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 -

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


c.s.lewis

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

It is always understandable but disappointing to get a reaction like this.

I guess i am just incredibly fortunate to have lived the life I have, and to have had the experiences I have

 

.

 

 

The really sad thing is you can't tell when something isn't even about you. Ninety percent of what I've said concerns the topic of the thread and yet here you are again, taking a bow after your usual prima donna pirouette. Crikey, mate!:hmm:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

@Liquid Gardens

 

- What is the biggest difference between what Jesus emphasizes in the Bible and what Jesus emphasizes in Urantia? Does Urantia's Jesus teach all the same things as the biblical one?

The emphasis in the Bible isn't on what Jesus emphasized at all. Instead it emphasizes what Jesus' followers chose to do in initiating a new religion based on a lot of mistaken ideas about him, whereas the entirety of the papers emphasizes who he is, what his teachings are, what happened during his life, and so on, before it became lodged into the religion that now bares his name. Albeit in a largely altered state.

 


- Urantia also includes a lot of other surrounding detail 

Yes. The papers include a lot of details, such as the details of his early life, the lives of his family and friends, his business associates, his travels and education, all of which clarifies and magnifies the occurrences of his later public life.

 


- about other beings and I think the cosmos?

Yes. Those things are also included. They outline who he is --- the actual creator of our local universe and everything in it including all other beings and life forms.

 


- I think Urantia teaches that he performed all the miracles and such

The papers state that not everything attributed to him as being miraculous actually was. The papers explain extensively how certain things that happened were completely natural and not miraculous at all. 

 


- but takes a little more Muslim of an approach and says that although Jesus was special he was one of many

Yes he is one of many but I'm pretty sure he doesn't think of himself as being special at all. Jesus was a humble person but in our universe, except for our Father, he definitely outranks everyone.

 


- which would seem to imply that the idea of sin or at least Salvation is quite a bit different in Urantia.

In the papers sin is defined as being completely separate from religion. Sin in its basic form, the papers state, has nothing to do with religion although it can be. In the papers, when a person decides to do something wrong, anything wrong, knowingly and deliberately, it's a sin. And yes salvation is quite a bit different. Salvation, it's stated, is the result of faith and not belief. Faith in being a child of God and simply following through with the desire to learn the business of the doing of the Father's will.

 


- Also, was curious if Urantia includes sayings or teachings on what it is to be a good person like the Bible.  

One of the main things the papers reveal is that there exists a litany of spiritual adjuncts (not excluding a part of the Absolute himself) that works to guide and teach each and every one of us (almost without exception) from within, and surrounding us. In the papers it states over and over again that it's there within (and it's made especially clear, nowhere else) that any and all things are to be found that will teach a person, based on the degree of their sincerity and the length of their faith, what it is to be a good person. 

 


- Are there any quotes concerning the virtues of humility and not being so self-absorbed?  

Is unselfishness—the spirit of self-forgetfulness—desirable? Then must mortal man live face to face with the incessant clamoring of an inescapable self for recognition and honor. Man could not dynamically choose the divine life if there were no self-life to forsake. Man could never lay saving hold on righteousness if there were no potential evil to exalt and differentiate the good by contrast.

Spoiler

At one of the evening conferences, Andrew asked Jesus: “Master, are we to practice self-denial as John taught us, or are we to strive for the self-control of your teaching? Wherein does your teaching differ from that of John?” Jesus answered: “John indeed taught you the way of righteousness in accordance with the light and laws of his fathers, and that was the religion of self-examination and self-denial. But I come with a new message of self-forgetfulness and self-control.

Spoiler

And all this clearly indicates the difference between the old religion and the new. The old religion taught self-sacrifice; the new religion teaches only self-forgetfulness, enhanced self-realization in conjoined social service and universe comprehension. The old religion was motivated by fear-consciousness; the new gospel of the kingdom is dominated by truth-conviction, the spirit of eternal and universal truth. And no amount of piety or creedal loyalty can compensate for the absence in the life experience of kingdom believers of that spontaneous, generous, and sincere friendliness which characterizes the spirit-born sons of the living God. Neither tradition nor a ceremonial system of formal worship can atone for the lack of genuine compassion for one’s fellows.

Spoiler

The faith of Jesus visualized all spirit values as being found in the kingdom of God; therefore he said, “Seek first the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus saw in the advanced and ideal fellowship of the kingdom the achievement and fulfillment of the “will of God.” The very heart of the prayer which he taught his disciples was, “Your kingdom come; your will be done.” Having thus conceived of the kingdom as comprising the will of God, he devoted himself to the cause of its realization with amazing self-forgetfulness and unbounded enthusiasm. 

Spoiler

The Master’s entire life was consistently conditioned by this living faith, this sublime religious experience. This spiritual attitude wholly dominated his thinking and feeling, his believing and praying, his teaching and preaching. This personal faith of a son in the certainty and security of the guidance and protection of the heavenly Father imparted to his unique life a profound endowment of spiritual reality. And yet, despite this very deep consciousness of close relationship with divinity, this Galilean, God’s Galilean, when addressed as Good Teacher, instantly replied, “Why do you call me good?” When we stand confronted by such splendid self-forgetfulness, we begin to understand how the Universal Father found it possible so fully to manifest himself to him and reveal himself through him to the mortals of the realms.

 

 

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

@Will Due

Direct answers to questions, composed in your own words, with quotes only when quotes are asked for or otherwise needed.

That's a good look for you, Will.

I don't want to intrude on @Liquid Gardens asking follow-up questions, but when you say

3 hours ago, Will Due said:

Instead it emphasizes what Jesus' followers chose to do in initiating a new religion based on a lot of mistaken ideas about him, whereas the entirety of the papers emphasizes who he is, what his teachings are, what happened during his life, and so on, before it became lodged into the religion that now bares his name.

how did that work? His followers would have had access to him. How did they form "mistaken ideas about him," especially about things that would be directly observable, like his teachings and what happened during his life? I understand that "who he is" might ultimately exceed the ready understanding of ancient fishermen, but the basic facts should still be square.

What happened to those "notes of Andrew," that were accurate enough for the UB to cite them, but were unable keep the gospels on track? Those notes must have been available to somebody back when the canonical gospels were written in the form we have them today (sometime in the interval 65-125 CE, give or take).

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

You'd probably get some argument about what you ate if instead you were claiming to have eaten a grilled filet of Loch Ness Monster, which is a better analogy to the cc.

No it's still a problem of evidence, that's what differentiates peanut paste from the cosmic consciousness, and snow skis from dragons.  You pretty much answer your own questions across your posts: "So, Which was "real" ?"  "It takes impendent verification to establish if a dream is an extension of consciousness into the real world.".  What does independent verification require?  Evidence.

 

if it was really a problem of evidence you would insist on evidences for EVERY claim  any another human made ,even the most ordinary.

It is  (only) when you  (generic) don't believe a claim that you begin to ask for evidences.

 What you are actually saying is tha t you willingly accept claims which fall within your own experiences/knowledge  eg you know peanut paste exists;     you know  snow skis exist.

 Whether I've actually  eaten peanut paste or ever  skied is  also possibly untrue But you don't ask for evidences 

 Your last point is correct but deals with a different issue  

I wasn't claiming that i rode on dragons in waking life but that i rode them during extension of consciousness, or if you like, dreaming  

My claim which is explained by science is that human memories of waking experiences and of dreaming ones, are identical in nature and structure 

Ie without context (the surrounding events and knowledge) and  years later,  one can not  tell a memory of a dream from  a memory  of a waking experience

I have the same level of detailed memory of what it was like riding a flying dragon as I do of riding as horse bareback 

Such dreams ONLY become fact when the y are independently verified by evidences. 

Nonetheless, I know exactly   what it is like to ride a dragon through the clouds, and out into the sunshine, just as i know what it is like to ride a horse, bareback, through the Adelaide hills  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, eight bits said:

Thanks for the clarification. Now it all makes sense.

Well of course.  Everyone knows there aren't real dragons on earth :) 

That's why I thought it needed explaining. 

There a re a number of planets which I have visited where flying reptiles and   self aware beings coexist.     Generally none are above about the human equivalent of  the middle ages, before the development of gunpowder and other technologies, Dragons are used like horses (or elephants )  on some of those planets  

Ps while this may not seem relevant to the OP,  it is directly so.

My own experiences lead me to suspect that the narrator of the UB  regularly  experienced similar travels, via the cosmic consciousness, and gradually built up a knowledge of the cosmology of the galaxy,  but perceived what the y saw through a religious lens,  and believed it represented past eras on earth,  rather than current eras on different planets.  

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Will Due 

Seconding what 8 said, very solid post, thanks for all the info!  

10 hours ago, Will Due said:

Yes he is one of many but I'm pretty sure he doesn't think of himself as being special at all. Jesus was a humble person but in our universe, except for our Father, he definitely outranks everyone.

They outline who he is --- the actual creator of our local universe and everything in it including all other beings and life forms.

You mention our 'local universe', does Urantia teach more of a meta/multi-universe cosmology, where there are several universes?  When we say that Jesus is 'one of many' but definitely outranks everyone but the Father is that for this specific universe, do other universes have their own 'one of many'/Jesus who is the creator?  Is there just one Father above all universes?

10 hours ago, Will Due said:

In the papers, when a person decides to do something wrong, anything wrong, knowingly and deliberately, it's a sin.

I find that to be a significant improvement over other common conceptions where things you do unknowingly and non-deliberately, like being born, are also sinful.  Is/was Jesus necessary for salvation at all?  The main reason that salvation is available for Christians is because of Jesus' sacrifice.  You mentioned that faith is what earns you salvation in Urantia, to put it basically, faith in what?  In the Father?  Faith that Jesus is our savior?  I don't think it's the latter since you mention that sin is separate from religion.

To be clear I'm not asking these questions to mock, all I know about Urantia is what I remember from your posts.  I looked a little at I think it was the Wayfarers link earlier and to a non-believer parts of Urantia definitely sound somewhat science-fiction-ish and far out (part of its appeal to Jimi I'd bet), but it's no more unbelievable than the other major religions and their assorted beasties and concepts.  Thanks for the quotes on being unselfish, that's what I expected and not much there that it teaches that I disagree with.  I especially liked, "Then must mortal man live face to face with the incessant clamoring of an inescapable self for recognition and honor"; very apt and well put, and wow do many of us mortal men and women on this board know the truth of this 'incessant clamoring' all too well in regard to other posters here.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

if it was really a problem of evidence you would insist on evidences for EVERY claim  any another human made ,even the most ordinary.

It is  (only) when you  (generic) don't believe a claim that you begin to ask for evidences.

 What you are actually saying is tha t you willingly accept claims which fall within your own experiences/knowledge  eg you know peanut paste exists;     you know  snow skis exist.

 Whether I've actually  eaten peanut paste or ever  skied is  also possibly untrue But you don't ask for evidences 

Your first line makes no sense and again you answer your own questions.  I don't insist on evidence for every claim in the cases where I already possess the evidence I need, yes, of course, like everyone. 

One of the reasons I responded on this is because it seems to be a notion of yours that is maybe longest lived and will not die (you've been likening angels to dogs/wives for years now), but it's still not a very intelligent or meaningful argument.  You usually follow the same structure: 'you can't prove I had peanut paste for breakfast', and then argue that because of this that it means, well something, I'm not clear what, concerning 'I'm in touch with the cosmic consciousness'.  You overlook that the first has two relevant claims:  peanut paste exists, and that you had it for breakfast.  I'm not sure what peanut paste actually is, I assume it's like peanut butter in the states, but I assume I can prove it exists.  You don't want to compare that part though, you instead want to compare not being able to prove that you had it for breakfast to the cc, and since I don't have evidence to prove your breakfast choice, then you don't seem to understand why the cc is questioned and your breakfast is not.  'Proving' of course is a standard you randomly throw in to obfuscate, no one I know navigates their lives by proving things constantly.  All good arguments and theories should account for all the relevant facts, and you consistently fail to account for the fact that there is no reason to question if you had peanut paste for breakfast in a relative sense to a cc, you are claiming to do something that lots of people do and that involves commonplace fully-evidenced things.  Not being able to prove something does not mean that there is cause to question something.  That doesn't apply to the cc.  You are still comparing, "I did this fully evidenced thing that millions of people do at this un-evidenced time" with "I did this totally un-evidenced thing at this un-evidenced time"; you can layer on as many other un-evidenced/unprovable clauses as you want to your comparison here but it doesn't get you around or address that core difference in the two 'things'.  

So yea, it really is a problem of evidence, that's what's being requested, that's what you don't have for the cc. Relative to that I do have a slight amount of evidence for what you had for breakfast, since that at least exists.

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Nonetheless, I know exactly   what it is like to ride a dragon through the clouds, and out into the sunshine

At best you know exactly what it is like to imagine things, congrats on being very ordinary.

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

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

My own experiences lead me to suspect that the narrator of the UB  regularly  experienced similar travels, via the cosmic consciousness, and gradually built up a knowledge of the cosmology of the galaxy,  but perceived what the y saw through a religious lens,  and believed it represented past eras on earth,  rather than current eras on different planets. 

Hi Walker

Makes sense, both you and the guy that wrote the UB are dreamers.

Unfortunately you believe your dreams when your awake

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/30/2021 at 5:39 AM, psyche101 said:

1. The shape of the universe is not eliptical. It's the subject of great debate. I'm thinking you have The Universe and The Observable universe confused there. There is no centre. A centre doesn't fit with current geographic models. 

2. You have your gravities confused. Absolute and relative gravity are an example of our solar system and the black Hole at the centre of the galaxy. They aren't different in nature, just strength due to proximity of objects. Movement in space is not attributed to a great gravity force. Dark matter is actually predicted to be the reason the universe is expanding..

Linear gravity is used to measure weak gravity fields illustrated by things like lensing. 

3. “An" electron is not really made up of anything. There is an electron field, which has an equilibrium state that happens to be zero everywhere. Where the actual state of the field differs from zero, we have “an" electron. Science isn't predicting a sub atomic electron.

1. You are being dogmatic in science, you are demonstrating scientific dogmatism, like other people here, for we have already partially discovered the elliptical shape of the universe, as Will Due showed in this topic elsewhere, or perhaps we haven't yet, but you are acting as if our science has all the answers, when our science is actually changing and progressing at all times, and so on.

2. Absolute and local gravity, as given in the URANTIA cosmology, have already been proven as facts, as shown in the vid i shared of George Park here in this topic; nowhere in URANTIA do we have 'relative gravity', eh, but perhaps we could use that term for URANTIA's local gravity, or maybe we can't.

3. Again dogmatism: when we discover the ultimaton as revealed in URANTIA, which makes up the electron according to it, you will have to revise your science standards; and why is this very likely?: because of URANTIA's record history of its other advanced and predictive science, ahead of the science of its publication time...

On 12/12/2021 at 6:22 AM, Hammerclaw said:

Nonsensical should be right up your alley, cabron.

U-M should ban you for 'insulting' me, but since 'cabron' is also said among friends here in mexico and other places, we can see how ignorant you are, so i forgive you. :sk

Edited by Luis Marco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Luis Marco said:

1. You are being dogmatic in science, you are demonstrating scientific dogmatism, like other people here, for we have already partially discovered the elliptical shape of the universe, as Will Due showed in this topic elsewhere, or perhaps we haven't yet, but you are acting as if our science has all the answers, when our science is actually changing and progressing at all times, and so on.

2. Absolute and local gravity, as given in the URANTIA cosmology, have already been proven as facts, as shown in the vid i shared of George Park here in this topic; nowhere in URANTIA do we have 'relative gravity', eh, but perhaps we could use that term for URANTIA's local gravity, or maybe we can't.

3. Again dogmatism: when we discover the ultimaton as revealed in URANTIA, which makes up the electron according to it, you will have to revise your science standards; and why is this very likely?: because of URANTIA's record history of its other advanced and predictive science, ahead of the science of its publication time...

U-M should ban you for 'insulting' me, but since 'cabron' is also said among friends here in mexico and other places, we can see how ignorant you are, so i forgive you. :sk

No es la verdad, senior, yo intiendo muy bien. I've known the word since before you were even a twinkle in your father's eye.:lol: It's sad you insist on subsisting on worn out Yankee leftovers like that Urantia gargage, but I guess beggars can't be choosers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

No es la verdad, senior, yo intiendo muy bien. I've known the word since before you were even a twinkle in your father's eye.:lol: It's sad you insist on subsisting on worn out Yankee leftovers like that Urantia gargage, but I guess beggars can't be choosers.

URANTIA: 101:4.2 [...] We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, [...]

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Luis Marco said:

URANTIA: 101:4.2 [...] We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, [...]

No WE don't. That's your schtick. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

No WE don't. That's your schtick. 

'we' refers to the celestial revelators of URANTIA, not we humans.

Edited by Luis Marco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2021 at 12:50 PM, Liquid Gardens said:

You don't want to compare that part though, you instead want to compare not being able to prove that you had it for breakfast to the cc,

Which we have the technology to do, in all honesty. We could very well actually prove what he ate for breakfast assuming we had access to the technology. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Which we have the technology to do, in all honesty. We could very well actually prove what he ate for breakfast assuming we had access to the technology. 

The other poster knows that. It's a fatuous example. Dogs, wives, sharks, ..., bacon and scrambled eggs are all the same as divine radio broadcats, disapppearing bible couriers, talking headlights, and doorways in the sky.

Somehow, there's something wrong with the reader who thinks that some of those things are not like the others.

He is, however, correct that not thinking that is excellent preparation for devoting one's life to the UB.

 

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

URANTIA:

Quote

99:3.7 It is a fact that religion does not grow unless it is disciplined by constructive criticism, amplified by philosophy, purified by science, and nourished by loyal fellowship.

Quote

149.2.10 [JESUS] denounced slavish devotion to meaningless ceremonials and exposed the fallacy of materialistic worship. He boldly proclaimed man's spiritual freedom and dared to teach that mortals of the flesh are indeed and in truth sons of the living God.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thread cleaned

@Luis Marco - remember that is a discussion forum and a discussion can't happen if you snap at anyone whose views differ to your own.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

A very unimportant one. You like so many on this planet, have latched on to an ideological framework. One like so many others claims some grand truth, when none of them have.

a grand truth that has already been proven scientifically and physically to be true by others...

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Luis Marco said:

a grand truth that has already been proven scientifically and physically to be true by others...

Are you truly willing to restart an argument after post were deleted?

That is your opinion based on the particular religious framework you adhere too. That truth isn't truth, it's subjective faith. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Are you truly willing to restart an argument after post were deleted?

That is your opinion based on the particular religious framework you adhere too. That truth isn't truth, it's subjective faith. 

But you actually are the one opining based on false, subjective frameworks; whereas we have shared proofs of factual physical science confirming the advanced science of URANTIA...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Luis Marco said:

But you actually are the one opining based on false, subjective frameworks; whereas we have shared proofs of factual physical science confirming the advanced science of URANTIA...

I get. Both you and will are here to preach your holy gospel. 

I think I'll back out of this thread before it's locked. Perhaps it should be. 

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

I get. Both you and will are here to preach your holy gospel. 

I think I'll back out of this thread before it's locked. Perhaps it should be. 

You are here to preach your dogmatic opinions; i'm done too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks, if you can't discuss the topic in a civil fashion, just walk away from the discussion. Enough with the snipping and discussing each other. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Luis Marco said:

a grand truth that has already been proven scientifically and physically to be true by others...

Hi Luis

Speaking of science when will you show the science that supports the answers to the questions that I have ask several times?

I think it would be a good starting point for you to validate your UB through science.

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

12 hours ago, Luis Marco said:

a grand truth that has already been proven scientifically and physically to be true by others...

Why isn't this something that is universally accepted such as evolution or gravity?

If it's been proven scientifically or physically, whatever that means, why is it UB proponents have to try and convince a bunch of nobodies on a website.

Where are all the peer reviewed articles that outline these proofs and evidences?

You been asked specific questions and have mostly just provided links to long, convoluted excerpts from the book.

It would be a lot better if you could summarize, in your owns words, the answers.

Let's try this :

Can you make a brief list of what you would consider the top five scientific claims the UB made that were completely unknowable at the time of publication and later proven to be right?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.