The URANTIA BOOK .......debunked for all the spammers today

According to some Urantia believers (Candace and Urantian) Jupiter has ignited. Strange that, as no astronomers are reporting this.

Here`s a fairly recent photo of Jupiter taken on May 12th of this year: [link to www.mikesalway.com.au]

Cultists have an aversion to facts, and in the light of reality will spout dogma.

:isnothing:

Oh, I forgot to tell my little story. Regarding "J.T. Manning"'s book (aka Matthew Block's book), on page 60 there is a chapter on Walter E. Bundy. Block's book is copyrighted 1999, I think, but his research into parallels was known and published within the Urantia movement years earlier. I knew of it probably as early as 1980. In the early 80s I chanced to be in Seattle and we went down to the Pike Place Market area where there was a HUGE used bookstore called "Shorey's." They said they had over one million used books. I had Block's list of parallel sources and we rumaged around for a few hours looking at all the old books in the religious racks, and there were a lot of them. All of a sudden I found "The Religion of Jesus," copyright 1928, by Walter E. Bundy. Wow. I was very pleased. The price was $4 and it's inscribed and autographed by Bundy himself, August 29, 1928. Anyway, that's one of my "treasures." It was a good find and it's the only "source" book that I have.

Furchizedek

Yet for all your research you see no similarities in doctrine and dogma between Scientology, Theosophy and Urantia, not to mention the exact personal connections between the actual founders and the philosophical roots from which they draw?

Bill Sadler was no fool.

He knew exactly what he was doing when he developed the Urantia book.

He had spent a portion of his life as a debunker of channelers and stage magicians.

Theosophy was a creation of Blavatsky herself, who was a direct disciple of Alistair Crowley, by her membership in the Argentum Astrum and the OTO. There are numerous communications that are documented between the two of them to support a deeper ideological connection.

L. Ron Hubbard was also a student of Crowley by way of Jack Parsons, a direct disciple of Crowley himself. While both Crowley and Parsons publicly decried Hubbard, there is no denying the intellectual and ideological influence such relationships had on the development of Scientology.

John Harvey Kellogg (Kellogg breakfast cereals) ran the Battle Creek Sanitarium and was also a Seventh Day Adventists like Dr. Sadler.

Dr. Sadler sat on the board of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation with John Kellogg himself.

Who was on the original Urantia panel, that forum which revealed Urantia to the world and started the movement that we know today?

None other than L. Ron Hubbard and John Harvey Kellogg.

The apple never falls far from the tree.

Here's a question that isn't answered on your site.

What is the intellectual basis that gives the Urantia Book any greater credence than the works of Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce or the Sisters of Fatima, all of which have ample volumes of works with reported evidence of their claims?

Your "truth" from what you have provided claims no greater authority or approximation of reality.

Wow! A ton of Urantia threads today


Some of the WRONG information in this supposed divinely inspired book(I won't even get into the theological parts)


The described formation of the solar system (In the Urantia book)is consistent with the Chamberlin-Moulton planetesimal hypothesis. Though popular in the early part of the 20th century, by the early 1940s it was discarded by Henry Russell's argument that it was incompatible with the angular momentum of planets such as Jupiter


The book repeats the idea prevalent at the time of its origin that one side of the planet Mercury always faces the sun due to tidal locking. In 1965, radio astronomers discovered that Mercury actually rotates fast enough for all sides to see exposure to the sun.



The book says that a solar eclipse was predicted in 1808 by the Native American prophet Tenskwatawa. The eclipse actually was predicted in late April 1806 and occurred on June 16, 1806.

And most damning comes from Meredith Sprunger, a liberal believer in The Urantia Book and retired minister in the United Church of Christ
Quote "research has revealed that virtually all of the scientific material found in The Urantia Book was the accepted scientific knowledge of the period in which the book was written, was held by some scientists of that time, or was about to be discovered or recognized."


Matthew Block, published a paper that showed nineteen examples of The Urantia Book utilizing material published earlier. All of the source authors identified in Block's paper were published in English between 1905 and 1943 by U.S. publishers and are typically scholarly or academic works that contain concepts and wording similar to what is found in The Urantia Book. Block has since claimed to have discovered over 125 source books and articles, written by over 90 authors, which were incorporated into the Urantia papers.

Gardner and Block note that Paper 85 of the Urantia book appears to have been taken from the first eight chapters of Origin and Evolution of Religion by E. Washburn Hopkins, published by Yale University Press in 1923. Each section of the paper corresponds to a chapter in the book, with several passages possibly used as direct material.


New Religions: A Guide (2nd Edition). Oxford University Press.

Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery. Prometheus Books.


[link to www.daviddarling.info]

Religion for me is not about proof or evidence. It's about faith, and it's about the "eating of the pudding," as in, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." You probably have heard that expression. I don't know what religion you are, if any, but The Urantia Book rings my truth bell. It makes sense to me. It doesn't insult my intelligence and it doesn't ask me to believe things that are unbelieveable, although it may ask me to believe things that I do not yet understand and which I may never understand, due mostly to the fact that I am a finite being living in what is probably an infinite Universe. The finite cannot fathom the infinite.

Good contributions there, Furchizedek.

The talk of the UB as a cult is somewhat misleading, but human associations being what they are, there is probably some truth to it these days, lot of "Melchizedeks" around these days.

The Urantia Foundation is in Chicago, and I went there and picked up a couple copies. One or two man office with some other books on the shelves. Quite low key.

For me, the introduction of the concept of an 'indwelling adjuster' was/is fascinating. The 'unqualified absolute' is the other example that stuck out most.

A Bible believer debunks "The Urantia Book?" Now *that* is funny!

Here's a question that isn't answered on your site.

What is the intellectual basis that gives the Urantia Book any greater credence than the works of Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce or the Sisters of Fatima, all of which have ample volumes of works with reported evidence of their claims?

Your "truth" from what you have provided claims no greater authority or approximation of reality.

The Bible never claims to be a scientific tome.

A Bible believer debunks "The Urantia Book?" Now *that* is funny!


The Bible never claims to be a scientific tome.

Religion for me is not about proof or evidence. It's about faith, and it's about the "eating of the pudding," as in, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." You probably have heard that expression. I don't know what religion you are, if any, but The Urantia Book rings my truth bell. It makes sense to me. It doesn't insult my intelligence and it doesn't ask me to believe things that are unbelieveable, although it may ask me to believe things that I do not yet understand and which I may never understand, due mostly to the fact that I am a finite being living in what is probably an infinite Universe. The finite cannot fathom the infinite.

All is now clear.

My previous comparisons (Nostradamus, et al) were inaccurate.

You actually share more in common with Christian Science, seeking scientific validation of your religious dogma..

But it is, in the end, yet another religion whose holy book was a divine gift to mankind from invisible, unapproachable gods who demand adherence and subservience to dogma.

No different than the rest of the lot except in the wording of the platitudes.

UBtheNEWS seeks scientific validation for Urantia, hence the question was directed at him. The way you responded to my inquiries it seemed you were UBtheNEWS and then continued to respond with ad hominims when it didn't make sense to you.

If you confuse your religious dogmas as easily as you confuse the posts in this thread it does not bode well for your continued spiritual growth.

Perhaps if you were able to refute facts with something other than senseless attempts at hurling insults there would be something to discuss.

As it is you're simply yet another fool that has completely given over his free will to someone else's cult.

You may continue to ignore the true roots of your faith if you wish. The rest of us will continue to giggle as you praise your fictitious alien masters.

You know almost nothing about The Urantia Book and I have called you on it but you continue to throw your conspiracy nonsense out there. You are the fool. There is no cult. There's just a book. Be very very afraid.

Furchizedek

Wow! A ton of Urantia threads today

Some of the WRONG information in this supposed divinely inspired book(I won't even get into the theological parts)

Who told you it was "divinely inspired." ? Is that your first strawman? It doesn't say it's divinely inspired in The Urantia Book, and no Urantian that I know has ever said it was "divinely inpired," so where did you get that strawman from? Such talk is bible-Christian talk, it's what's said about the bible, and it gives you away. The Bible is a study in "wrong information," by the way.

And you can't "get into" the theological parts. Those things are a matter of faith. But if you are a Christian, you can object to some things in The Urantia Book on the basis that they are "not biblical." Is that what you mean when you say "get into the theological parts." ?


The described formation of the solar system (In the Urantia book)is consistent with the Chamberlin-Moulton planetesimal hypothesis. Though popular in the early part of the 20th century, by the early 1940s it was discarded by Henry Russell's argument that it was incompatible with the angular momentum of planets such as Jupiter

Science discards a lot of things before they decide on THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH. It doesn't mean TUB (The Urantia Book) is wrong, it just means that science is a moving target and it hasn't stopped moving yet. Seems to me that I read a story a year ago that said that science now had even newer evidence that the solar system may have started other than what their popular theory says. It's like, a few weeks ago science said that maybe an asteroid didn't kill the dinosaurs after all, as we have all been told for 50 years. Science changes.


The book repeats the idea prevalent at the time of its origin that one side of the planet Mercury always faces the sun due to tidal locking. In 1965, radio astronomers discovered that Mercury actually rotates fast enough for all sides to see exposure to the sun.

It does not. That's a common misconception of a possibly deliberatly ambiguous text by the revelators. Where are you getting your information from? Some Christian site? And, are you a Christian? I'm just wondering what your real agenda is, that's all.

From TUB:
"...gravitational influences also contribute to the stabilization of planetary orbits while acting as a brake on the rate of planetary-axial revolution, causing a planet to revolve ever slower... as is illustrated by the planet Mercury"


The book says that a solar eclipse was predicted in 1808 by the Native American prophet Tenskwatawa. The eclipse actually was predicted in late April 1806 and occurred on June 16, 1806.

OH MY GOD! A TRANSCRIPTION TYPO IN THE URANTIA BOOK. OH MY GOD! IT MUST NOT BE TRUE, THERE'S A TRANSCRIPTION TYPO IN THE URANTIA BOOK. OH MY GOD. THE ECLIPSE WAS PREDICTED IN 1806 AND SOMEONE TYPED 1808! OH MY GOD.

No one has ever said that The Urantia Book is "infallible" or that it is "God's Word," or that it is "divinely inspired." We leave such for the Pope, and for bible types.


And most damning comes from Meredith Sprunger, a liberal believer in The Urantia Book and retired minister in the United Church of Christ
Quote "research has revealed that virtually all of the scientific material found in The Urantia Book was the accepted scientific knowledge of the period in which the book was written, was held by some scientists of that time, or was about to be discovered or recognized."

Who knows what Sprunger is talking about? Why don't you call him up and ask him about his "damning" information? And what's "damning" about it? Do you imagine that the science in The Urantia Book should be from the year 3715? That's dumb. You're a Christian, aren't you? The conspiracy freaks and the science nut cases bring a different anti-TUB presentation than you do. You have a Christian agenda, I'd say. In any case, Sprunger is just one believer, entitled to his opinions. So what? How is it "damning" that some one believer in some book or religion has an opinion? Really, how is that "damning" exactly? I can find Christians who do not believe there is a Hell. Are they damning to other Christian believers? Do their contrary beliefs invalidate the bible?


Matthew Block, published a paper that showed nineteen examples of The Urantia Book utilizing material published earlier. All of the source authors identified in Block's paper were published in English between 1905 and 1943 by U.S. publishers and are typically scholarly or academic works that contain concepts and wording similar to what is found in The Urantia Book.

So what? The revelators freely admit that they used human ideas and concepts, the better that we should be able to understand, since we are humans. Wording is certainly "similar," in the "nineteen examples" but always altered and improved, and CORRECTED. Isaac Newton had ideas. Albert Einstein improved upon them.


Block has since claimed to have discovered over 125 source books and articles, written by over 90 authors, which were incorporated into the Urantia papers.

So what? Do you get that? The revelators freely admit that they used human sources and human concepts and expressions whenever possible.

Here are exerpts from their disclaimer:

"...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."

"...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..."

"...the majority of the ideas and even some of the effective expressions which I have thus utilized had their origin in the minds of the men of many races who have lived on earth during the intervening generations, right on down to those who are still alive at the time of this undertaking."


Gardner and Block note that Paper 85 of the Urantia book appears to have been taken from the first eight chapters of Origin and Evolution of Religion by E. Washburn Hopkins, published by Yale University Press in 1923. Each section of the paper corresponds to a chapter in the book, with several passages possibly used as direct material.

You seem to be operating under the idea, and inferring, that what you say above is a problem, and it's not. No, it was not "taken." It was used to make points, and to correct and amplify. Secondly, God already knows everything. So whatever Hopkins wrote that was true, God already knew it. Thus, that's the real source of all information: God. Furthermore, Gardner and Block have not much to do with each other. They are not twins and are not welded at the hip. And Gardner's book, The Great Cult Mystery is a mess. Have you read it? I doubt it. I further doubt that you have read The Urantia Book for yourself, and I suspect you are a Christian with your own agenda.

Furchizedek

Wow! A ton of Urantia threads today

Some of the WRONG information in this supposed divinely inspired book(I won't even get into the theological parts)

Who told you it was "divinely inspired." ? Is that your first strawman? It doesn't say it's divinely inspired in The Urantia Book, and no Urantian that I know has ever said it was "divinely inpired," so where did you get that strawman from? Such talk is bible-Christian talk, it's what's said about the bible, and it gives you away. The Bible is a study in "wrong information," by the way.

And you can't "get into" the theological parts. Those things are a matter of faith. But if you are a Christian, you can object to some things in The Urantia Book on the basis that they are "not biblical." Is that what you mean when you say "get into the theological parts." ?


The described formation of the solar system (In the Urantia book)is consistent with the Chamberlin-Moulton planetesimal hypothesis. Though popular in the early part of the 20th century, by the early 1940s it was discarded by Henry Russell's argument that it was incompatible with the angular momentum of planets such as Jupiter

Science discards a lot of things before they decide on THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH. It doesn't mean TUB (The Urantia Book) is wrong, it just means that science is a moving target and it hasn't stopped moving yet. Seems to me that I read a story a year ago that said that science now had even newer evidence that the solar system may have started other than what their popular theory says. It's like, a few weeks ago science said that maybe an asteroid didn't kill the dinosaurs after all, as we have all been told for 50 years. Science changes.


The book repeats the idea prevalent at the time of its origin that one side of the planet Mercury always faces the sun due to tidal locking. In 1965, radio astronomers discovered that Mercury actually rotates fast enough for all sides to see exposure to the sun.

It does not. That's a common misconception of a possibly deliberatly ambiguous text by the revelators. Where are you getting your information from? Some Christian site? And, are you a Christian? I'm just wondering what your real agenda is, that's all.

From TUB:
"...gravitational influences also contribute to the stabilization of planetary orbits while acting as a brake on the rate of planetary-axial revolution, causing a planet to revolve ever slower... as is illustrated by the planet Mercury"


The book says that a solar eclipse was predicted in 1808 by the Native American prophet Tenskwatawa. The eclipse actually was predicted in late April 1806 and occurred on June 16, 1806.

OH MY GOD! A TRANSCRIPTION TYPO IN THE URANTIA BOOK. OH MY GOD! IT MUST NOT BE TRUE, THERE'S A TRANSCRIPTION TYPO IN THE URANTIA BOOK. OH MY GOD. THE ECLIPSE WAS PREDICTED IN 1806 AND SOMEONE TYPED 1808! OH MY GOD.

No one has ever said that The Urantia Book is "infallible" or that it is "God's Word," or that it is "divinely inspired." We leave such for the Pope, and for bible types.


And most damning comes from Meredith Sprunger, a liberal believer in The Urantia Book and retired minister in the United Church of Christ
Quote "research has revealed that virtually all of the scientific material found in The Urantia Book was the accepted scientific knowledge of the period in which the book was written, was held by some scientists of that time, or was about to be discovered or recognized."

Who knows what Sprunger is talking about? Why don't you call him up and ask him about his "damning" information? And what's "damning" about it? Do you imagine that the science in The Urantia Book should be from the year 3715? That's dumb. You're a Christian, aren't you? The conspiracy freaks and the science nut cases bring a different anti-TUB presentation than you do. You have a Christian agenda, I'd say. In any case, Sprunger is just one believer, entitled to his opinions. So what? How is it "damning" that some one believer in some book or religion has an opinion? Really, how is that "damning" exactly? I can find Christians who do not believe there is a Hell. Are they damning to other Christian believers? Do their contrary beliefs invalidate the bible?


Matthew Block, published a paper that showed nineteen examples of The Urantia Book utilizing material published earlier. All of the source authors identified in Block's paper were published in English between 1905 and 1943 by U.S. publishers and are typically scholarly or academic works that contain concepts and wording similar to what is found in The Urantia Book.

So what? The revelators freely admit that they used human ideas and concepts, the better that we should be able to understand, since we are humans. Wording is certainly "similar," in the "nineteen examples" but always altered and improved, and CORRECTED. Isaac Newton had ideas. Albert Einstein improved upon them.


Block has since claimed to have discovered over 125 source books and articles, written by over 90 authors, which were incorporated into the Urantia papers.

So what? Do you get that? The revelators freely admit that they used human sources and human concepts and expressions whenever possible.

Here are exerpts from their disclaimer:

"...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."

"...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..."

"...the majority of the ideas and even some of the effective expressions which I have thus utilized had their origin in the minds of the men of many races who have lived on earth during the intervening generations, right on down to those who are still alive at the time of this undertaking."


Gardner and Block note that Paper 85 of the Urantia book appears to have been taken from the first eight chapters of Origin and Evolution of Religion by E. Washburn Hopkins, published by Yale University Press in 1923. Each section of the paper corresponds to a chapter in the book, with several passages possibly used as direct material.

You seem to be operating under the idea, and inferring, that what you say above is a problem, and it's not. No, it was not "taken." It was used to make points, and to correct and amplify. Secondly, God already knows everything. So whatever Hopkins wrote that was true, God already knew it. Thus, that's the real source of all information: God. Furthermore, Gardner and Block have not much to do with each other. They are not twins and are not welded at the hip. And Gardner's book, The Great Cult Mystery is a mess. Have you read it? I doubt it. I further doubt that you have read The Urantia Book for yourself, and I suspect you are a Christian with your own agenda.

Furchizedek

You know almost nothing about The Urantia Book and I have called you on it but you continue to throw your conspiracy nonsense out there. You are the fool. There is no cult. There's just a book. Be very very afraid.

Furchizedek

A book written by cultists that mirrors other cults created in the past 100 years by those same cultists.

The only thing I fear is self-induced ignorance.

If you want to devote your spiritual energies towards something so worthless that's certainly your business, but why continue to deny the truth of the origins of the tome?

Would it being written by a mere mortal man cause it lose value to you? How firm are you in your convictions, really?

Perhaps you're not quite as ideologically and spiritually committed to Urantia as you claim to be if the truth warrants such vociferous assault.