-
Posts
-
Even trained scientists have trouble….just ask our good friend Nigel!!
Respiration and gravity and the ultimaton only begins the list of new concepts which make my brain hurt…but I’m no scientist either.
= )
http://ubhistory.org/Documents/AI20050730_CalabreseP_37.pdf
Here is a link to a paper that I found to be very helpful for some concepts.
Am I alone here . . . .
You’re not alone Gene. There are many kinds of science. Once (25 yrs. ago) I asked an astronomy professor if he’d ever heard of the UB. He said yes but he said the astronomy in it was wrong and that was the end of his answer. It satisfied my curiosity about him. Basically, I know nothing about what scientists are finding out about how things work these days. I take the science parts of the book with a grain of salt, since reading these remarks from the revelators:
101:4.2 [Part III]Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve.I am grateful for the work of the UB-reader science-types in the reader community (Phil, Nigel, George Park, et al) who explicate their insights and knowledge about the science parts in the book. I admire their work, but I am in no way qualified to participate meaningfully in such discussions. That does not mean I am not interested. But I am very much on the sidelines of the science parts of the book (and other parts of the book too by the way.)
Am I alone here with having difficulties with some of the science parts of the book?
Science can be a difficult discipline by itself and the scientific knowledge in the Book is even more so, because it often includes things we have not yet discovered, like ultimatons. They are not allowed to give us unearned scientific knowledge, but this restriction does not apply to high-level scientific concepts. And the basic scientific concept of the universe they give us is not that difficult.
Everything in the universe orbits Paradise, the dwelling place of God and the absolute center of the universe. The sun is part of the Milky Way galaxy which is part of the superuniverse of Orvonton, one of seven superuniverses traveling around Paradise in the orbital path of the superuniverse space level. Encircling this space level are four more concentrically arranged space levels containing hundreds of millions of galaxies. All of these galaxies in all of these space levels form a plane of creation which spans the whole universe.
This is a completely new and original concept of how the physical universe is organized about God. And this revealed concept fundamentally contradicts the modern scientific concept of a randomly disorganized universe which has no center and no place for God. This Big Bang theory of the origin and evolution of the universe is now the consensus, and even religious institutions like the Catholic church accept this cosmological concept. Virtually everyone who first encounters the Book immediately sees that its cosmology must be false, according to this modern concept. As a result, the presence of this cosmology in the Book seriously impugns its overall credibility. While its spiritual aspects may be appealing and strike the chords of truth, its scientific aspects seem like fantastic fiction and appear to refute the belief that the Book is an epochal revelation of truth.
Believers in the Book have responded to this situation in several different ways. One response is to believe that this revealed God-centered concept of the universe is true but that science has not yet discovered the hard evidence which proves it. One day science will discover the universe has an absolute center and locate its position. And when it does, The Urantia Book will be waiting to explain the true meaning and value of this scientific discovery to the whole world.
I could mention UB revelations that pique my science brain for example:
if our milky way is Orvonton then there are only six others of similar size and organization that are inhabited and circle paradise.
hubble observations show countless billions or maybe trillions of galaxies equally dispersed in all directions. (Well maybe not quite equally – refer to the Great Wall that Hubble observed and what dr Calabrisi had to say about it in the link I posted earlier)
I have difficulties resolving the idea that uninhabited outer space creations absolutely dwarf the inhabited, to include the central universe and paradise.
One thing that I do believe however is that there is zero conflict between science and religion. It is obvious to me that in my lifetime I will not get these two resolved except for within my faith.
Well, Well, Well….. the responses to ACIM remind me of the things atheists say when they review the Urantia Book on Amazon.
Who are we to drive a wedge between what we believe and what other people believe in the path to finding God? Do you all think that the brotherhood of mankind will come about with this attitude of division and separation? Every believer from every walk of life needs to be included, none excluded, if we are to see a new spiritual awakening on our misguided planet.
It was through A Course In Miracles that the Urantia Book found me. The only time that I have had difficulty with another persons religious beliefs is when they take their book and beat me over the head with it. So the suggestion is to take big blue and beat ACIM followers over the head?
My Father and Mother were strict Roman Catholic. My Father is the only person I have ever know to hold in full measure ALL of the fruits of the spirit. Because of my Father I have years of experience of Fatherly love, love so complete and so unconditional I know no equal. Everyone who met my Father knew that they were loved and everyone loved him in return.
He never read a word of the Urantia Book, never knew of it and yet a man of God unlike I have ever known. EXPERIENCE is what matters.
My Mother passed away last year and I will never forget a particular visit to the hospital just before they released her to hospice. She said in front of me “Please God watch over my son” …..it was not what she said it was HOW she said it that I will never forget.
We read about Jesus in the Urantia Book, what he said but, we haven’t a clue as to the experience of being in his presence.
I have 6 years of actual EXPERIENCE with A Course In Miracles and I will tell all of you that ACIM is in fact Everything it says it is and then some. I read the text for about three years before I did the lessons. When I worked the lessons it took two years to do 148 lessons, I did not finish all 365 lessons but, what I did do I did with my heart and soul.
The only time in my life where I heard the voice within was during a lesson I was doing from ACIM and the words spoken to me were insignificant compared to the realm that I was transported to (pure peace) when My Mystery Monitor (TA) spoke to me. I was in a place not of this world.
My experience with ACIM was the most phenomenal religious awakening I have had. It was the only time in my life where I removed the blocks to the awareness of love’s presence. And I was joyful and loving without judgement (as much as my belligerent self has ever been).
There are differences between the Urantia Book and A Course In Miracles. Jesus speaks in ACIM in first person and when Jesus or the Holy Spirit speak in the text it is from the realm of the Absolute… unlike the Urantia Book that is written from the realm of the finite.
How do you possibly suppose that we as infallible and doubtful as we are; could make ourselves miracle ready (even if only for an instant) without a complete transformation of mind? ACIM is the most difficult and uncomfortable thing I ever attempted to do and I was only successful in a very limited respect. ACIM is a course book. The Urantia Book is a revelation, they are not the same intent and do not serve the same purpose. Yet to discount ACIM as spiritually invalid is suicidal for the coming of the brotherhood of mankind.
Too often we find a spiritual path that works for us only to come to the unfortunate conclusion that our truth is the right truth and because you are not in my camp your truth is inferior. All spiritual paths will be scaffolding upon which the new kingdom is built.
Please refrain from talking the talk until you have walked the walk. I can certainly see that having the UB first and then finding ACIM later could alter a persons viewpoint. But, I don’t think that the revelators expect that the Urantia Book student acquires a closed mind after exposure to the revelation when the opposite should happen.
It’s entirely possible that more prayers come out of Utah than all of the UB and ACIM followers combined. I believe that the only reaction we should acquire when presented with the greatest revelation is not that of arrogance, it is rather, HUMILITY.
Sincerely,
Paul
Here’s a quote from ACIM from chapter 2:1:
To extend is a fundamental aspect of God which He gave to His Son. In the creation, God extended Himself to His creations and imbued them with the same loving Will to create. You have not only been fully created, but have also been created perfect.
Now, anybody who has read TUB can easily recognize that Jesus would never say such a thing. What would be the purpose of his bestowal incarnation into a physical body with a physical mind if it were not to experience for himself the process of becoming perfected? Michael, the Creator Son may have been created perfect, but Jesus, the Son of Man, was not created perfect. He was born an imperfect creature just as we humans are born imperfect. We, just like Jesus, must make choices, climb the psychic circles and willingly participate in the process of becoming perfected, the same way Jesus the man did while living on this earth.
So to me, this is proof that Jesus did not write ACIM. The words are coming from the mind of Helen Schucman. That’s not to say that, according to her personal spiritual growth, she may have learned to recognize truth and share it. There are some truths in ACIM, but they are not the words of Jesus channeled through the mind of Helen. They are Helen’s words dressed up to appear Jesus-like. And that must be so because many of the things she says are not true, like the nonsense quoted above. Jesus would never say untrue things.
Allow me to supply some more evidence from Chapter 2:2.
The Atonement is the only defense that cannot be used destructively because it is not a device you made. The Atonement principle was in effect long before the Atonement began. The principle was love and the Atonement was an act of love. Acts were not necessary before the separation, because belief in space and time did not exist. It was only after the separation that the Atonement and the conditions necessary for its fulfillment were planned. Then a defense so splendid was needed that it could not be misused, although it could be refused. Refusal could not, however, turn it into a weapon of attack, which is the inherent characteristic of other defenses. The Atonement thus becomes the only defense that is not a two-edged sword. It can only heal.
Again, anyone who has read TUB knows that the above quote is poppycock and would never be uttered by Jesus. We know that the atonement idea is an abomination, a philosophical assault upon the unity and free-will of God. Helen states that the atonement was not necessary before the so-called separation, whatever that is, because a “belief” in time and space did not exist prior to the separation. This is amazingly irrational. She thinks that time and space are beliefs and not reality? And her concept of separation is essentially gnostic, which is also nonsense. To think that there was a sudden crack in the “absence of time and space” which resulted in a sudden belief in the “existence of time and space” is ridiculous. And that God had to somehow compensate for this problem of “time and space awareness” by implementing the atonement doctrine, which existed in the “absence of time and space”, is totally nonsensical. Jesus is not nonsensical. The atonement principal is entirely manmade, God had no part in it, but Helen would have us believe Jesus is now teaching something irrational and untrue. It’s not possible for him to do that.
Later in chapter 2 part 8, she tells the reader that the purpose of time, created by the separation from the original “absence of time and space”, is to allow us to perfect our judgment and right mindedness. How can this be true if she previously wrote that Jesus declared we were all created perfect? Of course Jesus would not say things that are so obviously contradictory, so there is no way I can believe that any of ACIM has a divine source. It obviously all comes from the mind of Helen Schucman. That’s not to say that Helen’s mind isn’t working very hard to recognize divinity, and it is also not to say that what she wrote doesn’t occasionally hint at divinity. I’m sure she has a wonderful soul and her intentions are sincere. But, I absolutely cannot accept her words as Jesus’ words. Can’t be. There’s too much confusion and contradiction for that to be true.
TUB quotes which describe the atonement principle as entirely manmade:
89:4.5 The earliest idea of the sacrifice was that of a neutrality assessment levied by ancestral spirits; only later did the idea of atonement develop. As man got away from the notion of the evolutionary origin of the race, as the traditions of the days of the Planetary Prince and the sojourn of Adam filtered down through time, the concept of sin and of original sin became widespread, so that sacrifice for accidental and personal sin evolved into the doctrine of sacrifice for the atonement of racial sin. The atonement of the sacrifice was a blanket insurance device which covered even the resentment and jealousy of an unknown god.
92:3.2 The cardinal religious ideas of incantation, inspiration, revelation, propitiation, repentance, atonement, intercession, sacrifice, prayer, confession, worship, survival after death, sacrament, ritual, ransom, salvation, redemption, covenant, uncleanness, purification, prophecy, original sin – they all go back to the early times of primordial ghost fear.
103:4.2 When primitive man felt that his communion with God had been interrupted, he resorted to sacrifice of some kind in an effort to make atonement, to restore friendly relationship. The hunger and thirst for righteousness leads to the discovery of truth, and truth augments ideals, and this creates new problems for the individual religionists, for our ideals tend to grow by geometrical progression, while our ability to live up to them is enhanced only by arithmetical progression.
121:6.5 Some phases of Paul’s teachings regarding original sin and the atonement were original with himself.
TUB quotes which describe the atonement doctrine as fallacious:
103:4.4 Jesus swept away all of the ceremonials of sacrifice and atonement. He destroyed the basis of all this fictitious guilt and sense of isolation in the universe by declaring that man is a child of God; the creature-Creator relationship was placed on a child-parent basis.
149:2.3 1. The effort to connect the gospel teaching directly onto the Jewish theology, as illustrated by the Christian doctrines of the atonement – the teaching that Jesus was the sacrificed Son who would satisfy the Father’s stern justice and appease the divine wrath. These teachings originated in a praiseworthy effort to make the gospel of the kingdom more acceptable to disbelieving Jews. Though these efforts failed as far as winning the Jews was concerned, they did not fail to confuse and alienate many honest souls in all subsequent generations.
188:4.1 Although Jesus did not die this death on the cross to atone for racial guilt of mortal man nor to provide some sort of effective approach to an otherwise offended and unforgiving God; even though the Son of Man did not offer himself as a sacrifice to appease the wrath of God and to open the way for sinful man to obtain salvation; notwithstanding that these ideas of atonement and propitiation are erroneous, nonetheless, there are significances attached to this death of Jesus on the cross which should not be overlooked. It is a fact that Urantia has become known among other neighboring inhabited planets as the “World of the Cross.”
188:4.8-9 The whole idea of ransom and atonement is incompatible with the concept of God as it was taught and exemplified by Jesus of Nazareth. The infinite love of God is not secondary to anything in the divine nature. All this concept of atonement and sacrificial salvation is rooted and grounded in selfishness. Jesus taught that service to one’s fellows is the highest concept of the brotherhood of spirit believers. Salvation should be taken for granted by those who believe in the fatherhood of God. The believer’s chief concern should not be the selfish desire for personal salvation but rather the unselfish urge to love and, therefore, serve one’s fellows even as Jesus loved and served mortal men.
188:4.13 This entire idea of the ransom of the atonement places salvation upon a plane of unreality; such a concept is purely philosophic.
2:6.5 The erroneous supposition that the righteousness of God was irreconcilable with the selfless love of the heavenly Father, presupposed absence of unity in the nature of Deity and led directly to the elaboration of the atonement doctrine, which is a philosophic assault upon both the unity and the free-willness of God.
Thank you Paul for your perspective and for sharing your experience. The topic here was begun by a sincere request for a comparative analysis regarding the compatibility of two distinct texts….not a comparison of students or believers. There has been no “believer bashing” that I have read…and should not be as you say….which there wasn’t.
Jesus once said “…..the truth never suffers from honest examination…”
As is known by the teachings in the UB, the source of faith and the underlying beliefs which generate it are of much smaller value than the faith itself so derived. It is my opinion that we celebrate faith here and the tadpole’s journey to the Mansion Worlds in full knowledge that every path is unique and delivers true meaning and value to the Supreme. All errors of belief and fact will be remedied and all of us will have such for correction. I know of none here who uphold superiority of their own faith or status over any others….but we do hold up the Revelation as a book of facts which are unavailable anywhere else…even the Divine ministries within require epochal revelation to properly reduce confusions and eliminate errors for the pilgrims of time.
So, a comparative analysis is appropriate for consideration and discussion, especially when sincerely requested by a student of the UB.
I do appreciate your perspective and find it most appropriate for consideration as well. Thank you.
As you can see, Paul’s comments above are focused on the EXPERIENCE of living spiritually, not on this or that book.
Is the purpose of studying the Urantia Book for knowing or EXPERIENCING what it says?
(151:1.2) “A sower went forth to sow, and it came to pass as he sowed that some seed fell by the wayside to be trodden underfoot and devoured by the birds of heaven. Other seed fell upon the rocky places where there was little earth, and immediately it sprang up because there was no depth to the soil, but as soon as the sun shone, it withered because it had no root whereby to secure moisture. Other seed fell among the thorns, and as the thorns grew up, it was choked so that it yielded no grain. Still other seed fell upon good ground and, growing, yielded, some thirtyfold, some sixtyfold, and some a hundredfold.” And when he had finished speaking this parable, he said to the multitude, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
Knowing and experiencing are not mutually exclusive nod. Cannot one do both? Don’t students of the Revelation live within the reality perspective and gain truth while living by its teachings?
The UB claims its contents are gifted to eliminate error and reduce confusion…it would seem advisable then to learn about the facts of universe reality to gain better perspective of reality for the living within THAT reality presented, no?
The study of the UB does not prevent or preclude the living of life….everyone lives life….and everyone makes choices in life….and do so by their perspective of life and their philosophy of living. The facts presented do not claim or require a belief in them for faith or progress in the Spirit….and yet it was given to us. Why so? If not to learn its contents and live accordingly?
I wonder if more truth might be experienced if one also knows of the cosmos and Deity and the relationships of all creatures so that every choice and experience can more fully and readily be recognized for its truth content, truthfulness, meanings, and value to the tadpole?
Why are you here if not to study the Revelation and to share the experience of its teachings? Merely to throw stones of disparagement? Has the UB helped you in your journey and experience and harvest of truth? If not, then it has no purpose or value for you. That would be you though.
As time goes on I have come to rely more and more on this quote from paper 16
There exists in all personality associations of the cosmic mind a quality which might be denominated the “reality response.” It is this universal cosmic endowment of will creatures which saves them from becoming helpless victims of the implied a priori assumptions of science, philosophy, and religion. This reality sensitivity of the cosmic mind responds to certain phases of reality just as energy-material responds to gravity. It would be still more correct to say that these supermaterial realities so respond to the mind of the cosmos.
if something don’t sound or feel right it probably isn’t.
no experience here with ACM but I’m looking for that attractor that could change things
Some more text on the “reality response” and its source….and the importance and value that a fact-based perspective is to our progress and education….reality matters and there are causes and effects which require our discernment…sooner or later. The UB was given to make the facts of universe reality known sooner. So our sources material for a unified philosophy of living should be carefully selected it reality attainment is our goal. We will always be students – always and forevermore – from the worlds of origin all the way to the billion educational spheres of Havona. Who would ever suggest the student should stop learning? As well as doing that we are taught? Am/nod has said the Revelation is dangerous and has chided students here and other places for their sincere study as though his superior understanding and choices are disappointed by those of others….who is doing what and who is not seems a particular obsession well documented. The inference and accusation in his post is part and parcel of a body of posted words of presumption IMO. Why does one with such opinions attend a study group I wonder?
16:6.5 (192.1) The cosmic mind unfailingly responds (recognizes response) on three levels of universe reality. These responses are self-evident to clear-reasoning and deep-thinking minds. These levels of reality are:
16:6.6 (192.2) 1. Causation — the reality domain of the physical senses, the scientific realms of logical uniformity, the differentiation of the factual and the nonfactual, reflective conclusions based on cosmic response. This is the mathematical form of the cosmic discrimination.
16:6.7 (192.3) 2. Duty — the reality domain of morals in the philosophic realm, the arena of reason, the recognition of relative right and wrong. This is the judicial form of the cosmic discrimination.
16:6.8 (192.4) 3. Worship — the spiritual domain of the reality of religious experience, the personal realization of divine fellowship, the recognition of spirit values, the assurance of eternal survival, the ascent from the status of servants of God to the joy and liberty of the sons of God. This is the highest insight of the cosmic mind, the reverential and worshipful form of the cosmic discrimination.
16:6.9 (192.5) These scientific, moral, and spiritual insights, these cosmic responses, are innate in the cosmic mind, which endows all will creatures. The experience of living never fails to develop these three cosmic intuitions; they are constitutive in the self-consciousness of reflective thinking. But it is sad to record that so few persons on Urantia take delight in cultivating these qualities of courageous and independent cosmic thinking.
16:6.10 (192.6) In the local universe mind bestowals, these three insights of the cosmic mind constitute the a priori assumptions which make it possible for man to function as a rational and self-conscious personality in the realms of science, philosophy, and religion. Stated otherwise, the recognition of the reality of these three manifestations of the Infinite is by a cosmic technique of self-revelation. Matter-energy is recognized by the mathematical logic of the senses; mind-reason intuitively knows its moral duty; spirit-faith (worship) is the religion of the reality of spiritual experience. These three basic factors in reflective thinking may be unified and co-ordinated in personality development, or they may become disproportionate and virtually unrelated in their respective functions. But when they become unified, they produce a strong character consisting in the correlation of a factual science, a moral philosophy, and a genuine religious experience. And it is these three cosmic intuitions that give objective validity, reality, to man’s experience in and with things, meanings, and values.
16:6.11 (192.7) It is the purpose of education to develop and sharpen these innate endowments of the human mind; of civilization to express them; of life experience to realize them; of religion to ennoble them; and of personality to unify them.Here’s another place where ACIM and TUB part ways. From Chapter 10 Section 5
If God knows His children as wholly sinless, it is blasphemous to perceive them as guilty. If God knows His children as wholly without pain, it is blasphemous to perceive suffering anywhere. If God knows His children to be wholly joyous, it is blasphemous to feel depressed. All of these illusions, and many other forms that blasphemy may take, are refusals to accept creation as it is. If God created His Son perfect, that is how you must learn to see him to learn of his reality. And as part of the Sonship, that is how you must see yourself to learn of yours.
Where to begin? It’s breathtaking in its error, really. If all of God’s children are created perfect and therefore without guilt, pain, suffering or depression, if all of God’s children are perfect and filled with joy, why did Jesus feel pain and suffer, why did he cry? If Helen is right, what is the role of guilt and suffering in this world? Surely it has a purpose. And low and behold, TUB explains what it is: it’s the way to become perfected, by being forged between the anvil of justice and the hammer of suffering. There’s a purpose in all of this which makes it in no way blasphemous at all, but truly holy. Helen is trying to tell us that if you feel at all guilty for having done something immoral, if you suffer the pain of illness or disease, if you are depressed over a loss, or anything less than jumping around for joy, you’re a blasphemer. She is asserting that anything short of rapture is a refusal to accept reality. Seems to me that she has not accepted reality herself. I personally cannot accept this stuff.
Here’s what I accept:
9:1.8 The universe of your origin is being forged out between the anvil of justice and the hammer of suffering; but those who wield the hammer are the children of mercy, the spirit offspring of the Infinite Spirit.
23:2.12 The confusion and turmoil of Urantia do not signify that the Paradise Rulers lack either interest or ability to manage affairs differently. The Creators are possessed of full power to make Urantia a veritable paradise, but such an Eden would not contribute to the development of those strong, noble, and experienced characters which the Gods are so surely forging out on your world between the anvils of necessity and the hammers of anguish. Your anxieties and sorrows, your trials and disappointments, are just as much a part of the divine plan on your sphere as are the exquisite perfection and infinite adaptation of all things to their supreme purpose on the worlds of the central and perfect universe.
3:5.14 9. Is pleasure–the satisfaction of happiness–desirable? Then must man live in a world where the alternative of pain and the likelihood of suffering are ever-present experiential possibilities.
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.