the Urantia Book is simply a book written by some guy over a course of about 20 years (?), almost 100 years ago. I see various teachings within its pages taken from different religions, seemingly picked and chosen and peppered with the author’s own musings. Much of what I have read so far seems fantasy, things that the author really can’t prove. I am, at this point, quite surprised (but then again perhaps not) that people read the Urantia Book and take it as “Gospel”, as some “New Light” given to us by unseen spiritual entities; a trait often seen in religious cults. It seems to me incredulous that people read this stuff and simply accept it, without the proof being made available, such as the existence of seven “Super-Universes”, or an “Eternal Isle of Paradise”, or the existence, other than God, Son and Spirit, of “Creator Sons”, Divine Counsellors, Universal Censors, and so on. If the author had said that giant ants of living crystal were resident in deep burrows on the Moon, would that have been accepted as truth by readers of this book?

It seems to me incredulous that people read this stuff and simply accept it, without the proof being made available, such as the existence of seven “Super-Universes”, or an “Eternal Isle of Paradise”, or the existence, other than God, Son and Spirit, of “Creator Sons”, Divine Counsellors, Universal Censors, and so on. If the author had said that giant ants of living crystal were resident in deep burrows on the Moon, would that have been accepted as truth by readers of this book?

Forgive me, Myrm, but I am really intrigued and fascinated by this excerpt from your most recent journal entry:...

...I am not sure where you got the impression that UB readers take it as "some New Light given to us by unseen spiritual entities".

...The UB itself defines "gospel" as: 194:0.4 (2059.4) The gospel of the kingdom is: the fact of the fatherhood of God, coupled with the resultant truth of the sonship-brotherhood of men.

Do you disagree with that teaching? I'm not asking you to answer, only to ponder it as you continue your studies...

Or how about if the author(s) had written that a man built a large boat out of wood and rescued pairs of every species of animal on earth at that time and kept them fed and maintained and not killing each other (or him) for 40 days?

Or how about if the author(s) had written that a woman gave birth without ever having had sexual intercourse?

Or how about if the author(s) had written that a large group of people had escaped a pursuing army by traveling through a huge chasm that opened up in a huge sea of water and that then the chasm closed on the pursuing army? ...

I really haven’t read enough of the Urantia Book to be able to confidently attmept to give an answer.

"This thread is kind of like my journal as I read The Urantia Book, for those interested in seeing how a newcomer to the book gets on as he studies it, cover to cover, in Paper order."

...Just wondering, are you reading a digital, paperback, or full-fat version? ...
Nigel

Orvonton = super universe = milky way

Another thought occurred to me which I found to be interesting and potentially revealing about the factuality of the Urantia book. This book was written and published in 1955. Our advances in astronomy and science has increased tremendously since then. Will the Urantia Book match up to what we know today about space and the universe? If the Urantia Book really did come from “divine beings”, then they would have known far more than we humans did back in 1955. So, surely, they would have revealed things in the Book that back in 1955 we were not aware of.

4. The Limitations of Revelation

101:4.1 (1109.2) Because your world is generally ignorant of origins, even of physical origins, it has appeared to be wise from time to time to provide instruction in cosmology. And always has this made trouble for the future. The laws of revelation hamper us greatly by their proscription of the impartation of unearned or premature knowledge. Any cosmology presented as a part of revealed religion is destined to be outgrown in a very short time. Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented.

101:4.2 (1109.3) Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. 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, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve.

So, a super-universe is a galaxy?

Hi Myrm,
Regarding your question about "almost countless physical universes..." (12:2.1. 130.3), the papers in Part 1 were presented during 1934.
At the time, what we now call "spiral galaxies" were commonly referred to as "island universes (wiki link)".


The question of "superuniverses" is much more interesting
Nigel