Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Sat Dec 07, 2019 10:42 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:14 pm +0000
Posts: 210
Location: Left Coast
When it comes to proof, what proof do you have that the Bible is the word of God??
It’s the same proof that I have that the Urantia book is what it claims to be.
That’s exclusively personal experience and it will never be anything that you can prove to the scientist or anyone else.
That’s good reason to make the distinction now between truth and fact.
Facts are for science and truth is for religionists.
The combined tnfluences of the various mind ministries, the spirit that Jesus left us with and the indwelling father fragment saves us from any a-priori assumptions of science and religion.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 969
Forgive me, Myrm, but I am really intrigued and fascinated by this excerpt from your most recent journal entry:

Quote:
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?


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". I have not seen that belief on the part of UB readers that I have interacted with and it does not correspond with what the book teaches. Contrary to a "new light", the UB tells us that we are inherently indwelt by a real and personal fragment of God. This isn't something that was 'given to us' by 'unseen spiritual entities'. It is our personality. I've also never seen a UB reader use the word "gospel", which you put in quotes in your entry, as if you have seen it specifically used by a UB reader.

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.

Quote:
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?


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 could go on.

Does all that seem incredulous to you as well? You don't have to answer - you are certainly welcome to your opinions and I have no doubt that your Thought Adjuster is guiding your studies, so no worries. I just couldn't help but add some context to the perspective you posted yesterday.


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

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:37 pm +0000
Posts: 41
Agon D. Onter wrote:
Forgive me, Myrm, but I am really intrigued and fascinated by this excerpt from your most recent journal entry:...


Hey, no problem. I have no issues with people commenting on my journal, I only ask that they don’t directly answer the questions I raise as I ponder, other than when I directly ask for such a question to be answered. :smile:


Agon D. Onter wrote:
...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".


To me it certainly is “new light”, i.e., I am being taught stuff on a spiritual level that goes against, or indeed complements, that which I already know - at least from a Biblical perspective. :smile:


Agon D. Onter wrote:
...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...


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


Agon D. Onter wrote:
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? ...


Good points, raised. Indeed there are things in the Bible that I once laughed at but now believe, yet which others find preposterous. There is hope for me yet with the Urantia Book. :smile:

_________________
I eat bin lids - raw!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 969
Myrm wrote:


Agon D. Onter wrote:
...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...


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


Just to be clear, it is not necessary for someone to read the Urantia Book to have a sure faith/ belief that God is our Father, and we are all brothers and sisters/ children of God. That is all the "gospel" entails, according to UB; and many, many religious traditions subscribe to this belief of God as our Heavenly Father. No reading necessary! O:)


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

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:37 pm +0000
Posts: 41
Indeed. We all have an, for want of a better word, inherent idea of God in our hearts, whether we have heard any religion being preached to us or not. This is why even the tribes never reached by “civlised” man even worship a God(s) of some form.

_________________
I eat bin lids - raw!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 100
Hi Myrm,
Myrm wrote:
"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."

Greatly enjoying your journal!

With regard to adding context to perspective, a pioneer cresting a range and finding an unsuspected land, would take a moment to survey the scene.

Likewise, a front to back ("cover to cover") reading of the Urantia book begins at the beginning, that is to say with the "Titles of the Papers", then the "Contents", and then the "Foreword". "Paper 1" comes after all that.

Just wondering, are you reading a digital, paperback, or full-fat version? To my surprise, when digital versions of these papers became available, I discovered that some folks did not know about the 80 context-setting and perspective-revealing pages preceding Paper 1. For me, given the depth of my experience with Jesus and the Bible, reading the "Titles of the Papers", then the "Contents", was a feast.

More importantly, it set me up to appreciate the (very gentle) way they sketch a bigger picture, appropriate for our skeptical, scientific age.

thanks again for sharing your adventure,
Nigel


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

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:37 pm +0000
Posts: 41
Paper 12 – The Universe of Universes


This was a vary interesting Paper to read as I find space such a fascinating subject, and though this wasn’t exactly about astronomy, it did deal a lot with the universes.

One thing I was trying to do as I read through this Paper was draw a map of the entire Master Universe. Not in any detail, of course, but just a rudimentary one so that I can visualise even a most crude rendition of the map as I read this Paper and book.

I did get a little confused with the following:

When Urantia astronomers peer through their increasingly powerful telescopes into the mysterious stretches of outer space and there behold the amazing evolution of almost countless physical universes… [12.2.1]

The four words I have placed in bold text; I am confused as we certainly cannot see countless universes, rather we see countless galaxies. Does the Urantia book mean galaxies when it uses universes here? According to the Collins English Dictionary (2015), universe is defined as,

1. the whole of the existing matter, energy and space.
2. the world [Latin, universum the whole world]


However, I understood that in the Urantia Book the term universe was applied to one of several areas that make up one of seven super-universes. I also got the impression from the Urantia book that there were not that many universes in total, and certainly not countless. I believe in this instance the Urantia book is not referring to universe as we might term it here on Earth, but rather galaxies. Indeed, in just the next paragraph the Urantia Book says,

…your telescopes literally reveal millions upon millions of these physical universes… [12.2.2]

Again, I am left thinking that the term universe is used to refer something other than what our scientists and astronomers here on Earth refer to.

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. However, now that we know so much more, do those discoveries of ours match up to what the Book teaches us?


----------------------------

Polite Request: Whilst comments are welcome, please do not attempt to answer any questions I pose in this journal (unless I specifically ask for others to provide answers, which I will highlight in green.) These questions are purely those that occur to me as I read the Urantia Book for the first time, and I would rather have the Urantia Book answer these questions. Thank you for your understanding.

_________________
I eat bin lids - raw!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 969
Try reading it this way:

When Urantia astronomers peer through their increasingly powerful telescopes into the mysterious stretches of outer space and there behold the amazing evolution of almost countless physical universes… [12.2.1]


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

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:37 pm +0000
Posts: 41
nnunn wrote:
...Just wondering, are you reading a digital, paperback, or full-fat version? ...
Nigel


Hi Nigel. I have a hardback copy that I usually read from, and a Kindle version for if I want to read it when I am out and about. :smile:

_________________
I eat bin lids - raw!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:14 pm +0000
Posts: 210
Location: Left Coast
Orvonton = super universe = milky way


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

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:37 pm +0000
Posts: 41
no sophist wrote:
Orvonton = super universe = milky way



So, a super-universe is a galaxy?

_________________
I eat bin lids - raw!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 969
Myrm wrote:



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.


Actually, the revelators are not permitted to give us advance knowledge of things we have not learned on our own. When you get to paper 101, you will read the following:

Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3955
The authors claim their historical record will stand the tests of time. Material science revelation is limited. The story of creation itself is accurate but does not reveal any material science. The science presented conforms to the sciences and theories of the time - early 20th century - except for some real teasers and brain ticklers to help us anticipate those huge advances so soon to come and those yet to come in the decades and centuries ahead.

You say "what we know".....hahahaha....what we "know"?....or what we think we know? The scientific method is applauded in the UB as is science....but remember this...what the scientific method does best is brutalize and disprove prior scientific theories. People still say and believe the sun rises in the east! Preposterous!!! Pure metaphysical fiction!!

:wink:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 100
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)".

Myrm wrote:
So, a super-universe is a galaxy?

The question of "superuniverses" is much more interesting :D
Nigel


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

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:37 pm +0000
Posts: 41
nnunn wrote:
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)".

Myrm wrote:
So, a super-universe is a galaxy?

The question of "superuniverses" is much more interesting :D
Nigel



<sigh>. Can’t you just answer my question with a simple yes or no? :(

_________________
I eat bin lids - raw!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: No registered users


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