The Late Great Urantia Revelation

[Caino]

I acknowledge your abject concession of defeat on the points I have made, as evidenced by your complete lack of relevant counter-arguments.

I must protest regarding your No True Scotsman claims and spirituality. My spiritual experience is based on things that I can demonstrate to be true. Yours appears to be based on a crackpot's neighbour channeling space beings.

Each to their own, of course.

Stuart

That’s what’s obvious about you Stuu, you are dedicated to winning, what appears to be a factual argument, at the expense of spiritual truth. This exchange with you is one of many that we've had. My lack of rebuttal is more a lack of enthusiasm to engage an Atheist who is to proud to concede his own faith in the doctrines of materialism. You swat at gnats while swallowing camels, you claim that you rely strictly on provable science while failing to acknowledge the super material realm of the spirit, the dimension of Love, the origin of the very values of right and wrong that you so vehemently defend.

God is Love

"Science is a quantitative experience, religion a qualitative experience, as regards man’s life on earth. Science deals with phenomena; religion, with origins, values, and goals. To assign causes as an explanation of physical phenomena is to confess ignorance of ultimates and in the end only leads the scientist straight back to the first great cause — the Universal Father of Paradise."​

Caino

 

[dingodile]

See former post to you Here. Without a knowledge of what the Papers actually teach, your analysis is less than perfect.

If you did read it, you would probably remember significant aspects of the teaching, philosophy and cosmology, especially the first 12 Papers which is the core-context and cosmology of the entire revelation in essence. The Papers dealing with certain aspects of history/science/astromony later on in the succession of the papers were taken from human sources and paraphrased/expanded on. The commentaries on religious experience and man's eternal destiny relative to evolutionary progress and divine partnership, remain consistent and inspiring.

I read all 196 papers. I remember most of the main ideas, but I don't claim perfect knowledge, do you?

We were discussing the issue of plagiarism. That the Urantia Book author(s) have committed plagiarism is simply beyond dispute. If we can't even agree on that fact, without evasions such as "Let's assume for the sake of argument," then there's no point in going any further.

There are concepts and there are actual verbal expressions: texts. It is possible to use concepts from others without plagiarizing their words. I asked, "Does the Urantia Book contain truths that could not be conveyed without plagiarizing?" There has been no answer. I believe the answer is no.

Caino mentioned "There was a big lawsuit to break the copyright." He also wrote, "I do gather that the celestials might not be concerned with our man made rules of self accreditation of ideas and ideals in the created universe of our origin."

So let's understand this. The Urantia Book was itself protected by copyright. Whose idea was that? Did that come from the celestial authors, or just the humans of the Urantia Foundation? I'm going to assume that it was an instruction from the alleged celestials. So, we have celestial beings who are cynical enough to demand copyright protection for their own work while violating the copyright protection of others' work. They are apparently quite concerned with our "man made rules" when it comes to their own text. As I wrote above, this casts a large shadow of doubt on the identity and/or character of the authors.

The facts about the book are not entirely irrelevant to the value of its content. That's how it is with books--all books.

I'm not sure why the first 12 papers are supposed to be especially relevant to this. I've had a look at the Block site and I see that he is regularly adding to it. He seems to be working on the early papers now, and has found sources for paper 1. He's done quite a lot of work on papers 100-103, on the nature of religion and religious experience.

Your statement, "The Papers dealing with certain aspects of history/science/astromony later on in the succession of the papers were taken from human sources and paraphrased/expanded on," seems to imply that other content, not dealing with history, science, and astronomy, was not taken from human sources. If this was your intended meaning, it's false.

 

[Caino]

I read all 196 papers. I remember most of the main ideas, but I don't claim perfect knowledge, do you?

We were discussing the issue of plagiarism. That the Urantia Book author(s) have committed plagiarism is simply beyond dispute. If we can't even agree on that fact, without evasions such as "Let's assume for the sake of argument," then there's no point in going any further.

There are concepts and there are actual verbal expressions: texts. It is possible to use concepts from others without plagiarizing their words. I asked, "Does the Urantia Book contain truths that could not be conveyed without plagiarizing?" There has been no answer. I believe the answer is no.

Caino mentioned "There was a big lawsuit to break the copyright." He also wrote, "I do gather that the celestials might not be concerned with our man made rules of self accreditation of ideas and ideals in the created universe of our origin."

So let's understand this. The Urantia Book was itself protected by copyright. Whose idea was that? Did that come from the celestial authors, or just the humans of the Urantia Foundation? I'm going to assume that it was an instruction from the alleged celestials. So, we have celestial beings who are cynical enough to demand copyright protection for their own work while violating the copyright protection of others' work. They are apparently quite concerned with our "man made rules" when it comes to their own text. As I wrote above, this casts a large shadow of doubt on the identity and/or character of the authors.

The facts about the book are not entirely irrelevant to the value of its content. That's how it is with books--all books.

I'm not sure why the first 12 papers are supposed to be especially relevant to this. I've had a look at the Block site and I see that he is regularly adding to it. He seems to be working on the early papers now, and has found sources for paper 1. He's done quite a lot of work on papers 100-103, on the nature of religion and religious experience.

Your statement, "The Papers dealing with certain aspects of history/science/astromony later on in the succession of the papers were taken from human sources and paraphrased/expanded on," seems to imply that other content, not dealing with history, science, and astronomy, was not taken from human sources. If this was your intended meaning, it's false.

dingodile,

I hear your points, I'm trying to consider this in the moral way that the issue is being debated. You provided the definition of plagiarism:

"Plagiarism 1. an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author."

I do clearly see what you see, lines of words that are in some cases identical to various authors. But what I also see is the authors of the UB clearly acknowledging that they would do this. If they had not then this would be a very different issue to me.

They do not claim the anonymous source's as their own.

* I ponder, if the authors had something to hide or a scheme to conceal, why not just rearrange the words or state the ideas differently? It would be quite consistent with the talent of the authors exhibited in other areas of the papers to simply restate?

* And if they did source the author "Joe Blow" would that make the papers any more or less authoritative? What if "Joe Blow" the human source author turned out to be a drunken crack head who fondles small boys? What would that particular association do to this most recent presentation of truth?

Just my thoughts.



Caino

 

[dingodile]

"Plagiarism 1. an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author."

I do clearly see what you see, lines of words that are in some cases identical to various authors. But what I also see is the authors of the UB clearly acknowledging that they would do this. If they had not then this would be a very different issue to me.

They do not claim the anonymous source's as their own.

The definition doesn't require that the plagiarizer must explicitly claim the text as his own. It uses the term "representation". So how do authors represent text as their own?

The answer is simple. They represent text as their own by not differentiating it from text that they represent as being from others. How do they do this? They use quotation marks, or they use phrases like "I once read," or "as Shakespeare wrote" or something of the sort. In short, what you don't represent as the text of others you represent as your own. The Urantia Book, as I recall, does sometimes actually quote the work of others, in a way that makes it possible for the reader to know that this is happening. That's not plagiarism.

It's the use of the text of others, seamlessly woven into text that is the author's own, without any indication to the reader where this appropriation starts and stops, that is plagiarism. It's that failure that is the very mark of plagiarism.

* I ponder, if the authors had something to hide or a scheme to conceal, why not just rearrange the words or state the ideas differently? It would be quite consistent with the talent of the authors exhibited in other areas of the papers to simply restate?

I can't answer that. The fact that the plagiarism could have easily been avoided doesn't alter the fact that it's plagiarism.

* And if they did source the author "Joe Blow" would that make the papers any more or less authoritative? What if "Joe Blow" the human source author turned out to be a drunken crack head who fondles small boys? What would that particular association do to this most recent presentation of truth?

I can't answer that either. I suppose the fact that the author had to cite Joe the Crackhead wouldn't help the reputation of the book, but then again, the fact that the book includes plagiarism doesn't help it either, and that fact isn't going to go away.

Why plagiarize Joe the Crackhead or anyone else if you could convey the same concepts without plagiarizing anybody?

And why ask for copyright protection of your own text while violating the copyright protection of others' texts?

I can't answer these questions, but the questions themselves are serious enough for me to doubt that the author is to be trusted, no matter how appealing the message. That's why I don't bother with the Urantia Book anymore.

 

[Caino]

The definition doesn't require that the plagiarizer must explicitly claim the text as his own. It uses the term "representation". So how do authors represent text as their own?

The answer is simple. They represent text as their own by not differentiating it from text that they represent as being from others. How do they do this? They use quotation marks, or they use phrases like "I once read," or "as Shakespeare wrote" or something of the sort. In short, what you don't represent as the text of others you represent as your own. The Urantia Book, as I recall, does sometimes actually quote the work of others, in a way that makes it possible for the reader to know that this is happening. That's not plagiarism.

It's the use of the text of others, seamlessly woven into text that is the author's own, without any indication to the reader where this appropriation starts and stops, that is plagiarism. It's that failure that is the very mark of plagiarism.



I can't answer that. The fact that the plagiarism could have easily been avoided doesn't alter the fact that it's plagiarism.



I can't answer that either. I suppose the fact that the author had to cite Joe the Crackhead wouldn't help the reputation of the book, but then again, the fact that the book includes plagiarism doesn't help it either, and that fact isn't going to go away.

Why plagiarize Joe the Crackhead or anyone else if you could convey the same concepts without plagiarizing anybody?

And why ask for copyright protection of your own text while violating the copyright protection of others' texts?

I can't answer these questions, but the questions themselves are serious enough for me to doubt that the author is to be trusted, no matter how appealing the message. That's why I don't bother with the Urantia Book anymore.

Fair enough dingodile, I can't argue with that. Curiously, there are quotes in the UB that still have no reference source?

I was reading Dr Sadlers letter to Ellen White concerning his growing disillusion with her and her purported messages or testimonies. Helen White was shown to have plagiarized (claiming others work as her own) with no acknowledgment of any kind that she was barrowing other writings. In light of this letter and Saddlers deep concerns, devastating loss of faith, and ultimate disfellowship from the SDA movement, It all just seems very odd to me that he would turn and be related to any work with the same issue?

http://www.ubhistory.org/Documents/HG19060426_SadlerW_08.pdf

example of quotes: The myriads of planetary systems were all made to be eventually inhabited by many different types of intelligent creatures, beings who could know God, receive the divine affection, and love him in return. The universe of universes is the work of God and the dwelling place of his diverse creatures. “God created the heavens and formed the earth; he established the universe and created this world not in vain; he formed it to be inhabited.”

When this line is directly googled we can see that it is from the Bible, but which one, which translation? They are also all different.

http://www.google.com/search?q=God+created+the+heavens+and+formed+the+earth%3B+he+established+the+universe+and+created+this+world+not+in+vain%3B+he+formed+it+to+be+inhabited&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&rlz=1I7ADRA_enUS406

Caino

 

[freelight]

Your statement, "The Papers dealing with certain aspects of history/science/astromony later on in the succession of the papers were taken from human sources and paraphrased/expanded on," seems to imply that other content, not dealing with history, science, and astronomy, was not taken from human sources. If this was your intended meaning, it's false.

I've yet to read all of Matthew Block's work on the papers on 'religion', so my statement of which subjects the revelators drew from human sources did not include 'religion' which I acknowledge could be the case. Since the scrutiny seems to be mostly on 'science' recently, I accentuated that. There are concepts and terms that are unique to the UB however, such as the 'Thought Adjuster', 'morontial' realm of existence (inbetween the 'matterial' and 'spiritual'), aspects of cosmology, the divine heirarchy of angels/Sons of God/cosmic beings, Christological aspects, etc. All knowledge and terms in general in any subject would naturally be sourced and 'symbolized' in the collective of what we know and have experienced as humanity so far, for all added insight or revelation often builds upon the previous base of knowledge within any given subject.


My suggestion of reading the first 12 papers still stands, as it confirms and adds onto a basic Judeo-Christian/biblical theology expanding on it from a higher cosmic perspective...a 'context' that remains consistent thru-out the papers. See the subjects of these papers as 'fundamental' concerning the nature/character of God, desribing the members of the Paradise Trinity, Universe of universes, etc. Everything unfolds, evolves from within this context of 'God' and the 'cosmos' hence it being 'primary'.


pj

 

[Lost Comet]

I don't see the point of this debate about plagiarism. The belief that rights of ownership can or should be extended to texts whose purpose is to benefit humankind is stupid, counterproductive and unbelievably selfish and trivial.

Why can't we allow ourselves to be free to reflect on what stands on its own merit and reject the rest? To whom do we give credit for first saying, "God is the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere"? Does it matter? Or does it matter that it is true?

 

[dingodile]

I don't see the point of this debate about plagiarism. The belief that rights of ownership can or should be extended to texts whose purpose is to benefit humankind is stupid, counterproductive and unbelievably selfish and trivial.

Then those adjectives apply to the alleged celestial beings who supposedly directed the Urantia Foundation to get copyright protection for the Urantia Book.

Why can't we allow ourselves to be free to reflect on what stands on its own merit and reject the rest? To whom do we give credit for first saying, "God is the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere"? Does it matter? Or does it matter that it is true?

We're all free to make our own judgments, of course. I allow myself to judge that the hypocrisy of getting copyright protection for a book that violates the copyrights of others is a very good reason to doubt that the book is a real revelation.

 

[Aimiel]

There's NOTHING primary about Urantia fantasies. It's clearly simply a doctrine of demons, as are many works; for example: witchcraft, Scientology, the Book of Mormon, the Koran, Kabbalah, Christian Science, universal-ism and any new age heresy.

 

[freelight]

Then those adjectives apply to the alleged celestial beings who supposedly directed the Urantia Foundation to get copyright protection for the Urantia Book.


We're all free to make our own judgments, of course. I allow myself to judge that the hypocrisy of getting copyright protection for a book that violates the copyrights of others is a very good reason to doubt that the book is a real revelation.

Can you show or prove where the revelators directed anyone to get copyrights for the papers?

I dont recall this being the case,...any directives or intentions for a copyright of the papers were probably sponsored by humans. I'm aware of some controversy over the copyright issue, lawsuits, etc.....but its clear that the Papers came about as an epochal revelation to the planet, valuable for its message and content and was not concocted as a means to make money. Again, the value of the papers within its many subjects is determined by its readers. I find aspects of its cosmology, philosophy and theology fascinating as synthesizing the best principles of all religious traditions concerning man's place and destiny in the universe.


pj

 

[Lost Comet]

Then those adjectives apply to the alleged celestial beings who supposedly directed the Urantia Foundation to get copyright protection for the Urantia Book.

They did? And even if they did I'd say, "Yeah, so?"

We're all free to make our own judgments, of course. I allow myself to judge that the hypocrisy of getting copyright protection for a book that violates the copyrights of others is a very good reason to doubt that the book is a real revelation.

It is your judgment, then, that legalism has precedence over the merit of ideas. You would let the "hypocrisy" of the "celestials" deter you from expanding your awareness.

You are free to do that, of course, but like I said, it is stupid, counterproductive and unbelievably selfish and trivial.

 

[freelight]

What is essential......

What is essential......

They did? And even if they did I'd say, "Yeah, so?"

But the revelators would have no interest in obtaining a copyright (such would be more of a human interest, for publishing purposes, etc.) - their primary interest would be in the preservation of the material as it came thru, for the benefit of man.

It is your judgment, then, that legalism has precedence over the merit of ideas. You would let the "hypocrisy" of the "celestials" deter you from expanding your awareness.

You are free to do that, of course, but like I said, it is stupid, counterproductive and unbelievably selfish and trivial.

Bingo. It is the content, principles, values and meanings pertinent to our existence, religious experience and spiritual progress that are fundamental, which is continually emphasized by the celestials. Bickering over plagarism, copyrights and other technical issues is missing the forest for the trees, as the content of the Revelation as a whole is what is key.

Highly recommended for those interested is

A History of the Urantia Papers

by Larry Mullins
with Dr. Meredith J. Sprunger

Again,... content, context, principle, values and meanings as they pertain to man's existence, progress, evolution and destiny are KEY.


pj

 

[Lost Comet]

The introduction to your link pretty much says it all:

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.

I don't know about dingodile or Aimiel, but I live on a planet where people are bombarded by lies every day, not to mention being pulled in every direction by inane trivialities.

When we filter out all the crap, we are left with just one underlying truth: "God" is the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere. Each and every one of us is, is not, and yet is that which is in all things.

 

[Stuu]

That’s what’s obvious about you Stuu, you are dedicated to winning, what appears to be a factual argument, at the expense of spiritual truth. This exchange with you is one of many that we've had. My lack of rebuttal is more a lack of enthusiasm to engage an Atheist who is to proud to concede his own faith in the doctrines of materialism. You swat at gnats while swallowing camels, you claim that you rely strictly on provable science while failing to acknowledge the super material realm of the spirit, the dimension of Love, the origin of the very values of right and wrong that you so vehemently defend.

God is Love

What a load of fatuous platitudes. The worst of it is that the UB has stolen really amazing stuff from real people and turned that material into lame science fiction, mixed in with pseudo-religious fantasy conspiracy stories of space beings. Not only immoral, but sad.

Stuart

 

[dingodile]

But the revelators would have no interest in obtaining a copyright (such would be more of a human interest, for publishing purposes, etc.) - their primary interest would be in the preservation of the material as it came thru, for the benefit of man.

According to the History of the Urantia Papers that you highly recommend,

It seems clear that the Contact Commission was directed by the Revelators to get an international copyright for The Urantia Book. Both Histories state The Urantia Book was published under an international copyright on October 12, 1955. Dr. Sprunger clearly recalls both Christy and Dr. Sadler stating that they were directed to get an international copyright.
​

So it appears that the revelators did have an interest in obtaining a copyright. They just didn't have an interest in respecting the copyrights of others.

 

[dingodile]

It is your judgment, then, that legalism has precedence over the merit of ideas. You would let the "hypocrisy" of the "celestials" deter you from expanding your awareness.

I did read the Urantia Book, all of it. The hypocrisy of the celestials (why the quotation marks?) didn't deter me.

There are many ideas in the Urantia Book. The merit of many of them is impossible for me or any other mortal to assess, so I have to make a determination whether or not to trust the source.

I have done that.

You are free to do that, of course, but like I said, it is stupid, counterproductive and unbelievably selfish and trivial.

Insults, I suppose, are intelligent, productive, altruistic, and deep.

Anyway, I won't darken this thread any longer. I'm not on a mission to discredit the Urantia Book. I noticed the comments on plagiarism and decided to add my observations. I'll be on my way now.

 

[freelight]

According to the History of the Urantia Papers that you highly recommend,

It seems clear that the Contact Commission was directed by the Revelators to get an international copyright for The Urantia Book. Both Histories state The Urantia Book was published under an international copyright on October 12, 1955. Dr. Sprunger clearly recalls both Christy and Dr. Sadler stating that they were directed to get an international copyright.
​

So it appears that the revelators did have an interest in obtaining a copyright. They just didn't have an interest in respecting the copyrights of others.

Copyright issues vary in their complexities -

Copyright on religious works

They are necessary in some cases in publishing, especially if the integrity of the writing is to be protected.


pj

 

[freelight]

I did read the Urantia Book, all of it.

Seems doubtful, or you would have remembered what it actually teaches, have a familiarity with its cosmology, philosophical content, theology, special terms, integrity of principles, values, meanings.

The hypocrisy of the celestials (why the quotation marks?) didn't deter me

I see none. The content speaks for itself.



pj

 

[Caino]

What a load of fatuous platitudes. The worst of it is that the UB has stolen really amazing stuff from real people and turned that material into lame science fiction, mixed in with pseudo-religious fantasy conspiracy stories of space beings. Not only immoral, but sad.

Stuart

Your approach to reality and analysis of science and "truth" leaves a lot to be desired. You are blinded by your own ignorant hatred for religion. The UB hasn't stolen anything, that’s the self deceiving technique of your dishonest heart which allows you to live with denying truth from any spiritual work. Frankly, much of the source material that Block is finding is from obscure, out of print books, ideas that were, for all intents and purposes, lost to the world except for there selection as part of the Urantia Book and subsequent rediscovery. I’m satisfied that the UB does not claim human source material as its own, however there are a hell of a lot of questions that I would have for the celestials along these lines.

You could stand to learn a lesson from "dingodile" in mature, civil discourse. I'm sorry that you and I cannot get beyond your childish analogies.



Caino

 

[Lost Comet]

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.

The merit of many of [the ideas expressed in the UB are] impossible for me or any other mortal to assess, so I have to make a determination whether or not to trust the source.

That's a cop-out. It's not the source you don't trust, but you own "reality response."

The UB's copyrights have served to protect it long enough so that there can be no doubts in the minds of future generations as to what it actually says, and it does say it uses human sources wherever possible.

So, what I said is true: you are mindlessly and selfishly fishing for excuses to avoid seriously considering the merit the ideas it presents. If you have really read the book, one would think you would be willing to discuss the ideas with which you disagree instead of avoiding them altogether on the grounds that you "don't trust the source."

Side note: I wonder where dingodile gets his news. Newspapers? internet? TV? Where did he learn history? It is more than a little hypocritical to dismiss the UB on the grounds he does and then presume to know what goes on in the world either now or in the past.