I know a number of Evangelical Protestants, some orthodox Catholics, at least one Muslim, several Course in Miracle followers, a Kriya Yoga devotee, an Eckankar practitioner (at least, I think he's still one)--all of whom make exactly the same claim about their source material: It works. But these source materials all teach very different, and incompatible, truths about reality.

However, in spite of being a natural scientist myself, it is not the natural science contents of TUB but rather the thelogical and philosophical contents of TUB that amazes me. I cannot claim to have been a follower of all the religions that you listed but I have been seriously involved in Christianity and Neopaganism (mostly Wicca) and have studied in detail Zen-Buddhism, Hinduism and Shamanism. In addition to that I have read Kabbalistic texts and many New Age authors. What strikes me is that TUB is compatible with all of them - once you look beyond the literal interpretation that some fundamentalist factions impose on their sacred texts. When you look at the real meaning behind the words, all of the religions that I know of, become genuine subsets of what TUB describes.

As for the scientific contents, even TUB itself says:

101:4.2 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.

… Similarly, according to best current knowledge, life on this planet is older than 550 million years; and the mass of the planet 2 billion years ago was not a tenth of its current mass. And the liquidity of water actually is predicted by its known micro-properties, if you include the properties of hydrogen bonds, discovered in 1931 but not widely known until Pauling wrote about them in 1939.
…
So, my point is that a fair and objective analysis needs to deal with more than just the predictive successes. For one thing, there is the necessity of confirming that certain things weren't known or at least widely conjectured back when the UB was still being put together. This involves actually consulting the sources of that period. And fairness requires acknowledging when science calls the UB wrong, and not trying to whitewash it.

… you most likely believe what the UB says about such things, which is that the world religions contain elements of earlier epochal revelations, distorted to a greater or lesser extent by human superstitions, cultural influences, and philosophical tinkering. You cannot seriously believe that this view is compatible with those other revelations. …

Yes, but as has been often pointed out, this "disclaimer" does not concede the actual presence of errors. Statements could "need revision" for reasons other than being wrong. They could simply be incomplete. …

All supposed 'errors in TUB' you mention here, were explained (to you) in other threads, as not being errors.. Modern science may "call TUB wrong", but I really don’t see it..

What you apparently see as "world religions" here, are institutionalized religions or churches, which (indeed) very likely distorted earlier revelations to a more or lesser extent. Unfortunately, we don’t have their original (relatively undistorted) scriptures to compare to TUB (except perhaps for some ancient Vedic scriptures)..

I don't agree. There is no doubt in my mind, for example, that the atonement doctrine is not just a superficial detail in both Evangelical and Catholic Christianity. But the UB explicitly rejects that doctrine, and is therefore not compatible with these religions on just that point alone. And as I'm sure you've discovered, if you try to discuss the UB with a committed Evangelical or Catholic, the rejection of the atonement doctrine is an instant dealbreaker. The rejection of reincarnation is completely incompatible with most versions of Hinduism, Buddhism, and many New Age factions.

As a UB believer, you most likely believe what the UB says about such things, which is that the world religions contain elements of earlier epochal revelations, distorted to a greater or lesser extent by human superstitions, cultural influences, and philosophical tinkering. You cannot seriously believe that this view is compatible with those other revelations.

If humans did not have any misconceptions, we would not have needed TUB. But as TUB explains the real facts (as far as we can understand them at the moment), I can now see where the misconceptions are. Having had many of them myself, I feel I have the right to say so.

Thus, I say it again: TUB is compatible with the religions that I know, to the extent I know them. I can see many misunderstandings but I can also see where they got it right, even in cases where they did not understand that themselves.

I agree with you in that people representing those other religions might not agree and I am pretty sure that the organizations behind the religions do not agree with me. After all, the organizations have everything to lose.

That is, to understand the true scope of the message contained in the TUB, we must be detached from the religious concept of religion.

I think that's the main reason why religions have given so little to me - I have always been detached from that concept!

In my case the Thought Adjuster has led me to TUB and not the other way round. Hence, I am not looking at TUB from a religious concept of religion but rather from a very practical viewpoint. Maybe that's also why I am not so concerned whether the authors of TUB are superhuman or not.

… The point about the mass of the Earth being only a tenth of its present mass 2 billion years ago has been mentioned here a few times, by me, but I haven't yet seen any reconciliation of that with science. Maybe I missed it? …

As for the atonement, yes, that seems to be an insurmountable obstacle. Let's first look at what it means:

"The word atonement, which is almost the only theological term of English origin, has a curious history. The verb "atone", from the adverbial phrase "at one" (M.E. at oon), at first meant to reconcile, or make "at one"; from this it came to denote the action by which such reconciliation was effected, e.g. satisfaction for all offense or an injury. Hence, in Catholic theology, the Atonement is the Satisfaction of Christ, whereby God and the world are reconciled or made to be at one."
(From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm )

"(a) In any view, the Atonement is founded on the Divine Incarnation. By this great mystery, the Eternal Word took to Himself the nature of man and, being both God and man, became the Mediator between God and men."
(The same source)

I don't see a real contradiction with TUB there.

This basically means that people living now are handicapped because of some bad moral choices made by our great-great-...great-ancestors. You can think this long chain of dependencies on moral choices as "the original sin" in the sense that the Christian Churches talk about it.

The part of the atonement doctrine that says that God needed a sacrifice to forgive us is incorrect. However, the reasoning back then was understandable. People felt that the gap between them and God was huge. And, in fact, this gap was something that Michael came to bridge. Not by being a sacrifice pleasing to God but through other means.

What I see is that an individual professing the Catholic religion would not actually lose anything by dropping this part of the atonement doctrine. In fact, they would gain a really loving Father, to an extent they had not earlier believed even possible.

So, if we do not even understand what matter/mass is, then who are we to speculate that the Earth cannot have been a tenth of its present mass only 2 billion years ago?..