The Urantia Book

@LuisMarco
I understand the principle -- the minister represents the signet of the king, he signs by the signet of the king -- not by his own power and authority
 
Last edited:
LuisMarco said:
i know it's from the devil; it's a spiritual channeling, most come from him; URANTIA is not a spirit channeling; it's a direct spirit revelation ...
Click to expand...
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/20441/
LuisMarco said:
The law of One: it's the best channeling i've ever read; and it says its celestial authors come from venus, and nasa has already admitted there could or is life in venus (this by nasa relatively recently); that mars was inhabited; it talks of ufos a bit; galactic civilizations; and other spiritual things including the tarot, etc: www.lawofone.info
Click to expand...
Oahspe is a spiritual channelling from the devil but The Law of One is a spiritual channelling not from the devil? Is there a way to know?
 
Last edited:
RJM said:
Oahspe is a spiritual channelling from the devil but The Law of One is a spiritual channelling not from the devil? Is there a way to know?
Click to expand...
both are; i'm not gonna read both channelings for you, why don't you investigate more, or don't do it if you don't want to.
 
LuisMarco said:
URANTIA is not a spirit channeling; it's a direct spirit revelation
Click to expand...
Just on that point, I don't think we can say 'direct' as there is no authenticated line of transmission – the author(s) both mundane and other-worldly do not directly identify themselves? It's all anonymous ... there's nothing direct about that.

A believer can subsequently claim it to be from a certain source, but we have no evidence to suggest as such.

That you choose to believe is your free choice to do so ... but I find questions, or issues:

That texts have been lifted word-for-word (technically plagiarism); in other cases are clearly the same texts with slight alterations. The derivative nature of these texts are a matter of public knowledge.

I can see a higher source referencing the fruits of human wisdom, but then in some cases the scientific wisdom is actually wrong. To say the error was allowed because it was expedient to do so casts the whole enterprise into doubt. Why, then, is not all of it error, written for, as one might say, disenfranchised Christians in the United States?

Revelation is, by its nature, timeless. It's from, or at least speaks of, the eternal, and it addresses the timeless and eternal, not the contingent. That is what is evident in the sacra doctrina of the world's great traditions. Any text subject to contingency, to correction and revision in the light of new understanding, addresses the finite, the contingent and, in the broader scheme of things, the ephemeral.

As regards Christianity ... and indeed as someone with an interest in Comparative Religion ... I find the misunderstandings of the world's Spiritual Traditions as somewhat startling and, I cannot help feeling, anachronistic.
 
FALSE FALSE FALSE:
Just on that point, I don't think we can say 'direct' as there is no authenticated line of transmission – the author(s) both mundane and other-worldly do not directly identify themselves? It's all anonymous ... there's nothing direct about that.

A believer can subsequently claim it to be from a certain source, but we have no evidence to suggest as such.
Click to expand...
There is, there is: the revelators/authors identify themselves, sometimes by type (order) of being, other times by both name and type; one only has to go to the URANTIA titles of the Papers to see this very aspect...
That texts have been lifted word-for-word (technically plagiarism); in other cases are clearly the same texts with slight alterations. The derivative nature of these texts are a matter of public knowledge.

I can see a higher source referencing the fruits of human wisdom, but then in some cases the scientific wisdom is actually wrong. To say the error was allowed because it was expedient to do so casts the whole enterprise into doubt. Why, then, is not all of it error, written for, as one might say, disenfranchised Christians in the United States?
Click to expand...
Matthew Block, who sourced almost all The Urantia Papers to human authors, said there was no plagiarism in URANTIA, but that there was plagiarism with some of the books by Sadler, the man directly associated with URANTIA from the start.

And i have covered the science of URANTIA elsewhere in this Forum: URANTIA has both dated science and advanced science ahead of its time (1955 and before it), so that Wikipedia, on URANTIA, is wrong and being hypocrite as to the science of URANTIA, as we can see here and elsewhere: https://www.naturalnews.com/search.asp?query=wikipedia+larry+sanger
Revelation is, by its nature, timeless. It's from, or at least speaks of, the eternal, and it addresses the timeless and eternal, not the contingent. That is what is evident in the sacra doctrina of the world's great traditions. Any text subject to contingency, to correction and revision in the light of new understanding, addresses the finite, the contingent and, in the broader scheme of things, the ephemeral.
Click to expand...
Lmao: URANTIA is the most timeless and eternal and important divine revelation to ever appear on Urantia (earth)... you better inform yourself the better and read it all... or not.
As regards Christianity ... and indeed as someone with an interest in Comparative Religion ... I find the misunderstandings of the world's Spiritual Traditions as somewhat startling and, I cannot help feeling, anachronistic.
Click to expand...
What do you mean just above?
Are there any more issues¿.
(...)
 
Where is the plagiarism in URANTIA: yes there a few verbatim words or phrases in it, from human sources, but the rest is rephrased, or even actually changed, and enhanced; URANTIA factually told us they acknowledged human sources:

Acknowledgment

0:12.11 (16.8) In formulating the succeeding presentations having to do with the portrayal of the character of the Universal Father and the nature of his Paradise associates, together with an attempted description of the perfect central universe and the encircling seven superuniverses, we are to be guided by the mandate of the superuniverse rulers which directs that we shall, in all our efforts to reveal truth and co-ordinate essential knowledge, give preference to the highest existing human concepts pertaining to the subjects to be presented. We may resort to pure revelation only when the concept of presentation has had no adequate previous expression by the human mind.

0:12.12 (17.1) Successive planetary revelations of divine truth invariably embrace the highest existing concepts of spiritual values as a part of the new and enhanced co-ordination of planetary knowledge. Accordingly, in making these presentations about God and his universe associates, we have selected as the basis of these papers more than one thousand human concepts representing the highest and most advanced planetary knowledge of spiritual values and universe meanings. Wherein these human concepts, assembled from the God-knowing mortals of the past and the present, are inadequate to portray the truth as we are directed to reveal it, we will unhesitatingly supplement them, for this purpose drawing upon our own superior knowledge of the reality and divinity of the Paradise Deities and their transcendent residential universe.

0:12.13 (17.2) We are fully cognizant of the difficulties of our assignment; we recognize the impossibility of fully translating the language of the concepts of divinity and eternity into the symbols of the language of the finite concepts of the mortal mind. But we know that there dwells within the human mind a fragment of God, and that there sojourns with the human soul the Spirit of Truth; and we further know that these spirit forces conspire to enable material man to grasp the reality of spiritual values and to comprehend the philosophy of universe meanings. But even more certainly we know that these spirits of the Divine Presence are able to assist man in the spiritual appropriation of all truth contributory to the enhancement of the ever-progressing reality of personal religious experience—God-consciousness.

0:12.14 (17.3) [Indited by an Orvonton Divine Counselor, Chief of the Corps of Superuniverse Personalities assigned to portray on Urantia the truth concerning the Paradise Deities and the universe of universes.]
Click to expand...
 
LuisMarco said:
FALSE FALSE FALSE:

There is, there is: the revelators/authors identify themselves, sometimes by type (order) of being, other times by both name and type; one only has to go to the URANTIA titles of the Papers to see this very aspect...
Click to expand...
No, not false ... the human agent(s) is/are not named.

Possibly Kellogg, possibly the Sadlers, possibly others. If the human source is unknown, the ontological source remains questionable.

The claimed origin is pretty much the same ad Edgar Cayce.

In fact so much is like other cults of the era.

And we have no way of knowing how much human editing took place ... nor why celestial beings would seem so dependent on human authors, especially when there is so much contingent and erroneous material. If there is error in what we can prove, we have no way of knowing what error there is in what we cannot.

You accept it as a matter of faith. OK. I happen not to.
 
Last edited:
LuisMarco said:
Where is the plagiarism in URANTIA: yes there a few verbatim words or phrases in it, from human sources, but the rest is rephrased, or even actually changed ...
Click to expand...
Thank you. My point. And again, we have no way of knowing the extent of unoriginal material in the book.

I've read that most of Book IV, especially the early years of Jesus, was 'compiled' from other books supposedly detailing the lost years.
 
As regards its version of Christianity ... not far off Adventism, and its criticisms are hardly original ...
 
Thomas said:
No, not false ... the human agent(s) is/are not named.

Possibly Kellogg, possibly the Sadlers, possibly others. If the human source is unknown, the ontological source remains questionable.

The claimed origin is pretty much the same ad Edgar Cayce.

In fact so much is like other cults of the era.

And we have no way of knowing how much human editing took place ... nor why celestial beings would seem so dependent on human authors, especially when there is so much contingent and erroneous material. If there is error in what we can prove, we have no way of knowing what error there is in what we cannot.

You accept it as a matter of faith. OK. I happen not to.
Click to expand...

Not humans named, as the URANTIA revelators/authors wanted:
www.urantia.org

History

A History of the Urantia Movement By Dr. William S. Sadler
www.urantia.org www.urantia.org

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.
Click to expand...

And URANTIA is not like any cults of the time nor similar to Cayce, at all whatsoever...
 
Thomas said:
Thank you. My point. And again, we have no way of knowing the extent of unoriginal material in the book.

I've read that most of Book IV, especially the early years of Jesus, was 'compiled' from other books supposedly detailing the lost years.
Click to expand...
Not 'thank you': my mistake:

i wanted to ask the query: Where is the plagiarism in URANTIA???: yes there a few verbatim words or phrases in it, from human sources, but the rest is rephrased, or even actually changed.

yes there is a way to know how much of the JESUS Papers are original: look up matthew block... Paper 120, JESUS Papers' first Paper, is totally original according to matthew's non-perfect work...
 
Thomas said:
As regards its version of Christianity ... not far off Adventism, and its criticisms are hardly original ...
Click to expand...
URANTIA has almost zero similarities to adventism; and its criticisms of christianity are original, but we don't know how much, except for some unoriginal, of course, but you don't claim to know this when you haven't read all of URANTIA, do you¿.
 
LuisMarco said:
And URANTIA is not like any cults of the time nor similar to Cayce, at all whatsoever...
Click to expand...
Both were channels while asleep. They are fundamentally the same modes of transmission.
LuisMarco said:
URANTIA has almost zero similarities to adventism
Click to expand...
Sorry, you need to check. Soul-sleep, anihilationism – there's the most common two, so 'zero' is a long way off the mark.
LuisMarco said:
and its criticisms of christianity are original, but we don't know how much, except for some unoriginal, of course, but you don't claim to know this when you haven't read all of URANTIA, do you¿.
Click to expand...
I have dipped. For example, I check the Urantia version of the Wedding at Cana. Apart from the mundane creativity, the central act – the water into wine – suffice to say the point, that shines out in the symbolism for those with the eye to see, is again rendered mundane within the fantastical context of the work as a whole.
LuisMarco said:
i wanted to ask the query: Where is the plagiarism in URANTIA???: yes there a few verbatim words or phrases in it, from human sources, but the rest is rephrased, or even actually changed.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, plagiarism does not just mean copying word-for-word. It also means reproducing by paraphrase.

Essentially means the text presents content allowing the reader to assume an erroneous source – it's not your idea, you got it from somewhere else, but trade it, even indirectly, as your own.

So – if you can direct me to a version of the book where all the derivative material is clearly footnoted and acknowledged – including Sadler's prior writings that have been folded into the work – then I can read Urantia and know with clarity what is taken from contemporary writings and what is delivered from the higher realms.
 
LuisMarco said:
yes there is a way to know how much of the JESUS Papers are original: look up matthew block... Paper 120, JESUS Papers' first Paper, is totally original according to matthew's non-perfect work...
Click to expand...
You do know the idea that Jesus is the Archangel Michael is an Adventist idea, don't you?
 
Thomas said:
Both were channels while asleep. They are fundamentally the same modes of transmission.

Sorry, you need to check. Soul-sleep, anihilationism – there's the most common two, so 'zero' is a long way off the mark.

I have dipped. For example, I check the Urantia version of the Wedding at Cana. Apart from the mundane creativity, the central act – the water into wine – suffice to say the point, that shines out in the symbolism for those with the eye to see, is again rendered mundane within the fantastical context of the work as a whole.

Just to be clear, plagiarism does not just mean copying word-for-word. It also means reproducing by paraphrase.

Essentially means the text presents content allowing the reader to assume an erroneous source – it's not your idea, you got it from somewhere else, but trade it, even indirectly, as your own.

So – if you can direct me to a version of the book where all the derivative material is clearly footnoted and acknowledged – including Sadler's prior writings that have been folded into the work – then I can read Urantia and know with clarity what is taken from contemporary writings and what is delivered from the higher realms.
Click to expand...
FALSE: they are not the same transmission method; even a follower of Cayce would tell you URANTIA is different; but anyway i have studied both and they are different.

i said almost zero; and yeah i stand by what i claim positively and truthfully...

there's nothing mundane in URANTIA...

as the revelators said, they didn't want a william sadler, nor any human author, to be associated to The URANTIA Papers, even though they quoted humans verbatim at parts, not all, not even all sections of URANTIA within each Paper.
there's no plagiarism because they acknowledged human sources and concepts which were used in the Papers.
 
Thomas said:
You do know the idea that Jesus is the Archangel Michael is an Adventist idea, don't you?
Click to expand...
FALSE again: URANTIA never identifies MICHAEL (JESUS) with any archangel, but it does say in two places (only): the 'archangel of MICHAEL':
37:3.6 Two senior archangels are always assigned as the personal aids of a Paradise Avonal on all planetary missions, whether involving judicial actions, magisterial missions, or bestowal incarnations. When this Paradise Son has finished the judgment of a realm and the dead are called to record (the so-called resurrection), it is literally true that the seraphic guardians of the slumbering personalities respond to "the voice of the archangel." The roll call of a dispensation termination is promulgated by an attendant archangel. This is the archangel of the resurrection, sometimes referred to as the "archangel of Michael."
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • Sin título.png
    Sin título.png
    917.3 KB · Views: 77
LuisMarco said:
NO: i don't only have faith in it; i know what i know coz i have thoroughly researched and understood URANTIA and much more... see???.
Click to expand...
OK. I have made small researches, and already enough no suggest it's not the thing for me.

Here's the thing: If I could read a copy with all unoriginal materials clearly highlighted, I would know what was relevant to revelation, and what is simply drawn from cultural sources that deserve to be read in their own light where they have something useful to say – and this would help filter out those materials copied which were relevant then, but have not stood the test of time and show the Urantia Book in a bad light.

Example: The scientific errors.

Paper 104, "Growth of the Trinity Concept," (taken directly from Hopkins' chapters on "The Triad," "The Hindu Trinity," "The Buddhistic Trinity" and "The Christian Trinity."
Modern religious scholars assert that applying the term 'Trinity' to Egyptian, Hindu and Buddhist traditions are something of an alien misnomer and best avoided, as they lead to erroneous assumptions which Urantia seems to follow.

Example: The use of E. V. Cowdry's "Human Biology & Racial Welfare" (1930):
Paper 51 on Planetary Adams, section 4;
Paper 65, "The Overcontrol of Evolution," section 2;
Paper 82, "The Evolution of Marriage," section 6; etc.
To promote racist notions of difference, the dangers and benefits of 'race mixing', and the feasibility of a modest eugenics program.

In fact Urantia's world view seems to reflect the 1930s Americana.

+++
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top