The Late Great Urantia Revelation

[freelight]

I'm interested in truth. It's true that the Urantia Book I'd plagiarized. The question is: What are the implications of that?

The revelators admitted to using the existing base of human knowledge at that time, they borrowed those concepts and expanded on them...and only some parts of the papers reflect that. Dont forget much of what is original to the UB itself, and its vast expansions on religious philosophy and spiritual cosmology. It is pretty consistent as a whole, with its focus on spiritual progression and the ascension career of mortals.

I wouldn't describe myself as a biblical-oriented person. I'm unaware that the gospel authors sought copyright protection got their writings. But the authors of the Urantia Book did. So maybe they didn't regard it as trivial. If they did regard it as trivial, why did they want a copyright?

I think LC was meaning that the gospels are collections of writings that are attributed to matthew, mark, luke and john....but it cant be proved they were the authors beyond traditional assumptions and other references. I find the copyright thing as 'trivial',......as copyrights didnt exist back in Jesus day. The Urantia Foundation and those associated with the printing of the papers naturally sought to have the papers copyrighted to preserve the original record for future generations....its a pretty logical and moral procedure.


pj

 

[Lost Comet]

Of course they didn't have copyright laws when the books of the Bible were written. It was not uncommon to write something and attribute it to someone else on order to do him honor.

If they did had copyright laws, it would to see who would win the lawsuits between Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. (Maybe not John, as his writings clearly lean more to the "mystical.")

 

[jimofurantia]

UB plagiarism and copyright issues addressed

UB plagiarism and copyright issues addressed

There seems to be controversy over two issues that some believe speak to the authenticity and credibility of the Urantia Book.

I would like to address them here with the hopes my statements will be satisfactory to those who have expressed concerns.

On the issue of plagiarism , the authors state in the Forward of the book that whenever possible, they indeed did use 1,000 or so human sources in compiling the material, except in those cases where concepts which had not found previous expression in man's mind, did they choose to introduce new concepts. So, plainly stated, the authors say they took from the best minds possible and assembled the papers.

What does this mean? I would assume that since the unseen celestials might, or could have access to historical writings, thoughts or ideas culled from humanity, they would pick and choose from the best ideas as they have been expressed down through the ages. They made no attempt to hide the fact that they used human sources. I would add that in looking at comparative writings contrasting statements taken from human sources, boy, the authors did a great job at improving upon human statements.

On the issue of the copyright and why Dr. Sadler chose to do it, I believe the early concerns were that people would segregate the book into pieces, and that it was expressed by the midwayers the importance that the four sections of the book remain intact and not be presented out of context, which is why Harry McMullin was sued when he sought to publish the Jesus Papers in the late 90"s as a seperate book.

At this time the Urantia Book is considered to be in the public domain and so anyone can pretty much do what they wish. I seem to remember reading or hearing that Sadler only wanted to protect the copyright long enough so that as it spread and as it was translated the overall text of all 197 Papers would remain as it was originally intended until it was absorbed into the mainstream.

Historically, we can look at Scripture and see what happens over time when groups begin to pick and choose what they want to include and leave out. I believe the authors didn't want this to happen with the Urantia Book.

And on a final and personal note regarding its authenticity. While I do think many parts of the book are outlandish and unorthodox to the mainstream of contemporary religious thought, this doesn't necessarily mean its untrue. The one unique quality of the book I find, when you compare it to all other books, is that addresses two key things that all other religions can't or don't explain. 1. Intelligent life in abundance throughout the universe, and 2. what really happens when we die.

The late Dr Meredith Springer, himself as United Church of Christ Minister and avid reader and researcher of the Urantia Book said t best when he said, 'if reality as presented in the urantia book isn't true, it ought to be, or comes as close to it as it should be.'

In my opinion, the only real way for anyone to evaluate the book is to read it, but leave your cultural baggage at the door. Read it objectively, and then see if your perspective of life doesn't change for the better.

It may not be for everyone, but after 30 years of reading it, I find it completely satisfying, and it has enriched my relationship with God.

 

[Lost Comet]

Welcome, Jim.

All I can say is, "Damn! I wish I could be that articulate." :BRAVO:

 

[Stuu]

On the issue of plagiarism , the authors state in the Forward of the book that whenever possible, they indeed did use 1,000 or so human sources in compiling the material, except in those cases where concepts which had not found previous expression in man's mind, did they choose to introduce new concepts. So, plainly stated, the authors say they took from the best minds possible and assembled the papers.

The writing of the authors is the first expression of those never before seen ideas in the minds of humans. You are right that they took intellectual property without crediting their sources. That’s stealing.

What does this mean? I would assume that since the unseen celestials might, or could have access to historical writings, thoughts or ideas culled from humanity, they would pick and choose from the best ideas as they have been expressed down through the ages.

So you are somehow hoping readers here will accept your assumptions about the thoughts of space beings?

They made no attempt to hide the fact that they used human sources.

I see you have moved beyond “assumption” to bald assertions about space beings.

I would add that in looking at comparative writings contrasting statements taken from human sources, boy, the authors did a great job at improving upon human statements.

For example the assertion that the universe is older than 987,000,000,000 years?? Or the one that suggests the earth came from the sun?? What is it like to live in a fantasy world of history-denial?

On the issue of the copyright and why Dr. Sadler chose to do it, I believe the early concerns were that people would segregate the book into pieces, and that it was expressed by the midwayers the importance that the four sections of the book remain intact and not be presented out of context, which is why Harry McMullin was sued when he sought to publish the Jesus Papers in the late 90"s as a seperate book.

So we see that in fact they stole the intellectual property of others and did indeed seek to claim it as their own. There are many textbooks in which scientific intellectual property is presented, and on which copyright is claimed on behalf of the authors. Generally speaking, textbooks make some effort to acknowledge the human endeavour they describe. On the whole the original scientists would only be too pleased to contribute their work for the benefit of students using the text. But the Sadlers didn’t differentiate between the stolen material and the fantasy made-up material. So really they are defecating all over the work they stole by associating it with pseudoscience and poorly-written science fiction.

At this time the Urantia Book is considered to be in the public domain and so anyone can pretty much do what they wish. I seem to remember reading or hearing that Sadler only wanted to protect the copyright long enough so that as it spread and as it was translated the overall text of all 197 Papers would remain as it was originally intended until it was absorbed into the mainstream.

And how is that goal coming along? Is the UB mainstream? It’s probably as mainstream as Mein Kampf: It’s read only for a study in religious cults or taken seriously by nutcases.

And on a final and personal note regarding its authenticity. While I do think many parts of the book are outlandish and unorthodox to the mainstream of contemporary religious thought, this doesn't necessarily mean its untrue. The one unique quality of the book I find, when you compare it to all other books, is that addresses two key things that all other religions can't or don't explain. 1. Intelligent life in abundance throughout the universe, and 2. what really happens when we die.

Regarding 1, there is no evidence whatever that there is any intelligent life outside our atmosphere. So there is nothing to explain. With 2, the evidence says that when we die our bodies decay and the atoms get recycled. You seem to be confusing fantasy conspiracy stories with reality.

The late Dr Meredith Springer, himself as United Church of Christ Minister and avid reader and researcher of the Urantia Book said t best when he said, 'if reality as presented in the urantia book isn't true, it ought to be, or comes as close to it as it should be.'

So the universe OUGHT to be over 987,000,000,000 years old? The heavy elements in the earth that cannot be made by a star the size of our sun OUGHT nevertheless to have been made in our sun? I agree that as a manifesto for wishful thinking it might appeal to some.

In my opinion, the only real way for anyone to evaluate the book is to read it, but leave your cultural baggage at the door. Read it objectively, and then see if your perspective of life doesn't change for the better.

I did feel better for laughing out loud while I was reading it, so you might have a point here.

[It may not be for everyone, but after 30 years of reading it, I find it completely satisfying, and it has enriched my relationship with God.

You appear to be easily satisfied.

Stuart

 

[dingodile]

I would like to address them here with the hopes my statements will be satisfactory to those who have expressed concerns.

On the issue of plagiarism , the authors state in the Forward of the book that whenever possible, they indeed did use 1,000 or so human sources in compiling the material, except in those cases where concepts which had not found previous expression in man's mind, did they choose to introduce new concepts. So, plainly stated, the authors say they took from the best minds possible and assembled the papers.

This point has been made, and it has been refuted. If the goal is to move the discussion forward, then someone needs to show that the refutations are wrong.

Let's look at the matter carefully. In my first post on this subject I quoted a definition of plagiarism from dictionary.com:

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.
​

Do the authors or the UB use or closely imitate the language and thoughts of another author? Please note that "thoughts" are not "concepts." But in any case, let's confine ourselves to language, which is publicly observable. I've had a look through the Block web site and there are many, many examples to choose from, but I'll pick just one as a specimen:

From the UB:

100:1.4 The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole.
​

Source, Henry Nelson Wieman and Regina Westcott-Wieman, Normative Psychology of Religion (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1935) p. 281-282:

The quickest and surest way for a tadpole to grow frogly is to live the most meaningful life possible for a tadpole at his particular stage of development (W-W 281-82).​

In this case, a point is being made about the importance of living at one's own level of development, and not trying to be at a level that one hasn't yet reached. Notice that I just stated that point using my own words. The source authors, to make this point, use the analogy of the tadpole. The UB author makes the same point, using the same analogy, paraphrasing the language a bit. Is this just an isolated instance, a coincidence maybe?

Not likely. Block has documented many more in just this one paper. (click)

From the UB:

100:1.5 ...conscience is really the criticism of oneself by one’s own value-habits, personal ideals.
​

From the same source:

Conscience is the criticism of himself by his own value-habits and ideals
​

And so it goes. Block uses parallel columns to show that not only is the source text freely appropriated but also the sequence of thoughts is generally followed.

Did the source authors authorize this use of their writings? No. At least, no one has ever produced any evidence that they did.

Does the UB author credit the source authors? No. Merely saying that "human sources will be used" does not do the job. To credit them, you must at least identify them.

Does the UB author represent that source material as his own writing? Yes. How so? In the way that all plagiarists do: By failing to demarcate the appropriated material from the original material.

Does the UB ever explicitly indicate that it's using the language and thoughts of others? Yes. Quoted material, sometimes paraphrased, in quotation marks, is scattered throughout the UB. Although the sources of these are never identified, the use of quotation marks at least indicates that something is being quoted.

From the UB:

1:2.2 God is not a psychological focalization of spiritual meanings, neither is he "the noblest work of man."​

Quoted source:

In a spoof of Alexander Pope’s remark that “An honest man’s the noblest work of God,” Butler wrote, “An honest God’s the noblest work of man.” http://philosopedia.org/index.php/Samuel_Butler (the UB source is obviously Butler, not the Philosopedia)

In this case, the UB is not plagiarizing Butler. Even though he is not specifically identified, the use of quotation marks indicates to the reader that it's not written by the UB author, and the reader is expected to recognize it. This makes its frequent failure to demarcate sourced material more glaring. It's like the student who properly cites a few sources while plagiarizing many others.

No reputable publisher would publish a manuscript like this. If the editors discovered such extensive use of verbatim and paraphrased source material without demarcation or attribution, they would either give it back to the author and demand that that material either be removed or properly cited. Why? Because it's both unethical and financially risky to the publisher.

They made no attempt to hide the fact that they used human sources.

By failing, again and again, to indicate that source text was being appropriated, they did in fact hide it. And the fact that sourced material is occasionally displayed in quotation marks heightens the concealment when it isn't. Again, merely stating that human sources would be used doesn't alter this. Moreover--and this is important--it's perfectly possible to use human sources without plagiarizing them. That's why I've stated in previous postings that the plagiarism is gratuitous. There is no plausible way it can be argued that the ideas being conveyed could only be conveyed by using paraphrased language.

Historically, we can look at Scripture and see what happens over time when groups begin to pick and choose what they want to include and leave out. I believe the authors didn't want this to happen with the Urantia Book.

Yet the UB author felt free to cherry-pick text from human sources, leaving out what he didn't like, altering what he did like. In short, the UB author did some of the very things that he didn't want others to be able to do with the UB: Take pieces of it, modify them, rearrange them, and publish them without authorization or attribution.

That is hypocrisy.

For these reasons, I regard it as a well-documented fact that the UB is a work of massive plagiarism. The significance of that fact is another question, but if we can't even agree on the fact of plagiarism there's not much point in going any further.

 

[Aimiel]

Being of demonic origin and given that demons have no creative ability they MUST rob ideas, thoughts, concepts and even phrases to make communication possible. Their nature is to steal, kill and destroy. Their work shows that. They steal words from others, they kill faith in God by attempting to destroy the preeminence of His Son and making His Blood into nothing. The work of Urantia isn't from God, quite obviously. He reinforces His Word and never goes back on It. This work doesn't lend to His Word but robs it, clearly.

 

[Lost Comet]

It seems some people prefer to say, "To hell with Reality! I live for drama and controversy!"

 

[freelight]

It seems some people prefer to say, "To hell with Reality! I live for drama and controversy!"

Back to point of view. The UB used the then present day scaffolding of human knowledge and expanded it within a greater cosmic field of actuals and potentials. The universe values and meanings still hold, and are further unfolding in our progressive experience, and this is what is key when looking at this particular 'epochal revelation'. Its a matter of 'seeing' really. All these other bunny trails being shot at here are rather trivial.

~*~*~

100:2.2 Spiritual growth is first an awakening to needs, next a discernment of meanings, and then a discovery of values. The evidence of true spiritual development consists in the exhibition of a human personality motivated by love, activated by unselfish ministry, and dominated by the wholehearted worship of the perfection ideals of divinity. And this entire experience constitutes the reality of religion as contrasted with mere theological beliefs.

100:2.3 Religion can progress to that level of experience whereon it becomes an enlightened and wise technique of spiritual reaction to the universe. Such a glorified religion can function on three levels of human personality: the intellectual, the morontial, and the spiritual; upon the mind, in the evolving soul, and with the indwelling spirit.

- UB

Definition of 'morontial' or 'morontia' Here


pj

 

[Stuu]

Back to point of view. The UB used the then present day scaffolding of human knowledge and expanded it within a greater cosmic field of actuals and potentials. The universe values and meanings still hold, and are further unfolding in our progressive experience, and this is what is key when looking at this particular 'epochal revelation'. Its a matter of 'seeing' really. All these other bunny trails being shot at here are rather trivial.

100:2.2 Spiritual growth is first an awakening to needs, next a discernment of meanings, and then a discovery of values. The evidence of true spiritual development consists in the exhibition of a human personality motivated by love, activated by unselfish ministry, and dominated by the wholehearted worship of the perfection ideals of divinity. And this entire experience constitutes the reality of religion as contrasted with mere theological beliefs.

100:2.3 Religion can progress to that level of experience whereon it becomes an enlightened and wise technique of spiritual reaction to the universe. Such a glorified religion can function on three levels of human personality: the intellectual, the morontial, and the spiritual; upon the mind, in the evolving soul, and with the indwelling spirit.

- UB

Definition of 'morontial' or 'morontia' Here

THE MORONTIA LIFE
I. MORONTIA DEFINED

1. Morontia is the realm between the material and the spiritual.

“Morontia is a term designating a vast level intervening between the material and the spiritual. It may designate personal or impersonal realities, living or nonliving energies. The warp of morontia is spiritual; its woof is physical.” (9.2) 0:5.12

2. Bridges the gulf between mortal origin and spiritual status.

“Much of the reality of the spiritual worlds is of the morontia order, a phase of universe reality wholly unknown on Urantia. The goal of personality existence is spiritual, but the morontia creations always intervene, bridging the gulf between the material realms of mortal origin and the superuniverse spheres of advancing spiritual status. It is in this realm that the Master Spirits make their great contribution to the plan of man’s Paradise ascension.” (189.7) 16:4.6

Have highlighted the platitudes for you. They mean nothing. They are the charlatan's phrases for the gullible. The joy of laughter at reading a human's attempt to start a new religion is tempered by the harsh reality that idiots will actually take that human seriously. But they are taken in by grand-sounding, empty words. The real tragedy is the abuse of language.

Stuart

 

[dingodile]

Back to point of view. The UB used the then present day scaffolding of human knowledge and expanded it within a greater cosmic field of actuals and potentials. The universe values and meanings still hold, and are further unfolding in our progressive experience, and this is what is key when looking at this particular 'epochal revelation'. Its a matter of 'seeing' really. All these other bunny trails being shot at here are rather trivial.

What I understand you to mean here is that if the UB, or any other text, manages to convey to a reader something of what that reader believes are true "universe values and meanings," then all concerns about the origin of the text are trivial.

This position is utterly relativistic. It makes the individual reader's response to the text the only indicator of truth.

Plagiarism is not trivial. It tells us something about the character of the author. Knowing something about the character of the author affects, or should affect, how we view the text, especially when it claims to speak with authority on matters that we can't investigate for ourselves.

 

[Aimiel]

It clearly demonstrates that we should view the text as: worthless garbage.

 

[freelight]

truth is relative...as far as it can be 'related'

truth is relative...as far as it can be 'related'

What I understand you to mean here is that if the UB, or any other text, manages to convey to a reader something of what that reader believes are true "universe values and meanings," then all concerns about the origin of the text are trivial.

This position is utterly relativistic. It makes the individual reader's response to the text the only indicator of truth.

Universal values and meanings are already realities...cognizant to man because they have their origin in his Creator, the source of all truth and reality. Also there is in man a fragment of 'God' (the Thought-Adjuster) that may illumine the soul. Furthermore there is the Spirit of Truth as well, poured out on our planet that continues to lead and guide.

Plagiarism is not trivial. It tells us something about the character of the author. Knowing something about the character of the author affects, or should affect, how we view the text, especially when it claims to speak with authority on matters that we can't investigate for ourselves.

Already addressed the false 'charge' of plagiarism.

From The Foreward -

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

0:12.10 In formulating the succeeding presentations having to do with the portrayal of the character of the Universal Father and the nature of his Paradise associates, together with an attempted description of the perfect central universe and the encircling seven superuniverses, we are to be guided by the mandate of the superuniverse rulers which directs that we shall, in all our efforts to reveal truth and co-ordinate essential knowledge, give preference to the highest existing human concepts pertaining to the subjects to be presented. We may resort to pure revelation only when the concept of presentation has had no adequate previous expression by the human mind.

0:12.11 Successive planetary revelations of divine truth invariably embrace the highest existing concepts of spiritual values as a part of the new and enhanced co-ordination of planetary knowledge. Accordingly, in making these presentations about God and his universe associates, we have selected as the basis of these papers more than one thousand human concepts representing the highest and most advanced planetary knowledge of spiritual values and universe meanings. Wherein these human concepts, assembled from the God-knowing mortals of the past and the present, are inadequate to portray the truth as we are directed to reveal it, we will unhesitatingly supplement them, for this purpose drawing upon our own superior knowledge of the reality and divinity of the Paradise Deities and their transcendent residential universe.

0:12.12 We are fully cognizant of the difficulties of our assignment; we recognize the impossibility of fully translating the language of the concepts of divinity and eternity into the symbols of the language of the finite concepts of the mortal mind. But we know that there dwells within the human mind a fragment of God, and that there sojourns with the human soul the Spirit of Truth; and we further know that these spirit forces conspire to enable material man to grasp the reality of spiritual values and to comprehend the philosophy of universe meanings. But even more certainly we know that these spirits of the Divine Presence are able to assist man in the spiritual appropriation of all truth contributory to the enhancement of the ever-progressing reality of personal religious experience—God-consciousness.

0:12.13 [Indited by an Orvonton Divine Counselor, Chief of the Corps of Superuniverse Personalities assigned to portray on Urantia the truth concerning the Paradise Deities and the universe of universes. ]



pj

 

[dingodile]

Already addressed the false 'charge' of plagiarism.

I have already explained in detail why the charge is neither false nor truly addressed by the statement in the UB. No one has attempted yet to show any fault in my reasoning.

I can well understand why no one might want to continue the topic, but it just won't do to suggest that the UB's statements about its sources show that there was no plagiarism. It wouldn't work for any humanly authored work; it doesn't work for an allegedly celestially authored work either. It especially doesn't work in a text that actually quotes other sources, indicating clearly that it's doing so.

The way the written language works is clear: quotation marks are used to demarcate the author's words from those that are from someone else. The UB uses quotation marks in just this way, showing that it sometimes confirms to the rules of written English. But it also fails to use them, hundreds of not thousands of times.

That's plagiarism.

And in doing this the UB author uses those sources in precisely the same way that the UB's own copyright seeks to prevent.

That's hypocrisy.

Finally, unless someone can point to some ideas that couldn't be conveyed without plagiarizing, the plagiarism is completely avoidable and therefore gratuitous. No one has yet attempted to show that the plagiarism was somehow unavoidable. The requirement to "use human concepts whenever possible" has nothing to do with it, since concepts are not texts.

 

[Lost Comet]

...It makes the individual reader's response to the text the only indicator of truth.

It's interesting you would say that considering you claim to have read the entire book.

2:7.1 All finite knowledge and creature understanding are relative. Information and intelligence, gleaned from even high sources, is only relatively complete, locally accurate, and personally true.

 

[freelight]

. The requirement to "use human concepts whenever possible" has nothing to do with it, since concepts are not texts.

The human concepts were naturally drawn from the best existing bodies (texts) of that time period. The best sources in human language were logically used, paraphrased, expanded on and put within the greater cosmological context of an enhanced revelation of knowledge.

Matthew Block's research and article here treat the subject well. Parallels on many of the Papers with other texts of knowledge are charted (left column).


pj

 

[freelight]

truth-perception

truth-perception

It's interesting you would say that considering you claim to have read the entire book.


2:7.1 All finite knowledge and creature understanding are relative. Information and intelligence, gleaned from even high sources, is only relatively complete, locally accurate, and personally true.

Also:

0:3.20 - REALITY, as comprehended by finite beings, is partial, relative, and shadowy. The maximum Deity reality fully comprehensible by evolutionary finite creatures is embraced within the Supreme Being. Nevertheless there are antecedent and eternal realities, superfinite realities, which are ancestral to this Supreme Deity of evolutionary time-space creatures. In attempting to portray the origin and nature of universal reality, we are forced to employ the technique of time-space reasoning in order to reach the level of the finite mind.

It is inevitable within space-time perception and the limited finite character of creature-capacity....that 'reality' is conditioned and 'relative' by point of view. Beyond an absolute knowledge of eternal reality, perceptions are 'relative'.


pj

 

[dingodile]

The human concepts were naturally drawn from the best existing bodies (texts) of that time period. The best sources in human language were logically used, paraphrased, expanded on and put within the greater cosmological context of an enhanced revelation of knowledge.

And they were plagiarized.

These sources could easily have been used without plagiarizing. They could have been expanded upon and put within a greater cosmological context without plagiarizing. Nevertheless, they were plagiarized.

It's not the fact that human sources were used that is problematic; it's how they were used.

Let's take another of Block's examples, from Paper 91 -- The Evolution of Prayer:

UB Text:

Very much of an adult’s thinking is mentally carried on in conversational form.
​

Human source (Wright):

Adults similarly carry on much of their private thought in conversational form.​

So Wright's point is that a great deal of the thinking of adult human beings takes the form of internalized speech. It's a simple point. Does the UB expand on it much, or put it into a broader cosmological context? Not really. In fact, the sentence quoted here is embedded in a nearly identical context in both texts. It's obviously plagiarized. But was it a point that really couldn't be conveyed without using those same words? No. The proof is that I just conveyed it, in my own words, italicized above. If I can do it, so can the allegedly supermortal authors.

They just didn't bother.

UB text:

Prayer has been the ancestor of much peace of mind, cheerfulness, calmness, courage, self-mastery, and fair-mindedness in the men and women of the evolving races.
​

Human source (Wright):

Peace of mind, calmness, cheerfulness, wisdom, courage, selfmastery, fairmindedness in dealing with others, and all other moral virtues are open to him who prays​

Here again, the plagiarism is unmistakable. The UB "expands" the point by adding a reference to the evolving races, and subtracts wisdom from the list of benefits of prayer.

And of course, as you look at Block's study, it's not only the source text that is intermittently plagiarized; it's also the general structure and sequence of the presentation.

So, let's grant that Wright's The Efficacy of Prayer is one of the "highest" human texts on the subject of prayer. Am I expected to believe that celestial authors could do no better than to compose a loose paraphrase of it, intermittently plagiarizing as they did so?

I don't believe it, since I know full well that any competent human author could convey they same points without plagiarizing.

The fact and extent of the plagiarism in the UB have to be recognized for what they are: evidence against celestial authorship.

 

[Aimiel]

The simple fact that demons have no creativity and must steal in order to communicate is obvious in the texts. It's not just a clue that what they've inspired is error but it's also blatantly erroneous to think of the lowest form of life there is (demons) as a higher form of life. They're 'celestial' beings, but they're not from a Heavenly source, since they come from hell and have nothing but stealing, killing and destroying in mind.

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; and having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.

Those of us who are Christian don't hate those who aren't, since they're human just like we are. We hate the spirit behind what they do. The spirit in them hates The Spirit Who is in us and will do anything to try to thwart the works of God.

 

[freelight]

Research parellels.......

Research parellels.......

The fact and extent of the plagiarism in the UB have to be recognized for what they are: evidence against celestial authorship.

I think Block may have a different opinion than you....even after all his research. So do thousands of other readers. But each are free to decide upon the value of the papers for themselves

So far I have traced parallels in about fifty of the Urantia Papers. One book alone, Origin and Evolution of Religion by Yale professor E. Washburn Hopkins, figures in twelve. I estimate that writings published before 1936 are used in about one-third of Parts I and II and in at least two-thirds of Parts III and IV. Most of these works will probably be found within the next few years. Eventually we will be able to map out the whole Urantia Book according to which parts are original with the book and which are not. And, again, this will not be too difficult since the revelators, while studiously avoiding word-for-word borrowings, made no attempt to disguise their sources by departing widely from the original human expressions.

Clearly, these findings are of great importance to serious Urantia Book readers. In addition to providing further substantiation of the revelators’ acknowledgments, they spark new insights into what this revelation really is, and how human and superhuman voices and viewpoints interface in its production. As we gain a better grasp of how original it is (in its function as pure revelation), and how derivative it is (in its function of presenting superhuman restatements of human concepts and expressions), we will be better able to see how the revelation positions itself with regard to evolutionary human knowledge, wisdom, and faith.

My own experience has taught me that, as a result of my former ignorance and underestimation of early 20th century thought, my sense of this positioning had been skewed. If unfamiliar with a concept or a piece of information presented in the papers —especially if it struck me as uncommonly beautiful, brilliant, or incisive—I would usually assume it was original with the Urantia Book, little realizing that it might have been known or expressed in some form or other, by some people of earlier generations. But in becoming more familiar with thought trends of that period and others, and with the discovery of more human sources, I’ve come to a better appreciation of the higher reaches of human thought reflected in the book, and can now begin to give the book’s human side its proper due.

Along with this heightened recognition of the book’s human component has come an awareness of how brilliantly the revelators reworked these sources to serve their own purposes. In comparing the source materials with the corresponding passages in the Urantia Book, I am continually struck by the presenters’ ingenious ability to seamlessly integrate human observations with revelatory supplementation or correction. Time and again they prove themselves deft and creative editors, performing the difficult task of remaining true to the original expression while at the same time slightly altering it to make the reworded sentence(s) more congruent with revealed teachings.

-Matthew Block, 1992

I'll have to research any current articles by Block to see if his view has changed any with recent findings.

- Source



pj