[Freddy]

There are several other reasons against Wllfred Custer Kellogg being the source of the Urantia Book at the site Turtle referenced at the link below.

16_WILFRED

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Freddy

There are several other reasons against Wllfred Custer Kellogg being the source of the Urantia Book at the site Turtle referenced at the link below.

16_WILFRED

Who do you think hoaxed it Freddy?

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Who do you think hoaxed it Freddy?

Clifford Irving or else it was an early draft of Dianetics...

Play off everyone against each other so that you have more avenues of action open to you,
Buffy

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Who do you think hoaxed it Freddy?

I have not a clue. However, when the supposed channeler or source says in effect not to reveal his identity I begin to think it is faked. At least with the other revealed channeler, Edgar Cayce, there is evidence to present.

[OutsideTheBox]

Dissenting viewpoint here.

Here is one who absolutely believes the Urantia Book is real. The earlier parts are more difficult reading due to the remote and complex concepts, but as you get further in the book gets proportionally closer to the material realm (it chronologically illustrates the journey from God down to man, as opposed to the opposite direction) and becomes clear and concise, in my view.

Someone in this thread generalized about how they've noticed UB readers all seem nuts (or something similar). Another called the material mumbo-jumbo (or similar). Everyone obviously has to come to their own conclusion, but I have neither found other readers to appear nuts (not that I've met many) nor did I find the content to resemble mumbo-jumbo...

It is not a hoax.

[Eclogite]

Originally Posted by OutsideTheBox

It is not a hoax.

And your evidence for this statement is...?

[OutsideTheBox]

Originally Posted by Eclogite

And your evidence for this statement is...?

Well, there's a loaded question...

Whatever evidence could I provide separate from having actually read it myself over the course of decades, investigated its origins and history (which I continue to do out of curiousity and interest), and come to my own personal conclusion? I certainly didn't rely on anyone else's opinion to form my own conclusion.

No one could hope to answer the question you've asked in a manner satisfactory to someone who hasn't read the book for themselves.

However, I am glad to answer specific questions on my views or engage in a healthy discussion/debate relating to specific issues you (or others) may have with the material/history/etc. If you're interested...

[REASON]

I have not read this book. In fact, I just recently heard of it for the first time. Based on your following statement from above:

Originally Posted by OutsideTheBox

...(it chronologically illustrates the journey from God down to man, as opposed to the opposite direction)...

It is not a hoax.

If this is the general premise of the book, than it is nothing more than a work of fiction since the existance of god is unprovable. It becomes pure conjecture. This is the primary reason why you cannot provide evidence to support your claim that it is not a hoax.

I'm sure it's compelling, and probably has some valuable attributes that include meaningful advice for living your life in harmony and balance. And obviously, you can choose to believe anything you want. That doesn't make it real.

[Eclogite]

Originally Posted by OutsideTheBox

Well, there's a loaded question...

Of course.

Originally Posted by OutsideTheBox

........However, I am glad to answer specific questions on my views or engage in a healthy discussion/debate relating to specific issues you (or others) may have with the material/history/etc. If you're interested...

I have no specific questions at all. My concern is related to the odds that an alien civilisation, or a God, would choose such a mundane means of communicating such vital knowledge.
My interest is why any rational person would choose to believe somthing that has no independent substantiation and has, if I recall, several statements/claims that fly in the face of accepted science.
If you wish to discuss that point I would be interested.

[OutsideTheBox]

Originally Posted by REASON

I have not read this book. In fact, I just recently heard of it for the first time. Based on your following statement from above:



If this is the general premise of the book, than it is nothing more than a work of fiction since the existance of god is unprovable. It becomes pure conjecture. This is the primary reason why you cannot provide evidence to support your claim that it is not a hoax.

I'm sure it's compelling, and probably has some valuable attributes that include meaningful advice for living your life in harmony and balance. And obviously, you can choose to believe anything you want. That doesn't make it real.

While I indeed find the Urantia Book extremely compelling, after evaluating for myself your comments above (similarly, through my own prism of perspective) I find, in contrast, almost nothing compelling.

Your statement as to it being fiction, particularly without having read or even examined it immediately strike me as highly presumptuous. You seem to be so dogmatically wrapped in your science that you're incapable of even evaluating something that may [or may not] expand your own sphere of understanding.

It doesn't have to be real to you for it to be real to me. Make no mistake. I respect you as a person [even in the light of not knowing you beyond the posts I've read], but forgive me for disregarding out of hand your unequivocal statements in lieu of actually having examined the content of the book. In general I find the conceit of such summary judgement sad as opposed to enlightening...

Now, at least I've evaluated for myself your comments above before passing judgement on them; which is far more than you've provided in passing judgement on the Urantia Book.

You can also choose to disbelieve anything you'd like. That doesn't make it fiction.