|
Editorial
A word of explanation, perhaps an apology to those with no interest in the prophetic science of The Urantia Book, appears to be in order in view of the radical departure from our usual format by the inclusion of one exceptionally long article in this issue. For those so affected, be assured that it will be a one-off experience except in rare circumstances.
The Urantia Book imposes a quandary upon readers with a strong science background who become aware of several classes of science material in the book. Some is contemporaneous with the science of the early part of the century and is now outdated--as would be expected from the terms of the mandate for revelation. (1109) Other material is simply puzzling and may be there just to help complete a "universe frame in which to think." (1260)
But there is also some that cannot be explained other than that its origin is from non-human sources. Such material provides incontrovertible evidence that this book is what it claims to be, an authorized revelation provided by celestial beings for the spiritual uplift of the human races. By drawing attention to the prophetic science, at least some formerly agnostic or disinterested people may feel compelled to give serious consideration to what significance such a revelation might have upon their lives. However, the book itself states:
"Overpowering arguments and mental superiority are not to be employed to coerce men and women into the kingdom. Man's mind is not to be crushed by the mere weight of logic or overawed by shrewd eloquence." (1765)
Two relatively recent events were instrumental in bringing about the inclusion of the following article (which is the text of a talk given by Ken Glasziou at the recent annual meeting of Australian readers of the book). One event was the exceedingly strong support provided by newly published materials on the prophetic validity of the included materials. The other was the publication of Martin Gardner's book attacking the authenticity of the revelation. So bear with us as we demonstrate that our revelation is nothing other than what it claims to be and that Gardner did not do his homework adequately.
|
|
