The Urantia Book
- Thread starter Cino
- Start date
Boy it has been a long time...there were Xeroxed copies being pushed around mid 70s... I read it, dont recall it.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Urantia is the name given to this world (aka Earth, Gaia) in The Urantia Book.
powessy
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 401
- Reaction score
- 192
- Points
- 43
Hello Norm
I am from south west Minnesota. I am only 52 years old, born in February 1970. I graduated high school and joined the military from 88 - 91. After the military I decided to further my education from fall of 91 until the fall of 96. I am the father of four children all out of high school and I have been married for 26 years.
I was never religious nor was religion even a thought until 8 years ago.
Wikipedia shows this image for sacred geometry
If you zoom into the image you can see the three rings as in your image.
I see several things when I look at the urantia flag geometry. The first thing I see is the trinity, I can explain this finally I hope without losing anyone. How is it that the father, son and holly spirit are all the same?
This happened because first off the son became something born to some world. The next problem is minds teach us inside yourself. Let me try to show this as numbers once, we should be 5,4,3,2,1, but minds teach us inside yourself so now the numbers look like this 4,5,3,2,1. 3 can not become 5 without becoming 4 first this creates a knot. So what happens is 321 = the son, 5 = the father and 4 = the holly spirit. He was really just one mind one person but torn into three.
The other thing I see is two minds inside themselves this is interesting also as urantia means earth. The veil is two minds inside themselves Gaia and cealzabus. Two world soul objects embedded inside each other to create a matrix.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and time.
powessy
Attachments
Last edited:
LuisMarco
Well-Known Member
Hey, Everyone (!)
Yes, it's an epochal, divine revelation (the fifth one to our planet's humanity, of five in total, so far)...
The book itself does not say what Urantia means, but it says this in its very very very first paragraph (in its own 'Foreword' Paper):
However:
The meaning of the word Urantia is etymologically, this: 'Etymology of Coined Terminology' (URANTIA-related site).
As to more info on what URANTIA is about, see URANTIA's Paper 92 (the book text in English is already in the public domain since the previous decade):
Last edited:
LuisMarco
Well-Known Member
So, for more info on the very origin and history of the book, there's a much better book than Mullins', free and online, by Ernest Moyer (The birth of a divine revelation: the origin of The Urantia Papers; 2000), and he had it on his website but he died a few years ago and his site with him.
It's now here (and elsewhere):
https://ubannotated.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/MoyerBirthRev.pdf (600 pages long)
It's now here (and elsewhere):
https://ubannotated.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/MoyerBirthRev.pdf (600 pages long)
Last edited:
@Norm
@LuisMarco
Can anyone link an unadulterated pdf copy of the book (without interspersed commentary) that people can read?
@LuisMarco
Can anyone link an unadulterated pdf copy of the book (without interspersed commentary) that people can read?
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
LuisMarco
Well-Known Member
Actually a pdf, epub, mobi, etc download copy is here for free for everybody:
https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book/download-text-urantia-book
enjoy!
Thanks!
How do an adherents of the Urantia Book call themselves?
How, if at all, do you organize? Are there gatherings, feasts, or study circles? Is there an organization? A group of Elders or the like?
How do an adherents of the Urantia Book call themselves?
How, if at all, do you organize? Are there gatherings, feasts, or study circles? Is there an organization? A group of Elders or the like?
Last edited:
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
This is the comment that made me decide to look into it. Dense, lengthy material filled with jargon that few people can sit through? My kind of treat.
The part that sold it for me was "But our mandate admonishes us to make every effort to convey our meanings by using the word symbols of the English tongue." It was then that I knew I would enjoy the read. I'll sift through it some more if I have the time.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Have at it, young lady. I've found a few claims in it that are easily refutable today, but might not have been to the western English-speaking world at the time the papers were composed. There are points that I do agree with, and some I disagree with. Not enough to draw me in to thoroughly study it.
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
I have to talk about Paper 90, I'm sorry.
"Shamanism" wasn't a religion. "Shamanism" is a general category of various religious practices. So much of this paper is misleading on this point.
Describing shamans as "self-deceived" and "unwittingly stumbling" onto hypnotic practices also feels a bit off to me. Shamans essentially invented and perfected hypnotic practices long before we had a word for hypnosis. They beat us to the mark on that one. As for self-deceived, I'm not sure that this is quite adequate.
Much of shamanism does use the language of spirits and possession, definitely, but it frequently comes from a sort of mental monism. To many shamans, the spirit world, often associated with the world of dreams, is described in the same terms we use for the "real" world. The figures they meet there are treated as separate beings from themselves. This isn't so much a deception as it is a facet of culture and language and it's one that we still often use when describing our dreams to each other.
Also, the use of psychoactive substances is a lot less common in shamanism than people make it out to be, and even rarer are shamans that practice full-on hallucinatory tripping. Usually, mild doses of psychedelics are used in order to promote a more self-reflective state of mind, which modern psychonauts refer to as "microdosing."
Shamanistic religions don't generally have a concept of "witch" or "sorceror." Some of them do and it's hard to tell when they developed those concepts but, for the most part, shamans generally both heal their tribe and curse their enemies. If you're treating baneful magic, it's usually seen as placed on a people by a rival shaman or something. There are a few exceptions to this rule, especially in South African tribes, but for the most part witchcraft isn't really a concept that they have because "witchcraft" usually implies that someone is working only with evil powers rather than only with good ones. Shamans worked with all sorts of powers and, if they even label these natural forces good and evil, usually still work with both.
Witchcraft wasn't a religion until the 20th, maybe 19th, century, and it's only fairly recently that it's become diverse.
Saying that shamans use "devious ways" to establish "their reputations as voices of God" isn't really accurate, either. Shamans aren't generally any more or less dishonest than priests are and usually their divination is animistic or polytheistic, not monotheistic. You could say they bullied over their congregation to fork over offerings but this is a criticism that you could still apply to most religious clergy and it would still be just as inaccurate and disingenuous.
I wouldn't use the term "sin" in the way this paper does and I would instead use a term like "spiritual pollution" but that's a minor nitpick.
Much of the methods of diagnosing and treating diseases in the last part of the paper is a haphazard mix of a bunch of completely separate cultures. It's really not a very accurate view of any shamanic tradition.
It isn't quite a proper explanation of sweat lodges, either, and tom-toms are not universal among shamanic cultures.
I don't think Greek medicine was too much more "rational" than Egyptian medicine and Egyptian medicine is some of the oldest medicine we have manuscripts on. People just didn't know as much as we know now, like the chapter already mentioned earlier (to its great credit.)
Swearing doesn't come from ritual names, as far as I know. In English, it mostly comes from French aristocrats not wanting to associate with the German working class, from what I recall.
"Shamanism" wasn't a religion. "Shamanism" is a general category of various religious practices. So much of this paper is misleading on this point.
Describing shamans as "self-deceived" and "unwittingly stumbling" onto hypnotic practices also feels a bit off to me. Shamans essentially invented and perfected hypnotic practices long before we had a word for hypnosis. They beat us to the mark on that one. As for self-deceived, I'm not sure that this is quite adequate.
Much of shamanism does use the language of spirits and possession, definitely, but it frequently comes from a sort of mental monism. To many shamans, the spirit world, often associated with the world of dreams, is described in the same terms we use for the "real" world. The figures they meet there are treated as separate beings from themselves. This isn't so much a deception as it is a facet of culture and language and it's one that we still often use when describing our dreams to each other.
Also, the use of psychoactive substances is a lot less common in shamanism than people make it out to be, and even rarer are shamans that practice full-on hallucinatory tripping. Usually, mild doses of psychedelics are used in order to promote a more self-reflective state of mind, which modern psychonauts refer to as "microdosing."
Shamanistic religions don't generally have a concept of "witch" or "sorceror." Some of them do and it's hard to tell when they developed those concepts but, for the most part, shamans generally both heal their tribe and curse their enemies. If you're treating baneful magic, it's usually seen as placed on a people by a rival shaman or something. There are a few exceptions to this rule, especially in South African tribes, but for the most part witchcraft isn't really a concept that they have because "witchcraft" usually implies that someone is working only with evil powers rather than only with good ones. Shamans worked with all sorts of powers and, if they even label these natural forces good and evil, usually still work with both.
Witchcraft wasn't a religion until the 20th, maybe 19th, century, and it's only fairly recently that it's become diverse.
Saying that shamans use "devious ways" to establish "their reputations as voices of God" isn't really accurate, either. Shamans aren't generally any more or less dishonest than priests are and usually their divination is animistic or polytheistic, not monotheistic. You could say they bullied over their congregation to fork over offerings but this is a criticism that you could still apply to most religious clergy and it would still be just as inaccurate and disingenuous.
I wouldn't use the term "sin" in the way this paper does and I would instead use a term like "spiritual pollution" but that's a minor nitpick.
Much of the methods of diagnosing and treating diseases in the last part of the paper is a haphazard mix of a bunch of completely separate cultures. It's really not a very accurate view of any shamanic tradition.
It isn't quite a proper explanation of sweat lodges, either, and tom-toms are not universal among shamanic cultures.
I don't think Greek medicine was too much more "rational" than Egyptian medicine and Egyptian medicine is some of the oldest medicine we have manuscripts on. People just didn't know as much as we know now, like the chapter already mentioned earlier (to its great credit.)
Swearing doesn't come from ritual names, as far as I know. In English, it mostly comes from French aristocrats not wanting to associate with the German working class, from what I recall.
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
After reading through the book, I think the term "adherents of the Urantia Book" might not be an adequate phrase. Much of the book emphasizes what it refers to as "the religion of personal experience" and spirituality as a personal relationship and communion with God. There's quite a bit of antagonism towards the idea of organized religion strewn throughout it.
The book itself is quite nonsectarian. It seems to be written more with the intent to help people modify their existing faith rather than adopt a wholly new one.
After a brief look into the subject online, however, the book is a central text in a few different groups here and there.
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
My final question is; the Urantia Book outright says that much of its scientific and historical knowledge is wrong and that the authors supposedly know that it's wrong.
I understand not giving the information if you're forbidden to but why give false information?
I understand not giving the information if you're forbidden to but why give false information?
LuisMarco
Well-Known Member
sorry, Guys, i delayed without wanting to...
Ella S., not false, it's outdated scientific information (and as you can see in this following quote too, URANTIA, besides giving outdated science knowledge and information, gave us advanced, ahead-of-its-time science):
Where's that advanced science¿, here: UBannotated.com (and elsewhere)...
Excuse me, Ella, how old are you¿, in one of my few previous posts i gave my age, but i'm just asking you out of curiosity, ooops!.
LuisMarco
Well-Known Member
not 5 humanities, but 5 epochal revelations: https://interfaith.org/community/threads/20149/#post-359022