Urantia Book - Who Could've Hoaxed This?

[InfiniteNow]

Tone it down.

[Turtle]

"Urantia" says no such thing; but where is your evidence? Quote it from the Urantia Book.:eek: Tee hee hee.;)

 

... But since you find it necessary to attack what you do not understand, why not offer some real evidence supporting your arrogant little rant?

 

You schedule such things?:hyper: Yeah; you have a nice day too. ;

That's the spirit!:hihi: Right on schedule too. :) :hyper: My rant is not little. :lol: Certainly the title leaves no doubt as to my arrogance & we can leave my understanding to the other readers of the book & this thread.

On the matter of not having churches you have a good point about whether that's in the book or not; that information I received from the Urantia Foundation in the many regular mailings of legal briefs & money raising appeals they sent me over some 8 year period.

Which brings up the point of the legal wranglings the Urantia Foundation has been through in the last decade. You see - dear -readers - a splinter group planned to publish just the last section of Urantia that tells all about Jesus. Seems they didn't like the rest. They claimed in court a person can't copyright a book written by angels & they had the right to do as they wanted with it. To clarify again, Urantia Foundation mailed me -and presumably anyone on their mail list - reams of bound booklets outlining the continuing legal battles over a period of several years. Last I heard Urantia Foundation won without actually producing any spirit witnesses.

So anyways, Urantia is a great read for the serious science fiction buff, & the comittee who wrote (hoaxed) it is still at large.:evil: :eek:

 

PS A Urantia outtake & the book online link:

49:2.9 It is quite impossible for you to envisage the environment which prevails during the early ages of some worlds. These unusual conditions make it necessary for the evolving animal life to remain in its marine nursery habitat for longer periods than on those planets which very early provide a hospitable land-and-atmosphere environment. Conversely, on some worlds of the superbreathers, when the planet is not too large, it is sometimes expedient to provide for a mortal type which can readily negotiate atmospheric passage. These air navigators sometimes intervene between the water and land groups, and they always live in a measure upon the ground, eventually evolving into land dwellers. But on some worlds, for ages they continue to fly even after they have become land-type beings.

http://urantiabook.org/newbook/index.html

[Turtle]

You appear to be your own foil;

 

So it appears. Magically, Majickly....:eek: You provided me a valuable clue when you referenced 1904, especially as I recently took to mind to find out what part Aleister Crowley may have played in hoaxing the Urantia Book. Low & behold, what should Crowley be doing in 1904 but receiving texts from spirits!

 

The Book of the Law is the central sacred text of Thelema, written (or received) by Aleister Crowley in Cairo, Egypt in the year 1904. It contains three chapters, each of which was written down in one hour, beginning at noon, on April 8th, 9th, and 10th. Crowley claims that the author was an entity named Aiwass, whom he later referred to as his personal Holy Guardian Angel (or "Secret Self").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_the_Law

 

From the Wicky article summary on Crowley:

Aleister Crowley, born Edward Alexander Crowley (12 October 1875 – 1 December 1947) was an occultist, Freemason, prolific writer, mystic, hedonist, and sexual revolutionary.[1]

 

Other interests and accomplishments were wide-ranging—he was a chess master, mountain climber, poet, painter, astrologer, drug experimenter, and social critic. He is perhaps best known today for his occult writings, especially The Book of the Law, the central sacred text of Thelema. Crowley was also an influential member in several occult organizations, including the Golden Dawn, the A∴A∴, and Ordo Templi Orientis.[2]

 

Crowley gained much notoriety during his lifetime, and was famously dubbed "The Wickedest Man In the World."[3]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley

 

Now we're gettin' somewhere.:)

[Saitia]

Tone it down.

 

 

You're an ***, Infinitenow.

 

No more help for you.:shrug:

[Eclogite]

Saitia, can you clarify your position on this.

a) Are you claiming the Urantia Papers are the truth.

:shrug: Are you claiming the Urantia Papers might be the truth.

c) Are you claiming the Urantia Papers represent a spiritual, though not necessarily a physical truth.

d) Some other position.

[Tormod]

You're an ***, Infinitenow.

 

No more help for you.:shrug:

 

Edit your post or take a one week vacation, Saitia. If you don't, I will ban you. This is not acceptable behaviour.

[infamous]

Edit your post or take a one week vacation, Saitia. If you don't, I will ban you. This is not acceptable behaviour.

Agreed, an *** is a beast of burden and I really don't think that discribes Infynow in the slightest....................Infy

[Turtle]

I want to re-visit the book quote I gave earlier as it is illustrative of a stylistic element found ubiqitously in the Urantia Book.

Originally Posted by Urantia

49:2.9 It is quite impossible for you to envisage the environment which prevails during the early ages of some worlds. These unusual conditions make it necessary for the evolving animal life to remain in its marine nursery habitat for longer periods than on those planets which very early provide a hospitable land-and-atmosphere environment. Conversely, on some worlds of the superbreathers, when the planet is not too large, it is sometimes expedient to provide for a mortal type which can readily negotiate atmospheric passage. These air navigators sometimes intervene between the water and land groups, and they always live in a measure upon the ground, eventually evolving into land dwellers. But on some worlds, for ages they continue to fly even after they have become land-type beings.

The emboldened red phrase "It is quite impossible for you to envisage...", and many variants thereof prefice nearly every paper in this enormous tome. Then follows the writers' explanations of those things which "you can not possibbly understand". Literarily it is a handy contrivence which puts the blame for any misunderstanding squarely on the reader, but logically it metaphorically holds water like a sieve.

As to Crowley, I do not mean to imply he wrote Urantia, or sat in on the committee that did, but rather to set the historical context of the 1904 date proffered by Saitia. Everybody & their sibling was into spiritualism then...so too before then & after, and clammering to outdo one-another in popularity, book sales, fame, & power.

Who can blame the writers? Writers write. Idle curiosity of mine really to get to know them. No, if there's blame here it belongs to the book binders & readers who with dollar sign & uncritical eyes promote this work as genuinely from the authority of a omni-everything personality.:eek2: :hihi: :)

[InfiniteNow]

You're an ***, Infinitenow.

 

No more help for you.:hihi:

Gee... thanks for noticing. You're sweet. :)

 

 

Is this the same kind of love and acceptance you've been preaching about in all of your posts... a direct representation of your vast understanding of religious teachings and texts? If so, consider me a convert! :lol:

 

I, for one, wouldn't miss you much if you were banned, however, I think that you are smart enought to edit your post so you can hang around. I like contrary ideas, just not contrary people.

 

 

Cheers. :cup:

[Saitia]

Edit your post or take a one week vacation, Saitia. If you don't, I will ban you. This is not acceptable behaviour.

Is it not? Doesn't it depend on who behaves that way?

For example, this from moderator Infinitenow to me:

 

Re: Atheism and Faith - 04-24-2006, 11:59 AM

"I'll just state that you're an *** and I don't care to help you any more."

But it wasn't followed by a post from you, threatening to ban him if he didn't edit it;

it was followed by another moderator— who also took the opportunity to call me an ***:

"Saitia an ***?!?!?! NO WAY!!!"

— Boerseun, Re: Atheism and Faith - 04-24-2006, 12:10 PM

 

Immature people with power often exhibit the very behavior they condemn in others; but it appears your moderators do their share of bullying without any repercussions. If you're going to have a fair standard for behavior, it aught to apply across the board. If it doesn't, it makes you hypocrites.

[InfiniteNow]

Here's the link for those of you who wish to put the comments into context:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/6013-atheism-faith-19.html

[Tormod]

Is it not? Doesn't it depend on who behaves that way?

 

No.

 

But it wasn't followed by a post from you, threatening to ban him if he didn't edit it;

it was followed by another moderator— who also took the opportunity to call me an ***:

 

After reading those posts I'd say you perfectly well placed yourself in a position to be called an ***.

 

Immature people with power often exhibit the very behavior they condemn in others; but it appears your moderators do their share of bullying without any repercussions. If you're going to have a fair standard for behavior, it aught to apply across the board. If it doesn't, it makes you hypocrites.

 

The only hypocrite here is the person who labels the leadership of this board immature while acting like a sour child.

 

Our rules apply across the board, and were made by the moderators. Our moderators may have been mocking you but the thread in which it happens was the laughing stock of the entire mod team for a while. Sarcasm is okay, arrogance is not.

 

Take a two week ban for not compying with our rules.

[Turtle]

No good science fiction is great without some schmaltzy schlock. Awwww... To whit:

 

123:1.2 Jesus was about three years and two months old at the time of their return to Nazareth. He had stood all these travels very well and was in excellent health and full of childish glee and excitement at having premises of his own to run about in and to enjoy. But he greatly missed the association of his Alexandrian playmates.

http://www.urantiabook.org/newbook/papers/p123.htm

[stamarama]

Scmaltzyness is in the eye of the beholder.

[Dyothelite]

I will post something better soon but just wanted to make an observation.

 

I noticed some hostility. I was taught in freshmen critical writing that personal attacks discredit your authority and position. I beleive they are called "ad hominem" arguements.

[Turtle]

I will post something better soon but just wanted to make an observation.

 

I noticed some hostility. I was taught in freshmen critical writing that personal attacks discredit your authority and position. I beleive they are called "ad hominem" arguements.

 

Well, as the saying goes, "Stuff happens." I think the de rigueur protocol is to point out fallacious arguments as you encounter them.

 

Back on topic of the thread, presuming the book is a fraud, who wrote it? Clearly people knowledgeable, which may give some clue, but I'd like to get to the motivation as well.

 

Thanks for dropping in Dyotheleite and here's the link to the online Urantia Book.

http://www.urantiabook.org/newbook/

[Majeston]

The motivation appears to be enlightenment as well as correction of accumulated errors and misconceptions of historical events of so-called fact and perception.