The Urantia Book

[Norm]

On the other hand, you pointed out how in the Urantia book there is the story of the unauthorized teacher, and Jesus saying "forbid him not"? Same pattern, different context? But when to apply it, and when not? Just wondering, I have no stakes in this.

Yes, perhaps. Jesus probably would have left Paul alone, and it seems that's what he did. But as Jesus says to one preacher in The Urantia Book:

132:4.7 To the speaker at the forum he said: “Your eloquence is pleasing, your logic is admirable, your voice is pleasant, but your teaching is hardly true. If you could only enjoy the inspiring satisfaction of knowing God as your spiritual Father, then you might employ your powers of speech to liberate your fellows from the bondage of darkness and from the slavery of ignorance.”

So while Jesus would not forbid Paul, had they been together ever, Jesus would surely have corrected him. And I think the matter of a false preacher is probably more of a problem for the listener to decide and sort out. Catholics forbid. Mormons forbid. Muslims forbid.

The thing is that Jesus preached "the gospel of the kingdom" and he told his followers to preach that "in all the world," (Matthew 24:14) but after Jesus was long gone Paul showed up and switched them to a different gospel, the gospel of the cross, atonement, all ABOUT Jesus, etc. Jesus never preached that. The "gospel of the kingdom" is not about Jesus, it's about the kingdom and our place in it. (It's like the old joke about "Who is burred in Grant's Tomb??, What is the "gospel of the kingdom" about? Gee, I wonder what it could be about?) Christians do not preach that even though Jesus did and it's what he told them to preach. When I ask Christians why they don't preach what Jesus preached, they look confused. Or they'll say, Well, Paul said..."

Interesting, and funny (to those not involved in such law suits). Again, parallels to other faiths in recent times - human nature, as you point out.
What are the teachings like - do they address day to day concerns, dietary rules, an ideal society?

Um, I'd say, "the teachings" in The Urantia Book (and using the term the way I think you're meaning it) "the teachings" are the same as those in the bible when one stops Christianizing the bible and making it say what they want it to say. The "teachings" in The Urantia Book, the "gospel of the kingdom" consists of one or two sentences, the rest of the book is filler, interesting and relevant filler to be sure, but not "the gospel of the kingdom." These are the teachings from The Urantia Book as given in the bible, and that Christians mostly ignore and do not emphasize.

...Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? (Luke 10:25)
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself." (Luke 10:27)

The Urantia Book says the same, and really, what more does anyone need to know besides the direct answer from Jesus to the question, "...Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? (Luke 10:25)? It's all there. But Christians have added a lot of their own doctrines of men.

And this:
"Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21)

You MUST do the Father's will to enter the kingdom of heaven. The bible and The Urantia Book are in agreement about this, but Christians have lots of additions and qualifiers to it. And the Father's will is, ""Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself." (Luke 10:27) And one Catholic told me that it was the Father's will that everyone convert to Catholicism. So there's that, the complete circle for Catholicism, the Father's will is all about them. LOL.

No, no dietary rules. God is not concerned with what we eat (IMO). And probably not concerned with who we have sex with. Seriously. He is concerned with our ethics, how we treat each other, our brothers and sisters in His family. As far as an ideal society, surely that's up to us to figure out. But, the book does say,

154:4.2 There was much talk about Jesus’ preaching doctrines which were upsetting for the common people; his enemies maintained that his teachings were impractical, that everything would go to pieces if everybody made an honest effort to live in accordance with his ideas. And the men of many subsequent generations have said the same things. Many intelligent and well-meaning men, even in the more enlightened age of these revelations, maintain that modern civilization could not have been built upon the teachings of Jesus—and they are partially right. But all such doubters forget that a much better civilization could have been built upon his teachings, and sometime will be. This world has never seriously tried to carry out the teachings of Jesus on a large scale, notwithstanding that halfhearted attempts have often been made to follow the doctrines of so-called Christianity.

And by the way, the "gospel of the kingdom" that Jesus preached and which he told his followers to preach is, "All men are the sons of God." Christianity lost that and has not preached that in 2000 years. You tell them that's the gospel of the kingdom and they will say No, it can't be. Only Christians are the sons of God, etc. Muslims? No. Buddhists? No. Hindus? No. And so on.

 

[LuisMarco]

If interested, here are the two main books of the origin and overall history of URANTIA:

1. ernest p. moyer's https://ubannotated.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/MoyerBirthRev.pdf (which is the best of all in general)
2. larry mullins' https://web.archive.org/web/20150217144433/http://www.freeurantia.org/AHistory.htm (which has some information moyer's doesn't have)

But there are other different urantia source books etc the great majority of which are sold, but smaller in general than the main ones above...

 

[wil]

God is not concerned with what we eat

It is more important what comes out of your mouth than what goes in.

 

[Norm]

It is more important what comes out of your mouth than what goes in.

Agreed, wil.

 

[Cino]

It is more important what comes out of your mouth than what goes in.

Food choices are sometimes ethical choices. They can "speak" just like words. Do I eat meat or dairy? Alcohol? ...

 

[wil]

Food choices are sometimes ethical choices. They can "speak" just like words. Do I eat meat or dairy? Alcohol? ...

I agree and quit killing mammals decades ago yet still consume spirits occasionally.

But the words we spew...the thoughts we think can cause a lifelong poison to ourcellves and others.

 

[seattlegal]

Like what? Put them up here please.

Here is one:

94:8.16 (1036.18) Siddhartha hardly believed in the immortality of the human personality; his philosophy only provided for a sort of functional continuity. He never clearly defined what he meant to include in the doctrine of Nirvana. The fact that it could theoretically be experienced during mortal existence would indicate that it was not viewed as a state of complete annihilation. It implied a condition of supreme enlightenment and supernal bliss wherein all fetters binding man to the material world had been broken; there was freedom from the desires of mortal life and deliverance from all danger of ever again experiencing incarnation.​

Actually there are a few suttas where Buddha defines Nibbana. (Not to be confused with paranibbana.)

Let's hear them.

One thing I agree with: (except for the last sentence.) People can, however, have their minds raptured by maaras/herd mentality/groupthink, where their individual mind is overcome by greed, hatred, or delusion and they will do evil things to individuals and tell others within the herd/group/maaraa to do the same.

53:8.9 (610.5) In general, when weak and dissolute mortals are supposed to be under the influence of devils and demons, they are merely being dominated by their own inherent and debased tendencies, being led away by their own natural propensities. The devil has been given a great deal of credit for evil which does not belong to him. Caligastia has been comparatively impotent since the cross of Christ.​

Question: So, in light of the above generalization, how does Gabriel's call for annihilation of the Lucifer rebels fit in with this? Are these mighty immortals immune to being dominated by their own inherent and debased tendencies when it comes to calling for the annihilation of those with whom you disagree? It sounds exactly like the maaras/groupthink we mere mortals can be raptured by.

 

[Norm]

Me: Like what, put them up here please.

Here is one:
94:8.16 (1036.18) Siddhartha hardly believed in the immortality of the human personality; his philosophy only provided for a sort of functional continuity. He never clearly defined what he meant to include in the doctrine of Nirvana. The fact that it could theoretically be experienced during mortal existence would indicate that it was not viewed as a state of complete annihilation. It implied a condition of supreme enlightenment and supernal bliss wherein all fetters binding man to the material world had been broken; there was freedom from the desires of mortal life and deliverance from all danger of ever again experiencing incarnation.

Well, what can I do with that? LOL. Siddhartha apparently lived 2600 years ago. I never met him. Nor did you, I suspect. And I really know little or nothing about Buddhism. So I have to make a choice between what some celestial beings who were here at the time (if you will allow that angelic beings are immortal and are always here) say about Siddhartha and his teachings, and what you say about Siddhartha from reading "suttas" about him and what he said 2600 years later? Should I believe eye witnesses, or should I believe what someone who read about him 2600 years later, has to say? You may well be correct, but I have no way of knowing that. If we could just time travel back to 500 BC, we could perhaps could find out what's what.

Actually there are a few suttas where Buddha defines Nibbana. (Not to be confused with paranibbana.)

I know nothing of suttas, Nibbana, or paranibbana.

Christians blithely talk about the "original texts" of the New Testament, when actually there are no originals. All are copies of copies of copies of copies, hand written in whale oil lamped dungeons. Are we to imagine that after 2600 years of copying, translating, re-telling, fires, floods, wars, earthquakes, moths and rot, that there are "original texts" from Siddhartha?

One thing I agree with: (except for the last sentence.) People can, however, have their minds raptured by maaras/herd mentality/groupthink, where their individual mind is overcome by greed, hatred, or delusion and they will do evil things to individuals and tell others within the herd/group/maaraa to do the same.

53:8.9 (610.5) In general, when weak and dissolute mortals are supposed to be under the influence of devils and demons, they are merely being dominated by their own inherent and debased tendencies, being led away by their own natural propensities. The devil has been given a great deal of credit for evil which does not belong to him. Caligastia has been comparatively impotent since the cross of Christ.

Question: So, in light of the above generalization, how does Gabriel's call for annihilation of the Lucifer rebels fit in with this?

Can you give me the reference number or copy and paste the text here? Maybe I can find it.

Is this what you're talking about? (53:9.4) It is true that Satan did periodically visit Caligastia and others of the fallen princes right up to the time of the presentation of these revelations, when there occurred the first hearing of Gabriel's plea for the annihilation of the archrebels.

Are these mighty immortals immune to being dominated by their own inherent and debased tendencies when it comes to calling for the annihilation of those with whom you disagree?

LOL. First, it's not my job nor in my ability to explain Gabriel, an angel, or his thought processes, and also, what you characterize as a "disagree" [ment] is actually a rebellion against God's government. Rebellion against the government is treason, punishable by death almost anywhere you go. We have it, most sovereign nations have it. Also, I'd say that Gabriel is probably acting as a prosecuting attorney and if he thinks there are traitors and subversives, it's probably his job to bring charges and suggest the obvious punishment by law if the rebels are found to be guilty. I think characterizing treason as just a disagreement is disingenuous at best.

Anyway, Michael/Jesus is the boss there, not Gabriel, and I'm sure he'll take Gabriel's counsel into consideration.

 

[LuisMarco]

oh my GOD:

URANTIA spoke about the expansion and contraction cycles of our universe, before 'the-only-expansion' of our universe was discovered!

from chapter 5 of mullins' book on URANTIA's origin:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130206101911/http://www.freeurantia.org/Chapter5.htm

[...] "Among these numerous new ideas of cosmology and philosophy, the following may be mentioned:

"[1]. The new concept of a vast, far-flung universe." [The cosmos of the Urantia Papers exceeds anything yet postulated by science. At the time the universe was not known to be expanding. The Revelation tells us it is expanding according to a regular respiration, every one billion years it "exhales" and then "inhales" for an equal period. This notion challenges the "Big Bang" and supports the less-favored "Oscillating Universe" notion, which addresses the unanswered Big Bang scientific puzzle as to why the universe expands at precisely the rate to keep it from either flying apart or imploding.]

[...]​

contrasted with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe

 

[seattlegal]

Me: Like what, put them up here please.



Well, what can I do with that? LOL. Siddhartha apparently lived 2600 years ago. I never met him. Nor did you, I suspect. And I really know little or nothing about Buddhism. So I have to make a choice between what some celestial beings who were here at the time (if you will allow that angelic beings are immortal and are always here) say about Siddhartha and his teachings, and what you say about Siddhartha from reading "suttas" about him and what he said 2600 years later? Should I believe eye witnesses, or should I believe what someone who read about him 2600 years later, has to say? You may well be correct, but I have no way of knowing that. If we could just time travel back to 500 BC, we could perhaps could find out what's what.



I know nothing of suttas, Nibbana, or paranibbana.

Christians blithely talk about the "original texts" of the New Testament, when actually there are no originals. All are copies of copies of copies of copies, hand written in whale oil lamped dungeons. Are we to imagine that after 2600 years of copying, translating, re-telling, fires, floods, wars, earthquakes, moths and rot, that there are "original texts" from Siddhartha?

The suttas are sayings of the Buddha that were preserved through oral history (the practice of which continues down to this day) before they were written down 400 years later.

Can you give me the reference number or copy and paste the text here? Maybe I can find it.

Is this what you're talking about? (53:9.4) It is true that Satan did periodically visit Caligastia and others of the fallen princes right up to the time of the presentation of these revelations, when there occurred the first hearing of Gabriel's plea for the annihilation of the archrebels.



LOL. First, it's not my job nor in my ability to explain Gabriel, an angel, or his thought processes, and also, what you characterize as a "disagree" [ment] is actually a rebellion against God's government. Rebellion against the government is treason, punishable by death almost anywhere you go. We have it, most sovereign nations have it. Also, I'd say that Gabriel is probably acting as a prosecuting attorney and if he thinks there are traitors and subversives, it's probably his job to bring charges and suggest the obvious punishment by law if the rebels are found to be guilty. I think characterizing treason as just a disagreement is disingenuous at best.

Anyway, Michael/Jesus is the boss there, not Gabriel, and I'm sure he'll take Gabriel's counsel into consideration.

This collective type of reaction is characteristic of bacteria colonies. It is understandable for fleshy creatures such as us to have these characteristics, as the mitochondria within our cells is basically an incorporated bacteria. What is the excuse for the non-corporeal beings?

 

[RJM]

What is the excuse for the non-corporeal beings?

Virtual chat rooms?

 

[seattlegal]

Virtual chat rooms?

 

[Norm]

The suttas are sayings of the Buddha that were preserved through oral history (the practice of which continues down to this day) before they were written down 400 years later.

And like the bible, probably, according to fundamentalist Christians, the material in the New Testament is perfect and without error because God allowed no errors? Similarly, over 26 centuries, Buddha allowed no errors in the re-telling and re-copying?

This collective type of reaction is characteristic of bacteria colonies.

Honestly, I wouldn't know, not being a biologist or bacteriologist.

It is understandable for fleshy creatures such as us to have these characteristics, as the mitochondria within our cells is basically an incorporated bacteria. What is the excuse for the non-corporeal beings?

When you use the term "the excuse" do you mean "the reason"? You have the same access to non-corporeal beings as I do, I think you should ask them, not me. I don't speak for them.

 

[seattlegal]

And like the bible, probably, according to fundamentalist Christians, the material in the New Testament is perfect and without error because God allowed no errors? Similarly, over 26 centuries, Buddha allowed no errors in the re-telling and re-copying?

Hence, there are multiple suttas where Nibbana (nirvana) is defined by Buddha. Buddha even admitted that there would come a time where people would no longer remember the Buddhadharma. (Some sects guestimate that this will be in about another 2,500 years.)

Honestly, I wouldn't know, not being a biologist or bacteriologist.

It's really quite interesting. Bacteria are also masters at all kinds of warfare, including chemical warfare. (which goes along with the collective mindset)

When you use the term "the excuse" do you mean "the reason"? You have the same access to non-corporeal beings as I do, I think you should ask them, not me. I don't speak for them.

I'm not making excuses for them, are you?

 

[Norm]

Bacteria are also masters at all kinds of warfare, including chemical warfare. (which goes along with the collective mindset)

In my opinion bacteria do not have minds singly or collectively. But maybe Buddhism teaches differently, I don't know. I'm not really interested in talking about bacteria, to be honest.

I'm not making excuses for them, are you?

You initially used the word "excuse" in a pejorative manner, in my opinion, when the word "reason" would have been more correct and less biased, neutral. Your last question above makes no sense and is ad hominem.

 

[seattlegal]

In my opinion bacteria do not have minds singly or collectively. But maybe Buddhism teaches differently, I don't know. I'm not really interested in talking about bacteria, to be honest.



You initially used the word "excuse" in a pejorative manner, in my opinion, when the word "reason" would have been more correct and less biased, neutral. Your last question above makes no sense and is ad hominem.

Do you agree with Gabriel's prayer for annihilation?

 

[seattlegal]

<...>

Can you give me the reference number or copy and paste the text here? Maybe I can find it.

Is this what you're talking about? (53:9.4) It is true that Satan did periodically visit Caligastia and others of the fallen princes right up to the time of the presentation of these revelations, when there occurred the first hearing of Gabriel's plea for the annihilation of the archrebels.



LOL. First, it's not my job nor in my ability to explain Gabriel, an angel, or his thought processes, and also, what you characterize as a "disagree" [ment] is actually a rebellion against God's government. Rebellion against the government is treason, punishable by death almost anywhere you go. We have it, most sovereign nations have it. Also, I'd say that Gabriel is probably acting as a prosecuting attorney and if he thinks there are traitors and subversives, it's probably his job to bring charges and suggest the obvious punishment by law if the rebels are found to be guilty. I think characterizing treason as just a disagreement is disingenuous at best.

Anyway, Michael/Jesus is the boss there, not Gabriel, and I'm sure he'll take Gabriel's counsel into consideration.

How does the above part I bolded in purple differ from the reasonings used to put Jesus "King of the Jews" to death?
I will go ahead and repost it here for easy reference:

@Norm wrote:

Can you give me the reference number or copy and paste the text here? Maybe I can find it.

Is this what you're talking about? (53:9.4) It is true that Satan did periodically visit Caligastia and others of the fallen princes right up to the time of the presentation of these revelations, when there occurred the first hearing of Gabriel's plea for the annihilation of the archrebels.​

LOL. First, it's not my job nor in my ability to explain Gabriel, an angel, or his thought processes, and also, what you characterize as a "disagree" [ment] is actually a rebellion against God's government. Rebellion against the government is treason, punishable by death almost anywhere you go. We have it, most sovereign nations have it. Also, I'd say that Gabriel is probably acting as a prosecuting attorney and if he thinks there are traitors and subversives, it's probably his job to bring charges and suggest the obvious punishment by law if the rebels are found to be guilty. I think characterizing treason as just a disagreement is disingenuous at best.

Anyway, Michael/Jesus is the boss there, not Gabriel, and I'm sure he'll take Gabriel's counsel into consideration.
​

end of quote

 

[LuisMarco]

Hm.

Don't you know it's rude to ask a lady her age?

Just heckling you. I'm 22. And a half.

you rock, girl!!!: too young and too wise!

 

[LuisMarco]

This collective type of reaction is characteristic of bacteria colonies. It is understandable for fleshy creatures such as us to have these characteristics, as the mitochondria within our cells is basically an incorporated bacteria. What is the excuse for the non-corporeal beings?

they are corporeal beings, only invisible to us and in a higher level.

 

[Norm]

Do you agree with Gabriel's prayer for annihilation?

The text doesn't say Gabriel prayed for annihilation. It's better to quote the text rather than to paraphrase it. Paraphrasing often leads to errors like that one.

If it was/is Gabriel's job to act as prosecuting attorney to present the state's case against the traitors, then sure, I agree. That's what any good, competent prosecuting attorney would do, their job. The larger crime is that the traitors, if allowed to continue spreading their lies about Michael's administration, could adversely impact, or even destroy, the chances of some mortal ascenders for eternal life by misleading them.

As far as equating the reasonings of the Jews who schemed to have Jesus killed goes, I don't think that has anything to do with the celestial government's actions against Lucifer, Satan, et al, and their plans to overthrow or cast doubt on Michael's legitimacy and the plan for salvation for all mortals. Jesus was falsely accused and falsely testified against. Even Pilate said, "Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:" (Luke 23:14)

Do you have sympathies for those who schemed to have Jesus killed?