The Urantia Book

[Thomas]

FALSE again: URANTIA never identifies MICHAEL (JESUS) with any archangel, but it does say in two places (only): the 'archangel of MICHAEL':

LOL. My mistake ... a different Michael!
"Even God and man can coexist in a unified personality, as is so exquisitely demonstrated in the present status of Christ Michael—Son of Man and Son of God." (Foreword 0:5:3 (8.3)).

 

[LuisMarco]

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.

+++

OK, we can see you don't know anything about URANTIA.

URANTIA is not racist: http://ubannotated.com/main-menu/animated/Topical Studies/

Also it does not always reflect the '1930's':

92:4.1 Revelation is evolutionary but always progressive. Down through the ages of a world's history, the revelations of religion are ever-expanding and successively more enlightening. It is the mission of revelation to sort and censor the successive religions of evolution. But if revelation is to exalt and upstep the religions of evolution, then must such divine visitations portray teachings which are not too far removed from the thought and reactions of the age in which they are presented. Thus must and does revelation always keep in touch with evolution. Always must the religion of revelation be limited by man's capacity of receptivity.

And example of URANTIA's advanced science ahead of its time, acknowledging that its cosmology (science) is not inspired, anyway:

4. The Limitations of Revelation​

(1109.2) 101:4.1 Because your world is generally ignorant of origins, even of physical origins, it has appeared to be wise from time to time to provide instruction in cosmology. And always has this made trouble for the future. The laws of revelation hamper us greatly by their proscription of the impartation of unearned or premature knowledge. Any cosmology presented as a part of revealed religion is destined to be outgrown in a very short time. Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented.

(1109.3) 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.

(1109.4) 101:4.3 Truth is always a revelation: autorevelation when it emerges as a result of the work of the indwelling Adjuster; epochal revelation when it is presented by the function of some other celestial agency, group, or personality.

(1109.5) 101:4.4 In the last analysis, religion is to be judged by its fruits, according to the manner and the extent to which it exhibits its own inherent and divine excellence.

(1109.6) 101:4.5 Truth may be but relatively inspired, even though revelation is invariably a spiritual phenomenon. While statements with reference to cosmology are never inspired, such revelations are of immense value in that they at least transiently clarify knowledge by:

(1109.7) 101:4.6 1. The reduction of confusion by the authoritative elimination of error.
(1109.8) 101:4.7 2. The co-ordination of known or about-to-be-known facts and observations.
(1110.1) 101:4.8 3. The restoration of important bits of lost knowledge concerning epochal transactions in the distant past.
(1110.2) 101:4.9 4. The supplying of information which will fill in vital missing gaps in otherwise earned knowledge.
(1110.3) 101:4.10 5. Presenting cosmic data in such a manner as to illuminate the spiritual teachings contained in the accompanying revelation.

UBtheNEWS: New discoveries support history presented in The Urantia Book (1955). – Urantia Book Study Aids

ubannotated.com

 

[LuisMarco]

LOL. My mistake ... a different Michael!
"Even God and man can coexist in a unified personality, as is so exquisitely demonstrated in the present status of Christ Michael—Son of Man and Son of God." (Foreword 0:5:3 (8.3)).

Yes, different than archangels, right¿ Let's leave it at that, you don't seem to care about a serious divine revelation; and i don't care that you care either, with all due respect, so i stop here, unless you have good and incontestable refutations against The Urantia Papers...

 

[LuisMarco]

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.

Also, addressing the your above claim, we don't know all about the TRINITY concept in acient Egypt, India, and with Buddhism, or do you? The Egyptians were descended from Atlantis, and although Atlantis is not addressed in URANTIA, Atlantis sure had some, primitive (or even advanced¿) concepts of the TRINITY...

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.

This has been addressed in general, and specifically, by halbert katzen's work in his site, there's no racism in URANTIA, and there are lots of useful annotations and research in each of the Papers in that site... and as to a modest (?) eugenics program? No, the revelators suggest some better eugenics program for our world, also addressed elsewhere; but not the evil eugenics of the nazis and the united states of decades ago...

 

[Thomas]

OK, we can see you don't know anything about URANTIA.

OK. So let me stick to what I do know about.

Always must the religion of revelation be limited by man's capacity of receptivity.

From my perspective, that of the world's great Traditions, man's capacity of receptivity is unlimited and requires no mediation.

From the Abrahamic perspective, the soul is the place where the finite and the Infinite face each other; where in its deepest, darkest depths all finitude melts away – I could list any number of mystics on this point, Meister Eckhart being such a one, and one of the best, but he himself stands in a long line going back to the Apostles, to John and to Paul notably.

Here is the true sign of authentic revelation – its unlimited-ness. As far as one plumbs, there is always further. The horizon is ever before you, and the veils draw away until, perhaps, the last veil is the veil of distinction, where all concept of self and other, of I and Thou, evaporate ... where even existence, even being, becomes nebulous.

So to me, any revelation which comes embroidered with intermediaries and conditionals, is not it.

 

[Thomas]

Also, addressing the your above claim, we don't know all about the TRINITY concept in acient Egypt, India, and with Buddhism, or do you?

Well more than perhaps you realise.

Urantia seems to think Greek philosophy ended with Plato. There is no mention of later influential philosophers such as Plotinus or Iamblichus who made profound and insightful statements regarding the nature of that which is defined in Christianity as Trinity and which is there, albeit inchoate fashion, in triunes as found elsewhere.

As an aside, the idea of Greek Philosophy as purely a philosophy is a mistake. Philosophy included its religious element, called Theurgy. As such I find some of the insights offered as falling short of a proper understanding.

We must preserve however against seeing Trinities where in reality such is not the case.Certainly there is no Trinity in any other Tradition that equates to that in Christianity, although there are, of course, similar expressions. The Hindu Sat-Cit-Ananda (Eternal-Knowledge-Consciousness, Bliss) being a favourite of mine.

 

[LuisMarco]

Well more than perhaps you realise.

Nah, you don't know all of world history, that's a fact, much less occult history etc¿; i dont claim to know all of history.

Urantia seems to think Greek philosophy ended with Plato. There is no mention of later influential philosophers such as Plotinus or Iamblichus who made profound and insightful statements regarding the nature of that which is defined in Christianity as Trinity and which is there, albeit inchoate fashion, in triunes as found elsewhere.

URANTIA doesn't gives us all of our world history: why would you want a book that covers so much of it, including plotinus and iamblichus, when you can't with a book of almost 2100 pages¿; you wouldn't certainly be able to handle one of 5000 pages long lmao (being ironic, so no offenses here).

 

[LuisMarco]

From my perspective, that of the world's great Traditions, man's capacity of receptivity is unlimited and requires no mediation.

So to me, any revelation which comes embroidered with intermediaries and conditionals, is not it.

Our spiritual receptivity capacity in the present moment is not unlimited; it requires help, mediation, evolution, adjustments (URANTIA's Thought Adjusters' concept): '48:7.5 3. Inherent capacities cannot be exceeded; a pint can never hold a quart. The spirit concept cannot be mechanically forced into the material memory mold.' But that doesn't mean that we will ever remain the same as to our finite nature of limited evolutionary status.

Divine revelation never is embroidered with evolution, it uplifts and adjusts and betters it; it does have conditionals, otherwise it wouldn't be divine revelation; why¿ because it's here to bring truths and the Truth:

92:4.3 Evolutionary religion is sentimental, not logical. It is man's reaction to belief in a hypothetical ghost-spirit world — the human belief-reflex, excited by the realization and fear of the unknown. Revelatory religion is propounded by the real spiritual world; it is the response of the superintellectual cosmos to the mortal hunger to believe in, and depend upon, the universal Deities. Evolutionary religion pictures the circuitous gropings of humanity in quest of truth; revelatory religion is that very truth.

 

[Thomas]

Our spiritual receptivity capacity in the present moment is not unlimited;

Actually, I fear you have been deceived. If that's what your authorities have told you, they have led you astray.

The very nature of 'revelation' in this religious sense means knowledge of that which cannot be arrived at with any certainty by the unaided human intellect. It passes beyond the realm of intellectual forms. Hence it is always a 'mystery'.

This does not refer to science as yet undiscovered, or events that have not yet happened. That's not Religious Revelation.

In the religious context it means a self-disclosure by the Divine. A sense of the Absolute and the Infinite made known in the contingent and finite.

A sense of Oneness, Infinitude, Plenitude.

Revelation means that sacra doctrina written millennia ago are still relevant because they speak of the eternal.

Revelation that has a time-stamp.

Sacra Doctrina underpins a flawless metaphysic that is consistently relevant because it is timeless and universal. It speaks about the fundamental "I and Thou" that transcends the worlds of forms.

It comes as no surprise to me there's no mention of Hermeticism, no mention of Gnosticism.

“I am as sure as I live that nothing is so near to me as God. God is nearer to me than I am to myself; my existence depends on the nearness and the presence of God.” ― Meister Eckhart

"You were more inward to me than my most inward part,” or “you were closer to me than I am to myself.” (Tu autem eras interior intimo meo.)
Augustine of Hippo.

"And We have already created man and know what his soul whispers to him, and We are closer1 to him than [his] jugular vein." (Qran, Surah Qaf 16)

Such would appear inadmissible in Urantia because it does not allow a direct and unmediated union with the Divine.

The book says:
91:7.1 [Part III]
Mysticism, as the technique of the cultivation of the consciousness of the presence of God, is altogether praiseworthy, but when such practices lead to ...
What starts out as a supposed definition of the mystic devolves into straw-man fallacy.

What is spiritual practice, prayer and self-discipline if not "the technique of the cultivation of the consciousness of the presence of God"? It's not 'praiseworthy', it's 'the one thing necessary', the discernment between the real and the illusory.

101:1.2 [Part III]
The Thought Adjuster has no special mechanism through which to gain self-expression; there is no mystic religious faculty for the reception or expression of religious emotions. These experiences are made available through the naturally ordained mechanism of mortal mind. And therein lies one explanation of the Adjuster's difficulty in engaging in direct communication with the material mind of its constant indwelling."
Emphasis mine. The alarms are sounding ... if you can't see the inherent danger here ...

 

[LuisMarco]

Actually, I fear you have been deceived. If that's what your authorities have told you, they have led you astray.

The very nature of 'revelation' in this religious sense means knowledge of that which cannot be arrived at with any certainty by the unaided human intellect. It passes beyond the realm of intellectual forms. Hence it is always a 'mystery'.

This does not refer to science as yet undiscovered, or events that have not yet happened. That's not Religious Revelation.

In the religious context it means a self-disclosure by the Divine. A sense of the Absolute and the Infinite made known in the contingent and finite.

A sense of Oneness, Infinitude, Plenitude.

Revelation means that sacra doctrina written millennia ago are still relevant because they speak of the eternal.

Revelation that has a time-stamp.

Sacra Doctrina underpins a flawless metaphysic that is consistently relevant because it is timeless and universal. It speaks about the fundamental "I and Thou" that transcends the worlds of forms.

It comes as no surprise to me there's no mention of Hermeticism, no mention of Gnosticism.

“I am as sure as I live that nothing is so near to me as God. God is nearer to me than I am to myself; my existence depends on the nearness and the presence of God.” ― Meister Eckhart

"You were more inward to me than my most inward part,” or “you were closer to me than I am to myself.” (Tu autem eras interior intimo meo.)
Augustine of Hippo.

"And We have already created man and know what his soul whispers to him, and We are closer1 to him than [his] jugular vein." (Qran, Surah Qaf 16)

Such would appear inadmissible in Urantia because it does not allow a direct and unmediated union with the Divine.

The book says:
91:7.1 [Part III]
Mysticism, as the technique of the cultivation of the consciousness of the presence of God, is altogether praiseworthy, but when such practices lead to ...
What starts out as a supposed definition of the mystic devolves into straw-man fallacy.

What is spiritual practice, prayer and self-discipline if not "the technique of the cultivation of the consciousness of the presence of God"? It's not 'praiseworthy', it's 'the one thing necessary', the discernment between the real and the illusory.

101:1.2 [Part III]
The Thought Adjuster has no special mechanism through which to gain self-expression; there is no mystic religious faculty for the reception or expression of religious emotions. These experiences are made available through the naturally ordained mechanism of mortal mind. And therein lies one explanation of the Adjuster's difficulty in engaging in direct communication with the material mind of its constant indwelling."
Emphasis mine. The alarms are sounding ... if you can't see the inherent danger here ...

This is totally False again (i'll answer your 'issue with' URANTIA later on):

URANTIA describes and explains exactly what you say URANTIA supposedly doesn't, only much better: the union between the infinite and the finite, etc.

URANTIA talks about the actual fusion between each human and a spirit fragment of GOD him/herself (GOD is FEMENINE and MOTHER also), the Thought Adjusters that indwell humans since humans' first moral choice, about 5 or 6 years old, of which we don't find this in the Bible; the Bible only says scarcely we are indwelt by GOD, but URANTIA reveals to us, s/he indwells our minds since that early personal age.

1:4.1 The infinity of the perfection of God is such that it eternally constitutes him mystery. And the greatest of all the unfathomable mysteries of God is the phenomenon of the divine indwelling of mortal minds. The manner in which the Universal Father sojourns with the creatures of time is the most profound of all universe mysteries; the divine presence in the mind of man is the mystery of mysteries.

91:3.4 The simple prayer of faith evidences a mighty evolution in human experience whereby the ancient conversations with the fictitious symbol of the alter ego of primitive religion have become exalted to the level of communion with the spirit of the Infinite and to that of a bona fide consciousness of the reality of the eternal God and Paradise Father of all intelligent creation.

91:8.10 Genuine prayer adds to spiritual growth, modifies attitudes, and yields that satisfaction which comes from communion with divinity. It is a spontaneous outburst of God-consciousness.

101:6.6 With man, the eventual fusion and resultant oneness with the indwelling Adjuster — the personality synthesis of man and the essence of God — constitute him, in potential, a living part of the Supreme and insure for such a onetime mortal being the eternal birthright of the endless pursuit of finality of universe service for and with the Supreme.

0:4.3 2. Deified reality embraces all infinite Deity potentials ranging upward through all realms of personality from the lowest finite to the highest infinite, thus encompassing the domain of all that which is personalizable and more — even to the presence of the Deity Absolute.

105:5.4 Finite possibility is inherent in the Infinite, but the transmutation of possibility to probability and inevitability must be attributed to the self-existent free will of the First Source and Center, activating all triunity associations. Only the infinity of the Father's will could ever have so qualified the absolute level of existence as to eventuate an ultimate or to create a finite.

Where do you stand now Thomas¿, what are you gonna respond now and here¿¿¿.

 

[Thomas]

This is totally False again

A blanket statement of rejection without any constructive argument is nothing.

URANTIA describes and explains exactly what you say URANTIA supposedly doesn't, only much better: the union between the infinite and the finite, etc.

Too many intermediary states for me.

URANTIA talks about the actual fusion between each human and a spirit fragment of GOD ...

Here's the problem. You can't 'spirit fragment of God'. An existing being cannot be God and not know it is God, and neither can God be modified, fragmentised, etc.

the Thought Adjusters that indwell humans ...

Which means we are the unconscious puppets of anonymous 'Thought Adjusters'. I'll leave that one with you.

the Bible only says scarcely we are indwelt by GOD...

Just shows how little you understand the Bible, and the Abrahamic Traditions.

Where do you stand now Thomas¿, what are you gonna respond now and here¿¿¿.

Response below

 

[Thomas]

1:4.1 The infinity of the perfection of God is such that it eternally constitutes him mystery. And the greatest of all the unfathomable mysteries of God is the phenomenon of the divine indwelling of mortal minds. The manner in which the Universal Father sojourns with the creatures of time is the most profound of all universe mysteries; the divine presence in the mind of man is the mystery of mysteries.

Nothing new or revelatory here. In fact possibly copied from Christian sources.

Sorry, but in all the texts you posted, there's nothing that could not have been gleaned from freely available sources.

Whoever the source was, it's possibly they honestly thought they were being original and revelatory, but actually it's all the product of the subconscious.

Sadler was a voracious reader and a prolific writer, after all.

 

[LuisMarco]

A blanket statement of rejection without any constructive argument is nothing.

(¿)

Too many intermediary states for me.

(¿)

Here's the problem. You can't 'spirit fragment of God'. An existing being cannot be God and not know it is God, and neither can God be modified, fragmentised, etc.

GOD as fragments can know they are GOD: Adjusters have minds. URANTIA:

107:5.1 Evolutionary mortals are prone to look upon mind as a cosmic mediation between spirit and matter, for that is indeed the principal ministry of mind as discernible by you. Hence it is quite difficult for humans to perceive that Thought Adjusters have minds, for Adjusters are fragmentations of God on an absolute level of reality which is not only prepersonal but also prior to all energy and spirit divergence. On a monistic level antecedent to energy and spirit differentiation there could be no mediating function of mind, for there are no divergencies to be mediated.

Thomas said again:

Which means we are the unconscious puppets of anonymous 'Thought Adjusters'. I'll leave that one with you.

That's totally false, again; we are conscious, we are not puppets, and the TAs are GOD, not at all anonynous.

Just shows how little you understand the Bible, and the Abrahamic Traditions.

you don't know how much i understand the Bible and the abrahamic 'traditions': you just don't.

 

[LuisMarco]

Nothing new or revelatory here. In fact possibly copied from Christian sources.

Sorry, but in all the texts you posted, there's nothing that could not have been gleaned from freely available sources.

lmao.

Whoever the source was, it's possibly they honestly thought they were being original and revelatory, but actually it's all the product of the subconscious.

Sadler was a voracious reader and a prolific writer, after all.

sure, the subconscious can create masterpieces, sure sure sure, sure... lol.

sadler's subsconciousness had next to nothing similar to URANTIA; he thought and believed and behaved differently: next to nothing similar to the URANTIA ideals and values and ideas in his professional career before, during and even after the completion of URANTIA (1934-35 and 1955 etc); he was a prolific and plagiarizer writer, whereas URANTIA never plagiarized anybody; why don't you research more william s. sadler¿; i do.

 

[Thomas]

lmao.

OK, this about sums it up.

You have no real counter argument, there's no discussion here, no dialogue. We're done.

 

[Thomas]

... next to nothing similar to the URANTIA ideals and values and ideas in his professional career before, during and even after the completion of URANTIA (1934-35 and 1955 etc);

Not quite accurate, you really can't make absolute statements when even your own sources contradict you.

Anyway, as above ... this is not really going anywhere.

 

[LuisMarco]

Not quite accurate, you really can't make absolute statements when even your own sources contradict you.

Anyway, as above ... this is not really going anywhere.

on the contrary: my own sources don't contradict me at all whatsoever: i've done my homework, whereas you haven't, so yes, we're done in this thread at least; i won.

 

[LuisMarco]

In the religious context it means a self-disclosure by the Divine. A sense of the Absolute and the Infinite made known in the contingent and finite.

A sense of Oneness, Infinitude, Plenitude.

URANTIA (emphasis mine; complete paragraph):

5:1.12 The great God makes direct contact with mortal man and gives a part of his infinite and eternal and incomprehensible self to live and dwell within him. God has embarked upon the eternal adventure with man. If you yield to the leadings of the spiritual forces in you and around you, you cannot fail to attain the high destiny established by a loving God as the universe goal of his ascendant creatures from the evolutionary worlds of space.

 

[wil]

Some history?

1934 Believed the worst of the materialistic age is over; the higher minds of the scientific world are no longer wholly materialistic in their philosophy

Thankfully that awful period was over! It is great that we have grown up in a decomodified world!

 

[Garrdin]

@Norm
@LuisMarco

Can anyone link an unadulterated pdf copy of the book (without interspersed commentary) that people can read?

Here is a link for the Urantia Book with great search features

I do not own a PDF but know you cann read it online off various websites. I am a reader for more than 30 years and would love to discuss.

UBSearch