Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:05 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:57 pm +0000
Posts: 82
I've read in part one the order of planet, system, constellation, local universe, minor sector, major sector, super universe and finally universe of universes. So where does the Milky Way galaxy fit in? From what I have read and from images I see online, I'm guessing that the super universe of Orvonton is another name for the Milky Way. So there are only seven galaxies in all infinity? That sounds minuscule from what I'm hearing from modern astronomy.

Then again I'm also reading that a system is only counting the inhabited worlds. And there is almost certainly much more uninhabited worlds than inhabited. I could translate that to a galaxy being a constellation.

Can anybody clarify this for me?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 941
i think the short answer is the word galaxy and it's derivatives refers to a "collection":

How are the terms galaxy and Milky Way used in The Urantia Book?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:14 pm +0000
Posts: 210
Location: Left Coast
I like to imagine how a spirit being that exists in near eternity, or has been in existence since our super universe or galaxy began, views what it is as opposed to us finite beings that have maybe a 100 year old snapshot of what we think it is.
It’s an evolution in progress.
Astronomers say andromeda is on a collision course with us so in the distant future it could easily be part of Orvonton? Just my imagination but if we really want to know the extent of The Milky Way/ Orvonton I think it may take much longer than another 100 years to fully appreciate. Maybe we need a better telescope


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 924
Hi William,

One issue in using the word galaxy is that galaxies vary greatly in size and number of stars they contain. One interpretation of the revelator's word superuniverse is that a quite large galaxy represents the nucleus of such a superuniverse, but orbiting around the nucleus may be rather many satellite "galaxies" which tend to be very much smaller.

Apparently Orvonton, the seventh superuniverse has the Milky Way galaxy as its nucleus. But around it are dozens of subsidiary dwarf galaxies and star clouds. Those may or may not yet be inhabited. I don't believe the revelators even give a hint if that is the case. Unless, for example, The Large Magellanic Cloud represents one major sector of Orvonton.


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

Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:01 am +0000
Posts: 243
Location: Hebron, IN
Hello William S,

Welcome to TruthBook. In answer to your question, this may be helpful to read.

Stars, Galaxies, Superuniverses, and the Urantia Book - 7/9/2002
by Frederick L. Beckner

https://squarecircles.com/wp-content/up ... rsesUB.pdf

These are a few excerpts from the above publication by Frederick L. Beckner.

The Urantia Book contains a description of the universe which one might describe as "Urantian cosmology." This cosmological information, written prior to 1941 by celestial beings, was derived
from revelation, not human astronomical science. It is therefore of interest to examine the Urantian cosmology, some 60 years later, to see how this revelation squares with current
astronomical knowledge.

Much information of cosmological interest can be obtained by analysis of selected portions of the Urantia Book text. For example, the number of suns in the Master Universe, being all of material creation, is said to be equal to the number of glasses of water in the oceans of our planet. This paper describes a procedure for calculating this number given current readily-available information, arriving at a figure of 4.5 billion trillion suns. I will show that this number is in reasonable agreement with current knowledge.

Number of Galaxies in the Master Universe


The Urantia Book discusses the number of galaxies in the master universe in the following quote. “In the not-distant future, new telescopes will reveal to the wondering gaze of Urantian astronomers no less than 375 million new galaxies in the remote stretches of outer space.” (UB130:5)

The Urantia Book is probably referring here to the Hale (Mt Palomar) telescope, which went into operation in 1948. The figure 375 million thus refers to the additional new galaxies observable when the Hale telescope was put into operation, not the number of galaxies in the master universe. Recently the Hubble Space Telescope made two deep field images, in the region of the North Pole, and another in the region of the South Pole , these regions being those which could be continuously observed for long periods of time without interruption by occultation by the Earth. Exposure times of 10 days were used. From the north deep field image astronomers estimate that there are 80 billion galaxies in the universe. From the southern image they estimate that there are 125 billion galaxies in the universe. For the purposes of this paper we will assume that there are at least 100 billion galaxies in the master universe.

The grand universe is subdivided into seven superuniverses, or collections of galaxies, one for each of the seven possible Master Spirits, or personality associations of the three triune manifestations of God. The seventh Master Spirit, being the association of the Universal Father, Eternal Son, and Infinite Spirit supervises our superuniverse of Orvonton. We will show that the Milky Way galaxy lies entirely within Orvonton, and is the greatest part of the inhabited portion of Orvonton. The capital of our superuniverse is called Uversa and will be shown to be
located outside the Milky Way galaxy.

The Urantia Book implicitly denies the big bang theory, for it implies that the master universe was already in existence 875 billion years ago. It was at this time the Andronover nebula was initiated which resulted in our local universe of Nebadon. "875,000,000,000 years ago the enormous Andronover nebula number 876,926 was duly initiated." (UB652:2)


Number of Stars in Orvonton


The Urantia Book specifically gives the number of suns within Orvonton. “The superuniverse of Orvonton is illuminated and warmed by more than ten trillion blazing suns.” (UB172:7)
This number of suns is indicative that Orvonton is composed of more than one galaxy, since the Milky Way, the second largest galaxy within the Local Group, is currently thought to contain about 200 to 400 billion stars. It would take at least 25 Milky Way or about 110 average galaxies to contain ten trillion stars. It is thus clear that our superuniverse of Orvonton is significantly bigger than our local group of about 30 galaxies and is much bigger than the Milky Way galaxy.

You may also like to watch these videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CkbbohKDoY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu_VhzhlqGw

Enjoy reading the Urantia Book. :smile:

"Of all human knowledge, that which is of greatest value is to know the religious life of Jesus and how he lived it." (2090.5) 196:1.4

Jim


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

Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:16 pm +0000
Posts: 965
Location: Nanticoke NY
Galaxy is not the unit of land or volume that is used to delinneate the Administration of the Seven Master Spirits. But what about the total mass of the universe? The mass of the universe was expunged during an event, similar in principle to the "Big Bang" though occurring many aeons ago and with a different effectuation according to the Infinite Spirit and the Architect of the Grand Universe, so that the mass located within a superuniverse, in my view, might generally be identified with a regular pattern of a superuniverse, conditioned by the logical extenuation of the constituency (Father, Son, Spirit) of each of the Seven Master Spirits.

But galaxies are relatively miniscule objects in the relevence of Paradise and the grand universe, even the layers of outer space regions.

The question may be: how is the mass within a sector conditioned by the spiritual concodex, the plan of the superuniverse, sector, system, according to the basic plans of the Creator Sons (Michael) and the seraphic planetary government. In other words, if one could think of the total mass of each section as something of a preordainment "a stage", for such Creator Prerogatives to unfold/unfurl, then there is happenstance, the actuality of the Unqualified Absolute, embedded into the total mass of the sector. And in the process of seeding life, assembling minerals into working living material forms, do the Creator Sons in conjoint association with the Divine Ministers, "draw out", from the sectors they happen to occupy, the expressions of the Universal Absolute, in the likeness of finite mortal flesh-breathing sentient beings.

In the full extrapolation of life-possibilities, comes the full evolution of species, the full eventuation of existentially-natured creatures. Therefore, it is imaginable that sentient life, from the origins of one sector, might migrate, might be transposed or exchanged into new lands. The sea of cultural exchange in the universe is always, "exchanging hands", therefore what is claimed in one galaxy in one age, we are humans who are we to say, could be exchanged from the jurisdiction of one sector to another, or at least we should hold that grand universe citisenship implies that one's behaviour might become acceptible anywhere.

In other words, as long as a galaxy finds its way into the jurisdiction of a superuniverse, it shall probably become conditioned, in the way that life is wrested from the Unqualified and given expression in the Universal, by the character of the Administrators of such superuniverse. But I do not think of the seven universe as recalcitrantly hoarding their particulates in a manner that brings matter itself into physical overcontrol, rather the conditioning occurs in the emergence of living forms from the originators who bestow the spark of life on the dark fertile worlds of space.

_________________
to the Underlaying Unity of All Life so that the Voice of Intuition may guide Us closer to Our Common Keeper


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 922
SEla_Kelly wrote:
Galaxy is not the unit of land or volume that is used to delinneate the Administration of the Seven Master Spirits. But what about the total mass of the universe? The mass of the universe was expunged during an event, similar in principle to the "Big Bang" ....


Stephen, right away, it is obvious that your statement is false. Please, try to be truthful and accurate in your postings here.

"expunge" means to obliterate or destroy.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat energy cannot be destroyed. Likewise, matter/ mass cannot be destroyed. It can be transformed, but not "expunged".

Also, what is a "spiritual concodex". In fact, what is a "concodex"? This is a nonsense word.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3670
SEla_Kelly wrote:
Galaxy is not the unit of land or volume that is used to delinneate the Administration of the Seven Master Spirits. But what about the total mass of the universe? The mass of the universe was expunged during an event, similar in principle to the "Big Bang" though occurring many aeons ago and with a different effectuation according to the Infinite Spirit and the Architect of the Grand Universe, so that the mass located within a superuniverse, in my view, might generally be identified with a regular pattern of a superuniverse, conditioned by the logical extenuation of the constituency (Father, Son, Spirit) of each of the Seven Master Spirits.

But galaxies are relatively miniscule objects in the relevence of Paradise and the grand universe, even the layers of outer space regions.

The question may be: how is the mass within a sector conditioned by the spiritual concodex, the plan of the superuniverse, sector, system, according to the basic plans of the Creator Sons (Michael) and the seraphic planetary government. In other words, if one could think of the total mass of each section as something of a preordainment "a stage", for such Creator Prerogatives to unfold/unfurl, then there is happenstance, the actuality of the Unqualified Absolute, embedded into the total mass of the sector. And in the process of seeding life, assembling minerals into working living material forms, do the Creator Sons in conjoint association with the Divine Ministers, "draw out", from the sectors they happen to occupy, the expressions of the Universal Absolute, in the likeness of finite mortal flesh-breathing sentient beings.

In the full extrapolation of life-possibilities, comes the full evolution of species, the full eventuation of existentially-natured creatures. Therefore, it is imaginable that sentient life, from the origins of one sector, might migrate, might be transposed or exchanged into new lands. The sea of cultural exchange in the universe is always, "exchanging hands", therefore what is claimed in one galaxy in one age, we are humans who are we to say, could be exchanged from the jurisdiction of one sector to another, or at least we should hold that grand universe citisenship implies that one's behaviour might become acceptible anywhere.

In other words, as long as a galaxy finds its way into the jurisdiction of a superuniverse, it shall probably become conditioned, in the way that life is wrested from the Unqualified and given expression in the Universal, by the character of the Administrators of such superuniverse. But I do not think of the seven universe as recalcitrantly hoarding their particulates in a manner that brings matter itself into physical overcontrol, rather the conditioning occurs in the emergence of living forms from the originators who bestow the spark of life on the dark fertile worlds of space.


:roll: :-# :-$ I looked high and low for a term which best describes the nonsensical opinions above by Stephen....which might accurately be described as personal creations of a perspective which has anything at all to do with the Urantia Papers. Another big bang singularity claim to boot. Who doesn't know better? No such thing in the UB. Completely debunked in the text we study here together.

The mods may wish to remove the above post and this one too (but only if the original is removed also). Otherwise, I did find a term and definition that sums up a description of Stephen's words:

gib·ber·ish
[ˈjib(ə)riSH]

NOUN
unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing; nonsense.

"he talks gibberish"

synonyms:
nonsense · rubbish · balderdash · blather · blether · drivel · gobbledygook · mumbo jumbo · rot · tripe · hogwash · baloney · bilge · bosh · bull · bunk · guff · eyewash · piffle · twaddle · poppycock · phooey · hooey · malarkey · dribble · cobblers · codswallop · tosh · cack · woowoo · stuff and nonsense · double Dutch · havers · garbage · flapdoodle · blathers · wack · bushwa · applesauce · bunkum · tommyrot · cod · gammon · toffee

emphasis mine :( :shock: :?

...crazy is as crazy says...but must all of us be victimized by its publication and memorialization??!!

Otherwise, an interesting study! Thank you.


Last edited by fanofVan on Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:45 pm +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:11 pm +0000
Posts: 729
fanofVan wrote:
...crazy is as crazy says...but must all of us be victimized by its publication and memorialization??!!


I personally prefer compassion for the mentally ill, at least a feeble attempt at fatherly love. If I am so fortunate as to be able to see the illness, isn't it my moral duty to assist a soul struggling with reality?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3670
katroofjebus wrote:
fanofVan wrote:
...crazy is as crazy says...but must all of us be victimized by its publication and memorialization??!!


I personally prefer compassion for the mentally ill, at least a feeble attempt at fatherly love. If I am so fortunate as to be able to see the illness, isn't it my moral duty to assist a soul struggling with reality?


And how do you "assist" them I wonder? Should we coddle and pander to their delusions? Should we accept without objection their gibberish of inventions, fictions, and metaphysics? Shall we revere their pretense of perspective and understanding? Shall we allow their endless contradictions and misstatements and falsehoods to stand for the naive and new students here as others silently provide their acquiescence of support to "assist" the "mentally ill"?

What is most cruel, perhaps, is for TruthBook to provide them with a platform and audience to feed their delusions. This is a classroom. I am very compassionate to the people I meet and know with any form of mental, emotional, and physical disability or challenges...there are such dearly loved ones in my own family.

And the mentally ill are welcome here too. Until they fully demonstrate and reveal themselves as someone who habitually and authoritatively contradicts that text we are here to study, refuses to answer questions, hijacks others' topics, pretends knowledge and expertise he does not possess, regularly inserting personal politics irrelevantly, and whom casts a gloomy and paranoid perspective onto the entire text.

Stephen has declared here that Lucifer was doing God's will (and worse) and an endless stream of lies and falsehoods before and since. He is outrageous in his provocations. He is not here to learn the teachings but only to be heard by his captive audience here. Such a travesty.

No one here is assisting Stephen. He seeks no assistance either. To pander to crazy town is merely an invitation for endless rabbit holes of distraction and disruption. Or so I have found. Want to "assist" crazy people? Volunteer at a shelter or clinic. Don't host and humor them here. That's just cruel. It's like so called animal lovers whose hords of sick, diseased, and suffering animals under their "care" tell the real story of such assistance and compassion.

So long as crazy town finds shelter here, then must sincere students remain distracted by the endless need to address and correct all the falsehoods and declarative assertions of the mentally ill who find such support as is suggested. And we think this is kind? Perplexing. It's not as if Stephen has made a gaffe or two or demonstrates any sincerity. Get serious. His entire posting history is archived here for review. It's a real doozey!! :roll:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:11 pm +0000
Posts: 729
fanofVan wrote:
And how do you "assist" them I wonder?


I am able to say without any doubt that sniping and ankle biting never helped anyone. If there is any sincerity of heart in the desire to assist someone, then it must come from love and genuine caring. We are not here to love and care for the revelation, it can take care of itself; we are here to love and care for each other the way Jesus loves and cares for us. The one thing I admire about SEla_Kelly is that he never defends himself against personal attacks. Such behavior indicates the presence of moral fiber. Jesus never defended himself.

fanofVan wrote:
Should we coddle and pander to their delusions? Should we accept without objection their gibberish of inventions, fictions, and metaphysics? Shall we revere their pretense of perspective and understanding? Shall we allow their endless contradictions and misstatements and falsehoods to stand for the naive and new students here as others silently provide their acquiescence of support to "assist" the "mentally ill"?


The best approach to any conflict with another person is to ardently search for something of value in the other person and to pray for them. On a forum the best way to do this is to look at the writing and attempt to find something of truth or value in it, then focus on that alone. For instance, SEla_Kelly wrote the following, which is essentially true:

SEla_Kelly wrote:
But galaxies are relatively miniscule objects in the relevence of Paradise and the grand universe, even the layers of outer space regions.


Why not develop the good and avoid harping on the bad? Bring out the best in a person whenever you can and the confusional thinking will usually fall by the wayside. If a person has little or no control over their thinking and/or has a poor comprehension of the English language out of no fault of their own, then that person deserves to be treated with gentleness and kindness. I think new readers would be more impressed by that than by ankle biting and nit-picking. Not knowing SEla_Kelly personally, it is not my place to determine the cause or motivation behind his difficulties, but it is my place to be fair, kind, tolerant, understanding, helpful and positive. Nothing is ever gained from the negative approach.

fanofVan wrote:
And the mentally ill are welcome here too. Until they fully demonstrate and reveal themselves as someone who habitually and authoritatively contradicts that text we are here to study, refuses to answer questions, hijacks others' topics, pretends knowledge and expertise he does not possess, regularly inserting personal politics irrelevantly, and whom casts a gloomy and paranoid perspective onto the entire text.


Judgment is meant to be a group activity, hopefully guided by wisdom, not emotion. Righteous indignation is an emotion.

fanofVan wrote:
To pander to crazy town is merely an invitation for endless rabbit holes of distraction and disruption.


Pandering is an evil and no one is suggesting that. Looking for the true, beautiful and good never takes anyone down a rabbit hole. If there is nothing at all of truth, beauty or goodness in something written here, then it doesn't really exist and doesn't deserve the time it takes to chase it into a rabbit hole.

fanofVan wrote:
So long as crazy town finds shelter here, then must sincere students remain distracted by the endless need to address and correct all the falsehoods and declarative assertions of the mentally ill who find such support as is suggested.


I doubt "sincere" students of truth get seriously distracted by the lack of truth, beauty or goodness in any given post. If anything it should encourage them to look harder for it. I think it's more distracting to others when someone's shortcomings are constantly being scrutinized and condemned. I would find that rather off-putting since everyone has shortcomings. Have you ever considered the possibility that SEla_Kelly is incapable of making dramatic changes to his way of thinking? That he might be incapable of seeing himself the way others see him? Without attempting to befriend him, I don't see how anyone would know these things with certainty, nor would any group be able to judge him.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 9:13 am +0000
Posts: 1012
Location: Denver CO
To All,

Discussing a member's mental state here is inappropriate. fanofVan, please cool your jets and put your indignation on hold. Until it is sorted out, the best course of action when someone posts gibberish is to ignore the post and carry on. If you suspect mental instability, please keep it to yourself. Further engagement on this subject only exacerbates the problem, and is unfair to make this person a sitting duck for public ridicule.

MaryJo

PS: katroofjebus, thank you for your measured and loving approach to this issue.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3670
I thought it was kat who called Stephen mentally ill? Hmmmm...

Compassion....an interesting topic.

So...the gibberish stays due to compassion? And contradiction to the UB is welcome here and should not be pointed out because it is assumed that everyone here knows the text already sufficiently to identify gibberish and opinions which contradict the text?

You think then that new students can discern the falsehoods and misrepresentations of someone so emphatic and declarative as Stephen's gibberish and assertions of his opinions are presented? And that this endless stream of fictitious invention contributes to our collective study and understanding of the teachings? And that this tolerance to falsehood is somehow compassionate? To whom?

Do you really think the new and sincere student who began this topic can discern for himself the fictional gibberish so
declaratively posted here which directly contradicts the UB??!! To whom should our compassion and support be directed exactly? To ignore the falsehoods posted by Stephen is to corroborate it to new readers and abandon them to the fantasies and inventions of interlopers and preachers who are not here to learn but do prevent and misguide those who are. Who is served thusly? How is TruthBook served? We really have an obligation here which seems to be ignored and cast aside.

I find it compassionate to neither Stephen nor the students here, most especially those easily misled due to their own inexperience in the text. Again...Stephen is not here to learn. Obviously. So what then, again, is the purpose of TB? Is it then merely an audience for the personal beliefs of any who wish to attend here? Is there no standard to be applied to stick to the text and for each poster to be held to a standard of inquiry and discussion and proposition and speculation that might be normal for any classroom of sincere study of a specific text and set of teachings?

Are we then merely an intersection of socialization and exhibition of behaviors suitable for politeness and etiquette but not serious inquiry? For Stephen is not here for any serious inquiry as he has well demonstrated over the past many years.

What I truly would like to see is kat's ideal of socially acceptable response and correction....rather than mere silence and acceptance of falsehood and beliefs which contradict the text. Rather than simply supporting that which can be and ignoring that which should not be ignored or accepted because objecting to it is found to be objectionable. The Master did not merely ignore evil or falsehood. Perhaps there are much wiser ways to respond than my own....but lack of response is surely just a surrender to evil....and not supported by the teachings or Master's example either.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these disagreements of ideas, strategies, tactics, and responses to such important issues. This site is visited by sincere students seeking understanding...this site was built for those. This site is also visited by those with an agenda seeking platform and audience who have no interest or sincere desire to seek any understanding beyond their own beliefs and prejudice. The two sets of posters and agenda are not compatible. And the second group may easily destroy all opportunity for the first group. The fostering of education and sharing of these teachings should, IMO, have precedence over tolerance and compassion for those who only deliver distortion, disruption, distraction, and contradiction to the teachings.

One must pick a purpose for being here and a priority on what serves the purpose and that which does not. A free for all of opinions and theories and personal prejudices hardly seems compatible or compassionate to the stated purpose and membership here.

I think it grave evil/error to quietly tolerate falsehood here of all places. I look forward to an example I've not seen here yet by anyone that demonstrates how to graciously object to falsehood. It is not gracious to ignore it. That is perilous and weak and merely acquiescent...the error of turning the cheek but not directly responding to error. An error added to error. While we are to be innocent as a dove, we are also to be wise in response to evil....not silent.

Thanks again. I offered and suggested that these posts of irrelevance to the topic be erased or moved. William, Makalu, no sophist, Riktare, and Bulldog were having such an interesting discussion prior to the imposition of gibberish by Stephen. My apologies to them for this gross distraction and my contribution to it.


:( :wink: :roll: 8)

Later edit by author: I've been asked to redact or remove my earlier objections to Stephen's post here and to "cool my jets". I've been told by Maryjo that she thinks Stephen's posts to be harmless and mine to be mean spirited and unwelcome. Unfortunately, a heavy edit now only confuses any future readers due to the quotes of others of my posts, although I have made some edits as requested.

Again, I suggested that Stephen's post and my own and kat's (on mental illness and followup responses to mine) and any related to Stephen's misrepresentations be removed by the mods. I would suggest that all of Stephen's posts be weighed and measured by the mods here and be considered for removal/deletion when sufficiently off topic, irrelevant, and misstatements or misrepresentations of the UB. Silence to misrepresentation is, IMO, a very poor option to a serial poster who distorts and contradicts the Revelation as consistently as Stephen does. Deletion of posts has been a frequent tool of the mods here for many years to control such serial posting of irrelevant or incomprehensible gibberish.

As no one else has commented, I will take such silence as agreement with Maryjo that accuracy of our declarations here is less important than politeness. And that no one else here is concerned about the audience/platform issue or its effect on new students who cannot tell for themselves who is merely boviating opinions and those who are familiar with the UB. My bad. Sorry for the disruption and distraction.


Last edited by fanofVan on Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:38 pm +0000, edited 5 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3670
Back to the actual topic and discussion:

William S. wrote:
I've read in part one the order of planet, system, constellation, local universe, minor sector, major sector, super universe and finally universe of universes. So where does the Milky Way galaxy fit in? From what I have read and from images I see online, I'm guessing that the super universe of Orvonton is another name for the Milky Way. So there are only seven galaxies in all infinity? That sounds minuscule from what I'm hearing from modern astronomy.

Then again I'm also reading that a system is only counting the inhabited worlds. And there is almost certainly much more uninhabited worlds than inhabited. I could translate that to a galaxy being a constellation.

Can anybody clarify this for me?


Greetings again William!!

Others here are far more qualified to comment, but let me say that it is a misunderstanding of the UB to say ".... I'm also reading that a system is only counting the inhabited worlds." Every unit of time and space (system, constellation, local and super universe) contains the full inventory of astronomical bodies - planets, moons, asteroids, stars in every level of birth and death and in between, and architectural worlds (planets designed and built for celestial homes and administrative centers that also serve as gravity and energy dispersion and management centers throughout all of space). So there are three forms of "inhabited worlds" - the material evolutionary worlds formed by astronomical and geological forces; the architectural spheres designed and constructed which are always stable and help stabilize the rest of time and space at the morontia material level of reality; and the spirit worlds which do have a certain physicality or materialness too, at the center of the time and space creation - or The Central and Divine Universe as presented in the UB.

14:0.1 (152.1) THE perfect and divine universe occupies the center of all creation; it is the eternal core around which the vast creations of time and space revolve. Paradise is the gigantic nuclear Isle of absolute stability which rests motionless at the very heart of the magnificent eternal universe. This central planetary family is called Havona and is far-distant from the local universe of Nebadon. It is of enormous dimensions and almost unbelievable mass and consists of one billion spheres of unimagined beauty and superb grandeur, but the true magnitude of this vast creation is really beyond the understanding grasp of the human mind. *

14:0.2 (152.2) This is the one and only settled, perfect, and established aggregation of worlds. This is a wholly created and perfect universe; it is not an evolutionary development. This is the eternal core of perfection, about which swirls that endless procession of universes which constitute the tremendous evolutionary experiment, the audacious adventure of the Creator Sons of God, who aspire to duplicate in time and to reproduce in space the pattern universe, the ideal of divine completeness, supreme finality, ultimate reality, and eternal perfection.

14:2.1 (154.3) Spirit beings do not dwell in nebulous space; they do not inhabit ethereal worlds; they are domiciled on actual spheres of a material nature, worlds just as real as those on which mortals live. The Havona worlds are actual and literal, albeit their literal substance differs from the material organization of the planets of the seven superuniverses.

14:2.2 (154.4) The physical realities of Havona represent an order of energy organization radically different from any prevailing in the evolutionary universes of space. Havona energies are threefold; superuniverse units of energy-matter contain a twofold energy charge, although one form of energy exists in negative and positive phases. The creation of the central universe is threefold (Trinity); the creation of a local universe (directly) is twofold, by a Creator Son and a Creative Spirit.

Human terminology and measurement of space does not jive or synch with the cosmology of the UB with any real precision. But certainly the size of the universe of universes is an enormous expansion of anything even imagined so far by any astronomer on Urantia. The scale of the time and space creation is only matched by the even far greater outer space levels of future universes yet to be created. We are told that every Local Universe is originated and formed over many eons of time by the Michael Son assigned to that local, geographic area.

Therefore, the universes and stars and worlds of time and space have not been the result of any singularity event. New mass and energy is still being created one local universe at a time. According to the UB, it is unlikely all of the planned local universes (700,000) are even created yet at this time. Creation of time and space is an on-going enterprise. There will be 7 trillion worlds like Urantia in the current organized 7 Super Universes and 700,000 Local Universes of time and space...how big is THAT space? That massive creation is likely small by the standard or size of those unformed but brewing outer space level creations still to materialize. Remember God has an infinite capacity. No amount of finite creation will ever approach such infinity. It is speculated in the UB that every level of creation will, over time, become stablized and perfected, but only as new potential is unleashed into further creative expression of prior experience and perfecting...and endless organism of perpetual creation and perfecting.

Amazing to consider!!

8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:11 pm +0000
Posts: 729
bulldog wrote:
It would take at least 25 Milky Way or about 110 average galaxies to contain ten trillion stars. It is thus clear that our superuniverse of Orvonton is significantly bigger than our local group of about 30 galaxies and is much bigger than the Milky Way galaxy.


I've always considered this to be true. Yet it is written that the Milky Way is the central nucleus of Orvonton, of which Urantia is said to be on its farthest outside fringe. One wonders what galaxies actually represent, since there are so many of them. The experts claim there are between 100-200 billion of them. Surely there must be galaxies within galaxies since the seven superuniverses continue to grow.

It is also written that Urantian astronomers have identified 8 of the 10 major sectors of Orvonton. I'm curious to know what they are, where they are and have they been named by scientists. Are they discrete galaxies of their own or simply the individual spiral arms?

If there are 1000 minor sectors, 100,000 local universes, 10,000,000 constellations and 1,000,000,000 systems in Orvonton then there is a great surplus of galaxies. I've always presumed this is due to the fact that, being on the fringe of Orvonton, our astronomers are counting some galaxies that are in the uninhabited outer space levels outside of Orvonton proper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group