|
Are The Urantia Papers demonstrably of superhuman origin?
If we concede that hearsay evidence is inconclusive, then there is no concrete evidence that can unequivocally verify such a claim. However, there are at least two alternative means by which we can evaluate our ideas about the authorship of the Papers.
If we divide the subject matter of the Papers into a component containing theological and philosophical discussion having a "spiritual" flavor, and a second component that covers historical, anthropological, and archaeological matters, then we give ourselves the opportunity to utilize comparative methods to evaluate whether we believe various sections are within the creative capacity of known human authors.
If we believe they are, then we can still take from the Papers, whatever we find to be meaningful for ourselves. But if we do come across materials that we think are beyond or above the capacity or means of human authors, then we have a different but personal decision to make about meaning.
For any new reader, it may be far more productive to ignore all they may have seen or heard about the Papers and simply read them for their immediate intrinsic worth.
To pre-judge the Papers and bring previously held prejudices into the assessment can be counter productive. An example is Martin Gardner, author of a critique entitled "Urantia. The Great Cult Mystery." Prior to writing his book, Gardner was author of a magazine article that denigrated The Urantia Book. However, he made so many errors that he later admitted that he had not actually read it. His subsequent book was mainly an exercise in self-justification.
|
|
