Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Wed May 27, 2020 3:03 am +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:22 pm +0000
Posts: 771
This is pretty much how I view the Urantia Book...

Quote:
Mature and intelligent students of The Urantia Book ought also to give up any "inerrancy" doctrine--hopefully many never have held such a view! The Urantia Book has errors or discrepancies in Biblical references, in scientific statement., in historical references, and in logic. I have never been much interested in these historical, scientific, and logical aspects of The Urantia Book because they are peripheral to the real purpose of the book--spiritual enlightenment. It is not primarily a book of history or science; it is a book of spiritual insight and guidance. I regard The Urantia Book revelatory for the same reason I so regard the Bible. It contains the highest quality of insight into spiritual truth and Reality of any book I know. It presents the most meaningful spiritual cosmology available on the planet. The best in Christian eschatology pales by comparison. It contains the most dynamic and spiritually uplifting picture of the life and teaching of Jesus available. It integrates science, philosophy, and religion more effectively than any other religious source. It is validated more completely by experience than any religious view with which I am acquainted. This is the important thing about The Urantia Book.
http://urantiabook.org/archive/readers/doc590.html

_________________
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:29 pm +0000
Posts: 2441
Where are all these errors? For a book of two thousand pages the skeptics provide surprisngly few alleged errors for evidence against the book.

Understanding the physical facts given in the u.b is crucial to understanding the entire book. The reason there is disagreement is because a lot of current science is only theoretical of which most is in disagreement with the ub.

_________________
StrongcharactersRnotderivedfromnotdoingwrongbutratherfrom
actuallydoingrightUnselfishnesisthebadgeofhumangreatnes
Thehighestlevelsofselfrealizationareatainedbyworshipandservice
Thehapyandefectivepersonismotivatednotbyfearofwrongdoingbutby
loveofrightdoing


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:22 pm +0000
Posts: 771
Meredith Sprunger is not a skeptic of the Urantia Book. He knew William Sadler and has promoted the Urantia Book ever since. Sprunger would like us to look beyond whatever petty errors the Urantia Book may have in order to see its overall spiritual message:

Quote:
I regard The Urantia Book revelatory for the same reason I so regard the Bible. It contains the highest quality of insight into spiritual truth and Reality of any book I know. It presents the most meaningful spiritual cosmology available on the planet. The best in Christian eschatology pales by comparison. It contains the most dynamic and spiritually uplifting picture of the life and teaching of Jesus available. It integrates science, philosophy, and religion more effectively than any other religious source. It is validated more completely by experience than any religious view with which I am acquainted. This is the important thing about The Urantia Book.
http://urantiabook.org/archive/readers/doc590.html

_________________
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 10:09 pm +0000
Posts: 1817
Examples of those petty errors would be helpful; to simply say they exist is meaningless. Too, I have not come across any UB readers who promote an "inerrancy doctrine." Indicating that this is a prevalent belief or that the book contains "errors or discrepancies in Biblical references, in scientific statement., in historical references, and in logic" without providing valid examples of such is irresponsible. By believing these statements yoder777 I expect you have some foundation for such belief. What is it?

Larry


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:22 pm +0000
Posts: 771
lwatkins wrote:
Indicating that this is a prevalent belief

Quote:
Mature and intelligent students of The Urantia Book ought also to give up any "inerrancy" doctrine--hopefully many never have held such a view!
http://urantiabook.org/archive/readers/doc590.html


I think it's more important to be open to the possibility of errors in the Urantia Book than to search for and compile them. There are some things that I might find erroneous, but that doesn't negate the overall spiritual message of the book.

_________________
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:29 pm +0000
Posts: 2441
His viewpoint is not widely accepted among serious students. Meredith is calling all those who read the book as it should be read as nieve. We don't blindly accept the book, we keep an open mind to all the current views.

Over the past ten years I've scowered over the internet for hours looking for evidence against the u.b just out of curiosity and I haven't found any proof of any conclusive errors in the ub. There are readers with a high degree of education who have done likewise and they too have came to same result as me. These are men and women with much higher education than sprunger. Meredith is just a man following a hunch.

_________________
StrongcharactersRnotderivedfromnotdoingwrongbutratherfrom
actuallydoingrightUnselfishnesisthebadgeofhumangreatnes
Thehighestlevelsofselfrealizationareatainedbyworshipandservice
Thehapyandefectivepersonismotivatednotbyfearofwrongdoingbutby
loveofrightdoing


Last edited by boomshuka on Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:13 pm +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:22 pm +0000
Posts: 771
boomshuka wrote:
We don't blindly accept the book


No one said you did.

boomshuka wrote:
we keep an open mind to all the current views.


That's all he's asking you to do.

_________________
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
boomshuka wrote:
Over the past ten years I've scowered over the internet for hours looking for evidence against the u.b just out of curiosity and I haven't found any proof of any conclusive errors in the ub.


What would you count as a conclusive error?

It seems to me that the way that you deal with this is to set an extremely high standard of evidence for any scientific claim that appears to contradict the UB, and a very low standard of evidence for any claim that appears to support it. That is, where there is disagreement with science, you resort to claiming that the scientific view is not "conclusive"; where there is agreement, you never make this complaint.

A simple example:

(179:1) There are not many sun-forming nebulae active in Orvonton at the present time, though Andromeda, which is outside the inhabited superuniverse, is very active. This far-distant nebula is visible to the naked eye, and when you view it, pause to consider that the light you behold left those distant suns almost one million years ago.

So, according to the UB, the Andromeda galaxy is about one million light years away from us. According to current measurements, it's 2.5 million light years away. But in the early 20th century it was believed to be about one million light years away.

Another example is the UB's statement concerning the size of a proton, which is given in the UB as 1.0 x 10-15 cm. Recent measurements show it to be 1.722 x 10-13 cm, which is 172 times larger.

Are these errors, or are these measurements not "conclusive" enough?

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:29 pm +0000
Posts: 2441
I consider the distance's given in the u.b and its supporting evidence of why it gives these distances as proof of revelation. The book explains why we see things the we do as we get bigger telescopes, and Andromeda's distance has changed almost every century. Currently there are scientists saying it is now at 2 million light years away, so clearly Red Shifts are affecting our ability to correctly guage distance's which is to be expecteed. As we slowly begin to get more accurate techniques to compensate for Red Shifts.

As for the proton, the u.b gives an expansion of Stetson's calculations that fit nicely.

Quote:
The revelators have totally changed the significance of the comparison by omitting the factor of 1800 used by Swann. Using a pinhead radius of 1.0 mm, the proton radius obtained is 7 x 10-18m, which compares well with a modern estimate of the Bohr radius of the quark system (7.7 x 10-18m). The significance of this estimate was discussed in our previous issue of Innerface. There, we gave reasons why this may be considered as the best estimate of the radius of the proton. [note if the pinhead radius is taken as 0.5mm, the proton radius becomes 3.5 x 10-18m, which is still of the same order of magnitude as that for the quark system]

The modifications to Swann's comparisons as they appear in The Urantia Book show unequivocally that the revelators not only knew what they were doing but also provided new knowledge that human science was not destined to uncover for more than another fifty years.



http://www.squarecircles.com/articles/p ... iverse.pdf

Here is pdf file of a good report on the proton in the u.b and how it matches up with current science.

_________________
StrongcharactersRnotderivedfromnotdoingwrongbutratherfrom
actuallydoingrightUnselfishnesisthebadgeofhumangreatnes
Thehighestlevelsofselfrealizationareatainedbyworshipandservice
Thehapyandefectivepersonismotivatednotbyfearofwrongdoingbutby
loveofrightdoing


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
boomshuka wrote:
I consider the distance's given in the u.b and its supporting evidence of why it gives these distances as proof of revelation. The book explains why we see things the we do as we get bigger telescopes, and Andromeda's distance has changed almost every century. Currently there are scientists saying it is now at 2 million light years away, so clearly Red Shifts are affecting our ability to correctly guage distance's which is to be expecteed. As we slowly begin to get more accurate techniques to compensate for Red Shifts.


I regret to say that this is the sort of response I've come to expect. The trend since the 1940s, with better measurement techniques, has been to recogize that Andromeda and some other heavenly bodies are farther away than previously thought. This is not convergence. Nobody thinks Andromeda is only a million light years away anymore, but you see this as "proof of revelation"!

Quote:
http://www.squarecircles.com/articles/p ... iverse.pdf

Here is pdf file of a good report on the proton in the u.b and how it matches up with current science.


Read it again. Beckner concedes that it does not match up. He gives the UB authors credit for not introducing new errors into the UB, but only promulgating extant errors, and seemingly correcting a few. He documents and does not deny the presence of factual errors in the UB. He is therefore not a good source to appeal to in defense of the claim that the UB is free of factual errors.

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:22 pm +0000
Posts: 771
This is more of Sprunger on the Urantia Book:

Quote:
Even though The Urantia Book is among the most significant sources of spiritual guidance available to contemporary society, it is not an end in itself; nor is it a necessary means of spiritual enlightenment. Its potentials for individual and social growth, however, are so great
it should be highly recommended to all who are interested in the creative possibilities of a spiritual renaissance in our society. Its message is balanced and profound. Its approach is open and benign. There are no threats or coercions to “believe.” It seeks to work in and
through the evolutionary process and within the social institutions of our world.
http://www.ubhistory.org/Documents/RASS ... rM_223.pdf

_________________
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 108
ubizmo wrote:
A simple example:

(179:1) There are not many sun-forming nebulae active in Orvonton at the present time, though Andromeda, which is outside the inhabited superuniverse, is very active. This far-distant nebula is visible to the naked eye, and when you view it, pause to consider that the light you behold left those distant suns almost one million years ago.

"By 1924 Hubble had calculated that the distance to the Andromeda Nebula was 900,000 light years."

Imagine the scene -- Edwin Hubble, after another long night's work, pausing to consider: "That light I caught tonight from the great spiral in Andromeda left those distant suns almost one million years ago."

As an astrophysicist, my first impression here was that Christie had left off the quotation marks. Folks knew when to assign quotations to ancient prophets, but were not so clear about more mundane quotes from the hundreds of other human sources. Try adding that pair of double quotes, and notice the difference.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:29 pm +0000
Posts: 2441
Hey Nigel, nice to see you on the truthbook forum. Why do you suppose our current measurements are 2.5 million lightyears? I know the U.B talks alot about Red-shifts and how it will effect larger telescopes, could this be the reason?

_________________
StrongcharactersRnotderivedfromnotdoingwrongbutratherfrom
actuallydoingrightUnselfishnesisthebadgeofhumangreatnes
Thehighestlevelsofselfrealizationareatainedbyworshipandservice
Thehapyandefectivepersonismotivatednotbyfearofwrongdoingbutby
loveofrightdoing


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 108
Hi boom,

boomshuka wrote:
Why do you suppose our current measurements are 2.5 million lightyears?

Because in the local (grand universe) pond of sculpted ultimata (our spacetime frame of reference), it takes photons about that long to get from the bright core of Andromeda to our telescopes? The point I was trying to make earlier is that the author is not giving us a measure to Andromeda, but helping us to appreciate the almost inconceivable realization that Hubble and colleagues were (at that very moment) forcing upon the scientific establishment. For a 1930's scientist, the idea that there were "island universes" scattered throughout space was as confronting to them as the idea of a multiverse is to us. So when that Universal Censor speaks, I hear him saying " 'Pause to consider... ' that you cannot begin to conceive the absonite topology of absolutely ultimate space."

So let's add those missing quotation marks and move on... to the more interesting question of the red-shifting of spectral lines:

boomshuka wrote:
I know the U.B talks a lot about Red-shifts and how it will effect larger telescopes, could this be the reason?

First thing to note is that Andromeda is local, and moving towards us, and generally "blue-shifted". Next thing to note is the high-impact, no-punches-pulled statement [(134.3) 12:4.14] that our (then future, and necessarily naive) assumptions about cosmological red-shift will be wrong, leading us to the embarrassing idea of a recent and singular "big bang".

While some of their comments may seem ambiguous and in need of interpretation, their statement about our misinterpreting of the red-shifting of spectral lines from the outer space belts leaves little wiggle room. I think they were allowed to be blunt here for the same reason they could tell us so much about ultimatons (and personality): regarding things we can never humanly discover or work out, those pesky "limitations of revelation" [(1109.2) 101:4.1] do not apply?

PS: when one stops to think, the most easily adjustable feature of light is its "wavelength": given that frequency is time-dependent, and that time is artificially imposed on the finite, a little change in the rate of flow of time utterly stuffs up our standard model assumptions, and thus our entire big bang cosmology. Once we add to the mix counter-rotating belts of lessened resistance to motion, unpervaded regions, and quiescent geographical extensions of peripheral paradise that encompass the lot, well, we can assume safely that our science of cosmology is still in its early days.

Nigel


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
nnunn wrote:
... Once we add to the mix counter-rotating belts of lessened resistance to motion, unpervaded regions, and quiescent geographical extensions of peripheral paradise that encompass the lot, well, we can assume safely that our science of cosmology is still in its early days.
Hi Nigel :) I think TUB indicates that we are generally overestimating interstellar/intergalactic distances. Andromeda may be (only) one million light-years away from us and "visible to the naked eye" (15:4.7); yet, Andromeda is "outside the inhabited superuniverse", of which the (invisible) center (Uversa) is only ~200,000 ly away (!) (32:2.11).

We are looking from deep within nested structures at our superuniverse and grand universe; all rotating (roughly) in the same elliptical plane (15.3.2), mostly obscured by dust and light from our stellar cluster, our local universe, our minor sector, and our major sector (15:3.7)..
Quote:
15.3.2 From the astronomical position of Urantia, as you look through the cross section of near-by systems to the great milky way, you observe that the spheres of Orvonton are traveling in a vast elongated plane, the breadth being far greater than the thickness and the length far greater than the breadth.

15.3.3 Observation of the so-called milky way discloses the comparative increase in Orvonton stellar density when the heavens are viewed in one direction, while on either side the density diminishes; the number of stars and other spheres decreases away from the chief plane of our material superuniverse. When the angle of observation is propitious, gazing through the main body of this realm of maximum density, you are looking toward the residential universe and the center of all things.

15:3.7 The Sagittarius sector and all other sectors and divisions of Orvonton are in rotation around Uversa, and some of the confusion of Urantian star observers arises out of the illusions and relative distortions produced by the following multiple revolutionary movements:

1. The revolution of Urantia around its sun.
2. The circuit of your solar system about the nucleus of the former Andronover nebula.
3. The rotation of the Andronover stellar family and the associated clusters about the composite rotation-gravity center of the star cloud of Nebadon.
4. The swing of the local star cloud of Nebadon and its associated creations around the Sagittarius center of their minor sector.
5. The rotation of the one hundred minor sectors, including Sagittarius, about their major sector.
6. The whirl of the ten major sectors, the so-called star drifts, about the Uversa headquarters of Orvonton.
7. The movement of Orvonton and six associated superuniverses around Paradise and Havona, the counterclockwise processional of the superuniverse space level.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: Majestic-12 [Bot]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group