The Late Great Urantia Revelation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stuu

New member
* In the Urantia revelation there is discussion of historic and scientific material. At the time of the printing there were statements which were inconsistent with excepted science. Today some of those areas are more in line with modern scientific understanding.

These revelations are purported to have come from a number of different celestial beings.

The intent of the UB is spiritual, you don't seem to understand anything about that.

* Where the UB is in conflict with science we freely concede those facts as the current science understands them. This issue of the age of life on earth is clearly inconsistent with accepted science.


Caino
This is like listening to the dying HAL in 2001. A sad shell of a machine, flawed, and destined to repeat nonsense until someone pulls the plug.

HAL was a murderer, you are an apologist for plagiarism.

Could you sing "Daisy" for us?

That film was real sci-fi.

Stuart
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
This is like listening to the dying HAL in 2001. A sad shell of a machine, flawed, and destined to repeat nonsense until someone pulls the plug.

HAL was a murderer, you are an apologist for plagiarism.

Could you sing "Daisy" for us?

That film was real sci-fi.

Stuart

Perhaps Stuu you are projecting your own unhappiness onto me? You don't grow in love or tolerance, rather "all the world is a stage and you're it's chief critic".

We have tried to reason with you, as you proclaim reason to be your God, but you don't even pay proper homage to that.


Caino
 

Stuu

New member
Perhaps Stuu you are projecting your own unhappiness onto me? You don't grow in love or tolerance, rather "all the world is a stage and you're it's chief critic".

We have tried to reason with you, as you proclaim reason to be your God, but you don't even pay proper homage to that.


Caino
I am not unhappy, but this is not about me personally. After all, I didn't plagiarise from 125 authors and confuse the boundaries between non-acknowledged science and fantasy fiction.

Why should anyone tolerate apologists for plagiarism? Find a different topic to discuss by all means, but you have no credibility on this one. The Sadlers are crackpots, much of the writing is worse than copied, but modified to distort the original author's intent but without permission, the science is either wrong or stolen, and the ridiculous claims in the UB would be amusing if Sadler had not taken himself so seriously.

Stuart
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
I am not unhappy, but this is not about me personally. After all, I didn't plagiarise from 125 authors and confuse the boundaries between non-acknowledged science and fantasy fiction.

Why should anyone tolerate apologists for plagiarism? Find a different topic to discuss by all means, but you have no credibility on this one. The Sadlers are crackpots, much of the writing is worse than copied, but modified to distort the original author's intent but without permission, the science is either wrong or stolen, and the ridiculous claims in the UB would be amusing if Sadler had not taken himself so seriously.

Stuart

Naw, what's happening here is your fained outrage is a straw man, that way you don't have to consider the ramifications of this latest revelation of truth.

The UB knew things that your science God didn't, that just burns you up!


Anyway, you never did present your credentials. You keep calling a man who was often referred to as "the father of American psychology", who studied with Freud, wrote 40+ books, this man you call a crackpot.

I would much rather listen to Sadler before investing in your pessimistic despair.




Caino
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
"The more of science you know, the less sure you can be"​


"Owing to the isolation of rebellion, the revelation of truth on Urantia has all too often been mixed up with the statements of partial and transient cosmologies. Truth remains unchanged from generation to generation, but the associated teachings about the physical world vary from day to day and from year to year. Eternal truth should not be slighted because it chances to be found in company with obsolete ideas regarding the material world. The more of science you know, the less sure you can be; the more of religion you have, the more certain you are."


"the more of religion you have, the more certain you are."


Caino
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Absolute Reality......

Absolute Reality......

The last part of that quote from the Book of Rip Off, about there being no way of convincing others, is cultist claptrap. This meme inoculates you against critical thinking in regards to the methods humans have for acquiring the best quality of knowledge and encourages an attitude of obscurantist woo instead.

The first part, which tells you that you only have to believe and nothing else, is also telling you that you do not have to demonstrate to yourself any objective truth about this god belief. Whatever misjudgment your brain may or may not make about the world should trusted as the truth.

Human brains are highly susceptible to suggestion, and if the defenses against silly beliefs are disabled then that is it: you will look silly to the world. The only reason you do not is that this effect is very common, so while you look silly to me for believing such ridiculous nonsense, much of the rest of the world is not calling you on it.

Cults are the AIDs of the mind: they disable the critical immune system.

I can't see how you could ever call spirituality based on that a thing of honesty.

The UB isn't honest, and I don't think taking its advice to pull the wool over your own eyes is either.

Stuart

My statement stands. I know 'God' by my own experience of 'God',....who is Life, Being, Consciousness, Love, Light, Spirit.

'God' is just a word denoting this all-pervading energy of Being....the universal Mind and Infinite Consciousness in which the universes make their appearance, the unchanging ultimate reality behind all change.

1:2.1 God is primal reality in the spirit world; God is the source of truth in the mind spheres; God overshadows all throughout the material realms. To all created intelligences God is a personality, and to the universe of universes he is the First Source and Center of eternal reality. God is neither manlike nor machinelike. The First Father is universal spirit, eternal truth, infinite reality, and father personality.

'God' pervades the universe as its life, light, energy, soul, spirit. God is the substance and essence of everything. God is the totality and potential of all that is. All there is....is 'God'.


pj
 

badp

New member


....Your world, Urantia, is one of many similar inhabited planets which comprise the local universe ofNebadon. This universe, together with similar creations, makes up the superuniverse of Orvonton, from whose capital, Uversa, our commission hails. Orvonton is one of the seven evolutionary superuniverses of time and space which circle the never-beginning, never-ending creation of divine perfection—the central universe of Havona. At the heart of this eternal and central universe is the stationary Isle of Paradise, the geographic center of infinity and the dwelling place of the eternal God.

The seven evolving superuniverses in association with the central and divine universe, we commonly refer to as the grand universe; these are the now organized and inhabited creations. They are all a part of the master universe, which also embraces the uninhabited but mobilizing universes of outer space.



http://www.truthbook.com/index.cfm?linkID=1000#U0_0_5


Caino

Uversa? Orvonton? Hovona? Urantia? This sounds like an advertisement for prescription drugs.
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
research materials.............

research materials.............

Yeah, and the side effects include a burning sensation and the gnashing of teeth.

Dont think a refereral back to the superstitions of 'hellfire and brimstone' really cut the cake here, but a thorough knowledge of what the UB is and is about might remedy such ignorant assumptions. God looks at the integrity of one's being, heart and soul. - these are what are expounded upon and the true principles of religious living...with the UB. Jesus also has much to say in Part 4 of this record.

Some great articles by Dr. Meredith J. Sprunger (a vast resource for conservative christians considering the Urantia Papers)

Recommended articles -

An Introduction to The Urantia Book
for Conservative Christians


Urantia Book Deviations From Traditional Christian Doctrine


pj
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
learning.......

learning.......

Uversa? Orvonton? Hovona? Urantia? This sounds like an advertisement for prescription drugs.

While such names for certain universes or sectors of space might appear 'sci-fi-esque' or outlandish(given by this group of celestials),...and even if such is a production of 'religious fiction', the Papers as a whole maintains a consistency thru-out culminating in the apex of man's true purpose and goal, of attaining God and becoming god-like in nature and character. The inner content and unfolding cosmology of the Papers are what is important to the over-all message of epochal significance. Only a more thorough study and reading of the Papers themselves can afford a better comprehension, which resources have been provided, if one desires an education.

pj
 

philosophizer

New member
Dont think a refereral back to the superstitions of 'hellfire and brimstone' really cut the cake here, but a thorough knowledge of what the UB is and is about might remedy such ignorant assumptions. God looks at the integrity of one's being, heart and soul. - these are what are expounded upon and the true principles of religious living...with the UB. Jesus also has much to say in Part 4 of this record.

Some great articles by Dr. Meredith J. Sprunger (a vast resource for conservative christians considering the Urantia Papers)

Recommended articles -

An Introduction to The Urantia Book
for Conservative Christians


Urantia Book Deviations From Traditional Christian Doctrine


pj


The Jesus in the UB is nothing like the Jesus of the Bible. Urantia is like the Bible meets "2001: A Space Odyssey" only making less sense.
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
manifold unity.......

manifold unity.......

The Jesus in the UB is nothing like the Jesus of the Bible. Urantia is like the Bible meets "2001: A Space Odyssey" only making less sense.

I'm assuming you've read Part 4 of the papers to qualify such a statement? Dont you think a thorough study of what the papers actually teach would be essential before making assumptions?

Granted, the UB does present Jesus origin and personality within a different theological context and understanding than traditional orthodox theology(Jesus being a 'Creator Son'), the teachings of Jesus in Part 4 have the same essential ethical and moral purity and efficacy as what is found in the synoptic gospels, expounding upon them even more...from a higher cosmological perspective granted in the overall revelation of the papers at the time of its giving. The resources shared earlier are excellent for those wanted to actually 'learn', hence their sharing.

I enjoy a great variety of resources being pretty eclectic in perspective, finding truth as universal, and 'God' as the cosmic reality behind all phenomena. The beauty of pluralism is that 'God' is a manifold Oneness, the central reality of all, while features, facets and translations vary in their dimension and descriptions.

The teachings of Jesus make wonderful sense in the UB, yet are more properly informed within the greater cosmology-context of the over-all revelation. In fact much are verbatim accounts correlating with the synoptic gospels proving their authenticity with additional commentary.


pj
 

Stuu

New member
I'm assuming you've read Part 4 of the papers to qualify such a statement? Dont you think a thorough study of what the papers actually teach would be essential before making assumptions?
I found that if you come to the UB with preconceptions that it is nonsense you leave after reading it (or a lot of it as I did) with those preconceptions intact.

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
'God' is just a word denoting this all-pervading energy of Being....the universal Mind and Infinite Consciousness in which the universes make their appearance, the unchanging ultimate reality behind all change.
And when you then consider that "universal Mind", "Infinite Consciousness" and "Universes" are all just words that do not describe anything real, you are left with "god" just being a word too.

The existence of a word does not equate to the existence of the thing described by it.

Stuart
 

Lost Comet

New member
The UB rightly points out that a rational thought pattern depends on a universe frame in which to think, but the idolatress belief and trust people have in concepts is bewildering to me. Reality is not a concept. Concepts are only tools: Mind can never hope to grasp the concept of an Absolute without attempting first to break the unity of such a reality. Mind is unifying of all divergencies, but in the very absence of such divergencies, mind finds no basis upon which to attempt to formulate understanding concepts. (115:3.2 )

Not everyone is capable of exercising a preference for "God" (the One or I AM) over themselves. This, I think, is due largely to cultural conditioning that offers no way of unifying divergencies. Coupled with vanity, they think "I don't know" and "just because" are sufficient, that they can form unifying concepts in the absence of a universe frame.

It was suggested by someone that this would make a good thread starter:

These are excerpts from Tillich's A History of Christian Thought:

“Everyone who dwells within a system feels after some time that it becomes a prison. …You try to go beyond it in order not to be imprisoned in it. Nevertheless, the system is necessary because it is the form of consistency.

“…The dogma should not be abolished but interpreted in such a way that it is no longer a suppressive power that produces dishonesty or flight. We should estimate the dogma very highly; there is something great about it. But it should not be taken as a set of particular doctrines to which one must subscribe.”

Few, very few if any of the atheists or agnostics in this forum show any indication of having contemplated the Infinite-Eternal — that what must be in order for what is to be as it is — except in a very superficial fashion. Not every religionist has, either. Why should they? Someone not dissatisfied with the status quo has no reason or desire to open the eyes of their mind.

True, theistic religions are more resistant to change than the sciences, but idolatry is a religion, too, whether it is scientism, rationalism, or any other "ism" one can imagine.

They know Thee not, then, O my God, who regard Thee as an all-powerful Being, separate from themselves, giving laws to all nature, and creator of everything which we behold; they know Thee but in part! It is Thyself that Thou lovest in me; Thou art the life of my soul as my soul is the life of my body; Thou art more intimately present to me than I am to myself; this I, to which I am so attached and which I have so ardently loved, ought to be strange to me in comparison with Thee; Thou art the bestower of it; without Thee it never would have been; therefore it is that Thou desirest that I should love Thee better than it.

...When we bid men look for Thee in their own hearts, it is as though we bade them search for Thee in the remotest and most unknown lands! What territory is more distant or more unknown to the greater part of them, vain and dissipated as they are, than the ground of their own hearts? Do they ever know what it is to enter within themselves? Have they ever endeavored to find the way? Can they even form the most distant conception of the nature of that interior sanctuary, that impenetrable depth of the soul where Thou desirest to be worshipped in spirit and in truth? They are ever outside of themselves in the objects of their ambition or of their pleasure. Alas! how can they understand heavenly truths, since, as our Lord says, they cannot even comprehend those which are earthly? (John iii. 12.) They cannot conceive what it is to enter within themselves by serious reflexion; what would they say if they were told bid to come out of themselves that they might be lost in God?

-- Christian Council on Divers Matter Pertaining to the Inner Life and Spiritual Letters by Fenelon-
 
Last edited:

Stuu

New member
Not everyone is capable of exercising a preference for "God" (the One or I AM) over themselves. This, I think, is due largely to cultural conditioning that offers no way of unifying divergencies. Coupled with vanity, they think "I don't know" and "just because" are sufficient, that they can form understanding concepts in the absence of a universe frame.
What a load of bollocks. You are using big, academic-sounding words to say nothing at all.

Few, very few if any of the atheists or agnostics in this forum show any indication of having contemplated the Infinite-Eternal — that what must be in order for what is to be as it is — except in a very superficial fashion. Not every religionist has, either. Why should they? Someone not dissatisfied with the status quo has no reason or desire to open the eyes of their mind.
Please define Infinite-Eternal before you continue to bang on in such an arrogant fashion. Then the atheists and agnostics can tell you what they have really considered in relation to your concepts, which you have not defined.

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
Naw, what's happening here is your fained outrage is a straw man, that way you don't have to consider the ramifications of this latest revelation of truth.
Please replace the word revelation with retelling. In the case of science, the work had already been done and the Book of Rip Off just ripped it off without acknowledgment.

The UB knew things that your science God didn't, that just burns you up!
Not that you have actually given us one example.

Anyway, you never did present your credentials. You keep calling a man who was often referred to as "the father of American psychology", who studied with Freud, wrote 40+ books, this man you call a crackpot.
Yes, and if you recall a couple of pages back I posted examples of his crackpottery.

I would much rather listen to Sadler before investing in your pessimistic despair.
I don't doubt you would rather listen to Sadler banging on about how the white man has been silly to allow the inferior races to breed and that masturbation is unclean.

Stuart
 

Lost Comet

New member
Please define Infinite-Eternal before you continue to bang on in such an arrogant fashion. Then the atheists and agnostics can tell you what they have really considered in relation to your concepts, which you have not defined.

Stuart
Did you not read what I said: "Rreality is not a concept"? That you would require a definition for the Infinite-Eternal serves as proof that you have not contemplated it -- that you worship concepts, exactly like I said.
 

Stuu

New member
"Owing to the isolation of rebellion,
Religious platitude.

the revelation of truth on Urantia has all too often been mixed up with the statements of partial and transient cosmologies.
Religious platitude.

Truth remains unchanged from generation to generation, but the associated teachings about the physical world vary from day to day and from year to year.
Strawman.

Eternal truth
Religious platitude.

should not be slighted because it chances to be found in company with obsolete ideas regarding the material world.
They even knew the ideas were obsolete. That would be astounding if we did not already know they were unethical thieves and crackpot writers of poor fiction.

The more of science you know, the less sure you can be; the more of religion you have, the more certain you are.
The value in science is the statement of uncertainty inherent in it. Perpetual skepticism is the key. As it leads science it leaves in its wake knowledge that has been subjected to the sternest testing and is therefore robust and useful.

I don't think the Loss Adjusters and the Morons from Morontia and the Thought Manulators and the Operating Thetans take quite the same care to verify their ideas.

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
Did you not read what I said: "Rreality is not a concept"?
Would you like me to define that concept for you?

That you would require a definition for the Infinite-Eternal serves as proof that you have not contemplated it -- that you worship concepts, exactly like I said.
You are making the same basic error that these UB idiots make. You think that because you are using words that you are using them to describe something that has meaning to others.

If it has universal meaning, then please explain it in universal terms. Otherwise don't bother us with meaningless words.

Stuart
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top