Urantia Book - Who Could've Hoaxed This?

[OutsideTheBox]

I have not read this book. In fact, I just recently heard of it for the first time. Based on your following statement from above:

 

 

 

If this is the general premise of the book, than it is nothing more than a work of fiction since the existance of god is unprovable. It becomes pure conjecture. This is the primary reason why you cannot provide evidence to support your claim that it is not a hoax.

 

I'm sure it's compelling, and probably has some valuable attributes that include meaningful advice for living your life in harmony and balance. And obviously, you can choose to believe anything you want. That doesn't make it real.

 

 

While I indeed find the Urantia Book extremely compelling, after evaluating for myself your comments above (similarly, through my own prism of perspective) I find, in contrast, almost nothing compelling.

 

Your statement as to it being fiction, particularly without having read or even examined it immediately strike me as highly presumptuous. You seem to be so dogmatically wrapped in your science that you're incapable of even evaluating something that may [or may not] expand your own sphere of understanding.

 

It doesn't have to be real to you for it to be real to me. Make no mistake. I respect you as a person [even in the light of not knowing you beyond the posts I've read], but forgive me for disregarding out of hand your unequivocal statements in lieu of actually having examined the content of the book. In general I find the conceit of such summary judgement sad as opposed to enlightening...

 

Now, at least I've evaluated for myself your comments above before passing judgement on them; which is far more than you've provided in passing judgement on the Urantia Book.

 

You can also choose to disbelieve anything you'd like. That doesn't make it fiction.

[OutsideTheBox]

Of course.

I have no specific questions at all. My concern is related to the odds that an alien civilisation, or a God, would choose such a mundane means of communicating such vital knowledge.

My interest is why any rational person would choose to believe somthing that has no independent substantiation and has, if I recall, several statements/claims that fly in the face of accepted science.

If you wish to discuss that point I would be interested.

 

 

Would it serve as independent substantiation if I based my belief on what another Urantia Book reader/believer also believed? I think, and argue, not. I'm guessing you agree with that rationale.

 

Conversely, if I believed it to be fiction, would it serve as independent substantiation because you also believed it to be fiction? I also think, and argue, not.

 

I'm not sure how you come to view such communication as mundane. I don't view it that way at all. If you don't believe in any religious text or premise then I'm not wholly surprised at your attitude, since I believe it's easy to dismiss out of handle anything/everything with a religious context to it. If you believe in any of the Bible (which I did not previous to TUB) then it's not hard to view the TUB as only the most recent pouring out of truth to a troubled planet for all who seek and actually take the time to evaluate it. Many times prior, including Jesus' actual incarnated visit as a man, had truth been provided to humans on Earth yet ended in rejection. Why would God, if real, give up on the future beings due to the lack of insight/foresight of those who had rejected such truths historically (though not all rejected them at the time, either)? On the contrary, I find the method of communication of, and the truth provided within, TUB as wholly consistent with a loving God who cares for all children equally...

 

If it matters, I didn't believe myself (having proclaimed myself agnostic for years after transitioning into adulthood) in any religious/spiritual text prior to having actually stumbled across and read TUB. After having evaluated for myself (albeit far from overnight), the Bible, the information contained therein, and how that information came to be made/makes much more sense to me...

 

Hard for me to understand personally how any rational person could reject TUB so steadfastly without even having an open-minded direct evaluation (not meaning to necessarily read the whole thing). But, I guess one man's rational can seem like another man's irrational. That much has been empirically been proven by this thread... :lol:

[REASON]

Hard for me to understand personally how any rational person could reject TUB so steadfastly without even having an open-minded direct evaluation (not meaning to necessarily read the whole thing). But, I guess one man's rational can seem like another man's irrational. That much has been empirically been proven by this thread... :)

 

I imagine rational people reject it because it has an irrational premise. I personally haven't rejected it, I haven't read it. I just made an initial determination, based on your brief summary, that it is conjecture. While it may have interesting ideas that seem to make sense to some people, it can't be rationally substantiated with empirical evidence if it is intended to explain our relationship to a god. You are left to take it on faith.

 

Well, so what. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 - 90% of the world population walks around deluding themselves with faith oriented belief systems. There's nothing unusual to me about your proclamations, other than the fact that you feel that you need to make them here. If you're so confident in your beliefs, why do you feel it's necessary to debate them with a bunch of boring, rational, science geeks? Seems like you need some more reinforcement, and maybe you think if this science site can't knock you off your Urantia Book pedestal than your beliefs will be solidified.

 

The problem is, it's still just faith. You can drink all the Kool-Aid you want, it's your choice. But if you want to be convincing here, it's going to take more than your opinion.

[OutsideTheBox]

Of course.:)

I have no specific questions at all. My concern is related to the odds that an alien civilisation, or a God, would choose such a mundane means of communicating such vital knowledge.

My interest is why any rational person would choose to believe somthing that has no independent substantiation and has, if I recall, several statements/claims that fly in the face of accepted science.

If you wish to discuss that point I would be interested.

 

Sorry, I didn't adrress the last point of yours relating to statements/claims that fly in the face of accepted science. Yes, I am certainly interested in discussing those issues.

 

I've read a couple of pointed analyses recently (prior to first posting here at hypography) that addressed these issues specifically and found several of the points very interesting. I researched a couple and determined the assertion of conflict had no merit, while a couple of others do indeed appear to be compelling on the surface...

 

How about presenting those (at least a couple or a few) that you've become familiar with so we can try and work out the distinctions in our perspectives...? There are a couple that I had some difficulty with (in terms of reconciling them), but I elected to use most of my research cycles to pursue another angle temporarily (one that relates to the history of the original Urantia Papers and text as it was first published). I had planned on going back to the seeming scientific conflicts shortly, but am willing to participate in a discussion on them now if you're interested...

[OutsideTheBox]

I imagine rational people reject it because it has an irrational premise. I personally haven't rejected it, I haven't read it. I just made an initial determination, based on your brief summary, that it is conjecture. While it may have interesting ideas that seem to make sense to some people, it can't be rationally substantiated with empirical evidence if it is intended to explain our relationship to a god. You are left to take it on faith.

 

In your statement above, you just in essence discounted the very possibility of God existing since you've also discounted the possibility that a text of universal meaning and value could ever be provided to a mortal evolving civilization. And you've done all of that in one fell swoop without so much as even looking at the text you claim to disavow. If that's a rational analysis then call me irrational (which you clearly have already). Some rational people reject it, I am sure. I am also quite sure that some rational people accept it as an actual revelation. You may not subscribe to such a perspective, I suspect, since it seems you would by definition discount those who do not believe it to be fiction as irrational via summary judgement.

 

I, on the other hand, while perhaps deserving the irrational moniker you would place on me, am much more prone to actually make a first-hand investigation of that which I would hasten to characterize as either fiction or reality. I guess that's just a difference between us.

 

I've got news for you... there is indeed a measure of faith required of those who believe in God. Finally, it seems we have agreed on something. :eek_big:

 

 

Well, so what. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 - 90% of the world population walks around deluding themselves with faith oriented belief systems. There's nothing unusual to me about your proclamations, other than the fact that you feel that you need to make them here. If you're so confident in your beliefs, why do you feel it's necessary to debate them with a bunch of boring, rational, science geeks? Seems like you need some more reinforcement, and maybe you think if this science site can't knock you off your Urantia Book pedestal than your beliefs will be solidified.

 

I notice you appear to have gotten ugly now. I wonder if you realize how much so you overtly disregard the previous factual history of this thread as you accuse me of '[feeling it] necessary to debate them with a bunch of boring, rational, science geeks'? I am debating here because I stumbled across this thread that had been long since posted. The conversation, if you look back subsequent to my first post here, is clear as to how it evolved to the point it has now where I've shared my views.

 

I have no 'need' to debate. I was merely engaging in discussion and providing my views. That you will see when I've grown tired of your unwarranted and offensive commentary and depart quietly. I won't do that before discussing reasonably (in my view, for that's all I can offer) the issues and points raised, however.

 

Did you perceive, instead, that someone like myself stumbling across hypography via google search and who elected to register and then post in a thread of interest to them would be chased off by uber-rational reasoning while pounding their proverbial fists and screeching like a 5 year old?

 

I also noticed you put words in my mouth. Why did you do that? I never called anyone here boring, nor did I refer to anyone here as a geek. To be truthful, this forum is far from boring and I would speculate (again, I can provide nothing but my own guesswork) that I am just as geeky or more so as the majority of those who frequent this forum.

 

Would you like to talk operating systems, device drivers, global politics, economic policy, environment, or some other 'geeky' topic so I can show my mettle in another thread? :)

 

Wow, you also jumped very quickly to call me delusional, and professed to know that I came here to gain reinforcement for my own beliefs, and in all my irrationality (as opposed to your rationality) to see if you (and your pals, is that right?) could knock me off my Urantia Book perch?

 

I must admit I am surprised at how defensive, yet offensive, you've become in such a short period of time for such a reasoned, rational, and articulate individual.

 

One of us has behaved in a less than cordial manner here, stooped to personal aggressive language, and shown themselves to be the much more dogmatic one. I will leave it to third party observers to determine which of us they think fits that bill after having read the context of the preceding discussion (should they be so interested).

 

 

 

The problem is, it's still just faith. You can drink all the Kool-Aid you want, it's your choice. But if you want to be convincing here, it's going to take more than your opinion.

 

For you to be convinced seems like it may well take more than can be provided in this lifetime and in this material realm. I would gladly debate further, but you appear unambiguously to be more interested in refuting outright, sans any direct data, that which you don't accept instead of actually debating/discussing and/or evaluating.

 

What purpose would it serve to try and convince someone who has already written what you have? I've no desire to convince you, or anyone else, anyway. You obviously don't know me or what I stand for, notwithstanding all of the vast proclamations you've made regarding my motives and psychological stability (or lack thereof). Interesting how you seemed to try and make me feel self-conscious or inferior somehow because I believe in God.

 

There is no kool-aid here, my friend. There is, however, a significant degree less respect for your username as being representative of your true character in life... :(

[REASON]

All right. It appears you and I have gotten off on the wrong foot. I apologize if I hurt your feelings.

 

You really don't know my background either. My father is a retired Methodist minister, my deceased mother was a blend of Christianity, New Age enlightenment, Metaphysics, Multiple-lifetime Soul Growth, you name it. If it was on the cutting edge, she was checking it out, yet she was a very rational person. My sister is a Priestess, and regularly visits her friend's labyrinth. I have fairly broad experience with religious philosophy. I do not believe these members of my family are in any way irrational people. I do think some of their beliefs are irrational but I NEVER condemn them. They know this and accept my beliefs as well. I don't believe I have condemned you either, even if you took it that way. If I did, as I said I apologize.

 

Maybe all of this is part of the reason I choose to remain grounded and like to hang out at this site with others that I also find to be grounded. And you're right, I'm not looking to be convinced of any more ethereal, mystical, magical, concepts as being associated with reality. I believe any scripture or doctrine that tries to establish god as reality is conjecture. It is not an attack on anyone for me to make such a statement. It is simply the truth.

 

I've also run into my fair share of so called "believers" that go out of their way to condemn others for not believing as they do, and I have been known to get a bit defensive around those types. I am human, no matter what my moniker. If you feel I've lumped you in with such folk, that was unfair on my part.

 

As for the book, I'll have to do more research. But you're right, I'm not likely to become a convert as you suggested you have. I am agnostic, and am likely to remain that way free of shame, and will continue to promote reality based thinking.

[OutsideTheBox]

All right. It appears you and I have gotten off on the wrong foot. I apologize if I hurt your feelings.

 

You really don't know my background either. My father is a retired Methodist minister, my deceased mother was a blend of Christianity, New Age enlightenment, Metaphisics, Multiple-lifetime Soul Growth, you name it. If it was on the cutting edge, she was checking it out, yet she was a very rational person. My sister is a Priestess, and regularly visits her friend's labyrinth. I have fairly broad experience with religious philosophy. I do not believe these members of my family are in any way irrational people. I do think some of their beliefs are irrational but I NEVER condemn them. They know this and accept my beliefs as well. I don't believe I have condemned you either, even if you took it that way. If I did, as I said I apologize.

 

Maybe all of this is part of the reason I choose to remain grounded and like to hang out at this site with others that I also find to be grounded. And you're right, I'm not looking to be convinced of any more ethereal, mystical, magical, concepts as being associated with reality. I believe any scripture or doctrine that tries to establish god as reality is conjecture. It is not an attack on anyone for me to make such a statement. It is simply the truth.

 

I've also run into my fair share of so called "believers" that go out of their way to condemn others for not believing as they do, and I have been known to get a bit defensive around those types. I am human, no matter what my moniker. If you feel I've lumped you in with such folk, that was unfair on my part.

 

As for the book, I'll have to do more research. But you're right, I'm not likely to become a convert as you suggested you have. I am agnostic, and am likely to remain that way free of shame, and will continue to promote reality based thinking.

 

Ok, I appreciate the meaningful response and agree we got off on the wrong foot.

 

I also appreciate you sharing some history. I'd like to share a bit of mine, too, for it may add something to the mutual understanding of whence I came. Making note of personal history is key, I think, in many respects when discussing such a controversial and polarizing subject as religion.

 

I really do agree with your characterization of many 'Bible-thumpers' (my word, not yours, of course, and I use the Bible only as representative of religious texts in general and not specifically to denigrate it in particular). Many are extremely rigid and I have also been turned off by the type of attitude, both prior to establishing my faith in God and subsequently.

 

I was raised Judaic. I grew up in a predominantly Jewish community and was sent to hebrew school for about 6 years before being Bar Mitzvahed at 13 (good money for a teen, notwithstanding all the ritualistic dogma. ;) ). I went through the motions, as I recall, since I pretty much had to. Forcible indoctrination is probably the operative term... Ultimately, I determined that the Jewish religion struck me as little short of ridiculous and even prior to when I stopped attending hebrew school I was proclaiming myself an agnostic. I'm a Comp Sci guy and a geeky engineer at heart (always have been, even back in high school), and I was alienated from religion as a whole after the indoctrination experience. I had a good buddy in high school and we got pretty heavily into researching the UFO phenomona (heavily for high school kids, anyway). Mostly reading books, talking, etc. I found myself growing gradually more open-minded as to religion over the years as the indoctrination experience wore off. When I was about 20 or so and attending college, I visited home one time and this buddy of mine told me about The Urantia Book. He wasn't actually reading it himself (frankly, he didn't really have the capacity or discipline to stay focused to such an extent), but an older guy (and Vietnam Veteran) had told him a little bit about it. It interested me enough so that I went to the public library a few weekend's later and found one copy on the shelf. I had not yet looked into the history of the book's origin at that time and was only examining it out of scientific curiousity. I think I was likely particularly interested in looking at it at the time because my buddy had said that his colleague talked about how it spoke in detail of celestial personalities not of this world. That intrigued me and I wanted to find out more. Keep in mind that at this time I was a brash 20 year old (give or take a year) with no lack of desire to debate others on topics of interest. My experience with Judaism had taught me oodles about the dogma of organized religion and I was quite literally repulsed by the whole premise [of any organized religion]. I understood some about the Bible at this point, but not a tremendous amount since I wasn't hugely interested in evaluating other religions at this time. It was more the other worldly beings he referenced that compelled me to take a look at the book.

 

When I first opened The Urantia Book and started flipping through the table of contents I remember that the hair stood up on the back of my neck and shivers ran throughout my body. A purely physical reaction...? Of course, I am certain. It quickly became clear to me that in light of the subject matter claiming to be addressed by this text, the book was likely an amazingly brazen attempt of epic proportions to delude the masses. When and if you ever take a look at The Urantia Book's table of contents you will understand what I mean. I must have flipped through and evaluated and pondered that table of contents for an hour before looking anywhere else in the book. I quite literally could not believe my eyes. Don't get me wrong, for I most certainly did not believe at this point. I was an avowed agnostic who made no bones about taking that position and had many an argument with others about their belief in God. The engineer and scientist in me, however, could hardly believe that an author could be so presumptuous as to purport to be even addressing the topics listed in the table of contents.

 

I ultimately finished pondering the TOC and turned to the Foreward. I find it difficult to describe, or even perhaps to accurately recall, the feelings I had as I read the Foreward, but the hair was again standing up on my neck as I re-read and re-read what I could hardly believe was written on the pages. After finishing the Foreward I closed the book before sitting quietly for a few minutes thinking I'm not sure what. I checked the book out of the library and took it home. Once I gathered myself shortly after leaving the library, I believe I recall thinking that I could not wait to start reading and see how this obviously and incredibly brazen sham could claim to address those topics listed in the TOC. I was still shaken by the Foreward, but looked forward to reading more and establishing the ridiculousness of this text that seemed to claim it would address subjects clearly impossible of meaningful consideration. Once I had read the TOC and Foreward in the library I don't believe the focus on other-worldly creatures that had originally led me to seek out the library copy entered my mind again. I had not at all expected to find in The Urantia Book that which I did at this point.

 

I promptly recognized after reading some of the book that the nature of the content was so unique, eloquent, concise, and seemingly informative that it almost defied my ability to attribute the material to a human author. Make no mistake; I was indeed compelled by this strange book and had already decided prior to the 2 week checkout period that I would purchase a copy of my own.

 

The initial paper in the book is extremely difficult reading, and on several occasions was beginning to turn me off somewhat. At this point I was still proclaiming myself an agnostic and was firmly expecting to at some point reach the conclusion that this thing was a fraud. A very strange fraud, indeed. But, a fraud nonetheless. I think it took me a very long time, perhaps a year or even two, to get through the first part of the book (there are 4). For some reason I did not desire to skip on to other parts of it and wanted to continue chronologically from the beginning. The premise is that it is written from the perspective of presenting the most foreign concepts (from God outward) first and then progressing incrementally through the cosmos toward material man...

 

Again, part 1 was relatively tedious in places, but I remembered some of the purported admonitions from the Foreward and would periodically go back to read the Foreward again when I started to feel a bit distant. Eventually, I got through the first part and head onto part 2. And that is when the overwhelming (and largely indescribable) feelings hit me. I can't really describe to you those feelings, for I truly don't think that one human can provide an accurate description of such things to another. Now, I didn't do a 180 and gain faith in God overnight, mind you, but I recognized as I assimilated the incredible information provided that no matter what this book was it was of a sort and of an authorship that I could just not comprehend.

 

The amount and type of information contained in this book defied anything I had previously (or have subsequently) come into contact with, and it defied those other written works by an order of magnitude. I found myself rereading pages or sections sometimes 5 or 10 times. Sometimes because it took me that long to fathom what was being portrayed by the text, and other times because I was just so fascinated by what I had just read.

 

What I had earlier been certain would turn out to be a brazen attempt to mislead by an unknown author with the biggest b@lls ever had now transitioned to the mother of all hoaxes that I, admittedly, could not figure out for the life of me. How the $%#@ had someone even thought this crap up???? Never mind taken the incredible amount of time it certainly had taken to author this thing. Separately, the information provided was amazing. It was written as a documentary, yet often disclaimed certain things as would a great man of humility who was truly cognizant of the fact that he had not all of the answers to a given scientific issue.

 

I thought to myself. This is surely the most amazing, entertaining, enlightening, and downright incredible book (and writing) that I had ever seen or even ever conceived of. And, of course, at this point in time I still believed I would ultimately determine that it was also the biggest hoax of all time. After all, it was essentially purporting (while not explicitly to this point) to be the new Bible (times 1000) and to supercede the Bible. (I was later to learn that it would also explain in many circumstances how the Bible itself had come to represent circumstances incorrectly for a variety of reasons.) The nerve of whoever wrote this was beyond comprehension. Then again, so was the capacity, eloquence, conciseness, and far more...

 

At some point after the somewhat tedious part 1 reading, when I had ventured further into part 2 or even gotten to part 3 (I don't remember just when) I decided I had to know more about where this thing had come from. Originally, I had assumed that the obvious fraudulence of the text itself would hit me like a ton of bricks, so I guess I supposed there was no point in verifying where it had originally come from. But, now after years of reading I was coming to the growing conclusion that I could not only not explain this book, but further I could not even conceive of how someone (or someones) could have possibly written it.

 

I put the book down for I don't know how long. Perhaps weeks. I then began to research the origins of this weird thing that would quite often send shivers down my spine, make the hair on the back of neck stand up, and generally trigger and/or facilitate my intellect somehow to places it had never been before. I was starting to feel strangely about the text, and thought that it was time to figure out who had actually written it and how/why they might have done so.

 

I won't go deeply into the research I did on the history and origins of The Urantia Book for now, since this friggin' post is almost the damn size of the book by now... haha. Suffice it to say that after significant research, and further amazement at where the thing appeared (or was claimed) to have come from I could arrive at no concrete determination of who would have, could have, or did fake this thing.

 

Ok, in case anyone's actually gotten this far I suggest the following for those who have any interest in learning something about the history/origins of The Urantia Book. I did not take the route of researching such things first likely because I really knew almost nothing about the book before I went to look at it and things just developed differently for me in that context. If I was in the position today of someone else who didn't know much about the book, but was interested enough to have a look then I would very likely instead start by evaluating the history/origins.

 

So, with respect to the paragraph above, and also to explicitly answer the original question posed by this thread, I suggest the following.

 

If you research the history/origins of The Urantia Book (originally the Urantia Papers) you will likely find (and come to the conclusion) that only one of two men could possibly have had any potential to have been responsible for the hoax (if it is one, of course). One of them is William Sadler and the other is Wilfred Kellogg. I really don't believe from what I know of history that Kellogg could possibly have done it, in any event, without at least the knowledge and acquiescence of Sadler. Thus, it makes sense to focus on the respective histories of these two men, and particularly that of Sadler when evaluating the prospective motivation and historical likelihood of possible fraud. In doing my research I have come to exactly the opposite conclusion about Sadler. I don't believe, based upon this man's history (he was a relative giant in his time, primarly known for debunking any and all forms of psychic phenomona, along with a devout faith in God) that he would be capable or willing to be involved in fraud of any kind, let alone one of this magnitude. To read the book is to truly understand that it would have been an incredible feat, nonetheless, to actually pull it off, yet in any event I think that Sadler appears to me to be amongst the least likely I could imagine to be involved in such a hoax. There is much more to both of these men's history that is germane, and certainly some things that can be viewed other ways than how I've viewed them.

 

I went back to reading the book and have never stopped.

 

I don't remember just when I stopped referring to myself as an agnostic, or when sometime later I began to understand that things had somehow changed for me and that the faith in me was now innate. If The Urantia Book is a hoax then it is in my view the biggest of all time, and amongst the most brazen ever undertaken by a single man (or a couple of men). It is incomparable to any other religious text and does not read like one. For, in my view, it isn't meant to be one. It is merely the truth, and the human mind makes of it what it shall...

 

I am currently renewing my research into certain issues that others have pointed out with the book (though not all of which are viable complaints, since I've already evaluated them) and further into another and more comprehensive historical analysis of Sadler and of Kellogg. There are a couple of additional issues I want to clarify for myself...

 

The scientist in me didn't ever think I would believe, but somehow it has happened. I believe the Urantia Book is real and I believe it accurately represents that which it purports to represent. I also KNOW that I would never have believed that myself, and I could NEVER expect anyone else worth their education to believe in it today without having evaluated the historical origins of the book and its content directly for themselves...

 

Yikes, that was a mouthful, huh? Thanks for your patience to those of you who got this far, for even caring enough about what I had to say to spend all the time necessary to read this post...

 

And, again, REASON, I sincerely appreciate your previous response and the way you handled the situation. It says a lot about your character... :)

[Eclogite]

Outside The Box, you make several points in your two posted responses to my last post. Rather than address these individually I shall make some general observations on the topics raised. If I have overlooked something you consider important please raise it again.

 

Like Reason I am an agnostic - I would go further and say I am a devout agnostic, being quite definite about my uncertainty.

 

Over the years and centuries many individuals have come forward to offer humanity The Word of God, or something allegedly similar. Others have claimed to have been abducted by aliens, or that the pyramids were built by aliens, or that alien artifacts may be seen on Mars. The human mind seems ready, willing and able to deliver moral guidance from 'on high', or bizarre interpretations of the usual, with enthusiasm.

 

On a literal level most of these pronouncements are mutually exclusive. None have ever been validated by independent means. Indeed the beliefs are often called in English faiths. I do not absolutely rule out the possibility that one of these 'faiths' is the true faith, but see no compelling reason to think that would be the case: there is no evidence for it.

 

I could spend my life studying all the screwball ideas that have been generated over time and still not work my way around to the Urantia book. It does not stand out from the crowd - and that is part of what I meant by calling it mundane. If it is a message from God, or aliens, or our future selves, then God, or the aliens, or our future selves, desparately need to take some course in communication skills. The message is not getting across.

 

Now I do not rule out the notion that there may be some useful ideas in the book. There are good ideas in the Koran, in the Bible, in any of the religious texts of the major faiths. However, I see no evidence these have come from anywhere other than the mind of man.

 

It is the odds against the Urantia book being The Truth that leads me to, more or less, reject it out of hand. It is the odds against this that cause me to be bewildered by others accepting it at all.

[OutsideTheBox]

Outside The Box, you make several points in your two posted responses to my last post. Rather than address these individually I shall make some general observations on the topics raised. If I have overlooked something you consider important please raise it again.

 

Like Reason I am an agnostic - I would go further and say I am a devout agnostic, being quite definite about my uncertainty.

 

Over the years and centuries many individuals have come forward to offer humanity The Word of God, or something allegedly similar. Others have claimed to have been abducted by aliens, or that the pyramids were built by aliens, or that alien artifacts may be seen on Mars. The human mind seems ready, willing and able to deliver moral guidance from 'on high', or bizarre interpretations of the usual, with enthusiasm.

 

On a literal level most of these pronouncements are mutually exclusive. None have ever been validated by independent means. Indeed the beliefs are often called in English faiths. I do not absolutely rule out the possibility that one of these 'faiths' is the true faith, but see no compelling reason to think that would be the case: there is no evidence for it.

 

I could spend my life studying all the screwball ideas that have been generated over time and still not work my way around to the Urantia book. It does not stand out from the crowd - and that is part of what I meant by calling it mundane. If it is a message from God, or aliens, or our future selves, then God, or the aliens, or our future selves, desparately need to take some course in communication skills. The message is not getting across.

 

Now I do not rule out the notion that there may be some useful ideas in the book. There are good ideas in the Koran, in the Bible, in any of the religious texts of the major faiths. However, I see no evidence these have come from anywhere other than the mind of man.

 

It is the odds against the Urantia book being The Truth that leads me to, more or less, reject it out of hand. It is the odds against this that cause me to be bewildered by others accepting it at all.

 

 

I understand your points, and I respect them. I'm glad, myself, that I didn't dismiss The Urantia Book as a screwball idea prior to actually evaluating it. Though I've discounted other screwball ideas, myself, as well. Your time is your own and I can't disagree that screwball ideas do abound. I *will* tell you that I can virtually guarantee, if it at all matters, that even were you to confirm The Urantia Book as a fraud/hoax/screwball thing at some point in the future after doing an evaluation that it would be the most unique thing of the sort you had every encountered...

 

I don't find it a stretch, myself, to envision other life in the universe (clearly, as evidenced by my espoused views) and am not at all surprised that others believe this planet is being visited by extraterrestrials.

 

Irrespective of the religious discussion (or Urantia Book discussion, since it really isn't properly categorized as a religious text proper, in my view), I think if you do some empirical research on the extraterrestrial issue you may (or may not) be surprised. There appears right now to be a notable effort of purposeful leaking by the government (indeed, the governments of the world) as to extraterrestrial information that has long been hidden. Actual military intelligence and other government officers are releasing much information, including official documents, for the first time without facing massive harassment and/or physical danger seemingly for the purpose of acclimating the public.

 

Time will tell whether this is just another wackjob story bought by a segment of conspiracy theorists. Or not... It could also be disinformation put out by the powers-that-be for some other reason (perhaps the impending introduction of new technology the govt must stop hiding due to environmental breakdown)... Who knows?

 

It's not clear why the acclimation plan has been put in place, but many seem to agree that the atmosphere of documentation being made available from official sources has indeed changed significantly. So has the environment wherein those leaking confidential information are not in the fear/danger that they used to be.

 

If you care to read some germane information I strongly suggest the following sites as a beginning:

 

EXOPOLITICS.COM

Serpo.org - The Zeta Reticuli Exchange Program

disclosureproject.com

 

 

I understand if you have no interest, and I agree that some of this stuff seems far out. But, there is no denying that the government has changed its attitude on the release of confidential UFO and extraterrestrial related information of late. The question is why...

 

 

I'll stop debating with you guys now. I can tell I'm trying your patience. It's not my intention, nor has it been, to try and convince anyone to believe in The Urantia Book. I really just came in this thread to add my view that TUB is not a hoax. It kind of blossomed from there (like a bad weed?). We'll all know the truth someday, irrespective of the actuality...

[REASON]

OTB,

 

I will not deny that you have sparked my curiosity. You tell your story with much conviction. I've seen that type of conviction before. And although I know you probably don't like the analogy, I think the Kool-Aid reference may very well be apropos. It's almost as though you've become addicted to this thing. It appears to have truly captivated you.

 

Or else you are a well paid executive in the Urantia Book Marketing and Distribution division. :)

 

For the sake of expanding my knowledge, I will investigate this book and in time, report back what I have found.

 

Peace.

[ughaibu]

I think Turtle posted a link to an online version.

[Turtle]

Mmmmm...while the lion's away the lambies will play.:phones:

 

I think Turtle posted a link to an online version.

 

'Tis true. Costs nothing to do it again: The Urantia Papers

 

Time will tell whether this is just another wackjob story bought by a segment of conspiracy theorists.

 

Or not; but then the subject of your predicate is unclear in that sentence. What is clear in this thread is the premise that the Urantia Book is a work of fiction, and whether you believe that or not is immaterial to the aim of proposing who wrote it. If you haven't already read this entire thread, please do. If you want to discuss some other aspect of the book other than its human authors, feel free to start another thread in some appropriate section.

[rockytriton]

I just read over a bit of the book's forward and one thing I can tell you almost for certain, it's most likely written by freemasons, it really has a lot of masonic phrases in it. No, I'm not one of those conspiracy theorists, I'm a freemason myself.

[OutsideTheBox]

Mmmmm...while the lion's away the lambies will play.:)

 

 

 

'Tis true. Costs nothing to do it again: The Urantia Papers

 

 

 

Or not; but then the subject of your predicate is unclear in that sentence. What is clear in this thread is the premise that the Urantia Book is a work of fiction, and whether you believe that or not is immaterial to the aim of proposing who wrote it. If you haven't already read this entire thread, please do. If you want to discuss some other aspect of the book other than its human authors, feel free to start another thread in some appropriate section.

 

 

Sorry, the conversation did indeed veer from that original narrow scope. In my defense, I didn't really recognize the seeming constraint of scope until recently (perhaps having to do with being a newcomer to hypography).

 

I did, in fact, speak directly to the OP question, though I couldn't blame you if you missed where I did that amongst all of the other debate. And I did read the entire thread prior to posting initially...

 

Ok, so to rehash, and in the light of my being very schooled at this point on both the text itself as well as the history/origins of TUB: There are two men in my view who could have hoaxed it. Or at least, it could not have been hoaxed by any other or by any group without the direct participation and knowledge of one or both of the following men.

 

1.) William Sadler

2.) Wilfred Kellogg

 

If anyone is truly interested in evaluating their respective life histories, potentials of motive, etc. then there is the information to start with...

 

For those who have continued interest in more information on the history/origins I'm glad to carry on further conversation in another thread if someone starts it.

[Turtle]

...Ok, so to rehash, and in the light of my being very schooled at this point on both the text itself as well as the history/origins of TUB: There are two men in my view who could have hoaxed it. Or at least, it could not have been hoaxed by any other or by any group without the direct participation and knowledge of one or both of the following men.

 

1.) William Sadler

2.) Wilfred Kellogg

 

Now we're cookin'! Thanks for drifting back. I suggest the following edit of the bolded phrase: '...without the direct participation and/or knowledge...' This allows then that these fellas participated, but that they mave have done so unwittingly. Do you think they had motive, and if so what?

 

I just read over a bit of the book's forward and one thing I can tell you almost for certain, it's most likely written by freemasons, it really has a lot of masonic phrases in it. No, I'm not one of those conspiracy theorists, I'm a freemason myself.

 

I haven't heard that before! Please elaborate. What phrases in particular? How are they applied in Masonic practice? Do you know if Sadler or Kellogg were Masons? Feeeeed me! :)

 

For those who have continued interest in more information on the history/origins I'm glad to carry on further conversation in another thread if someone starts it.

 

By all means you be the one. You have enough posts to start a thread, and if you start it you can craft the title/topic to reflect just the nuance you wish to discuss as long as it isn't proselytization.

[OutsideTheBox]

Now we're cookin'! Thanks for drifting back. I suggest the following edit of the bolded phrase: '...without the direct participation and/or knowledge...' This allows then that these fellas participated, but that they mave have done so unwittingly. Do you think they had motive, and if so what?

 

You know, ironically, I truly originally wrote and/or then went back and changed it after further consideration before posting. I don't believe TUB could have been hoaxed without the knowledge of one of them. And having knowledge would directly represent participation. So, no, it's not possible in my view, knowing what I do of history (and I've read much of it - though I'm continuing to do so), that both of them would have been unwitting of the hoax.

 

I haven't heard that before! Please elaborate. What phrases in particular? How are they applied in Masonic practice? Do you know if Sadler or Kellogg were Masons? Feeeeed me! :)

 

Neither were Freemasons that I am aware of, though I continue to learn more about Kellogg's history (having focused on Sadler to this point since he was really the central figure in the Urantia Papers). Historically, Sadler was extremely close to Kellogg's brother (J.H. Kellogg) for many years before they had a falling out. Actually both Sadler and Wilfred Kellogg had a falling out (separately, and for different reasons) with J.H. Kellogg.

 

Sadler was not a Freemason and, again, I've seen no history to suggest that Kellogg was. Sadler was for many years a hardcore believer (and major player, though not so much in a spiritual sense as a medical sense in administering care to the public) in the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) movement. He later became disillusioned with all of the infighting in the SDA and [some say] the visions of E.G. White (who he greatly respected). He was a man of great faith, but he was in it more so, apparently, for the commitment to provide medical care to the public masses as opposed to the overwhelming desire to spread the doctrine. But, by all accounts that I've been able to locate, he was an umambiguously honest, decent, and righteous individual who *seemingly* paid great attention to helping his fellow man.

 

The two biggest influences on him in life clearly appear to have been E.G. White (the spiritual leader and co-founder of the SDAs) and J.H Kellogg (the cereal baron whose brother, Wilfred, disagreed with him as to the direction he was taking the newly created cereal empire).

 

Strangely, there are certain things in the Urantia Book that would make an SDA puke (and in all likelihood, I suspect, thus constitute absolute heresy and probable divine damnation from the perspective of believing SDAs). How Sadler would ever have turned the corner from the SDA beliefs, along with the other history I know about him, to writing some of the things that are in the Urantia Book is something that's difficult to reconcile (at least, for me). Some things in the book do indeed jibe with certain of his historical views, but others seem to disagree wholesale...

 

There are several good historical evaluations of Sadler available online. The one I'm reading right now is by Ernest Moyer ('The Birth of a Divine Revelation'). Another one that outright debunks TUB is by Martin Gardner ('The Great Cult Mystery'), and there is an additional one by Larry Mullins.

 

Moyer's is the best I've found so far in terms of detailing and substantiating Sadler's personal history with the SDA movement (which I find to be amongst the most compelling areas of interest for evaluating whether he might have decided to hoax the book).

 

 

By all means you be the one. You have enough posts to start a thread, and if you start it you can craft the title/topic to reflect just the nuance you wish to discuss as long as it isn't proselytization.

 

I wouldn't proselytize (believe or not, after reading this thread)... :shrug: Though, debating and sharing viewpoints is never an issue for me.

 

No sense starting another unless others are genuinely interested...

[Turtle]

You know, ironically, I truly originally wrote and/or then went back and changed it after further consideration before posting. I don't believe TUB could have been hoaxed without the knowledge of one of them. And having knowledge would directly represent participation. So, no, it's not possible in my view, knowing what I do of history (and I've read much of it - though I'm continuing to do so), that both of them would have been unwitting of the hoax.

 

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive. :D

 

 

...Strangely, there are certain things in the Urantia Book that would make an SDA puke (and in all likelihood, I suspect, thus constitute absolute heresy and probable divine damnation from the perspective of believing SDAs). How Sadler would ever have turned the corner from the SDA beliefs, along with the other history I know about him, to writing some of the things that are in the Urantia Book is something that's difficult to reconcile (at least, for me). Some things in the book do indeed jibe with certain of his historical views, but others seem to disagree wholesale...

 

I would simply suggest this apparent divisiveness is no more than a writer's device for obfuscation of the author's identity. There is a lot in the book that I find good plot in a fiction, but make me puke when otherwise classified.

 

No sense starting another unless others are genuinely interested...

 

The way I approach it is to start a thread and then get a feel for the interest based on responses. :phones: