"Instead of the 2000+ page House of Sand "Urantia" you recommend"
Thanks, Scott for your recommendation of the Scientific American article which I will try to find and read.
From your post I would conclude that you are an advocate of the general scientific method of:
-- investigation and free enquiry
-- establishing testable hypotheses
-- scientifically testing them with appropriate controls, etc
-- proclaiming the result as "true" or "factual"
That general sort of thing....... You buy that, yes?
I presume, therefore, that you have used that methodology
relative to the Urantia book and found it wanting. If so, that's fine with me. I would be interested to hear your more detailed critique and conclusions.
However, I suspect that perhaps you did not use your favored methodology in this case.
How many pages did you read
--2000 plus?
--1000?
--100?
--10?
--0?
Truthfully, Scott?
To understand the Urantia book at any level at all you need to have some knowledge of, or appreciation of the Psychic realm. This is a channeled book. We can avoid that discussion by the simple statement: "No such thing".
As I have said many times, I am not a devotee of the Urantia society and have no idea what their members do as a Spiritual practice. But to me the book has some merit.
But Scott, tell us the extent of your investigation of the Urantia Book. And if it is 0 pages read, see if you can SCIENTIFICALLY investigate how you came to your conclusion.
Or did you just read it psychically, and give us a summary
three word description?
Namaste!
Jim |
