The Urantia Book

[McCulloch]

Yes, there is the eye witness account [to Jesus' resurrection] given in the Urantia Book.

Bro Dave has put forward the Book as eyewitness testimony to support the allegation that Jesus was raised from the dead. Is the Urantia Book a reliable source of information? Does it meet the criterion used by historians or scientists or theologians?

[Woody]

Well that's some fine but kissing Dave but if you think this place is well moderated......well then off to internet discussion forum board school with ya.

Good to see ya Sandycane. Oh yeah, still waving the UB flag on religious-spiritual sites 4 sure no doubt oooh rah

[Sandycane]

edit

[Sandycane]

edit

[Rob]

The proof of revelation is only found in each individuals experience with it, and that is a personal experience, wihch while it can be supported by facts such as those that are about to be presented, can never be proven by such facts alone. There is always and ever room for intellectual doubt and honest questions. I still have them to this day.

This is where you and I part company. Revelation is just another form of human writing. Its only claim to being anything special is the claim that it comes from some supernatural source. Subjective personal experience cannot validate the truth claims of revelation any more than they can validate the truth claims of a peer reviewed scientific paper. So as long as you leave the Urantia Book in the realm of the unproven spiritual, I will not challenge it, except to deny the reality of spiritual entities. But as you or others bring up the Urantia book as evidence for historical events, then it cannot be validated simply by subjective personal experience.

In this instance, you apparently are lumping individual's arguments into a stereotype, and arguing against the stereotype. That is called the fallacy of the "Straw Man."

Can you quote my words McCullock, where I have ever argued that:

[T]he Urantia book [is] evidence for historical events.

Please make sure to include the entire context of the quote you choose to use. It seems you are misrepresenting my views my friend. Is this really what you want to do? After we resolve this I will respond to your other debate points.

And don't confuse providing the context of what the Urantia Book states regarding any specific case for arguing that "T]he Urantia book [is] evidence for historical events." I have made perfectly clear I personally don't believe the book can be used in that way.

How about this McCullock. I will only evaluate your own words and your own arguments when responding to your debating points; in other words, I promise to treat you as an individual, not a stereotyped group. Is that fair? And is it fair if I ask you to do the same?

[Colter]

Bro Dave,

It's been a long time since I talked to you last. I read through your post here in reply to the original question and I must say you did a great job.

Myself I would proffer that the UB offers no real concrete proof of the resurrection but it does validate something interesting that you rightly pointed out in one of your earlier posts concerning the resurrection and the physical body. In the biblical accounts the resurrected Jesus appears and disappears in front of believers. Then their is the unfortunate account of the physical body of Jesus "floating" off into the sky.

Another biblical point is that Jesus told Marry " Touch me not for I am not as I was before."

Both of these points go to your statement that the physical body of Jesus was NOT resurrected but rather he was a "visual manifestation" of his former self.

Another difficulty that you have experienced here is that trying to prove the religion of the spirit to the "logic of mind" is an exercise in futility. Sheep Shepard comes to mind.

Colter

[Cathar1950]

Paradise is a walled garden.

I read that some where.

Despite Woody stating how large or big the book is, size only maters when it comes to the male member. At least that is what the porn stars claim in those info commercials. 2000 pages is even harder to swallow then say 12. Some of the best books I have read had more end notes then pages.

Bro Dave

You are not alone! Jesus, like you and me, was indeed a Son of God. He was also much more, in that he is a “Creator Son”, and participates in bringing a Universe of his own into existence, and then by personal interaction with it on several levels, become a Master Son...
No one makes any claim that the Urantia Book is “hard evidence”. It offers a highly detailed, very consistent explanation for who we are, how we got where we are, and our relationship with God and the rest of the Universe. It is self validating, or not… your choice...
Am I surprised? Its not at all important who authored it, IF it is true! And, as you are well aware, that is determined by each individual...

As a "Christian" with a rather Jewish bent I find it over the edge to believe Jesus was the Son of God as described in traditional theology and to say he was even more does not help. It only adds the the confusion. I se the same problem with the UB. Confusion not clarity.
I don't see it as consistent or self validating. It kind of reminds me of scientology where they ask you to read the book and look for some thing you agree on. Then read some more.

CJK wrote:

How did you come to this conclusion, how can you prove it, and what relevance is it to the universe?...
That is highly illogical. How could it be a highly detailed, very consistent explanation, if it is not based on but one form of evidence, and has no clear author?(Celestial beings just don't cut it.)...
Life itself is self-validating. Life is a self fulfilling prophecy. If I belive that some man in the clouds dictates everything that is, then it will validate itself in the way that I perceive it...
Regardless of what some radical Neo-orthodox christian faith(cult) has to offer, it will never completely explain in detail my own personal connection with the universe...
How could any text be true if you do not know who authored it? It's folklore...

I agree here with CJK. The Bible is largely made up of unknown authors.
It is how they presented things they wanted read. We demand more today.
QED wrote:

I think it's pretty clear that the UB was written in the tradition of all other myths created to bring the fuzziness of universal origins into sharp focus. Arguing here I often forget my own position that mankind is too intellectually immature to answer such questions. If we were really honest about this I think we all should find our reactions to this situation rather amusing. The trouble is everybody in the religion business is just too dead-pan serious.

I too see the all to obvious traditions and myths reflected in the writings of the UB.
Woody wrote:

When you state: "it cannot be used"

That is your opinion and you speak only for yourself. So be it. Don't use.

But you're fooling and cheating yourself.

How wise is that? I see no wisdom there.

McCulloch can speak for me also. Chumps just like to know stuff while we are fooling ourselves. At least we can agree on the lack of wisdom.
bernee51 wrote:

This is my problem, one I'm sure you have come across. The Isle of Paradise (point A) is at the center of infinity. All that exists spreads out from this point - infinitely. Lets move a small distance, not far, say 100 light years in any direction to point B. Well lookie - the infinite universe is spreading out in all directions from this point as well. Point B is the centre of infinity.

In fact, if the universe is infinite, it is spreading out in all directions from where I sit. I am at the cenre of infinity. But so is McC in Canada. And so are you Bro Dave. In an infifnte universe all points are at the centre, and none are. It is, like square circles, married bachelors and the biblical god, a logical impossibility.

Well said there bernee. I was going to use an infinite universe analogy.
If there is an infinite number of universes then there is an infinite number of me. In half of them I am doing better and the other half worse. If I trade places with me in one of them there is still an infinite number of me doing worse and an infinite number of me doing better so no mater where I am at I am always in the middle. Stuck in the middle with me.

[McCulloch]

BTW... why are you so against the science in the UB McCulloch?

Really, I am not particularly. It is just that when anyone uses any source of information to back up an argument, I naturally want to know why I should believe it. Especially if what it reveals is contrary to what I have been led to believe. If the supporters of the Urantia Book were able to provide some kind of evidence as to its reliability and authenticity, then I would have been less aggressive. But when someone tells me that I have to read their whole book before and that there are no proofs or evidence, then I get my hackles up. Trust me, it is not just the Urantia Book. It is the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Gita, Science and Health, Dianetics, Nostradamus, E. Case whatever.

Why are you only looking for flaws to pick?

My signature. Test all things, and hold firmly that which is good. This is a fundamental principal of science. If your revelation can pass the test of the most severe but honest skeptic then it has a chance of being correct.

Do you ascribe to the same approach with every literary piece?

I enjoy literature. I just don't tend to accept statements made in literature as being factually true. Sauron, Aslin, Albus Dumbledore and Mary Poppins are all quite enjoyable to me. If someone were to claim, in debate, that the pronouncements of any of these beings were evidence, I would challenge it.

Perhaps I should give you the suggestion of reading about the life of Jesus and maybe you can gain some spiritual insight if you choose. Your soul is more important that your science.

Here I differ with you. I have seen no evidence that there exists a soul. Perhaps you could provide some evidence to the existence of souls in here or here .

[McCulloch]

In this instance, you apparently are lumping individual's arguments into a stereotype, and arguing against the stereotype. That is called the fallacy of the "Straw Man."

Can you quote my words McCulloch, where I have ever argued that:

[T]he Urantia book [is] evidence for historical events.

Sorry, I keep going back to the question in the opening post. That is what we are debating, isn't it. Bro Dave used the Urantia Book as evidence that the town of Nazareth historically existed during the time of Jesus. It is that use of the Urantia Book that I am objecting to. Now, I have not seen you use the Urantia Book in that way. If you are not trying to assert that the Urantia Book is an authoritative source of historical or scientific information then we both agree in our answer to the opening post. I am sorry that I may have gotten the impression that you felt that the Urantia Book was factual.

[Rob]

In this instance, you apparently are lumping individual's arguments into a stereotype, and arguing against the stereotype. That is called the fallacy of the "Straw Man."

Can you quote my words McCulloch, where I have ever argued that:

[T]he Urantia book [is] evidence for historical events.

Sorry, I keep going back to the question in the opening post. That is what we are debating, isn't it. Bro Dave used the Urantia Book as evidence that the town of Nazareth historically existed during the time of Jesus. It is that use of the Urantia Book that I am objecting to. Now, I have not seen you use the Urantia Book in that way. If you are not trying to assert that the Urantia Book is an authoritative source of historical or scientific information then we both agree in our answer to the opening post. I am sorry that I may have gotten the impression that you felt that the Urantia Book was factual.

No problem, that is what debate is all about. I categorically do not "assert that the Urantia Book is an authoritative source of historical or scientific information," and in fact feel that the manner that it is being proselytized on this site does a disservice to not only the princple of its teachings but the actual meanings and values it contains and the wonderful way it upholds the scientific enterprise. But I simply cannot explain to you what I mean by that is\n two words or less.

I am an historian of science and have a deep love of science. But as any historian of science knows, the truth in in the details, and so it is with the Urantia Book. But unless you engage me as an individual, I will never be able to have a meaningful dialogue and debate with you.

I keep going back to the question in the opening post. That is what we are debating, isn't it.

Actually, it is an obvious fact that the rules of this debate forum are not strictly enforced. Each thead clearly has more than one question being debated, asked, or made. Is that not true? So, I am really doubtful that this is an effective way of having a meaningful debate. But I am a guest here, and really have no idea how this might be improved.

[bernee51]

.wouldn't you rather think that a detailed recital of how the universes are administrated would be a complicated and sophisticated thing? I do.

It certainly would...IF the universe(s) were in fact 'administered'. My observation, blinkered and stunted as it may be, is that the one that I know appears to be self-administered. And as it seems to be doing a fine job of it as well. It has managed to keep the chaos at a balance fine enough to allow me to observe it.

What do you want, and explantation of how the universe works in under 500 words and such that your typical 10 year old could understand it?

No, all I want is some evidence that is testable and repeateable that the Urantia book is anything more than a fairy story.

Now that brothers would be unreasonable.

Now that, brothers, is reasonable.

Now for the rest of this large book. 90% of it IS easy to read and understand....which you would find out if you would become interested enough to actually read it.

I tried reading it - from the beginning. Sat up for most of the night. I found it almost, but not quite, as rivetting as watching paint dry.

Ya'll must be beginning to get some kind of idea as to why such a growing handful of us here are trying so hard to share this material with you.

Let me guess - you have found something that gives meaning and purpose to your life and you want to share it with us.

Thanks.

This process is neccessary at this time as the primary publisher and former copywrite holder (the Urantia Foundation), has chosen or thinks it best not to advertise the fact of the existance of this material to the public at this time.

Now I wonder why that could be.....

{Others are of a different opinion}....as they hold that the world so needs this information to effect more rapid and beneficial change.

Fundamental christians make the same claim. For what reason should I believe you and not them?