Urantia Book Poll

[Will Due]

28 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

the point that initiated the Big Bang would have been in the general area of a planck-length in diameter

All things that are defined by diameter, which are usually designated as, or called a circle, have a center.

 

28 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

and the universe expanded in 360 degrees 

Universe expansion in 360 degrees means that there's a single point that everything expands from. Expands from in 360 degrees, like the points on a circle. And every circle has a center.

 

 

[Will Due]

[cormac mac airt]

48 minutes ago, Will Due said:

All things that are defined by diameter, which are usually designated as, or called a circle, have a center.

Universe expansion in 360 degrees means that there's a single point that everything expands from. Expands from in 360 degrees, like the points on a circle. And every circle has a center.

Before light occurred, which is some 300,000 years AFTER the Big Bang, there is nothing but darkness and therefore no center of the universe to see or point to and say "that's it". Sorry. 

Go ahead, put your target in a pitch-black room with no lights and hit the bullseye. Remember, the bullseye is smaller than a proton. Good luck. 

cormac

Edited January 16, 2019 by cormac mac airt

[Horta]

18 minutes ago, Will Due said:

All things that are defined by diameter, which are usually designated as, or called a circle, have a center.

That sounds logical, but we already know that logic fails when we apply it to the very early universe. We only really know that our universe was hotter and denser in the past, and seems to be all the big bang theory is saying.

At any rate, in reality it also probably fails logically when applied to a simple circle. While we could measure some point down to a Planck unit and call it the "centre" of a circle for practical purposes, is it really? Or is it simply a smaller circle that also has a centre?

If it already contained all of space, time and energy and was expanding from any vantage point (as it is now), how could there be a centre?

Quote

Universe expansion in 360 degrees means that there's a single point that everything expands from. Expands from in 360 degrees, like the points on a circle. And every circle has a center.

Also sounds logical, but it isn't how the universe works or it would have a region in space that we could define as the "centre". Instead what happens (afaik) is that from all vantage points in space, the universe (apart from local gravitationally bound systems/galaxy of course) appears to be receding in every direction. So from the vantage point of another galaxy that we observe receding from us, they would observe us receding from them. To have a centre would imply a region that space is expanding from, but this isn't so, there is no centre of the universe.

[toast]

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

*snip* stupid logo

 

[psyche101]

9 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

@psyche101

Forgive me for doing this but I thought it better to move our conversation over here. I don't want to draw attention to the UB in the "Skepticism!" thread anymore than I've already done. I'll post the link to your post from over there at the bottom for reference. I copied and quoted your replies and I'd like to respond to them.

Hi Will

More than OK mate. This is one of the best posts of your I have ever read. I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you for listening to others and I have to say your results are impressive. 

Quote

It got out of hand for me. The more I tried to straighten out the details of what we were discussing, the more things got further away from being clear. So I sort of gave up. When I told you to point your telescope to 0,0,0 you know, as if it was a Cartesian coordinate system origin, I was trying to be funny. (I'm a horrible comic) Don't know how the 'fuzzy patch' thing got started but I do understand why your responses to me were like they were. I hope this helps to clear things up.

I can see where you are coming from now. That may make sense to a layman especially when one thinks of the universe as a 'container' with boundaries. That's how our brains are wired I guess. Its very normal in our environment. The concept of a boundless expanding universe is hard to grasp. I've been an amateur astronomer for some years now, and I just couldn't reconcile what you were saying. Perhaps I may have even misunderstood you, or perhaps it was a joke, but in one post you stated just that. That the centre of the universe or island of stability could be seen with a telescope as a fuzzy patch. Regardless, I assume from your above response that you do not support that claim any longer? 

Quote

We can discuss the 'center of the universe' thing later if you'd like. 

I see you are discussing it already, I'll just join in if that's OK. 

Quote

First let me say that I've learned a lot from all of you about why so many resist taking the book seriously. It makes sense to me. Is the book perfect? No it's not. Probably shouldn't go into that right now but suffice it to say (I hope) that there are many things about the UB (if not everything) that is a matter of context.

Yes. Context. 

You are a little older than I, but not so much that I don't understand why you see many of the aspects as valid. A lot of the the context seems to be pretty much old school. With a family and good wife, the cutting edge can slip past at frightening speed. It caught me off guard when my kids started school. A lot had been updated and it's like going to school again. I've found it a great interest to follow physicists while you were following the UB. That gave us very different outlooks, but honestly, yours reminds me a great deal of my parents approach to religion overall. 

Quote

Is it racist, chauvinistic, biased, unscientific, is it a car crash? From a certain point of view, it's worse than that. All I will say about it right now is that those things that  @Piney mentioned, when the entire text is taken together, it's possible to see it in an entirely different and more positive light. The things said about the races, the treatment of women, the onesidedness of spirituality and religion, the absoluteness of scientific fact and the likelihood that the UB will be misunderstood, is well documented within its pages and firmly supports it in uplifting terms.

I honestly think that all comes back to the above. In the 50s, this was a very different place with different values and I could see it fitting in that time frame. I was raised homophobic, everyone I know was. Sometimes we just need to reevaluate what we have been taught. That's how we can leave the world a better place than we found it. 

And that was why I always said it read like a novel. Just like if one read Gone With The Wind, one would recognise that the time frame was different from the style and setting of the writing. 

Quote

Tolerance for all racial differences, respect for the equality between women and men as well as same sex partnerships, understanding appreciation for those who have experienced difficulty in life and are exasperated with traditional religion, and especially to heed the objectiveness of science, is all very much emphasized. Yes most of what the authors say about all of these things are brutally out of line with how they're thought about conventionally. With regard to race, they present the evolution of man in terms that are new. Like "Nodite" "Andite" "Andonite" "Violet" and others that without familiarity of everything stated about the races in the whole book and how they blended, it's easy to understand that when somebody like Piney and @Third Eye read things that refers to "red men" and "yellow men" and so forth they immediately slam the book shut. 

That's fair enough, and good that's how you read it. As you can see from Pineys examples, it's literally quite offensive. 

But I have to say I've never seen you display bad qualities like homophobia or racism. Obviously the UB  has not inspired you in a negative way. In fact this post you have written shows you can be more flexible than I expected, so that's a good quality it seems to have imparted on you too. The desire to improve. I do very much respect that Will. 

Quote

(I'll leave my comments about the book's science for another time)

No worries. I agree, one thing at a time

Quote

Yes you're right. I am guilty of wearing rose colored glasses. I'll even go so far as to post something as ludicrous as saying in the other thread where the 'teams' are playing a game of vernacular football that HEY!

Well, you found the influence positive. I really can't challenge that, and it's not like it's not human nature to want to share good things. It's the good part about being human, it can backfire sometimes though. 

Its impressive that you can take those glasses off. Your full of surprises bud, and that's a good thing. 

Quote

We're all on the same team!!!

We are at the moment Will. I hope we can keep this up. 

Quote

I am naive thats for sure. I think Rodney King and I are related.

We are all ignorant of most aspects of life. That's the beauty of this place. The pool of knowledge and the great smart guys willing to share their knowledge. I learn truckloads here. There are some great minds here at UM. 

Quote

You're right. I ain't that good. Most of the time, I can't even think of the words to reply with, let alone put it in writing. But believe me, I want to. I want to challenge what you all are saying. But something is telling me not to. I don't feel it would do it justice anyways. I have limited abilities with arguments. And I really feel strong about this. That it doesn't really matter. Because in the end and beyond, it will all be okay for everyone. I really believe this.

Well when you converse like this there's hope to find common ground. We don't have to believe the same thing to respect each other. Traditionally you have preached a lot. But you will find the religious posters who gain respect do so because they are interesting posters who converse well. Be a good ambassador for you religion to have it seen as more respectable, and accept the flaws. Whether you write then off as metaphors or maintain them as personal beliefs is nobodies business really, that's your choice. If you keep it that way, your choice, it's easier to discuss it. 

Quote

I can see why you would say this. It doesn't look good for the UB. Perhaps in this forum, I'm to blame. I am a tactless man at times. My mom used to tell me when I was a kid that I was an azzhole. All I'll say is that time does funny things. Ebb and flow. Things go out. Things go in. Things go backwards. Things go forward. And sometimes, azzholes grow up.

Will the preacher isn't that interesting, but Will the man is. Just be yourself more. 

Quote

I'm learning things I didn't expect to learn when I joined this forum. I intend to implement these things I'm learning. The UB is something alright. But it isn't everything you all might think I think it is. It isn't even, what I think it is. It's just a very interesting book. To me it is anyways. I get it more and more why that isn't the case for most though. I don't think that if you study the UB it makes you special. I've never thought that. The UB Is just the craziest thing I've ever heard of. That's right, I said crazy. But the underlying thing about it at least to me, is that it's a message from beyond this world that everything will end up alright. Not to worry. And that in a short time more things good will happen the likes of which no one will have ever expected.

It doesn't hurt to hear others out, and ask questions. The UB worked for you, why not just try expanding your horizons and see if the real world isn't even more interesting than the UB. Have you ever considered it might be a stepping stone that brought you here to learn more on your path? 

Quote

And I can't just sit on it and not grab as many as I can and bring them to it.

That's where you go wrong. Like I say, just be a good person. If it influences you in that way I'm sure you would have more productive and pleasent discussions regarding it. 

Quote

I know I know, that's not cool to do. Many of you don't like me for it. It's a conundrum that I'm very much interested in working out but I do want to thank Davros @MERRY DMAS for starting this thread.

You're not going to convert the science minded. I can tell you now that it's just not going to happen. You're better of just asking questions and learning more about why people don't find the UB convincing and discuss and rationalise that. 

Quote

You can say that again.

 

I'll do better. But I'll probably have my days.

 

Today's been pretty good. Tomorrow ought to be better. Can I quote something 'profound' from the book now? Just kidding. Talk with ya later.

 

Here's that link:

 

 

We all have good days and bad ones Will. Don't overthink it. I look forward to seeing more of this side of you and some productive discussions. All the best. 

[Will Due]

 

@Piney tell me something you'd like to discuss. I don't remember what you've said before. Refresh my memory. Ok?

 

 

[Piney]

13 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

@Piney tell me something you'd like to discuss. I don't remember what you've said before. Refresh my memory. Ok?

 

All the false hoods I pointed out are broken down in the thread. Now you "debunk" them and prove me wrong.  

[Will Due]

On 1/3/2019 at 7:18 PM, Piney said:

"Religion is a distortion, Blind faith unrealisitc, dualistic thinking a mental illness"- Lao Tzu

Btw, when resetting things with psyche the other day, which I hope to do with you as well as everyone else, I learned a new trick regarding how to use the quote function of this website. So I always wondered how you guys were splitting up sections and then responding to them separately like I'm going to do now. I inadvertently placed the cursor at the end of a sentence in the quote box, hit return twice and wala, it split that part out and put it in a separate quote box with space in between for me to leave a comment there! Very cool. Very useful. That's why I was hesitating to respond often. It was very difficult to get specific to individual points without knowing about this function. But now it'll be easier. I'd like to thank the owners of this website for setting it up with this software.

 

Quote

I'm sorry but the Chinese concept of Tian and the Algonquian concept of Kiitaanittuu (The Living Universe) is far more in-line with a developed society than your primitive concept of the personified male Abrahamic god.

I can see that the term "primitive" is one you seem to take personal offense to. Then there's the provocative problem that many point out about the Urantia Book, that has to do with its comments about race. Specifically the use of terms like "colored" "inferior" "superior" and some others. 

Today the mores demand respect regarding racial matters. Currently it is regarded unfair to treat the peoples of the world differently solely based on race. It's also regarded as intolerant and just plain wrong to refer to groups of people or someone individually as being "inferior." I've personally experienced racism and I've also been treated as if I'm inferior many times. A major portion of my ancestry comes from what used to be described as "colored." I don't know you personally Piney but I would not be surprised if my indigenous background is greater than yours. My dad was born in Jakarta Indonesia and he told me all about the shamans and what they did to serve his people and my family.

But here's my point. Are the peoples of the world the same? Are we divergent "racially?" Are some more cabable or naturally gifted with certain talents or abilities than others? Are these types "superior" to others?

I think the answers are obvious.

So in the Urantia Book, the authors lay all these facts out and use terminology that may seem outrageous today but don't forget, they wrote what they wrote in light of how things were in the first third of the twentieth century. But never do they say things about us (racially considered) without respect. In fact it's made perfectly clear that regarding these matters of the human condition, if there are things that are divergent and apparently not equal, the way it works in the universe is that these things will all even out in the end. That "many who are first will be last, and those who are last will many times be first."

 

Quote

This is a complete lie . There is no Native American tribe in North America that has a sacred circle of stone for ceremonies and the Medicine Wheel is just a calendar. 

The Patagonians don't worship trees. Neither did the ancient Semites. There is no "cult" of the Tree of Life in China but the 'World Tree' is recognized worldwide. But it was not worshipped.

 

Rather than challenge you about this, I'll just point to a couple of certain facts. 

Think of history as being two things this way. 

• The actuality of what really happened. 
• The imperfect human memory and or record of what actually happened plus how everyone individually interprets it.

To a certain degree, eventhough two people might agree on a lot of things, no two will agree on everything. 

That's all I can say right now.

 

 

Edited January 18, 2019 by Will Due

[Piney]

3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Btw, when resetting things with psyche the other day, which I hope to do with you as well as everyone else, I learned a new trick regarding how to use the quote function of this website. So I always wondered how you guys were splitting up sections and then responding to them separately like I'm going to do now. I placed the cursor at the end of a sentence in the quote box, hit return twice inadvertently and wala, it split that part out and put it in a separate quote box with space in between for me to leave a comment thete! Very cool. Very useful. That's why I was hesitating to respond often. It's was very difficult to get specific to individual points without knowing about this function. But now it'll be easier. I'd like to thank the owners of this website for setting it up with this software.

 

I can see that the term "primitive" is one you seem to take personal offense to (based on several of your posts in the past). Then there's the provocative problem that many point out about the Urantia Book, that has to do with its comments about race. Specifically the use of terms like "colored" "inferior" "superior" and some others. 

Race is strictly a human concept. We are all the same species. The fact that  Urantia even divides people into "colored races" is unscientific and the fact that it determines their personality traits based on it, is bias and racist.

3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Rather than challenge you about this, I'll just point to a couple of certain facts. 

Think of history as being two things this way. 

• The actuality of what really happened. 
• The imperfect human memory and or record of what actually happened plus how everyone individually interprets it.

To a certain degree, eventhough two people might agree on a lot of things, no two will agree on everything. 

That's all I can say right now.

That's a damn good evasion. And yes Will, I know your half Indonesian which is why I am so unsettled that you fell for American Revivalist dreck. 

 

[Piney]

On 1/9/2019 at 8:37 PM, Piney said:

^{64:6.26 (725.7)} Isolated in Africa, the indigo peoples, like the red man, received little or none of the race elevation which would have been derived from the infusion of the Adamic stock. Alone in Africa, the indigo race made little advancement until the days of Orvonon, when they experienced a great spiritual awakening. While they later almost entirely forgot the “God of Gods” proclaimed by Orvonon, they did not entirely lose the desire to worship the Unknown; at least they maintained a form of worship up to a few thousand years ago.

 

It seems Black People and Red People didn't receive Adamic (White infusion) Thus we are inferior. 

On 1/9/2019 at 8:37 PM, Piney said:

Quote

^{64:7.15 (728.4)} And so it appears that Egypt was first dominated by the orange man, then by the green, followed by the indigo (black) man, and still later by a mongrel race of indigo, blue, and modified green men. But long before Adam arrived, the blue men of Europe and the mixed races of Arabia had driven the indigo race out of Egypt and far south on the African continent.

 

It says here Black people were driven into Africa. 

@Will Due   So correct these if they're wrong

[Will Due]

4 minutes ago, Piney said:

Race is strictly a human concept. We are all the same species. The fact that  Urantia even divides people into "colored races" is unscientific and the fact that it determines their personality traits based on it, is bias and racist.

Race is a concept? You mean like it isn't real? It's just an idea?

We are the same species that's true. But we are genetically different by "race."

I've read several articles where it was said that these racial differences are encoded in a person's DNA. Is the science wrong?

 

 

[Piney]

7 minutes ago, Will Due said:

I've read several articles where it was said that these racial differences are encoded in a person's DNA. Is the science wrong?

Please show me the genetic difference between the Red and Yellow Races? 

 

9 minutes ago, Will Due said:

We are the same species that's true. But we are genetically different by "race."

Southern Europeans and Northern Europeans are genetically different are they a different race?

Southeast Asians, Western Asians, and Northeast Asians are all genetically different are they different races? 

 

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, Piney said:

It seems Black People and Red People didn't receive Adamic (White infusion) Thus we are inferior. 

No. I do not interpret it that way at all. The way I see it is in terms of potential. 

Did you read about what the the main function is of what you called 'Adamic infusion'? How the Adamic or "Violet" race was intended to commingle with all the world's people and not just what might be referred to as "white" people? That white people evolved out of the failure of the violet race to aceive their mission? To "uplift" ALL the people of the world together and create or eventually evolve them homogeneously? To be the same?

This mission defaulted. It failed. But the way I interpret what's going to happen, given that the "last" are often first in the end, there is great potential for the world's people to achieve something extremely rare. To make something good put of it. And I see it happening all around.

 

2 minutes ago, Piney said:

It says here Black people were driven into Africa. 

 

Yes. It goes against everything conventionally accepted by science.

I'll get more into this later. It's a lot to cover.

 

 

[Will Due]

28 minutes ago, Piney said:

Please show me the genetic difference between the Red and Yellow Races? 

Look at pictures of Native Americans from the nineteenth century. Look at pictures of Chinese Americans from the same period. There are lots of these pictures from the gold rush days in California.

You mean to tell me they're not different racially? 

 

Quote

Southern Europeans and Northern Europeans are genetically different are they a different race?

Yes.

 

Quote

Southeast Asians, Western Asians, and Northeast Asians are all genetically different are they different races? 

Yes.

 

The term "race" as I interpret how it's used in the Urantia Book is not used in any way that we have thought of or think of it now. The whole "race" thing is presented in the book to shed light on something that isn't racial at all. It has to do with potential. Spiritual potential. Which can only be grounded and made real individually. That the divergences of the group or groups creates situations where personal choices are hard in avoiding to make. Choices of appreciation (hopefully). Choices that lead to understanding. Understanding others in ways that lead to understanding ourselves. Understanding the greater things that can only result from effort. Race divergence sets this up. When properly dealt with (like I think it is today) it's a motivator. A motivator that uplifts. And we were created this way (racially divergent) because the universe, where we are planned to live in the future, is filled with many different types of beings that are a lot more diverse than just being different by race. We're being prepared for that. That's how I interpret it.

 

 

Edited January 18, 2019 by Will Due

[cormac mac airt]

32 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Race is a concept? You mean like it isn't real? It's just an idea?

We are the same species that's true. But we are genetically different by "race."

I've read several articles where it was said that these racial differences are encoded in a person's DNA. Is the science wrong?

I think what Piney meant to say is that race is a construct. Outside of a need by some to see the different skin colors as superior or inferior to one another the mention of "race" really serves no valid purpose. 

No, we are NOT genetically different by race. Of the 5 commonly referenced "races" there are approximately 3500 mtDNA haplogroups and a nearly equal amount of Y Chromosome DNA haplogroups that have little to nothing to do with said "races". 

Depends on what the science says as opposed to what you think it says. Do you have examples?

cormac

[Piney]

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

The term "race" as I interpret how it's used in the Urantia Book is not used in any way that we have thought of or think of it now. The whole "race" thing is presented in the book to shed light on something that isn't racial at all. It has to do with potential. Spiritual potential. Which can only be grounded and made real individually. That the divergences of the group or groups creates situations where personal choices are hard in avoiding to make. Choices of appreciation (hopefully). Choices that lead to understanding. Understanding others in ways that lead to understanding ourselves. Understanding the greater things that can only result from effort. Race divergence sets this up. When properly dealt with it's a motivator. A motivator that uplifts. And we were created this way (racially divergent) because the universe, where we are planned to live in the future, is filled with many different types of beings that are a lot more diverse than just being different by race. We're being prepared for that. That's how I interpret it.

No, genetic difference stem from environment and have nothing to do with spiritual growth. 

[Piney]

1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

cormac

I was about to tag you on this. My forte is history. 

[cormac mac airt]

4 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Look at pictures of Native Americans from the nineteenth century. Look at pictures of Chinese Americans from the same period. There are lots of these pictures from the gold rush days in California.

You mean to tell me they're not different racially? 

 

Yes.

 

Yes.

 

The term "race" as I interpret how it's used in the Urantia Book is not used in any way that we have thought of or think of it now. The whole "race" thing is presented in the book to shed light on something that isn't racial at all. It has to do with potential. Spiritual potential. Which can only be grounded and made real individually. That the divergences of the group or groups creates situations where personal choices are hard in avoiding to make. Choices of appreciation (hopefully). Choices that lead to understanding. Understanding others in ways that lead to understanding ourselves. Understanding the greater things that can only result from effort. Race divergence sets this up. When properly dealt with (like I think it is today) it's a motivator. A motivator that uplifts. And we were created this way (racially divergent) because the universe, where we are planned to live in the future, is filled with many different types of beings that are a lot more diverse than just being different by race. We're being prepared for that. That's how I interpret it.

No, it really doesn't. It just shows that you would prefer to white-wash what is otherwise accepted as intolerable by any descent human being. The UB is rather specific in its racism. 

cormac

[cormac mac airt]

2 minutes ago, Piney said:

I was about to tag you on this. My forte is history. 

I've got your six. 

cormac

Edited January 18, 2019 by cormac mac airt

[cormac mac airt]

When it comes to race beyond the fact that the earliest Hss belonged to Mitochondrial Haplogroup L and Y Chromosome Haplogroup A0, as a starting point, there is NO OTHER race that can be linked genetically to a specific DNA haplogroup. 

cormac

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

I think what Piney meant to say is that race is a construct. Outside of a need by some to see the different skin colors as superior or inferior to one another the mention of "race" really serves no valid purpose. 

No, we are NOT genetically different by race. Of the 5 commonly referenced "races" there are approximately 3500 mtDNA haplogroups and a nearly equal amount of Y Chromosome DNA haplogroups that have little to nothing to do with said "races". 

Depends on what the science says as opposed to what you think it says. Do you have examples?

cormac

 

Thanks cormac. No I don't have scientific examples. You were right about me. I'm not very versed in science beyond a certain point. That's part of the reason why I stay participating in these conversations. So I can learn from you.

But in my previous post I think I covered how I look at this touchy subject. Especially regarding how the UB spells this race thing out.

I can say this though. If the UB were to be written now, it would say the same thing I see it saying in terms and language from a now bygone era, but in a completely different way. That I'm sure of and for me, regarding what I'm trying to do, it's a very big problem.

 

 

[cormac mac airt]

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Thanks cormac. No I don't have scientific examples. You were right about me. I'm not very versed in science beyond a certain point. That's part of the reason why I stay participating in these conversations. So I can learn from you.

But in my previous post I think I covered how I look at this touchy subject. Especially regarding how the UB spells this race thing out.

I can say this though. If the UB were to be written now, it would say the same thing I see it saying in terms and language from a now bygone era, but in a completely different way. That I'm sure of and for me, regarding what I'm trying to do, it's a very big problem.

The UB is rather specific in its racism. That you can't or won't allow yourself to see that shows a lack of understanding of just how wrong it really is in that regard. 

cormac

[Will Due]

10 minutes ago, Piney said:

No, genetic difference stem from environment and have nothing to do with spiritual growth. 

 

You misunderstand. The book implies that it's exactly the opposite.

Genetic differences are "designed" to create environmental and cultural situations that promote spiritual growth. Life is supposed to be difficult. It invigorates that way. It (nature) bends the will to become more tolerant.

Isn't that what's going on in the world today? We're being prepared for something. 

 

 

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

The UB is rather specific in its racism.

 

I disagree. I read the book and see the specifics of how to love each and every fellow human being more than ever. It's a road map to tolerance. Not racism. It provides knowledge and insight.