Urantia Book: Complications and Contradictions

[modest]

This [eugenics] is the most troubling part of TUB for me.

 

Me too. One thing I remember reading (I'd have to look to find the quote), when Adam and Eve came to earth to run their little eugenics program it says that the Adamites (the ones with the good genetics) didn't find black people very attractive. As a result, black people got almost none of Adam and Eve's good genetics. It's just so absurdly amoral. I mean, you'd think it was written by Nazis. Wait, was it written by Nazis?

 

~modest

[lemit]

I don't read that one line as any sort of prophecy. And of course it differs from such statements over the last 1000 years because the nature of the problem is magnitudes different now. We have incredible weapons of mass destruction now that are advancing scientifically at a high rate, but we have the same beligerant human nature that we have always had, and we have no real world government to keep the lid on.

 

It looks like prophecy to me. I tried to encompass all the similar statements I could remember. There may have some before then. But certainly since the development of weapons that included explosives, people have begun to understand the potential of possible future weapons, and have expressed that concern in the prediction of future Armageddons. (Wait! Armageddon was a prediction of the destruction of humanity in a future war. I should have made that two thousand.)

 

I am not following you, above. In any case, you're saying we're not confused about our dieties, and TUB says we're confused about the "terms."

 

I'm sorry. I screwed up. Like I said, it was hard reading for me. And I also tried to turn the quote into something that made sense. Jehovah, Yahweh, Allah? The names we call our gods seem too trivial to be part of a book that is trying to be uplifting.

 

I usually recommend new readers simply skip the Foreword. Start at Paper 1, or perhaps at Paper 121. Those are good starting places.

 

I have trouble with them too. Paper 1 is simply unispiring and Paper 121 begins with a historical fallacy. The Axial period was one of greater enlightenment than the time of Jesus. There have been others, but that is the best example.

 

Not following you once more. Has some Urantian solicited donations from you? What students are you talking about? Sorry, I just got here.

 

About contributions, there's this link on the Urantia Home Page:

Make a contribution to The Urantia Book Fellowship

 

About the teaching, you haven't missed anything. I have just introduced the fact that I used to teach writing. I didn't teach the kind of writing I've used in my response to TUB. Sorry for the confusion.

 

I don't think I want to spend any more time on Urantia. I mean no disrespect to you, just TUB. Again, sorry.

 

--lemit

[Moontanman]

Sorry, but I'm taking your advice from your signature line:

 

"Never wrestle a troll. You both get dirty and the troll likes it."

 

Norm.

 

Oh Norm, Norm, Norm, you have cut me to the core, oh I am bleeding so profusely, oh how terrible to be named troll by one who by his very nature should indeed know what a troll is.......

[REASON]

Well yes, Society has that right.

 

I see. So I guess we'll just go to the polls to decide who deserves to be eradicated. :D

 

 

Your assumption that I fail to recognize that allowing some entity to determine who should be allowed to procreate [could] lend itself to abuse is false. Where did you get that from?

 

I guess I figured that if you understood the potential for abuse that could come out of giving someone the power to decide which biological conditions are deserving of eradication from the gene pool, you wouldn't continue to advocate it. I guess I was wrong.

 

 

Your assumption that I have an inherent presumption that the human race could properly control such authority, is false. Where did you get that from?

 

Again, I figured you wouldn't advocate some authority that couldn't be controlled by society.

 

 

You would say that WHAT is downright dangerous? And what ease at which you say I would suppress the basic rights of all individuals to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are you talking about? You are quite the reactionary and the vile debater.

 

I would not suppress anyone's basic rights of all individuals to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc. See above. Society is the answer.

 

I am sorry you have that wrong view.

 

And yet you stated:

 

Surely, if MD can be prevented in just one person, by restricting someone's procreation rights, that seems to me like it would be a good idea..... The human race would be better off breeding these defects out. It's a false sentiment and even a false liberty to say that everyone should be able to reproduce, regardless. Where does that idea come from? There are no absolute rights.

 

"Sorry Mr. Norm. You are unable to father children. After your birth you were determined to be a carrier of a rare genetic disease and thereby rendered sterile by radiation as per federal statute. Your bloodline is impure and has been slated for eradication. Just be glad we didn't terminate you on the spot as has been recently advocated by the new Urantian government."

 

Whether you agree or not, denying someone the right to bear children is suppressing their basic, fundamental rights. I don't think pointing that out qualifies as "reactionary" or "vile" in particular.

 

 

It just goes to prove that once you have been indoctrinated into some form of dogma or strict ideology, you will forego reason in defense of it.

Boy, you are a rough one! You are an attack dog of the first order. How long have you been honing your skills?

 

Let's just say I prefer not to beat around the bush. But I think your characterization of my post is exaggerated. Anyway, I'd be happy for you to prove my statement wrong. Maybe you'd be willing to cite some examples of where you find the Urantia Book to be fallacious.

 

 

That's nonsense. Your post above belies what you say. Your vicious reaction to the simple idea that the human races should weed out serious genetic disease shows that you do not believe I have the right to believe as I wish.

 

Curing, overcoming, or even "weeding out" serious genetic diseases is not what I have a problem with. It's the methods you and the UB espouse to do it that I find distasteful and dangerous to civilized society. Again, challenging those ideas does not mean that I think you have no right to hold those beliefs. People believe al kinds of strange things. My goal would be to offer a countering point of view in hopes that the majority of people don't choose to adopt the same beliefs. I don't think doing so qualifies as being "vicious."

 

 

It [the UB] is no different in that it requires faith. Who has said otherwise? You're pushing a strawman, maybe several of them.

 

People have been coming here to suggest that the UB is more credible than other religious doctrines because it contains scientific information about the natural world that either cannot, or at least is difficult to refute. Point being that faith alone is not required to believe in the words of these papers. My argument that the UB is pure conjecture and speculation is no strawman argument because I'm not implying that that is your indefensible position. It is my opinion based on what papers I have read. Even the basic premise that the Earth is referred to as "Urantia" by other alien species is pure speculation. The book makes a mountain of unsupported claims, and as far as I can tell, people choose to believe it for no other reason than they want to. But that isn't good enough for it to be anywhere close to the truth.

 

People will continue to delude themselves in order to avoid unpleasant realities. Particularly when it comes to the unpleasant reality of death.

[Majeston]

Reason writes;

"People have been coming here to suggest that the UB is more credible than other religious doctrines because it contains scientific information about the natural world that either cannot, or at least is difficult to refute."

 

I haven't seen anyone assert that.

[Moontanman]

Reason writes;

"People have been coming here to suggest that the UB is more credible than other religious doctrines because it contains scientific information about the natural world that either cannot, or at least is difficult to refute."

 

I haven't seen anyone assert that.

 

Hey Majeston, how's it going? The reason you haven't seen that is due to that river in Egypt. The idea that the book of urantia contains scientific information is implicit in the texts, haven't you read them? Everyone who has supported the book of urantia has at one time or another tried to point out the scientific accuracy of your religions holy text, with total failure, but none the less they have pushed that view point. There is no other reason to think the book of urantia is anymore than the musings of just another scam artist trying to start yet another religion if you take away the sciencie parts of it.

[REASON]

Reason writes;

"People have been coming here to suggest that the UB is more credible than other religious doctrines because it contains scientific information about the natural world that either cannot, or at least is difficult to refute."

 

I haven't seen anyone assert that.

 

Really? Maybe you should consider your own words.

 

unlike the bible or the qu'ran or any other similar text the Urantia papers require virtually no faith at all to believe it. that is one difference. one can verify the accuracy of the material parts with the best that science has to offer at any given time and as time progresses and science improves its methods more and more of science in every discipline comes into identical focus with the Urantia papers.

 

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.....

 

.....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.

 

.....I have studied it [urantia Book] much longer and much more in-depth than yourself. If you think something has been "proven" wrong you ought to examine deeper what you think is right and why you think it is right. In the final analysis you will find "theory" rather than proof as your basis for what you call truth. In my lifetime these so-called theories have changed like the weather but The Upapers do not change and still has not one thing proven to be incorrect. QUite a feat in itself for something at least 75 years old now. In fact many so-called theories that were know as proofs years ago now agree with the Upapers. Another interesting so-called co-incidence.

 

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

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

 

 

To which one of my early responses still applies:

 

SO, tell us about your experience with the Urantia papers and point out in the 2097 pages where you have found an error and then perhaps you can explain coherently the substantiating proof.

Why, so you can brush them aside like you did above with Turtle's example of Calcium being the most abundant element? :P Even if I were to identify 50 things in the UB that were contradicted by empirical evidence, you would simply make excuses for them because you have consumed so much Urantia Book Kool-aid that you can no longer see straight.

 

All I had to do is read the Forward authored by the nowhere-to-be-found "Divine Counselor" to realize that it is nothing but conjecture. As with the Holy Bible or the Qur'an, it requires faith to believe in it. It really doesn't bother me that you have given your beliefs and your faith to this book. Look at how many people have given their faith to other similar authoritative religious scriptures and doctrines. There's obviously a desperate need of individuals to feel that they have a simple and clear understanding of the creation of the universe and the explanation for life and consciousness. And, there is the painfully obvious desire of people to believe that there is some sort of afterlife promised.

 

While I haven't read about it, I'll bet you could tell me about the afterlife described in the Urantia Book.

 

The problem is, beliefs formed in these circumstances are not based in fact or evidence. They are based simply on what is known, what seems to make sense, and what is hoped for. Unfortunately, what seems to make sense isn't necessarily The Truth.

 

Science is the only legitimate tool that we can use to understand the true nature of the universe.

 

The Urantia Book is an elaborate form of snake oil. I hope it cures your ills.

[Furchizedek]

... read the 2 threads first. If your aim is to simply rattle everyone's cage 'til you get the boot, that accomodation is available.

 

DO IT!

 

DO IT!

 

DO IT!

 

BOOT ME!

 

DO IT!

 

And learn how to spell "accommodation," you stupid little jerk-off.

 

Norm

[freeztar]

Only moderators and administrators have the power to boot you. Tempting fate is not wise if you wish to continue posting here. I have given you an infraction as you have resorted to name-calling, which is against site rules. Please refrain from doing this.

 

Now, let's get back on topic...

[Moontanman]

MOD EDIT: Off topic and unnecessary! Let's keep the thread on-topic. Play the ball, not the player.

[Furchizedek]

So apparently Turtle isn't a cop, he just impersonates one, like Caryl Chessman. Marvelous. And I've been "fined" or penalized 5 points for depicting him in a negative light.

 

OK, here's some news that all of you science buffs may or may not be aware of. I don't know which forum it should be on. It seems to be part science and part religion so I hope I don't get fined for not putting part of it someplace and another part somewhere else, so to speak.

 

On August 21, 2017, just under 8 years from now, there is going to be a spectacular total solar eclipse over the entire United States, exclusively. No other countries are involved, just the US. Of course, the path of totality is only 100 miles wide or so (maybe 70, I don't remember.) Google it, "solar eclipse 2017". The eclipse starts on the Oregon coast and sweeps across the US and leaves at the South Carolina coast. Casper, WY, for example, is directly under the path of totality. It will pass close to Kansas City, and St. Louis. It looks to me like it pretty well bisects the country.

 

August 21 is Jesus' birthday according to The Urantia Book. (I see where someone here had a lot of yuks out of that a few months ago, that he was born 7 years before he was born, etc. Man, that was funny! I never laughed so hard. Such cleverness.) The NASA website says that in the 5000 year period between 2000 BC and 3000 AD, there are 5 solar eclipses on August 21. Curiously, one of the other 5 happened in 1560 and was the reason that Tycho Brahe became interested in astronomy according to the Wikipedia. And then in 1572 there was the great supernova which was named after Tycho Brahe.

 

Curiously too, The Urantia Book mentions this supernova of 1572. It says:

 

41:3.5 The most recent of the major cosmic eruptions in Orvonton was the extraordinary double star explosion, the light of which reached Urantia in A.D. 1572. This conflagration was so intense that the explosion was clearly visible in broad daylight.

 

From what I can find, it was not known by science at the time The Urantia Book was published in 1955 that the supernova of Tycho Brahe was a double star situation. In fact, Wikipedia says that the companion star was not identified until 2004. Apparently and generally in such a scenario, a white dwarf star begins to accrue matter from another, nearby orbiting "normal" star until the white dwarf explodes. Wiki also says that only 1/3 of the stars in the Milky Way are double star systems, and of course, very few of those contain a white dwarf. This explosion happened 7500 light years from here and the light from it reached earth 437 years ago. The statement above at UB 41:3.5 does not seem to be in the least bit speculative. It's stated very authoritatively that it was a double star event. One wouldn't think the revelators would just roll the dice and make such a statement and take a chance that it would turn out to have been right when the science caught up with being able to verify it. But, maybe it was known, by science, beyond a shadow of a doubt in 1955, that the supernova of 1572 was a double star event, and the revelators just copied that into the book and weren't taking any chances at all. The revelators certainly didn't hedge their bets. They made a hard and fast statement about the nature of the supernova. Can anyone here find where that knowledge was known, hard and fast, in 1955 or earlier?

 

I am not particularly into the Bible but when I found out about this eclipse in 2017 on Jesus' birthday, I remembered a couple of verses from the NT:

 

Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven:

 

As I said, I'm not into the Bible, and I'm not a Christian, but I think they think that the so-called "tribulation" is going to last 7 years, and if the total eclipse on Jesus' birthday in 2017 (just under 8 years away) is the event wherein "the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light," then all hell is going to break loose soon.

 

But if it doesn't happen (the eclipse WILL happen), then "never mind," as Emily Litella would say.

 

Norm.

[REASON]

As I said, I'm not into the Bible, and I'm not a Christian, but I think they think that the so-called "tribulation" is going to last 7 years, and if the total eclipse on Jesus' birthday in 2017 (just under 8 years away) is the event wherein "the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light," then all hell is going to break loose soon.

 

How can all hell break loose on August 21, 2017 when the world will already have been destroyed on December 21, 2012? :naughty:

[Turtle]

So apparently Turtle isn't a cop, he just impersonates one, ...

 

actually, i'm a private dick. :naughty: :naughty:

 

... One wouldn't think the revelators would just roll the dice and make such a statement and take a chance that it would turn out to have been right when the science caught up with being able to verify it. Norm.

 

given all the debunking presented here of the "revelators" scientific writings, this is exactly what one would expect. this idea that a work containing a fact or facts is itself then factual is a non sequitar.

[Moontanman]

The Urantia Book states that "The most recent of the major cosmic eruptions . . . was the extraordinary double star explosion, the light of which reached [Earth] in A.D. 1572. This conflagration was so intense that the explosion was clearly visible in broad daylight."

 

The Nova was not a double star explosion Norm, two stars did not explode, the people behind this "Revelation" are being disingenuous to say the least. Only one star produced the Nova and it did not explode. A white dwarf accumulates material from it's companion star until a layer too deep to exist is laid down then the surface of the star explodes into space not the star it's self. At the time the book of urantia was written the idea of a star exploding into a supernova was the only way known for a nova to happen. The idea that this supernova was so spectacular that two stars exploded has nothing to do with the type 1a nova of reality.

[Majeston]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Majeston

Reason writes;

"People have been coming here to suggest that the UB is more credible than other religious doctrines because it contains scientific information about the natural world that either cannot, or at least is difficult to refute."

 

I haven't seen anyone assert that.

 

 

 

 

 

Really?

 

**************

 

 

Yes, Really.

 

Of course I probably understand what you are trying to say, so maybe you simply need to be a bit clearer. No one has asserted that the Urantia papers are more credible than other scientific or religious doctrines BECAUSE they contain information that is difficult to refute.

 

In order to have an intelligent conversation with you, you will need to tell me how much of the Urantia papers you actually have studied or comprehend and also what your particular field of scientific expertise is.

 

I really had to laugh the other night when I was watching the Science channel about the latest Galileo mission to Jupiter and the experts stated that EVERYTHING WE BELIEVED ABOUT THE FORMATION OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM WAS WRONG and would have to be revised. Too funny.

 

I suppose people like you just simply jump right over that little fact while at the same time you write posts like quote "

The Urantia Book is an elaborate form of snake oil. I hope it cures your ills."

 

Well, for about 15 bucks NASA could have had their answer and saved us about a TRILLION dollars. How much is a trillion dollars, how many wasted man hours of labor is that? I'm sure we learned something though, even if we did only learn that most everything the so-called experts have been telling us was wrong all along. But, then again, some of us knew that for quite some time now. The Urantia papers lay out EXACTLY how our solar system was formed.

 

The problem seems to be rooted in the basic premise, motivation and erroneous assumptions. Science keeps using the excuse for all this wasted trillions of squandered expense is that they are trying to find out how and why the universe was created. Well, that can be answered for 15 bucks.

 

"But it is sad to record that so few persons on Urantia take delight in cultivating these qualities of courageous and independent cosmic thinking." 16:6.5

[Moontanman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Majeston

Reason writes;

"People have been coming here to suggest that the UB is more credible than other religious doctrines because it contains scientific information about the natural world that either cannot, or at least is difficult to refute."

 

I haven't seen anyone assert that.

 

 

 

 

 

Really?

 

**************

 

 

Yes, Really.

 

Of course I probably understand what you are trying to say, so maybe you simply need to be a bit clearer. No one has asserted that the Urantia papers are more credible than other scientific or religious doctrines BECAUSE they contain information that is difficult to refute.

 

In order to have an intelligent conversation with you, you will need to tell me how much of the Urantia papers you actually have studied or comprehend and also what your particular field of scientific expertise is.

 

I really had to laugh the other night when I was watching the Science channel about the latest Galileo mission to Jupiter and the experts stated that EVERYTHING WE BELIEVED ABOUT THE FORMATION OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM WAS WRONG and would have to be revised. Too funny.

 

I suppose people like you just simply jump right over that little fact while at the same time you write posts like quote "

The Urantia Book is an elaborate form of snake oil. I hope it cures your ills."

 

Well, for about 15 bucks NASA could have had their answer and saved us about a TRILLION dollars. How much is a trillion dollars, how many wasted man hours of labor is that? I'm sure we learned something though, even if we did only learn that most everything the so-called experts have been telling us was wrong all along. But, then again, some of us knew that for quite some time now. The Urantia papers lay out EXACTLY how our solar system was formed.

 

The problem seems to be rooted in the basic premise, motivation and erroneous assumptions. Science keeps using the excuse for all this wasted trillions of squandered expense is that they are trying to find out how and why the universe was created. Well, that can be answered for 15 bucks.

 

"But it is sad to record that so few persons on Urantia take delight in cultivating these qualities of courageous and independent cosmic thinking." 16:6.5

 

Majeston, you are so great at obfuscation and being disingenuous you would make a great televangelist! So far absolutely nothing in the book of urantia is worth $.15 much less $15. You have failed miserably in showing even one thing the book of urination got right, do you get a commission on each copy sold?

[REASON]

Yes, Really.

 

Of course I probably understand what you are trying to say, so maybe you simply need to be a bit clearer.

Well if you understand what I'm trying to say, why would I need to be clearer?

 

 

No one has asserted that the Urantia papers are more credible than other scientific or religious doctrines BECAUSE they contain information that is difficult to refute.

Then what makes them more credible? You said, "One can verify the accuracy of the material parts with the best that science has to offer at any given time.....," which doesn't say much considering your utter contempt for the scientific method. Is it mearly the fact that you have chosen to believe in them that makes them more credible in your mind?

 

 

In order to have an intelligent conversation with you, you will need to tell me how much of the Urantia papers you actually have studied or comprehend and also what your particular field of scientific expertise is.

I've never claimed to be an expert in any particular field of science, and I have studied little of the Urantia Papers. So what? Neither is required for us to have an intelligent conversation.

 

Just because you have studied the Urantia Papers thoroughly and have decided to give them the ultimate authority, doesn't make you knowledgeable about the nature of the universe. It only makes you knowledgeable about the Urantia Papers. Couldn't I just as easily say that because I've read all the Harry Potter books several times therefore I'm an authority on the nature of the universe? If I did, wouldn't you think I was being foolish?

 

 

I really had to laugh the other night when I was watching the Science channel about the latest Galileo mission to Jupiter and the experts stated that EVERYTHING WE BELIEVED ABOUT THE FORMATION OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM WAS WRONG and would have to be revised. Too funny.

 

I suppose people like you just simply jump right over that little fact while at the same time you write posts like quote "

The Urantia Book is an elaborate form of snake oil. I hope it cures your ills."

People like me? Hey, I'm as violet as they come. :)

 

Sorry, the self correcting aspect of the scientific method doesn't mean your chosen scripture is therefore correct. You make the same mistake other religious fanatics make about their holy scriptures. And if longevity is a measure of legitimacy with regard to religious scripture, then the Urantia Papers along with Dianetics are bringing up the rear.

 

 

Well, for about 15 bucks NASA could have had their answer and saved us about a TRILLION dollars. How much is a trillion dollars, how many wasted man hours of labor is that? I'm sure we learned something though, even if we did only learn that most everything the so-called experts have been telling us was wrong all along. But, then again, some of us knew that for quite some time now. The Urantia papers lay out EXACTLY how our solar system was formed.

Yeah, but it's based on an outdated theory that was popular at the time it was written.

In the Wiki article on the UB it states:

The described formation of the solar system [in the UB] is consistent with the Chamberlin-Moulton planetesimal hypothesis.[1] Though popular in the early part of the 20th century, by the early 1940s it was discarded by Henry Russell's argument that it was incompatible with the angular momentum of planets such as Jupiter.[2] The currently accepted scientific explanation for the origin of the solar system is based on the nebular hypothesis.

So when the experts said "EVERYTHING WE BELIEVED ABOUT THE FORMATION OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM WAS WRONG," as you wrote, they were referring to the theory the UB copied from.

 

 

The problem seems to be rooted in the basic premise, motivation and erroneous assumptions. Science keeps using the excuse for all this wasted trillions of squandered expense is that they are trying to find out how and why the universe was created. Well, that can be answered for 15 bucks.

Heck, I'd give them my copy of the King James version of the Holy Bible for free. Why waste $15 on a Urantia Book that's only been around for 50 years.

 

The real problem in my estimation, Maj, is that there are too many people who allow themselves to become so easily captivated by mystical thinking and find themselves losing sight of reality.

 

C'est la vie I guess.