Furchizedek Posted March 30, 2011 Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 Furchizedek!! Is it inspired from the Melchizedeks and if so what made you choose that particular name? Yes, it's a take-off from that, and from a game I play also. It's assumed because of all the scientific errors. Let me try to explain. This is the exact same thing that Urantians get on Bible groups, Christian Fundamentalist groups, from Christians. They'll say, "The Urantia Book (TUB) is wrong because Paul said this or that..." or "The Urantia Book is wrong because it conflicts with God's Word." And so on. For a long time I tried to engage them in their verses and whatnot, to show where their verses were wrong. Then I realized that no matter what you showed them, the bottom line for them was that, "The Urantia Book is wrong because it's not what they believe." The same thing is the case here. The Urantia Book is wrong, not because "of all the scientific errors," but because it's not what you believe about these science issues. What you believe that your Religion of Science is much like what the Christians believe about the bible, that it's some sort of "God's Word." It's not. I will say the same thing that I said earlier, for most of the things you say are wrong in The Urantia Book, versus what science currently says, you cannot prove your case. You do not have PROOF. You have speculation and conjecture and hypotheses and theories. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN THE UNIVERSE 5, 10, 20, OR 100 BILLION YEARS AGO. You simply do not know. And heaven forbid that you should ever have to let "the Divine foot" in the door. That would be resorting to "magic." Can't have that. Even among some Urantia Book readers, they are so indoctrinated into the idea that whatever current science says must be true, that if there are disagreements between science and The Urantia Book, they ASSume The Urantia Book must be wrong. You know, before science realized that the earth went around the sun, everyone assumed that the sun went around the earth. Why? Because anyone could look at the sky and see that the sun was going around the earth. Or so it was ASSumed. The sun going around the earth model FIT the observations that people made. And it was completely wrong. As to its creativity (names, orders of seraphic and lesser hosts), as I said, impressive. However, I have heard it said that angels cannot see into the future - being limited to the human knowledge available at the time. I don't know if they can or not (probably not, but "seeing into the future" is not the same as anticipating "the scientific discoveries of a thousand years). Bbut maybe it's like the Prime Directive in Star Trek. They are not allowed to give a lot of information that hasn't been earned. But they do give some. The problem is that when it's offered, the science side then says, "Oh, but that's something we can't prove so it doesn't count." Like, The Urantia Book says that our sun will have about a 60 billion year lifetime. "Modern science" I think says 6-10 billion. Perhaps this solar longevity is due to the energy currents/circuits that TUB says exist between the stars. What does science know about that? Nothing. Closer to home, The Urantia Book seems to say that there is another race of mortals right here in our solar system. On science guy told me that was impossible because he said, "We have explored all the planets in the solar system." Yeah, right. We've taken some pictures. We have no idea what's under some cloud decks, what's underground for many of the worlds in the solar system. Did you see those pictures of the "holes" on Mars? Here's some info on them: http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2007/121/mars-dark-hole.htm I'm not sure how many there are. I think they're all about 100 yards across. The Urantia Book says that the other race of mortals are "non breathers." Perhaps they live on Ganymede in underground ice caves. I donno. But perhaps these holes on Mars are artifacts of their previous mining activities on Mars, 500,000 years ago. I'm just saying. I am digressing here because it's late, and also, I must say that I feel like I'm on eggshells here, that if I say anything that doesn't agree with the Science Religion of the moderator, that the thread will be shut down. I really would like to see the moderator recuse himself on this thread. I think he is biased toward science in the same way that Fundie Christians are biased toward "God's Word." They make statements and TUB is wrong because it doesn't agree with their statements. You missed notoriety! Joseph Smith also wrote a book apparently inspired by an angel (but full of contradictions I hear) so the idea that humans can accomplish such things is not unusual. All I can tell you is that if you are in any way a religious person, the best thing for you to do would be to read the book for yourself. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If you are "Pure Science Of The Day" type, then don't bother with TUB. Yes, Majeston and I are "True Believers," but no more-so than the science types or the bible types we run into who are also "true believers" in their own right. I never said that humans couldn't write TUB. Maybe they could, maybe not. I never said TUB is right about the origin of the Universe and Science is wrong. I can't prove TUB is right. But science cannot prove their theories either. They just can't prove what happened 20 billion years ago! It can't be done. No matter how many radio carbon dating you do, you can't prove what happened in the Universe 20 billion years ago. And you particularly can't prove some things if there is a Creator influence on them that Science will not allow. Science has a blind spot, it is desperate to explain things, everything, by its own methods. If there is a Creator fly-in-the-ointment, science is going to be screwed because it won't allow itself to take that into account. Science is like a car going down a long straight highway, but if the road comes to a "T", science will keep going off straight into a plowed field because it won't look left or right. It's god blinders on when it comes to God. Science is a moving target. If you are not aware of how fast it moves out from under you, you should be. It's constantly changing. But there are plenty of people who assume that whatever science says NOW is what must be true. I don't doubt Sadler's, and the others, sincerity, I doubt the motivations of the subconscious religious mind, which is always biased. Had the book been delivered to non-religious persons, it would be viewed differently. Dr. Sadler was early on, an SDA minister. He was also a prolific writer, a surgeon, a psychiatrist, a circuit lecturer, and a debunker. A non-religious person would not have been able to do the job Dr. Sadler did. When you have a job to do, you have to pick a qualified person. You don't pick a plumber to repair your roof. Dr. Sadler was skeptical but open. The celestials picked the right guy. In fact, I heard "they" picked three different groups before settling on Dr. Sadler. They needed someone who would not only come to believe the material but who would stay with the project for 20-50 years until it was done. They needed someone who wouldn't turn the whole thing into a circus like Edgar Cayce. They needed someone who wouldn't turn himself into another Paul. No one in the early Urantia movement had any particular notoriety that I know of. Although I realize any forum or blog can only give a very limited view of an individual, nevertheless, I have noted that your own reactions to criticism of the UB resembles that of an indoctrinated person: The exact same thing can be said about your seeming indoctrination into the Religion of Science. - your motivations appear religious Yes, I hope so. - you refuse to accept evidence when it's presented to you False. You have presented none. You confuse "evidence" and "proof" with theories and hypotheses. I am sorry I don't agree with your science beliefs, but that doesn't mean I refuse to accept "evidence." What I refuse to accept is your bible believer like attitude that "The Urantia Book must be wrong because it's not what you believe." - you are intolerant of those who disagree Absolutely not. - you strongly promote individuals you did not personally know (Sadler, etc.), except through hearsay I promote them how? You are imagining things. I do not promote him or anyone else at all. Is giving you some of their bio, promoting them? That's ridiculous. For these reasons and more I question the authorship of the UB. Have you read it? It seems premature to me, even to the point of closed mindedness, to say you question the authorship if you haven't read it. But I will say that if you are non-religious, it's probably best that you don't even bother with it. Just be non-religious and be happy about it and don't spend another minute thinking about The Urantia Book. Take care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.