Urantia Book - Who Could've Hoaxed This?

[dduckwessel]

No one is questioning "scientific bias", but one should take into account the book recognizes its own inferiority by warning the reader against worshipping it - especially on scientific grounds. I'm less apt to denounce personalities who recognize and forewarn me of the imperfections of their enterprise. Science fiction? Maybe so, but we can still learn quite abit from such literary works. :rolleyes:

 

 

I haven't come across where it states it's own inferiority. Unless of course you mean that the writer basically states that he cannot perfectly see into the divine mind but is only presenting what he himself has seen and witnessed!

 

The Bible does not claim to be a book written by men (penned by men but not authored by them) or angels, although angels/messengers apparently impart divine knowledge to human beings.

 

Nevertheless, I must do an abrupt about-face - the book (so far as I've read) is amazing. In most ways it does not challenge Biblical, or the Apocryphal writings of Adam and Eve, Enoch and Solomon.

 

However, I was surprised (and warning bells went off in my head) that it states that Michael is the creator of this universe/reality because the Bible clearly states that Satan is the 'god of this world' (2 Cor. 4:4). Although the Bible does state that Michael (Daniel 10:13 & 21) is prince protector of the true Israel and more (Dan. 12:1, Jude 1:9, Rev. 12:7).

 

The unique thing about Bible writings and some Apocrypha is that they confirm each other and I also see this pattern in the Urantia book. I need to study it more.

[Turtle]

...

The unique thing about Bible writings and some Apocrypha is that they confirm each other and I also see this pattern in the Urantia book. I need to study it more.

 

enough of your proselytizing. :naughty: stay on the topic of who wrote urantia as we have laid out.

 

What set’s the Urantia Book apart from other primary Judeo-Christian religious documents is its age (written 1925-1935 or later, published 1955), the certainty of its authorship (at least the humans – though some identities were kept secret, and the human “receiver” is claimed to have gotten most or all of it via telepathic communications with “celestial beings”), and, key IMHO for a science discussion forum, its inclusion of fairly modern scientific ideas, those familiar to a well-educated person in the 1920s.

 

For me, a key charm of the UB is that it makes scientifically testable claims, often in the style and tone of a clearly written introductory science text book. A key indictment of its accuracy is that some of these testable claims have been tested, and found unambiguously wrong. For example, the UB claims that Mercury’s rotation is tidally locked to the Sun – a reasonable assumption, commonly accepted by astronomers prior to about 1970, but now known to be incorrect. (see this post and this one for details)

 

I wonder how William Sadler, a major contributor to the UB and a reputable debunker, would have reacted had he lived long enough to see the UB’s Mercury’s rotation claim refuted? I’m inclined, perhaps over-charitably (as folk like my long-time hypography friend Turtle can attest, I’m prone to being over-charitable), to think that he and others of the UBs contributors, would no longer accept their own work, were they alive today. Those who today believe the UB to be without error, despite such clear examples as above, tend to be “true believers”.

 

i find nothing charming of it and firmly hold the opinion that sadler would defend his creation. this is no happy accidental tale, but an evil vicious intentional deception promoting racism and other discriminatory precepts. :evil:

[dduckwessel]

enough of your proselytizing. :naughty: stay on the topic of who wrote urantia as we have laid out.

 

The desired end of proselytizing is to spread a religion but my studies are not welcome in religious circles! A Creationism/ID forum (The Evolution Fairytale Forum) I was on embarrassingly cut me off and deleted all my posts because I could prove the Bible is figurative. I posted a brief description of the interpreting strategy I use on another thread in Theology 'Interpreting Method for the Bible...'.

 

I thought I was on topic because the Urantia Book is about the Bible. Nevertheless, I will keep to the subject of trying to disover who wrote it.

[Turtle]

The desired end of proselytizing is to spread a religion but my studies are not welcome in religious circles! A Creationism/ID forum (The Evolution Fairytale Forum) I was on embarrassingly cut me off and deleted all my posts because I could prove the Bible is figurative. I posted a brief description of the interpreting strategy I use on another thread in Theology 'Interpreting Method for the Bible...'.

 

I thought I was on topic because the Urantia Book is about the Bible. Nevertheless, I will keep to the subject of trying to disover who wrote it.

 

your definition of proselytize is rather narrow. boldenation mine.

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proselytize

2. To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.

 

taking all your recent postings in the context of those here, you clearly are set on espousing your doctrine. for example:

 

Actually, Jesus and God are the same. God (who is a spirit/immortal) gave himself a human body so he could be the sacrifice.

 

The reason Lucifer was able to make this demand was that Adam (tricked by his wife, who was tricked by Lucifer) forfeited his rights to the real reality and Lucifer created this holographic world.

 

It was Lucifer who demanded that the sacrifice had to be blood but it had to a perfect Lamb and since only God is perfect, he was the only one that could satisfy the demand.

 

I believe the reason why Lucifer demanded God's blood was that he believed he could actually kill the Great Spirit if God's essence was in a human body.

You had said some things that were wrong from the Biblical perspective and I was just telling you what it really says.

 

i read your interpretation thread. if it interests people then they will respond. moreover, whether you stay or leave by any mannner, it is nearly a certainty none of your posts here will be deleted. all the better for someone like me who likes to put things in full context.

 

anyway, barring that you are simply determined to espouse your doctrine & the facts be damned, i get the distinct impression you have not read this entire thread on the author(s) of the urantia book. either way, i recommend reading all 240+ posts & their supporting links & references before posting again in order that we don't keep rehashing the same stuff.

[Qfwfq]

The desired end of proselytizing is to spread a religion but my studies are not welcome in religious circles!

Not quite DD, it needn't refer to religion it may refer to any kind of cause. One may say even a political party proselytizes and one could say you were proselytizing on that Creationist/ID site. :shrug:

 

Duck, you display a trend to assert things without explicitly making it a statement of your opinion or interpretation. This can easilt come across as proselytizing, regardless of whether it is your actual intent. :naughty: Mostly, remember our rule about supporting claims and if it's your own idea you are exposing then base it on an argument.

[dduckwessel]

anyway, barring that you are simply determined to espouse your doctrine & the facts be damned,

 

Not so, the reason why I joined Hypography in the first place was because I have a deep respect for science and for me it has the final say on matters concerning the physical earth and universe.

 

I do espouse doctrine but I think you misunderstand my intent. I am not affiliated with any religion so I didn't think of it as proselytizing.

 

i get the distinct impression you have not read this entire thread on the author(s) of the urantia book. either way, i recommend reading all 240+ posts

 

Oops. Sorry. I thought I entered at the beginning and I didn't realize there were so many posts. I will read them.

[LaurieAG]

Hi dd,

 

I thought I was on topic because the Urantia Book is about the Bible. Nevertheless, I will keep to the subject of trying to disover who wrote it.

 

I must admit that I have not read the book but let me guess what a 'lost' first page that describes the BB and anti matter would be like.

 

In the beginning was the X, and the X was Y alone in heaven along with all the materials to build our universe.

Y created the Z in heaven to help Y do his work and, after a while, some Z's turned anti so Y expelled the anti Z's and their leader from heaven.

 

You could even whip up a couple of equations and a process to match but you might have to mask time with the Z and ignore the area outside heaven at the beginning. After everybody has swallowed this simple X you can then feed them whatever you like.

 

At least thats how it seems to work anyway, for cosmologists at least.

[Furchizedek]

The authors are listed right in the book. And no one should be allowed to volunteer an opinion on "Do you think Urantia Book is a hoax?" unless they've read the book. How dumb is that?

 

 

anyway, barring that you are simply determined to espouse your doctrine & the facts be damned, i get the distinct impression you have not read this entire thread on the author(s) of the urantia book. either way, i recommend reading all 240+ posts & their supporting links & references before posting again in order that we don't keep rehashing the same stuff.

 

Still playing the same games here 2 years later. Read "all 240+ posts & their supporting links & references before posting again..."

 

LOL

 

Turtle said:

Among the many papers in the book is the discussion (angelic explanation) of Earth's formation & conspicuously absent is the mention of plate techtonics.

 

You are mistaken. :hihi:

 

The Urantia Book -- Part III. The History Of Urantia

PAPER 58: Section 5.

The Continental Drift

 

http://www.urantiabook.org/newbook/ppr058_5.html

 

Turtle makes a lot of mistakes. Just on Page 1 of this thread Turtle said:

 

"At some 3,000 plus pages it's no easy read!"

 

That's about 1000 pages wrong. And Turtle said:

 

"The foundation that publishes it generates millions of dollars..."

 

This is false. They may generate "millions of dollars" from their stock market investments but they're not generating millions of dollars from publishing and selling The Urantia Book. Back up your statement if you can, Turtle. How is it that everyone else has to back up what they say here, but you don't?

 

The book also says to readers don't make a religion of it but spread it by word of mouth in little reading groups.

 

Where in the book does it say either of those things?

 

___A departed friend gave me a copy in the early 1980's & in my usual brute force manner I started at the beginning & read it straight through; in 3 years.

 

WOW! Straight through in 3 years! Is that because you thought it had "3000 pages" like you said in your first post? You must be the slowest reader on the planet! The book is only 2000 pages and if you read 10 pages a day you can have it done in less than 9 months. Most normal people can read it in 6 months. Some have read it in 3 months. But it took you 3 years of "straight through" reading? What grade are you in?

 

___Among the many papers in the book is the discussion (angelic explanation) of Earth's formation & conspicuously absent is the mention of plate techtonics. Whoever wrote this exhibits considerable scientific knowledge of the day, i.e. cutting edge for early 1900's, but as plate tectonics did not emerge until the 1960's, it is absent. The supposed angels dropped the ball & it's a house of cards falling from there.

 

 

Wrong again, as someone already pointed out on Page 1. I don't think you've read The Urantia Book at all.

 

I just glanced over the Urantia.org site. This is pretty bizarre.

 

What's bizarre about it, can you say? Can you be specific?

 

___The devil is in the details; I read the book; sliding is strike slip/San Andrea, or locked/Himalayas, or subduction. For all the little things they jumbled together that is right, the whole is still a jumble.

___I arrived at the eugenics conclusion on my own, thank you very much. I agree Urantia is no better than any written work purporting to come from angels/gods/spirits what have you.

___Yes of course I have a bias; a scientific bias. I read the work, I anylized the work, the work is good science fiction.

 

You clearly have not read the book. You must have read some other book. You state that The Urantia Book is 3000 pages. It's not. You state that it took you three years to read it. It only takes six months for a normal person to read, on average. You don't even know how to spell "analyzed" and you claim to be a writer. LOL.

 

___I agree. This book is a literary work worthy of reading. Then re-reading critically, then double/triple checking in order to better decide on which shelf it resides.

___I note one of the writers' contrivences comes into play in regard to numbers. Sometimes they right numerals "10,000,000" planetary orbs or such, & other times they write it out longhnad "seven hundred twenty thousand" such & such cherubic administrators.

___Someone opened the door to Germany, & indeed the Urantia book smacks of teutonic knights' lore & secret societies migrating from continental europe to the US since the mid to late 1800's. Before you say secret societies is bunk, try & get a tour of the tomb at yale or into bohemia grove in california.

___I recommend everyone read it. Very stimulating & the mystery of its authors unsolved.

 

What does this mean?: "Sometimes they right numerals..."

 

There is something just not rite about that.

 

And I searched for "seven hundred twenty thousand" and that is not in the book. Would it be possible for you to actually quote your issues directly from the book instead of making them up?

 

And you wrote: "...& the mystery of its authors unsolved."

 

The authors are given right in the book. If you had read the book you'd know that.

 

___A point of error in what I said above; the number written in long-hand is "one thousand seven hundred twenty eight".

 

I just searched for "one thousand seven hundred twenty eight" and I can't find it. Have you made another error? Could you say where it's at in the book, or copy the entire paragraph or sentence here? I'm just trying to find out what your nitpicking issue is and I can't do that if I can't find your "one thousand seven hundred twenty eight."

 

Why write it out long?

 

Hard to say. We have to find it first, in context, to see what it says. Are you familiar (being a writer as you are) with a book called, "The Elements of Style"? The answer might lie therein.

Well, I beleive it is an esoteric reference for members only;

 

There are no members. There is just the book, and people who read and/or believe the book.

 

a reference to base twelve math. Writing "one thousand seven hundred twenty eight" in base twelve numerals looks like this - 1,000 -. Someone recently told me Tolkien has base twelve references in the Lord of the Rings series; anyone else hear that?

 

:blink: Ridiculous!

 

___Here's another tasty morsel from the book (I don't have the section reference). Calcium is the most abundant element in the Universe. :hihi:

 

That is an interesting statement. Are you saying it's wrong? (It may be wrong, but I don't think YOU can say it's wrong. You're not qualified.) Have you traveled around the Universe in your spaceship and taken samples? Did you know that science doesn't know what makes up 96% of the Universe? Just Google "dark matter" and "dark energy." The are total unknowns and they make up 96% of the Universe.

 

:eek2: :eek2: ___What, no ardent defenders of this mammoth tome?

 

Here I am. B)

 

I'm going through your posts now as we speak, sorting through the junk.

 

I see again, below, you claim it's "over 3,000 pages." What's the deal with that? Why do you keep saying that? It should be obvious to anyone that if you are wrong about such a basic fact as that, and you repeat your wrong statement over and over, how can anything else you say be expected to be correct?

 

I saw some discussion elsewhere on the SciFi genre, & I again suggest this book for those of you that enjoy a good Science Fiction read. Mind you it's over 3,000 pages & tortuous prose :eek: , but worth it as a literary adventure :QuestionM

 

 

The Urantia Book, I think, comes from Chicago.

It's a thousand pages of Gobbledy Gook.

 

Turtle says it's 3000 pages. And why do you write "a thousand pages" in "longhand," and Turtle writes (or "rights" as he says) "3000 pages"? Turtle is very concerned that there may be some secret base twelve (12) Hobbit meaning between using numerals and writing out the numbers.

 

Somebody obviously had way too much time on their hands:(

Of course, The Enlightened Turtle found the Error that disproves the whole damn thing. They DIDN'T understand PLATE TECHTONICS, (spelling):cup:

 

It's already been shown that plate tectonics is in the book.

 

Who could have hoaxed this??? I think the more important question WHY would somebody hoax this???:cup:

 

Actually, the more important question is why ask a slanted question in the first place? The question ASSumes a hoax because of the bias-leaning of the questioner. Why not ask an honest question instead of a slanted question?

 

There are some seriously deranged people hiding in the woodworks!

 

 

Indeed! :lol:

 

___I just re-read this thread in order that I don't re-pete myself, so now on to another Urantia topic found elsewhere. It is reincarnation. The Urantia addresses reincarnation directly in regard to other religions such a Hindu, & discounts/denies those views; in short, it says you get one shot at living as a human. However, hidden amongst the 3,000 pages,

 

There's the "3,000" page mistake again. How many times now? And this guy says he read the book! :lol:

 

the authors say in one sentence that "some" people reincarnate "once" & in another well buried senetence the authors further allow that "some" people reincarnate three times.

 

Would it be possible for you, O Great One, Mr. Turtle, Sir, to actually quote the book rather than simply make stuff up? Could you please COPY AND PASTE the "senetence" that you think you read? Do you know how to copy and paste? You can find the entire free online electronic text of The Urantia Book here: http://urantiabook.org/newbook/

 

These brief allowed contradictions have qualifying material before & after them that say how "rare" these reincarnations are & imply it certainly isn't going to apply to "you" the reader.

 

You sir, are a fraud. Copy and paste the material here or sit down and admit you don't know wtf you're talking about.

[Turtle]

Here I am. B)

 

I'm going through your posts now as we speak, sorting through the junk.

 

I see again, below, you claim it's "over 3,000 pages." What's the deal with that? Why do you keep saying that? It should be obvious to anyone that if you are wrong about such a basic fact as that, and you repeat your wrong statement over and over, how can anything else you say be expected to be correct?

 

you're out of line with this and all your other accusatory postings. get on topic, or get out.

[Furchizedek]

HydrogenBond said:

I think everyone is missing the point. If the author believes it was a revelation, than the text at the very least was a creative inspiration that stemmed from within.

 

___Which "one" of every"one" do you mean? is missing the point?

 

I think he means you.

 

___As I stated early on, I assert this is the work of a committe of authors, not a single author.

 

What do you base your assertion on?

 

Moreover, I assert(ed) these authors do not think what they are writing is divinely inspired;

 

I don't think "they" say it is divinely inspired. Can you spell "strawman"?

 

they mean to write something so as to convince the reader it is divinely inspired.

 

And how could they possibly write something so as to convince the reader it is divinely inspired?, (which they do not claim in the first place).

 

That is why I say it is a hoax.

 

You say it is a hoax simply because you say it is a hoax. You want attention. You want to tell people you read a "3000 page" book "straight through" in three years, even though it's not a 3000 page book and it only takes normal people six months to read it. How old are you?

 

Furchizedek, on 23 February 2011 - 05:44 PM, said:

Here I am.

 

I'm going through your posts now as we speak, sorting through the junk.

 

I see again, below, you claim it's "over 3,000 pages." What's the deal with that? Why do you keep saying that? It should be obvious to anyone that if you are wrong about such a basic fact as that, and you repeat your wrong statement over and over, how can anything else you say be expected to be correct?

 

you're out of line with this and all your other accusatory postings. get on topic, or get out.

 

I am on topic: "Who Could've Hoaxed This?" The answer is no one could have hoaxed it. And I'm calling you out. You haven't read it. You have no idea even how many pages are in the book. You're a fraud. Why don't you find another tree to bark up? You're in over your head talking about The Urantia Book. You know little or nothing about it. Reading it would be a good start. Why don't you do that first?

[Furchizedek]

___As I have read it, in fact studied it, I am one who knows what it says.

 

Too bad for you that I have really read it and I have really studied it and I really know what it says. You don't even know how many pages are in the book, you REPEATEDLY state there are 3000 pages. That's just wrong! I say you haven't read it at all. You've misstated the size of the book, misstated how long it took you to read it (because you did not read it "straight through" or you would know how long it takes if you were a normal reader), you've misstated the book on "reincarnation" without quoting the book, and you've indicated it's wrong when it says that calcium is the most abundant element in the Universe, but you have not provided any evidence to the contrary. And all this is just up to Page 3. You simply make statements without support and you do a pretty passable job of trying to bully and browbeat people who don't agree with you.

 

This thread is my exposition on that study in relation to everything else I know.

 

And what would the "everything else I know" be?

 

In order for other "ones" to understand my analysis, it is a prerequisite to read/study Urantia. As you point out, this same burden is extant for the cogent analysis of every other book; moreover, each book leaves unanswered questions whose exposition lay in yet other books.

 

It's clear from everything you have written here up to Page 3 that you have NOT read The Urantia Book.

[Furchizedek]

___Another pervasive theme in the Urantia is the threatening language. For every statement of god's love, grace, charity, etc. there is an accompanying passage of threatening language outlining the "or else" if one does not believe/comply with the edicts.

 

There is not! Seriously, what book DID you read? Apparently you read some "3000 page" book that took you three years to read "straight through." Did you think it was The Urantia Book? I can assure you that it was not. In fact, I don't even know if I've ever seen a "3000 page" book.

[Furchizedek]

Ice said:

I´ve read the entire book and it is amacing. But still, in the URANTIA book they say the Egiptians saild the Atlantic ocean all the way up north to the Faroe Islands- therefore the name of the islands. Thats incorrect! The Feroe Islands lay midway betveen England and Iceland,- where I live. The name of the islands is Faereyjar,- mening Sheep Islands in Faeroe and Icelandic. This is a mispronounsment in English,- has nothing to do with Faro,- only sheep.

 

___Sweet Ice! A linguistic chink in their declarative armour.

 

It's too bad Mr. Ice wasn't able to provide a quote to back up anything he said. But that's the way you do business too, right Turtle?

 

Anyway, having read the book, I can assure you that the book does NOT say that the "Egiptians (sic) saild (sic) the Atlantic ocean all the way up north to the Faroe Islands." Prove me wrong.

[Furchizedek]

Now that right there Sir (Mam?) is more information on the subject than I have seen in over 20 years! The book itself says 1934, but when I wrote the Urantia Foundation to enquire into the details of the writings' appearence they gave no further information. (This did put me on their mailing list & for years I received the most fascinating array of documents.)

 

So if you please Saitia (Aitias:lol: ) what "historical accounts" do you refer to? Thanks for helping to get to the bottom of this.:hihi:

 

If this hasn't already been addressed, you can read the whole story here: http://www.freeurantia.org/AHistory.htm

[Furchizedek]

Can't let a good rant against religious idiocy pie without taking another sharp poke with a stick at this dog inspired work. So, what little committee cooked up this load of dung?

 

Seems like that's against the etiquette rules, isn't it? "Rude and offensive behaviour is not tolerated." Calling The Urantia Book a "dog inspired work" and a "load of dung" is certainly out of any decent bounds. Also, "If you ask for opinions, respect the replies you get." (That's another rule you are violating.) You don't seem to be doing that, respecting the replies you get after you ask, "Who could've hoaxed this?"

 

Well, I guess you can't talk about that; Urantia says keep no churches,;) just little private readers groups.

 

Please provide backups for your statements above. I assert that you are wrong, again. The Urantia Book does not say what you say it says. I demand back up for your strange claims, and the rules say, "If you make strange claims, please provide proof or at least backup of some kind. If you fail to do so, or the backup you provide is not deemed adequate, the moderators may move your post to the Strange Claims forum.

 

Tee hee. :ud: How 'bout those stories of Jesus in this thing?

 

What about them? Is there something troubling you about them? Can you say what it is?

 

Or the bat race on planet Makeupaname?

 

What "bat race on planet Makeupaname" is that? Can you be specific? Can you quote or copy and paste from the book, showing what it is you are talking about? Is there some reason why you never, ever back up what you say? Is it because you haven't read the book? Why don't you just tell the truth about that? I demand that you back up your "strange claim" about the "bat race," just as the rules require you to do.

 

"If you make strange claims, please provide proof or at least backup of some kind. If you fail to do so, or the backup you provide is not deemed adequate, the moderators may move your post to the Strange Claims forum.

[Furchizedek]

Why would your meager faith "in the majority of people" have a thing to do with your own inability to analyze things, especially as they are presented in this book? I found your "analysis" predictably shallow for someone who didn't actually read the book, but superfically skimmed it; not worthy of response. But since you find it necessary to attack what you do not understand, why not offer some real evidence supporting your arrogant little rant?

 

We know he hasn't read it, Saitia because he says it's a "3000 page" book that took him three years to read "straight through." LOL. And from Page 1 he has never backed up anything he's said, and that's a violation of the rules. B)

[Moontanman]

The authors are listed right in the book. And no one should be allowed to volunteer an opinion on "Do you think Urantia Book is a hoax?" unless they've read the book. How dumb is that?

 

 

 

Still playing the same games here 2 years later. Read "all 240+ posts & their supporting links & references before posting again..."

 

LOL

 

So you criticize not reading 3000 pages of bullshit but won't read 240 posts about the subject? I could read those posts in a few minutes the entire book in a week easy in my spare time. I've read enough excerpts to know most of it is last century science and racist bullshit.

 

 

What's bizarre about it, can you say? Can you be specific?

 

The bizarre nature of this book has been hashed out many times in this thread already either dispute those posts or come up with something new or STFU.

 

 

 

 

 

That is an interesting statement. Are you saying it's wrong? (It may be wrong, but I don't think YOU can say it's wrong. You're not qualified.) Have you traveled around the Universe in your spaceship and taken samples? Did you know that science doesn't know what makes up 96% of the Universe? Just Google "dark matter" and "dark energy." The are total unknowns and they make up 96% of the Universe.

 

Through the scientific method of of spectral analysis we know the relative abundance of the elements in the universe, calcium is not even close to being the most abundant.

 

 

I'll tell you again just in case you still don't understand, either read the 240 or so posts and dispute one of them or come up with something new. It's really quite that simple, much the science in the book is demonstrably false, now either dispute the already discussed specifics, come up with something new or go away..