuestionM

[Furchizedek]

For the sake of conversation I am going to stand on my head for a moment. Let us assume that the UB is an authentic artifact; what would the significance be for how we run our lives on a daily basis, or for what our long term social strategies are?

 

Bill

 

Hi Bill,

 

I would have two quick comments on your questions. You wrote, "what would the significance be for how we run our lives on a daily basis?"

 

I am not a Christain per se but I would suggest that Luke 10:25-28 has the answer:

 

"Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus was asked. And Jesus said to him, "What is written in the law? how do you read it?" And he answered saying, "Thou shall love God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself." And Jesus said to him, "Thou has answered right: this do, and thou shall live."

 

That covers "how we run our lives on a daily basis," in my opinion. I hope it's not too religious of an answer.

 

And, you asked, "or for what our long term social strategies are?"

 

Hmm. This isn't perhaps what a lot of Urantians would probably offer you, but while doing the above (loving your neighbor as yourself), The Urantia Book says:

 

134:5.17 With scientific progress, wars are going to become more and more devastating until they become almost racially suicidal.

 

Is that too "end-time" ish? What do you think when you look at the world situation, at how beligerent every nation and every faction is, and the continued development and deployment of advanced weapons? I don't know how much "long term" we have. I know a lot of people are in denial about it, but without a true, representative one world government of all mankind, it seems to me like we're doomed. Doomed, I tells ya. :QuestionM

 

Norm.

[Turtle]

So, "Turtle" is "Tartar" and "Furchizedek" is "Furry Cheek" ? :).

 

And there's 40 pages on this thread and I've only looked at #39 and #40?

And there's another Urantia thread entitled: Urantia Book - Who Could've Hoaxed This?

(It could be true too, and not hoaxed.)

And someone refers to The Urantia Book as, "the Urination book"?

I feel so conflicted. Where to start!

:D

Are there any other "True Believers" here?

 

Norm.

 

You at least have a healthy sense of humor going for you so far Nomb. You're gonna need that. :QuestionM You also have a right idea to read the 2 threads first in order to see what ground is already covered and from that get an idea where to start. Other than believers that have passed away, erhmm, passed through, I believe (:lol: ) I'm the only respondent to these threads that has read the whole kit-n-kaboodle. It's a heapin' helpin' of 10 point type that's fo shizzledek. :) ;)