Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Urantia Book: Complications and Contradictions


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
473 replies to this topic

#18 Majeston

Majeston

    Suspended for rule violations, pending review

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 07 April 2008 - 10:36 AM

Turtle,

if I were swimming upstream as long as you have in this particular river, my arms would be pretty tired by now and my mind might have figured out that I was headed in the wrong direction.

#19 REASON

REASON

    Reasonably Reasonable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1687 posts

Posted 07 April 2008 - 11:04 AM

Turtle,

if I were swimming upstream as long as you have in this particular river, my arms would be pretty tired by now and my mind might have figured out that I was headed in the wrong direction.


Are you suggesting that he should therefore just give up and allow himself to be carried back down this stream of Urantia Book nonsense?

#20 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 08 April 2008 - 11:31 PM

Turtle,

if I were swimming upstream as long as you have in this particular river, my arms would be pretty tired by now and my mind might have figured out that I was headed in the wrong direction.


:D Everyone knows the source of any brook is upstream, and any gold miner worth their salt knows the same is true of gold. Besides, I had a 20 year career teaching swimming & water safety, and you needn't worry yourself over my facility about water. Reach, throw, row, and go. :lol:

I read your other links, and note they are all from the Urantia Brotherhood, and as I have said before, I was on their mailing list for 15 years and know something of the contemporary politics & squabbles within the organization(s). Quite simply, the log of bias in the eye of adherents, is obscuring the view of the specks in the eyes of skeptics.

Now back to the contradictory complication over the mention of Calcium in Urantia book. :blink: :)

Not calcium yet, but this is some kinda bamboozle passage here that I find typical of stylistic writing meant to obfuscate while demeaning the readers intellignece. Why you stupid little human, you can't unserstand even if we told you. :)

The action of certain secondary and other undiscovered energies present in the space regions of your local universe is such that solar-light emanations appear to execute certain wavy phenomena as well as to be chopped up into infinitesimal portions of definite length and weight. And, practically considered, that is exactly what happens. You can hardly hope to arrive at a better understanding of the behavior of light until such a time as you acquire a clearer concept of the interaction and interrelationship of the various space-forces and solar energies operating in the space regions of Nebadon. Your present confusion is also due to your incomplete grasp of this problem as it involves the interassociated activities of the personal and nonpersonal control of the master universe—the presences, the performances, and the co-ordination of the Conjoint Actor and the Unqualified Absolute. ...

Physical Aspects of the Local Universe; The Urantia Book: Paper 41

No wait!! It's the section right after the above. Let's see if this is contrary or complicated. :cup: :blink:

Calcium is, in fact, the chief element of the matter-permeation of space throughout Orvonton. Our whole superuniverse is sprinkled with minutely pulverized stone. Stone is literally the basic building matter for the planets and spheres of space. The cosmic cloud, the great space blanket, consists for the most part of the modified atoms of calcium. The stone atom is one of the most prevalent and persistent of the elements. It not only endures solar ionization—splitting—but persists in an associative identity even after it has been battered by the destructive X rays and shattered by the high solar temperatures. Calcium possesses an individuality and a longevity excelling all of the more common forms of matter. ...



#21 Majeston

Majeston

    Suspended for rule violations, pending review

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 10 April 2008 - 07:44 AM

as usual you don't know what you are talking about. science always eventually comes around to the information in the UB for one simple reason, it's the truth.

#22 REASON

REASON

    Reasonably Reasonable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1687 posts

Posted 10 April 2008 - 08:24 AM

as usual you don't know what you are talking about. science always eventually comes around to the information in the UB for one simple reason, it's the truth.


Nice retort there, Maj. :evil:

Way to back up your claims. I sure it's The Truth if for no other reason than because you say so.

#23 Majeston

Majeston

    Suspended for rule violations, pending review

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 10 April 2008 - 03:48 PM

well it's obvious the peanut gallery is just itching to jump in here and post some grand words of wisdom about something he hasn't the foggiest idea about. At least Turtle has been hanging around for awhile now even with the log he views as a speck.

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

#24 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 10 April 2008 - 04:42 PM

It's true that it's easy to debunk the story on its surface, and reasonable to do so as well. It surely is a quite incredible assertion, this sleeping subject.

But (and without further delving into the alleged details of the sleeping subject interactions, which are extremely strange if you believe them), does that conflict then translate into Sadler having invented the sleeping subject? Or does it instead translate into someone having fooled Sadler by themselves hoaxing the sleeping subject?

I think the distinction is important. Sadler clearly had the opportunity to hoax the papers over the years (though explaing the content is another matter), so it's important to determine whether to ascribe motive to him (along with his undeniable opportunity) or to instead ascribe him ignorance as he was fooled by another.

Ignorance is tough to believe in light of all the debunking he did of a wide spectrum of psychic phenomena. In his books, articles, etc. he came off over the course of decades as one of the chieftains of all skeptics. This can be seen in his writings and numerous references to specific case details he investigated personally.

So, to expand on the suggested conflict (again, a reasonable one on its face); Is Sadler ascribed motive for the hoax therein, or is he ascribed ignorance?


Can you give me a cliff notes version of teh book? I've never heard of it. Exacly what was written that makes if so controversial.

#25 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 10 April 2008 - 04:50 PM

Can you give me a cliff notes version of teh book? I've never heard of it. Exacly what was written that makes if so controversial.


Cancil that, I looked it up, I'm sorry I asked:doh:

#26 REASON

REASON

    Reasonably Reasonable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1687 posts

Posted 10 April 2008 - 05:17 PM

well it's obvious the peanut gallery is just itching to jump in here and post some grand words of wisdom about something he hasn't the foggiest idea about. At least Turtle has been hanging around for awhile now even with the log he views as a speck.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

#27 Majeston

Majeston

    Suspended for rule violations, pending review

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 10 April 2008 - 07:09 PM

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

as far as the spiritual parts of it are concerned, there is no equal work available on the planet. science cannot measure the spiritual world with its material machines but the spirit of truth can.
when you fail to recognize that there is more than you can grasp going on here you paint yourself into the material box you have demonstrated.

you must think that everyone is an idiot except you. do you actually think that no one has tread the ground you are hanging your hat upon ? much greater scientific minds than yours have already dealt with every single word and page of the urantia papers and the better ones understand not only the material parts but the spiritual ones as well.

you should probably stick with linear dimensional flat landers instead of reality.

#28 Majeston

Majeston

    Suspended for rule violations, pending review

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 10 April 2008 - 07:43 PM

Reason,

you see it's little things like the following which substantiates my personal kool-aid trip of truth discovery. I' ll just give you 3 to play with but in the past 30 years or so I have seen at least one new one come out every month when so-called "science" finally gets with the program.

In this case Stringer is saying this information is just becoming known within the last five years while TUB predated mentioning it by 70 years before that. And was published 50 years before that.
Thanks I love these scientific updates of new discoveries of things already mentioned in TUB.
It is not that UB requires justification, but it is nice to know that the organized science is finally catching up.
Professor Strigner:
Quote:
He explained that the people at Sima del Elefante had made primitive stone tools and would have had relatively small brains. The outside of the jawbone had some primitive anatomical features, but the inside displayed some more advanced characteristics, he added.
This suggested they may have been evolving towards humans which are known from much later in time, such as Homo heidelbergensis.

Urantia Book:
Quote:
64:2.1 900,000 years ago the arts of Andon and Fonta and the culture of Onagar were vanishing from the face of the earth; culture, religion, and even flintworking were at their lowest ebb.
64:2.2 These were the times when large numbers of inferior mongrel groups were arriving in England from southern France. These tribes were so largely mixed with the forest apelike creatures that they were scarcely human. They had no religion but were crude flintworkers and possessed sufficient intelligence to kindle fire.
64:2.3 They were followed in Europe by a somewhat superior and prolific people, whose descendants soon spread over the entire continent from the ice in the north to the Alps and Mediterranean in the south. These tribes are the so-called Heidelberg race



2. You can check for yourself at Karymullis.com and go to his link on books. Kary IIRC won the nobel prize in chemistry in 1993.


3. You can check Mcmenamin on plate tectonics and Rodinia. I believe Mcmenamin coined the word Rodinia and is one the foremost world authorities in his field. He appears completely awestruck by the material in The Urantia papers in just his field alone and has no earthly explanation how the material could have been written when it was.

these are just 3 examples, there are hundreds.

you must think you are playing with children or idiots or sheep; better have a closer look in that mirror my friend.


additionally the so-called Divine Counselor you mention that is so full of crap is most likely far in excess of a trillion years old according to the way you count age.

#29 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 10 April 2008 - 08:14 PM

Is there a 6,000 mile thick layer of calcium on the Sun, or not? If not, the book is in error, and if so and we haven't discovered it then the book has contradicted its proclamation of not revealing new discoveries.

41:6.3 As your physicists have suspected, these mutilated remnants of solar calcium literally ride the light beams for varied distances, and thus their widespread dissemination throughout space is tremendously facilitated. The sodium atom, under certain modifications, is also capable of light and energy locomotion. The calcium feat is all the more remarkable since this element has almost twice the mass of sodium. Local space-permeation by calcium is due to the fact that it escapes from the solar photosphere, in modified form, by literally riding the outgoing sunbeams. Of all the solar elements, calcium, notwithstanding its comparative bulk—containing as it does twenty revolving electrons—is the most successful in escaping from the solar interior to the realms of space. This explains why there is a calcium layer, a gaseous stone surface, on the sun six thousand miles thick; and this despite the fact that nineteen lighter elements, and numerous heavier ones, are underneath. ...


Physical Aspects of the Local Universe; The Urantia Book: Paper 41

PS This is the kind of stylistic language in the book that reeks of eugenics.

64:2.2 These were the times when large numbers of inferior mongrel groups were arriving in England from southern France. ...

You stupid dogs were meant to be bread out long ago. If it weren't for that damn Lucifer, we'd all be violet like we were meant to be.!! :eek:

#30 Majeston

Majeston

    Suspended for rule violations, pending review

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 11 April 2008 - 08:56 AM

Is there a 6,000 mile thick layer of calcium on the Sun, or not? If not, the book is in error, and if so and we haven't discovered it then the book has contradicted its proclamation of not revealing new discoveries.


Physical Aspects of the Local Universe; The Urantia Book: Paper 41

PS This is the kind of stylistic language in the book that reeks of eugenics. You stupid dogs were meant to be bread out long ago. If it weren't for that damn Lucifer, we'd all be violet like we were meant to be.!! :confused:



Turtle,

you know,

I credited you with having more intelligence than you exhibit here. Perhaps I should not have.

You are not actually trying to tell me that the "theory" earth scientists have about how many thousands of miles a layer of calcium is on the sun which may differ from the Urantia papers account is actually some kind of proof of infallibility are you? I'm sure you can do better than that. We can't even tell what is inside the earth past a couple of miles. If the Urantia papers tell you the calcium layer is 6000 miles thick, you can take it to the bank, otherwise just skip it and stop being silly.

You should probably reread the caveats about earned and unearned knowledge as well as the limits of revelation.

Concerning eugenics, you can interpret that any way you wish with whatever personal bias you currently entertain. Rather than taking stuff out of context to try to appear politically correct you might do better to try to understand the issue as well as the validity of the information.
IIRC there are at least 3 papers already dealing with it for public consumption on the Fellowship website that you might peruse to broaden your personal misconceptions and bias rather that latching onto "trigger words" or soundbites to bolster your erroneous hardened position of skepticism.

#31 Majeston

Majeston

    Suspended for rule violations, pending review

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 11 April 2008 - 09:02 AM

OutsideTheBox
is much more diplomatic than I am and also appears quite knowledgeable on the topic.

#32 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 11 April 2008 - 11:09 AM

Turtle,

you know,

I credited you with having more intelligence than you exhibit here. Perhaps I should not have.


No worries; go with your gut. :)

You are not actually trying to tell me that the "theory" earth scientists have about how many thousands of miles a layer of calcium is on the sun which may differ from the Urantia papers account is actually some kind of proof of infallibility are you? I'm sure you can do better than that.


Nothing is infallible and I put my confidence in the amendability of science. Either having scientific information in Urantia is somehow important to the author(s) & us, or it is not. If it is important, either it is justifiable with current science or it is not.

We can't even tell what is inside the earth past a couple of miles.


That is simply not the case. Please visit the Hypography Earth Science forum area to peruse a variety of threads on what we know of Earth's interior. >> Earth science - Science Forums

If the Urantia papers tell you the calcium layer is 6000 miles thick, you can take it to the bank, otherwise just skip it and stop being silly.


That's just plain...silly. :(

You should probably reread the caveats about earned and unearned knowledge as well as the limits of revelation.



Yes of course; more stylistic examples of reminding the dear poor stupid reader they aren't up to snuff.

Concerning eugenics, you can interpret that any way you wish with whatever personal bias you currently entertain. Rather than taking stuff out of context to try to appear politically correct you might do better to try to understand the issue as well as the validity of the information.


I am trying to appear as one who has read the book and who can recognize and point out what I see as inconsistencies, complications, and contradictions. If you knew me better, political correctness is the last quality you would ascribe to me. ;)

IIRC there are at least 3 papers already dealing with it for public consumption on the Fellowship website that you might peruse to broaden your personal misconceptions and bias rather that latching onto "trigger words" or soundbites to bolster your erroneous hardened position of skepticism.


I haven't latched onto anything from others here; it is my own analysis. Before you further castigate me for my reading habits, please recall that I have read each & every word in the Urantia Book. :cup: :beer:

#33 Majeston

Majeston

    Suspended for rule violations, pending review

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 12 April 2008 - 04:50 AM

please recall that I have read each & every word in the Urantia Book.


there is a big difference between reading and studying; researching; understanding and comprehending.

I am trying to appear as one who has read the book and who can recognize and point out what I see as inconsistencies, complications, and contradictions.


you might be trying to "appear" that way, but you have failed miserably.
there are no inconsistencies or contradictions in the entire 2097 pages. It is a seamless perfect document, unlike anything else on the planet including your "holy of holies". If you really think so, then point one out.
As far as complications, the only complication is that your experience; position and mentality and understanding is simply not up to par.

Yes of course; more stylistic examples of reminding the dear poor stupid reader they aren't up to snuff.


I just answered that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Majestron
We can't even tell what is inside the earth past a couple of miles.
That is simply not the case. Please visit the Hypography Earth Science forum area to peruse a variety of threads on what we know of Earth's interior. >> Earth science - Science Forums


No, you go read it. Anything past what we actually know is simply unproven theory. Earth science has a nasty habit of changing their theories every time they make a new discovery that invalidates their previous theory; usually on a monthly basis in one area or another. At least with the Urantia papers they know what they are talking about and science eventually discovers what Urantia has already told them as in the 3 small examples I gave you in the prior post. If you need more examples I can provide them, but I hate to do your work for you. I've already done mine.

That's just plain...silly.


No, you're just being dense and lazy.

You seem to be forgetting that for all the wonderful fantastic discoveries science has made, it is still in its infancy. It basically knows almost nothing about reality. You also seem to be forgetting that the Urantia papers have been in continuous publication for now for 53 years and believe it or not, there are some scientists who have actually studied them and have been using them to make new discoveries. Of course no respectable scientist would ever associate their name with them except for a brave few because the "establishment" would laugh them out of their job. In the end though, people like Mcmenamin and Kary Mullis will have the last laugh. Like it or not, it is still Planet of the Apes.

Nothing is infallible and I put my confidence in the amendability of science. Either having scientific information in Urantia is somehow important to the author(s) & us, or it is not. If it is important, either it is justifiable with current science or it is not.


this is simply the most ignorant statement I have heard all day.

#34 Majeston

Majeston

    Suspended for rule violations, pending review

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 12 April 2008 - 05:03 AM

one more thing while we're here Turtle,
The Urantia papers is not a science book nor is it meant to be one. The science; although valid and accurate comprise only a small handful of the 196 papers. The Urantia papers are a spiritual epochal revelation, a manual for your future universe career towards infinity and God. It should be required reading; eventually it will be. It is a revelation of Universal truth. It is how things really are and how things work. Your ability to understand; comprehend and implement the information depends on your experience; intelligence and faith. Where you find yourself at any given moment usually is not where you will be tomorrow. If you are still hung up on the "science", (present day Earth science vs. Urantia science discrepancies) in order to nullify or ridicule an epochal spiritual revelation, it is a sure sign that you are headed in the wrong direction and you have not understood what you have read nor its significance.