The Urantia Book

[seattlegal]

The text doesn't say Gabriel prayed for annihilation. It's better to quote the text rather than to paraphrase it. Paraphrasing often leads to errors like that one.

If it was/is Gabriel's job to act as prosecuting attorney to present the state's case against the traitors, then sure, I agree. That's what any good, competent prosecuting attorney would do, their job. The larger crime is that the traitors, if allowed to continue spreading their lies about Michael's administration, could adversely impact, or even destroy, the chances of some mortal ascenders for eternal life by misleading them.

As far as equating the reasonings of the Jews who schemed to have Jesus killed goes, I don't think that has anything to do with the celestial government's actions against Lucifer, Satan, et al, and their plans to overthrow or cast doubt on Michael's legitimacy and the plan for salvation for all mortals. Jesus was falsely accused and falsely testified against. Even Pilate said, "Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:" (Luke 23:14)

Do you have sympathies for those who schemed to have Jesus killed?

I don't have sympathies for those who schemed to have Jesus killed. (Although I also agree with Jesus' plea of "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.") Do you agree with Gabriel's plea for annihilation?

 

[seattlegal]

they are corporeal beings, only invisible to us and in a higher level.

Like the Buddhist "fine material plane?"

 

[Thomas]

And like the bible, probably, according to fundamentalist Christians ...

Not to butt in here, but this signals a straw-man argument.

Not every Christin thinks the Bible is inerrant, so while you can cite some who do, you should also allow there are more nuanced views as well, and take those into consideration, else your question falls on its face.

 

[Norm]

I don't have sympathies for those who schemed to have Jesus killed. (Although I also agree with Jesus' plea of "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.") Do you agree with Gabriel's plea for annihilation?

I already answered that. Here it is again, "If it was/is Gabriel's job to act as prosecuting attorney to present the state's case against the traitors, then sure, I agree."

In any case, Gabriel is just an angel, an employee of the celestial government. He is not the judge and jury. Nor is Jesus/Michael as far as I know. After all the evidence against the seditionists is in I think it's the Ancients of Days who make the final determination.

What's the real issue here? Why do you seem to cry elephant tears over the fate of disloyal insurrectionists who have tried to overthrow the celestial government? Are you playing "devil's advocate" for fun and not for real? Mostly people play it for fun, I think. And that's fine, it makes people think. That's a good thing. Sometimes in life one has to pick sides. It's inevitable. Sometimes a person has to say "I stand with the revolution," OR "I support the establishment." It's a gamble. If you're on the losing side then you have to accept the consequences. If God is reality and one rebels against that reality, then what's to become of that individual? Can an unreal personality continue to exist in the real universe?

The Urantia Book says that mercy and forgiveness was offered to the rebels:

53:9.1.Early in the days of the Lucifer rebellion, salvation was offered all rebels by Michael. To all who would show proof of sincere repentance, he offered, upon his attainment of complete universe sovereignty, forgiveness and reinstatement in some form of universe service. None of the leaders accepted this merciful proffer.

So what can you do with them, then? As is often the case with humans and apparently with some celestials, after making a bad decision we DOUBLE DOWN on it, refusing to make corrections or acknowledge error. As the book says, (184:2.12) "It requires a great and noble character, having started out wrong, to turn about and go right. All too often one's own mind tends to justify continuance in the path of error when once it is entered upon."

 

[Norm]

Not to butt in here, but this signals a straw-man argument.

Not every Christin thinks the Bible is inerrant, so while you can cite some who do, you should also allow there are more nuanced views as well, and take those into consideration, else your question falls on its face.

I used the term "fundamentalist Christians". I never said "every Christian." Thus, my statement was already nuanced.

 

[seattlegal]

I already answered that. Here it is again, "If it was/is Gabriel's job to act as prosecuting attorney to present the state's case against the traitors, then sure, I agree."

Alright.

In any case, Gabriel is just an angel, an employee of the celestial government. He is not the judge and jury. Nor is Jesus/Michael as far as I know. After all the evidence against the seditionists is in I think it's the Ancients of Days who make the final determination.

So you are not sure?

What's the real issue here?

The call for annihilation is what I take issue with.

Why do you seem to cry elephant tears over the fate of disloyal insurrectionists who have tried to overthrow the celestial government?

Does annihilation solve problems? No. It is just kicking the can down the road.

Are you playing "devil's advocate" for fun and not for real?

Nope. I'm questioning the plea for annihilation.

Mostly people play it for fun, I think. And that's fine, it makes people think. That's a good thing. Sometimes in life one has to pick sides. It's inevitable. Sometimes a person has to say "I stand with the revolution," OR "I support the establishment." It's a gamble. If you're on the losing side then you have to accept the consequences.

I will say that I stand against annihilation. Both against any call for annihilation as well as against any actual act of annihilating another.

If God is reality and one rebels against that reality, then what's to become of that individual? Can an unreal personality continue to exist in the real universe?

Sentient beings have all sorts of psychological complexes and delusions they call demons, gods, or whatever. Does that make them unreal? To quote the Urantia Book:

53:8.9 (610.5) In general, when weak and dissolute mortals are supposed to be under the influence of devils and demons, they are merely being dominated by their own inherent and debased tendencies, being led away by their own natural propensities. The devil has been given a great deal of credit for evil which does not belong to him. Caligastia has been comparatively impotent since the cross of Christ.​

The Urantia Book says that mercy and forgiveness was offered to the rebels:

53:9.1.Early in the days of the Lucifer rebellion, salvation was offered all rebels by Michael. To all who would show proof of sincere repentance, he offered, upon his attainment of complete universe sovereignty, forgiveness and reinstatement in some form of universe service. None of the leaders accepted this merciful proffer.

Were any of the underlying problems addressed?

So what can you do with them, then? As is often the case with humans and apparently with some celestials, after making a bad decision we DOUBLE DOWN on it, refusing to make corrections or acknowledge error. As the book says, (184:2.12) "It requires a great and noble character, having started out wrong, to turn about and go right. All too often one's own mind tends to justify continuance in the path of error when once it is entered upon."

Indeed. Were any of the grievances regarding the government actually addressed?

 

[Norm]

Alright.
So you are not sure?

Are you just in this just for the argument? How sure do I need to be? What difference would it make if I said I was sure? If I said I was sure, cross my heart and hope to die, would that convince you? And what would be the source of my "sureness"? Lots of people are "sure" of wrong things. What difference does it make to reality if someone is sure of something or not? Surely some are wrong about the things they are "sure" of. And the annihilation, when and if it happens, is really self-inflicted.

From The Urantia Book:
2:3.2 How futile to make puerile appeals to such a God to modify his changeless decrees so that we can avoid the just consequences of the operation of his wise natural laws and righteous spiritual mandates! “Be not deceived; God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap.” True, even in the justice of reaping the harvest of wrongdoing, this divine justice is always tempered with mercy. Infinite wisdom is the eternal arbiter which determines the proportions of justice and mercy which shall be meted out in any given circumstance. The greatest punishment (in reality an inevitable consequence) for wrongdoing and deliberate rebellion against the government of God is loss of existence as an individual subject of that government. The final result of wholehearted sin is annihilation. In the last analysis, such sin-identified individuals have destroyed themselves by becoming wholly unreal through their embrace of iniquity. The factual disappearance of such a creature is, however, always delayed until the ordained order of justice current in that universe has been fully complied with.

2:3.3 Cessation of existence is usually decreed at the dispensational or epochal adjudication of the realm or realms. On a world such as Urantia it comes at the end of a planetary dispensation. Cessation of existence can be decreed at such times by co-ordinate action of all tribunals of jurisdiction, extending from the planetary council up through the courts of the Creator Son to the judgment tribunals of the Ancients of Days. The mandate of dissolution originates in the higher courts of the superuniverse following an unbroken confirmation of the indictment originating on the sphere of the wrongdoer’s residence; and then, when sentence of extinction has been confirmed on high, the execution is by the direct act of those judges residential on, and operating from, the headquarters of the superuniverse.

2:3.4 When this sentence is finally confirmed, the sin-identified being instantly becomes as though he had not been. There is no resurrection from such a fate; it is everlasting and eternal. The living energy factors of identity are resolved by the transformations of time and the metamorphoses of space into the cosmic potentials whence they once emerged. As for the personality of the iniquitous one, it is deprived of a continuing life vehicle by the creature’s failure to make those choices and final decisions which would have assured eternal life. When the continued embrace of sin by the associated mind culminates in complete self-identification with iniquity, then upon the cessation of life, upon cosmic dissolution, such an isolated personality is absorbed into the oversoul of creation, becoming a part of the evolving experience of the Supreme Being. Never again does it appear as a personality; its identity becomes as though it had never been.

>

The call for annihilation is what I take issue with.

Noted, but you'll have to take it up with someone else. So you're against the death penalty in all cases, without exception, no matter how heinous the crime, is that right? Hitler should get off? The guy who gunned down 21 children, he should be allowed to continue, is that right?

>Does annihilation solve problems? No.

So you just answered your own question?

It is just kicking the can down the road.

Well, that's your opinion. Again, noted. And no, it's not just kicking the can down the road. It's final.

>

Nope. I'm questioning the plea for annihilation.

Yes, you said that.

>

I will say that I stand against annihilation. Both against any call for annihilation as well as against any actual act of annihilating another.

Yes, yes. I got it.

>

Were any of the underlying problems addressed?

You have two choices here for this rhetorical question that you know I can't answer except with opinion. Either read the book which you say you haven't done, or find some way to contact the writers of the book and ask them. Perhaps you can hire a channeler or medium of some sort to get your message "up there" to them. Once I told a Catholic what Jesus said (about something the Catholics do (calling priests "Father", but which Jesus said not to do) and he started arguing with me about it, asking me questions about it like you just did above, and I finally had to tell him, "Your argument is with Jesus, not with me. Ask him." If you want to know if any of the underlying problems were addressed, you'll have to ask them. Or perhaps you could contact a priest and ask him to pray to Mary so that she can hand deliver your question to Jesus. Catholics believe that happens, Mary "intercedes" with Jesus on your behalf. One thing is sure is that once a cosmically insane person is gone out of the cosmos, they can no longer threaten the eternal salvation of others with their insanity and their denial of cosmic reality.

>

Indeed. Were any of the grievances regarding the government actually addressed?

What grievances are you talking about? Do you even know? List them if you think you know. I don't think you do. Were they even grievances at all?

 

[Ella S.]

Noted, but you'll have to take it up with someone else. So you're against the death penalty in all cases, without exception, no matter how heinous the crime, is that right? Hitler should get off? The guy who gunned down 21 children, he should be allowed to continue, is that right?

I'm not who you are responding to, but I am opposed to the death penalty in all cases. In every case I have seen, those facing the death penalty could also be imprisoned indefinitely.

Since imprisoning someone causes them less harm than killing them (and killing someone is the greatest amount of harm you can cause to anyone) then we should imprison them instead of kill them. In all cases, then, the death penalty causes unnecessary harm, which is wrong.

 

[seattlegal]

Are you just in this just for the argument? How sure do I need to be? What difference would it make if I said I was sure? If I said I was sure, cross my heart and hope to die, would that convince you? And what would be the source of my "sureness"? Lots of people are "sure" of wrong things. What difference does it make to reality if someone is sure of something or not? Surely some are wrong about the things they are "sure" of. And the annihilation, when and if it happens, is really self-inflicted.

I would think that it would behoove oneself to be sure and certain when there is a call for annihilation of another being. Now you are saying that annihilation is self-infilicted? Then why would there be a need for a plea for it?

From The Urantia Book:
2:3.2 How futile to make puerile appeals to such a God to modify his changeless decrees so that we can avoid the just consequences of the operation of his wise natural laws and righteous spiritual mandates! “Be not deceived; God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap.” True, even in the justice of reaping the harvest of wrongdoing, this divine justice is always tempered with mercy. Infinite wisdom is the eternal arbiter which determines the proportions of justice and mercy which shall be meted out in any given circumstance. The greatest punishment (in reality an inevitable consequence) for wrongdoing and deliberate rebellion against the government of God is loss of existence as an individual subject of that government. The final result of wholehearted sin is annihilation. In the last analysis, such sin-identified individuals have destroyed themselves by becoming wholly unreal through their embrace of iniquity. The factual disappearance of such a creature is, however, always delayed until the ordained order of justice current in that universe has been fully complied with.
2:3.3 Cessation of existence is usually decreed at the dispensational or epochal adjudication of the realm or realms. On a world such as Urantia it comes at the end of a planetary dispensation. Cessation of existence can be decreed at such times by co-ordinate action of all tribunals of jurisdiction, extending from the planetary council up through the courts of the Creator Son to the judgment tribunals of the Ancients of Days. The mandate of dissolution originates in the higher courts of the superuniverse following an unbroken confirmation of the indictment originating on the sphere of the wrongdoer’s residence; and then, when sentence of extinction has been confirmed on high, the execution is by the direct act of those judges residential on, and operating from, the headquarters of the superuniverse.
2:3.4 When this sentence is finally confirmed, the sin-identified being instantly becomes as though he had not been. There is no resurrection from such a fate; it is everlasting and eternal. The living energy factors of identity are resolved by the transformations of time and the metamorphoses of space into the cosmic potentials whence they once emerged. As for the personality of the iniquitous one, it is deprived of a continuing life vehicle by the creature’s failure to make those choices and final decisions which would have assured eternal life. When the continued embrace of sin by the associated mind culminates in complete self-identification with iniquity, then upon the cessation of life, upon cosmic dissolution, such an isolated personality is absorbed into the oversoul of creation, becoming a part of the evolving experience of the Supreme Being. Never again does it appear as a personality; its identity becomes as though it had never been.

This has just made the case of the propensity of a collective for evil. I will await for the self-destruction of the thing where repressed evil individuals are absorbed, as proscribed in the Urantia book.

>

Noted, but you'll have to take it up with someone else. So you're against the death penalty in all cases, without exception, no matter how heinous the crime, is that right? Hitler should get off? The guy who gunned down 21 children, he should be allowed to continue, is that right?

Death comes to all mortals, both to the righteous and the unrighteous. We all have a death sentence. I was talking about annihilation.

So you just answered your own question?



Well, that's your opinion. Again, noted. And no, it's not just kicking the can down the road. It's final.

I saw other rebellions mentioned in the Urantia book. If the problems aren't addressed that cause the symptoms of rebellion, then one could expect another manifestation of the symptom of rebellion to occur if the underlying cause has not been corrected. That is what I meant by "kicking the can down the road."

>

Yes, you said that.

>

Yes, yes. I got it.

>

You have two choices here for this rhetorical question that you know I can't answer except with opinion. Either read the book which you say you haven't done, or find some way to contact the writers of the book and ask them. Perhaps you can hire a channeler or medium of some sort to get your message "up there" to them. Once I told a Catholic what Jesus said (about something the Catholics do (calling priests "Father", but which Jesus said not to do) and he started arguing with me about it, asking me questions about it like you just did above, and I finally had to tell him, "Your argument is with Jesus, not with me. Ask him." If you want to know if any of the underlying problems were addressed, you'll have to ask them. Or perhaps you could contact a priest and ask him to pray to Mary so that she can hand deliver your question to Jesus. Catholics believe that happens, Mary "intercedes" with Jesus on your behalf. One thing is sure is that once a cosmically insane person is gone out of the cosmos, they can no longer threaten the eternal salvation of others with their insanity and their denial of cosmic reality.

Nice chatting with you.

 

[LuisMarco]

Like the Buddhist "fine material plane?"

i searched that Buddhist term and no, it's not related to what URANTIA says of the 'celestial hierarchy', and from what i know of URANTIA, most universal beings have desires, although there may be a few who don't.

 

[seattlegal]

i searched that Buddhist term and no, it's not related to what URANTIA says of the 'celestial hierarchy', and from what i know of URANTIA, most universal beings have desires, although there may be a few who don't.

"Rupa-Loka" is the term, and it means "worlds of form." The gross material realm, the sensory worlds where we are, aka "kama-loka" are so-called because of the prevalence of the interaction of the senses with the environment.

 

[Norm]

I saw other rebellions mentioned in the Urantia book. If the problems aren't addressed that cause the symptoms of rebellion, then one could expect another manifestation of the symptom of rebellion to occur if the underlying cause has not been corrected. That is what I meant by "kicking the can down the road."

In your last post you called them "grievances" Now you're calling them "problems." I asked you to list them and you have not.

What grievances/problems are you talking about? Do you even know? List them if you think you know. I don't think you do. Were they even grievances (against the celestial administration) at all? Or were they just the plaintive cries of anarchists? What do you know about the rebellion? You seem to be all too willing to just brush it off as a difference of opinion. And yes, there were other rebellions. The universe is a big place. And there probably always will be rebellions as long as beings have egos and freewill, generating the "I can do whatever I want to do" attitude.

Nice chatting with you.

Sure.

 

[Norm]

I'm not who you are responding to, but I am opposed to the death penalty in all cases. In every case I have seen, those facing the death penalty could also be imprisoned indefinitely.

I am a very liberal minded person, but I'm not a bleeding heart liberal. I see no reason why society should have to foot the bill for heinous criminals for their room and board for the rest of their lives.

Since imprisoning someone causes them less harm than killing them (and killing someone is the greatest amount of harm you can cause to anyone) then we should imprison them instead of kill them. In all cases, then, the death penalty causes unnecessary harm, which is wrong.

Society decides what is wrong and what is right. Society decides how fast you can drive on the highway. Society decides everything. All rights come from society. Anyway, Jesus says you can kill the body but not the soul. (Matthew 10:28) So executing a heinous criminal in this mortal life on earth does not deprive anyone of their eternal life. And giving heinous criminals free room and board for their life certainly harms society, it drags it down, it puts an unnecessary burden on the citizens.

 

[Ella S.]

I am a very liberal minded person, but I'm not a bleeding heart liberal. I see no reason why society should have to foot the bill for heinous criminals for their room and board for the rest of their lives.

I am neither a liberal nor am I liberal-minded. I also don't feel compassion or empathy, so I'm not a "bleeding heart," either.

Society decides what is wrong and what is right. Society decides how fast you can drive on the highway. Society decides everything. All rights come from society.

I disagree. I do not think society determines what is wrong and what is right. I believe that morality is objective, regardless of how any particular culture or individual feels about it. Society might enforce its own rules, but these rules might not be based on what is objectively right and enforcing those rules might even be wrong.

Anyway, Jesus says you can kill the body but not the soul. (Matthew 10:28) So executing a heinous criminal in this mortal life on earth does not deprive anyone of their eternal life.

Personally, I don't believe in eternal life, so I do not find this point compelling.

And giving heinous criminals free room and board for their life certainly harms society, it drags it down, it puts an unnecessary burden on the citizens.

"Heinous criminals" still contribute to the total utility of sentient beings. That status can't be erased. It doesn't matter how heinous they are or how many laws they've broken. Citizens aren't entitled to special treatment.

If you really want to kill someone just to make your own life easier or less "burdensome," that seems inefficient to me. The harm of the burden placed on your life does not outweigh the harm of killing someone. Killing someone is the greatest harm you can do to them and it has quite a severe impact on the utility of a society.

The "burden" of keeping criminals alive is barely an inconvenience. It doesn't actually harm anyone in the sense that it doesn't negatively impact anyone's health.

ETA: Well, it can negatively impact the health of others in some cases. The question is more about whether the net negative of keeping them alive is more than the net negative of killing them. I don't think it is in most cases.

 

[Norm]

I am neither a liberal nor am I liberal-minded. I also don't feel compassion or empathy, so I'm not a "bleeding heart," either.

You don't feel compassion or empathy?

I disagree. I do not think society determines what is wrong and what is right.

Yes, I may have misspoken. My bad. Society may not determine what's right and what's wrong, but it determines what rights you have. That's what I meant. All rights come from society.

I believe that morality is objective, regardless of how any particular culture or individual feels about it. Society might enforce its own rules, but these rules might not be based on what is objectively right and enforcing those rules might even be wrong.

"...What is objectively right"? How does that work?

Personally, I don't believe in eternal life, so I do not find this point compelling.

Really? Are you an atheist?

"Heinous criminals" still contribute to the total utility of sentient beings.

Maybe they can and maybe they can't.

That status can't be erased.

Who says it can't be erased?

It doesn't matter how heinous they are or how many laws they've broken.

Society decides if it matters or not.

Citizens aren't entitled to special treatment.

What special treatment are you talking about? Do you mean the idea that society is not obligated to provide free room and board to heinous criminals for the rest of their lives?

If you really want to kill someone just to make your own life easier or less "burdensome," that seems inefficient to me.

I don't really want to kill anyone. It's society we're talking about not me. And how is dealing just punishment as determined by societies any more inefficient than many other things humans do, like waging war?

The harm of the burden placed on your life does not outweigh the harm of killing someone.

Why have you chosen to go ad hominem, making it personal? I had said, "giving heinous criminals free room and board for their life certainly harms society, it drags it down, it puts an unnecessary burden on the citizens." I said it harms society, not that it harms me, the way you said it.

Killing someone is the greatest harm you can do to them

Yes, it is a strong step.

and it has quite a severe impact on the utility of a society.

That sounds like an opinion. In any case, society decides if it's worth it or not, not you.

The "burden" of keeping criminals alive is barely an inconvenience.

So you say. But society may disagree with you and society does the deciding about keeping heinous criminals alive or not.

I've deleted the small part of what was left, mainly because I don't know who wrote it, I don't know who "ETA" is. Is that another person in the conversation?

Bye for now.

 

[Cino]

Been reading along, interesting conversation!

I'm beginning to get the impression that the Urantia Book sits firmly in the Christian world view, and does not really speak to other traditions such as Buddhism, regardless of similarities such as the hierarchies of worlds and beings. Rather, it looks like an update to Christianity, in a way.

If I'm not wrong about that, then what are the reforms which differentiate it from Christianity?

 

[seattlegal]

In your last post you called them "grievances" Now you're calling them "problems." I asked you to list them and you have not.

What grievances/problems are you talking about? Do you even know? List them if you think you know. I don't think you do. Were they even grievances (against the celestial administration) at all? Or were they just the plaintive cries of anarchists? What do you know about the rebellion? You seem to be all too willing to just brush it off as a difference of opinion. And yes, there were other rebellions. The universe is a big place. And there probably always will be rebellions as long as beings have egos and freewill, generating the "I can do whatever I want to do" attitude.



Sure.

The Urantia book states that there were criticisms and grievances about the administration made, but does not list them.

53:2.4 (602.7) Throughout this period Lucifer became increasingly critical of the entire plan of universe administration but always professed wholehearted loyalty to the Supreme Rulers. His first outspoken disloyalty was manifested on the occasion of a visit of Gabriel to Jerusem just a few days before the open proclamation of the Lucifer Declaration of Liberty. Gabriel was so profoundly impressed with the certainty of the impending outbreak that he went direct to Edentia to confer with the Constellation Fathers regarding the measures to be employed in case of open rebellion.​

The Urantia book seems to highlight the relationship between Lucifer and Gabriel as an ignition point.

 

[RJM]

Been reading along, interesting conversation!

I'm beginning to get the impression that the Urantia Book sits firmly in the Christian world view, and does not really speak to other traditions such as Buddhism, regardless of similarities such as the hierarchies of worlds and beings. Rather, it looks like an update to Christianity, in a way.

If I'm not wrong about that, then what are the reforms which differentiate it from Christianity?

Yes. It seems to assume the authenticity of the gospel accounts in their entirety as a foundation. I find it quite quaint and naive actually. From this discussion it's certainly not beyond the ability of an imaginative hunan writer to produce, imo

But I haven't read it, and am unlikely to, so ... I'll just lurk

 

[RJM]

Has anyone encountered Oahspe? I was very taken with it in my 20s.

OAHSPE Standard Edition for Screen Reading.pdf

There are several pdf versions available on google search

 

[Norm]

Been reading along, interesting conversation!

I'm beginning to get the impression that the Urantia Book sits firmly in the Christian world view, and does not really speak to other traditions such as Buddhism, regardless of similarities such as the hierarchies of worlds and beings. Rather, it looks like an update to Christianity, in a way.

I would say it's an update to the bible, not Christianity, though in both cases it makes corrections. .

If I'm not wrong about that, then what are the reforms which differentiate it from Christianity?

Um, I would say, not wrong so much, but really, it has nothing to do with Christianity in that it's not based on Christianity. It's based on events and eye witness accounts of events as they happened. What I mean is that for the most part, the things, events, in Christianity, the New Testament, and even the Old to some extent happened. History happened. Christianity doesn't own history or things that happened, they simply made some sort of a record. It's like if you see a train wreck and someone else saw the same train wreck maybe from the other side of the tracks or from a nearby mountain, you're going to have two different versions/accounts of the same event. In reality, if one believes what The Urantia Book says about itself, the record in The Urantia Book pre-dates the human records. Not only pre-dates the human records but is also far more accurate, probably close to perfectly accurate. And if someone looks at the Table of Contents it should be clear that fully 1/2 of the Urantia Book has nothing whatsoever to do with the bible. It's all about God and God's government and the universe and the organization of the universe, how life came to be here, the rebellion, a much truer story of Adam and Eve and who they really are, along with who Jesus really is when he's not here, not to mention the Midwayers, sort of our invisible cousins here on earth. Fascinating story and there's nothing about it in the bible.. Some Christians like to say it copies the bible or that it plagiarizes the bible but it does not. The Urantia Book accounts actually came before the human accounts. We (humans) just didn't know about the celestial records and the celestial accounts before now. Angels actually keep records! Who knew? Some thought they sat around on clouds all day playing harps and polishing their halos. And after saying The Urantia Book plagiarizes te bible, they'll say, "It's not biblical." Talk about having it both ways. And "not biblical" means that it's not exactly what they already believe, it doesn't line up perfectly with their indoctrination, the worst of which is the idea/statement that "the bible is the word of God." Once someone accepts that premise, that doctrine of men, their thinking is compromised and they are likely to fall victim to any number of charlatans waving a bible. I suspect that once the human confusion (witness all the thousands of different sects and translations, etc.) grew to be so bad, and the technology grew good enough (printing press, etc.) and the world situation became stable enough and there was relative freedom of speech in some countries and freedom of religion, that it was time to make the reveal, the Urantia revelation. Anyway, The Urantia Book is a whole new level or two up from the bible. It's like comparing a dugout canoe with the Starship Enterprise, captain Picard commanding.

As to which "reforms" differentiate it from Christianity, it's not really there to reform Christianity, imo. It's there to correct the records, to give us the true story and free us, if possible, from all the human misunderstandings of history, the faulty human records, the myths and legends, some true and some not, and to free us from the religions of authority and all of their nonsense. As far as reforming Christianity, that's something we'll have to do ourselves now that we have the celestial accounts at our disposal. But it's probably going to be a slog. Established religion never goes quietly into that goodnight with a struggle. If by "reforms" you mean differences from fundamentalist Christianity, there are many of those. Mary was a virgin when she gave birth? Not in The Urantia Book. Catholics even insist that Mary was a virgin all her life. Not likely, and not true. Anyway, full grown adults should not believe such stories. It's childish, magical fantasy. Why they need that from Mary is beyond me. Jesus came here to die for our stinking sins? Not in The Urantia Book. In fact, Jesus in the bible tells us exactly what he came here for, and dying for sins ain't it. (John 18:37) But Christians are so deep into the doctrines of men that they can't hear Jesus. Jesus is "the Son" in the Trinity? Not in the Urantia Book. Jesus walked on water? Not in The Urantia Book. Jesus drove a herd of swine over a cliff? Not in The Urantia Book. And The Urantia Book tells all about Jesus' travels while he was here, unknown information to Christians during the 18 years of Jesus' life missing from the bible. 18 years missing! Imagine that. In the bible, one day Jesus was 12 and the next day he's 30. What kind of record is that? Closing for now, it's late. If you have any more questions I'll try to answer them.