© 2016 Jan Herca, Santiago Rodríguez, Efraín Vivanco, Josep Bosch, Carmelo Martínez, Iván Înigo
© 2016 Urantia Association from Spain
Luz y Vida — No. 43 — Presentation | Luz y Vida — No. 43 — March 2016 — Index | Eugenics for these times |
By various authors
(Conversation held on the list “El rincón de Urantia”, January 2016)
Participants:
The news is spectacular like few others.
http://www.abc.es/ciencia/abci-descubren-planeta-gigante-sistema-solar-201601201910_noticia.html
http://www.elmundo.es/ciencia/2016/01/20/569fbdae268e3eab3f8b4596.html
This is news of incredible proportions for the scientific community, not only because of the discovery itself, but also because of the type of planet that has been discovered, which literally destroys everything that was known about what our solar system was like and how it had formed.
I highly recommend reading sections UB 57:5 and UB 57:6 of the book, because one of the things I’ve been hearing from detractors of the book for a long time is that some parts of its scientific material are clear errors. The book clearly states that the solar system originally had twelve planets, and that it even stole three more planets from another nearby solar system (the real culprit in the formation of ours). For a long time that figure did not fit with the eight / nine maximum planets that science had discovered.
This new finding could turn current planetary science upside down and would be the biggest piece of evidence in favor of the “crazy” science some criticize in the book.
I am so excited and eager to continue reading the news that I do not continue with more data. Please, encourage us to read about this exciting topic and post comments to the thread.
Thank you Jan, for the news.
Certainly those of us who like science, news and research that support the science content of The Urantia Book especially like it (at least to me), because it is like a pat on the back that generates personal satisfaction, a small achievement (which really only feeds our ego), and I do not mean by this that we have to prevent this from happening to us, far from it. Satisfying the ego in its proper measure I think it’s adequate.
The reality is that there are many other occasions in which The Urantia Book is completely contradictory with current science, especially in everything that has to do with the time in which things have occurred in which it coincides with current science. , and fundamentally in cosmology (origin, shape, size, laws that govern it and elements that make up the universe), with which there are “enormous” discrepancies.
We always have to consider the limitations of the revelation, to try to understand why they have not been as clear in the revelation as we personally would have liked. We must wait to see how human knowledge approaches the teachings of The Urantia Book. And this will possibly happen when there are many scientific readers of the book who begin to bet on approaches and new ideas for science but based on their reading.
The “detractors” of The Urantia Book are so because they have not wanted to understand many of the important things that the book pours out, and they use part of its content as an excuse not to face what would make them leave their personal comfort zone. Consequently, if they did not find arguments in its favor in the scientific contents, they would look for and find other arguments to discredit it, because The Urantia Book is not “law”, it is not “the word of God” and, no matter how revealed it is, it is always Sufficient elements must appear so that the one who wants to believe believes and finds it reasonable, and that the one who does not want to believe does not do so and also finds it reasonable. If it were not so, our freedom of choice regarding the spiritual would not really be free or voluntary.
I do not want to downplay what The Urantia Book says, which is very important for those of us who believe in its contents, but I believe that what is really important and valuable is what it awakens in the reader.
The one who has read it and criticizes it is that he has not been able to wake up to anything that the book itself exposes; he will know why…
Whoever looks in The Urantia Book for the demonstration of the existence of spiritual reality is in the same position as the one who asked Jesus for miracles.
The detractors of the book are because they have not found the demonstration they expect. They want to substitute reason for the volitional act of wanting to believe. And trust, faith, the decision to want to believe in a God, is outside of any reasoning so that respect for free will is total.
Totally agree with what you say, Santiago. And I must say that for me the fact that the book says some things that scientifically were yet to be discovered does not imply that proof that it is true. For me its validity has always been in the beauty of many of its spiritual messages. But there are many people who are less sensitive to beauty for whom at least certain statements in the book might help them understand that this book is special.
The book’s outright statement that our solar system has twelve planets, and potentially 15, is a statement that is not based on disclosure limitations or is offered in adapted language or in a manner that requires future revision by science. . It is a statement of what I call “direct revelations.” Here either there are those planets or the book is simply wrong or does not tell the truth in a matter that was not necessary for our spiritual evolution. That there are 10, 12 or 50 planets in our solar system does not have the slightest interest for our soul as spiritual beings that we are.
But if it may be of interest as proof for the most disbelievers that this revelation is true. And I believe that deep down every revealer always wants his revelation to be created. So they usually leave some pearls along the way looking for that effect.
I am convinced that, with new instruments and great scientists, in the near future it will be possible to discover if the formation of the solar system is as the book tells. And at that time people will return to the book with different eyes. There are nuanced scientific things in the book, and things that are not. The first are to make it difficult to believe in it. The second, to make it easier to believe in it. Because faith is not a thing of hands in the wound. It is a thing of internal struggle, even when there is no wound in which to put your hand.
But yesterday, curiously, was one of those days when there was an injury.
A most interesting topic and in the attached image it already shows us 12 planets in our system (one without a name) so with this new detection, we would go for all 15.
Thank you, Jan, for this scientific and beautiful news, which corroborates once again that the Fifth Revelation is real and credible; because to me The Urantia Book is coherent and therefore acceptable, and I do not believe that any part of the book is a fallacy.
But I wonder: if with this new planet there would be ten known ones, including the degraded Pluto, or would they integrate the list of the twelve Ceres and Charon, as Josep says, or two remain to be discovered; or two disintegrated forming the asteroid belts. What do you guys say?
Hello Efraín. I seem to remember that the asteroid belt had never become a planet, that is, it would be one that never formed. What I don’t understand is Ceres, which seems to be there.
Through the link, it is curious to see that the same astronomer who caused the defenestration of Pluto is the one who precisely tries to demonstrate that the so-called planet X does not exist, has come to the conclusion that it really is.
As for The Urantia Book and its scientific assertions, I also believe that they are true, although I am not conditioned that they are and I do not detract from their credibility if they were not. For me the book is a revelation but, above all, it is my guide to not miss the train, even getting on the last wagon and secretly, hahaha.
Many times the problem of contrasting the scientific information of The Urantia Book with the “official” science is one of definitions.
The definition of planet made by the IAU (International Astronomical Union), not to be confused with the AIU (International Urantia Association) and the doubts and changes you can see here https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redefinición_de_planeta_de_2006.
The closest thing to a definition of a planet that we can find in The Urantia Book is UB 15:6.14.
If the definitions do not coincide, the classification of spheres may well be different without the information being contradictory.
The solar system is what it is, and the revelators know it “first hand” or better, “at first sight.” Earth science is discovering this as it is able to penetrate more and more knowledge of the space around us through better telescopes and the sending of unmanned spacecraft. But I think that up to the orbit of Pluto, even a little beyond, both knowledge coincide in the essential. Another thing is how the different known spheres are classified according to the definitions in use.
What is transcendent about this discovery, in my modest opinion, is that it marks (once again) a line. Those who see a contradiction between science and The Urantia Book should be more prudent and accept that human science is a developing subject and that, whether or not they believe in the veracity of what the book tells us, new discoveries can be expected. that “turn upside down”, or at least deny or qualify, some truths accepted (even as absolute) at a given time.
Nor should we readers throw the bells on the fly. The Urantia Book is not a scientific book, and those who hope to be convinced of its truth by its information on science have it raw. In this sense, it is worth rereading the section 4 of paper 101. As some of you have rightly said, what convinces (and transforms) the book is personal experience, which in essence is discovering the Father in us.
P.S. By the way, Josep, you can read in paragraph UB 57:6.5 that the asteroid belt was initially a planet, the fifth from Monmatia.
Allow me some clarification for those who do not know much about the subject.
Pluto was initially considered a planet and then ceased to be due to its very small size, almost like that of a moon, and its plane of rotation, which does not coincide with that of the rest. It looks as if it was just a moon that bounced off of that mass dance that takes place at times of planetary formation.
The concept of the planet in current science and in the book, I believe, is not very different. A planet is understood as everything that is in the main rotation of the star, although the possibility of the existence of rogue planets is also postulated. Ceres is one of the three huge bodies that represent 50% of the mass of asteroids beyond Mars, and that in my opinion show that the belt was formed by the rupture of a planet and not by a failed accretion, as seems to postulate current science. It is the same phenomenon that gave rise to Saturn’s rings, which are nothing more than the remains of a fragmented moon.
Then, not counting Pluto, we already had nine planets out of the twelve mentioned in the book. If Pluto were a stray moon from another planet, that would still leave us with three more planets to discover.
Regarding the other three planets belonging to ancient Angona and that our Monmatia system stole, the book does not clarify if they are now part of Monmatia or if after being stolen they became rogue planets, all of them or some of them. Those that would become rogue planets by now will be very far from us and will not even be detectable. What was stolen and incorporated into our system could indeed be stolen and be gravitating in very distant orbits.
The curious thing about the discovery is that it deduces that the size of the planet’s mass must be enormous, something highly unprecedented. The book itself says that the mass of the innermost and outermost planets was definitely smaller than that of the central giants. My guess is that this planet is either one of those captured in Angona, or the calculations are not correct and what is actually believed to be a planet is the influence of three small ones, the three that we are missing.
To say as a curiosity that Professor Brown was convinced that the ninth planet was a legend and his work was aimed at trying to prove that it did not exist. Their surprise came when, when collecting data, they have had to admit evidence to the contrary. And I say: where did this scientific obsession for the existence of a ninth planet come from? I think we have the answer in front of us, don’t we?
I agree with Santiago Rodriguez, and I add that we are promoters of the truth of the fifth revelation and, above all, patient. I also believe that it is necessary to include the interest of scientists in The Urantia Book, but slowly, and for this we must persevere, otherwise it will happen as with Adam and Eve, who partially failed due to rushing and we know that the fifth revelation is due to evolution and not revolution. I believe that if we wait as long as it takes, humanity will slowly discover that it is true that there are twelve planets. I don’t remember exactly, but it is true that the book we hold dear says that another sun crossed our solar proximity and produced some effect. That, too, will be discovered by science.
And before and during those discoveries it will be important that humanity be prepared for the truth of The Urantia Book, not abruptly. Because otherwise it will be unstable and we will return to the retrograde state of believing without feeling.
I read the news and is it a gas planet? I think that means it came from a sun, it seems to me… another sun. As the fifth revelation says.
Luz y Vida — No. 43 — Presentation | Luz y Vida — No. 43 — March 2016 — Index | Eugenics for these times |