What's with all the Urantia stuff?

[harvey1]

Why do we need so many threads on this site to cover the Urantia book? It gives intellectual newcomers the impression that this site is weird. It sends the wrong message for those who might otherwise have some pretty interesting things to say. This is the first time I've heard of this book until I arrived at this site. Why not combine all the Urantia threads into one thread?

[otseng]

So far, there are 4 threads on the UB, 3 of them as debate threads. And I don't see any rule violations with any of them. And each sorta does cover a different aspect of the UB.

I've never heard of the UB before either. But, pretty much anything related to religion is fair game on this forum. As long as no rules are violated, people are free to say anything they want. And it should be noted that a moderator (who is not affiliated with the UB) started up 2 of the 3 debate threads.

So, I see no reason to consolidate the UB threads for now. But, I welcome any more thoughts on this.

[McCulloch]

As the moderator who started two of the three debate threads, I thought that I would stick my oar in. I too had never heard of the Urantia Book until I came here. It seemed to me to be Bro Dave's odd little obsession. Bro Dave has been a member here for quite some time and has for the most part been very civil and has abided by the rules, even a few months ago when I was very nasty to him. Bro Dave would from time to time encourage folks to become enlightened from reading the Urantia Book. I have had a few quick looks, and I agree with Martin Gardner's assessment that it is a "monstrous mishmash of claptrap interspersed with puddles of pious platitudes .... Indeed it may be the largest, most fantastic chunk of channeled moonshine ever to be bound in one volume."

Then Bro Dave started to cite unsupported assertions in the Urantia Book as historical evidence. So I challenged this use of his revelation. Rather than simply debate the point, Bro Dave then went to his friends and associates (we all knew that there had to be more than one UB believer but were afraid to acknowledge it) and invited them here. So they came. Apparently, the UB religion has its own schisms and heretics. They came too. The original question that I posed seems to have been answered in my favour but the larger question of the veracity of sources and specifically the veracity of the UB remained. So I created a second thread. I'm sorry. The final thread was created by Rob, a true Urantia Book believer or a schismatic and heritic, depending on your vantage point, created the final thread. I suppose that you could make an argument for moving that thread to Other Religions since the UB religion has little to do with conventional Christianity. On the other hand, the UB supports the idea of the bodily resurection of Jesus Christ and of an omnipotent father god, so maybe it is a branch of Christianity.

I'm getting very tired of their nonsense and will be giving them a few days to spin their wheels before I get back to it.

[Sandycane]

edit

[Woody]

hh

[Woody]

The lack of civility on this site is appaling and it at once discredits this place as a site of very serious, much less professional-appearing, sites of learning and/or study.

Mr Otseng the Administrator:

See your moderator McCulloch's comments above. Why you allow him to be so insulting of site members? That again is at once conduct unbecoming a moderator or site offical of a place that desires to be taken seriously by......anybody.

Please make him stop or replace him.

And Sandycane, I do not agree with your statment. Being a longtime UB reader, I have learned the truth of my being and purpose and that of God's and Jesus', and I would not feel uncomfortable in a Christian Church or anywhere else on the planet for that matter.

Truth is liberating. Fear is debilitating and self-destructive. One thing the UB teaches is the abandonment of all anxieties and fears because they are nothing but a master intellectual fraud prepetrated on a young and evolving soul. Your fear of the teachings contained in the UB reveals much about you and that scenario would sadden anybody who knows and believes in the fahterhood of God and the resultant brotherhood of man.

Even your Christianity doesn't teach you to think and behave this way.....does it?

Best reguards.

Woody

[Sandycane]

edit

[QED]

There ya go Harvey. I guess these religious spin-offs might be a little embarrassing to those engaged in mainstream theism but that's the hazard one faces with dealing in revealed truths. Care to show us how to go about sorting the wheat from the chaff?

[Rob]

As the moderator who started two of the three debate threads, I thought that I would stick my oar in. I too had never heard of the Urantia Book until I came here. It seemed to me to be Bro Dave's odd little obsession. Bro Dave has been a member here for quite some time and has for the most part been very civil and has abided by the rules, even a few months ago when I was very nasty to him.

Well, that speaks to his credit. And your's too for admitting it.

I have had a few quick looks, and I agree with Martin Gardner's assessment that it is a "monstrous mishmash of claptrap interspersed with puddles of pious platitudes .... Indeed it may be the largest, most fantastic chunk of channeled moonshine ever to be bound in one volume."

I don't see much "reason and logic" above, and will soon reveal how much "reason and logic" went into Gardner's review, which leaves little but the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" and prejudgement.

Then Bro Dave started to cite unsupported assertions in the Urantia Book as historical evidence. So I challenged this use of his revelation.

But you must admit, Dave has remained gracious even when we have been taking his behind to the cleaners So you gotta cut him some slack, eh?

Rather than simply debate the point, Bro Dave then went to his friends and associates (we all knew that there had to be more than one UB believer but were afraid [ad hominem assumption, why assume that? What would you think McCullock if I said you feel as you do above because you fear what the UB might have to say? Of couse, you would not appreciate it, now would you? How do you know the inner motives of another? You are a man of noble ideas, but what about your ideals? So shouldn't we both try to 'do to others that which you desire others to do to' us?] to acknowledge it) and invited them here. So they came.

I will be point blank honest here McCullock. I don't think it was a good idea to come here in the first place. Not because I don't like you guys, or have fun debating, but because of many of the reasons you cite. I am not a big fan of sticking someting in someone's face they really don't want. The only reason I came was to speak up in opposition to claptrap like Woody has posted above, falsely accusing the admins of wrongdoing, when all I have seen so far is fairness. I knew it was coming from past experience, and did not want have that on the record without someone speaking up on behalf of the truth. You see, Woody cannot tell the difference between ad hominem and ad humas, and regularly engages in the former. He knows the rules, but refuses to abide by them, what more needs to be said.

Apparently, the UB religion has its own schisms and heretics. They came too.

Since there is no church, no organized institutional body that acts as an official interpreter or doctrinal authority, and we all can read and interpret the book any way we desire, how can their be any "heretics"? Who is the authority to declare them a heretic?

I guess we have you McCullock, our first high priest of doctrinal authority, who can officially declare the heretics. I am honored to be the first. Do I get a meddle or pin or something?

Readers of the book, each and every one of them, are free to read it and interpret it any way they desire, and as you see, we therefore freely disagree with each other all the time.

Unlike many of our more conservative Christian fellows, who insist in intellectual uniformity, I rather find appealing the ideal expressed in the following:

When a member of a social religious group has complied with the requirements of such a group, he should be encouraged to enjoy religious liberty in the full expression of his own personal interpretation of the truths of religious belief and the facts of religious experience. The security of a religious group depends on spiritual unity, not on theological uniformity. A religious group should be able to enjoy the liberty of freethinking without having to become "freethinkers." There is great hope for any church that worships the living God, validates the brotherhood of man, and dares to remove all creedal pressure from its members. (1135.2)

The original question that I posed seems to have been answered in my favour but the larger question of the veracity of sources and specifically the veracity of the UB remained. So I created a second thread. I'm sorry.

I don't know what you are apologizing for? I can't see you did anything wrong.

The final thread was created by Rob, a true Urantia Book believer or a schismatic and heritic, depending on your vantage point, created the final thread. I suppose that you could make an argument for moving that thread to Other Religions since the UB religion has little to do with conventional Christianity. On the other hand, the UB supports the idea of the bodily resurection of Jesus Christ and of an omnipotent father god, so maybe it is a branch of Christianity.

The UB does not teach the "bodily resurection of" Jesus. That is a myth, and I have no idea how you got the idea. Where are you coming up with this nonsense McCullock, from some heretic

The Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus has been based on the fact of the "empty tomb." It was indeed a fact that the tomb was empty, but this is not the truth of the resurrection. The tomb was truly empty when the first believers arrived, and this fact, associated with that of the undoubted resurrection of the Master, led to the formulation of a belief which was not true: the teaching that the material and mortal body of Jesus was raised from the grave. Truth having to do with spiritual realities and eternal values cannot always be built up by a combination of apparent facts. Although individual facts may be materially true, it does not follow that the association of a group of facts must necessarily lead to truthful spiritual conclusions. (2023.5)

I'm getting very tired of their nonsense and will be giving them a few days to spin their wheels before I get back to it.

We will miss you. Take care and have a good break.

Rob

[harvey1]

There ya go Harvey. I guess these religious spin-offs might be a little embarrassing to those engaged in mainstream theism but that's the hazard one faces with dealing in revealed truths. Care to show us how to go about sorting the wheat from the chaff?

We can debate that issue elsewhere (under the title of "embarrassing religions," etc.). However, my comment is not meant as an insult of this religion or its book. I am merely pointing out that one thread seems enough to discuss the beliefs of a very small segment of society. I've seen some good sites taken down by small groups who focus on their particular cult or weird beliefs, and while it might be good in their eyes to get such attention, it discourages those who see such "weirdness" as reflecting on the site in general. Is that what you want, QED?