Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:22 am +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 8:08 am +0000
Posts: 240
Location: Ft, Myers Florida
With the gay issue so much front and center in today's society, I sometimes wonder why there is absolutely no mention of homosexuality in the Urantia Book.

I have several theories as to why TUB has no mention or reference:

1. Our sexuality has nothing whatsoever to do with spiritual growth or, for that matter, our identity beyond material life.
2. Homosexuality is more or less a passing issue and therefore has little or no relevance to the spiritual growth of our world
3. Being gay has little or no bearing on the individual soul, therefore the Revelators' didn't think it had any real relevance

I would be interested in hearing what others think about this.

_________________
Jim Watkins
SW Florida


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
Hi Jwatkins00, Regarding homosexuality and parenthood, TUB explicitely states that effective parents can be two persons of the same sex:
Quote:
160:2.4 Symbolic communication between human beings predetermines the bringing into existence of social groups. The most effective of all social groups is the family, more particularly the two parents. Personal affection is the spiritual bond which holds together these material associations. Such an effective relationship is also possible between two persons of the same sex, as is so abundantly illustrated in the devotions of genuine friendships.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 8:08 am +0000
Posts: 240
Location: Ft, Myers Florida
Yes, and that is the only statement that is remotely close to the subject.

BTW, I am NOT trying to introduce the gay-agenda here, but because the mainstream news media seems obsessed with it, I thought it interesting that if it is such a big social issue, then why is it not mentioned in TUB?

My guess is that homosexuality is a trivial issue not worthy of mention, and all the hype is self-serving by a generation that is obsessed with things physical not spiritual.

_________________
Jim Watkins
SW Florida


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:29 pm +0000
Posts: 2441
Bart wrote:
Hi Jwatkins00, Regarding homosexuality and parenthood, TUB explicitely states that effective parents can be two persons of the same sex:
Quote:
160:2.4 Symbolic communication between human beings predetermines the bringing into existence of social groups. The most effective of all social groups is the family, more particularly the two parents. Personal affection is the spiritual bond which holds together these material associations. Such an effective relationship is also possible between two persons of the same sex, as is so abundantly illustrated in the devotions of genuine friendships.


Although they qualify that statement by saying its illustrated in friendship. So there may be no sexual connotation with that statement.

Here is my theory. Sorry if it offends anyone...

I think because we have so little of Adam and Eves genetics we don't get the full male and female expression in people so there is some overlapping of male and female nature in people. I think sometimes this overlapping can get so severe that you get someone who is homosexual. Had Adam and Eve succeeded I don't think it would be a normal thing. I agree its pretty trivial though.

I noticed that a lot of women who are gay identify as males (some what) and with men it can go the other way.

IMO There are clues in TUB that you can use to help you figure this stuff out.

_________________
StrongcharactersRnotderivedfromnotdoingwrongbutratherfrom
actuallydoingrightUnselfishnesisthebadgeofhumangreatnes
Thehighestlevelsofselfrealizationareatainedbyworshipandservice
Thehapyandefectivepersonismotivatednotbyfearofwrongdoingbutby
loveofrightdoing


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 8:08 am +0000
Posts: 240
Location: Ft, Myers Florida
Boomshuka,

Your Adam and Eve point is something I had not thought of. You may be on to something.

These days one has to choose one's words carefully as to not offend some who may be gay, as if there is a defect of some sort. But the truth is, and I say this because of my own experience, many people who define themselves by their sexuality miss the mark, they get confused, and these days, it's cool to have some unorthodox identity you can belong to, like a club.

_________________
Jim Watkins
SW Florida


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:09 am +0000
Posts: 722
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Homosexuals who don't practice promiscuity IMO already have an advantage over heterosexuals. They are already ahead of the game. Sexuality is no more of use beyond this first life.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 8:59 pm +0000
Posts: 330
Location: North Dakota
Quite a topic in today's socially confused environment Jim. First in regard to Bart's comment it is important to remember that Paper 160 is Rodan's philosophy not God's revelation. Number 2 is this from paper 84:1.9.

"Regardless of the antagonisms of these early pairs, notwithstanding the looseness of the association, the chances for survival were greatly improved by these male-female partnerships. A man and a woman, co-operating, even aside from family and offspring, are vastly superior in most ways to either two men or two women. This pairing of the sexes enhanced survival and was the very beginning of human society. The sex division of labor also made for comfort and increased happiness."

So the question regarding the value of human pair associations is clearly answered. This is not a sexual issue it is a spiritually societal issue.

There is also the parenthood requirement for our spiritual growth. We cannot procreate same sex without a surrogate which brings into consideration the spiritual repercussions to the surrogate. I offer these for discussion.

Jim


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:22 pm +0000
Posts: 49
jwatkins00 wrote:
With the gay issue so much front and center in today's society, I sometimes wonder why there is absolutely no mention of homosexuality in the Urantia Book.

I have several theories as to why TUB has no mention or reference:

1. Our sexuality has nothing whatsoever to do with spiritual growth or, for that matter, our identity beyond material life.
2. Homosexuality is more or less a passing issue and therefore has little or no relevance to the spiritual growth of our world
3. Being gay has little or no bearing on the individual soul, therefore the Revelators' didn't think it had any real relevance

I would be interested in hearing what others think about this.


Jwat, I think it has to be defined within the context of sin. Fornication, if I'm not mistaken was not literally spoken of as well. Often times TUB make mention of couples, wives and husband and so fort, and never in the least suggest homosexuality was a normal lifestyle depicted in the heavens. I'll be quick to add that there are no condemning statements in TUB about the lifestyle either -unlike the Bible; its just ignored like fornication. here's an interesting take on sin:

Quote:
(984.5) 89:10.2 Sin must be redefined as deliberate disloyalty to Deity. There are degrees of disloyalty: the partial loyalty of indecision; the divided loyalty of confliction; the dying loyalty of indifference; and the death of loyalty exhibited in devotion to godless ideals.

(984.6) 89:10.3 The sense or feeling of guilt is the consciousness of the violation of the mores; it is not necessarily sin. There is no real sin in the absence of conscious disloyalty to Deity.

(984.7) 89:10.4 The possibility of the recognition of the sense of guilt is a badge of transcendent distinction for mankind. It does not mark man as mean but rather sets him apart as a creature of potential greatness and ever-ascending glory. Such a sense of unworthiness is the initial stimulus that should lead quickly and surely to those faith conquests which translate the mortal mind to the superb levels of moral nobility, cosmic insight, and spiritual living; thus are all the meanings of human existence changed from the temporal to the eternal, and all values are elevated from the human to the divine.

(984.8) 89:10.5 The confession of sin is a manful repudiation of disloyalty, but it in no wise mitigates the time-space consequences of such disloyalty. But confession — sincere recognition of the nature of sin — is essential to religious growth and spiritual progress.

(985.1) 89:10.6 The forgiveness of sin by Deity is the renewal of loyalty relations following a period of the human consciousness of the lapse of such relations as the consequence of conscious rebellion. The forgiveness does not have to be sought, only received as the consciousness of re-establishment of loyalty relations between the creature and the Creator. And all the loyal sons of God are happy, service-loving, and ever-progressive in the Paradise ascent.


The question then is, if there's no consciousness of Diety in an individual who is homosexual, or a fornicator, does his lifestyle considered a sin by God according to what we've read?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Online

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3655
Many good points by all. Well said. Intentions and motive are the key to every relationship. Are hetero wife beaters, child molesters, spouse cheaters, liars, thieves, etc. superior to any who are motivated by love, loyalty, sharing, caring, and community? No indeed. Of all the ways that rebellion and default have brought confusion to our world, sexual orientation seems to fall far short of all other manner of evil and sin. Indeed, are we not truly born to succumb to pleasure as a natural way to perpetuate the species? We are "tricked" by bio/physical pleasure first and then must slowly evolve into family units with universe examples of the better way, then the superior way to formulate the very foundation of civilization - the family. Families today seldom resemble the ideal. Perhaps a better issue for societal attention and change.

I have many gay friends who know far more about family values and live spirit led lives and do so despite society making them outcasts. Consider the nobility of overcoming prejudice by orientation, race, religion, or simply being female, etc. and how important all minority populations are to the "majority" who fear and hate. Some of the most wonderful people I ever met were found in these minorities by my ability to lay aside prejudice and judgment - a social and personal test I think for the each and all. Human rights leave no fellow child of Father behind. To give dignity by "class" or to un"class"ify is a sign of the formation of high civilization.

I agree that the ideal is not well served by many forms of choice and behavior in the world today. But the gay fear or hate mongers are but a symptom of that reality....dysfunction by poor motive and priorities. Sex itself is not a defining issue and no act really is - what is the motive and intent behind the act? Promiscuity is not unnatural. But the ego can make anything evil, even sinful. Isn't sexism and male domination the far greater evil in the world today? Or racism? Or religious intolerance? We are all made better by those who stand up in the face of ignorance, prejudice, hate, and fear. Something I will never know about personally. Everything I have overcome pales in comparison.

Peace 8)

Brad


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:00 pm +0000
Posts: 691
Location: Savannah GA
I am going with JWatkins on this one. It is trivial. Funny that something which causes so much angst and uproar in this short life will mean next to nothing in the next. Great point about wife beaters etc...
Bottom line, I think is, that if you are well adjusted in this world, then your are well poised for the next. Sexuality be dammed.
We all will have to experience raising children. The Authors are very clear on this. But their ommission of things sexual, at least as far as the individuals sexuality goes, speaks volumes on their regard for its importance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:29 pm +0000
Posts: 2441
There is one thing I do take from TUB in regards to sex and that is the section on True Monogamy. Not that this relates to the topic though.

_________________
StrongcharactersRnotderivedfromnotdoingwrongbutratherfrom
actuallydoingrightUnselfishnesisthebadgeofhumangreatnes
Thehighestlevelsofselfrealizationareatainedbyworshipandservice
Thehapyandefectivepersonismotivatednotbyfearofwrongdoingbutby
loveofrightdoing


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 4:49 pm +0000
Posts: 53
Bart wrote:
Hi Jwatkins00, Regarding homosexuality and parenthood, TUB explicitely states that effective parents can be two persons of the same sex:
Quote:
160:2.4 Symbolic communication between human beings predetermines the bringing into existence of social groups. The most effective of all social groups is the family, more particularly the two parents. Personal affection is the spiritual bond which holds together these material associations. Such an effective relationship is also possible between two persons of the same sex, as is so abundantly illustrated in the devotions of genuine friendships.


Hi Bart,

The context of that quote is effective human communication. You have bolded two separate examples of effective communication and conflated them into an erroneous conclusion. Stating that the devotions of same-sex genuine friendships is an example of an effective relationship in no way implies that same-sex couples performing a parental role are as effective as actual biological parents.

Your conclusion also conflicts with the quote that Jim George posted.

_________________
Success may generate courage and promote confidence, but wisdom comes only from the experiences of adjustment to the results of one’s failures.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
KiwiRich wrote:
Hi Bart,

The context of that quote is effective human communication. You have bolded two separate examples of effective communication and conflated them into an erroneous conclusion. Stating that the devotions of same-sex genuine friendships is an example of an effective relationship in no way implies that same-sex couples performing a parental role are as effective as actual biological parents.

Your conclusion also conflicts with the quote that Jim George posted.
Hi KiwiRich, I didn’t state that same-sex parents are as effective as biological (hetero-sexual) parents. I responded to Jwatkins’ complaint that "there is absolutely no mention of homosexuality in the Urantia Book." I provided what I think may be one quote about homosexuality (same-sex friendships) and parenthood (160:2.4). That’s all.. O:)

I think Jim’s question whether homosexual pairs should have biological children (through a surrogate) remains open.. And what about adoption..?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 4:49 pm +0000
Posts: 53
Bart wrote:
Hi KiwiRich, I didn’t state that same-sex parents are as effective as biological (hetero-sexual) parents. I responded to Jwatkins’ complaint that "there is absolutely no mention of homosexuality in the Urantia Book." I provided what I think may be one quote about homosexuality (same-sex friendships) and parenthood (160:2.4). That’s all.. O:)

I think Jim’s question whether homosexual pairs should have biological children (through a surrogate) remains open.. And what about adoption..?


Point taken - you meant that they are effective, not that they are as effective. But since the "same sex" sentence refers to friendship, I don't see any reference to homosexuality or same-sex couples in a parental role.

The issue of whether homosexual pairs should adopt, would almost completely disappear if all biological parents would care for their kids. And I only say "almost" because there is still the possibility of parents dying in accidents. We should focus on the "disease" of broken families and unqualified parents, rather than the "symptom" of homosexual couples adopting.

Regarding homosexual couples having biological children through a surrogate, I think it is less than ideal. Children with a same-sex pair in the parental role will not get the same diversity of experience as children who have a representative from both sexes to look up to and learn from. Biological ties are there for a reason - they matter. That's why so many adopted children go looking for their biological parents - they feel something is missing in their lives.

_________________
Success may generate courage and promote confidence, but wisdom comes only from the experiences of adjustment to the results of one’s failures.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
KiwiRich wrote:
… Point taken - you meant that they are effective, not that they are as effective. But since the "same sex" sentence refers to friendship, I don't see any reference to homosexuality or same-sex couples in a parental role.
Hi KiwiRich. TUB explicitely states that effective parents can be two persons of the same sex:
Quote:
160:2.4 Symbolic communication between human beings predetermines the bringing into existence of social groups. The most effective of all social groups is the family, more particularly the two parents. Personal affection is the spiritual bond which holds together these material associations. Such an effective relationship is also possible between two persons of the same sex, as is so abundantly illustrated in the devotions of genuine friendships.
So, effective parenthood is possible with two persons of the same sex, period; i.e., in genuine same-sex friendships, but possibly also in homosexual relationships..


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: fanofVan, Google Feedfetcher


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group