-
Posts
-
From 101:4.1 above:
Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented.
Why would there be errors regarding the cosmos in The Urantia Book from revelators? Would it be more correct to say mortals discover there is more than what is revealed?
Hi Mark,
Personally I don’t believe there are errors in the UB but I’ve been dealing with this problem for some time now. A lot of people who are curious about the UB have told me that they have rejected it because the science (cosmology) doesn’t add up for them. It doesn’t meet their understanding of what current scientific evidence or theory support.
And there’s no gettin’ around this problem.
I think what the revelators are saying in 101:4.1 is that the revelatory limitations set on them, on the one hand, forces them to reveal some things only up to and not beyond the current discoveries that we had in 1935 for example with Mercury’s axial rotation, and on the other, revealing things that go way beyond current conventional scientific theory, as in the case of the evolution and migrations of man.
This sets the entire thing for people who have a leaning towards fanaticism with science to be in that department where the baby has to be thrown out with the bathwater.
But fortunately, and this is the case for me, there is a way around all this. We know it as FAITH.
From 101:4.1 above: Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented.Why would there be errors regarding the cosmos in The Urantia Book from revelators? Would it be more correct to say mortals discover there is more than what is revealed?Hi Mark. I think your answer is in the context of the entire paragraph, as follows:4. The Limitations of Revelation101:4.1 (1109.2) Because your world is generally ignorant of origins, even of physical origins, it has appeared to be wise from time to time to provide instruction in cosmology. And always has this made trouble for the future. The laws of revelation hamper us greatly by their proscription of the impartation of unearned or premature knowledge. Any cosmology presented as a part of revealed religion is destined to be outgrown in a very short time. Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented.
Thank you Mara, but it is the word “errors” and in the context “cosmologies therein presented”— in the revelation. This is the basis of my question. Perhaps midwayers do err?
From 101:4.1 above:
Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented.
Why would there be errors regarding the cosmos in The Urantia Book from revelators? Would it be more correct to say mortals discover there is more than what is revealed?
Yes Mark….very curious. If incomplete (like a 101 textbook vs. 201), why not say “incomplete”? They use the word “errors” and I have found the use of language pretty precise and intentional.
I’ve had many an argument over the phrase “not inspired” as well (“The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired.”) ….which means to some “a falsehood” but to me means factual and from the horse’s mouth so to speak. Inspired to me means from the human mind, not the celestial mind of the authors. The Psalms are inspired. The highest human concepts found in the UB by unattributed ” ” quote marks indicates that which was/is inspired. The facts of Epochal Revelation are not inspired….they are fact delivered to reduce confusion and eliminate error!!
We are clearly told that history presented is factual and will stand the test of time.
Quite a perplexion!!
I am most amused by those who seek out and claim errors in the UB with great gusto and agenda who pick out every example of conflict and contradiction with current or recent scientific theories. Some students appear to have far more confidence in current scientific theory than science itself does!!! The scientific method works best to disprove prior theoretical constructs of observation and measurement.
Science believes (mostly) in the original singularity which newer observations/measurements prove false making way for newer theories, now including intelligent management and multiple and on-going creationism. Old science claims stellar distances by a steady speed of light in a local vacuum…now proven to be misleading and false – an inaccurate measurement of time and distance both. Carbon dating has changed the historical record multiple times in the past few decades for many items and issues. Science still seeks the nonexistent missing link. The list goes on and on and on.
The point being that despite the disclaimer of the UB authors, those who attempt to prove any such errors merely by current scientific ‘evidence’ and ‘theory’ are doomed to disappointment…and soon! Don’t know what “errors” do exist or if any have truly been confirmed by the scientific method…but we are told this will occur sooner or later. We are advised to not be too perturbed when it occurs.
101:4.5 (1109.6) Truth may be but relatively inspired, even though revelation is invariably a spiritual phenomenon. While statements with reference to cosmology are never inspired, such revelations are of immense value in that they at least transiently clarify knowledge by:
101:4.6 (1109.7) 1. The reduction of confusion by the authoritative elimination of error.
101:4.7 (1109.8) 2. The co-ordination of known or about-to-be-known facts and observations.
101:4.8 (1110.1) 3. The restoration of important bits of lost knowledge concerning epochal transactions in the distant past.
101:4.9 (1110.2) 4. The supplying of information which will fill in vital missing gaps in otherwise earned knowledge.
101:4.10 (1110.3) 5. Presenting cosmic data in such a manner as to illuminate the spiritual teachings contained in the accompanying revelation.
So…what is inspired? And what is not?
Personal revelation received is inspired to me….through the mind to the being. Personal revelation expressed by word or deed is often inspiring….that which is created as an expression of mind and its abilities for insight and understanding and perspective that we may communicate to others. Something we will receive much education and training for in the adventures ahead…here and there!
How are epochal and personal revelation different? The same or similar?
Thank you Mara, but it is the word “errors” and in the context “cosmologies therein presented”— in the revelation. This is the basis of my question.
Hi Mark. I think your question about midwayers is a separate question.
I’ve been thinking about your first question. In particular I’ve been thinking about “. . . errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented.”
(Here is what Merriam-Webster has to say about cosmology: “Cosmology definition, the branch of philosophy dealing with the origin and general structure of the universe, with its parts, elements, and laws, and especially with such of its characteristics as space, time, causality, and freedom, etc. ” Here is another definition: “Cosmology is a branch of astronomy that involves the origin and evolution of the universe, from the Big Bang to today and on into the future.” And there are other definitions if you google cosmology.)
In reality, The Urantia Book itself directs readers to understand this: “Truth remains unchanged from generation to generation, but the associated teachings about the physical world vary from day to day and from year to year. ”
102:1.3 Owing to the isolation of rebellion, the revelation of truth on Urantia has all too often been mixed up with the statements of partial and transient cosmologies. Truth remains unchanged from generation to generation, but the associated teachings about the physical world vary from day to day and from year to year. Eternal truth should not be slighted because it chances to be found in company with obsolete ideas regarding the material world. The more of science you know, the less sure you can be; the more of religion you have, the more certain you are.Actually the definition of “cosmology” changed dramatically in the early 30’s to then become dominated by the big bang theory and by a significant reduction of prior meanings.
Religious and philosophical definitions were integral to the scientific definition prior to the 30’s when secular science finally declared itself godless…officially it seems.
True cosmology includes origins, causes, relationships, process, and destinies…..all of which is contrary to the newer definition imposed by secular, godless science based entirely, today, on falsehoods of premise and foundation.
So the cosmology presented to the heathens and primitives in Dalmatia’s schools and the schools of the Garden and by Big Mac and by the Master (the first 4 epochal revelations) were likely each progressively different….and would be throughout each Mortal Epoch described in the UB.
Well said Bradly. I wish I had more time to comment further on the subject but too busy right now.
Btw, did you know that our friend Larry Watkins over at TB passed away last month?
Yes Enno, I read that too about Larry….a truly dedicated servant of the Revelation and its dissemination…and one who gave me frequent, and well deserved rebuke! My condolences to those who love and miss him….and congratulations to Larry on his successful graduation. We’ll see him up the Glory Road!
Everyone feel free to revisit the ‘error’ and ‘not inspired’ issues as you wish…and again, take the topical study here in any direction and with any supporting text, experiences, and opinions you might contribute.
5. Religion Expanded by Revelation
101:5.1 (1110.4) Revelation is a technique whereby ages upon ages of time are saved in the necessary work of sorting and sifting the errors of evolution from the truths of spirit acquirement.
Me here: There is no distinction here between personal/auto revelation and the epochal variety so I assume that the authors are saying that both forms of revelation, the one which delivers insights and confirmations of truths discerned (personal) and the other which delivers facts and knowledge of reality (epochal), are required and normal on all material worlds and it is revelation that works to propel humanity through the Mortal Epochs. Without the Prince and Garden and Magisterial and Teacher Sons and the Spirits of the Father and Son, humans would languish in barbarity and primitivism endlessly perhaps. Revelation is the delivery mechanism for progress…both personal and thusly, socially and culturally too…as go the parts, so goes the whole.
There’s been much speculation as to the utilization of the device of a book as a form of Epochal Revelation over the years. I’ve always found it very practical and logical myself. Our world has no material leadership to represent universe reality as example or teacher or authority due to reasons known well enough here among us. But the libraries and classrooms of the Garden and Dalmatia would be filled with such text books as the UB on every fact and topic presented to us in the UB today….such knowledge and facts on reality would be as common as the Bible and Cat in the Hat are in the USA…not just in those two centers of learning either, but in homes and libraries throughout the world wherever the radial effects of education and knowledge took such information about universe realities.
Those texts and in-person teachings and education would be restricted in their developmental presentations of knowledge based on the restrictions and constraints of all revelation presented incrementally to native mortals, as described in the prior text considered here.
But consider the conundrum of our planetary leadership now….those who do not awe and overwhelm by signs and wonders and who will not reveal that which is not evolutionarily digestible….how do they now deliver epochal revelation to such a world? A book….of course. A seed of fact and truth planted in the soil of time….and mind.
101:5.2 (1110.5) Science deals with facts; religion is concerned only with values. Through enlightened philosophy the mind endeavors to unite the meanings of both facts and values, thereby arriving at a concept of complete reality. Remember that science is the domain of knowledge, philosophy the realm of wisdom, and religion the sphere of the faith experience. But religion, nonetheless, presents two phases of manifestation:
101:5.3 (1110.6) 1. Evolutionary religion. The experience of primitive worship, the religion which is a mind derivative.
101:5.4 (1110.7) 2. Revealed religion. The universe attitude which is a spirit derivative; the assurance of, and belief in, the conservation of eternal realities, the survival of personality, and the eventual attainment of the cosmic Deity, whose purpose has made all this possible. It is a part of the plan of the universe that, sooner or later, evolutionary religion is destined to receive the spiritual expansion of revelation.
101:5.5 (1110.8) Both science and religion start out with the assumption of certain generally accepted bases for logical deductions. So, also, must philosophy start its career upon the assumption of the reality of three things:
101:5.6 (1110.9) 1. The material body.
101:5.7 (1110.10) 2. The supermaterial phase of the human being, the soul or even the indwelling spirit.
101:5.8 (1110.11) 3. The human mind, the mechanism for intercommunication and interassociation between spirit and matter, between the material and the spiritual.
. . . I assume that the authors are saying that both forms of revelation, the one which delivers insights and confirmations of truths discerned (personal) and the other which delivers facts and knowledge of reality (epochal), . . .
I don’t understand this. Are you saying that epochal revelation is about intellectual facts and knowledge?
Inspired to me means from the human mind, . . .
What does this mean? What kind of inspiration are you referring to?
. . . I assume that the authors are saying that both forms of revelation, the one which delivers insights and confirmations of truths discerned (personal) and the other which delivers facts and knowledge of reality (epochal), . . .
I don’t understand this. Are you saying that epochal revelation is about intellectual facts and knowledge?
In 101:4.5-10 below it is clear that epochal revelation is or certainly can be facts and knowledge, yes. The UB is filled with many tens of thousands of facts….about God, creation, beings, circuits, physics, history, relationships, sources, destinies, mind, spirit, evolution, progress, etc., etc.
101:4.5 (1109.6) Truth may be but relatively inspired, even though revelation is invariably a spiritual phenomenon. While statements with reference to cosmology are never inspired, such revelations are of immense value in that they at least transiently clarify knowledge by:
101:4.6 (1109.7) 1. The reduction of confusion by the authoritative elimination of error.
101:4.7 (1109.8) 2. The co-ordination of known or about-to-be-known facts and observations.
101:4.8 (1110.1) 3. The restoration of important bits of lost knowledge concerning epochal transactions in the distant past.
101:4.9 (1110.2) 4. The supplying of information which will fill in vital missing gaps in otherwise earned knowledge.
101:4.10 (1110.3) 5. Presenting cosmic data in such a manner as to illuminate the spiritual teachings contained in the accompanying revelation.Each of the 4 prior ER’s delivered many a fact to humanity….the third to restore the fact of monotheism or the First Source and Center and the Master’s fourth to restore the fact of God’s love, paternal nature, and the resulting family of the friendly universe and the eternal nature of the human soul….life everlasting by resurrection of the soul.
Such facts and knowledge “illuminate” the spiritual teachings which accompany the facts/knowledge presented and also illuminate the truths discovered by personal revelation as well….or so I understand.
Our world’s scientific, religious, and philosophic perspectives are all in need of some universe reality adjustments – facts and knowledge about how things truly are and operate and the inherent relationships between the 3 aspects of perspective with and participation in reality…..or so I understand.
Now I have heard some claim that they receive facts from their TA or by divine communications/visions/voices, etc. I don’t believe these claims. By my understanding, personal revelation and the Spirits within of its only available sources are not in the business of such knowledge imparting….theirs is the business of spiritization and truth and wisdom and Circle Progress and soul building….none of which depends upon facts or knowledge of facts but, rather, depends upon faith and the relationship of mind to Spirit.
Again….this is but my understanding of the teachings….not a declaration of fact (yes, pun intended)!
In 101:4.5-10 below it is clear that epochal revelation is or certainly can be facts and knowledge, yes. The UB is filled with many tens of thousands of facts….about God, creation, beings, circuits, physics, history, relationships, sources, destinies, mind, spirit, evolution, progress, etc., etc.
Epochal revelation may include facts and knowledge, but is that what epochal revelation is really all about? Were Jesus and Melchizedek about facts and knowledge?
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.