Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Sun Apr 21, 2019 4:06 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 111 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:14 am +0000
Posts: 128
I am just curious as to the objectives and goals of some people in their posts, spefically those that seem to have a general bias, a negative bias from my point of view. Do they have a right to presen their view? Definitely! Is the purpose of their post to further our understanding and widen our perpective? Welcome!

So if one receives opposition then please clearly state your motives i.e. "I am confused because..." or I have a question regarding ..." But to deliberately sow doubt with the purpose of undermining individual faith is a serious issue. Sophistry, rhetoric aside, is "subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation". Perhaps it is indeed merely overthinking, but I am aware of a deeper, more subtle intent that bothers me, like smelling smoke when there is no flame evident. Please everyone, forgive me and correct me if I am wrong, but I feel I must protest even if it is the protest of a spiritual youth.j


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 640
92:4.9 (1008.2) 5.
Quote:
... But no revelation short of the attainment of the Universal Father can ever be complete. All other celestial ministrations... partial, transient... While such admissions as this may possibly detract from the... authority of all revelations, the time has arrived on Urantia when it is advisable to make such frank statements, even at the risk of weakening the future influence and authority of this, the most recent of the revelations of truth to the mortal races of Urantia.

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 2921
pethuel wrote:
I am just curious as to the objectives and goals of some people in their posts, spefically those that seem to have a general bias, a negative bias from my point of view. Do they have a right to presen their view? Definitely! Is the purpose of their post to further our understanding and widen our perpective? Welcome!

So if one receives opposition then please clearly state your motives i.e. "I am confused because..." or I have a question regarding ..." But to deliberately sow doubt with the purpose of undermining individual faith is a serious issue. Sophistry, rhetoric aside, is "subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation". Perhaps it is indeed merely overthinking, but I am aware of a deeper, more subtle intent that bothers me, like smelling smoke when there is no flame evident. Please everyone, forgive me and correct me if I am wrong, but I feel I must protest even if it is the protest of a spiritual youth.j


I hope the mods have the ears to hear this. So far it seems there is no limit to the amount of skepticism and criticism of the Revelation allowed, even welcomed and protected, here. Puzzling. And contrary to the guidelines IMO.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 4:57 pm +0000
Posts: 7
I agree Pethuel. There is a very disturbing lack of love, understanding, and tolerance in this forum.

"You shall love one another with a new and startling affection, even as I have loved you."

"As I have revealed the Father, so shall you reveal the divine love, not merely with words, but in your daily living."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 640
Pethuel,

I do not think anyone on this board has some kind of Luciferian agenda or intently is promoting "sophistry" to railroad your faith. And personally I would not hastily adjudge the author of this thread bias to the book. Each person is unique in their belief and understanding of the revelations. Plus, none of us personally know each other outside this digital medium. Further, a critical approach to any book does not necessarily equate to bias.

Everyone is searching for the answer to God. Admittedly some are not fully satisfied with what they have received in the papers or lack faith in them. So they take to the message boards to test the book's degree of truthfulness, by relying on the defense of it from those who are more faithful to the revelations. Maybe it is their way of hoping to find an argument that could augment their faith. This thread I think serves that purpose for the anonymous author (this thread should be moved to Abner's corner. The mods may want to look into that, it's their call.) Interestingly, discussions like this is how "iron sharpens iron." As a person who has studied the Bible, I am sure you know what that proverb means.

I absolutely encourage readers to challenge the revelations even if they have unwavering faith in them. I am always challenging what the revelators claim and what I claim on them, sometimes on UB message boards but most often in my personal studies, time and space. I find when I gain an insight of truth, as my conscious continues to expand, when I revisit that truth I uncover newer meanings.

No one should blindly accept any Holy text on its own "self-serving" claims, in my opinion. It must be proven to the reader, and each reader has their own standard of proof. If one feels their faith has been weakened by a "fault" allegedly found in TUB and presented to the public, then all I can say is that the person's faith never took root in the text. Perhaps more study is called for? More prayer required? But let's be clear, this is not a Church. It is a public forum opened to all readers. And certainly we the readers are not of one mind (understanding) regarding the revelation.





pethuel wrote:
I am just curious as to the objectives and goals of some people in their posts, spefically those that seem to have a general bias, a negative bias from my point of view. Do they have a right to presen their view? Definitely! Is the purpose of their post to further our understanding and widen our perpective? Welcome!

So if one receives opposition then please clearly state your motives i.e. "I am confused because..." or I have a question regarding ..." But to deliberately sow doubt with the purpose of undermining individual faith is a serious issue. Sophistry, rhetoric aside, is "subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation". Perhaps it is indeed merely overthinking, but I am aware of a deeper, more subtle intent that bothers me, like smelling smoke when there is no flame evident. Please everyone, forgive me and correct me if I am wrong, but I feel I must protest even if it is the protest of a spiritual youth.j

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 2921
The author is not anonymous or unknown or unnamed...and is no friend of the Revelation. Read the thread please.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 642
fanofVan wrote:
The author is not anonymous or unknown or unnamed...and is no friend of the Revelation. Read the thread please.


I agree. It is ridiculous that BB continues to ask questions and make comments that he would not need to make if he read the thread from the beginning. BB, why participate in a discussion when you walk in the door after it has been going on for a very long time, and just jump in without bothering to catch up to where everyone else is at in terms of being familiar with what was first posted? It's disruptive, disrespectful and reflects poorly on your motives for participating.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 2921
Mark606 wrote:
I agree Pethuel. There is a very disturbing lack of love, understanding, and tolerance in this forum.

"You shall love one another with a new and startling affection, even as I have loved you."

"As I have revealed the Father, so shall you reveal the divine love, not merely with words, but in your daily living."


Every new member can alter any group dynamic. I look forward to your own positive contributions here. I wonder how tolerant we are to be of falsehood and attacks on the Revelation? And those who sow doubts so gleefully? How did the Master deal with the enemies of truth? Does the attack on the Revelation here also disturb you? Glad you are here and your own light and perspective.

8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:14 am +0000
Posts: 128
:!:
fanofVan wrote:

I hope the mods have the ears to hear this. So far it seems there is no limit to the amount of skepticism and criticism of the Revelation allowed, even welcomed and protected, here. Puzzling. And contrary to the guidelines IMO.


If the moderators choose to allow these posts that is not a problem with me, that is their prerogative. That was the question I was praying about when I thought of the parable of the tares, sometimes you have to let the plants grow to see whether they are wheat or tares. Sometimes you have to let a thread go to see where it leads.

Whether or not this is an attack matters little to me because the Urantia Book needs no defenders, it stands and will stand regardless of sophistries or personal agendas contrary to its message.

I don't know the papers well enough to engage in theological discussions and even if I was qualified I don't know if I would take part. But I do question the motivation behind some posts.

I haven't been around long enough to choose sides or belong to a faction, nor do I wish to. But I do believe that all who profess to love the Master and His teachings should be seeking ways to edify others as Jesus did by his personal example. If I don't agree with a position or a statement I usually keep my mouse shut or ask for clarification. So I apologize for my "Ï smell a Luciferian rat" comment if it was offensive to someone. But since there is a specific forum for skeptical opinions, and there is Abner's Corner for whatever it's for it is odd that someone would post polemic subjects in an open forum intended for seekers.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 642
Yes, back on page 1, I asked why this wasn't in Abner's Corner. The mod at the time replied right after my post and, I guess, made the determination that it could remain where it is. But I think the capability of the Abner's Corner members-only forum should be utilized more frequently; I mean, it's supposedly there for a good reason. Seems like this thread is a great example of the type of discussion that should go in there.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted:  
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 9:13 am +0000
Posts: 880
Location: Denver CO
To All,

This topic has had no activity for 2 years. Now, all of a sudden, it is being resurrected. I have some major reservations.

2 years ago the forum moderator's initial response was a pretty general denunciation of the original posting, a thoughtful comment on the value of the Bible, and a request for the author of the essay; and I agree with his assessment of the essay. I think since then, the author's been identified...

The original essay contains false statements about The Urantia Book, and is, in my view, inflammatory. I don't find it a good topic for general view, as the whole premise is based on false statements. Nevertheless, it was allowed to continue, and appears to have gotten a fairly good airing-out of the topic 2 years ago.

The thread ran from Sept 11 to Sept 20,2016 at which time it seemed to have reached its natural conclusion and activity ceased. There was some good discussion that came from it and maybe that is why it was allowed to continue. Now, two years later, it seems to have grown new legs and seems to be inviting new thoughts. At first, I was all ready to lock the topic, but the discussion seemed to just quickly open up. And that seemed a good reason for me to let it continue. But there's a definite angst building now. Would that be resolved with a move to Abner's? - as requested? I wonder.

The premise of the original document is at fault here, I think, for it calls into question the possibility of The Urantia Book being "dangerous." I don't much care for that. That is carrying a healthy skepticism a bit too far, inviting more of the same from some members, when what we are here for is to discuss the content of the book - not whether we accept it or not.

Given those thoughts, I think it will be best to simply lock the thread. I will leave it open for another day or two for final comments.

MaryJo


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 811
nodAmanaV wrote:
I've posted the following by permission. Although I don't agree with everything stated, what's at the core is resoundingly true.

The DANGERS of the URANTIA BOOK ...


nodAmanaV - It's time to come clean now, isn't it? Exactly where did that text come from and who is the author? If the author didn't give you permission to divulge his or her name and the context in what such text was written it should not have been posted, should it not?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 642
Riktare,
The author was identified back on page 1 of the thread. It was an essay that was posted publicly on Facebook.

Agon D. Onter wrote:


nodAmanaV wrote:
At this point I would like to thank Larry for not booting me. That's not to say he won't change his mind, but I sincerely hope not. If I had checked the forum rules instead of being unmindful of them, I would not have initiated this topic. I enjoy this place very much. Again, thank you Larry for your understanding.

The reason I thought it would be good to post what my cousin Ray has posted elsewhere (thanks Agon) is exactly what Brad has done with his posts. Like you said Brad, perhaps the topic should be discussed even more.

....



Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 2921
maryjo606 wrote:
To All,

This topic has had no activity for 2 years. Now, all of a sudden, it is being resurrected. I have some major reservations.

2 years ago the forum moderator's initial response was a pretty general denunciation of the original posting, a thoughtful comment on the value of the Bible, and a request for the author of the essay; and I agree with his assessment of the essay. I think since then, the author's been identified...

The original essay contains false statements about The Urantia Book, and is, in my view, inflammatory. I don't find it a good topic for general view, as the whole premise is based on false statements. Nevertheless, it was allowed to continue, and appears to have gotten a fairly good airing-out of the topic 2 years ago.

The thread ran from Sept 11 to Sept 20,2016 at which time it seemed to have reached its natural conclusion and activity ceased. There was some good discussion that came from it and maybe that is why it was allowed to continue. Now, two years later, it seems to have grown new legs and seems to be inviting new thoughts. At first, I was all ready to lock the topic, but the discussion seemed to just quickly open up. And that seemed a good reason for me to let it continue. But there's a definite angst building now. Would that be resolved with a move to Abner's? - as requested? I wonder.

The premise of the original document is at fault here, I think, for it calls into question the possibility of The Urantia Book being "dangerous." I don't much care for that. That is carrying a healthy skepticism a bit too far, inviting more of the same from some members, when what we are here for is to discuss the content of the book - not whether we accept it or not.

Given those thoughts, I think it will be best to simply lock the thread. I will leave it open for another day or two for final comments.

MaryJo


So glad to hear you say we are gathered here to "discuss the content of" the UB. I was beginning to wonder...based on all the recent posts of fables, theories, beliefs, and opinions which have little to do with discussing or presenting the contents of the Revelation. I hope we can remain focused on our purpose here...to celebrate this light of hope, truth, and knowledge of reality as a study group of the Revelation.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 2921
fanofVan wrote:
nodAmanaV wrote:
The harder you struggle to describe what you don't know, the more you become what isn't true.


Well...you should know Enno!

Wondering if you still promote the DANGERS of the URANTIA BOOK?

A lesson in motive and agenda. I recall a teaching that the extent of the defense of any proposition is the inverse of its truth content...or something similar? Confirmation of your post above I think.

I have found over the years here that great DANGER does attend the study of the UB and the community of UB students: and that DANGER is threefold. First are the enemies of the Revelation; those dedicated to the torment and termination of the community and those who think it is the work of the devil and its believers to be fools in darkness or their cousins who come to distort and contradict the UB with false claims, declarations, fables, superstitions, misconceptions, and other confoundments of the Revelation who wish to revise it or interpret its hidden codes and meanings, revealing their own ignorance and prejudice.

Second is those who, no matter their understanding or appreciation of the Revelation, feel entitled to determine the spiritual standing and worthiness of others and waste much time telling others what they are and are not doing and what they should and should not be doing or what they are or not believing but should or should not be believing, filled with the arrogance of spiritual pride and superiority but truly demonstrating their own ignorance and prejudice.

Third are those members of the student community who sit silently, if politely, hoping to avoid any conflict with such wolves. Or worse, those who invite them in and serve them tea and crumpets while they torment truth...and abuse such hospitality. Where are we taught passive submission to priests and the enemies of truth?!

May our community never be silent when confronted. And as this topic proves, we are often so confronted.

8)


I resurrected this topic specifically to illustrate the reality that some posters here have both motive and agenda and opinions which are oppositional to the stated purpose and goals of this study group. 10 people have joined in the discussion again already. I wonder why this thread might, now, be locked rather than left alone or moved to the Skeptics Corner or Abner's...and wonder why some other more recent topics are not moved to the Skeptics Corner as well...considering the content of opinions and declarations which contradicts the UB. What are Abner's and the Skeptic's Corner for I wonder?

The motive and agenda of posters here is relevant. We are told we are to discern such important factors of perspective and opinion...it is part of gaining wisdom. What is Ray's intention here...and what is nod/Enno's in posting, presenting, and defending it...still. Why do some come here to openly defy or contradict the UB or declare it says what it does not say or declare it does not say what it does? And what should be the response to that?

Thoughts?

Bradly 8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 111 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: No registered users


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