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

[jmccr8]

12 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Will asked for peole to watch the video and then discuss it. 

Hi Walker

Yes he did ask people to watch the video with no intro as to what the purpose of the video is.

12 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

So you really shouldn't listen to anything Will has to say until you have read, and applied your own mind to the material 

What does one read in a video it's not a book and yes I have read several parts of the UB and raised questions earlier in this thread that have not been answered that are claimed to be scientifically proven, so far they have not been addressed.

The video is over an hour long and without knowing if it addresses any of the questions I have asked doesn't seem like a worthwhile endeavor timewise.

[rashore]

18 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

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 

In your opinion Wills knowledge gain is irrelevant to me.... but to me it is relevant to me because then I know what knowledge he can share with me. Your assumption that my asking questions is often an attack pattern is faulty- people ask questions quite often to share or gain knowledge and have a discussion. Even if the video does not provide new understandings to me, Wills explanation of what it reveals to him might provide me with understandings I haven't achieved on my own. It can be helpful when someone that already knows the subject matter they offered explains what their knowledge insights are to that matter. The video was interesting, but has been rendered moot when discussion or questions about it are refused. This thread was started with sharing knowledge about UB, about what do people know about UB- the whole topic is rendered moot if folks that know aren't willing to discuss what they know with others, or if questions asked are seen as an attack pattern rather than trying to understand or gain knowledge.

Now, I'm not going to engage in further conversation about Will with you, bad enough it went this far. I'll leave it up to him to discuss his information and answer questions, and if he does not, then less the knowledge gained for us all. But I'm done with trying to pull hens teeth at this point and trying to have a learning experience about how the UB and current science are supposed to have anything to do with each other. Perhaps other members that have been more forthcoming with information so far will get around to sharing their knowledge on the cosmos as well, or maybe even tell us what they think of the video that was posted and how it correlates into the whole knowledge about the UB. It might also be that this thread now isn't the time and place for learning about what knowledge the UB has about the cosmos and how it relates to current science. 

[+joc]

On 11/28/2021 at 12:19 PM, rashore said:

OK, so you don't want to discuss the other website here, you just want to direct people to go to another website. That's not very curiosity whetting, nor good for carrying on a conversation here. I'm going with the assumption you don't have any discussion or anything curiosity worthy of sharing about the video since you don't seem to want to discuss it here. I've tried a few times to get you to discuss it, and you rather direct to another website. Rather unfortunate that. 

...pay no mind to the jumbled minds, and pay no bills for their costly thrills...

[Mr Walker]

On 11/30/2021 at 7:57 PM, eight bits said:

This seems curious in light of your often expressed viewpoint endorsing experts in another domain covered by the Urantia Book, What Jesus said and did on Earth, if anything. According to you, in that domain, we who read and think about that subject for ourselves should adopt the thoughts, beliefs, and opinions of experts instead.

We aren't even talking about adopting anybody else's opinion here in this thread. Will simply posted a long video. It isn't just that he didn't tell us his opinion about it. He didn't tell us anything about the video, why he posted that instead of something else, what aspects of the video he wanted us to comment upon - nothing.

There are no two ways about it, as @Liquid Gardens correctly says, Will is an expert on the UB. I am not. The people in the video's preview pane all are or were experts in astronomy and cosmology. I am not.

I needed some guidance. Based on the information that emerged in the give-and-take, apparently UB gets some things right in its cosmology. OK, but I am never going to be personally qualified to come to that conclusion confidently, and surely not after watching a YouTube video. Meanwhile, so what if it got its cosmology correct?

There's a basic principle of uncertainty management that applies here. Don't spend resources to acquire information that isn't going to change how you behave in life. Whether or not the Urantia Book gets its cosmology right is not going to change anything in my life, I don't and never will know enough cosmology to judge the book on that basis.

If I'm going to spend an hour plus thinking about the UB, then let me spend the time on something that might make some difference to me. With some help from his friends, Will did finally provide enough information about the video for me to decide. I didn't watch this video. THIS video; maybe next time he'll post something else and I'll engage with that.

 The first bolded bit is Incorrect.  

My point is consistent.

To have an opinion on the bible, one must have read it. To have an informed opinion, one must have studied it 

To have an opinion on the historicity of christ one must a t least have read  widely, and know the different academic views  

THEN you can choose what you believe.

  I respect your choice because it is an educated one,  but find it interesting that in this area, unlike most, you disregard  the overwhelming weight of   academic/ expert opinion 

If what you believe goes against 99% of academic experts, nonetheless you have done due diligence, and not just blindly followed the words of another 

Like many you don't have the same faith in history experts as you do in expert physicists etc  Thats fair in a sense, because history is less definitive and precise.

I tend to follow expert opinion on everything, except where I KNOW the experts are wrong 

I have always had a great deal of respect for experts, academics, teachers, etc.,  in every realm,  having decided when I was about 8 that I was going to be one of them.

  It is  not surprising  that Will made no comment 

That's a clever strategic decision, allowing the reader /viewer to encounter a piece, without prejudgement.

However,  it also reflects the way he has been treated when he HAS given an. opinion The debate becomes about his opinion or beliefs, rather than the article or source. 

There's a basic principle of uncertainty management that applies here. Don't spend resources to acquire information that isn't going to change how you behave in life. Whether or not the Urantia Book gets its cosmology right is not going to change anything in my life, I don't and never will know enough cosmology to judge the book on that basis.

True. 

In part, that is what I was arguing 

However it applies even more to indirect, second- hand interpretation of the source.

Nothing Will, or any expert says, will change your mind, either 

If a person has no interest in Urantia then don't waste your time reading it but don't ask someone else to give their understanding of it  That tis an even greater waste of time in something "you" have no interest in.

Ive read the whole book a few times.  I've also read the bible several times , the  book of Mormon,   The Koran, the Upanishads  the tankan and  the Talmud, the tipitaka, the agamas, and even the book of shadows. It was an interest of mine in my ealry to mid twenties,  and later I taught comparative religions/religious studies,  for many years.

   I came to the conclusion that each was a bit like the elephant in the room of blind men. Each perceived a part of the whole, and each interpreted the whole, through the   mind of the perceiver 

I found it a well written and interesting narrative. 

It matched a few things I have also  experienced, but in a general way, and I took something quite different from  my own experiences  

eg the governance of our galaxy is a bit like that described in the urantia book But it is not a religious governance  There are protocols and laws governing emerging species and contact with them There are sentinels or agents responsible for emerging species but these may be artificial intelligences and machines   There is no war or conflict among species in the galactic "confederation" although there is considerable planetary and even system conflict between species not yet part of the "confederation "

This often results in the annihilation of species, but independent evolution into maturity and wisdom is the only safe way to gain that maturity. It cant be given or enforced it must be learned by an individual species', experience, discipline, and will. Physical contact on a widespread basis is not allowed with species like  our own but some individual contact is.

Mental contact, including teaching/warning,   etc., is allowed, and even relatively common, if a human can link    their mind to the cosmic consciousness  

Personally I look at it this way. 

I could write something as interesting and as detailed, and based on my own 60 years of contact with the cosmic consciousness 

However it would be my version, explained through my knowledge, background and experiences /understandings.

I'd be happy for a person to read it as a piece of interesting fiction, OR as a real, if unverifiable, record of 60 years of contact /connection, and many years of observing exploring and learning about our galaxy, its inhabitants, and its political, economic, and social structures .

However, I don't want to be a leader, have no interest in power over others, and actually don't want to draw too much attention to myself.

The first time I was beaten up by others for doing so, I was about 5 years old     

 

Edited December 1, 2021 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

16 hours ago, rashore said:

In your opinion Wills knowledge gain is irrelevant to me.... but to me it is relevant to me because then I know what knowledge he can share with me. Your assumption that my asking questions is often an attack pattern is faulty- people ask questions quite often to share or gain knowledge and have a discussion. Even if the video does not provide new understandings to me, Wills explanation of what it reveals to him might provide me with understandings I haven't achieved on my own. It can be helpful when someone that already knows the subject matter they offered explains what their knowledge insights are to that matter. The video was interesting, but has been rendered moot when discussion or questions about it are refused. This thread was started with sharing knowledge about UB, about what do people know about UB- the whole topic is rendered moot if folks that know aren't willing to discuss what they know with others, or if questions asked are seen as an attack pattern rather than trying to understand or gain knowledge.

Now, I'm not going to engage in further conversation about Will with you, bad enough it went this far. I'll leave it up to him to discuss his information and answer questions, and if he does not, then less the knowledge gained for us all. But I'm done with trying to pull hens teeth at this point and trying to have a learning experience about how the UB and current science are supposed to have anything to do with each other. Perhaps other members that have been more forthcoming with information so far will get around to sharing their knowledge on the cosmos as well, or maybe even tell us what they think of the video that was posted and how it correlates into the whole knowledge about the UB. It might also be that this thread now isn't the time and place for learning about what knowledge the UB has about the cosmos and how it relates to current science. 

As i read it, discussion was not refused .

it was only asked that you watch the film and see what you thought, BEFORE engaging in discussion.

Reverse your opening sentences 

it is also more profitable for will to discuss it with you  AFTER you have viewed /read something 

Your points are valid but, from  my reading of the posts,   some posters were asking Will to summarise his own findings BEFORE they had watched the video   He was only asking for the same courtesy  

Like i said, history with Will and some posters,   also inclines me to be suspicious of motivations.

That might be unfair, but its been done before, using the same pattern you employed 

ie Do i believe your stated motivations ? Do i truly believe you have an open and questioning mind on this issue?  Actually I don't know. I don't believe them, but I don't actively disbelieve them. They seem improbable but not impossible.

  I am more open minded with you, than with some posters who have expressed nothing but hostility to anything the Urantia papers contain, and often to Will as a poster.   

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

  I respect your choice because it is an educated one,  but find it interesting that in this area, unlike most, you disregard  the overwhelming weight of   academic/ expert opinion

I don't disregard it; I frequently engage with it. I don't categorically reject the consensus, either. For all I claim to know, there could well have been some sort of historical Jesus. There are certainly enough "historical Jesuses" to choose from. Where I part company with many guild members is the degree of confidence, certainty or near-certainty, many of them express on the question.

One of the "historical Jesuses," amply attested in the letters of Paul, only lives in heaven. An "historical not-Jesus," also attested, this one in the patristic literature which echoes a remark found in the Gospel according to John, is a character played by a First Century Samaritan magician imposter.

I have met my burden for citing an evidentiary foundation for alternative hypotheses. That's what uncertainty is: plural seriously possible hypotheses. I am uncertain whether the consensus is correct. It wouldn't be the first academic consensus to go up in phlogiston. But I am being unfair to phlogiston, since the evidentiary foundation for phlogiston was a lot better than anything anybody has for a historical Jesus.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

That's a clever strategic decision,

UM is a discussion board, not a battleground.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Nothing Will, or any expert says, will change your mind, either 

Experts have changed my mind. Even "non experts" have done it when they've backed up their claims with something concrete and verifiable. I don't see any reason to exclude sight unseen that Will, or Luis, or Halbert might "move the needle" on something UB-related.

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

If a person has no interest in Urantia then don't waste your time reading it but don't ask someone else to give their understanding of it  That tis an even greater waste of time in something "you" have no interest in.

That makes little or no sense. I wouldn't even know the thing exists except that someone (I don't remember who) gave me a heads-up that they found it interesting.

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I could write something as interesting and as detailed, and based on my own 60 years of contact with the cosmic consciousness 

You already have, in your collected posts here at UM.

Whether that's good or bad for the Blue Book I'll leave for others to judge.

[rashore]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

As i read it, discussion was not refused .

it was only asked that you watch the film and see what you thought, BEFORE engaging in discussion.

Reverse your opening sentences 

it is also more profitable for will to discuss it with you  AFTER you have viewed /read something 

Your points are valid but, from  my reading of the posts,   some posters were asking Will to summarise his own findings BEFORE they had watched the video   He was only asking for the same courtesy  

Like i said, history with Will and some posters,   also inclines me to be suspicious of motivations.

That might be unfair, but its been done before, using the same pattern you employed 

ie Do i believe your stated motivations ? Do i truly believe you have an open and questioning mind on this issue?  Actually I don't know. I don't believe them, but I don't actively disbelieve them. They seem improbable but not impossible.

  I am more open minded with you, than with some posters who have expressed nothing but hostility to anything the Urantia papers contain, and often to Will as a poster.   

I did watch the video and had questions, that's why I started asking questions. I really would prefer it if you didn't make assumptions about me or seemingly attempt to group my motivations in with other posters without having any substantial reason to do so. 

Did you watch the video and can you answer any of the questions I have? That would be right helpful and keeping to the topic instead of continuing on with the little side chat. 

[Mr Walker]

11 hours ago, eight bits said:

 

 

 

 

 

.

Quote

I don't disregard it; I frequently engage with it. I don't categorically reject the consensus, either. For all I claim to know, there could well have been some sort of historical Jesus. There are certainly enough "historical Jesuses" to choose from. Where I part company with many guild members is the degree of confidence, certainty or near-certainty, many of them express on the question.

Yes, and my question would be, why you lack confidence in those academic experts, but not similarly qualified experts in other fields.

One reason might be the nature of historical studies itself, and the different definitions of proof and evidences used in it, compared to, say, physics .  Another might be that you don't like the academic consensus   

Quote

One of the "historical Jesuses," amply attested in the letters of Paul, only lives in heaven. An "historical not-Jesus," also attested, this one in the patristic literature which echoes a remark found in the Gospel according to John, is a character played by a First Century Samaritan magician imposter.

Thats a fairly unique interpretation 

Saul had been dealing with the followers of a  real man who claimed their leader had ascended to heaven 

He met the heavenly form (whether it was real or an hallucination depends on your own beliefs)   

This does not mean the two were different forms or beings The bible  explains that Christ was first "the word"  in heaven (the creative force of god) It then descended via the holy spirit to be a man on earth, empowered by that spirit  (as we all can be)   Finally it returned to heaven to take on another form, which in christian theology will lead the armies of heaven  at Armageddon 

Quote

I have met my burden for citing an evidentiary foundation for alternative hypotheses. That's what uncertainty is: plural seriously possible hypotheses. I am uncertain whether the consensus is correct. It wouldn't be the first academic consensus to go up in phlogiston. But I am being unfair to phlogiston, since the evidentiary foundation for phlogiston was a lot better than anything anybody has for a historical Jesus.

You clearly and honestly believe this Yet the academic consensus is that t Christ mythers etc., are  motivated by other reasons, and do not use or apply the existing historical evidences in an academic fashion    

Not many things are accepted as definite about the life of the man who began Christianity,  but the contextual evidences that one Jewish  preacher, who led a band of followers  which became the original jewish/christian church,    did so, are agreed to be irrefutable by the experts in the field. 

Quote

UM is a discussion board, not a battleground.

You have got to be joking   for some posters the prime reason for being here is to do battle. Many have considerable, honed battle tactics , take no prisoners, and need to win at all costs. 

 As long as its a war of words, ideas, beliefs, values etc.  that's fine. and possibly one of  the prime purposes of the forum  

Quote

Experts have changed my mind. Even "non experts" have done it when they've backed up their claims with something concrete and verifiable. I don't see any reason to exclude sight unseen that Will, or Luis, or Halbert might "move the needle" on something UB-related.

That makes little or no sense. I wouldn't even know the thing exists except that someone (I don't remember who) gave me a heads-up that they found it interesting.

You already have, in your collected posts here at UM.

Whether that's good or bad for the Blue Book I'll leave for others to judge.

I agree, but the debate is about how and where a discussion should begin 

As a teacher I was taught  NOT to impose my own perceptions interpretations  on others  about history/ literature etc., but first allow them to form their own, and then discuss and debate them  eG before entering into any discussion on a film or book, the students and i would both have had to have viewed or read it. 

It might be different with maths or science teaching but a teacher can wrongly bias a student by giving a personal perception of anything historical or literary,   so Will asked others to watch something before he would engage in discussion about his own perceptions. In my mind that is a very valid approach 

Once  you  have an informed opinion you can debate the informed  opinions of others 

Edited December 1, 2021 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Yes, and my question would be, why you lack confidence in those academic experts, but not similarly qualified experts in other fields.

It's not a matter of having confidence in people or lacking it, it's what level of confidence is justified by the available evidence. The availability of evidence differs greatly among academic fields. Even within the same field, there may be a great difference in the adequacy of the evidence available for answering some questions compared with other questions.

It is unfortunate that the evidence available for the most interesting and foundational questions abbout Christian origins (what happened from, let's say, 26 CE when Pilate took office in Judea through about 100 years after he left office, 136 CE or so) is sparse and much of what there is has been tampered with or corrupted through neglect or simply "lost." And some of the questions are inherently difficult (= would require lots of high quality evidence to distinguish among competing hypotheses).

For example, the guild concensus is that the church began when a recently deceased man came to be regarded as a celestial figure. The Carrier-Doherty hypothesis is that the church began when a celestial figure came to be regarded as a recently deceased man. Intuitively, those two situations will leave similar traces, even though they are logically incompatible.

Those aren't even the only two possibilities that are seriously possible.

It's a hard problem. Personalities have nothing to do with it. Hard problem + lousy evidence = low justified confidence.

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

He met the heavenly form (whether it was real or an hallucination depends on your own beliefs)   

No, actually that would be a question of fact. It is, however, different from the question of whether Jesus was a real man who actually lived.

Quote

Finally it returned to heaven to take on another form, which in christian theology will lead the armies of heaven  at Armageddon 

Paul thought that Jesus was going to do a fly-over during Paul's lifetime. You know, the way real people who actually lived did fly-overs. In the first century.

Quote

Yet the academic consensus is that t Christ mythers etc., are  motivated by other reasons, and do not use or apply the existing historical evidences in an academic fashion    

Well, Richard Carrier has a PhD in ancient history from Columbia University. I'm not even especially a fan of his, but I'm pretty sure he's qualified to apply historical evidence in academic fashion. He might even be better qualified than some of his critics from Moody's Bible College. Just sayin'.

[+Pettytalk]

On 11/14/2021 at 3:00 AM, Mr Walker said:

Interesting you give those examples.

In my own wide and varied explorations of our galaxy, I have encountered spider like- space, faring beings, flying light sail ships in the galactic core,  dragons as big as a football field ,from which humanoids fought each other with primitive weapons including bows and crossbows, swords and pikes,   and smaller personalised dragons you fly like riding a horse.

  There are flying boats  of all sizes, some with inertial dampening and force fields,  kept aloft by anti gravity  These are generally not used for warfare  (or even transport) given  thatthe technology required to build them produces far more efficient and useful modes,  but for leisure and pleasure.

    On one planet there are  huge living flying carpets that take moisture and nutrients from  the air, and energy from the sun, and live  and die high in the atmosphere of their planet These are  too fragile to use as transport,  being like gossamer.   

And this was all decades before I ever heard of the Urantia book, and long before all the  books and  movies etc which portray similar memes. 

Mr. Walker,

Let me ask you this. Were you were grounded before the physical universe was created?

[Mr Walker]

On 12/1/2021 at 4:45 AM, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Yes he did ask people to watch the video with no intro as to what the purpose of the video is.

What does one read in a video it's not a book and yes I have read several parts of the UB and raised questions earlier in this thread that have not been answered that are claimed to be scientifically proven, so far they have not been addressed.

The video is over an hour long and without knowing if it addresses any of the questions I have asked doesn't seem like a worthwhile endeavor timewise.

That is my point really.

If you (generic) can't be bothered investing an hour watching a video (and i understand this) then why should Will spend anytime a t all discussing what's in the video with you (generic)  .

And yep I was talking about both the urantia book and the video, and possibly didn't  differentiate this enough.

It is  a good idea to ask people to read or watch something, without offering your own opinion first.

That way they come to it, without your opinion to prejudice/influence    them.   I haven't watched the video so i wouldn't comment on it.

I've read the Urantia book a couple of times, so I feel able to add my comments about that.  

[Mr Walker]

3 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

Mr. Walker,

Let me ask you this. Were you were grounded before the physical universe was created?

Grounded in what sense?

I exist, and am conscious now, for a short period along the linear timeline of the earth's/universe's  existence. However, because all things are one,  while I am alive and conscious I can connect to everything across that linear time line including the period before I was physically born.

This is limited by my capabilities, my level of skill, training, experience and expertise in what I can gain from  that connection   but then those things also limit how well I understand, communicate and respond within what we see as our "real"world  

However the future does ot exist yet and is not fixed. One can see and shape the future to some extent, but it is always malleable, with a multitude of potentials 

 

[Mr Walker]

5 hours ago, eight bits said:

It's not a matter of having confidence in people or lacking it, it's what level of confidence is justified by the available evidence. The availability of evidence differs greatly among academic fields. Even within the same field, there may be a great difference in the adequacy of the evidence available for answering some questions compared with other questions.

It is unfortunate that the evidence available for the most interesting and foundational questions abbout Christian origins (what happened from, let's say, 26 CE when Pilate took office in Judea through about 100 years after he left office, 136 CE or so) is sparse and much of what there is has been tampered with or corrupted through neglect or simply "lost." And some of the questions are inherently difficult (= would require lots of high quality evidence to distinguish among competing hypotheses).

For example, the guild concensus is that the church began when a recently deceased man came to be regarded as a celestial figure. The Carrier-Doherty hypothesis is that the church began when a celestial figure came to be regarded as a recently deceased man. Intuitively, those two situations will leave similar traces, even though they are logically incompatible.

Those aren't even the only two possibilities that are seriously possible.

It's a hard problem. Personalities have nothing to do with it. Hard problem + lousy evidence = low justified confidence.

No, actually that would be a question of fact. It is, however, different from the question of whether Jesus was a real man who actually lived.

Paul thought that Jesus was going to do a fly-over during Paul's lifetime. You know, the way real people who actually lived did fly-overs. In the first century.

Well, Richard Carrier has a PhD in ancient history from Columbia University. I'm not even especially a fan of his, but I'm pretty sure he's qualified to apply historical evidence in academic fashion. He might even be better qualified than some of his critics from Moody's Bible College. Just sayin'.

Carrier is one of the 1% 

Generally other academic historian aren't sure if he actually believes his theories or has simply used them to gain notoriety 

Again his claims simply are not founded on historical principles, practices etc.

  He is not always consistent, either 

In some works he claims Christ was not a real  person, but in  "The empty tomb" he argues that the body may have been stolen or misplaced 

The consensus says that, applying normal academic standards and rigor  Christianity arose  around the teachings and the man   (Jewish and Islamic writings support this )  A little later  Paul rewrote his teachings and aimed for a new and wider audience but originally all christians were jews, and for a couple of decades MOST Christians probably began as jews.

Christs teachings are very similar to other liberal Judaic teachings of the time   

The hypothesis that a man was created form earlier mythologies and  that the stories of his life were made up simply is untenable given the ongoing contextual story of the early church  Its laughed a t by almost all historians 

Its simply wrong to think that because there is little external evidence available today about the church for its first100 years, that it never existed   or that it was alll based around some mythological construct   The ealry followers KNEW Christ.  As I understand it, Paul spoke with people who knew him. 

Finally while it is a question of fact whether Paul met a celestial manifestation of Christ, or jus hallucinated it (and both are possible) what a perron believes happened  is a question of belief,  and is not related to the facts, which we may never know. 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Mr Walker

[+Pettytalk]

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Grounded in what sense?

I exist, and am conscious now, for a short period along the linear timeline of the earth's/universe's  existence. However, because all things are one,  while I am alive and conscious I can connect to everything across that linear time line including the period before I was physically born.

This is limited by my capabilities, my level of skill, training, experience and expertise in what I can gain from  that connection   but then those things also limit how well I understand, communicate and respond within what we see as our "real"world  

However the future does ot exist yet and is not fixed. One can see and shape the future to some extent, but it is always malleable, with a multitude of potentials 

 

I'm afraid I was not understood properly, and that's the risk one runs with brevity. I assumed you could also mind travel, recalling a certain challenge put to you a while back. Apparently you are not able to travel so far. So far as not having read my mind in your travels.

I recall, from my work experience, that when explosives ammunition is being manufactured, the packing of the explosive substance is conducted with the greatest care, and in an isolated bunker with as few workers as is strictly necessary, just in case something unexpected occurs. The unexpected would be an accidental source of ignition, a spark, even one caused by the discharge of any static electricity, which may have been generated and stored on the body, and then discharged, acting as the primer, and causing an unwanted explosion. To prevent the excessive generation of static electricity, appropriate safety clothing is worn which greatly reduces the generation. However, to assure further safety, only grounding shoes are worn, and other grounding apparatus are utilized when working in an area where there will be handling of the explosives, to strike a balance, one of the same potentiality, where equality prevents the flow of power, static electricity, thereby preventing any accidental bang, big or small.

If you have followed me so far, I am trying to lead you where nothing is said exist, except for an infinitesimal-sized particle of potentiality. Because there has to be a cause for an explosion to occur, even an accidental one. As they say in safety classes and seminars, or in seminaries: "accidents just don't happen by themselves, they are caused by an external source.  And why have I led you so far? What am I driving at? If you are still with me, consciously, it's as far as you can go. Unless you are able to tell where your imagination was parked, and your high flying imagination was grounded, since there was no physical universe for you to fly around in?

By any chance, were you the accidental ignition source responsible for creating the space you were wanting to explore in your future travels?

Can you believe a big time tripping hippie like Ted Nugent is now an ardent supporter of the opposite state of mind, a public musical champion endorsing the NRA, and Trumpism?   The world must be coming to an end, musically speaking.

[+Pettytalk]

I don't mean to give the impression that I'm one with a one track mind, or that I'm using this thread's topic and its content, as an excuses to bring to the forefront my Atlantis story. Far from it, is as far as I can stand on credibility, believe it or not, is as far as choices you can make.

I haven't had the pleasure, loosely speaking term for chance, to peruse those assumed holy scripts, blasphemously assuming. Therefore I'm kindly inquiring, politely speaking, if anyone holier than me, Urantia wise, can enlighten me on whether or not the collected work mentions and/or gives prophetic predictions? Specifically, is there any mention of Plato's Atlantis?

I would take the time myself to look for it, but I'm short on my time, as I'm using a lot of it in an attempt to get first-hand knowledge of ancient Greek. I'm a slow learner now, due to memory issues, and poor eyesight, as age is not being kind to me, therefore I'm still on the Greek alphabet. But I see that the Covid-19 variants naming process is helping me with retention, since I also spend my time keeping an eye to the news covering current world events, or predicted future ones.

[eight bits]

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Generally other academic historian aren't sure if he actually believes his theories or has simply used them to gain notoriety 

You do hear that in some guild commentaries. but I'm unsure how prevalent it is. More common, I think, is the suggestion that he advocates the Carrier-Doherty hypothesis as a vehicle to criticize Christianity and Islam, which activity is thought to appeal to him because he promotes atheism.

Why anybody advocates anything is irrelevant to the merits of what they advocate. There is some interest in the "history of ideas," which is a seperate question from whether the ideas are any good. My personal take is that Carrier emphasized Jesus mythicism because he became a convert to Bayesianism, and thought that applying Bayes to the Jesus question would be especially useful.

But that has nothing to do with Carrier being an atheist, or being famous, or being interested in the Doherty hypothesis. It has nothing to do with whether or not Doherty is correct about Christian origins. Shame on any self-described "academic" who seeks to deflect the discussion onto personalities rather than to address the question some personality has asked.

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

"The empty tomb" he argues that the body may have been stolen or misplaced 

Oh, you mean he's read the Gospel of Matthew? He probably has, don't you think?

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Its simply wrong to think that because there is little external evidence available today about the church for its first100 years, that it never existed   or that it was alll based around some mythological construct   The ealry followers KNEW Christ.  As I understand it, Paul spoke with people who knew him. 

That's not Carrier-Doherty. There are hypotheses that the church didn't emerge until the second century, but Carrier is pretty conventional in his dating of the canonical works (i.e. that many books were produced by organized Christians during the first century).

Edited December 2, 2021 by eight bits

[+Liquid Gardens]

3 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

Can you believe a big time tripping hippie like Ted Nugent

Ted was never a big time tripping hippie, he's always been anti-drug including in the 60s.

[rashore]

Enough with discussing each other and other off topic commentary folks. Let us all keep the discussion to knowledge of the Urantia Papers please.

[jmccr8]

12 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

f you (generic) can't be bothered investing an hour watching a video (and i understand this) then why should Will spend anytime a t all discussing what's in the video with you (generic) 

Hi Walker

I didn't ask him or you to discuss the video I just didn't watch it because there was no intro as to what it is about. I have asked questions earlier in this thread that were not addressed because I have read through parts of the UB. You say you have read it through a couple of times and you have avoided those questions as well is there a reason for that?

12 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

And yep I was talking about both the urantia book and the video, and possibly didn't  differentiate this enough.

This sentence leads the reader to assume that you have watched the video.

12 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

It is  a good idea to ask people to read or watch something, without offering your own opinion first.

Will knows that I have read portions of the UB and have asked questions that he has not addressed so to me it is a good idea for others to keep this in mind when critiquing responses. You have an alien and I have asked you in past if your alien knows of Will's aliens that have populated over 300 planets so would think that they may have interacted or have some knowledge of each other and you avoided that like many of the other questions regarding your alien and it's specific knowledge about anything

I am not condemning you but really if you can't share your input to a direct question don't make a fuss about me asking questions about whether a video will have any direct information with regards to those questions, my time has a value too.

12 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

That way they come to it, without your opinion to prejudice/influence    them.   I haven't watched the video so i wouldn't comment on it.

It's not like this is the first time Will and I have had discussions about the UB so it is already understood what his opinion or bias is and not likely to affect mine in watching a video if it has anything to do with the questions I asked. You have commented about the video even if you did not watch it by taking people to task for asking about it, why didn't you watch it earbuds won't distract your wife?

12 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I've read the Urantia book a couple of times, so I feel able to add my comments about that. 

Okay you have read it so why not try to answer my questions about it if you feel that confident, if you don't feel that confident about you knowledge base on the UB then don't complain about me asking. 

[Will Due]

9 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

is there any mention of Plato's Atlantis?

 

The term 'Atlantis' is not found in the Urantia Papers anywhere. But in my opinion, there is a plethora of information that explains thoroughly what spawned the so-called legend of Atlantis. 

According to the writers of the papers:

1. Five hundred thousand years ago, an advanced civilization existed "in the Persian Gulf region of those days, in the district corresponding to later Mesopotamia." Three hundred thousand years into it (about two hundred thousand years ago) this civilization lost its way by entering into a planetary rebellion which ended its purpose for advancing the human race and instead established a lot of mayhem that still affects us today. Link

2. Then about thirty eight thousand years ago, another advanced civilization sprang up. On a peninsula (almost an island) that jetted out westward from what is now the shore of the eastern Mediterranean. This civilization also lost its way. Except this time, due to the lingering problems related to the rebellion (plus other things) it only took a hundred years this time for it all to come crashing down again. Link

Both of these places are said to have sunk beneath the waters of the sea. Not immediately after their respective downfalls and not in a cataclysm. But slowly over a length of time.

 

 

 

Regarding Plato, there are a handful of places in the papers where he's mentioned. Here's some of them:

 

"The sixth century before Christ. Many men arose to proclaim truth in this, one of the greatest centuries of religious awakening ever witnessed. Among these should be recorded Gautama, Confucius, Lao-tse, Zoroaster, and the Jainist teachers. The teachings of Gautama have become widespread in Asia, and he is revered as the Buddha by millions. Confucius was to Chinese morality what Plato was to Greek philosophy, and while there were religious repercussions to the teachings of both, strictly speaking, neither was a religious teacher; Lao-tse envisioned more of God in Tao than did Confucius in humanity or Plato in idealism. 

 

"Xenophanes taught one God, but his deity concept was too pantheistic to be a personal Father to mortal man. Anaxagoras was a mechanist except that he did recognize a First Cause, an Initial Mind. Socrates and his successors, Plato and Aristotle, taught that virtue is knowledge; goodness, health of the soul; that it is better to suffer injustice than to be guilty of it, that it is wrong to return evil for evil, and that the gods are wise and good.

 

"Though the Hellenized Jewish beliefs were very little influenced by the teachings of the Epicureans, they were very materially affected by the philosophy of Plato and the self-abnegation doctrines of the Stoics. The great inroad of Stoicism is exemplified by the Fourth Book of the Maccabees; the penetration of both Platonic philosophy and Stoic doctrines is exhibited in the Wisdom of Solomon. The Hellenized Jews brought to the Hebrew scriptures such an allegorical interpretation that they found no difficulty in conforming Hebrew theology with their revered Aristotelian philosophy. But this all led to disastrous confusion until these problems were taken in hand by Philo of Alexandria, who proceeded to harmonize and systemize Greek philosophy and Hebrew theology into a compact and fairly consistent system of religious belief and practice. And it was this later teaching of combined Greek philosophy and Hebrew theology that prevailed in Palestine when Jesus lived and taught, and which Paul utilized as the foundation on which to build his more advanced and enlightening Christianity.

 

"Paul’s Christianity exhibited its morality as a Jewish birthmark. The Jews viewed history as the providence of God—Yahweh at work. The Greeks brought to the new teaching clearer concepts of the eternal life. Paul’s doctrines were influenced in theology and philosophy not only by Jesus’ teachings but also by Plato and Philo. 

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Will Due

[Essan]

9 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

can enlighten me on whether or not the collected work mentions and/or gives prophetic predictions? Specifically, is there any mention of Plato's Atlantis?

No it makes no mention of Atlantis - or anything like it - past, present or future.

This does not, however prove that it has any veracity.

And, for the record, nor do the Chronicles of Narnia.   However, the Silmarrillion does  

[onlookerofmayhem]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

Five hundred thousand years ago, an advanced civilization existed "

 

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

Three hundred thousand years into it (about two hundred thousand years ago)

 

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

Then about thirty eight thousand years ago, another advanced civilization sprang up.

 

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

The sixth century before Christ. Many men arose to proclaim truth in this, one of the greatest centuries of religious awakening ever witnessed.

This is all supposedly to have happened on Earth, the planet we live on correct? In the same dimension?

I find it hard to believe that multiple advanced civilizations existed at different times for 500,000~ years, yet it was only 2,600 years ago that "one of the greatest centuries of religious awakening ever witnessed" occured.

What type of civilizations were these? What exactly does "advanced" entail in reference to these civilizations? Did they not have philosophy, science, art, religion and many of the same societal aspects we have today?

How is it remotely possibly they had civilizations that long and fall apart?

Let alone 500,000 years of leaving no trace of themselves?

There are ~8,000,000,000 people on the planet today.

In 24 hours, 22,000,000 years worth of time is spent by humans.

So whatever the population of these supposed civilizations, hundreds of thousands of years and nothing to show for it?

Just imagine how much history would go down in a civilization that lasted 100,000 years.

I know I asked a lot.of questions and I don't expect you to know all the answers.

One of the main problems I have with the UB is that a massive amount of it is pure assertion with nothing to back it up. Such as in the cases with these "Advanced Ancient Civilizations".

The claims that it has advanced scientific knowledge has never been shown to be true.

Most of the science was either known or was speculated right around the time it was written.

From what I remember correctly, they even amended it at one point. So much for divine revelation. 

[Will Due]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

there is a plethora of information that explains thoroughly what spawned the so-called legend of Atlantis. 

 

I forgot to mention that in connection with 'Atlantis' this same information in the papers also explains what the following from the Bible is all about:

 "The Nephilim were on earth in those days, and when these sons of the gods went in to the daughters of men and they bore to them, their children were the 'mighty men of old,' the 'men of renown.

 

 

[jmccr8]

36 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

I forgot to mention that in connection with 'Atlantis' this same information in the papers also explains what the following from the Bible is all about:

 "The Nephilim were on earth in those days, and when these sons of the gods went in to the daughters of men and they bore to them, their children were the 'mighty men of old,' the 'men of renown.

 

 

Hi Will

So what does that mean, maybe flesh it out and make some connections with history as we know it?

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

I forgot to mention that in connection with 'Atlantis' this same information in the papers also explains what the following from the Bible is all about:

 "The Nephilim were on earth in those days, and when these sons of the gods went in to the daughters of men and they bore to them, their children were the 'mighty men of old,' the 'men of renown.

Yes, but all the stuff you said that is being verified by science or had been, isn't as I pointed out earlier.

If you're unwilling to recognise those, then you're just making stuff up out of made up stuff aren't you? 

It's quite a situation you have there. You claim to be all about truth, yet reject it when it's offered. I'm not sure how you see that as viable, let alone attempt to convince other it is.