Regarding the question, “Is the UB a religious or a philosophic book?”, Bonita wrote:
I believe this statement needs clarification. Perhaps Chris does clarify it elsewhere, I don’t know, but I have heard others repeat it as though it were fact. I’m disinclined to accept this statement on face value alone. Is it possible that the text is both philosophical and religious? How about scientific?
…
Does Chris mean that the Urantia Papers are not scripture? If so, I can accept that. But to say that it is not religious makes no sense to me. Any thoughts?
Thanks for exploring this! My first thought is that such a question needs some background against which it can be discussed. For example, imagine such a question asked in a context like this:
From a “Jerusem perspective”, what might be missing from the conceptual landscape evolving on Urantia?
To get the ball rolling, think of the role Dalamatia [1,2] might have played, had that cultural seed survived. Now think of the role an Adamic civilization might have played, had that cultural seed survived. Now, since neither seed survived, think about what intended (non-physical) realities failed to actualize…
One thing that hit me last year: had either seed survived, our ground-based ministers, administers and administrations would all share more or less of a Jerusem perspective onto the purposes, problems and potentials of human life on Urantia. So, as a way into the question (of whether the UB is a religious or philosophic book), from the perspective of our administration on Jerusem, we might say that we lack “a Jerusem perspective onto” ourselves.
Personally, I believe that this — in intimate collaboration with Michael’s personal presence and a few million well-Adjusted souls — is what the Urantia book has the potential to restore: i.e. a deeper and broader perspective.
So what about the comment by Chris Halvorson that “the UB is not a religious text”? First thing is a quick check of the context in which it was said (a discussion of Paper 16 Section 6). Here’s the audio file in question:
http://www.perfectinghorizons.org/AudioFiles/20130322.mp3.zip
At time = 0:01:50, Chris says:
“… they’re hoping that at this section that it finally strikes you: wait a minute, this is not a religious text; certainly not a religious text in the old style sense of it, where it’s some elaborate construct of figmentary things, spiced up with a recognition of goodness, which has its value, its place. But in the evolutionary grand scheme of things, there comes a time when you need to take the next step. With the fifth epochal revelation, this is where you finally begin to recognize it as the fifth epochal revelation, not just some sort of an augmentation of the fourth. This is the point at which you recognize it as a philosophic text.”
Those of us who have studied these papers for years are, in some sense, able to see this question from the perspective of the Caligastia 100: “how to help these vibrant natives understand their place in the scheme of things?” So for us (as seasoned students), while our interaction with epochal revelation may have had personal religious repercussions, eventually this book begins to serve more as a conceptual frame within which to live out an expanded experience of being truly guided missiles, perfection-seeking humans launched at our true Father, in Paradise.
PS: rather than quibble about where Chris’ comments appear to conflict with our assumptions, for the cost of downloading any of his decades worth of contributions, we might do a little work to try and understand his meaning. From which we can freely choose whatever value we discover or recognize.
[1] https://urassoc.arko.nyc/the-urantia-book/part-2/paper-51/#U51_6_3
[2] https://urassoc.arko.nyc/the-urantia-book/part-3/paper-66/#U66_3_0
Nigel
