Jump to content
Urantia Book Forum, conversations with other readers
Nigel Nunn

Old Soul's "infallibility" poll

Recommended Posts

Hi Mods,

 

I have set invisible Old Soul's "infallibility" poll (Link : infallible poll).

I just sent him the following personal message (PM). What do you think?

Nigel

 

Dear Old Soul,

 

You started a thread of discussion with the title "The Urantia Book, Infalible or not?"

Link for moderators: infallible poll

 

If you have read the entire Urantia Book, I have to ask: why would you ask such a question?

The authors themselves explain beautifully the purpose and limitations of "revelation".

 

If you sincerely would like to understand the concept of "infallibility" in a larger context,

paper 15 Section 1: "RELATIVITY OF CONCEPT FRAMES" is a very good place to start.

 

If you sincerely feel as though this is a valid topic for discussion at this forum, please feel free

to explain the motivation behind your question. Until then, I have made the thread invisible.

 

thank you for your participation!

Nigel

 

Forum Administrator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an overty provocative title with an immediate poll thrown in. I started in with him and became involved in something i could not drop.

 

I was going to move into

 

P.1008 - §2 5. The Urantia Papers..."But no revelation short of the attainment of the Universal Father can ever be complete..."

 

and

 

 

P.1109 - §3" 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...

 

.... 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."

 

 

The desire of the Revelators to move beyond "bible-thumping" with the Fifth Epochal revelation is clearly evident by a close reading. It is laudable that they go so far to qualify the "scant' limitations of their presentations and that they do this just make me have more faith.

 

Old Soul is "baiting the trap."

 

 

 

Bill

 

I won't bite but i will safely unspring his trap if you guys want to make him visible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I won't bite but i will safely unspring his trap if you guys want to make him visible.

 

Hi,

 

First let's see if he responds to Nigel's PM about his motivation. Maybe at the moment he is more interested in heat, than light.

 

Meredith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe at the moment he is more interested in heat, than light.

This seems to be the case. The way I read his reply (see below) is that he wants to make

sure other readers do not make what he sees to be a mistake, of venerating the UB as if

it were some "word of god", never to be questioned. My suggestion to him was that he

go right ahead and raise his questions (see Sun thread), but without the "poll".

 

To me, his poll appears to be designed to give him the opportunity to shoot down

those who dare profess a belief in the "infallibility" :)

 

Here is my reply to his reply:

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Dear Old Soul,

 

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. First, please forgive my error with the reference.

The section 'RELATIVITY OF CONCEPT FRAMES' is the first section of paper 115, not 15.

Nigel == utterly fallible :D

 

My reason for asking why you would start such a poll is: no where do the authors of these

papers present their descriptions (especially of cosmology) as "infallible", so why ask how

many of us have made the foolish mistake of thinking of them as "the word of god"?

 

"Conceptual frames of the universe are only relatively true; they are serviceable scaffolding which

must eventually give way before the expansions of enlarging cosmic comprehension." (p.1260:3)

 

So, rather than a run a poll about infallibility, much better simply to start discussing

particular items that appear "erroneous to a greater or lesser degree." (p.1260:2)

 

Your thread about giant suns is an ideal place to explore erroneous ideas in cosmology.

So, how about we drop the poll, and explore "infallibility" in your new thread?

 

 

One more thing. Recall your comments regarding the Uversa Press book.

 

I just feel we should all be grateful that the UB can be printed, sold, given away, quoted

and even read... there are some countries that would ban books like "Catcher In the Rye"

(the USA) in school libraries because of it's contents and it didn't matter about the cover.

So we need to be more concerned about the contents getting into the hands of those who

are ready to receive the emmense truths that are held in the UB instead of such trivial

as the cover and who gets the money.

 

Here you touch the crucial point: by adding images to the cover, the Uversa Press book

cannot be offered to groups which regard images of prophets to be blasphemous.

PS: I never understood the need to change the original white cover. Seemed ideal :)

 

I'm sure you are fully aware that this is a revelation for the entire planet. Scholars and

Guardians of Islam find it hard to take seriously a book with pictures. And since pictures

of prophets are, in some places, considered blasphemous, ... well you have to wonder:

why dilute the world-wide impact of the Urantia Book with pictures? This may be a good

advertising strategy, for a season or two, in California, but not so much in Kabul.

 

once again, thank you for your contributions here.

Nigel

 

 

Dear Old Soul,

 

You started a thread of discussion with the title "The Urantia Book, Infalible or not?"

Link for moderators: infallible poll

 

If you have read the entire Urantia Book, I have to ask: why would you ask such a question?

The authors themselves explain beautifully the purpose and limitations of "revelation".

 

If you sincerely would like to understand the concept of "infallibility" in a larger context,

paper 15 Section 1: "RELATIVITY OF CONCEPT FRAMES" is a very good place to start.

 

If you sincerely feel as though this is a valid topic for discussion at this forum, please feel free

to explain the motivation behind your question. Until then, I have made the thread invisible.

 

thank you for your participation!

Nigel

Forum Administrator.

 

Nigel

 

I was not able to find "paper 15 Section 1: 'RELATIVITY OF CONCEPT FRAMES'. " That Paper and Section is entitled: 15:1 THE SUPERUNIVERSE SPACE LEVEL

 

I hope this is not a waste of effort to answer you, as I am sure you have read the quotes below many times. Just hear me out before you hurriedly write me back and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about:

 

I have certainly read the entire Urantia Book and I do feel it is a legitimate question. If this Forum is another one that has a list of taboo topics then why don't you make a list. "Infallibility of The Urantia Book" is not on any list in your rules to be avoided.

 

I bring it to attention because I have run into people who are doing the same thing with The Urantia Book that millions of others have done with the Bible: putting it on a pedestal and saying that it is without error (an I don't necessarily mean "grave" error"), just not up-to-date and revised "revelation" as the revelators themselves said would need to be done.

 

I can't believe you have blocked my post. It is a sound and mindful question that everyone should question in their own minds. It does not mean they are right or wrong, whichever way they think. Even you cannot tell me that this Book is infallible, when the revelators themselves have all but said that they are not infallible.

 

As you can see, and surely cannot deny, our science, as was known in the 20’s and 30’s, has been outgrown, surpassed and certainly must be accepted as some of those discoveries of which the revelators spoke. This does not mean the info in The Urantia Book is in “error”, per se; it just means it was relevant to our knowledge as we knew it then and some of it is still relevant to what we know now. To deny that Science has possibly discovered more that what the Urantia Book "reiterated" and sometimes revealed, is to say the revelators gave us all the knowledge of the universe in this Book and there was nothing new to discover. Yet, that is not what they have said. Read it for yourself. It does not mean that they were in error. It does mean, however. that they withheld information from us because they were not allowed to reveal future discoveries. That is very plain, very simple and very certain. This is what “they” said.

 

PLEASE, read all I have quoted and not just the bold. The Bold is my emphasis:

 

  • 101:4.1 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.

 

  • 101:4.2 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.

 

Read what they are saying: They said it, not me. The word “inspired” means: to influence, move, or guide by divine or supernatural inspiration. The word “inspiration” means: a divine influence or action on a person believed to qualify him or her to receive and communicate sacred revelation. The revelators themselves admit they are not inspired where the cosmology is concerned.

 

  • 101.4.5 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: 1. The reduction of confusion by the authoritative elimination of error. 2. The co-ordination of known or about-to-be-known facts and observations. 3. The restoration of important bits of lost knowledge concerning epochal transactions in the distant past. 4. The supplying of information which will fill in vital missing gaps in otherwise earned knowledge. 5. Presenting cosmic data in such a manner as to illuminate the spiritual teachings contained in the accompanying revelation.

 

The active phrase is “transiently clarify knowledge” which means it does 1,2,3,4, and 5 relative to present-day knowledge. (Present-day knowledge as of 1934).

 

Therefore, it is quite apparent that the revelators were trying to make us aware that these Papers, although revelatory and relative (as far as cosmology), they are certainly not infallible.

 

If you will read what I have underlined in the following paragraphs, you will see why I am so emphatic that The Urantia Book is not infallible. Notwithstanding, since it has certainly been touched by humanity, it is without question, potentially fallible.

 

  • 0.10.1 X. GOD THE ABSOLUTE There are many features of the eternal reality of the Deity Absolute which cannot be fully explained to the time-space finite mind, but the actualization of God the Absolute would be in consequence of the unification of the second experiential Trinity, the Absolute Trinity. This would constitute the experiential realization of absolute divinity, the unification of absolute meanings on absolute levels; but we are not certain regarding the encompassment of all absolute values since we have at no time been informed that the Qualified Absolute is the equivalent of the Infinite. Superultimate destinies are involved in absolute meanings and infinite spirituality, and without both of these unachieved realities we cannot establish absolute values.

 

  • 11.5.4 3. Occupying the outer margins of the under surface is a region having mainly to do with space potency and force-energy. The activities of this vast elliptical force center are not identifiable with the known functions of any triunity, but the primordial force-charge of space appears to be focalized in this area. This center consists of three concentric elliptical zones: The innermost is the focal point of the force-energy activities of Paradise itself; the outermost may possibly be identified with the functions of the Unqualified Absolute, but we are not certain concerning the space functions of the mid-zone.

 

 

  • 31.0.2 These six groups of glorified beings compose this unique body of eternal destiny. We think we know their future work, but we are not certain. While the Corps of the Mortal Finality is mobilizing on Paradise, and while they now so extensively minister to the universes of space and administer the worlds settled in light and life, their future destination must be the now-organizing universes of outer space. At least that is the conjecture of Uversa.

 

 

  • 55.12.4 The Unqualified Supervisors of the Supreme, who function more extensively during this epoch, are not finite, absonite, ultimate, or infinite; they are supremacy and only represent God the Supreme. They are the personalization of time-space supremacy and therefore do not function in Havona. They function only as supreme unifiers. They may possibly be involved in the technique of universe reflectivity, but we are not certain.

 

One of the main definitions of “infallible” is CERTAINTY:

 

  • Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary:
  • 1 : incapable of error : UNERRING *an infallible memory*
  • 2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : CERTAIN
  • 3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

 

The revelators admit they are not certain (not infallible), which in turn makes the Book with potential error (not intentional), by the fact of their uncertainty. This is clear and cannot be denied.

 

This does not mean the Book should be thrown away. Just as the Bible is not infallible and should not be thrown out (especially since The Urantia Book uses hundreds of quotes from the Bible or references to what is in the Bible, written long before The Urantia Book was ever written). Only God is infallible.

 

This, I believe, is worthy of discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, unfortunately, baiting seems obvious here, along with an agenda. Waiting to see what Old Soul does with Nigel's latest reply. Expect more resentment and arguments, but hope not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This fellow's line of hyperbole reminds me of Jesus' devastating rejoinder to Marcus in the Roman Forum, ""Your eloquence is pleasing, your logic is admirable, your voice is pleasant, but your teaching is hardly true."

 

Old Soul's approach appears to be similar that of Matthew Block who (and i can say this of Matthew because we used to be close friends in our UB "childhood) seems to me to have an encyclopedic recall of the text and an in-depth knowledge of the concepts but forever seeks to undermine the granduer of this latest revelation by focusing, to the exclusion of all other truth, the facts of it's evolutionary origins (the "1000" human concepts). The Country Boy in me would call that "looking a gift horse in the mouth." Seeking deeply hidden flaws in a gorgeous diamond, missing the forest for the trees, obsessing with the part and missing the whole.

 

The Divine Counselor, hailing from Paradise proclaims the liberating knowledge that in FALLIBILITY lies the potential of our perfection. " In the Havona universe there are a billion perfect worlds with their perfect inhabitants, but evolving man must be fallible if he is to be free. Free and inexperienced intelligence cannot possibly at first be uniformly wise. 52-1 During this short, but intense test, we are co-creating our own realities between the anvil of justice and the hammer of suffering, and much of our trials and many of our errors aid our spiritual transformations.

 

 

Of the former Madam of a "high-class bordello" who in humble gratitude washed the Master's feet with her tears and dried them with her hair, Jesus observed, "Better by far to have a small but living and growing faith than to be possessed of a great intellect with its dead stores of worldly wisdom and spiritual unbelief.

 

 

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; the knowledge of the Supreme is understanding 1444-6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, unfortunately, baiting seems obvious here, along with an agenda. Waiting to see what Old Soul does with Nigel's latest reply. Expect more resentment and arguments, but hope not.

 

Hello Mods:

 

This isn't about Old Soul's "infallibility" poll. It's about a PM I received from him earlier today on the subject of references in which he says to me:

 

Quote of Meredith July 19, 2010

I sense that you intended to put an edge to your comment, "That's like saying 'I had to work for it so you're going to have to work for it, too." But there is a lot of truth to this. Understanding the Urantia Book takes a lot of work - elbow grease. Put in a positive light I would say, "I am working for it and you are working for it too!"

 

Hello Meredith,

 

Understanding the Urantia Book indeed takes much thought and exercise of mind and spirit, but it does not have to be a "lot of work" to find where a quote from the Book comes from. That part is not necessary to the understanding of the "message" or the truth that lies within the pages of this Book.

 

Why would you insist on making someone frustrated (not myself) and not caring enough to be of help to them? I can only sense from your answers to me that you are highly resentful of any other version than the 1955 one and you will not accept that another version (which is not another text version) makes it easier not only for personal study, but for Study Groups to be "on the same page". You speak of being "on the same page" as literal. I think it is far more important that we be in the same Paper - Section and Paragraph.

 

I was in a group that had mixed versions and it was the people who had the 1955 version (or 1973 version) who could not keep up if we changed Papers. It was always time-consuming because they had to count the paragraphs or had to find the sentence being quoted with much difficulty. So, enough said. I realize now that you will not be helpful because of your animosity towards the Uversa edition.

 

Anyway, Meredith, may your search for understanding The Urantia Book become more than just putting "elbow grease" into finding quotes.

 

Best Wishes

OS

 

He has his jaws locked onto his criticism of my preferences. As Rick says in his post (above), baiting may be going on here. I will reply to him with loving kindness and best wishes and no further explanation.

 

Meredith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we be faulted for preferring the original text? and refusing to use a version stolen from its rightful owner? I guess it is all moot because the individuals who brought this about now are in control...

 

Old Soul is obsessing with inconsequential trivialities by speaking to modes of reference when he really is a cheerleader for Uversa Press.

 

Thank You Meredith for your kindness to Old Soul. He could use some.

 

As far as his moniker, unless he's older than me, his soul is no older. That name hints to me of belief in reincarnation, but that's just the way my mind works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...