The Late Great Urantia Revelation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stuu

New member
"The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired."

ACKNOWLEDGMENT


0:12.10 In formulating the succeeding presentations having to do with the portrayal of the character of the Universal Father and the nature of his Paradise associates, together with an attempted description of the perfect central universe and the encircling seven superuniverses, we are to be guided by the mandate of the superuniverse rulers which directs that we shall, in all our efforts to reveal truth and co-ordinate essential knowledge, give preference to the highest existing human concepts pertaining to the subjects to be presented. We may resort to pure revelation only when the concept of presentation has had no adequate previous expression by the human mind.

.......Accordingly, in making these presentations about God and his universe associates, we have selected as the basis of these papers more than one thousand human concepts representing the highest and most advanced planetary knowledge of spiritual values and universe meanings. Wherein these human concepts, assembled from the God-knowing mortals of the past and the present, are inadequate to portray the truth as we are directed to reveal it, we will unhesitatingly supplement them, for this purpose drawing upon our own superior knowledge of the reality and divinity of the Paradise Deities and their transcendent residential universe.


THE LIMITATIONS OF REVELATION

101:4.1 Because your world is generally ignorant of origins, even of physical origins, it has appeared to be wise from time to time to provide instruction in cosmology. And always has this made trouble for the future. The laws of revelation hamper us greatly by their proscription of the impartation of unearned or premature knowledge. Any cosmology presented as a part of revealed religion is destined to be outgrown in a very short time. Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented.

101:4.2 Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve. UB 1955

Caino
Sorry but I did not see in this

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

the

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

of the

NAMES

of the

ACTUALLY EXISTING HUMAN SCIENTISTS

like

RUTHERFORD

or

EINSTEIN

who made the discoveries plagiarised in this book of plagiarism...

..which is what

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

actually means.

Stuart
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
Stuu,

It's strange that you get so angry about this crediting stuff. The UB does NOT claim to have discovered the science that Rutherford of Einstein realized. It has no interest in the world of scientific ego's and such.

The area's where science is catching up to the UB can be viewed at http://www.ubthenews.com/Reports_List.htm


Caino
 

Furchizedek

New member
Sorry but I did not see in this
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
the
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
of the
NAMES
of the
ACTUALLY EXISTING HUMAN SCIENTISTS
like
RUTHERFORD
or
EINSTEIN
who made the discoveries plagiarised in this book of plagiarism...
..which is what
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
actually means.
Stuart

Stuart, could you please list the discoveries of Einstein that The Urantia Book plagiarizes?

How can you plagiarize a discovery?

Do you know what plagiarize means?

If I said that Columbus discovered America, am I plagiarizing Columbus?

What are you talking about?

Put up examples, be specific. Then we can talk about them.
 

Furchizedek

New member
Stuart, are you a Christian?

If so, why don't you just say, "The Urantia Book is false because it's not what I already believe," and be done with it? That's really the bottom line for Christians, it's just not what they believe. Why pretend to wring your hands about plagiarism and what not? Did you get that idea from a Christian site? Post the exact cases of plagiarism, or admit that you haven't read the book and don't know what you're talking about. It's OK to do that.

And what qualities are required to accept the findings of such comprehensive critiques when they demonstrate that the Urantia book is a work of plagiarism that attributes scientific work to supernatural beings and gets a substantial amount wrong because it copied outdated science?

I'd say those critiques are denied by people who show qualities of ignorance, religious presumption, egoity and an exclusivity complex.

Stuart
 

Furchizedek

New member
The funny part is: not one single fact stated in The Bible has ever been disproved. It is by far the single most accurate record of ancient history, and doesn't have any errors in it. It isn't childish minds which accept It's Truths, but rather child-like trust with which we trust in our Father and God's Holy Word as perfect Truth, which The Holy Bible is. The lies in the UB, which were channeled by a demon, not only cannot be trusted, they provide an obviously childish attempt at discrediting the one true source of God's Word available to men: The Bible.

You gotta be really brainwashed to believe that!
 

Furchizedek

New member
You gotta be really brainwashed to believe that!

The funny part is: not one single fact stated in The Bible has ever been disproved. It is by far the single most accurate record of ancient history, and doesn't have any errors in it. It isn't childish minds which accept It's Truths, but rather child-like trust with which we trust in our Father and God's Holy Word as perfect Truth, which The Holy Bible is. The lies in the UB, which were channeled by a demon, not only cannot be trusted, they provide an obviously childish attempt at discrediting the one true source of God's Word available to men: The Bible.

In Bart D. Ehrman's "Jesus Interrupted" he exposes many problems in the New Testament, contradictory stories of events, and so on. It's a long list.

Bart D. Ehrman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bart D. Ehrman (born 1955) is an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Ehrman writes about the early Christians, using the term "proto-orthodox" to describe the Christian traditions that would later be defined as orthodox.[1] He describes 1st- and 2nd-century Christians as not yet having a unified, orthodox tradition.[1] He is the author of a number of books in this area, including Misquoting Jesus (2005), God's Problem (2008), and Jesus, Interrupted (2009).
In his books, he recounts his youthful enthusiasm as a born-again evangelical Christian, sure that God had inspired the very words of the Bible and protected them from all error.[2] His graduate studies, however, eventually convinced him that the Bible makes more sense when one acknowledges its contradictions than when one creates elaborate explanations to reconcile them.
-
I am going to summarize as best I can Mr. Ehrman's findings, which, by the way, are not exclusively his or new, but most of which have been known to bible scholars for up to a century. These are also known by every "Pastor" who goes to seminary school. The question Mr. Ehrman asks is why doesn't the rank and file Christian know these things?

Here's one:

Paul writes about what happened after his conversion:

Gal 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
Gal 1:20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

According to Paul above, who swears he is not lying, after his conversion he did not confer with anyone, nor did he go to Jerusalem where the real apostles were but he went to Arabia and Damascus. And after 3 years he went to Jerusalem to see Peter, and he didn't see any of the other apostles.

But Acts says this about that same thing, what happened after his conversion:

Act 9:19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.
Act 9:20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
Act 9:21 But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests?
Act 9:22 But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.
Act 9:23 And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him:
Act 9:24 But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him.
Act 9:25 Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket.
Act 9:26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.
Act 9:27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.
Act 9:28 And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.
Act 9:29 And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him.
Act 9:30 Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.

The two stories above of Paul's situation after his conversion have NO POINTS in common. They are totally different. The book is loaded with these problems. Most Christians read the bible linearly from top to bottom, page after page, and perhaps don't notice the contradictions, or they gloss over it in a reading fog. But reading the bible stories horizontally (side by side) gives us a different view.
 

Stuu

New member
Stuu,

It's strange that you get so angry about this crediting stuff. The UB does NOT claim to have discovered the science that Rutherford of Einstein realized. It has no interest in the world of scientific ego's and such.

The area's where science is catching up to the UB can be viewed at http://www.ubthenews.com/Reports_List.htm


Caino
The heading you quoted promises acknowledgments, and yet it provides none. So how can you say it is not interested in such things when it also claims to acknowledge?

Regarding the link you posted, could you be a bit more explicit please. What exactly are you claiming regarding the Book of Plagiarism?

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
Stuart, are you a Christian?
No! It's terrible to even suggest it! I do have some standards you know!

Post the exact cases of plagiarism, or admit that you haven't read the book and don't know what you're talking about. It's OK to do that.
I have read probably 60% of the UB. I gave up on it in the end because it was both absurd and dull at the same time. A few claim it is good sci-fi but I couldn't take it seriously enough to see any literary merit in it whatever. It is not well written, is not entertaining, asserts pre-1950s science earnestly while also making ridiculous truth claims that were never consistent with science and sets in concrete wrong science from the time of its writing with indistinguishable earnestness. It is an insult to the real scientists who made the real discoveries.

Regarding plagiarism, I have presented examples to Caino in the past and don't have lots of time to relitigate it again: the UB is no good reason to waste valuable lifetime, but my answer to you is the same as to Caino. In that big long-winded fatuous section headed "Acknowledgment", who is actually acknowledged? If humans are going to be acknowledged then why have they not been named? If you read any peer-reviewed scientific paper you will see the names of the authors of all the other papers cited therein. Maybe you don't think the UB is serious about science. It certainly does not read that way.

Do you think the Sandlers saw themselves as L. Ron Hubbards or were they just having a laugh at the expense of the terminally naive?

They could also have been well-educated crackpots. The association with the famous crackpots the Kelloggs is enough to suggest it.

By the way, why did the US Urantia Foundation try to retain copyright on a book that was allegedly written by astral entities? The textual analysis is that it was most written and entirely edited by the Sandlers, so I guess that is the reason.

Stuart
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
The heading you quoted promises acknowledgments, and yet it provides none. So how can you say it is not interested in such things when it also claims to acknowledge?

Regarding the link you posted, could you be a bit more explicit please. What exactly are you claiming regarding the Book of Plagiarism?

Stuart

The general statement on acknowledgement was to explain that these beings would use human patterns of thinking as much as they could in hopes of communicating new concepts and sorting out the errors of old thinking.

....."give preference to the highest existing human concepts pertaining to the subjects to be presented."​

The revelators know much more about what we call science then our so called scientist. They were forbidden to reveal scientifically undiscovered material.

"We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records."​


At the time of the writing of the UB the limited science they used was what was accepted then.(they were not allowed to go any further). The only exception would be things that had been known but lost and forgotten, or historic material that seems to disclose facts not yet validated by so called science.

It appears to me that you use apparent imperfections of things associated with spirituality to avoid surrendering to a spirit filled life. I'm grateful that your limitations aren't my limitations.



Caino
 

Stuu

New member
It appears to me that you use apparent imperfections of things associated with spirituality to avoid surrendering to a spirit filled life. I'm grateful that your limitations aren't my limitations.

Caino
Your spirituality is based on science fiction which asserts wrong science and steals from the brilliant minds that have made your life into something quite different from the limited lives led by people of 100 years, or 500 years ago, or 1500 years ago when fatuous fantasy stories like the ones in this Book for the Naive were taken seriously leading to a pretty brutally short and miserable existence. The Dark Ages are not called that for nothing.

My spirituality is simply my sense of my place in the universe and my awe and appreciation of the astonishing fact that I was born at all, and born with a brain capable of some comprehension of these things.

It is not my spirituality that is based on the cynical lies of crackpots.

Do you have an answer to my question about what point you meant to make by linking to that UB apology page? Otherwise please retract your claim that any genuinely useful progress in science could have been made from anyone reading this trivial book of yours.

You really have a lot of gall and little respect for the basis of your modern comforts. Perhaps you should give some of them up if you do not have appreciation of the risks some earlier scientists took to advance your modern lifestyle.

Stuart
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
Your spirituality is based on science fiction which asserts wrong science and steals from the brilliant minds that have made your life into something quite different from the limited lives led by people of 100 years, or 500 years ago, or 1500 years ago when fatuous fantasy stories like the ones in this Book for the Naive were taken seriously leading to a pretty brutally short and miserable existence. The Dark Ages are not called that for nothing.

My spirituality is simply my sense of my place in the universe and my awe and appreciation of the astonishing fact that I was born at all, and born with a brain capable of some comprehension of these things.

It is not my spirituality that is based on the cynical lies of crackpots.

Do you have an answer to my question about what point you meant to make by linking to that UB apology page? Otherwise please retract your claim that any genuinely useful progress in science could have been made from anyone reading this trivial book of yours.
You really have a lot of gall and little respect for the basis of your modern comforts. Perhaps you should give some of them up if you do not have appreciation of the risks some earlier scientists took to advance your modern lifestyle.

Stuart

If you cant see two extremes from where you're standing then you are in one of them Stuu.

Inventors and scientist have come up with lots of great and useful ideas, I have never once disparaged them for that. You are seeing things.

The link provided shows where science is getting closer to what the UB said in 1955. It is getting closer to validating claims about history, claims which, at the time were not substantiated.

I made no such claim, (your predisposed bias and recurring anger blinds you and affects your reading comprehension.


Caino
 

Stuu

New member
If you cant see two extremes from where you're standing then you are in one of them Stuu.

Inventors and scientist have come up with lots of great and useful ideas, I have never once disparaged them for that. You are seeing things.

The link provided shows where science is getting closer to what the UB said in 1955. It is getting closer to validating claims about history, claims which, at the time were not substantiated.

I made no such claim, (your predisposed bias and recurring anger blinds you and affects your reading comprehension.


Caino
The page to which you linked said nothing of the sort. You are full of hot air and apology for theft, on this subject.

Stuart
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
The page to which you linked said nothing of the sort. You are full of hot air and apology for theft, on this subject.

Stuart

Repeating an accusation over and over does not make it true to sound minded people.


C
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
false charges addressed again.....

false charges addressed again.....

And what qualities are required to accept the findings of such comprehensive critiques when they demonstrate that the Urantia book is a work of plagiarism that attributes scientific work to supernatural beings and gets a substantial amount wrong because it copied outdated science?

I'd say those critiques are denied by people who show qualities of ignorance, religious presumption, egoity and an exclusivity complex.

Stuart

The quality and significance of the UB's teachings speak for themselves.

We've already addressed your false charge of 'Plagarism' Here.

Serious students can do their own research :sherlock: :thumb:


pj
 

Stuu

New member
Repeating an accusation over and over does not make it true to sound minded people.


C
The No True Scotsman fallacy. To you, people would only be sound minded if they agreed that the repetition of an accusation was a good reason to discount it.

But I persist because your answers each repetition are bogus, and do not address the central questions of the plagiarism and absurdity of the UB, and believers' claims in support of it.

Stuart
 

Furchizedek

New member
The heading you quoted promises acknowledgments, and yet it provides none. So how can you say it is not interested in such things when it also claims to acknowledge?

Regarding the link you posted, could you be a bit more explicit please. What exactly are you claiming regarding the Book of Plagiarism?

Stuart

Stuart, I don't think you know what "Plagiarism" Or "Acknowledgement" means. Here's the latter:

Main Entry:ac*knowl*edge
Pronunciation:ik-*n*-lij, ak-
Function:verb
Inflected Form:-edged ; -edg*ing

1 : to recognize the rights or authority of
2 : to admit as true
3 : to express thanks for; also : to report receipt of
4 : to recognize as valid
–ac*knowl*edg*ment or ac*knowl*edge*ment noun

You may be simply using your assumptive definition.

God knows all things, Stu. How can he plagiarize anything from humans?

And why don't you give some examples of the plagiarism you say is in the book. You haven't read the book so you're getting your talking points from someplace else.

There is no plagiarism in The Urantia Book. Prove me wrong or shut up.

Also, calling The Urantia Book, "Book of Plagiarism," is disrespectful and simply shows your hand, it gives you away as someone not interested in the truth of the matter, but someone who is already hostile, just like the Pharisees were hostile to Jesus. You're like them, Stu.
 

Furchizedek

New member
The No True Scotsman fallacy. To you, people would only be sound minded if they agreed that the repetition of an accusation was a good reason to discount it.

But I persist because your answers each repetition are bogus, and do not address the central questions of the plagiarism and absurdity of the UB, and believers' claims in support of it.

Stuart

What plagiarism, Stuart? Who told you this? Where did you read it? List the plagiarisms.

LIST THEM STUART.
 

Furchizedek

New member
And what qualities are required to accept the findings of such comprehensive critiques when they demonstrate that the Urantia book is a work of plagiarism that attributes scientific work to supernatural beings and gets a substantial amount wrong because it copied outdated science?

I'd say those critiques are denied by people who show qualities of ignorance, religious presumption, egoity and an exclusivity complex.

Stuart

Stuart, list the instances of plagiarism, please, if you can.

Also, please list the wrong science if you can.

And then show where you are getting your talking points from. You clearly have not read the book, so you must be bootlegging on other people's ideas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top