Open discussion about the Urantia Book

[joer]

Zzy has often wanted to debate about context in the Urantia Book and often misrepresents it. Others also have doubts about it.

If anyone would wish to discuss it's contents in this Open Non-competitive dialogue, I believe I have a substantial knowledge about The Urantia Book (TUB), it's contents and the knowledge or perspective knowledge it refers to.

I'd be willing to answer any and all questions about it here in Open Dialogue to any and all who are interested in the REAL MEANINGS contained therein and how they reflect upon the world as we know it.

Thank you One and All. In all of us lies a perspective of Truth that when shared becomes part of the rest of us. joer

[joer]

.

The approach I would suggest Z if you really want to discuss the book. Is pick One of the personalities from the list you created that you find some familiarity with and then we can discuss what the book says about it.

What do you think about that Z?

Do you propose discussing the character(s) as fictional or as literal?

It makes a considerable difference whether discussion is hypothetical / fanciful vs. being literal / actual.

We I think our problem there Z is what we both consider literal and actual to mean.

Like as in literally or actually being LOVE
or
Literally and actually being material.

What do you consider literal and actual in this case?

Thanks Z.

[joer]

Hi Mac and Z, I hope your days are going well.

We just got over 4 days of much needed rain and the Sun is warm of the plain around us, as Spring is in full bloom.

Here's an excerpt from Page 1435, paragraph 2 in the Urantia Book. Let me give you an example of how this appears to my personal discernment.

P.1435 - §2 Knowledge is the sphere of the material or fact-discerning mind. Truth is the domain of the spiritually endowed intellect that is conscious of knowing God. Knowledge is demonstrable; truth is experienced. Knowledge is a possession of the mind; truth an experience of the soul, the progressing self. Knowledge is a function of the nonspiritual level; truth is a phase of the mind-spirit level of the universes. The eye of the material mind perceives a world of factual knowledge; the eye of the spiritualized intellect discerns a world of true values. These two views, synchronized and harmonized, reveal the world of reality, wherein wisdom interprets the phenomena of the universe in terms of progressive personal experience.

Overall it seems to ring of Truth. Now let me break it down in my assesment.

Knowledge is the sphere of the material or fact-discerning mind. -
This seems True to me. How about you guys?

Truth is the domain of the spiritually endowed intellect that is conscious of knowing God. - Now this needs more definition for me. But I don't judge as true or false yet. How about you guys?

Knowledge is demonstrable; truth is experienced. - This does ring true for me.

Knowledge is a possession of the mind; - This seems true.

truth an experience of the soul, the progressing self. - This I need more definition on. judgement reserved.

Knowledge is a function of the nonspiritual level; - makes sense. it functions in Material reality.

truth is a phase of the mind-spirit level of the universes. - new concept reflect on meaning.

The eye of the material mind perceives a world of factual knowledge; - makes sense

the eye of the spiritualized intellect discerns a world of true values. - new concept needs contemplation for truth dicernment - context in which it is used.

These two views, synchronized and harmonized, reveal the world of reality, - makes sense to me even within limited understanding of new concepts.

wherein wisdom interprets the phenomena of the universe in terms of progressive personal experience. - This really does ring true for me.

How about you guys?

I got this out of my own book. But here's an online link if you want to see context.
Scroll down to this section 130:4 DISCOURSE ON REALITY . Paragraph 10
http://urantiabook.org/newbook/papers/p130.htm

[Zzyzx]

.

We I think our problem there Z is what we both consider literal and actual to mean.

You may have a problem with word definitions; perhaps preferring special, personal, flowery or religious definitions. I tend to use dictionary definitions of common words.

Some definitions I use:

1. Literal: actual: being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something; free from interpretation, exaggeration or embellishment: characterized by a concern with facts

2. Actual: existing in fact and not merely potentially : existing in fact or reality: not false or apparent

3. Hypothetical: situations, statements or questions about something imaginary rather than something real

4. Fanciful: marked by fancy or unrestrained imagination rather than by reason and experience: existing in fancy only: not based on fact: marked by or as if by fancy or whim

5. Real: not artificial, fraudulent, illusory, or apparent: genuine: being precisely what the name implies: occurring in fact: verified


Now, can you answer my question -- Do you propose discussing the character(s) as fictional or as literal?

Also, do you propose that the discussion of the characters be hypothetical / fanciful vs. being literal / actual?

Do you propose that the characters on the list I provided from the UB are Real, Literal, Actual?

Note: I am not interested in discussing fictional or fanciful characters as though they were real. I am not a great fan of fiction or fantasy.

[joer]

Thanks Z.
I have no problems with definitions Zzy. Only with your interpretations of them. That's why I asked the question. You seem to pretend as if there is One reality that you perfectly understand. You seem reluctant to admit or define your own personal bias. What I'm asking for is your definition of how you see those dictionary definitions because we obviously DON'T SEE them the same way. And I constantly try to remind you of that, to avoid confusion on your part.

The dictionary definition doesn't determine what is literal and actual, you and I do Zzy, by our interpretation of those definitions. You may what to impose your understanding of the application of those words to something on me. But it won't work because I have my own understanding just like you that fit the definitions just fine by my judgement. Even if they don't by yours.

If you don't want to discuss the book because YOU MIGHT judge one of the characters as fictional or not actual, that's not my problem, it's your prerogative. But to ask me what YOU think is literal or actual is a silly question. You should just tell me your limits and boundaries right up front. You don't need to be coy, Roy. just express what your opinions are right up front.

Thanks Z.

I'll look forward to discussing the book with someone else. You don't seem to have much interest in discussing it. It appears you would rather disparage and slander it because it is something you think you dislike.

It's alright Z we don't need to discuss it if it's going to upset you because you believe it's fiction and you don't like fiction. I'll wait for someone who doesn't have those same inhibitors as you do.

Thank You for your interest Z.

[joer]

sorry double post

[Zzyzx]

.

I have no problems with definitions Zzy. Only with your interpretations of them. That's why I asked the question.

Why and how is my "interpretation" of definitions a problem for you?

What, specifically, about my use of words is a problem for you? Take one of the words I defined and show readers what you mean.

You seem to pretend as if there is One reality that you perfectly understand. You seem reluctant to admit or define your own personal bias.

I do not pretend or conceal. My personal positions (or "biases") are well known by observing members of this forum.

I am willing to consider a reality other than "my own" – shown evidence (not conjecture, opinion or tales in storybooks).

My "reality" is not built upon or dependent upon storybook tales or supernatural beings. That may be difficult for some to understand.

What I'm asking for is your definition of how you see those dictionary definitions because we obviously DON'T SEE them the same way. And I constantly try to remind you of that, to avoid confusion on your part.

Well, why don't you lead the way and provide a clear "interpretation of dictionary definitions"?

The dictionary definition doesn't determine what is literal and actual, you and I do Zzy, by our interpretation of those definitions.

Correction: no one's interpretation of definitions DETERMINES what is literal and actual.

Consider a rock – a portion of the Earth's crust that is, let's say, one cubic foot in size with a weight of approximately 180 pounds.

Does anyone's "interpretation of definition" determine whether the rock is literal and actual? Or would it be more rational to say that the rock exists INDEPENDENT of anyone's definition?

You may what to impose your understanding of the application of those words to something on me.

I do not impose my "understanding of the application of those words" on anyone (as readers realize). Who do you think is fooled by such antics and obviously false accusations?

But it won't work because I have my own understanding just like you that fit the definitions just fine by my judgement. Even if they don't by yours.

You seem hesitant to define the terms or your "interpretations of definitions" – and dependent upon my definitions (or "interpretations").

Why do you hesitate to state your definitions or "interpretations"?

If you don't want to discuss the book because YOU MIGHT judge one of the characters as fictional or not actual, that's not my problem, it's your prerogative.

I am confident that readers observe that I asked very clearly whether the characters are to be discussed as fictional or real. That is a simple question that anyone sincerely interested in discussion should be willing to answer honestly and openly.

Why do you refuse to say whether discussion is to be about fictional characters or literal characters?

But to ask me what YOU think is literal or actual is a silly question. You should just tell me your limits and boundaries right up front. You don't need to be coy, Roy. just express what your opinions are right up front.

Opinions regarding what?

Do you know what you are talking about?

I'll look forward to discussing the book with someone else.

I can understand that you might wish to avoid discussing the UB and its characters with someone who questions their authenticity.

Preaching to the choir is less demanding than speaking openly with someone who does not already "believe" tales told and who might question what is said.

You don't seem to have much interest in discussing it.

I am not interested in discussing the book if it is fiction. Is it fiction?

Do you know what parts, if any, of the UB are real and what parts, if any, are fictional? Can you offer a means for readers to distinguish between fictional parts and literally true parts, if any?

Are the characters I asked about imaginary or real – do they actually exist outside someone's imagination? Do you present or represent them as being real?

It appears you would rather disparage and slander it because it is something you think you dislike.

Correction: I asked if the characters were fictional or real. Why is that difficult to answer? How is it "disparaging" to ask that question?

What are you hiding?

It's alright Z we don't need to discuss it if it's going to upset you because you believe it's fiction and you don't like fiction. I'll wait for someone who doesn't have those same inhibitors as you do.

Notice that this is a public forum and that you have no authority to prohibit my comments, so like it or not, you can't just turn away without running away.

Thank You for your interest Z.

My interest is providing ideas for readers to consider – such as focusing attention upon the "cast of characters" presented in the UB. I deliberately put you on the spot by asking if they were to be considered fictional or real. You stumbled badly by refusing to answer and by attempting to divert attention to word definitions.

Astute readers are not fooled by smoke screens – like refusal to state whether characters are fictional or real.

If the discussion proceeds, I will raise other issues related to the credibility of the tales presented in the book -- whether you like it or not.

[joer]

The problem is this Z. You write:

Why and how is my "interpretation" of definitions a problem for you?

What, specifically, about my use of words is a problem for you? Take one of the words I defined and show readers what you mean.

The problem is you appear to have an unwillingness to find common ground for communication.

Perhaps you expect me to respond to you using your interpretation of the words you use? But again perhaps you don’t want me to assume I know what your are saying/ But then you might demand that I do.

That creates a problem in communication Z. And It could be you don’t care if it does or not.

You write:

I am willing to consider a reality other than "my own" – shown evidence (not conjecture, opinion or tales in storybooks).

My "reality" is not built upon or dependent upon storybook tales or supernatural beings. That may be difficult for some to understand.

Well you see that might be a problem on this thread. It’s not a debate. It’s OK to discuss anything. Including those things that don’t have the evidence you require. Additionally the things you ask to discuss are things that you call storybook tales and supernatural beings. So if your only purpose is to look for things you see that way and create havoc around them, Why bother?
You write

Well, why don't you lead the way and provide a clear "interpretation of dictionary definitions"?

You see Z that’s a problem you want ONE CLEAR "interpretation of dictionary definitions" when in reality at least two exist yours and mine.

You wrote:

Correction: no one's interpretation of definitions DETERMINES what is literal and actual.

Consider a rock – a portion of the Earth's crust that is, let's say, one cubic foot in size with a weight of approximately 180 pounds.

Does anyone's "interpretation of definition" determine whether the rock is literal and actual? Or would it be more rational to say that the rock exists INDEPENDENT of anyone's definition?

You see Z that’s the problemis, you want me to go by your interpretation of the Rock. But what if to me the besides being 1 cu. ft. and weighing 180 pounds. The rock is igneous, metamorphic or sedimentary, what it it’s covered in red crystalline multifaceted structures with a blackish gray with light spotted characteristics in the general portions of the rock.

Perhaps my qualitative interpretations of the rock are much more important to me than your quantitative characteristics are to you. For us the rock DOES NOT just exist. It exists with the characteristics we identify on it and that we use to define it with.

Don’t you get that Z? Why do you insist that we have to be bound by just YOUR interpretations of things? Don’t you have a capacity to discuss my interpretations of things as well as you own?

And if you insist on using ONE definition, why won’t you participate in defining what your interpretation of that definition is? Like you did with the rock.

Why are you so limiting? Why are you afraid to expand your range of discussion? This isn’t a debate here. Nothing is won or lost. It’s simply a discussion of ideas.

You write:

I can understand that you might wish to avoid discussing the UB and its characters with someone who questions their authenticity.

Preaching to the choir is less demanding than speaking openly with someone who does not already "believe" tales told and who might question what is said.

You imply you wish to discuss The Urantia Book, but your comments and perceived attitude indicate otherwise. It seems your only purpose is to distract from an honest discussion of it.
You write:

I am not interested in discussing the book if it is fiction. Is it fiction?

What do you say it is? Why do you refuse to answer such a simple question? You wrote:

Do you know what parts, if any, of the UB are real and what parts, if any, are fictional? Can you offer a means for readers to distinguish between fictional parts and literally true parts, if any?

Sure Z how about this:

P.930 - §2 Marriage always has been and still is man's supreme dream of temporal ideality. Though this beautiful dream is seldom realized in its entirety, it endures as a glorious ideal, ever luring progressing mankind on to greater strivings for human happiness. But young men and women should be taught something of the realities of marriage before they are plunged into the exacting demands of the interassociations of family life; youthful idealization should be tempered with some degree of premarital disillusionment.

P.930 - §3 The youthful idealization of marriage should not, however, be discouraged; such dreams are the visualization of the future goal of family life. This attitude is both stimulating and helpful providing it does not produce an insensitivity to the realization of the practical and commonplace requirements of marriage and subsequent family life.

P.930 - §4 The ideals of marriage have made great progress in recent times; among some peoples woman enjoys practically equal rights with her consort. In concept, at least, the family is becoming a loyal partnership for rearing offspring, accompanied by sexual fidelity. But even this newer version of marriage need not presume to swing so far to the extreme as to confer mutual monopoly of all personality and individuality. Marriage is not just an individualistic ideal; it is the evolving social partnership of a man and a woman, existing and functioning under the current mores, restricted by the taboos, and enforced by the laws and regulations of society.

P.930 - §5 Twentieth-century marriages stand high in comparison with those of past ages, notwithstanding that the home institution is now undergoing a serious testing because of the problems so suddenly thrust upon the social organization by the precipitate augmentation of woman's liberties, rights so long denied her in the tardy evolution of the mores of past generations.

And to distinguish if it’s true or not use your own judgement.

You write:

My interest is providing ideas for readers to consider – such as focusing attention upon the "cast of characters" presented in the UB. I deliberately put you on the spot by asking if they were to be considered fictional or real. You stumbled badly by refusing to answer and by attempting to divert attention to word definitions.

It’s not a debate Z. You don’t need to put me on the spot. You can listen to my perspective just like I listen to yours without putting it down. You don’t need to impose your view on others. Let them choose Z.

Peace be with you my friend.

[OnceConvinced]

Looking on Wikepedia, it seemed to be suggesting that a guy wrote this while in a trance. Is that correct? Seems rather dodgy to me.

[Zzyzx]

.

The problem is this Z. You write:

Why and how is my "interpretation" of definitions a problem for you?

What, specifically, about my use of words is a problem for you? Take one of the words I defined and show readers what you mean.

The problem is you appear to have an unwillingness to find common ground for communication.

Notice that you do not address my question. WHY is my use of words a problem for you?

I have supplied definitions that I use – and have asked for your definitions. If we are to communicate and find common ground, an understanding of definitions would be in order.

You seem to hesitate to supply your definitions (or "interpretations"). Why?

Perhaps you expect me to respond to you using your interpretation of the words you use?

Let's use Merriam Webster definitions so readers will understand the definitions of words we use.

But again perhaps you don’t want me to assume I know what your are saying/ But then you might demand that I do.

Correction: I conclude that you do not understand what Merriam Webster Dictionary (or I) mean with definitions of words.

That creates a problem in communication Z.

Yes, it does create a problem in communication if you cannot understand and accept dictionary definitions.

And It could be you don’t care if it does or not.

I have demonstrated interest and ability in communicating with rational people in these threads. I do not communicate well with people who use esoteric, personal or biblical definitions of words (and those who have difficulty determining whether books they promote are fictional – or honestly identifying them as such).

I am willing to consider a reality other than "my own" – shown evidence (not conjecture, opinion or tales in storybooks).

My "reality" is not built upon or dependent upon storybook tales or supernatural beings. That may be difficult for some to understand.

Well you see that might be a problem on this thread. It’s not a debate.

Why is it a problem for you to be informed that I am WILLING to consider a reality other than my own IF SHOWN EVIDENCE?

Does the problem arise because you realize that you have no evidence other than conjecture, opinion and tales in storybooks?

It’s OK to discuss anything. Including those things that don’t have the evidence you require.

It is perfectly acceptable to discuss whatever you wish.

Do you wish to converse with me about the topic? If so, be aware that I will not be convinced by conjecture, opinion, or tales from storybooks.

I do not accept such things as evidence of truth or accuracy.

Additionally the things you ask to discuss are things that you call storybook tales and supernatural beings.

Discussion of the Urantia Book and the Bible IS discussion of storybooks – and supernatural beings. Correct?

So if your only purpose is to look for things you see that way and create havoc around them,

I point out flaws, false claims, and unverified tales in supernatural propaganda. That "creates havoc" for those who make claims they cannot support.

Why bother?

I choose to "bother" pointing out false claims made in promotion of supernaturalism.

Well, why don't you lead the way and provide a clear "interpretation of dictionary definitions"?

You see Z that’s a problem you want ONE CLEAR "interpretation of dictionary definitions" when in reality at least two exist yours and mine.

I clearly asked you to supply yours. Is that a problem for you? Are you not able?

Don’t you get that Z?]Why do you insist that we have to be bound by just YOUR interpretations of things?

I make no such insistence. I have asked you to supply your "interpretation" of dictionary definitions and you refuse. What do you fear?

Don’t you have a capacity to discuss my interpretations of things as well as you own?

If you are bold enough to put forth your "interpretations" of definitions of words I will be more than happy to comment.

I also ask you to identify the book and the characters under discussion as fictional or non-fictional. You refuse to answer. Do you not know?

And if you insist on using ONE definition, why won’t you participate in defining what your interpretation of that definition is[? Like you did with the rock.

All the embellishments you added to what I said about a rock are just that – embellishments. They are not required in defining what one means by the term "rock". It is not necessary to know that whether a rock is igneous, metamorphic, or sedimentary in order to use the term "rock".

If we wish to discuss rock classification or details about a particular rock, then classification terms become important.

Why are you so limiting?[/b] Why are you afraid to expand your range of discussion?

Are you asking me to expand discussion into fantasyland?

Can you show that the book and characters are non-fiction?

This isn’t a debate here[/b][/u]. Nothing is won or lost. It’s simply a discussion of ideas.

What ideas have you set forth? In post #2 I asked you five questions about the book you propose to discuss.

Question #1 Is the following an accurate overview of the UB? If not, kindly indicate your preferences where they differ.

Question #2 Which of the following can be shown to exist? What (exactly) is the source of verification of existence?

Question #3 If the proposed beings (or characters, or personalities, or spirits, or whatever they are supposed to represent) cannot be shown to exist in anything other than imagination, why should anyone believe that they exist?

Question #4 If the characters of a tale cannot be shown to exist, why should anyone regard the tale as truthful?

Question #5 How was information said to be transmitted from extraterrestrial beings to humans?

You seem to have a problem answering. Are the questions too difficult?

I can understand that you might wish to avoid discussing the UB and its characters with someone who questions their authenticity.

Preaching to the choir is less demanding than speaking openly with someone who does not already "believe" tales told and who might question what is said.

You imply you wish to discuss The Urantia Book, but your comments and perceived attitude indicate otherwise. It seems your only purpose is to distract from an honest discussion of it.

Kindly show readers how my asking if the book is presented as fiction and if the Characters are fictional "distracts from an honest discussion".

And, show readers how refusal by the originator of the thread to identify the book or the characters as fictional or non-fictional is a form of "honest discussion".

Are you willing to discuss the UB only with those who agree to accept it as truthful and accurate (or as non-fiction) WITHOUT evidence of either?

I am not interested in discussing the book if it is fiction. Is it fiction?

What do you say it is?

Notice that I asked you that question originally and that you refuse to answer.

I have seen nothing to indicate that the book is anything other than fiction. Can you provide information to show whether it is or is not fiction?

Since you propose the discussion, it is reasonable to ask you whether the book to be discussed is fiction or non-fiction.

Why do you refuse to answer such a simple question?

You are the proponent of the book – the one who suggests having a "discussion", yet you refuse to answer a simple question about whether the book is presented as fiction or not (as well as the other questions I ask in post #2). .

Do you know what parts, if any, of the UB are real and what parts, if any, are fictional? Can you offer a means for readers to distinguish between fictional parts and literally true parts, if any?

Sure Z how about this:

<snip quotes from UB that do not answer the question – and which are not identified as fiction or non-fiction>

How do quotes provide a MEANS of determining what parts are real and which parts are fictional?

And to distinguish if it’s true or not use your own judgement.

Notice that I asked for a MEANS (or method or criteria) by which readers (or anyone) can distinguish between fictional parts and literally true parts, if any).

Saying, "use your own judgment" is NOT a valid answer and does NOT seek "common ground for communication" (which you elsewhere suggest finding).

My interest is providing ideas for readers to consider – such as focusing attention upon the "cast of characters" presented in the UB. I deliberately put you on the spot by asking if they were to be considered fictional or real. You stumbled badly by refusing to answer and by attempting to divert attention to word definitions.

It’s not a debate Z. You don’t need to put me on the spot.

Does it put you on the spot to ask if the characters presented in the UB are fictional – or if the book is fictional?

Do you realize that the book is largely fiction?

It is not shameful to admire a fictional book and to recognize some truth within a fictional story PROVIDED that one understands and acknowledges that the work is fiction – and that one does not present fiction as non-fiction.

You can listen to my perspective just like I listen to yours without putting it down.

Do you actually claim to listen to my perspective "without putting it down"?

You don’t need to impose your view on others.

I force ideas upon no one. If readers see value in what I say, fine. If they do not, fine.

Notice that I said, "provide ideas for readers to CONSIDER" and "focus upon cast of characters".

Those who present storybooks as truthful and accurate often resent my questioning of their claims.

Let them choose Z.

I ENCOURAGE people to choose between ideas presented based upon the merits of what is said in discussion or debate, and upon the quality of evidence (or lack thereof) presented to verify (or not verify) claims made.

If you are in favor of "let them choose", perhaps you can answer the five questions I ask above (originally asked in post #2).

[joer]

Looking on Wikepedia, it seemed to be suggesting that a guy wrote this while in a trance. Is that correct? Seems rather dodgy to me.

hi once! Good to hear from you.

There's lots of stuff about it's inception that is unclear. But it's the content That I have found interesting over time. I had a friend give it to me around 1980. And as soon as I opened it and saw some of the names used and the wording, I rejected it as science fiction. Things that I was interested in Magnetic energy, The Lost years of Jesus, My frustration with the limitations of spiritual teachings and obvious falsification of things that were taught as true about God as Science debunked the Biblical stories, led me to search elsewhere for spiritual truth.

After rejecting it every time I looked at it, finally after reading many other books in my search, newly translated scrolls and gospels, other purported revelations. Like from a Levi who wrote about Jesus around 1883 in the South. Joseph Smith's Story, The teachings of Jesus the Son of Man, by Khalil Gibran popular author of The Prophet, which my dad gave me when I was sixteen. It was a wonderfully inspiring book. The books of Carl Jung speaking to the Universal Consciousness and the universality of symbols and archetypes through many tribes, cultures and civilizations.

Native American spiritually, Indigenous Mexican Spirituality and many other spiritually archeologically concerned books, and/or Cultural and Anthropological mores and symbolisms. And finally after the frustration of not finding what I was looking for. I was reduced to trying to look at The Urantia Book again. You see Once I was with Science Fiction like Z is with fiction. I never read it. Didn't like it. And thought it was a waste of time. So to look at something I had judged to be more science fiction than anything else, was a difficult choice. I started on Part IV the Life and Teachings of Jesus. Right off the bat I was put off by this story of a "being" Named Michael who was a universe ruler who decided to bestow himself upon Humanity. Some where along the line I figured out they used Urantia as the universes name for our planet.

I was about ready to reject the book again after reading just a few pages. maybe 5 or 6 at the most. I forced myself to keep reading I skipped the part that was annoying me and went to the birth of Jesus on Page 1344. I figured well here's something I'm familiar with so I have something to compare it to. Right away it's talking about what people are thinking and feeling and reacting to things that supposedly happened 2000 years ago. Now I knew this was a bunch of Bologna.

This is like a novel. Now I didn't mind novels. I had read the earth sea trilogy, the Hobbit series, The Teachings of Don Juan Series. The old Gulliver’s Travels and Swiss Family Robinson, White Fang, Call of the Wild, the Iliad and the Odyssey, Shakespeare’s tragedies, and many many more in grammar and high school and later in college.

So I decided OK. I watch movies about the Bible, The ten Commandments, Ben Hur, and many others. I said to myself this can't be worse than watching a movie about it. I'll read it like a novel.

I did. And when I was done I didn’t care if it was true or not. It was the best story about Jesus I had ever read or seen or experienced in any media in my life. Still is. All my questions about what was missed in religious teaching were answered. I didn’t care if it wasn't true. If it wasn't, it is the way things should be.

I started jumping around in the book reading things I was familiar with. The Adam and Eve story. The first human beings. The Lucifer Rebellion. The dates the times. The beginning of the earth. The geologic formation, plate tectonics, the Ice ages, the formation of the solar system, the presentation of Planetary tidal disruption, the roche limit, how could it be so specific. Who could have even imagined all this stuff that was so accurate and that was becoming known as truth. I shared it with my sister and her opinion was that it wasn't a revelation but a hoax put together by many very intelligent Humans very knowledgeable in diverse fields of scientific knowledge, theology, religion, and historical and rare religious writings

It's not the beginning of reading the book the convinces you. It the only after years of reading and learning the details and studying the research in ALL the fields it touches upon that you begin to become convicted that it just might be what it is purported to by. And in the long process you change. Internally you change. Your belief and faith begin to become the most natural thing you can imagine. It just happens while one doubts and searches for the truth of what is being said. And little by little you find many truths.

I've been trying to compile a place for science and TUB related links here.

TUB Science Links