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]

Z you wrote:

Let's answer questions in the order they were asked.

OK lets do that One for one. I answer one of your question you answer one of mine. So in Post 5: Tue May 05, 2009 5:46 am I answered your first question then I suggested:

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.

In Post 13: Sat May 09, 2009 6:42 pm you wrote:

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.

So given your request and your reluctance to pick out a personage you deem as “real�. I’ll give you a character you’ll likely accept as “real� and we can discuss that character without a chance of you being offended by the possibility that YOU might find the character up to YOUR standard of non-fictional. How about the Egyptian Pharaoh Ikhnaton? Is that real enough for you?

P.1047 - §4 Never in all history did any king so methodically proceed to swing a whole nation from polytheism to monotheism as did this extraordinary Ikhnaton. With the most amazing determination this young ruler broke with the past, changed his name, abandoned his capital, built an entirely new city, and created a new art and literature for a whole people. But he went too fast; he built too much, more than could stand when he had gone. Again, he failed to provide for the material stability and prosperity of his people, all of which reacted unfavorably against his religious teachings when the subsequent floods of adversity and oppression swept over the Egyptians.

P.1047 - §6 Very wisely Ikhnaton sought to establish monotheism under the guise of the sun-god. This decision to approach the worship of the Universal Father by absorbing all gods into the worship of the sun was due to the counsel of the Salemite physician. Ikhnaton took the generalized doctrines of the then existent Aton faith regarding the fatherhood and motherhood of Deity and created a religion which recognized an intimate worshipful relation between man and God.

P.1048 - §1 Ikhnaton was wise enough to maintain the outward worship of Aton, the sun-god, while he led his associates in the disguised worship of the One God, creator of Aton and supreme Father of all. This young teacher-king was a prolific writer, being author of the exposition entitled "The One God," a book of thirty-one chapters, which the priests, when returned to power, utterly destroyed. Ikhnaton also wrote one hundred and thirty-seven hymns, twelve of which are now preserved in the Old Testament Book of Psalms, credited to Hebrew authorship.

P.1048 - §4 Though the monotheistic ideal suffered with the passing of Ikhnaton, the idea of one God persisted in the minds of many groups. The son-in-law of Ikhnaton went along with the priests, back to the worship of the old gods, changing his name to Tutankhamen. The capital returned to Thebes, and the priests waxed fat upon the land, eventually gaining possession of one

How's that Z? Is Ikhnaton "real" enough for you?

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

I am NOT asking what the "book says about" any of the characters. I ask very specifically if they can be "shown to exist". Can they?

That the book says they exist is what is being questioned. It is NOT the answer to the question.

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.

So given your request and your reluctance to pick out a personage you deem as “real�. I’ll give you a character you’ll likely accept as “real� and we can discuss that character without a chance of you being offended by the possibility that YOU might find the character up to YOUR standard of non-fictional. How about the Egyptian Pharaoh Ikhnaton? Is that real enough for you?

Why do you pick a character that is NOT on the list? Do you, like readers, realize that you cannot show that any of the listed characters are anything more than imaginary?

Care to try again – or would you rather admit (openly or by default) that NONE of the listed characters are more than imaginary?

Here is question #2 again with the list of characters.

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

Apostle Andrew
Archangels
Brilliant Evening Stars
Central and Superuniverses
Chief of Archangels
Chief of Evenings Stars.
Chief of Midwayers
Chief of Seraphim
Corps of Local Universe Personalities
Divine Counselors
Eternal and infinite God.
First Source and Center of all things and beings;
Gabriel of Salvington
Life Carriers
Machiventa Melchizedek.
Malavatia
Manovandet Melchizedek
Mantutia
Melchizedek
Midwayer Commission
Mighty Messengers,
Nebadon Corps of Local Universe Personalities
One High in Authority
One Without Name and Number.
Orvonton Ancients of Days
Perfectors of Wisdom
Secondary Lanonandeks
Solitary Messengers
Solonia
Universal Censors
Universal Father"
Uversa Corps of Superuniverse Personalities
Vorondadek Sons

Is there NOT ONE of the above characters from the book that can be shown to be real?

Attempting to shift discussion from the characters above to Ikhnaton is very similar to if I asked whether Scarlet O'Hara, Brent Tarleton, or Ashley Wilkes, characters from "Gone with the Wind", are real people and you reply that the book mentions Lincoln and he was real (and say nothing about whether Scarlet, Brent or Ashley were real people).

I do not think that readers are so gullible as to buy that distraction, but it does serve as indication that the listed characters cannot be shown to be anything more than imagination.

[joer]

Z wrote:

Why do you pick a character that is NOT on the list? Do you, like readers, realize that you cannot show that any of the listed characters are anything more than imaginary?

You don't appear to get it Z. This is not a debate about weather characters exist or not. It's a discussion about the book.

It you want a debate take it to the debate threads.

You say:

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.

And yet you pick characters you appear to believe are fictional and attempt to get into a debate about them.

That's not what this thread is about Z.

Can you get out of debate mode? Or is that impossible for you?

If you have any real interest in the book and what's it's about. Come and talk to me.

If you just want to debate, compromise and come to terms with me on the head to head, instead of insisting on having it slanted your way, and lets go at it.

It your willing to give and take we can meet somewhere in the middle. If you just want to take without giving an inch. That doesn't work for me.

Sorry Buddy. Maybe next time.

On this thread, pick a character out YOU think is REAL, so it's one that won't bother you in discussing, and lets talk him or her. Not debate about him or her. This is not the place for that Z.

Thank You.

P.941 - §9 Marriage, with children and consequent family life, is stimulative of the highest potentials in human nature and simultaneously provides the ideal avenue for the expression of these quickened attributes of mortal personality. The family provides for the biologic perpetuation of the human species. The home is the natural social arena wherein the ethics of blood brotherhood may be grasped by the growing children. The family is the fundamental unit of fraternity in which parents and children learn those lessons of patience, altruism, tolerance, and forbearance which are so essential to the realization of brotherhood among all men.

P.941 - §10 Human society would be greatly improved if the civilized races would more generally return to the family-council practices of the Andites. They did not maintain the patriarchal or autocratic form of family government. They were very brotherly and associative, freely and frankly discussing every proposal and regulation of a family nature. They were ideally fraternal in all their family government. In an ideal family filial and parental affection are both augmented by fraternal devotion.

P.942 - §1 Family life is the progenitor of true morality, the ancestor of the consciousness of loyalty to duty. The enforced associations of family life stabilize personality and stimulate its growth through the compulsion of necessitous adjustment to other and diverse personalities. But even more, a true family--a good family--reveals to the parental procreators the attitude of the Creator to his children, while at the same time such true parents portray to their children the first of a long series of ascending disclosures of the love of the Paradise parent of all universe children.

[Zzyzx]

.

You don't appear to get it Z. This is not a debate about weather characters exist or not. It's a discussion about the book.

Okay, is the book fiction or is it literally true?

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.

And yet you pick characters you appear to believe are fictional and attempt to get into a debate about them.

Correction: I made no statement regarding the truth or fiction of the characters. You have no way of knowing which, if any, characters I consider fictional.

I listed all the characters mentioned in a summary by another party. I did no choosing, but listed each one mentioned. I did alphabetize the list (without personal input – using a word processor function – to avoid charges of bias in use of the alphabet).

I ask the originator of the thread and evidently promoter / supporter of the UB (though that seems in doubt at times) whether the characters are to be discussed as real or as fictional. He does not seem to know.

Can you get out of debate mode? Or is that impossible for you?

I am in discuss mode. Shall we discuss fiction or non-fiction?

If you have any real interest in the book and what's it's about. Come and talk to me.

I can read the book without your assistance.

What makes you an authority on the UB? That you may believe its stories does not guarantee knowledge.

This is supposedly a thread designed to discuss the UB. You seem hesitant to do so. Why? Are you afraid that your ideas won't be accepted?

If you just want to debate, compromise and come to terms with me on the head to head, instead of insisting on having it slanted your way, and lets go at it.

Okay, let's debate in Head to Head whether the UB is truthful and accurate – or fictional or non-fictional.

It your willing to give and take we can meet somewhere in the middle. If you just want to take without giving an inch. That doesn't work for me.

I understand that you are not willing to attempt to defend the truth and accuracy of the UB – but think that you can find SOME truth.

I AGREE that one can find some truth somewhere in 2000 pages, even if by pure happenstance. As I have pointed out to you and others repeatedly, there is some truth in "Gone with the Wind", but the presence of some truthful items does NOT reflect truthfulness upon the story itself.

Since we agree that one can find some truth in the UB, we cannot debate that topic. Perhaps we disagree about whether the book is fiction or non-fiction. Do you have an opinion or position on that matter that you feel capable of defending?

On this thread, pick a character out YOU think is REAL, so it's one that won't bother you in discussing, and lets talk him or her.

I have no way of knowing if any of the characters on the list are real. I ask you, as originator of the thread and evidently proponent of the UB, for a means to identify which, if any, characters that are real.

You are the expert (or at least the promoter) regarding the UB. If you are a credible representative, you should have such information available and you should know which, if any, of the list of characters is real.

Do you perhaps regard the characters on the list as fiction – but hesitate to say so? It might be less damaging to your credibility and your "discussion" to acknowledge that you do not know if the characters are fictional or real – than it is to keep dancing around making it obvious to readers that you don't know or are afraid to say.

[joer]

Your absolutely right Z in verifying what I have already told you.
You wrote:
Correction: I made no statement regarding the truth or fiction of the characters. You have no way of knowing which, if any, characters I consider fictional.

And yet you still refuse to select something you think is Non-fictional.

When you what to know what I think is Literal or fictional ask me in the correct fashion to know my understanding. Don't ask in a fashion that implies that what we hold as fictional or literal as the same.

joer wrote:

On this thread, pick a character out YOU think is REAL, so it's one that won't bother you in discussing, and lets talk him or her.

you wrote:

I have no way of knowing if any of the characters on the list are real.

Your absolutely right again. Z. You don't. So in your question,

Okay, is the book fiction or is it literally true?

How can I give you an answer you will understand and be able to discuss? If you don't know what YOU think is real, You might as well take my word for it. If you have some other way of distinguishing what is Real or false for yourself. Use it and pick something you believe is real to discuss.

Otherwise it's illogical for me to attempt to discuss something with as real if you CAN'T recognize it as such and you DON'T want to discuss the un-real.

Do you think you might be being a coy my friend? Perhaps you do know what you think is real and isn't real, but because your purpose might not be to discuss the Urantia Book But subvert it, it's not in your interest to indicate what you BELIEVE is real and not.

Do you think that might be your real purpose Z? Or don't you know that either?

Come back when your ready to explore not destroy.

Peace be with you my friend.

[joer]

Once Convinced, How are you doing my brother. I ran across this post today on another site (A UB discussion site) and I wondered what you might think of it. I believe Jeff had romantic relationship with a women, and he wanted to get married and she didn't. So that's the context coming into this post.

I was curious as to what you think about the excerpts concerning marraige and relationships? Do they make any sence to you?

Thanks my friend. Have a great day today. You too Z and all here

Jeff wrote:

If a middleaged man and woman were not planning to raise a family but wanted to be together for the rest of their lives, according to the UB would there be any need for them to get married?

Love to all,
Jeff

Here’s a few excerpts Jeff. You might find where in the scenario you present Marriage may not necessarily be needed as for procreation of for fostering a home with children., There may be other values a Marriage relationship that could make it desirable to two middle-aged people to enter into that type of relationship.

P.311 - §5 3. The Union of Souls. Completing the triune staff of attachment to the Perfectors of Wisdom, are these reflectors of the ideals and status of ethical relationships. Of all the problems in the universe requiring an exercise of the consummate wisdom of experience and adaptability, none are more important than those arising out of the relationships and associations of intelligent beings. Whether in human associations of commerce and trade, friendship and marriage, or in the liaisons of the angelic hosts, there continue to arise petty frictions, minor misunderstandings too trivial even to engage the attention of conciliators but sufficiently irritating and disturbing to mar the smooth working of the universe if they were allowed to multiply and continue.

P.369 - §1 After this pledge of subordination by the Creative Mother Spirit, Michael of Nebadon nobly acknowledged his eternal dependence on his Spirit companion, constituting the Spirit coruler of his universe domains and requiring all their creatures to pledge themselves in loyalty to the Spirit as they had to the Son; and there issued and went forth the final "Proclamation of Equality." Though he was the sovereign of this local universe, the Son published to the worlds the fact of the Spirit's equality with him in all endowments of personality and attributes of divine character. And this becomes the transcendent pattern for the family organization and government of even the lowly creatures of the worlds of space. This is, in deed and in truth, the high ideal of the family and the human institution of voluntary marriage.

P.419 - §2 Though seraphim are very affectionate and sympathetic beings, they are not sex-emotion creatures. They are much as you will be on the mansion worlds, where you will "neither marry nor be given in marriage but will be as the angels of heaven." For all who "shall be accounted worthy to attain the mansion worlds neither marry nor are given in marriage; neither do they die any more, for they are equal to the angels." Nevertheless, in dealing with sex creatures it is our custom to speak of those beings of more direct descent from the Father and the Son as the sons of God, while referring to the children of the Spirit as the daughters of God. Angels are, therefore, commonly designated by feminine pronouns on the sex planets.


P.835 - §2 The average age of betrothal was eighteen, and these youths then entered upon a two years' course of instruction in preparation for the assumption of marital responsibilities. At twenty they were eligible for marriage; and after marriage they began their lifework or entered upon special preparation therefor.

P.812 - §1 Marriage and divorce laws are uniform throughout the nation. Marriage before twenty--the age of civil enfranchisement--is not permitted. Permission to marry is only granted after one year's notice of intention, and after both bride and groom present certificates showing that they have been duly instructed in the parental schools regarding the responsibilities of married life.

P.812 - §2 Divorce regulations are somewhat lax, but decrees of separation, issued by the parental courts, may not be had until one year after application therefor has been recorded, and the year on this planet is considerably longer than on Urantia. Notwithstanding their easy divorce laws, the present rate of divorces is only one tenth that of the civilized races of Urantia.

P.913 - §1 Marriage--mating--grows out of bisexuality. Marriage is man's reactional adjustment to such bisexuality, while the family life is the sum total resulting from all such evolutionary and adaptative adjustments. Marriage is enduring; it is not inherent in biologic evolution, but it is the basis of all social evolution and is therefore certain of continued existence in some form. Marriage has given mankind the home, and the home is the crowning glory of the whole long and arduous evolutionary struggle.

P.913 - §4 Notwithstanding the personality gulf between men and women, the sex urge is sufficient to insure their coming together for the reproduction of the species. This instinct operated effectively long before humans experienced much of what was later called love, devotion, and marital loyalty. Mating is an innate propensity, and marriage is its evolutionary social repercussion.

P.915 - §4 Marriage is the institutional response of the social organism to the ever-present biologic tension of man's unremitting urge to reproduction--self-propagation. Mating is universally natural, and as society evolved from the simple to the complex, there was a corresponding evolution of the mating mores, the genesis of the marital institution. Wherever social evolution has progressed to the stage at which mores are generated, marriage will be found as an evolving institution.

P.922 - §7 The family, which grows out of marriage, is itself a stabilizer of the marriage institution together with the property mores. Other potent factors in marriage stability are pride, vanity, chivalry, duty, and religious convictions. But while marriages may be approved or disapproved on high, they are hardly made in heaven. The human family is a distinctly human institution, an evolutionary development. Marriage is an institution of society, not a department of the church. True, religion should mightily influence it but should not undertake exclusively to control and regulate it.

P.922 - §8 Primitive marriage was primarily industrial; and even in modern times it is often a social or business affair. Through the influence of the mixture of the Andite stock and as a result of the mores of advancing civilization, marriage is slowly becoming mutual, romantic, parental, poetical, affectionate, ethical, and even idealistic.

P.1776 - §0 character. Character is something more than mere mind and morals. Of all social relations calculated to develop character, the most effective and ideal is the affectionate and understanding friendship of man and woman in the mutual embrace of intelligent wedlock. Marriage, with its manifold relations, is best designed to draw forth those precious impulses and those higher motives which are indispensable to the development of a strong character. I do not hesitate thus to glorify family life, for your Master has wisely chosen the father-child relationship as the very cornerstone of this new gospel of the kingdom. And such a matchless community of relationship, man and woman in the fond embrace of the highest ideals of time, is so valuable and satisfying an experience that it is worth any price, any sacrifice, requisite for its possession.

P.1777 - §1 I repeat, such inspiring and ennobling association finds its ideal possibilities in the human marriage relation. True, much is attained out of marriage, and many, many marriages utterly fail to produce these moral and spiritual fruits. Too many times marriage is entered by those who seek other values which are lower than these superior accompaniments of human maturity. Ideal marriage must be founded on something more stable than the fluctuations of sentiment and the fickleness of mere sex attraction; it must be based on genuine and mutual personal devotion. And thus, if you can build up such trustworthy and effective small units of human association, when these are assembled in the aggregate, the world will behold a great and glorified social structure, the civilization of mortal maturity. Such a race might begin to realize something of your Master's ideal of "peace on earth and good will among men." While such a society would not be perfect or entirely free from evil, it would at least approach the stabilization of maturity.

Anyway Jeff I hope you enjoy some of those excerpts. I believe relationships were designed to be Divine. And in relationships we act in the image of God. Like the Creator Son and Mother Spirit in prefect unison and complementary action co-creating a universe. A man and a women represent the potential of acting in the form of the Complimentary Natures of Our Mother Spirit and Creator Son as well as The joint creativity of the Divine Trinity.

Peace be with you Jeff, and ALL here. [/quote]

[joer]

Zzy, As a reader of The Urantia Book I come across new scientific discoveries that have been anticipated by TUB many years in advance.

Like this article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal someone shared on a UB site:
The Wall Street Journal
May 15, 2009
Fossil Discovery Is Heralded
HERE

Here is some breaking news about a find related to the common ancestor of humans, monkeys, and apes. From WSJ May 15, 2009:

By GAUTAM NAIK

In what could prove to be a landmark discovery, a leading paleontologist said scientists have dug up the 47 million-year-old fossil of an ancient primate whose features suggest it could be the common ancestor of all later monkeys, apes and humans.

Anthropologists have long believed that humans evolved from ancient ape-like ancestors. Some 50 million years ago, two ape-like groups walked the Earth. One is known as the tarsidae, a precursor of the tarsier, a tiny, large-eyed creature that lives in Asia. Another group is known as the adapidae, a precursor of today's lemurs in Madagascar.

Based on previously limited fossil evidence, one big debate had been whether the tarsidae or adapidae group gave rise to monkeys, apes and humans. The latest discovery bolsters the less common position that our ancient ape-like ancestor was an adapid, the believed precursor of lemurs.[lemur] AP Photo/Karen Tam

A fossil discovery suggests humans may be descended from an animal that resembles present-day lemurs like this one.

Philip Gingerich, president-elect of the Paleontological Society in the U.S., has co-written a paper that will detail next week the latest fossil discovery in Public Library of Science, a peer-reviewed, online journal.

"This discovery brings a forgotten group into focus as a possible ancestor of higher primates," Mr. Gingerich, a professor of paleontology at the University of Michigan, said in an interview.

The discovery has little bearing on a separate paleontological debate centering on the identity of a common ancestor of chimps and humans, which could have lived about six million years ago and still hasn't been found. That gap in the evolution story is colloquially referred to as the "missing link" controversy. In reality, though, all gaps in the fossil record are technically "missing links" until filled in, and many scientists say the term is meaningless.

Nonetheless, the latest fossil find is likely to ignite further the debate between evolutionists who draw conclusions based on a limited fossil record, and creationists who don't believe that humans, monkeys and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

Scientists won't necessarily agree about the details either. "Lemur advocates will be delighted, but tarsier advocates will be underwhelmed" by the new evidence, says Tim White, a paleontologist at the University of California, Berkeley. "The debate will persist."

The skeleton will be unveiled at New York City's American Museum of Natural History next Tuesday by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and an international team involved in the discovery.

According to Prof. Gingerich, the fossilized remains are of a young female adapid. The skeleton was unearthed by collectors about two years ago and has been kept tightly under wraps since then, in an unusual feat of scientific secrecy.

Prof. Gingerich said he had twice examined the adapid skeleton, which was "a complete, spectacular fossil." The completeness of the preserved skeleton is crucial, because most previously found fossils of ancient primates were small finds, such as teeth and jawbones.

It was found in the Messel Shale Pit, a disused quarry near Frankfurt, Germany. The pit has long been a World Heritage Site and is the source of a number of well-preserved fossils from the middle Eocene epoch, some 50 million years ago.

Prof. Gingerich said several scientists, including Jorn Hurum of Norway's National History Museum, had inspected the fossil with computer tomography scanning, a sophisticated X-ray technique that can provide detailed, cross-sectional views. Dr. Hurum declined to comment.

Although the creature looks like a lemur, there are some distinctive physical differences. Lemurs have a tooth comb (a tooth modified to help groom fur); a grooming claw; and a wet nose. Dr. Gingerich said that the adapid skeleton has neither a grooming claw nor a tooth comb. "We can't say whether it had a wet nose or not," he noted.

Since the fossilized creature found in Germany didn't have features like a tooth comb or grooming claw, it could be argued that it gave rise to monkeys, apes and humans, which don't have these features either.

Write to Gautam Naik at gautam.naik@wsj.com
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A4

The Urantia Book said in 1946:

P.700 - §2 The great event of this glacial period was the evolution of primitive man. Slightly to the west of India, on land now under water and among the offspring of Asiatic migrants of the older North American lemur types, the dawn mammals suddenly appeared. These small animals walked mostly on their hind legs, and they possessed large brains in proportion to their size and in comparison with the brains of other animals. In the seventieth generation of this order of life a new and higher group of animals suddenly differentiated. These new mid-mammals--almost twice the size and height of their ancestors and possessing proportionately increased brain power--had only well established themselves when the Primates, the third vital mutation, suddenly appeared. (At this same time, a retrograde development within the mid-mammal stock gave origin to the simian ancestry; and from that day to this the human branch has gone forward by progressive evolution, while the simian tribes have remained stationary or have actually retrogressed.)

P.703 - §1 About one million years ago the immediate ancestors of mankind made their appearance by three successive and sudden mutations stemming from early stock of the lemur type of placental mammal. The dominant factors of these early lemurs were derived from the western or later American group of the evolving life plasm. But before establishing the direct line of human ancestry, this strain was reinforced by contributions from the central life implantation evolved in Africa. The eastern life group contributed little or nothing to the actual production of the human species.

1. THE EARLY LEMUR TYPES - P.703

P.703 - §2 The early lemurs concerned in the ancestry of the human species were not directly related to the pre-existent tribes of gibbons and apes then living in Eurasia and northern Africa, whose progeny have survived to the present time. Neither were they the offspring of the modern type of lemur, though springing from an ancestor common to both but long since extinct.

P.703 - §4 With the passing of time the seacoast of India southwest of the mountains gradually submerged, completely isolating the life of this region. There was no avenue of approach to, or escape from, this Mesopotamian or Persian peninsula except to the north, and that was repeatedly cut off by the southern invasions of the glaciers. And it was in this then almost paradisiacal area, and from the superior descendants of this lemur type of mammal, that there sprang two great groups, the simian tribes of modern times and the present-day human species.

P.703 - §5 A little more than one million years ago the Mesopotamian dawn mammals, the direct descendants of the North American lemur type of placental mammal,

P.704 - §5 These aggressive little animals multiplied and spread over the Mesopotamian peninsula for more than one thousand years, constantly improving in physical type and general intelligence. And it was just seventy generations after this new tribe had taken origin from the highest type of lemur ancestor that the next epoch-making development occurred--the sudden differentiation of the ancestors of the next vital step in the evolution of human beings on Urantia.

Although it's not conclusive, IT'S A HUGE DISCOVERY Zzy! reviewing the little information I have. I would say "adapid" may have led to humans and the "tarsidae" group may have led to "the simian tribes of modern times."

Time will tell Z. Time will tell. have good day Z.

I'm going to add a link to this discovery to the Science Page whose Link I posted for Once and encouraged you to review.

Peace you guys. You see God isn't against evolution. God was waiting for us to advance enough to understand it. Now God's giving us insight to and encouragement for continuing our scientific discovery of God's processes like evolution and creation.

[OnceConvinced]

Have there been things that have been proven to be incorrect?

There are things that appear to be incorrect But over time many have become correct as science advances.

So like the opposite of the bible then?

I'd love to believe that this book of yours actually has stuff in it that Jesus really said. But I can't help but feel that it is perhaps fiction and wishful thinking or conjecture on part of whoever the author/authors were.

[OnceConvinced]

Hi Joer.

Due to time restraints I only skimmed through that post on marriage.

Seems to suggest it is an evolving institution and that what it entials will change over time.

[joer]

Have there been things that have been proven to be incorrect?

There are things that appear to be incorrect But over time many have become correct as science advances.

So like the opposite of the bible then?

I'd love to believe that this book of yours actually has stuff in it that Jesus really said. But I can't help but feel that it is perhaps fiction and wishful thinking or conjecture on part of whoever the author/authors were.

I know what you mean Once. I rejected it and refused to read it over two years because of the same suspicion.

All I can say. Is give the OnceConvinced Test. Read and see what you opinion is after reading it. Then share it with me and others. I had to read it like it was a novel, when I started on Part IV. The Life and Teachings of Jesus. After I decided to read like that, I was richly rewarded for my efforts.

Heck millions and millions of people have read Harry Potter and enjoyed it.

Try this story on the Life and Teachings of Jesus and I believe even if you don't believe it's true (Like I didn't as first) You think that's the way the Life of Jesus should have been related to us.

Try it Once. That's all I can say.

From here to the end. Just read one paper. this one is Paper 122. Start at the heading Joseph and Mary. Right off the bat you'll differences from the Bible. Right off the Bat.

PAPER 122: BIRTH AND INFANCY OF JESUS
http://urantiabook.org/newbook/papers/p122.htm