GENIUS FORUMS

I get the impression that the Urantia book is simply a rewriting of Christianity, to make it slightly more acceptable to a rational person.

One thing I strongly disagree with is that the book names the apostle Paul as one of the seven most outstanding teachers in human history.

That is simply ridiculous. In my opinion, Paul was a very foolish man, and his understanding of truth did not compare whatsoever to that of Jesus.

The book also has a very limited understanding of Buddhism, which is also exactly what one would expect since it was written by a person who was brought up in a Christian culture.

Another sign of the author's Christian heritage is that he doesn't understand evolution properly.

But, I would say that it is probably better than a lot of other religious books, like the Koran.

Dan Rowden wrote:The possibility of a form of literal reincarnation cannot be denied.

The idea of literal reincarnation is entirely irrational and can absolutely be denied. Because even though said individual is supposed to literally be reborn in a new body, there is no recollection of previous states of consciousness, and even the phsycial body itself has changed. In other words there is no continuity what-so-ever between the individual's past life and present life, making the whole concept meaningless because after the past life "reincarnates" into the present life, there is absolutely no difference between it, and a "brand new non-reincarnated life". The christian conception of a "pure" consciousness transmigrating to another plane of existence is at least somewhat probable due to the fact that a semi-consistent identity remains in place.

Nick Treklis wrote:The idea of literal reincarnation is entirely irrational and can absolutely be denied. Because even though said individual is supposed to literally be reborn in a new body, there is no recollection of previous states of consciousness, and even the physical body itself has changed.

Good point, the idea of literal reincarnation is senseless if you can't remember anything of your past lives. It's not much of a continuation of consciousness if you lose 99% of it.

But what if the Dalai Lama really can remember all his past lives, but just chooses not to tell us? It's possible.

Kevin Solway wrote:One thing I strongly disagree with is that the book names the apostle Paul as one of the seven most outstanding teachers in human history.

Well, fuck me. If it does that, then I can dump it in a second. I do not believe it acknowledges Paul at all, and if it did, it would be to criticize him highly as he is the architect for the Roman Catholic Church which epitomizes the ceremonial, ritualized God-worship that the book so strongly condemns at every turn. The UB is not something you can read from cover to cover, although I have tried. I will research this and get back to you. The UB is now online, so it should be easier to do. If what you say is true, you will have done me a tremendous service, because that would be the fatal crack in a bell that otherwise seems to ring true, apart from where it digresses into scientific topics which sound erudite, but do not correspond to anything familiar to me.

I wouldn't dismiss the whole thing just because of one or two points. Take from it what is true, and disregard the rest.

Okay, Kevin. Here is what the UB has to say about Paul.

It's been a while since I have actually burrowed myself in the UB, so forgive me for forgetting that it does indeed acknowledge Paul. Here are a few excerpts I chose from this link just so I could give a flavor of the UB view of Paul in a post. Nowhere does it call the him one of the seven greatest anything. It would not, because as you rightly said, he was not.

This is just what I am talking about, Kevin! I still need a reason!

You see, I have given this book to a few trusted people. Several others, such as your neighbor Laird, I have tried to noodge into looking at it. They nod politely but don't bother. Those who do pick it up, put it down very quickly. That is WITHOUT ACTUALLY EXAMINING IT FOR THEMSELVES. It frightens people. And what frightens people more than the truth?

That is indeed why I came to GF. PFTH sounds like it was written by someone who knows how telling the truth can frighten people. Who better to EXAMINE the UB? Am I not thinking logically about this?

So here are a few excerpts to give you the idea:

Christianity is founded almost exclusively on the personal religious experience of the Apostle Paul. Almost the whole of the New Testament is devoted, not to the portrayal of the significant and inspiring religious life of Jesus, but to a discussion of Paul's religious experience and to a portrayal of his personal religious convictions. The only notable exceptions to this statement, aside from certain parts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are the Book of Hebrews and the Epistle of James. Even Peter, in his writing, only once reverted to the personal religious life of his Master. The New Testament is a superb Christian document, but it is only meagerly Jesusonian.

It must therefore be evident that composite Christian theology encounters great difficulty in attaining consistency. This difficulty is further aggravated by the fact that the doctrines of early Christianity were generally based on the personal religious experience of three different persons: Philo of Alexandria, Jesus of Nazareth, and Paul of Tarsus.

Jesus did not share Paul's pessimistic view of humankind. The Master looked upon men as the sons of God and foresaw a magnificent and eternal future for those who chose survival. He was not a moral skeptic; he viewed man positively, not negatively. He saw most men as weak rather than wicked, more distraught than depraved. But no matter what their status, they were all God's children and his brethren.

The church, as a social outgrowth of the kingdom, would have been wholly natural and even desirable. The evil of the church was not its existence, but rather that it almost completely supplanted the Jesus concept of the kingdom. Paul's institutionalized church became a virtual substitute for the kingdom of heaven which Jesus had proclaimed.

The kingdom of Jesus' teaching, the spiritual ideal of individual righteousness and the concept of man's divine fellowship with God, became gradually submerged into the mystic conception of the person of Jesus as the Redeemer-Creator and spiritual head of a socialized religious community. In this way a formal and institutional church became the substitute for the individually spirit-led brotherhood of the kingdom.

And so, for centuries, the Christian church has labored under great embarrassment because it dared to lay claim to those mysterious powers and privileges of the kingdom, powers and privileges which can be exercised and experienced only between Jesus and his spiritual believer brothers. And thus it becomes apparent that membership in the church does not necessarily mean fellowship in the kingdom; one is spiritual, the other mainly social.

Brokenhead wrote:The breadth, depth, tone, and scope of the UB [Urantia Book] are such as to be mind-numbing, and it is written in a type of English prose that I have not encountered anywhere else and I consider myself fairly well-read.

[...]Yet I can perceive no possible motivation for it [the Urantia Book], nor can I find anything with which to compare it. It must have a reason.

Brokenhead, I have to strongly disagree here. Of course it's your personal evaluation and hard to debate as such but I've come across so much 'mind-numbing', extremely well written claptrap in my searches that I've no doubt that one or several people can decide on a whim to create the most obscure writings, volumes of it. Take only Alex Jacob! And it might even contain some insight here and there, although most things I've seen from UB seemed [to me at least] like a potpourri of various theories already floating around at the time of writing. But it would take a lot of effort to back-engineer completely such thing and prove. One has to induce such judgment or give no judgment at all.

The core of your quest seems to lie in here: that you have uplifted the book to be something that it's not, possibly rooted in the circumstances you came across it, possibly a very fertile time and the impact of the reading created an emotional response that lingers and lifts it up to mean even more than it intended. This same mechanism surrounds a lot of 'holy writ'.

Actually I've this brilliant book here called 'Morosophy' that documents a lot of these type of works in the last century in the Netherlands alone and it even selects merely the original kinds. But even then the amount and scope of the works is literally breath taking. There's no end to the inventiveness and cleverness of the human mind - for the good or the bad. Some of it might actually be inspired, inspiring or just relaying other influences. Sort of recombining the memes at random, if you get what I mean.

Some good quotes that summarize the issue in my view pretty well:

Robert Musil wrote:When one works out an analogy, dreams and literature are created. Is the focus on the parallels, then precision and knowledge arise.

Karl Popper wrote:The history of science, like the history of all human ideas, is a history of irresponsible dreams, of obstinacy, or error. But science is one of the very few human activities - perhaps the only one - in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected... in other fields there is change but rarely progress.

Kevin Solway wrote:But, I would say that it is probably better than a lot of other religious books, like the Koran.

The Kuran is not useful to you (or me, either, for that matter). But, it is as useful to those of Muslim culture as the Bible has been to those of Christian culture.

I still see you as a Christian missionary, myself.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Brokenhead, I have to strongly disagree here. Of course it's your personal evaluation and hard to debate as such but I've come across so much 'mind-numbing', extremely well written claptrap in my searches that I've no doubt that one or several people can decide on a whim to create the most obscure writings, volumes of it.

I also have come across mountains of claptrap. Mind-numbing was perhaps a poor choice of words. Maybe "challenging" is more like it. I am saying that this is not transparently "claptrap."

Look, Diebert, no offense, but people write shit all the time. That wasn't my question. That's not the help I need. If it were truly a potpourri, it would have a more familiar feel. The "facts" contained therein would be difficult to prove or disprove; I am not asking for that. What I need is someone who has put some (no small) effort into seeing where its heart lies. The official website would be a poor place to look. I do not want someone who has prejudices either way, because then I can't be sure the other person is actually considering the content. Kevin has no such axe to grind, or so it seems to me. He has stated that he thinks the UB's views on Paul are wrong, but as you can see from my previous post, Kevin had not actually read the UB itself on Paul. All you have to do is go the UB website and do a search of the text for "Paul" as I did and linked here to GF. Kevin and I actually seem to agree on Paul's negative impact on the Western world. I did not get my view from the UB, as you can see because I mistakenly claimed the UB does not acknowledge Paul. It clearly does, and in a manner which would actually agree with what Kevin seems to think and with what I do think.

Diebert, I do not claim to have read the entire UB. It is plain to see that I have not. But if you have read much of it, then what I need is a critical eye to help me out. I think you also have no particular political or affiliated agenda, much like Kevin. I think Kevin read something along the line about the UB, which is where he picked up his mistaken notion of how it treats Paul. Kevin also goes on to say he disagrees with the UB take on the Buddha and on evolution. But he, like your own good self, are not giving me specifics because you may not have read much of it. Remember, I am looking for a way to rule out what it claims - if in fact the things that it claims are not consistent with the truth.

From my research of it so far, I have been able to come to the following tentative assessment of the UB. The papers were originally "received" by what is known as the Sleeping Subject (SS). His doctor, William Sadler, kept a record of these so-called transmissions. His adopted daughter (adopted as an adult) Christy was a secretary and took dictation of the SS "transmissions”. Remember, the whole process took decades. The process, or the "Forum," as it was called, consisted of a number of people getting together and preparing questions for the "Reveletors" who would be queried through the SS and the subsequent responses noted down. This group of regular “Receivers” was thereby enabled to ask more intelligent and probing questions as the process went along. Yet somehow, perhaps with good intentions, the adopted daughter Christy substituted her own "receptions" when SS either died or ceased to be the human contact. In other words, the UB is not pristine. The heretofore carefully managed chain-of-custody of the papers became breached.

My only sources are the books by Moyer and Gardner. Gardner has his mind made up beforehand, and trots out strawmen to get you to decide the UB is the "claptrap," that you say, Diebert. I don't have a lot of patience with this type of analysis. It's lazy. Moyer seems much more willing to actually consider the content. His book is clearly more considered, if anything.

But the reason I wanted Kevin's opinion is that he admits an alien implantation of a life matrix upon the earth is possible, his "possibly evil" alien gods. It is pretty much what the UB claims happened.

The core of your quest seems to lie in here: that you have uplifted the book to be something that it's not, possibly rooted in the circumstances you came across it, possibly a very fertile time and the impact of the reading created an emotional response that lingers and lifts it up to mean even more than it intended. This same mechanism surrounds a lot of 'holy writ'.

Not one word of this applies in my case.

Actually I've this brilliant book here called 'Morosophy' that documents a lot of these type of works in the last century in the Netherlands alone and it even selects merely the original kinds.

I will look into Morosophy. Thanks for the lead. Strawmen, beware. The torch is lit.

Kevin Solway wrote:But what if the Dalai Lama really can remember all his past lives, but just chooses not to tell us? It's possible.

Then he would be an exception, because if I'm correct, Tibetan Buddhism has defined reincarnation in a way that the reincarnated individual can not remember their past lives.

Nick Treklis wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:But what if the Dalai Lama really can remember all his past lives, but just chooses not to tell us? It's possible.

Then he would be an exception, because if I'm correct, Tibetan Buddhism has defined reincarnation in a way that the reincarnated individual can not remember their past lives.

That's the weird thing. Ordinary people aren't supposed to remember, but ordained persons may.

I think the idea is that when good lamas (or other ordained Buddhists) die, living lamas wait a few years for newborns to develop similar personality traits. This is where the trick is played. The lamas either "interview" a number of toddlers (which increases probability of brainwashing as well as of getting a random success), or they have some kind of reporting system, where people in the region are watching their babies to report any similar traits - the most likely report is the 'chosen one'. It is likely that at least one toddler presented with -say- three artifacts of the deceased, and three similar artifacts he didn't own, will be attracted to the three right ones.

Nick Treklis wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:The possibility of a form of literal reincarnation cannot be denied.

The idea of literal reincarnation is entirely irrational and can absolutely be denied. Because even though said individual is supposed to literally be reborn in a new body, there is no recollection of previous states of consciousness, and even the phsycial body itself has changed.

That's your proof? That there is no recollection? What about in cases where there is recollection? And because the physical body has changed? There could be many explanations for this, such as having different biological parents than before. This is not a scientific refutation, it's a bare ass display of prejudice.

In other words there is no continuity what-so-ever between the individual's past life and present life,

How do you know this? There may be myriad connections, an entire network of memory in the subconscious influencing the surface being in many ways, such as through likes and dislikes, talents and behavioral patterns. You are judging only by the grossest observable criteria.

making the whole concept meaningless because after the past life "reincarnates" into the present life, there is absolutely no difference between it, and a "brand new non-reincarnated life".

How do you know this?

The christian conception of a "pure" consciousness transmigrating to another plane of existence is at least somewhat probable due to the fact that a semi-consistent identity remains in place.

I wish I could figure out what this means.

Brokenhead,

You see, I have given this book to a few trusted people. Several others, such as your neighbor Laird, I have tried to noodge into looking at it. They nod politely but don't bother. Those who do pick it up, put it down very quickly. That is WITHOUT ACTUALLY EXAMINING IT FOR THEMSELVES. It frightens people. And what frightens people more than the truth?

That's not true of me. I am strongly motivated to read it, and have read some fair amount of it. It does not frighten me in the least, nor can I see why it would frighten anyone. I do consider it an attempt to reform or clean up Christianity and it is for the most part quite an improvement.

Unfortunately, I find the book tedious, almost impossibly so. I am still persisting, albeit very slowly, and I don't expect ever to read more than a tenth or 20th part of the book.

It does not strike me as a book which could not have been written by a very intelligent and informed person of the time it was written.

I am a bit surprised that you actually think Kevin is someone who can help you objectively consider the book.

Of course the Urantia book will not agree with Darwinistic ideas, because they are patently false. Only those who have investigated it to a cartoon-like depth, can have faith in its propositions. Darwinism is done, but they didn't get the memo.

But I am quite interested, BH, in what sort of scientific ideas it presents that seem odd to you. Could you give me a couple of examples?

Nick Treklis wrote:Tibetan Buddhism has defined reincarnation in a way that the reincarnated individual can not remember their past lives.

Yes, as they define it, it is ridiculous.

brokenhead wrote: . . . I still need a reason!

It sounds like the information I got about the book's views on the apostle Paul were wrong. That's Wikipedia for you! :-) Let that be a lesson!

The book does indeed appear to contain a strong thread of consistent wisdom.

Perhaps there's not much wrong with the book at all, in which case you should make use of it to improve your own mind, if it awakens realization of truth in yourself.

It doesn't much appeal to me however. I'd much rather a person said, "This is the truth that I have realized for myself", and take full and personal responsibility for it, since that produces less confusion and magical thinking.

I see that as a significant fault of the book, and the author.

Brokenhead, I found the following, if you want to look it up:

The seven outstanding human teachers of religious truth to appear on earth are Sethard, Moses, Zoroaster, Lao-tse, Buddha, Philo of Alexandria and Paul of Tarsus. [92:5:8-11] [121:6:4]

This is again from the web, so could be completely false.

brokenhead wrote:This is just what I am talking about, Kevin! I still need a reason!

You see, I have given this book to a few trusted people. Several others, such as your neighbor Laird, I have tried to noodge into looking at it. They nod politely but don't bother. Those who do pick it up, put it down very quickly. That is WITHOUT ACTUALLY EXAMINING IT FOR THEMSELVES. It frightens people. And what frightens people more than the truth?

That is indeed why I came to GF. PFTH sounds like it was written by someone who knows how telling the truth can frighten people. Who better to EXAMINE the UB? Am I not thinking logically about this?

Tut tut Brokenhead, you are seeking approval from Kevin about a work to which you seem to be emotionally attached. Why not find out something which is true regardless of approval or disapproaval by somebody, something that shines by its own light.

The seven outstanding human teachers of religious truth to appear on earth are Sethard, Moses, Zoroaster, Lao-tse, Buddha, Philo of Alexandria and Paul of Tarsus. [92:5:8-11] [121:6:4]

This is again from the web, so could be completely false.

While searching for the above quote (which I had read) I came across that in the 15th century after Christ there was the disruption of Christian unity in the occident, which refers of course to the Protestant reformation. Considering the actual first disruption of Christian unity occurred in 1054 with the break in Christian unity between the Eastern Orthodox east and Roman Catholic west, I would consider this a serious error.

Carl G wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:The idea of literal reincarnation is entirely irrational and can absolutely be denied. Because even though said individual is supposed to literally be reborn in a new body, there is no recollection of previous states of consciousness, and even the physical body itself has changed.

That's your proof? That there is no recollection? What about in cases where there is recollection? And because the physical body has changed? There could be many explanations for this, such as having different biological parents than before. This is not a scientific refutation, it's a bare ass display of prejudice.

It's better than scientific refutation, it's a purely logical one. If one can't consciously recall what their past lives where, then those past lives aren't any more significant than any other individual's life they can't remember who came before them.

Carl G wrote:

In other words there is no continuity what-so-ever between the individual's past life and present life,

How do you know this? There may be myriad connections, an entire network of memory in the subconscious influencing the surface being in many ways, such as through likes and dislikes, talents and behavioral patterns. You are judging only by the grossest observable criteria.

If this is how reincarnation works then one's "past lives" work the same way as any other individual who influences their likes, dislikes, talents, and behavior, e.g. grand parents, parents, aunts, uncles, friends. Ultimately rendering one's "past lives" no more significant than any other causal factor. Also the fact that you can't remember these past lives makes it absolutely meaningless, because one's identity is kept in tact by their ability to in fact remember who they are! This shouldn't be difficult to understand, and if it is, then it's only because you have an egotistical investment in whatever mystical/religious/fairy tale experience you are entertaining.

Carl G wrote:

making the whole concept meaningless because after the past life "reincarnates" into the present life, there is absolutely no difference between it, and a "brand new non-reincarnated life".

How do you know this?

If I can't remember my "past life" just like I can't remember life of a man living in sub-saharan africa 10,000 years ago, then the former is no more significant to me than the latter.

Nick Treklis wrote:

Carl G wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:The idea of literal reincarnation is entirely irrational and can absolutely be denied. Because even though said individual is supposed to literally be reborn in a new body, there is no recollection of previous states of consciousness, and even the physical body itself has changed.

That's your proof? That there is no recollection? What about in cases where there is recollection? And because the physical body has changed? There could be many explanations for this, such as having different biological parents than before. This is not a scientific refutation, it's a bare ass display of prejudice.

It's better than scientific refutation, it's a purely logical one.

Logic is a science. To my mind they are one and the same. There is nothing higher than logical scientific thought.

If one can't consciously recall what their past lives where, then those past lives aren't any more significant than any other individual's life they can't remember who came before them.

Statements like this are why I have called you in the past "Nick the Poor Thinker." Why would you surmise that something must be conscious to be significant? Are you discounting entirely the effect of the subconscious mind, the unconscious part of the individual?

Carl G wrote:

In other words there is no continuity what-so-ever between the individual's past life and present life,

How do you know this? There may be myriad connections, an entire network of memory in the subconscious influencing the surface being in many ways, such as through likes and dislikes, talents and behavioral patterns. You are judging only by the grossest observable criteria.

If this is how reincarnation works then one's "past lives" work the same way as any other individual who influences their likes, dislikes, talents, and behavior, e.g. grand parents, parents, aunts, uncles, friends. Ultimately rendering one's "past lives" no more significant than any other causal factor.

No more significant, perhaps, but it would be significant nonetheless. Not insignificant as you are saying.

Also the fact that you can't remember these past lives makes it absolutely meaningless, because one's identity is kept in tact by their ability to in fact remember who they are!

Are you actually telling me that buried memories do not affect an individual? Are you telling me that experiences which happened to you when you were an infant, which are no doubt in your memory although you cannot recall them, have had no effect on you now? I think you may need to brush up on your psychology.

This shouldn't be difficult to understand, and if it is, then it's only because you have an egotistical investment in whatever mystical/religious/fairy tale experience you are entertaining.

This does not logically necessarily follow, either, which again is why I think of you as Nick the Poor Thinker. There may be other reasons why I would find it difficult to understand, though in this case I think I am following your flawed train of thought quite well.

Carl G wrote:

making the whole concept meaningless because after the past life "reincarnates" into the present life, there is absolutely no difference between it, and a "brand new non-reincarnated life".

How do you know this?

If I can't remember my "past life" just like I can't remember life of a man living in sub-saharan africa 10,000 years ago, then the former is no more significant to me than the latter.

Like I have said, I don't think it is good idea on your part to rest your case on conscious memory only. It's not sound psychology.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:I've come across so much 'mind-numbing', extremely well written claptrap in my searches that I've no doubt that one or several people can decide on a whim to create the most obscure writings, volumes of it. Take only Alex Jacob!

Shit! I was hoping he was a rarity.

brokenhead wrote: What I need is someone who has put some (no small) effort into seeing where its heart lies. The official website would be a poor place to look. I do not want someone who has prejudices either way, because then I can't be sure the other person is actually considering the content.

This is the problem one could experience with every source, isn't it? Personally I gave up the need to authenticate or certify materials of any kind My own literate influences have ranged from pure fiction to ancient writings, from poor poetry to rich rock lyrics. I fail to understand why a heart has to be evaluated. What if it's written by a lunatic, or as part of a social experiment? If something is resonating with you then it's you who decides.

To me any work of literature could be written by unseen forces or by jesters. By evil sorcerers, hell-bend on destroying the planet or by compassionate angels trying to save it. If one feels there's some truth, some revealing perspective in it that one can relate to, then why hesitate?

Remember, I am looking for a way to rule out what it claims - if in fact the things that it claims are not consistent with the truth.

As historical or scientific claims go: you can never solve it this way. You fail to give me one reason to treat the UB as something different than any other work. Appreciation for the style is not enough: this could be inspired by your initial esteem and be your own bias.

From my research of it so far, I have been able to come to the following tentative assessment of the UB. The papers were originally "received" by what is known as the Sleeping Subject (SS). His doctor, William Sadler, kept a record of these so-called transmissions.[...]

How would you trust that research to be accurate? How could you ever rule out this paper wasn't written by one or several people (with possibly Sadler involved) with some ulterior motive, like a social experiment, or personal theology. Other details of the religious life of Sadler could be enlightening too. The content of the book seems not conflicting with his life-long beliefs and activities revolving around educating and helping people with spiritual principles combined with psychology.

But the reason I wanted Kevin's opinion is that he admits an alien implantation of a life matrix upon the earth is possible, his "possibly evil" alien gods. It is pretty much what the UB claims happened.

But this idea has been around for centuries in various philosophies! Already at the start of the Christ epoch you can find ideas like this in Platonism and Gnosticism using the idea of a Demiurge. Many spiritual groups early 20th century were already totally aware of these ideas and often expanding on them. The whole Theosophical movement and its spin-offs represent a giant library of UB-style stuff. Even Scientology uses the same alien imagery in their inner teachings and many documents have been leaked describing similar processes.

I will look into Morosophy. Thanks for the lead. Strawmen, beware. The torch is lit.

No, no, it wasn't meant as recommendation! Forget about it - my bad.

While I might be wrong about my estimation of how you got interested in the UB, I still do wonder why you're so intrigued with validating it at the core. Any spiritual literary work has to be way more organic than that, with all the many influences and sometimes even outright plagiarism, containing error and delusion at various levels quite naturally.

Iolaus wrote:I am a bit surprised that you actually think Kevin is someone who can help you objectively consider the book.

Objective is the key word. Kevin is an independent thinker, sometimes maddeningly so.

Kevin Solway wrote:It doesn't much appeal to me however. I'd much rather a person said, "This is the truth that I have realized for myself", and take full and personal responsibility for it, since that produces less confusion and magical thinking.

I agree with this. Yet it is foolhardy, in my view, to reject another's realizations before considering them. That pretty much is all I am attempting to do with the UB, consider it.

Kevin:

Here the quote as you gave it:

The seven outstanding human teachers of religious truth to appear on earth are Sethard, Moses, Zoroaster, Lao-tse, Buddha, Philo of Alexandria and Paul of Tarsus. [92:5:8-11] [121:6:4]

I googled it and found that it is from a web page about the UB, not a quote from it. A quote from it, first of all, would not have used the term "earth" but instead it would have used the term "Urantia."

I looked up the first instance and did not find it. The second instance was probably taken from this sentence:

In the matter of the combination of the better elements in contemporaneous systems of ethical and religious teachings, there have been seven outstanding human teachers: Sethard, Moses, Zoroaster, Lao-tse, Buddha, Philo, and Paul.

The text clearly shows that the UB has only limited, qualified praise for Paul of Tarsus. The UB seems to do this with most human figures: describe the best of their accomplishments and detail their shortcomings. This is the objectivity that appeals to me.

Diebert wrote:As historical or scientific claims go: you can never solve it this way. You fail to give me one reason to treat the UB as something different than any other work. Appreciation for the style is not enough: this could be inspired by your initial esteem and be your own bias.

Well, the manner of its production was and remains a significant reason for me at least to give it additional attention. A work that purports to be divine revelation as an integral part of what "information" it presents must be able to withstand any scrutiny such a claim might engender. That seems only reasonable. After all, there is no human author taking credit for what is written in the UB. That in itself makes a difference to me. It should be a red flag to anyone who spends even a moment reading it.

How would you trust that research to be accurate? How could you ever rule out this paper wasn't written by one or several people (with possibly Sadler involved) with some ulterior motive, like a social experiment, or personal theology. Other details of the religious life of Sadler could be enlightening too. The content of the book seems not conflicting with his life-long beliefs and activities revolving around educating and helping people with spiritual principles combined with psychology

Well, I don't trust that research to be accurate. It is merely additional information. I have difficulty trusting any research to be accurate, on principle. But the more of it you do, the better picture you generate for yourself of what may have actually happened. It's like a hologram with may projection sources. Some facts cancel each other out, others tend to reinforce, and you are left with a picture of higher resolution and greater depth, and more likelihood of fairly representing the thing you are studying.

The facts as I am becoming able in this way to ascertain appear to indicate that the content of the UB contradicts what Sadler's personal belief system had contained. He had been at one point an active Seventh Day Adventist. Many people immediately do what you do in the above quote from you and conclude the UB reflects Sadler's own religious views. Further consideration seems to indicate the opposite is true, as the UB insists our world is evolutionary and SDA's believe it was created in "Seven Days."

Diebert wrote:

brokenhead wrote:But the reason I wanted Kevin's opinion is that he admits an alien implantation of a life matrix upon the earth is possible, his "possibly evil" alien gods. It is pretty much what the UB claims happened.

But this idea has been around for centuries in various philosophies!

So what? Most ideas have. Antiquity of a notion seems to be, in itself, a singularly poor reason to reject the notion. I do not know of many people who would even consider the "alien god" as a possibility, however. Kevin seems to be unencumbered by indoctrination.

The whole Theosophical movement and its spin-offs represent a giant library of UB-style stuff.

But this is truly painting with a broad brush, Diebert. I am quite familiar with much of the writings of Theosophy and writings related to it.

I look at it this way. The writings of Besant, Blavatsky, Steiner and their contemporaries tend to illuminate the human condition in their own peculiar light. Yet the thing they are considering must be real in the sense that it is not entirely fabricated, much as any world view must be about something that is in some sense real. A book such as the UB is massive in its scope and therefore must in some way touch upon this same aspect of reality that a movement such as Theosophy did. The UB's formulation began not long after the height of the Theosophical movement's heyday and concluded several decades later. If you are to conclude the UB is therefore derivative of Theosophical writings, that is your right and you may even be correct. It is, after all, what I am trying to ascertain more clearly for myself.

But all evolved knowledge is to some degree derivative, by definition. The UB claims to be a revelation delivered by a mandate of spiritual beings whose responsibility is to guide our spiritual growth in the direction of divine truth. It claims in many places that part of its mandate is to utilize known sources of knowledge as much as possible and fill in the gaps with revealed material intended to correct misapprehensions about what has already occurred without "over revealing" things about the future, that is, it is designed to reorient where we go from here without artificially taking us there. The Revelators do not claim total knowledge and often admit to informed speculation.

Even Scientology uses the same alien imagery in their inner teachings and many documents have been leaked describing similar processes.

Yes, but Scientology is patently bogus. A glance will make it apparent that it may use alien imagery but in no way the same or even similar imagery. I quietly looked into that to some extent in my youth out of curiosity. It is fraught with contradictions and its adherents are imbeciles who somehow manage to ignore Hubbard's P.T. Barnum sleaziness. It is a tax dodge at best. No wonder Tom Cruise and his rich and shallow buddies love it - it helps them keep all the vast wealth we are stupid enough to heap on them.

I still do wonder why you're so intrigued with validating it at the core. Any spiritual literary work has to be way more organic than that, with all the many influences and sometimes even outright plagiarism, containing error and delusion at various levels quite naturally.

The world is full of spiritual literary works that are "organic." There is a Christian bookstore chain, one of many, here in the US called the Twenty-Third Psalm. It is packed with personal testimonies. They may indeed have something to offer, but I do not seem to be interested in them. I am, however, very interested in personal testimony when I have more than cursory acquaintance with the one offering it.

I suppose it is the sheer audacity of the UB that fascinates me, and the laborious method of its formulation or "reception" depending on how you look at it.

That Sadler himself remained unconvinced of the UB's divine origin but was unwilling to rule it out would have made him a good choice for any such divine beings seeking to impart a revelation. There is an overall consistency to seemingly unrelated circumstances surrounding the Forum. Common sense tells me that this kind of ongoing thing should not have transpired at all. Indeed, despite your belief to the contrary, it does not appear to be a commonplace occurrence.

I always like to look for motivation, and usually I have to go no further than following money. If the intent of producing the UB was to generate revenue, it failed spectacularly. Any half-intelligent man would have predicted that much. Both Sadler and Wilfred Kellogg, the alleged SS, were educated, successful people. Kellogg was in addition a wealthy businessperson. If the goal was to start a church, the strict avoidance of publicity doomed that to failure from the outset. Sadler's own documented actions are consistent with those of someone who was academically motivated, of someone who was constrained by professional ethics. It is widely believed his only allusion to the Forum and its activities in his professional publications was in his paper The Mind at Mischief.

I have long had a baby-in-the-bathwater relationship with the UB. If what the UB purports itself to be is true, it would be of immense value, all of which would be entirely lost if there was no one willing say "what if?" in response. This is a clear and simple logical fact. Even if its entire contents were derivative, that would in itself not negate the value of whatever portion thereof which is consistent with the truth. This also seems quite rational.

And lastly, let me make this point. Many critics of the UB claim that if it is entirely derivative, then it cannot be a revelation as it unambiguously purports to be. I find this to be a legitimate and even sensible conclusion. At the same time, almost none of those critics substantiate the assertion that the UB is entirely derivative. One author does document all the sources he say the UB has plagiarized. Indeed, some excerpts seem to be entirely lifted with minimal changes from decidedly nonotherworldly sources. It is the very heavy-handedness of these examples that is noteworthy, in my estimation. If the UB were entirely a plagiarism, why would the origin of some parts be so blatantly mundane, and others not? And just what and where are the sources for the other 98% of it? The UB itself cites no human sources, but distincly claims to have used some in its formulation as per its "celestial mandate."

That the UB was altered to some extent in the years between its "completion" and its first publication seems to be beyond dispute. All that does is to leave me trying to pluck the baby out of the bathwater before the tub gets emptied into all the other shit in the gutter.

Carl G wrote:Logic is a science. To my mind they are one and the same.

You are wrong.

Carl G wrote:

If one can't consciously recall what their past lives where, then those past lives aren't any more significant than any other individual's life they can't remember who came before them.

Statements like this are why I have called you in the past "Nick the Poor Thinker." Why would you surmise that something must be conscious to be significant? Are you discounting entirely the effect of the subconscious mind, the unconscious part of the individual?

I didn't say something has to be conscious to be significant, I said the idea of literal reincarnation renders itself meaningless because one's past lives are NO MORE significant than any other individual's life who came before them. You are dense beyond belief.

Carl G wrote:

If this is how reincarnation works then one's "past lives" work the same way as any other individual who influences their likes, dislikes, talents, and behavior, e.g. grand parents, parents, aunts, uncles, friends. Ultimately rendering one's "past lives" no more significant than any other causal factor.

No more significant, perhaps, but it would be significant nonetheless. Not insignificant as you are saying.

Yeah? Why don't you actually read what the fuck I said instead of allowing your need to entertain fairy tales get in the way. You know, the part where I said Ultimately rendering one's "past lives" NO MORE significant than any other causal factor. Key words being NO MORE SIGNIFICANT not insignificant.

Carl G wrote:

Also the fact that you can't remember these past lives makes it absolutely meaningless, because one's identity is kept in tact by their ability to in fact remember who they are!

Are you actually telling me that buried memories do not affect an individual? Are you telling me that experiences which happened to you when you were an infant, which are no doubt in your memory although you cannot recall them, have had no effect on you now? I think you may need to brush up on your psychology.

Are you actually telling me that you are so fucking dense that you end up with this bastardized misinterpretation of what I said? REPEAT, I SAY REPEAT... OUR IDENTITY IS KEPT IN TACT BY OUR ABILITY, AND THE ABILITY OF OTHERS TO SURPRISINGLY ENOUGH, REMEMBER WHO THE FUCK WE ARE.

Carl G wrote:

This shouldn't be difficult to understand, and if it is, then it's only because you have an egotistical investment in whatever mystical/religious/fairy tale experience you are entertaining.

This does not logically necessarily follow, either, which again is why I think of you as Nick the Poor Thinker. There may be other reasons why I would find it difficult to understand, though in this case I think I am following your flawed train of thought quite well.

It follows perfectly if you ask me, because your desire to entertain fairy tales is the only thing that can account for you bastardized interpretations of what I wrote. Either that or your mind is in a near vegetable like state. You can decide which one it is.

Carl G wrote:

If I can't remember my "past life" just like I can't remember life of a man living in sub-saharan africa 10,000 years ago, then the former is no more significant to me than the latter.

Like I have said, I don't think it is good idea on your part to rest your case on conscious memory only. It's not sound psychology.

It doesn't matter what's going on with the subconscious if you have no conscious memory of yourself, i.e. you have no identity.

You're a fucking idiot, Carl.

Nick Treklis wrote:

Carl G wrote:Logic is a science. To my mind they are one and the same.

You are wrong.

I define them to be the same, therefore they are the same. Take a hike.

Carl G wrote:

If one can't consciously recall what their past lives where, then those past lives aren't any more significant than any other individual's life they can't remember who came before them.

Statements like this are why I have called you in the past "Nick the Poor Thinker." Why would you surmise that something must be conscious to be significant? Are you discounting entirely the effect of the subconscious mind, the unconscious part of the individual?

I didn't say something has to be conscious to be significant, I said the idea of literal reincarnation renders itself meaningless because one's past lives are NO MORE significant than any other individual's life who came before them.

You are correct, I misunderstood you. However, my point stands, as due to the effect of the subconscious mind a past life would indeed be much more significant than any given other person's life.

You are dense beyond belief.

And you are a fucking moron. But let's stick to the argument.

Carl G wrote:

If this is how reincarnation works then one's "past lives" work the same way as any other individual who influences their likes, dislikes, talents, and behavior, e.g. grand parents, parents, aunts, uncles, friends. Ultimately rendering one's "past lives" no more significant than any other causal factor.

No more significant, perhaps, but it would be significant nonetheless. Not insignificant as you are saying.

Yeah? Why don't you actually read what the fuck I said

I DID FUCKING SAY "NO MORE SIGNIFICANT, PERHAPS, but it would be significant nonetheless."

instead of allowing your need to entertain fairy tales get in the way.

You're right! I'm noticing now that I did mix up my posting at GF with working on my draft of Nick the Half Wit Thinks He's Enlightened. Damn those publishers for the pressure they put on a guy.

You know, the part where I said Ultimately rendering one's "past lives" NO MORE significant than any other causal factor. Key words being NO MORE SIGNIFICANT not insignificant.

Sorry. I might have been tainted by your words "after the past life "reincarnates" into the present life, there is absolutely no difference between it, and a "brand new non-reincarnated life".

Carl G wrote:

Also the fact that you can't remember these past lives makes it absolutely meaningless, because one's identity is kept in tact by their ability to in fact remember who they are!

Are you actually telling me that buried memories do not affect an individual? Are you telling me that experiences which happened to you when you were an infant, which are no doubt in your memory although you cannot recall them, have had no effect on you now? I think you may need to brush up on your psychology.

Are you actually telling me that you are so fucking dense that you end up with this bastardized misinterpretation of what I said? REPEAT, I SAY REPEAT... OUR IDENTITY IS KEPT IN TACT BY OUR ABILITY, AND THE ABILITY OF OTHERS TO SURPRISINGLY ENOUGH, REMEMBER WHO THE FUCK WE ARE.

Pardon moi, guilty again. I MUST HAVE BEEN LAUGHING SO HARD AT YOUR INFANTILE GRASP OF PSYCHOLOGY that I missed it. Your feeble point about identity whisked by me, also I suspect, because it has LITTLE OR NOTHING to do with refuting the idea of literal reincarnation.

Carl G wrote:

This shouldn't be difficult to understand, and if it is, then it's only because you have an egotistical investment in whatever mystical/religious/fairy tale experience you are entertaining.

This does not logically necessarily follow, either, which again is why I think of you as Nick the Poor Thinker. There may be other reasons why I would find it difficult to understand, though in this case I think I am following your flawed train of thought quite well.

It follows perfectly if you ask me, because your desire to entertain fairy tales is the only thing that can account for you bastardized interpretations of what I wrote. Either that or your mind is in a near vegetable like state. You can decide which one it is.

Beautiful! May I use that quote in my "Nick the Half Wit" story?

Carl G wrote:

If I can't remember my "past life" just like I can't remember life of a man living in sub-saharan africa 10,000 years ago, then the former is no more significant to me than the latter.

Like I have said, I don't think it is good idea on your part to rest your case on conscious memory only. It's not sound psychology.

It doesn't matter what's going on with the subconscious if you have no conscious memory of yourself, i.e. you have no identity.

Sorry, this isn't about having no conscious memory of yourself. It is not about identity, either. It's about whether having no conscious memory of a past life can proves or be valid evidence for there not being a past life.

You're a fucking idiot, Carl.

You sing with the Moron Tab-and-Apple Choir.