The Urantia Revelation

[Majeston]

Furchizedek,,

 

Thank you for your imput. Let's please try to temper our tone here so as not to turn this topic into the nasty free-for-all that the previous related topics exhibited.

 

Thanks

[dduckwessel]

 

Furchizedek!! Is it inspired from the Melchizedeks and if so what made you choose that particular name?

 

It does seem to assume however that the book was the product of humans.

 

It's assumed because of all the scientific errors.

 

As to its creativity (names, orders of seraphic and lesser hosts), as I said, impressive. However, I have heard it said that angels cannot see into the future - being limited to the human knowledge available at the time.

 

Certainly humans were involved but they apparently did not do it (their involvement) for reasons of fame or wealth.

 

You missed notoriety! Joseph Smith also wrote a book apparently inspired by an angel (but full of contradictions I hear) so the idea that humans can accomplish such things is not unusual.

 

 

Emma Christensen, contact commissioner wrote, "The authors are all listed in the book itself..." "I can categorically assure you that no humans decided the content of the Urantia Book. The Book is as the revelators gave it to us." "The Urantia Book was not written by the Urantia Foundation. It is a revelation given to this world by superhuman personalities." "The Urantia Book was published precisely as it was given to the people of this planet. Not a word has been added or deleted." "No human scholars edited the book." Thomas Kendall, Foundation trustee wrote, "The Urantia Book is arranged and assembled exactly as revealed." "No human ever edited this material."

 

 

I don't doubt Sadler's, and the others, sincerity, I doubt the motivations of the subconscious religious mind, which is always biased. Had the book been delivered to non-religious persons, it would be viewed differently.

 

Although I realize any forum or blog can only give a very limited view of an individual, nevertheless, I have noted that your own reactions to criticism of the UB resembles that of an indoctrinated person:

 

- your motivations appear religious

- you refuse to accept evidence when it's presented to you

- you are intolerant of those who disagree

- you strongly promote individuals you did not personally know (Sadler, etc.), except through hearsay

 

For these reasons and more I question the authorship of the UB.

[joekgamer]

Gentlemen,

 

Just out of curiosity how would "science" go about proving or disproving "space respiration" in the Urantia revelation (affecting the present theory of the age of the universe) or the decrease of radioactivity by the Master Physical Controllers as theorized in the Chris Halvorson paper (affecting the radiometric dating).

http://perfectinghorizons.org/ByChrisHalvorson/histlife.pdf

http://perfectinghorizons.org/

 

It is not anyone's responsability to disprove this. It is the orginator's responsibility to prove it.

 

Use this for an example:

 

A man walks up to you one day and says, "There are invisible unicorns following me!" You look behind him, but see nothing. You comment on this, and he responds, "They are invisible, so you can't see them." You then suggest that perhaps they don't exist at all. He then responds, "Prove that they don't." When you admit that it is impossible to disprove their existence, he says, "See? They exist."

 

Do you see how illgical this is?

 

 

As for the Hudson Bay part, I misread the quote. That I quoted. :doh:

[modest]

You make categorical statements about what happened or didn't happen "hundreds of billions of years ago" just like you were there to witness what happened hundreds of billions of years ago.

 

According to Urantia, 987 trillion years ago inspector number 811,307 visited this area of the universe and reported to his superiors that conditions were favorable for the materialization of this sector of the universe. 87 trillion years later a permit was issued for this purpose and a liaison of staff members were sent to organize the creation of the milky way. 875 trillion years ago our galaxy was initiated and shortly thereafter it was populated with stars.

 

According to scientific theory the visible universe was populated with hot dense plasma roughly 14 billion years ago. Shortly thereafter stars and galaxies cooled and condensed.

 

Because the latter is a prediction verified by evidence and derived from physical laws—it is areligious and scientific. Because the former is reported by revelation and requires blind faith without (and indeed, despite) evidence—it is religious.

 

You are free to believe either.

 

Good grief, man, think about how ridiculous it is for you to suggest that you know whether or not the Milky Was was or was not here hundreds of billions of years ago! What arrogance! What science HUBRIS!

 

Arrogance and hubris?

 

Urantia claims that there is nothing good about helping ignorant people.

 

52:2.12 An idiot does not have much chance of survival in a primitive and warring tribal social organization. It is the false sentiment of your partially perfected civilizations that fosters, protects, and perpetuates the hopelessly defective strains of evolutionary human stocks.

 

52:2.12 It is neither tenderness nor altruism to bestow futile sympathy upon degenerated human beings, unsalvable abnormal and inferior mortals.

 

If someone is considered an idiot, contributing to the abnormal and defective strains of humanity, then I should show them no kindness according to this morally outrageous book of Nazi propaganda. In fact, it says that I should eliminate them—that "the selective elimination of inferior human strains will remove many mortal inequalities". If I teach them then I'd be contributing to the "unwise perpetuation of racially degenerate stocks which have tremendously retarded the progress of civilization".

 

I refuse to be lectured on my arrogance for disagreeing with a book that advocates the elimination of racially degenerate strains of humanity. NOTHING could be more arrogant or sickening to basic human decency than to say that the race of another affords them no right to survive. The book is 1940's science wrapped around 1940's fascist hatred and whether you have noticed it or not, the world has made steady progress in moving past both.

[Majeston]

According to Urantia, 987 trillion years ago inspector number 811,307 visited this area of the universe and reported to his superiors that conditions were favorable for the materialization of this sector of the universe. 87 trillion years later a permit was issued for this purpose and a liaison of staff members were sent to organize the creation of the milky way. 875 trillion years ago our galaxy was initiated and shortly thereafter it was populated with stars.

 

 

Modest,

thanks for your input. Are you sure the parts I hilited in red above are what the Urantia revelation actually says?

 

 

According to scientific theory the visible universe was populated with hot dense plasma roughly 14 billion years ago. Shortly thereafter stars and galaxies cooled and condensed.

 

Because the latter is a prediction verified by evidence and derived from physical laws—it is areligious and scientific. Because the former is reported by revelation and requires blind faith without (and indeed, despite) evidence—it is religious.

 

You are free to believe either.

 

Modest, both you and I and most other people know this THEORY you are esposing as fact has many holes in it

 

Arrogance and hubris?

 

Urantia claims that there is nothing good about helping ignorant people. another wild distorted claim Modest, you should show us that quote of yours and stop taking things out of context to promote your own personal misunderstanding of the text and private agenda. We are all quite aware of the passages you have chosen to stigmatize this revelation as racist for whatever your personal reasons are but the funny thing is that no one who has studied the entire document except you comes to that conclusion. I personally know a few hundred "Urantians" and not one of them would have any thing to do with this revelation if it was the racist document you so often portray it as. Perhaps this racist portrayal of yours has more to say about yourself than it does about the Urantia revelation. Nevertheless, because of people like yourself who go off half-cocked by "trigger" words and phrases a recent conference was held in Boulder, CO to address just this issue. Quite a lengthy document was produced and is available here. http://www.ubthenews.com/documents/EugenicsAndRace.pdf

You of course are free to believe anything you wish, but simply because you repeat a lie over and over and over doesn't necessarily make it true.

 

52:2.12 An idiot does not have much chance of survival in a primitive and warring tribal social organization. It is the false sentiment of your partially perfected civilizations that fosters, protects, and perpetuates the hopelessly defective strains of evolutionary human stocks.

 

52:2.12 It is neither tenderness nor altruism to bestow futile sympathy upon degenerated human beings, unsalvable abnormal and inferior mortals.

 

If someone is considered an idiot, contributing to the abnormal and defective strains of humanity, then I should show them no kindness according to this morally outrageous book of Nazi propaganda. In fact, it says that I should eliminate them—that "the selective elimination of inferior human strains will remove many mortal inequalities". If I teach them then I'd be contributing to the "unwise perpetuation of racially degenerate stocks which have tremendously retarded the progress of civilization".

 

I refuse to be lectured on my arrogance for disagreeing with a book that advocates the elimination of racially degenerate strains of humanity. NOTHING could be more arrogant or sickening to basic human decency than to say that the race of another affords them no right to survive. The book is 1940's science wrapped around 1940's fascist hatred and whether you have noticed it or not, the world has made steady progress in moving past both.

are you sure about that, maybe they have just hidden it better. I seem to recall the ongoing Darfur genocide recently and should we list all the other "Darfurs" since the 40s ?? Anyways, you are way off topic here and certainly should try to understand what you are soapboxing about unless you care nothing for truth. Why don't you address the Hudson Bay science-fiction while you are reading up on the pdf file on race and eugenics; if you don't have either the time or inclination to make a serious study of the revelation? It seems that when you are confronted with something you cannot fathom, you revert to your Sci-Fi Nazi propaganda trigger. Being Jewish by birth and education, I personally find that somewhat offensive, but then, I've only studied this revelation for 45 years, what do I know. Furchizedek, from what I understand, goes back over 50 years. One might think you would be asking questions, rather than trying to do the teaching. I know you are more rational and reasonable than this because I have seen your other side.

 

It is a very understandable and very human mistake.

 

~modest

[Majeston]

snip.....

For these reasons and more I question the authorship of the UB.

 

 

And you should DDuck, it's a great trait, you should question everything.

[Majeston]

It is not anyone's responsability to disprove this. It is the orginator's responsibility to prove it.

 

I was simply asking the question Poly, If you don't have an answer then just say so, perhaps someone else can answer it. no need for evasive tactics

 

Use this for an example:

 

A man walks up to you one day and says, "There are invisible unicorns following me!" You look behind him, but see nothing. You comment on this, and he responds, "They are invisible, so you can't see them." You then suggest that perhaps they don't exist at all. He then responds, "Prove that they don't." When you admit that it is impossible to disprove their existence, he says, "See? They exist."

 

Do you see how illgical this is?

 

Very poor example IMHO

 

 

As for the Hudson Bay part, I misread the quote. That I quoted. :doh:

 

Thanks, Poly, so now what? Just another coincidence or someone throwing darts at a map?

[joekgamer]

I was not dodging the question. I do not know the answer to the question either.

 

What I was pointing out was the fact that the burden of proof is on the claimer, not the skeptic.

 

And don't forget: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Majeston]

Furchizedek!! Is it inspired from the Melchizedeks and if so what made you choose that particular name?

 

 

 

It's assumed because of all the scientific errors.

 

maybe we could phrase it like this........ It's assumed because of all the apparent or alleged scientific errors.

 

As to its creativity (names, orders of seraphic and lesser hosts), as I said, impressive. However, I have heard it said that angels cannot see into the future - being limited to the human knowledge available at the time.

 

No, I think you are correct here DDuck, but since some of these guys just might just be billions of years old and have seen the scenario played out many times before on many other worlds and some of these "angels" have been here since the beginning and are still here they might actually know whereof they speak. Just an assumption mind you. On the same line of thought, in order to get some glimpse of perspective regarding "knowing the future" you might want to watch this free amazing documentary by Bob Sarmast regarding the planning and execution of the Jesus bestowal. The Urantia revelation states that He made the decision for his 7th bestowal at the time of the Adamic default, about 38,000 years ago. Bear in mind though, that this is merely Bob's "theory"

http://secretsofjesuschrist.com/

 

additionally DDuck, as impossible as it is to believe, I find this statement at the end of paper 59. "59:6.13 [Presented by a Life Carrier of Nebadon, one of the original corps assigned to Urantia.]"

It is also stated elsewhere that they arrived about 550 million years ago. There are also other fantastic, questionable, almost unbelievable statements like these. Perhaps eternity really is possible and there just might be life after this first thing we call death. Do ya think?

 

You missed notoriety! Joseph Smith also wrote a book apparently inspired by an angel (but full of contradictions I hear) so the idea that humans can accomplish such things is not unusual.

 

no contradictions,.....no Joseph Smiths and no notoriety except by crazies like me, then again it has been over a hundred years since it began and it remained pretty obscure until the days of the Internet

 

 

 

 

 

I don't doubt Sadler's, and the others, sincerity, I doubt the motivations of the subconscious religious mind, which is always biased. Had the book been delivered to non-religious persons, it would be viewed differently.

 

If I'm not mistaken DDuck, Sadler was probably the formost psychiatrist in America, his textbook was the leading textbook in the country and he also wrote a book about Tricks and Deceptions of the Subconcious MInd as well as a little book called The MInd At Mischief. He also worked with the famous Howard Thurston exposing frauds, mediums and other such charlatans.

 

Although I realize any forum or blog can only give a very limited view of an individual, nevertheless, I have noted that your own reactions to criticism of the UB resembles that of an indoctrinated person:

 

- your motivations appear religious

- you refuse to accept evidence when it's presented to you

- you are intolerant of those who disagree

- you strongly promote individuals you did not personally know (Sadler, etc.), except through hearsay I wouldn't bet my life on it DDuck, but if my memory serves me correctly I think Furchizedek is related to Christy Sadler, the woman who typed the revelation from the handwritten document from the so-called Midwayer. Why don't you ask him.

 

For these reasons and more I question the authorship of the UB.

[modest]

According to Urantia, 987 trillion years ago inspector number 811,307 visited this area of the universe and reported to his superiors that conditions were favorable for the materialization of this sector of the universe. 87 trillion years later a permit was issued for this purpose and a liaison of staff members were sent to organize the creation of the milky way. 875 trillion years ago our galaxy was initiated and shortly thereafter it was populated with stars.

Modest,

thanks for your input. Are you sure the parts I hilited in red above are what the Urantia revelation actually says?

 

I have no idea how you would interpret the section I summarized. I imagine the interpretation could be anything.

 

According to scientific theory the visible universe was populated with hot dense plasma roughly 14 billion years ago. Shortly thereafter stars and galaxies cooled and condensed.

 

Because the latter is a prediction verified by evidence and derived from physical laws—it is areligious and scientific. Because the former is reported by revelation and requires blind faith without (and indeed, despite) evidence—it is religious.

 

You are free to believe either.

 

Modest, both you and I and most other people know this THEORY you are esposing as fact has many holes in it

 

Most people reading this thread know what a scientific theory is.

 

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

 

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories

 

That the universe was filled with dense hot plasma roughly 14 billion years ago is a confirmed prediction of the general theory of relativity.

 

We are all quite aware of the passages you have chosen to stigmatize this revelation as racist for whatever your personal reasons are but the funny thing is that no one who has studied the entire document except you comes to that conclusion.

 

Yes, I'm sure there's nothing racist about Urantia. Why would something calling for the selective elimination of degenerate racial strains of humanity be considered racist? I don't know. Anyone thinking that must have personal reasons for thinking it :hihi:

 

Like I said, there is just no common footing. When things no longer mean what they say then rational discussion is over.

 

you should show us that quote of yours and stop taking things out of context

 

To find anything I quoted, search for it in google with quotes around it.

 

Why don't you address the Hudson Bay science-fiction

 

Craig already did. To support your faith you need to prove that there are no mistakes. Arguing that one thing is correct is pointless. A first year astronomy student knows that this is wrong:

 

P657:6, 57:6.3 When the tidal frictions of the moon and the earth become equalized, the earth will always turn the same hemisphere toward the moon, and the day and month will be analogous -- in length about forty-seven days. When such stability of orbits is attained, tidal frictions will go into reverse action, no longer driving the moon farther away from the earth but gradually drawing the satellite toward the planet. And then, in that far-distant future when the moon approaches to within about eleven thousand miles of the earth, the gravity action of the latter will cause the moon to disrupt, and this tidal-gravity explosion will shatter the moon into small particles, which may assemble about the world as rings of matter resembling those of Saturn or may be gradually drawn into the earth as meteors.

 

You quoted it in the OP. It's completely unsupportable—completely factually wrong. A rational mind cannot honestly believe that divinity would make such a mistake.

[coldcreation]

 

That the universe was filled with dense hot plasma roughly 14 billion years ago is a confirmed prediction of the general theory of relativity.

 

This is a prediction of the big bang theory.

 

General relativity, a theory of gravity, predicts nothing of the kind.

 

It is true though that the framework for the big bang model relies on general relativity and on simplifying assumptions (such as homogeneity and isotropy of space). Even so, the earliest phases of the big bang are subject to much speculation. The idea that universe was filled with dense hot plasma roughly 14 billion years ago remains speculative, i.e., it is not a "confirmed prediction".

 

It would be more precise to say that there appears to be evidence for the claim that the universe was filled with dense hot plasma...via extrapolations based on the observed CMB.

 

Many still disagree with such a claim, however, on empirical grounds.

 

 

CC

[Majeston]

I have no idea how you would interpret the section I summarized. I imagine the interpretation could be anything.

 

Well, my friend just from memory, and I could be wrong, but I think in one instance you are off by 986+trillion years and in another instance about 86+trillion years and in another instance the Milky way is not mentioned, and then again perhaps 874+trillion years error. That's how I would summarize what you wrote, but I could be wrong about my facts, anyway whats 8 or 9 hundred trillion years difference between friends, especially if we're not interested in accuracy or truth,

 

 

 

Most people reading this thread know what a scientific theory is.

 

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

 

No, my friend, a theory remains a theory until it is proven to be true I think Furchizedek just pointed out that the number of stars in the Milky Way has just recently changed by a factor of 4 I guess now it's been "proven" and 3 months ago the prior theory was "proven", or did I misinterpret your meaning about rational discussion and things meaning what they say?.

 

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories

 

That the universe was filled with dense hot plasma roughly 14 billion years ago is a confirmed prediction of the general theory of relativity.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, and I certainly don't pretend to understand the Theory of Relativity, although I don't think it's really all that difficult, but,doesn't that theory make certain foundational assumptions that there is nothing "stationary" or "motionless" in the so-called universe? and, while we're at it didn't I read somewhere that there were only a handful of people on the planet in 1934 who understood E=MC squared? If that's true, why is it in the Urantia papers as true?

 

 

 

Yes, I'm sure there's nothing racist about Urantia. Why would something calling for the selective elimination of degenerate racial strains of humanity be considered racist? I don't know. Anyone thinking that must have personal reasons for thinking it :hihi:

 

Like I said, there is just no common footing. When things no longer mean what they say then rational discussion is over.

 

It's not that things don't mean what they say, it's simply that you are viewing things out of context and coming up with erroneous conclusions. But, of course that's your story and you're sticking to it because it apparently co-incides with the conclusions you have already drawn, and, then there's certainly peer pressure, and this is a very tough forum and I've noticed that Atheism runs very strong here. Really what could possibly be wrong with a desire to eliminate dangerous, defective, harmful genes? I mean you'd really have to be an idiot to want to do that, right? Is that what you are saying? I mean, why not just drink poison? ANyway, my friend, you really need to think this whole thing out a little bit deeper than you have. No one here is suggesting Nazi racial death camps by religion, color or origin. They are talking about eliminating defective genes, exactly the same way that science is working to eliminate defective genes in the DNA code.Anyway, I gave you a good link, you are free to believe whatever rings your bells

 

 

 

To find anything I quoted, search for it in google with quotes around it.

 

 

 

Craig already did. To support your faith you need to prove that there are no mistakes. Arguing that one thing is correct is pointless. A first year astronomy student knows that this is wrong:

 

P657:6, 57:6.3 When the tidal frictions of the moon and the earth become equalized, the earth will always turn the same hemisphere toward the moon, and the day and month will be analogous -- in length about forty-seven days. When such stability of orbits is attained, tidal frictions will go into reverse action, no longer driving the moon farther away from the earth but gradually drawing the satellite toward the planet. And then, in that far-distant future when the moon approaches to within about eleven thousand miles of the earth, the gravity action of the latter will cause the moon to disrupt, and this tidal-gravity explosion will shatter the moon into small particles, which may assemble about the world as rings of matter resembling those of Saturn or may be gradually drawn into the earth as meteors.

 

You quoted it in the OP. It's completely unsupportable—completely factually wrong. A rational mind cannot honestly believe that divinity would make such a mistake.

 

I sure would not like to be in your class and try to get a passing grade, how sad. I think we've already proven the 47 day part which really must have floored you, but you recover really quickly Modest, and go right back like it never happened. At least it's comforting to know that one day for sure one of us will really be proven right, and if it's me, or this so-called divinity, what are you going to do? Say I'm sorry, I was wrong?

[Majeston]

The Big Bang Never Happened by Mike Wisenbaker

A Urantia Book perspective

http://urantiabook.org/archive/science/big_bang.htm

 

http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Big_Bang_Never_Happened

[modest]

I sure would not like to be in your class and try to get a passing grade, how sad.

 

That's good. We are grading your deity on a curve now are we? :hihi:

 

I think we've already proven the 47 day part which really must have floored you

 

I would be floored that Urantian authors could repeat something that astronomers had already used physics to calculate?

 

It is difficult search the internet for publications that are that dated, but here are a couple from 1942 and 1946 which report "47 days" Google Book Search that I found after a couple minutes searching.

 

but you recover really quickly Modest, and go right back like it never happened.

 

What never happened? I told you previously that "47 days" would have been published in Urantia's time.

 

At least it's comforting to know that one day for sure one of us will really be proven right, and if it's me, or this so-called divinity, what are you going to do? Say I'm sorry, I was wrong?

 

That day is already here. We have 50 years of physical evidence falsifying the claims of Urantia. That you refuse to acknowledge this makes it no less true.

[modest]

This is a prediction of the big bang theory.

 

General relativity, a theory of gravity, predicts nothing of the kind.

Since the big bang model is an exact solution of GR, I would consider it a meaningless distinction. It's like saying that Newtonian gravity doesn't predict that the moon will orbit once per month, but rather the model of the solar system predicts it.

 

It would be more precise to say that there appears to be evidence for the claim that the universe was filled with dense hot plasma...via extrapolations based on the observed CMB.

 

Being that the CMB was predicted based on the big bang model before it was observed, then observed and confirmed, I'm quite confident calling it a "confirmed prediction".

 

Many still disagree with such a claim, however, on empirical grounds.

 

If this thread demonstrates anything it's that some people will disagree with anything.

[coldcreation]

Since the big bang model is an exact solution of GR, I would consider it a meaningless distinction. It's like saying that Newtonian gravity doesn't predict that the moon will orbit once per month, but rather the model of the solar system predicts it.

 

Being that the CMB was predicted based on the big bang model before it was observed, then observed and confirmed, I'm quite confident calling it a "confirmed prediction".

 

The predictions of GR include gravitational time dilation, the gravitational redshift of light, the gravitational time delay, etc. (see Tests of GR).

 

The predictions of GR do not include the postulation of a "dense hot plasma roughly 14 billion years ago."

 

CC

[modest]

The predictions of GR include gravitational time dilation, the gravitational redshift of light, the gravitational time delay, etc. (see Tests of GR).

 

All true.

 

The predictions of GR do not include the postulation of a "dense hot plasma roughly 14 billion years ago."

 

Right. The postulate is that the universe is homogeneous and currently has certain density parameters that can be plugged into the Friedmann equation. The model then says what the universe was like in the past. So long as Omega-Lambda and Omega-M are not in the upper left part of this graph:

 

 

cosmologist will (and, indeed, did) predict the presence of the CMB.

 

It is really no different from the precession of mercury. You start with the mass of the sun and mercury and end up predicting the observation of precession.

 

One thing that I always feel like I fail to impress upon you is the exacting nature of GR. There is absolutely no wiggle room. All you can do is plug in the energy content of the system you're dealing with and solve. If the solution does not match reality then the whole theory, from top to bottom, is falsified.

 

A good account of this, which I know I've quoted before, is the finial remarks on the best account of GR's tests that I've read, The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment: "Furthermore, the predictions of general relativity are fixed; the theory contains no adjustable constants so nothing can be changed. Thus every test of the theory is either a potentially deadly test or a possible probe for new physics."

 

The Friedmann equations are an exact solution of GR. This means that if the universe is roughly homogeneous (and experimentally we know it is) and the density parameters are outside the upper left part of that graph (and experimentally we again know they are) and we had failed to detect a blackbody CMB then general relativity itself would be falsified.

 

The CMB is therefore a prediction of GR just as much as the precession of the perihelion of Mercury or the rate at which any particular GPS clock ticks.