The Late Great Urantia Revelation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Caino

BANNED
Banned
DR. WILLIAM S. SADLER
By Meredith J. Sprunger

"It was my good fortune to know Dr. William S. Sadler as a personal friend and colleague for more than a decade in the early days of the dissemination of the teachings of The Urantia Book and I was honored to serve as the officiating minister at his Memorial Service. Although Dr. Sadler was an extraordinary person with great talents and diverse experience in serving humankind, he was also a warm and loving person with a great sense of humor.

Dr. Sadler's experience throughout life was in many way unique preparing him to serve as a pioneer in the fields of medicine, psychiatry, and religion. As a boy he was not allowed to attend public school, after the death of his sister, because his parents were afraid he too might catch a communicable disease. Thus, he received most of his formal education from his parents, tutors, and through his own initiative.

While living in Wabash, Indiana, he spent much time listening to a relative, General McNaught, one time chief of scouts to General U. S. Grant, tell stories about the Civil War. Further exposure to history came from the library of General Lew Wallace, a close neighbor, who at the time was writing Ben Hur. Very early Sadler exhibited public speaking abilities. His first formal speech was given at the age of eight when he addressed a high school commencement in Indianapolis on "The Crucial Battles of History."

At fourteen he left home and moved to Battle Creek, Michigan where he started working at the renowned Battle Creek Sanitarium headed by Dr. John Harvey Kellogg. Here, before and after work, he attended Battle Creek College and organized a group of students to study rhetoric and Latin. During a visit to Fort Wayne, Indiana the minister of a Christian Church discovered his remarkable knowledge of the Bible and speaking ability and asked him to supply his pulpit during a two week vacation. His preaching was so effective he received many letters of commendation and the local news paper, referring to his unusual abilities, called him "the boy preacher." When Dr. Kellogg's brother, William K. Kellogg, began manufacturing health foods Sadler was employed as a salesman to grocery stores. He was so successful the factory had trouble keeping up with his orders.

In 1895 Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, founder of the Chicago Medical Mission, sent Sadler to Chicago as director of the Medical Mission. Here Sadler was engaged in teaching, speaking, and working with "skid row" people. He initiated and edited a magazine which reached a circulation of 150,000 copies and managed a large financial budget. While carrying this heavy work schedule, Sadler also took training at the Moody Bible Institute and graduated with the highest grades in the history of the school.

Young Sadler sought training in speech at the University of Chicago and a lady professor after hearing his first speech said, "Get out of here. I can't teach you anything. You're very bad; your gestures are atrocious. But you are so effective I wouldn't change anything about you. I'll ruin you if I change you." Many years later when Dr. Sadler delivered a commencement address at the University of Chicago, she came up afterwards and said, "You're just as bad as ever, but so damn effective. You can just hold an audience spellbound; I'm so glad that we didn't change you."

Following his marriage to Lena Kellogg and the death of their first child, both Sadlers enrolled in the Cooper Medical College at San Francisco. While in medical school Sadler was asked to teach Exegetical Theology at the Seventh Day Adventist Seminary in San Francisco. In order to teach, he was required to be ordained in the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Later Sadler financed their medical training in special detective work. Because of his daring and successful exploits as an investigator, he was offered the top executive position in the government agency which became the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

After graduation from medical school the Sadlers began their medical practice together. Over the years many people and organizations sought Dr. Sadler's organizational ability. He became a leading figure in the popularization of preventive medicine in the country. In 1911 he gave up surgery to enter into psychiatry and went to Europe to study under Freud.

Dr. Sadler served as a professor in the Post Graduate School of Medicine at the University of Chicago and taught a course in Pastoral Counseling at McCormick Theological Seminary for twenty- five years. He was a popular lecturer at Lyceum and Chautauqua meetings and authored forty-two books and many magazine and journal articles.

Although Dr. Sadler had an outstanding career as a physician, teacher, speaker, and writer, he considered his most important contribution to our world was his leadership of a little known group called "The Forum" which received the Urantia Papers and published The Urantia Book."



Caino
 

Stuu

New member
False -

The 2 articles HERE deal specifically with the claims of plagarism and human sources that the celestials freely admit was used in their presentation.
No, your link leads not to any articles but to a page on some forum called TOL.

It's not just the Sadler and Kellogg crackpots who had problems with referencing by the look of it.

At least you attempted it.

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
Stuu, what are your credentials for calling Saddler a "crackpot" ? Here is his bio, what's yours?

Dr. William S Sadler


Professional background

Sadler was a professor at the Post-Graduate Medical School of Chicago, consulting psychiatrist at Columbus Hospital, and for over twenty-five years, a professor and chairman of the department of pastoral psychology at McCormick Theological Seminary. He held memberships in the following associations: Life Fellow, American College of Surgeons; Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Fellow, American Medical Association; Fellow, American Psychiatric Association; Member, American Psychopathological Association; Member Illinois Psychiatric Association; Member; Chicago Society for Personality Study; Member, Chicago Medical Society; Member, Illinois State Medical Society; Board member, W. K. Kellogg Foundation; National Association of Authors and Journalists; founder member and governing board, Gorgas Memorial Institute in Tropical and Preventive Medicine. He was a professor at the Post-Graduate Medical School of Chicago, director of the Chicago Institute of Research and Diagnosis, consulting psychiatrist at Columbus Hospital, and for thirty years, a lecturer in Pastoral Counseling at McCormick Theological Seminary. As a pioneer he interested ministers in improving their work of personal counseling through profiting by the experience of psychiatric practice.

Sadler was a humorous orator and was a member of the Eugene Field Society, the National Association of Authors and Journalists, and International Mark Twain Society. He was a fantastic story teller and could take the roof off a building with laughter when he got going. As was common practice for those associated with the Battle Creek Sanitarium, the Sadlers were speakers for the Chautauqua assemblies, introducing the modern concepts of mental medicine and physical hygiene for the prevention of disease. For many years, at the Chicago Institute, Sadler taught clinics for physicians, ministers, and laity that covered the entire field of mental medicine that he liked to term "personology." Writing more than 42 books and numerous magazine articles, he authored such works as: Theory and Practice of Psychiatry, Psychiatric Nursing, The Mind at Mischief, Growing Out of Babyhood, Piloting Modern Youth, and The Quest for Happiness.
Sadler did not adhere to purely mechanistic or materialistic views of psychology and psychiatry and was a consistent advocate of broad and rational principles of psychiatry; he was among early American psychiatrists who placed an emphasis upon the importance of the preventive aspects of mental hygiene.[2]
This is from Wikipedia, you failed to acknowledge. What is it with you UB crackpots and referencing? Is it against the rules of your cult?

You can lay money down that this page has been written by a UB fanatic. Probably there are very few people with either the motivation or the knowledge to dispute and correct the page, and as it is a biography of a person who tried to start a cult, I'm afraid I'm not that impressed by it.

Stuart
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
hello?

hello?

No, your link leads not to any articles but to a page on some forum called TOL.

It's not just the Sadler and Kellogg crackpots who had problems with referencing by the look of it.

At least you attempted it.

Stuart

My link is to a single-view post with 2 live links in that post. Do you not know how to recognize live links (they are text that are underlined) and can be accessed by placing your cursor over them and "clicking"???? I 'couch' the live link in the text-title describing that very article. Look again - see the underlined blue text. If your not aware of this, its no wonder you are not accessing the articles. Move your cursor over the underlined text, - usually a little hand will appear, which indicates that its a live link. :sherlock:
Lets try again Here


pj
 

Stuu

New member
Eugenics in William Sadler’s writing, from Psychiatric Nursing:

“If the civilized races continue to be so highly sentimental respecting the preservation of the weak and the unfit and continue to allow them to breed indiscriminately, eventually, with the passing centuries, psychiatry will become of increasing importance as regards its practice by physicians and its nursing problems must be met by the general and the psychiatric nurse.”

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?u=1&num=0&seq=26&view=image&size=100&id=mdp.39015009657761

Here’s the excuse Sadler gave for not putting references in The science of living; or, The art of keeping well:

“The largeness of the scope of this work necessarily enforces brevity, therefore references and citations are largely omitted. The writer has freely consulted the latest standard medical text-books on Physiology and Hygiene, although much of the matter appearing in this volume is drawn from his own lectures…

…His aim is to present a practical, sane, and sensible method of living the Simple Life – free from fads and the teachings of fanatical extremists.”


http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?...;page=root;view=image;size=100;seq=15;num=vii

…free from the teachings of fanatical extremists… ironic, given his UB adventures later, eh.


Example of the “professional” crackpottery of both the Sadlers, probably religiously derived, an extract from their book The Mother and Her Child:

“And just here let us add that while masturbation is an unclean habit, an impure habit, and a thing altogether to be shunned, we would not be honest to ourselves and to our readers if we did not explain that under no circumstances does it make foolish minds out of sound minds or insane minds out of sane minds. If your boy or your girl is going to grow up to be foolish or insane he had a through ticket for the feebleminded institution or the insane asylum when he was born into the world. The time when masturbation does affect the mind of the child is when the mind awakens to the fact that it is allowing an abnormal, unclean, or filthy habit to dominate mind, soul, and body, and then, and usually not until then, does this bad habit begin to cause mental depression and a host of other symptoms that so often accompany masturbation.”

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20817/20817-h/20817-h.htm


But of course all these examples are pretty much of their time. What sets Sadler apart is this kind of writing:

“987,000,000,000 years ago associate force organizer and then acting inspector number 811,307 of the Orvonton series, traveling out from Uversa, reported to the Ancients of Days that space conditions were favorable for the initiation of materialization phenomena in a certain sector of the, then, easterly segment of Orvonton.”

“Subsequent to the birth of the solar system a period of diminishing solar disgorgement ensued. Decreasingly, for another five hundred thousand years, the sun continued to pour forth diminishing volumes of matter into surrounding space. But during these early times of erratic orbits, when the surrounding bodies made their nearest approach to the sun, the solar parent was able to recapture a large portion of this meteoric material.”


http://www.urantia.org/en/urantia-book-standardized/paper-57-origin-urantia

Apart from being crackpot nonsense, it is also wrong.



Here’s irony:

“In 1905, Sadler left the Church entirely and was excommunicated in 1906. Prior to his expulsion, Sadler wrote a letter to Sister White, wherein he began questioning her authenticity as a prophetess in light of plagiarism discovered in her writings.”

http://thenewagefiles.blogsome.com/2009/03/01/dr-william-s-sadler/


Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
My link is to a single-view post with 2 live links in that post. Do you not know how to recognize live links (they are text that are underlined) and can be accessed by placing your cursor over them and "clicking"???? I 'couch' the live link in the text-title describing that very article. Look again - see the underlined blue text. If your not aware of this, its no wonder you are not accessing the articles. Move your cursor over the underlined text, - usually a little hand will appear, which indicates that its a live link. :sherlock:
Lets try again Here


pj
I don't need patronising. I need to be told what POINT you are trying to make by posting this reference, and a link that leads directly to the text that supports this point.

I can see why you are enamoured by this plagiaristic book. You have no concept of the point of referencing, and no skill at it either.

Please see my last post for an example of what I expect from you.

Don't ask me to read whole articles to find the points you are trying to make...unless you don't really know exactly what point it is you are trying to make but think I will be impressed or put off by the mere title of an article. That's how it seems to me at the moment.

Stuart
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
This is from Wikipedia, you failed to acknowledge. What is it with you UB crackpots and referencing? Is it against the rules of your cult?

You can lay money down that this page has been written by a UB fanatic. Probably there are very few people with either the motivation or the knowledge to dispute and correct the page, and as it is a biography of a person who tried to start a cult, I'm afraid I'm not that impressed by it.

Stuart

LOL! Yea, I didn't think you could. Same bs excuse, same angry blow-hard. You're like a five year old Stuu. Your humanist, shifting God of science, the awe of the scenic overlook, has nothing remotely comparable to the philosophy, cosmology and spirituality of the UB.You don't even seem to understand the book.


Caino
 

Stuu

New member
LOL! Yea, I didn't think you could.
Didn't think I could do what?

Same bs excuse, same angry blow-hard.
No, reasoned argument actually. Which I note you do not have in turn. It doesn't appear that I am particularly the angry one. But then that is what mindless adherence to a cult of plagiaristic and poorly-written sci-fi is likely to produce: irrational defense of it.

You're like a five year old Stuu. Your humanist, shifting God of science, the awe of the scenic overlook, has nothing remotely comparable to the philosophy, cosmology and spirituality of the UB.You don't even seem to understand the book.
I agree that your lame book is not remotely comparable to my spirituality. I believe, based on the evidence, that I live on a planet that is a touch over 4.5 billion years old. Your book says the earth was smaller than the moon 2 billion years ago and still forming by accretion at that stage.

There is evidence of life on earth 4 billion years ago. Your book says life was first present on earth 600 million years ago.

My spirituality is not based on the wrong science of the 1950s.

Stuart
 

Lost Comet

New member
There is evidence of life on earth 4 billion years ago. Your book says life was first present on earth 600 million years ago.
So much for the fantasy of billions of years of random reactions in warm ponds brimming with fecund chemicals leading to life. “Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.” (Christian de Duve, Nobel laureate and a leader in origin of life studies.) And yet some of the less imaginative of your mortal mechanists insist on viewing material creation and human evolution as an accident. (58:2.3)

First, there is the foolishness about plagiarism. Now it’s about inaccuracies despite statements like, “Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired.”

If you don't like the book, you don't like it. That you are so obsessed about it should be a bit disconcerting for you.
 
Last edited:

Caino

BANNED
Banned
Stuu, I have had that question in my mind, there are other things in the UB that remain a question for me. I rather resent the silly cult accusation.

There is evidence of life on earth 4 billion years ago. Your book says life was first present on earth 600 million years ago.

My spirituality is not based on the wrong science of the 1950s.



Lets take a close look at the issue:


Abiogenesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Pre-Cambrian stromatolites in the Siyeh Formation, Glacier National Park. In 2002, William Schopf of UCLA published a paper in the scientific journal Nature arguing that geological formations such as this possess 3.5 Ga (billion years old) fossilized cyanobacteria microbes. If true, they would be evidence of the earliest known life on earth.In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed by proteins. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.

In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life have to be accounted for: replication and metabolism. The question of which came first gave rise to different types of theories. In the beginning, metabolism-first theories (Oparin coacervate) were proposed, and only later thinking gave rise to the modern, replication-first approach.

In modern, still somewhat limited understanding, the first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).[2] The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), approximately one billion years after the formation of the Earth itself.[3][4] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[5][6] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[7][8]

The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).​

What does the UB actually say?

THE LIFE-DAWN ERA

58:4.1 That we are called Life Carriers should not confuse you. We can and do carry life to the planets, but we brought no life to Urantia. Urantia life is unique, original with the planet. This sphere is a life-modification world; all life appearing hereon was formulated by us right here on the planet; and there is no other world in all Satania, even in all Nebadon, that has a life existence just like that of Urantia.

58:4.2 550,000,000 years ago the Life Carrier corps returned to Urantia. In co-operation with spiritual powers and superphysical forces we organized and initiated the original life patterns of this world and planted them in the hospitable waters of the realm. All planetary life (aside from extraplanetary personalities) down to the days of Caligastia, the Planetary Prince, had its origin in our three original, identical, and simultaneous marine-life implantations. These three life implantations have been designated as: the central or Eurasian-African, the eastern or Australasian, and the western, embracing Greenland and the Americas.

58:4.3 500,000,000 years ago primitive marine vegetable life was well established on Urantia. Greenland and the arctic land mass, together with North and South America, were beginning their long and slow westward drift. Africa moved slightly south, creating an east and west trough, the Mediterranean basin, between itself and the mother body. Antarctica, Australia, and the land indicated by the islands of the Pacific broke away on the south and east and have drifted far away since that day.

58:4.4 We had planted the primitive form of marine life in the sheltered tropic bays of the central seas of the east-west cleavage of the breaking-up continental land mass. Our purpose in making three marine-life implantations was to insure that each great land mass would carry this life with it, in its warm-water seas, as the land subsequently separated. We foresaw that in the later era of the emergence of land life large oceans of water would separate these drifting continental land masses.

LIFE TRANSPLANTATION

36:3.1 Life does not spontaneously appear in the universes; the Life Carriers must initiate it on the barren planets. They are the carriers, disseminators, and guardians of life as it appears on the evolutionary worlds of space. All life of the order and forms known on Urantia arises with these Sons, though not all forms of planetary life are existent on Urantia.

36:3.2 The corps of Life Carriers commissioned to plant life upon a new world usually consists of one hundred senior carriers, one hundred assistants, and one thousand custodians. The Life Carriers often carry actual life plasm to a new world, but not always. They sometimes organize the life patterns after arriving on the planet of assignment in accordance with formulas previously approved for a new adventure in life establishment. Such was the origin of the planetary life of Urantia.

36:3.3 When, in accordance with approved formulas, the physical patterns have been provided, then do the Life Carriers catalyze this lifeless material, imparting through their persons the vital spirit spark; and forthwith do the inert patterns become living matter.

36:3.4 The vital spark—the mystery of life—is bestowed through the Life Carriers, not by them.[/B] They do indeed supervise such transactions, they formulate the life plasm itself, but it is the Universe Mother Spirit who supplies the essential factor of the living plasm. From the Creative Daughter of the Infinite Spirit comes that energy spark which enlivens the body and presages the mind.

36:3.5 In the bestowal of life the Life Carriers transmit nothing of their personal natures, not even on those spheres where new orders of life are projected. At such times they simply initiate and transmit the spark of life, start the required revolutions of matter in accordance with the physical, chemical, and electrical specifications of the ordained plans and patterns. Life Carriers are living catalytic presences which agitate, organize, and vitalize the otherwise inert elements of the material order of existence.

36:3.6 The Life Carriers of a planetary corps are given a certain period in which to establish life on a new world, approximately one-half million years of the time of that planet. At the termination of this period, indicated by certain developmental attainments of the planetary life, they cease implantation efforts, and they may not subsequently add any thing new or supplemental to the life of that planet.

36:3.7 During the ages intervening between life establishment and the emergence of human creatures of moral status, the Life Carriers are permitted to manipulate the life environment and otherwise favorably directionize the course of biologic evolution. And this they do for long periods of time." UB


* Is the UB saying that the life carriers modified cyanobacteria microbes into what they term "life"?

* Are cyanobacteria microbes naturally occuring on planets such as ours? Did they arrive on a meteoric fragments from another world that collided with earth during it's early evolution?

Caino
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
The significance of an epochal revelation......

The significance of an epochal revelation......

~*~*~

As shared before, there are much more wonderful portions of the Papers that concern the exsquisite nature of Deity, dynamics of creation, orders of intelligence, the divine spirit-fragment (Thought Adjuster) in man, the composite nature of 'personality' that functions in living souls in their 'experience' of evolutionary progress thru-out eternity, and the religious/spiritual/philosophical meanings and values that carry souls forward to their ultimate destinies. These are what I find most essential, no matter how one divides or assumes the human and/or spiritual source of the writings.

Bickering over the issue of 'plagarism' (however one assumes or qualifies the term) is really a petty concern, when the monumental significance of the total tome of knowledge actually shines over such, the fundamental content and aim of the work overarching such mundane things. We do have the enhanced expansion of knowledge towards a greater cosmic comprehension of the purpose of creation, the value of 'religious experience' and the evolutionary journey of souls in the 'school' of life, which is fundamental to our existence and its unfolding potential. This is what the Papers are concerned about and wonderfully expound upon.



pj
 

Furchizedek

New member
This is from Wikipedia, you failed to acknowledge. What is it with you UB crackpots and referencing? Is it against the rules of your cult?

You can lay money down that this page has been written by a UB fanatic. Probably there are very few people with either the motivation or the knowledge to dispute and correct the page, and as it is a biography of a person who tried to start a cult, I'm afraid I'm not that impressed by it.

Stuart

I'm afraid there is nothing that will impress you. It's clear from your pejorative language with regard to the book in every one of your posts that you really have no interest in the book other than to try to trash it. Your views are rigid. I submit to everyone here who is here wasting their time and energy fooling with you that they don't bother. You're not going to get it. You don't want to get it. Talk about throwing pearls before swine, this is such a case. Why don't you find another tree to bark up?
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
moving forward......

moving forward......

I'm afraid there is nothing that will impress you. It's clear from your pejorative language with regard to the book in every one of your posts that you really have no interest in the book other than to try to trash it. Your views are rigid. I submit to everyone here who is here wasting their time and energy fooling with you that they don't bother. You're not going to get it. You don't want to get it. Talk about throwing pearls before swine, this is such a case. Why don't you find another tree to bark up?

Yes, one of such obstinate manners is 'a waste of time' already. What I shared earlier applies -


Religion must ever be its own critic and judge; it can never be observed, much less understood, from the outside. Your only assurance of a personal God consists in your own insight as to your belief in, and experience with, things spiritual. To all of your fellows who have had a similar experience, no argument about the personality or reality of God is necessary, while to all other men who are not thus sure of God no possible argument could ever be truly convincing.

101:2.14 - UB

To an atheist then, there is no repore or convincing unless one has the experience and knowledge of 'God' for himself, in which such an experience can be 'related' to others of like experience. Otherwise there is little dialogue without a true openness to possibilities and new discovery.

God is so all real and absolute that no material sign of proof or no demonstration of so-called miracle may be offered in testimony of his reality. Always will we know him because we trust him, and our belief in him is wholly based on our personal participation in the divine manifestations of his infinite reality.

102:1.5 -UB


pj
 

Stuu

New member
So much for the fantasy of billions of years of random reactions in warm ponds brimming with fecund chemicals leading to life. “Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.” (Christian de Duve, Nobel laureate and a leader in origin of life studies.) And yet some of the less imaginative of your mortal mechanists insist on viewing material creation and human evolution as an accident. (58:2.3)

First, there is the foolishness about plagiarism. Now it’s about inaccuracies despite statements like, “Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired.”

If you don't like the book, you don't like it. That you are so obsessed about it should be a bit disconcerting for you.
Was that second part a quote from the Book of Stealing? You were doing so well to be a fine example of proper referencing for these thieves and apologists for them.

What do you think de Duve meant by that, and what do you think Sadler means by the bit of his you added?

In regards to my own opinion about this, I think it is a question of justice that scientists have applied their genius and painstaking preparation to some very difficult questions and have produced the almost miraculous answers that satisfy our curiosity and provide so much basis for modern technology, sometimes putting themselves at personal risk in the service of humanity (science doesn't pay that well!) and yet here we have a bunch of nutjobs (Sadler included) who play fast and loose with the acknowledging of that human endeavour which gave us this knowledge, instead making fatuous excuses that confuse the boundaries between brilliant science, disproved science and dull fantasy nonsense involving a myriad of their Imaginary Friends. Non-fiction books reference their sources. The first conclusion regarding the lack of referencing must be that this book is fiction, and the second is that the author and defenders of it are hypocrites, happy to plagiarise while also benefiting from the science in other ways, for example in the cars they drive and the medicines they take.

The convention is to quote without modification and to give credit to the source. This book abuses both notions and frankly is not even worthy of being cut up into squares and hung on a hook near the toilet.

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There's hope for you yet!

SNIPPED mostly accurate stuff from Wikipedia.

SNIPPED stolen science and fantasy conspiracy theories from the Book of Plagiarism


The biochemical details are unimportant when comparing scientific speculation with tryhard sci-fi nonsense. There are theories of how abiogenesis could have happened but there is no theory of how it did.

My first question is, what point are you trying to make by all this woo about the UB and modern science? Are you trying to say that there is some magical knowledge that only the Truth Corrupters or whatever could have known? How desperate. Why would that be of any importance to someone who was not in that desperate state concerning the contents of a book?

My second question is can you see the fundamental difference between the contents of the Wikipedia article and the stuff from the Book of Plagiarism?

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
I'm afraid there is nothing that will impress you.
Why don't you try writing something impressive and test that hypothesis?

It's clear from your pejorative language with regard to the book in every one of your posts that you really have no interest in the book other than to try to trash it.
I was interested enough to read more than half the text. Who knows when someone might actually discover something that really does challenge my conclusions? My distain for the Book of Flagrant Stealing comes from the experience of reading its contents. It trashes itself because it is trash.

Your views are rigid.
No, my views are unchanged by your objections. I refer you to the first point I made in this reply.

I submit to everyone here who is here wasting their time and energy fooling with you that they don't bother.
Maybe they are, and maybe they should. That is the conclusion to draw based on the evidence. It is a problem for you not me that your book is inherently indefensible. I recommend forgetting all about it in the same was as we don't need the other crackpot writings of the Sadlers anymore. They were of their time, perhaps genuine in part, perhaps religiously deluded, but also racist, eugenicist and stuck with not much more than fairly primitive medicine to use in their professional lives. The earnestness of their writing (his in particular) indicates that they were obviously intelligent but seriously loopy.

You're not going to get it. You don't want to get it. Talk about throwing pearls before swine, this is such a case. Why don't you find another tree to bark up?
Even your mixed metaphors are better than your defense of this abusive book of yours.

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
To an atheist then, there is no repore or convincing unless one has the experience and knowledge of 'God' for himself, in which such an experience can be 'related' to others of like experience. Otherwise there is little dialogue without a true openness to possibilities and new discovery.
I think the highest standard of probity is that of evidence, and you don't have any unambiguous evidence. Even the facts of the authorship of the UB are shrouded by the woo of the Sadler's refusal to say who was sitting in The Chair. Anyone in awe of that must be the most naive of the adherents to silly cults.

You interpret your experiences in terms of your Imaginary Friends without critical consideration. Why do you think of zebras and not horses when you hear the sound of hooves?

Stuart
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
proof is in 'Being'

proof is in 'Being'

I think the highest standard of probity is that of evidence, and you don't have any unambiguous evidence.

Stuart

Re-quote:

Religion must ever be its own critic and judge; it can never be observed, much less understood, from the outside. Your only assurance of a personal God consists in your own insight as to your belief in, and experience with, things spiritual. To all of your fellows who have had a similar experience, no argument about the personality or reality of God is necessary, while to all other men who are not thus sure of God no possible argument could ever be truly convincing.

101:2.14 - UB

The 'evidence' of my experience of 'God' is the 'experience' of Life itself.


God is the one and only self-caused fact in the universe. He is the secret of the order, plan, and purpose of the whole creation of things and beings. The everywhere-changing universe is regulated and stabilized by absolutely unchanging laws, the habits of an unchanging God. The fact of God, the divine law, is changeless; the truth of God, his relation to the universe, is a relative revelation which is ever adaptable to the constantly evolving universe.

If the nonreligious approaches to cosmic reality presume to challenge the certainty of faith on the grounds of its unproved status, then the spirit experiencer can likewise resort to the dogmatic challenge of the facts of science and the beliefs of philosophy on the grounds that they are likewise unproved; they are likewise experiences in the consciousness of the scientist or the philosopher.

Of God, the most inescapable of all presences, the most real of all facts, the most living of all truths, the most loving of all friends, and the most divine of all values, we have the right to be the most certain of all universe experiences.

102:7 - UB
 

Stuu

New member
Re-quote:



The 'evidence' of my experience of 'God' is the 'experience' of Life itself.
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
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
There's hope for you yet!

SNIPPED mostly accurate stuff from Wikipedia.

SNIPPED stolen science and fantasy conspiracy theories from the Book of Plagiarism


The biochemical details are unimportant when comparing scientific speculation with tryhard sci-fi nonsense. There are theories of how abiogenesis could have happened but there is no theory of how it did.

My first question is, what point are you trying to make by all this woo about the UB and modern science? Are you trying to say that there is some magical knowledge that only the Truth Corrupters or whatever could have known? How desperate. Why would that be of any importance to someone who was not in that desperate state concerning the contents of a book?

My second question is can you see the fundamental difference between the contents of the Wikipedia article and the stuff from the Book of Plagiarism?

Stuart

* 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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top