'What do you know about 'The Urantia Papers'?'

[c.s.lewis]

On 11/14/2021 at 6:42 AM, onlookerofmayhem said:

Firstly, I have read the tome.

My questions to you are :

Why should I believe anything that is written within it's pages?

Who has determined that it is a "divine revelation"?

Why should it be considered anything more than a fictional story?

Which, just like the bible, it seems to obviously be to me.

I consider the UB to be nothing more than biblical fanfiction.

• Why should I believe anything that is written within it's pages?

Because it is absolutely a divine revelation, whose advanced science ahead of its time has already been confirmed to be real, true, actual, factual: Why and how?: There are two main websites that treat this (and a Facebook page called 'Urantia Book; Science and History', too; these are UBannotated, and UBCosmology:

1. UBannotated.com
2. UBCosmology.com

They are whole books on themselves, and the one that is updated less in general is UBCosmology.

Those are the SCIENTIFIC and PHYSICAL PROOFS of URANTIA being reliable in its direct statements being real regarding the spirit, philosophy, and science world.

• Who has determined that it is a "divine revelation"?

The divine revelators/authors of URANTIA have determined this (together with our input of its confirmation as a real epochal divine revelation), not only because of its accurate science ahead of its time, but because of it other accurate spiritual knowledge. Although not all of the revelators of URANTIA are divine beings (yet), some are semi-spiritual, some of 'em are just superhuman in some way or another, etc. Consider what they say about URANTIA itself (and the other four epochal divine revelations):

Quote

92:4.4 (1007.4) There have been many events of religious revelation but only five of epochal significance. These were as follows:

92:4.5 (1007.5) 1. The Dalamatian teachings. The true concept of the First Source and Center was first promulgated on Urantia by the one hundred corporeal members of Prince Caligastia’s staff. This expanding revelation of Deity went on for more than three hundred thousand years until it was suddenly terminated by the planetary secession and the disruption of the teaching regime. Except for the work of Van, the influence of the Dalamatian revelation was practically lost to the whole world. Even the Nodites had forgotten this truth by the time of Adam’s arrival. Of all who received the teachings of the one hundred, the red men held them longest, but the idea of the Great Spirit was but a hazy concept in Amerindian religion when contact with Christianity greatly clarified and strengthened it.

92:4.6 (1007.6) 2. The Edenic teachings. Adam and Eve again portrayed the concept of the Father of all to the evolutionary peoples. The disruption of the first Eden halted the course of the Adamic revelation before it had ever fully started. But the aborted teachings of Adam were carried on by the Sethite priests, and some of these truths have never been entirely lost to the world. The entire trend of Levantine religious evolution was modified by the teachings of the Sethites. But by 2500 b.c. mankind had largely lost sight of the revelation sponsored in the days of Eden.

92:4.7 (1007.7) 3. Melchizedek of Salem. This emergency Son of Nebadon inaugurated the third revelation of truth on Urantia. The cardinal precepts of his teachings were trust and faith. He taught trust in the omnipotent beneficence of God and proclaimed that faith was the act by which men earned God’s favor. His teachings gradually commingled with the beliefs and practices of various evolutionary religions and finally developed into those theologic systems present on Urantia at the opening of the first millennium after Christ.

92:4.8 (1008.1) 4. Jesus of Nazareth. Christ Michael presented for the fourth time to Urantia the concept of God as the Universal Father, and this teaching has generally persisted ever since. The essence of his teaching was love and service, the loving worship which a creature son voluntarily gives in recognition of, and response to, the loving ministry of God his Father; the freewill service which such creature sons bestow upon their brethren in the joyous realization that in this service they are likewise serving God the Father.

92:4.9 (1008.2) 5. The Urantia Papers. The papers, of which this is one, constitute the most recent presentation of truth to the mortals of Urantia. These papers differ from all previous revelations, for they are not the work of a single universe personality but a composite presentation by many beings. But no revelation short of the attainment of the Universal Father can ever be complete. All other celestial ministrations are no more than partial, transient, and practically adapted to local conditions in time and space. While such admissions as this may possibly detract from the immediate force and authority of all revelations, the time has arrived on Urantia when it is advisable to make such frank statements, even at the risk of weakening the future influence and authority of this, the most recent of the revelations of truth to the mortal races of Urantia.

• Why should it be considered anything more than a fictional story?

Because it does not claim to be fiction nor is there any proof that its associated humans (contacted by these celestial beings) were fraudulent pranksters who conspired to decieve anyone, that's just theories, not reality...

Edited November 28, 2021 by Luis Marco

[c.s.lewis]

On 11/14/2021 at 7:40 AM, Pettytalk said:

I know it's the devil's work, Satan's new bestseller directed at those with minds amenable to plain deception. The Antichrist's number is not 666, it's either 616, or most likely 606.  

Your world is called Urantia, and it is number 606 in the planetary group, or system, of Satania.

You may consider what the Bible says about good and evil spirits, and URANTIA says parts of the Bible are the third epochal divine revelation, URANTIA being the fifth one (of five, so far), haha:

Quote

1 john 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

 

Edited November 28, 2021 by Luis Marco

[c.s.lewis]

On 11/15/2021 at 6:38 AM, joc said:

The Urantia Papers are just as valid a belief system as any other belief system.  If Urantia is a religion, then it is just as valid a religion as any other.  Who can say, this religion is better than that religion?  This belief is more accurate than that belief?  It's all the same street.  And...not a street I wish to walk down.  But that's just me...

Not a belief system, according to URANTIA itself (among many other Urantian quotes):

Quote

4:5:1 Religious tradition is the imperfectly preserved record of the experiences of the God-knowing men of past ages, but such records are untrustworthy as guides for religious living or as the source of true information about the Universal Father. Such ancient beliefs have been invariably altered by the fact that primitive man was a mythmaker.

 

[c.s.lewis]

On 11/15/2021 at 8:42 AM, Essan said:

Humans don't like not knowing.  So, when they don't know "Why are we here?"  " What happens when we die?"   "Why isn't granite soft and squishy and nice to eat with a fruit salad?"  we fill the gaps with religious belief.   It helps us sleep at night, knowing we have all the answers, even if most of them are complete hogswash.

Compare with this URANTIA Paper 115 quote:

Quote

115:1.1 (1260.2) Partial, incomplete, and evolving intellects would be helpless in the master universe, would be unable to form the first rational thought pattern, were it not for the innate ability of all mind, high or low, to form a universe frame in which to think. If mind cannot fathom conclusions, if it cannot penetrate to true origins, then will such mind unfailingly postulate conclusions and invent origins that it may have a means of logical thought within the frame of these mind-created postulates. And while such universe frames for creature thought are indispensable to rational intellectual operations, they are, without exception, erroneous to a greater or lesser degree.

[Mr Walker]

I don't personally believe that faith is dependent on science, evidences, and proof.

  Indeed, faith operates when there are none of these available.  Thus,  to me, a person's belief is not dependent  on, or connected to science

That said, Will brought up the issue of scientific support for Urantia cosmology, and can thus be questioned about it 

However, a cynic might observe a deliberate pattern of entrapment in the questions and responses  ie get Will to give a specific answer, which can then be criticised   

Really it is as Will said.

A person with enough interest  may take the time to read or watch something like this.   That is the only way for a person to come to their own individual perception or position  

Whatever Will's perception and understanding, it will not be that of any one else, and he will not be able to make it clear to a mind with a different background and life experiences. 

if someone doesn't have the time or interest to watch the video, how do they justify the time spent questioning Will on his own understanding?   

 

 

[c.s.lewis]

On 11/16/2021 at 1:13 AM, Timothy said:

@Luis Marco you say you’re not spamming or advertising, but that’s exactly what you did.

Sooooooo where do we go from here?

Shall I counter your FAQ with this one? 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Urantia_Book

Ha! Wikipedia, the fake encyclopedia, although it has its goodies we know; however!:

• 'Study: On Wikipedia, politically controversial science topics are vulnerable to information sabotage'
• 'Wikipedia co-founder: “Wikipedia is broken,” run by bad actors and special interests to smear all voices of dissent'

We cannot believe Wikipedia when they tell an almost totally false entry on URANTIA: They don't have its advanced science etc.

[c.s.lewis]

On 11/16/2021 at 7:17 AM, joc said:

  but, but, but...aren't all religions basically rip offs of other religions?  i.e.  Christianity/Pagan

Not the case with the UNCOMPROMISED teachings of our JESUS and with our URANTIA (etc):

Quote

92:4:1 Revelation is evolutionary but always progressive. Down through the ages of a world's history, the revelations of religion are ever-expanding and successively more enlightening. It is the mission of revelation to sort and censor the successive religions of evolution. But if revelation is to exalt and upstep the religions of evolution, then must such divine visitations portray teachings which are not too far removed from the thought and reactions of the age in which they are presented. Thus must and does revelation always keep in touch with evolution. Always must the religion of revelation be limited by man's capacity of receptivity.

Edited November 28, 2021 by Luis Marco

[c.s.lewis]

I forgot to mention astrophysicist Nigel Nunn, as Will Due did on page 3 here, and i also forgot to mention the names of the two main scientific sources validating URANTIA: Halbert Katzen's UBannotated.com, and George Park's UBCosmology.com! (If you don't want to see George Park's website, here's a vid from Urantia Foundation on some of his work for you scientific scholars here:)

 

Edited November 29, 2021 by Luis Marco

[+Hammerclaw]

What drongo galah bludger!

 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

So the Uranitia Papers are true because the Uranitia Papers say they are true. 
Which means rhe Texas Chainsaw Massacre is true.

[Grim Reaper 6]

On 11/14/2021 at 12:32 PM, Luis Marco said:

Hey, i share with you all my most recent answer to the queries about The Urantia Papers or The Urantia Book, on Quora:

• https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-know-about-The-Urantia-Book/answer/Luis-Marco-10

This is not spamming nor advertising, since URANTIA is already in the public domain, and free to read and download online...

So i am open here to debate with anyone who wants to 'debunk' this divine revelation, URANTIA, which objectively and for me it's impossible, wanna try?, here i am!, let's start this debate---if you want.

i also add these, the very first paragraphs of URANTIA:

Very honestly and with no disrespect intended toward those who follow that religious practice, enough to certainly know, that I do not need to know more than I already do. Concerning the religious belief system, which I personally don't believe at all, based upon my personal opinion. However, that aside I will further say that if you find comfort in those beliefs or any other religious practices I am happy for you, and If I were you I would never change a thing and never be concerned what anyone else believes or thinks, your feelings and peace if mind are all that is important. .

I practice my own form of spirituality , and according to the teaching and practices of the philosophy I follow, we do not promote our spiritual practices to others. The only way I would help someone to understand my spiritual beliefs and teachings is if they asked to me to personally introduce them to the Philosophy, that is the way this Philosophy has operatored for more than thousands of years. 

peace. 

Edited November 29, 2021 by Manwon Lender

[Grim Reaper 6]

5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I don't personally believe that faith is dependent on science, evidences, and proof.

  Indeed, faith operates when there are none of these available.  Thus,  to me, a person's belief is not dependent  on, or connected to science

That said, Will brought up the issue of scientific support for Urantia cosmology, and can thus be questioned about it 

However, a cynic might observe a deliberate pattern of entrapment in the questions and responses  ie get Will to give a specific answer, which can then be criticised   

Really it is as Will said.

A person with enough interest  may take the time to read or watch something like this.   That is the only way for a person to come to their own individual perception or position  

Whatever Will's perception and understanding, it will not be that of any one else, and he will not be able to make it clear to a mind with a different background and life experiences. 

if someone doesn't have the time or interest to watch the video, how do they justify the time spent questioning Will on his own understanding?   

 

 

Very well said Mr. Walker I certainly agree with you and Will because he is tolerant of the spiritual beliefs of others according to what i have observed. 

Good post Sir.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I have sat down with the text, and tried my hardest to read it. 
There’s a lot of excess piffle-paffle…. And there is still a whiff of sniffy condescension towards those not of the same … let’s say …. construction as the author. 
But… there is some philosophical points worth discussing hidden within.

[Grim Reaper 6]

On 11/20/2021 at 7:57 AM, Halbert said:

@jmccr8 That's an incredibly interesting question for me, personally, because I've been struggling a lot the last month or so with a redo of the UBtheNEWS Garden of Eden Report. This flagship UBtheNEWS report, originally written in 2007, has not been updated in over a decade. In fact, this has long been one of the most impressive and appreciated UBtheNEWS reports. The original report is available in a PDF format; there's a link off the link above. Three days ago, I re-wrote the summary of the report and over the last month, a significant amount of work has been done, but it's still a work-in-progress. I am hoping/expecting to get this finished up by the end of the month.

As you can see from the Updates page, I have been busy with all kinds of things, in an effort to avoid doing the harder work of updating the Garden of Eden Report. The good news is that the update is going to go well beyond the initial focus on bathymetric mapping and tectonic plate theory. There is some really interesting research to on volcanic activity that aligns with Urantia Book date also ... as well as other issues. But it does hurt my brain to do all the research and tackle the scientific reports related to this topic. As well, some issues are more substantiated than others, which makes organizing the material more challenging. The history of the Strait of Gibraltar and the depth of the Mediterranean at different historical periods is not easy to establish and the research is ongoing, for instance. 

Thank you for the motivation to get after this and stop being such a wus about it. Sorry to be getting old and cranky about hard work.

I must say I really like the way you respond to others, many could learn something from you. I do not believe in or practice your faith, but my Spiritual beliefs, Teachings and Practices require tolerance of all other faiths. I just wanted to say thank for the respectful way you respond to people and also the manner in which you promote your religious beliefs.

My spiritual beliefs are vastly different than almost any other practices and teachings because we are taught not to openly push our philosophy to anyone directly or indirectly. The only time this changes is when someone asks me for information concerning my Spiritual practices then and only then will I openly present and answer questions, under those circumstances I am obligated to help anyone who asks for information about my belief system which is actually a philosophy not a religious practice. 

Well I wanted to respectfully say hello, and offer my observations on how you address those who ask questions concerning your spiritual pracrtices and your faith. 

Peace my friend. 

[eight bits]

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

if someone doesn't have the time or interest to watch the video, how do they justify the time spent questioning Will on his own understanding?   

Will seemed to be experiencing some delay in getting started with my request that he explain the video in his own words. Then @rashore was kind enough and patient enough to break it down into bite-size chunks for him. I think their exchange was productive both for Will and for the community. What more justification were you looking for?

[rashore]

19 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

I think that what the Urantia Book reveals about cosmology compared to all of discussions that I run into from time to time, is that they support what the Urantia Book reveals. I won't provide links because anyone who pays attention to what the latest findings are, already knows what they are.

 

 

The ones scientists are having about their current ideas and theories about cosmology.

 

 

The producer of the video, Nigel Nunn. The revelations of the Urantia Book causes one to think about a lot of things in new ways. Not least of which science.

 

 

In general everything I read about how scientists are currently thinking causes me to see clearer what the writers of the Urantia Book are trying to reveal.

 

 

 

I do want to discuss it but I'm about to head out. I understand if you're not interested in watching the video. I suppose it goes along with having enough desire to know many other things that go beyond what appears to be the things we're only supposed to be curious about.

Thank you for your replies.

 

 

Poor assumption on your part about my interest or not in watching the video. I didn't even make any commentary about my interest. I was trying to get you to engage in discussion, in telling us what your knowledge gain was from the video to share with us. But you keep just reiterating the same nothing back- folks need to watch the video, you won't provide links because if they pay attention they are in the know, you think there are connections without giving any sort of explanation for what, who, or how that is supposed to be going on. 

What do you think about the videos disclaimers about notions in it being unorthodox, not following scientific method, and being thought exercises? What specific scientific conversations/papers/articles and which scientists by name are you correlating as currently thinking what the UB has spoken of? How accurate or not do you think the theories are in the video?

You seem to only want to discuss if folks are already in the know, but how are folks to know if you won't give up any actual knowledge that you hint around at knowing about? You said that watching the video would answer all my questions I was asking- yet it answers none about what you think the video reveals to you, what current discussions in the scientific community you think the video relates to, which scientists you are referring to, which findings you are referring to. 

[rashore]

10 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

So the Uranitia Papers are true because the Uranitia Papers say they are true. 
Which means rhe Texas Chainsaw Massacre is true.

Well, TCM was inspired by the true events of Ed Gein.... are you supporting or suggesting that you think there are true events and/or science behind the Urantia Papers? If so, in what ways?

[+Liquid Gardens]

2 minutes ago, rashore said:

Well, TCM was inspired by the true events of Ed Gein....

Sure, as were Psycho and Silence of the Lambs also.  But without real-world parallels for the adventures of Hannibal Lecter, Norman Bates, and Leatherface it's not really accurate to say that any of those stories are true. 

I think Hats is just pointing out the obvious logic fail of 'this story is true because it says it's true' with the TCM example, since TCM also claimed to be 'true':

[+Hammerclaw]

I'll wait in the car.

[+Sherapy]

18 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I don't personally believe that faith is dependent on science, evidences, and proof.

  Indeed, faith operates when there are none of these available.  Thus,  to me, a person's belief is not dependent  on, or connected to science

That said, Will brought up the issue of scientific support for Urantia cosmology, and can thus be questioned about it 

However, a cynic might observe a deliberate pattern of entrapment in the questions and responses  ie get Will to give a specific answer, which can then be criticised   

Really it is as Will said.

A person with enough interest  may take the time to read or watch something like this.   That is the only way for a person to come to their own individual perception or position  

Whatever Will's perception and understanding, it will not be that of any one else, and he will not be able to make it clear to a mind with a different background and life experiences. 

if someone doesn't have the time or interest to watch the video, how do they justify the time spent questioning Will on his own understanding?   

 

 

An add to, a deeper exploration into faith: 

 

As faith matures it includes verification through doubting, and questioning, applying critical analysis that often leads to more questions and refined understandings, at best in this context faith is then verified for merit and viability. 
 

Few operate exclusively on blind faith, I have always had the impression from Will that he welcomes feedback and questions. He has consistently demonstrated this. 
 

To me, Faith shines a possibility on what may or may not be as in Will’s offering and clarification of the UB it is in the questioning and inquiries that help one explore and decide if there really is anything to a claim or even a good reason to explore further. 

With that being said based on what I have explored of the UB it reminds me of L Ron Hubbard “Dianetics” or Jane Roberts the “Seth” books or Ruth Montgomery’s “Alien” claim books. For me, I am not interested enough to explore further but I enjoy reading those that do find it interesting and why they do and ones take aways. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2021 by Sherapy

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

5 hours ago, rashore said:

Well, TCM was inspired by the true events of Ed Gein.... are you supporting or suggesting that you think there are true events and/or science behind the Urantia Papers? If so, in what ways?

TCM says it’s a depiction of true events. 
 

[Mr Walker]

16 hours ago, eight bits said:

Will seemed to be experiencing some delay in getting started with my request that he explain the video in his own words. Then @rashore was kind enough and patient enough to break it down into bite-size chunks for him. I think their exchange was productive both for Will and for the community. What more justification were you looking for?

You  might be correct, but that is more likely to be your subjective interpretation

It wasn't  actually your posts I was referring to specifically 

Several points 

It is always best if an individual reads /observes , then interprets material themselves, rather than having someone give their paraphrasing/understanding  of it 

one person's perception/understanding will always be at least slightly different  to another's Thus there will always be cause for argument  

some posters ask questions in a linear/evolving pattern designed to entrap the other poster once the y give a peroanl opinion .

  ie why does Will even  need to give his interpretation ?   It is yours (or other readers) intepretations which matter to you/them 

If the y have the time to do this then the y have the time to read the article and decide for themselves

Finally, I very much doubt that Will required having the Urantia material broken down into bits  (even 8 of them )  

Having been burned before, and also for the reasons I gave above,  I suspect he wanted open honest opinions from  others before giving one of his own 

 

 

 

[Mr Walker]

9 hours ago, rashore said:

Poor assumption on your part about my interest or not in watching the video. I didn't even make any commentary about my interest. I was trying to get you to engage in discussion, in telling us what your knowledge gain was from the video to share with us. But you keep just reiterating the same nothing back- folks need to watch the video, you won't provide links because if they pay attention they are in the know, you think there are connections without giving any sort of explanation for what, who, or how that is supposed to be going on. 

What do you think about the videos disclaimers about notions in it being unorthodox, not following scientific method, and being thought exercises? What specific scientific conversations/papers/articles and which scientists by name are you correlating as currently thinking what the UB has spoken of? How accurate or not do you think the theories are in the video?

You seem to only want to discuss if folks are already in the know, but how are folks to know if you won't give up any actual knowledge that you hint around at knowing about? You said that watching the video would answer all my questions I was asking- yet it answers none about what you think the video reveals to you, what current discussions in the scientific community you think the video relates to, which scientists you are referring to, which findings you are referring to. 

See my response to 8 bits

IMO Will's knowledge gain is irrelevant to you or anyone else.

It is something constructed within his mind. 

if you  or another  watched the video, then you would have your own knowldge gain (even if that was a belief that  it was all rubbish )

You may not have intended  to do it, but the sequencing or pattern of your questions is one often used to draw out a poster to a conclusion which can then be attacked 

If the video provides no new understandings to you, then Will's explanation of what it reveals  to him  will not do so, either. 

His construction is based on pre- existing foundations of  experience, knowledge and belief  which you may not possess but which he does , and thus you will not be able to build the same cognitive construct, even if Will explains the process by which he constructed his own  

Ps as i stated in an earlier post, I dont think a person's belief has anything to do with knowledge.

Beliefs are not constructed on  a knowledge base, and are constructed for other reasons than  "scientific materialism"

ie learning how to boil water is an essential skill, but very different to learning how to achieve peace of mind 

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

why does Will even  need to give his interpretation ? 

I'd guess because this is a discussion forum and not YouTube, which is what you would use if all you wanted to do was post a video and gather comments on it. 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Will's knowledge gain is irrelevant to you or anyone else.

This is not really that complicated, Will needs no defending here he didn't do anything really wrong.  He plopped a 75 minute video with zero description in a post, it is more than reasonable to ask for something specific to discuss or watch as opposed to dedicating a tenth of our daily waking hours to watching an unknown video for an unknown purpose in support of an unknown point.  I don't think there's anything wrong with Will just posting the video but don't know why you are having trouble understanding the reasonable response to it.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

one person's perception/understanding will always be at least slightly different  to another's Thus there will always be cause for argument  

If the video provides no new understandings to you, then Will's explanation of what it reveals  to him  will not do so, either. 

Yea, neither of the above are true.  I've never had an argument with psyche for example about evolution, because there is no cause for one, because we agree.  Your second line is even worse; a novice like me approaching the Urantia material and going through it for the first time may result in me not understanding it, but an expert like Will's explanation could offer plenty of new understandings.  As it would with any other expert, especially I'd argue when the subject is theological.  Which is why at the very least it'd be cooler if Will chose one of the topics in the video he finds compelling and maybe pointed to what timeframe in the video it is discussed, that is if he doesn't have time to put what he'd like to discuss into his own words which would be the ideal.  It seems to have something to do with cosmology validating Urantia, it sounds kinda interesting actually, but since I'm not an expert on Urantia as 8 already noted this would be an ideal situation for an expert like Will to provide some explanation and focus.  

[+Hammerclaw]

ETIDORHPA BOOK PDF (pinardsflorist.com)

velikovsky_immanuel_-_worlds_in_collision.pdf (oplysning.org)

Edited November 30, 2021 by Hammerclaw