Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Urantia Book Poll


Davros of Skaro

The UB. Made up, or inspired?   

51 members have voted

  1. 1. Is the Urantia Book fact, or fake?

    • Real channeled knowledge ?
    • Person, or people fakery?

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

I very much appreciate that you asked that question Sheri.

The UB doesn't originate a science nor a religion because one of its main purposes is to co-ordinate both science and religion realistically. In such a way that the facts of both science and religion become seamless. And not in conflict with each other. 

In my opinion, because this is what the UB does, the facts of science and the value of religion become serviceable like never before and doing this, without a cult or new organized religion being formed.

 

 

What facts of Science and what facts of Religion have contributed to this and how has this collaboration become serviceable like never before? 

You aren’t including details.

You are taking in vacuous generalities, the equivalent of saying nothing, 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

What facts of Science and what facts of Religion have contributed to this and how has this collaboration become serviceable like never before? 

 

How it makes the facts of science and the value of religion serviceable in a seamless way is by coordinating them philosophically and the details are outlined in the book of how it does this.

Scientific facts are upheld and religious history is portrayed against the backdrop of its evolution. 

This then markedly dispells confusion and creates a better big picture of where it all is. 

 

 

Edited by Will Due
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

How it makes the facts of science and the value of religion serviceable in a seamless way is by coordinating them philosophically and the details are outlined in the book.

Scientific facts are upheld and religious history is portrayed against the backdrop of its evolution. 

This then markedly dispells confusion and creates a better big picture of where it all is. 

 

 

For example? 

This is a bring In a quote moment and using facts tell us how the UB has done this in actuality.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a "Put up your clay pigeons and watch a crack shot nail evey one of them moments." Any UB rush you get is quickly dispelled by it's horribly dated science.

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sherapy said:

For example? 

This is a bring In a quote moment and using facts tell us how the UB has done this in actuality.

 

The UB's comments about science are there to defuse confusion about the current conflicts many experience between science and religion philosophically

The world is at a point were most of us need help in tying together what the hell is going on here. Scientific progress has vastly outpaced religious evolution and reform. Religion has a lot of catching up to do. So if religion is the spokesman for God then must God do something to explain it.

That's what the UB does through what it reveals.

 

Quote:

"The fact of religion consists wholly in the religious experience of rational and average human beings. And this is the only sense in which religion can ever be regarded as scientific or even psychological. The proof that revelation is revelation is this same fact of human experience: the fact that revelation does synthesize the apparently divergent sciences of nature and the theology of religion into a consistent and logical universe philosophy, a co-ordinated and unbroken explanation of both science and religion, thus creating a harmony of mind and satisfaction of spirit which answers in human experience those questionings of the mortal mind which craves to know how the Infinite works out his will and plans in matter, with minds, and on spirit.

Reason is the method of science; faith is the method of religion; logic is the attempted technique of philosophy. Revelation compensates for the absence of [a higher unavailable] viewpoint by providing a technique for achieving unity in the comprehension of the reality and relationships of matter and spirit by the mediation of mind. And true revelation never renders science unnatural, religion unreasonable, or philosophy illogical.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

 

I'll repost this so you can understand better psyche:

 

"The truth—an understanding of cosmic relationships, universe facts, and spiritual values—can best be had through the ministry of the Spirit of Truth and can best be criticized by revelation. But revelation originates neither a science nor a religion; its function is to co-ordinate both science and religion with the truth of reality. Always, in the absence of revelation or in the failure to accept or grasp it, has mortal man resorted to his futile gesture of metaphysics, that being the only human substitute for the revelation of truth [...] .

 

 

That's not explaining anything other than what you have chosen as your path. It's got nothing to do with the rest of us. The UB has been proven wrong time and again here alone so the claim is not true about coordination. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

 

The UB's comments about science are there to defuse confusion about the current conflicts many experience between science and religion philosophically

The world is at a point were most of us need help in tying together what the hell is going on here. Scientific progress has vastly outpaced religious evolution and reform. Religion has a lot of catching up to do. So if religion is the spokesman for God then must God do something to explain it.

That's what the UB does through what it reveals.

 

Quote:

"The fact of religion consists wholly in the religious experience of rational and average human beings. And this is the only sense in which religion can ever be regarded as scientific or even psychological. The proof that revelation is revelation is this same fact of human experience: the fact that revelation does synthesize the apparently divergent sciences of nature and the theology of religion into a consistent and logical universe philosophy, a co-ordinated and unbroken explanation of both science and religion, thus creating a harmony of mind and satisfaction of spirit which answers in human experience those questionings of the mortal mind which craves to know how the Infinite works out his will and plans in matter, with minds, and on spirit.

Reason is the method of science; faith is the method of religion; logic is the attempted technique of philosophy. Revelation compensates for the absence of [a higher unavailable] viewpoint by providing a technique for achieving unity in the comprehension of the reality and relationships of matter and spirit by the mediation of mind. And true revelation never renders science unnatural, religion unreasonable, or philosophy illogical.

 

 

Reason isn’t he method of Science, Will, the UB is in error. Is this supposed to be god talking (being channeled)? If so he/she/it doesn’t even know the basics. This is what you should be evaluating to determine if the UB is factual. At this point, just on this error, I would retire this book. 

“The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method), in other words, Science is the method of making an observation, asking a question, framing a hypothesis, making a prediction about the hypothesis, testing the prediction, moving on to making new predictions or hypotheses. 
 
Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

Reason isn’t the method of Science

 

But if it wasn't for reason, there would be no scientific method.

Reason, is what gave birth to the scientific method. 

And reason still drives it.

 

 

Edited by Will Due
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

That's not explaining anything other than what you have chosen as your path. It's got nothing to do with the rest of us. The UB has been proven wrong time and again here alone so the claim is not true about coordination. 

 

Philosophically, the UB coordinates science and religion. The science of circa 1935. Which has been exhaustively pointed out by several posters.

First published in 1955, circa 1935 is when the UB was written.

 

 

Edited by Will Due
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, danydandan said:

What's the difference?

They aren't independent or un-biased? So what's you angle here?

Care to define what you mean by 'independent'. They are all UB & UF propaganda, are you stating this dude has zero affiliation with the Urantia Book, or Foundation?

Also have you read his 'report'? 

he's independent of all Urantia organizations, including U Foundation, and, as you see, however, he's supportive of the URANTIA science and history and has researched it amply, including current updates from him and other members at his Facebook 'urantia science and history' page, and i've read many of his reports, and most are very telling...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

But if it wasn't for reason, there would be no scientific method.

Reason, is what gave birth to the scientific method. 

And reason still drives it.

 

 

Will this adds nothing to the discourse I am trying to engage you in.

We are talking about the explicits not the implicit. 

It tells me you do not know what you are talking about, you have not  thought skeptically about the UB, it tells me you do not understand Science enough to represent it., at this point.

Will start by defining Science. 

 

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

This is a "Put up your clay pigeons and watch a crack shot nail evey one of them moments." Any UB rush you get is quickly dispelled by it's horribly dated science.

that is false, @Hammerclaw.

see rather this (7:50min):

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Luis Marco said:

that is false, @Hammerclaw.

see rather this (7:50min):

 

Read the book before most of you were born. I'm long past the age of oohing and aahing over weirdness. Adamski, VelIkovsky, Hubbard, I've been down the road with them all, but childhood ends. I prefer good fiction and honest fantasy to pretentious nonsense.

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Read the book before most of you were born. I'm long past the age of oohing and aahing over weirdness. Adamski, VelIkovsky, Hubbard, I've been down the road with them all, but childhood ends. I prefer good fiction and honest fantasy to pretentious nonsense.

A little music interlude 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

 

Philosophically, the UB coordinates science and religion. The science of circa 1935. Which has been exhaustively pointed out by several posters.

First published in 1955, circa 1935 is when the UB was written.

 

 

So its not coordinating science with religion, its coordinating some old mistakes with religion. 

That's basically what you are saying. 

How is that not illustrating that its nonsense? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

its coordinating some old mistakes with religion. 

 

If they were old mistakes, yes; they were the old mistakes with the science of circa 1935.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UB, and the ideology behind it, is a very good example for the ongoing development of the intellect of mankind. Ages ago people were told when the Moon covers the Sun, it’s a sign of god`s/the god`s anger. But as intellect developed, resulting into logic-based thinking and analysis processes, the most of us know better today and no virgins get scarified because of a Sun eclipse anymore (hopefully).

Religion based writings like the UB, the Bible, the Quran and others where written to give an agenda to the masses not because of the aim to take fear away and/or to give answers to the open questions about life and existence in general, they were written because of a mission to establish and to fix the power of a superior community, ahead of the masses. The most of these writings are not friendly how-to manuals, written to the benefit of individuals. Millions of killed people (“in the name of God””) over at least the last 2k years (and: ongoing) are the sad proof that the mission was designed to be absolute and to strengthen the power and influence of the mission/s itself.

The majority of humans is still prone for such missions/agendas because a weak mind needs guidance and ask for guidance as well, and that’s well known by the mission`s leaders. They are leading their business very well as their slaves are generally delighted to parrot the mission`s SOPs their whole life and, to spread them with pleasure as well.

But, hopefully, we are living in the age of information where nearly everyone has access to an unlimited pool of real information, more and more people question things and do not blindly follow the claims of a few. And that’s what I mean with further development of the intellect of mankind. Members of this group have reached a higher level of insight/intellect, which is and will be to the benefit of mankind in future. And no, this isn’t an arrogant statement, it’s a statement based on facts.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just wondering, how many people in this thread have actually read the UB?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

If they were old mistakes, yes; they were the old mistakes with the science of circa 1935.

So another version of YEC? 

Hence your opposition to evolution and view that the universe has a centre? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

I was just wondering, how many people in this thread have actually read the UB?

You can't know Will and Luis very well I take it? 

Which parts haven't they posted? 

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

You can't know Will and Luis very well I take it? 

Which parts haven't they posted? 

Well, by page 7 I had counted 19 others besides them. I was just wondering if posters here were really in a position to take part in the poll. You can all argue against what the UB's supporters say, BUT ..... it is possible that the information in the book was channeled but is still not true! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

Well, by page 7 I had counted 19 others besides them. I was just wondering if posters here were really in a position to take part in the poll. You can all argue against what the UB's supporters say, BUT ..... it is possible that the information in the book was channeled but is still not true! 

Many of the claims in the book have been shown to be outright incorrect. The origin of the book has been discussed and the obvious parallels with 7th day adventists and mormonism with smattering of other religion thrown in have been made a point of top. I'd say that is enough to warrant productive discussion. Would you disagree with those conclusions? If so, why? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

Many of the claims in the book have been shown to be outright incorrect. The origin of the book has been discussed and the obvious parallels with 7th day adventists and mormonism with smattering of other religion thrown in have been made a point of top. I'd say that is enough to warrant productive discussion. Would you disagree with those conclusions? If so, why? 

'Enough to warrant productive discussion' of course, but to vote in the poll? As I said, I'd be interested to know how many posters in this thread have read all, or even part of the book.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

'Enough to warrant productive discussion' of course, but to vote in the poll? As I said, I'd be interested to know how many posters in this thread have read all, or even part of the book.

Yes. 

If you have read this thread  it even post regularly in this section, you have read part of it. There are links, paragraphs and chapters quoted as answers which are read to rebut the claims. 

I think Dan's the only one, other than Will and Luis of course, who has managed to make it cover to cover. It really is quite silly. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

Yes. 

If you have read this thread  it even post regularly in this section, you have read part of it. There are links, paragraphs and chapters quoted as answers which are read to rebut the claims. 

Thank you. I came in at the beginning of this thread but then gave up. So many threads in this section get bogged down with just a couple of posters going round and round in circles with each other. :(

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.