Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Fri Dec 13, 2019 2:07 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: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 101
Myrm wrote:
<sigh>. Can’t you just answer my question with a simple yes or no? :(

Yes indeed! No, a superuniverse is not what astronomers currently call "a galaxy".

In the Urantia book, the word "galaxy" is used 10 times; 3 uses refer to "the Milky Way" or "Orvonton", 6 are used to indicate a collection, as in "galaxy of gods", and one refers to the vast domain for which Jesus is responsible.

Personally, I favor the idea that the superuniverse of Orvonton is a "galaxy of 10 major sectors". The spiral nebula centered on Sagittarius A* (modern "Milky Way galaxy") is what I think of as Orvonton's 5th major sector. By the time you've read some more, I should have the script ready for a video which tries to clarify all this.

Nigel


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:14 pm +0000
Posts: 210
Location: Left Coast
A bit more to consider when trying to figure the size and shape of our super universe: The authors refer to the Milky Way and tie it to Orvonton our super universe, however paper 41 informs us that it is not the planets and stars that we observe with our telescopes that defines the creations, local universes including super universes - it’s the presence of the Creative Mother Spirit, the Divine Minister, the expression of the third source and center in the finite creations and her influence/ ministry. So there is much more to creation than what is observable by sight. Well to clarify - on the local creations it’s the Divine creative mother and on the super universe level it’s the Reflective Mother Spirit.
I think the authors use universe as all encoumpseing. Also in Latin universe implies rotation.

1) 41:0.1 THE characteristic space phenomenon which sets off each local creation from all others is the presence of the Creative Spirit. All Nebadon is certainly pervaded by the space presence of the Divine Minister of Salvington, and such presence just as certainly terminates at the outer borders of our local universe. That which is pervaded by our local universe Mother Spirit is Nebadon; that which extends beyond her space presence is outside Nebadon, being the extra-Nebadon space regions of the superuniverse of Orvonton — other local universes.

And then read this from paper 41:

2) 41:0.2 While the administrative organization of the grand universe discloses a clear-cut division between the governments of the central, super-, and local universes, and while these divisions are astronomically paralleled in the space separation of Havona and the seven superuniverses, no such clear lines of physical demarcation set off the local creations. Even the major and minor sectors of Orvonton are (to us) clearly distinguishable, but it is not so easy to identify the physical boundaries of the local universes. This is because these local creations are administratively organized in accordance with certain creative principles governing the segmentation of the total energy charge of a superuniverse, whereas their physical components, the spheres of space — suns, dark islands, planets, etc. — take origin primarily from nebulae, and these make their astronomical appearance in accordance with certain precreative (transcendental) plans of the Architects of the Master Universe.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 969
The other thing about that quote is it says "the evolution of" countless universes, etc. Evolution is always happening; but it is an extremely slow process that 'shows' little results over generations. For an astronomer looking through even the most powerful telescope, they would not be able to notice evolution because we have a 75 - 100 or so year lifespan. It is the same as trying to 'see' evolution of mammalian species. It's possible to see it looking back over thousands of years, but not in a snapshot of one lifetime.

The authors are letting us know that, just like things here on planet, things in the cosmos are also evolving and constantly changing. New universes are being formed (over a period of millenia of linear time - of course, UB tells us time is NOT linear, but that is a topic for another thread O:) ).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:14 pm +0000
Posts: 210
Location: Left Coast
Agon D. Onter wrote:
The other thing about that quote is it says "the evolution of" countless universes, etc. Evolution is always happening; but it is an extremely slow process that 'shows' little results over generations. For an astronomer looking through even the most powerful telescope, they would not be able to notice evolution because we have a 75 - 100 or so year lifespan. It is the same as trying to 'see' evolution of mammalian species. It's possible to see it looking back over thousands of years, but not in a snapshot of one lifetime.

The authors are letting us know that, just like things here on planet, things in the cosmos are also evolving and constantly changing. New universes are being formed (over a period of millenia of linear time - of course, UB tells us time is NOT linear, but that is a topic for another thread O:) ).


I’m no astronomer but it’s possible that the Clouds of Magellan are evidence of the slow evolutionary process of the growth of our super universe.
Also consider that Andromeda is headed directly for us, will this contribute to Orvonton in the distant future? There is nothing in the revelation about Andromeda being one of the other super universes I don’t believe ??


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

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:37 pm +0000
Posts: 41
Paper 13 – The Sacred Spheres of Paradise

This was the easiest Paper for me to understand so far; perhaps it was because it spoke about the physical plane a lot rather than a spiritual one. So far as I understood the introduction, we have the Isle of Paradise surrounded by Havona, the universe of universes/the central/eternal universe (?). Yet between the Isle of Paradise and Havona there are three other realms, or “circuits”, of the secret spheres of the Deities. It appears that one circuit, the one nearer the Isle of Paradise, belongs to the Father, the next one out belongs to the Son, and the outer to the Spirit.

There are 7 spheres in each of these 3 circuits, 21 in total, but it was the 7 belonging to the Father that interested me the most:

Divinington
Sonarington
Spiritington
Vicegerington
Solitarington
Seraphington
Ascendington


Of these seven, Seraphington and Ascendington piqued my interest the most. As I understand it angels live on Seraphington, which puzzles me somewhat as the Bible tells us that angels live with God, and stand around His Throne. Yet the Urantia book seems to say they live in a different realm/sphere to God. However, even if this is true I guess they still “stand around His Throne” in one sense or another. I would like to visit Seraphington.

Ascendington interested me as, if my understanding is correct, this is a sphere that I, as a mere Urantia mortal, will one day be able to visit for a vacation.

Reading about these different spheres or realms reminds me of a book I have read called We, The Arcturians. This is a book that, too, claims to have come about by one form of auto-writing, or another, similar to how the Urantia book claims to originate by. In We, The Arcturians, the reader is taught that there are various levels of existence, or dimensions, that beings ascend up through, with the 5th dimension being the one that the Arcturians inhabit, and one that some people on Earth claim to visit on a regular basis. Which one is correct? We, The Arcturians? The Urantia Book? The Bible? All these tell of similar, yet different, journeys and destinations, and that is not included the many many other religions/beliefs that tell of different realms. Given how different they teach, they all can’t be right. I am not sure I am ready to believe in auto-writing made via contact with unseen beings just yet, but my own journey into the Urantia book continues to hold my interest.
----------------------------

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: Thu May 28, 2015 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 1369
Myrm, I want to express my gratitude for sharing your experience of reading the Urantia Book for the first time. I'm enjoying reading your posts very much and they bring me back to my own experience of reading it for the first time. However, it was several years before I gave it a full reading starting from the Foreword like you're doing. I was completely unable to avoid reading the Jesus papers first. It was an overwhelming compulsion that I found impossible to resist having then recently realized as an atheist and a few years before discovering the book, that Jesus was who he was intimated to be, all some 40 years ago now.

I'd like to make a distinction about one thing you said above. The authors do not claim that the book had "come about by one form of auto-writing, or another" as you'll find out after reading it all, while on the other hand it is true that the UB's origin has many times been misrepresented to have originated by automatic writing by someone who very apparently hasn't read it in its entirety. I assure you automatic writing was not involved with the reception of the original handwritten papers that were later published as the Urantia Book.

I have made it my business to investigate any and all credible sources of information having to do with what actually happened when the papers were received and always did I find a general consensus about it. Automatic writing did not occur.

I've found Larry Mullins' book "A HISTORY of the URANTIA PAPERS" to be the most comprehensive resource of all.

Thanks again for your valued contributions!

Regards and best wishes,
Enno


Last edited by nodAmanaV on Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:35 am +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:03 am +0000
Posts: 2176
Myrm wrote:
Which one is correct? We, The Arcturians? The Urantia Book? The Bible? All these tell of similar, yet different, journeys and destinations, and that is not included the many many other religions/beliefs that tell of different realms. Given how different they teach, they all can’t be right. I am not sure I am ready to believe in auto-writing made via contact with unseen beings just yet, but my own journey into the Urantia book continues to hold my interest.


Myrm, you probably won't be surprised that members on a Urantia site believe the UB is a genuine, uncontaminated-by-humans, celestially-sponsored revelation. But it wasn't received by auto-writing. From Urantia Foundation's page on the origin of the text, and how we did NOT receive it:

How We Did Not Get The Urantia Book

Recently, a group of ministers from northern Indiana, who were engaged in studying The Urantia Book, spent the day with us and, during the evening, Dr. Sadler led a discussion on "How We Did Not Get The Urantia Book."

The following is a gist of that presentation:

Several members of this group who participated in the preliminary "contacts" which led up to the appearance of the Urantia Papers had considerable experience in the investigation of psychic phenomena. This group early arrived at the conclusion that the phenomena connected with the personality who was later associated with the Urantia Papers, was in no way similar to any other well-known type of psychic performance—such as hypnotism, automatic writing, clairvoyance, trances, spirit mediumship, telepathy, or double personality.

It should be made clear that the antecedents of the Urantia Papers were in no way associated with so-called spiritualism—with its seances and supposed communication with the spirits of departed human beings.

Psychic Phenomena: Unusual Activities Of The Marginal Consciousness

The Subconscious Mind

1. Automatic Writing

2. Automatic Talking

Speaking in "Tongues"
Trance Mediums
Spirit Mediums
Catalepsy

3. Automatic Hearing - Clairaudience

Hearing "Voices"

4. Automatic Seeing

Dream States - Twilight Mentation
Visions - Automatic Dramatization
Hallucinations (Shifty "Reality" Feelings)

5. Automatic Thinking

Automatic Fearing—Anxiety Neurosis
Automatic Ideation - Mental Compulsions
Automatic Judgements - Intuition, "Hunches"
Automatic Association of Ideas - Premonitions
Automatic Guessing - E.S.P. - Extra-Sensory Perception
Automatic Deductions - Delusions - Dreams and Hypnosis

6. Automatic Remembering

Clairvoyance - Automatic Memory Associations
Telepathy - Mind Reading (?) [question mark in original]
Fortune Telling (Largely fraudulent)
Musical and Mathematical Marvels

7. Automatic Acting

Automatic Behavior - (Major Hysteria, Witchcraft.)
Automatic Motion - Motor Compulsions
Automatic Overdrives - Manic Episodes
Automatic Walking - somnambulism

8. Automatic Personalization

Automatic Forgetting - Amnesia
Automatic Dissociation - Double and Multiple Personality
Schizophrenia - Split Personality

9. Combined and Associated Psychic States

Note: The technique of the reception of The Urantia Book in English in no way parallels or impinges upon any of the above phenomena of the marginal consciousness.

Reason For Silence Respecting Details Of The Origin Of The Urantia Book

Among the several reasons given us at the time we were requested not to discuss the details of our personal experiences associated with the origin of The Urantia Book, the two major reasons were the following:

1. Unknown Features. There is much connected with the appearance of the Urantia Papers which no human being fully understands. None of us really knows just how this phenomenon was executed. There are numerous missing links in our understanding of how this revelation came to appear in written English.

If any one of us should tell any one all he really knows about the technique and methods employed throughout the years of our getting this Revelation, such a narration would satisfy no one—there are too many missing links.

2. The main reason for not revealing the identity of the "Contact Personality" is that the Celestial Revelators do not want any human being—any human name—ever to be associated with The Urantia Book. They want this revelation to stand on its own declarations and teachings.

They are determined that future generations shall have the book wholly free from all mortal connections—they do not want a Saint Peter, Saint Paul, Luther, Calvin or Wesley. The book does not even bear the imprint of the printer who brought the book into being.

Remember: You could appreciate a good poem—even if you did not know the author. Likewise, you could enjoy a symphony even if you were ignorant of the composer.

Source/much more: https://www.urantia.org/urantia-foundation/history#not


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

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:37 pm +0000
Posts: 41
Paper 14 – The Central and Divine Universes

Another really enjoyable Paper to read, though one that has left me a little confused. In Paper 11, I read about the Isle of Paradise. In Paper 12, The Universes of Universes, and in Paper 13, The Seven Spheres of Paradise. Now it’s the turn of the Central and Superuniverses. My confusion comes with how I thought the Master Universe was set up. I understood it to be, radiating outwards;

1. The Isle of Paradise
2. The Universe of Universes
3. The Seven Sacred Spheres of Paradise
4. The Central Universe
5. The Seven Superuniverses

I think my confusion comes from my assuming the Universe of Universes and The Central Universe were one and the same thing, two names for the same location. But on further investigation I found this not to be so. I scoured the Internet for a good image of the map of all the various universes, systems etc as taught in the Urantia Book, but although there were a lot of nice looking maps/images, none of them really served to adequately explain to me how these different universes all fit in the Master Universe. I may have to pause my progress through the Papers and go back through the previous 14 Papers and draw my own map as I understand it to be.

However, despite my confusion I still found this to be an interesting Paper to read. One thing that interests me is how the author peppers his book with bible quotes, but then he seems to elaborate on these verses to make it say something that the Bible does not actually teach. He does this time and again. It’s almost as if he wants to create a fantasy world based on various Bible verses. For example, the author quotes,

With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (2 Peter 3:8)

Now, I always understood that to mean that with God time is irrelevant, after all, He is eternity. No beginning. No end. So to Him one thousand years is nothing, but to us mere mortals one thousand years is several lifetimes. If I was told I had to wait one thousand years for something, I would shrug, say Meh! And walk off, knowing that I would never be able to do that. Whereas God would say, No proplem, I can wait! But the author of the Urantia book somehow turns this verse into a description of the length of an actual day in some universe far beyond our scientific reach. He even gives us an exact length of time, namely, 7 minutes, 3-1/8 seconds less than one thousand years of Earth time! That just seems a bit far-fetched to me, I mean where on earth did he pull that from?

Still, despite my scepticism at this point, there are some things that the author states that I think to myself, yes, that seems reasonable to believe, such as there being something in the region of 7 trillion inhabitable planets in the universal map (peeking ahead into Paper 15 here). Man really has no idea how far our universe extends, or what really is out there. We can hypothesise about what is out there, but when it comes down to it, we don’t really know for sure. Maybe there are many universes out there, or just one, but whatever the answer I can certainly accept that there are million, billions or even trillions of inhabitable worlds out there. I have to qualify this with inhabitable, but not necessarily inhabited.

It may seem that I am criticising the Urantia Book here, but I am not intentionally doing so; I am simply thinking aloud. I cannot rule out what the Urantia Book teaches, but at the same time I am cannot rule it in.
----------------------------

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: Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:03 am +0000
Posts: 2176
Urantia artist Gary Tonge's concept of the "Master Universe", plus other ch-arts.

https://www.deviantart.com/antifan-real/art/Master-Universe-Map-130193355


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

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:37 pm +0000
Posts: 41
rick warren wrote:
Urantia artist Gary Tonge's concept of the "Master Universe", plus other ch-arts.

https://www.deviantart.com/antifan-real/art/Master-Universe-Map-130193355



Thank you. I will check them out. :smile:

_________________
I eat bin lids - raw!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:37 pm +0000
Posts: 41
Paper 15 – The Seven Superuniverses

I know I did say I was going to pause my progression through the Papers of the Urantia Book, whilst I attempted to create my own map of the Master Universe, using the previous 14 Papers as my guide, but I did start to read though this Paper, and it was in the Paper that something caught my eye that did not seem right. A bit of digging on the Internet and on this forum revealed to me that this is something that is often brought up by so-called “Urantia sceptics”; the distance of the Andromeda galaxy from the Milky Way.

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. [15.4.7]

Something didn’t seem right with me when I read this, as I was certain I had read previously that the Andromeda galaxy was something like 2 million to 3 million light years away. Yet here was the Urantia Book stating it was less than one million light years away – given that the distance light travels in one year is called a Light Year.

I have a book, The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millenium (4th edition), authored by Prof. Jay M. Pasachoff and Prof. Alex Filippenko, published in 2014 (my copy is a 2016 re-print). I also looked at a website called Space.com (I try to avoid using Wikipedia for factual information wherever possible). Looking at this book and the website it seems that prior to 2007 it was thought that the radius of the Andromeda galaxy was 100,000 Ly, but now it seems it could be up to five times as large – 500,000 Ly. Given that the Urantia Book was published in 1955, but possibly having been written over a 30 year period, I am guessing that the author of this book would have had secular information of his time, that the Andromeda was in the region of 100,000 Ly in size.

My two sources stated that the distance of the Andromeda galaxy is between 2.4 and 2.5 million Ly away from the Milky Way. If this is so, then how on earth was the information in the Urantia Book, concerning this distance, so wrong? Isn’t the origin of this book supposedly from beings far more intelligent and universe savvy than mankind? Even if the Andromeda galaxy is five times as large as first thought, then its nearest edge to us would be 400,000 Ly closer than we first thought. Yet the Urantia Book tells us it is less than 1 million light years away (seeing how it says that the light from these stars has taken almost one million years to reach us.)

I did read somewhere on this forum, that somebody tried explaining this apparent discrepancy by introducing the fact that the speed of light is slowing (or it might have said it was increasing). Whichever is the answer, I am sure it is not slowing/speeding down that much over a 100 year period (the time from the publishing of the Urantia Book until today). That just seemed like a frantic scramble to twist facts known today to fit around information given 100 years ago.

So, I cannot accept that the “divine authors” of the Urantia Book would have made such a blunder in their information. Had it been written by a man (without any kind of divine intervention or guiding), with the facts about the distance of Andromeda as they were known then, I could totally understand. So, my confidence that the information in the Urantia Book was given us by these various divine beings have been knocked back. However, I still find it a fascinating book and will continue to read it. Who knows, perhaps the answer to this problem of mine might reveal itself in a later Paper.

I am curious; I wonder what todays scientists and astromoners would think of the scientific information provided in the Urantia Book.
----------------------------

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: Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:03 am +0000
Posts: 2176
There's this caveat in Paper 101, Myrm:

Quote:
...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.... 101:4.2 (1109.3)


Source/more: https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/paper-101-real-nature-religion/


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

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:37 pm +0000
Posts: 41
Thank you rick warren. Most interesting and helpful. It’s nice to see more experienced and knowledgeable readers of the Urantia Book, not jumping on the necks of newcomers who find themselves puzzled by, and voicing, what appear, to them at least, to be scientific inaccuracies or contradictions. :smile:

_________________
I eat bin lids - raw!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:03 am +0000
Posts: 2176
You're welcome. Enjoying your input, and also 'paying it forward'.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:14 pm +0000
Posts: 210
Location: Left Coast
My interpretation of the term “ universe of universes”
Universe is used in several context: Central universe, super, local, master, etc.
Taken as a whole, it describes a universe “of” universes.
Possibly a more poetic way to describe the master universe?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
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: Google Feedfetcher


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