Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:16 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 133 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
It has been a while since I have posted to this forum, but it is good to see the same discussants yet engaged in revelation. I posit the following and welcome opinions, not arguments. How do we come to a consensus on revelation when we have varied experiences that each of us brings into our interpretation of the papers ? I think that this was a major stinking point for the revelatory commission, to which they admit, that is, presenting a uniformly interpreted revelation.

This is what we are told by a celestial:

Quote:
2:7.1 (42.2) All finite knowledge and creature understanding are relative. Information and intelligence, gleaned from even high sources, is only relatively complete, locally accurate, and personally true.

2:7.2 (42.3) Physical facts are fairly uniform, but truth is a living and flexible factor in the philosophy of the universe. Evolving personalities are only partially wise and relatively true in their communications. They can be certain only as far as their personal experience extends. That which apparently may be wholly true in one place may be only relatively true in another segment of creation.

2:7.3 (42.4) Divine truth, final truth, is uniform and universal, but the story of things spiritual, as it is told by numerous individuals hailing from various spheres, may sometimes vary in details owing to this relativity in the completeness of knowledge and in the repleteness of personal experience as well as in the length and extent of that experience. While the laws and decrees, the thoughts and attitudes, of the First Great Source and Center are eternally, infinitely, and universally true; at the same time, their application to, and adjustment for, every universe, system, world, and created intelligence, are in accordance with the plans and technique of the Creator Sons as they function in their respective universes, as well as in harmony with the local plans and procedures of the Infinite Spirit and of all other associated celestial personalities.


I highlighted key points in the above. What is your take or interpretation regarding the particular revelation? What is the difference, if any, between facts and truth within the context of revelation?

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3742
Greetings BB. I think truth is relative to and for finite beings because truth is experiential and is a relationship or relatvity between facts or people or facts and people. A fact is singular but a truth is always between facts...in relation to facts and according to a creature's understanding which is always relative to knowledge and experience and wisdom. Facts are true but less than or different from truth.

Epochal Revelation is factual and true but the truth of Revelation, whether epochal or personal, is personal to the mind of each person relative to their own ability to discern and utilize the knowledge revealed. Or so I understand.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
fanofVan wrote:
Greetings BB. I think truth is relative to and for finite beings because truth is experiential and is a relationship or relatvity between facts or people or facts and people. A fact is singular but a truth is always between facts...in relation to facts and according to a creature's understanding which is always relative to knowledge and experience and wisdom. Facts are true but less than or different from truth.

Epochal Revelation is factual and true but the truth of Revelation, whether epochal or personal, is personal to the mind of each person relative to their own ability to discern and utilize the knowledge revealed. Or so I understand.



Profound response, Bradly! So how do we come to a consensus on revelation considering that we have different experiences we bring to the table? Do we restrict ourselves to the literal interpretation of epochal revelation? What purpose do you think autorevelation serves in it especially when an autorevelation put forward may come across disjointed with the literal interpretation of an epochal revelation?

Quote:
101:4.3 (1109.4) Truth is always a revelation: autorevelation when it emerges as a result of the work of the indwelling Adjuster; epochal revelation when it is presented by the function of some other celestial agency, group, or personality.

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:14 am +0000
Posts: 174
[quote="brooklyn_born"] "So how do we come to a consensus on revelation considering that we have different experiences we bring to the table? Do we restrict ourselves to the literal interpretation of epochal revelation? What purpose do you think autorevelation serves in it especially when an autorevelation put forward may come across disjointed with the literal interpretation of an epochal revelation?"

We come to a consensus when we are seeking consensus. I also can only speak for myself, I know what I have experienced as revelatory truth and how it vastly different it is than merely connecting what I consider to be dots and drawing a conclusion. That which I consider revelatory I hang on to pretty doggedly, but mere conclusions are easily abandoned when I have access to better information, which happens pretty often. All of us must agree that our concepts must change as we progress, our spiritual vision gets sharper and our understanding deepens. However the attitude we manifest when presenting ideas is what determines our ability to build consensus. In a forum such as this, made up of advanced students and deep thinkers as well as neophytes and curious toddlers, we all do well to do our best to follow the Master's example of listening and answering as well as the examples of the many sincere seekers who presented their questions to him. The only examples I can remember of trolling were the Pharisees, they were not seeking consensus, quite the contrary, they were constantly setting verbal traps.

Spiritual maturity suggests calm responses to contrary opinions. Spiritual pride seeks the satisfaction of "winning" an argument more than in finding consensus on a point of discussion. Flippant dismissals of others' thoughts and musings are counter productive to the goals of forum discussion, yet sometimes I find myself planning strategies as if it were a game of chess rather than a search for enlightenment and clarity, actually hoping someone will make a statement that will leave themselves open to the correction of my brilliant reasoning, ha ha. What futile thinking!

If I have had a revelatory experience I need to realize that it is indeed personal and intended for my personal growth. Religions are full of denominations founded upon personal interpretations of obscure passages of sacred writings and "God showed me" folks with a preacher's itch and a talent for persuasion. Having a doctrinal axe to grind seems of utmost importance for the owner of the axe but is often nothing more than sparks and noise when foisted on others.

So, "Pray before you say" seems to be a good watchword, we are wise to check our hearts and make sure consensus and counsel is what we are seeking and not theological one-upmanship.









winning an argument


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
UBook is without an official Church, which I think would eliminate a lot of conflicts as everyone would have no choice but get on board with a standard liturgy. But then that probably would fly in the face of what the revelators want, or would it? Should there be a Urantia Church? I know it has been proposed.

pethuel wrote:
brooklyn_born wrote:
"So how do we come to a consensus on revelation considering that we have different experiences we bring to the table? Do we restrict ourselves to the literal interpretation of epochal revelation? What purpose do you think autorevelation serves in it especially when an autorevelation put forward may come across disjointed with the literal interpretation of an epochal revelation?"

We come to a consensus when we are seeking consensus. I also can only speak for myself, I know what I have experienced as revelatory truth and how it vastly different it is than merely connecting what I consider to be dots and drawing a conclusion. That which I consider revelatory I hang on to pretty doggedly, but mere conclusions are easily abandoned when I have access to better information, which happens pretty often. All of us must agree that our concepts must change as we progress, our spiritual vision gets sharper and our understanding deepens. However the attitude we manifest when presenting ideas is what determines our ability to build consensus. In a forum such as this, made up of advanced students and deep thinkers as well as neophytes and curious toddlers, we all do well to do our best to follow the Master's example of listening and answering as well as the examples of the many sincere seekers who presented their questions to him. The only examples I can remember of trolling were the Pharisees, they were not seeking consensus, quite the contrary, they were constantly setting verbal traps.

Spiritual maturity suggests calm responses to contrary opinions. Spiritual pride seeks the satisfaction of "winning" an argument more than in finding consensus on a point of discussion. Flippant dismissals of others' thoughts and musings are counter productive to the goals of forum discussion, yet sometimes I find myself planning strategies as if it were a game of chess rather than a search for enlightenment and clarity, actually hoping someone will make a statement that will leave themselves open to the correction of my brilliant reasoning, ha ha. What futile thinking!

If I have had a revelatory experience I need to realize that it is indeed personal and intended for my personal growth. Religions are full of denominations founded upon personal interpretations of obscure passages of sacred writings and "God showed me" folks with a preacher's itch and a talent for persuasion. Having a doctrinal axe to grind seems of utmost importance for the owner of the axe but is often nothing more than sparks and noise when foisted on others.

So, "Pray before you say" seems to be a good watchword, we are wise to check our hearts and make sure consensus and counsel is what we are seeking and not theological one-upmanship.









winning an argument

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3742
Would you attend? Or be bound by any creeds and doctrines established by others?

I will not be....

There are already such churches. Jim George has started one. There are other congregations. It is a natural urge. However, to be clear, any church created by humans, no matter the source of creed and doctrine, is but another human evolutionary church. It is not Divinely endorsed or blessed or attended just because there may be a Urantia Book on the altar rather than a Bible or Koran or Scroll. The Church of Urantia will strictly be a human organization and subject to all the challenges and failures we are warned about in the UB related to organized, evolutionary religions.

Which is not to say or opine it should not happen. It will happen. It has already happened. The outcome depends upon the wisdom of the founders, the leaders, and the flock over time. We shall see.....

There are some who believe and preach that the celestials intended the Brotherhood and the Foundation to start a church. The historical record says otherwise, as does the text itself I think. The purpose of the epochal revelation is made clear within itself...it is not for the formulation of yet another human institution.

8)


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

Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:16 pm +0000
Posts: 993
Location: Nanticoke NY
pethuel wrote:
If I have had a revelatory experience I need to realize that it is indeed personal and intended for my personal growth. Religions are full of denominations founded upon personal interpretations of obscure passages of sacred writings and "God showed me" folks with a preacher's itch and a talent for persuasion. Having a doctrinal axe to grind seems of utmost importance for the owner of the axe but is often nothing more than sparks and noise when foisted on others.


I believe that autorevelation and Revelational Experiences, witnessed by me a human individual, are valid according to one's culture, if not one's religious community standards or the Urantia Book. However, if a culture or as you say "a religion" (a religious community) ably and accurately socialises, encourages and supports the independent formulation of the scientific view of reality, it is likely that such Revelational Experiences would be amenable or interpretable according to the standards of one's culture. Even if you do not have a community or a Church, I would hope you have a family or a civil center where you have friends, where you share your experiences.

Pethuel, I am not contesting your idea that Revelation can be an fact of assurance that the human individual knows, but I feel you are discounting how Revelational Experiences affect the overall human individual's potential for compassion, his yearning to be valuable in society and to actually help others. You are correct that in the manner in which one spiritually gives or forcefully intellectually promulgates his beliefs: he may either be sharing his experiences of Revelation with others "in accordance with the approval of the First Source and Center", or "as an act of pride". Hey, I guess I am the guy people can look at and say, "well, did he commit the err of mixing truth and fictions", sullying his own words with postulates riddled in factual contradiction and/or psychological innuendo? =;

Haha but let us consider that: every human individual has his own Revelational Experience, each person experiences autorevelation according to (a) cultural/religious/family circumstances and (b) his own personality, and so your own Revelational Experiences, and the things (gifts) that you feel you actually know and have gained from God, are not as important as how such an individual must be having his own Revelational Experience, and how to help him understand what is happening in his own mind, "as the Gifts of the Holy Spirit" are bestowed upon him increasingly. The question is not "how may I convince the human individual whom I have encountered, the truth of my Revelational Experiences", but rather, "how is that human individual whom I have encountered experiencing the reality of God?"

What is the truth about Revelation? Revelation is founded on "personal religious experience"; (personal religious experience is not bound merely to the hour of worship). true experiences of Revelation happen, and are often too profound of description "when the individual is striving to become like the First Source and Center." The remembrance of revelational or religious experiences, is not as important as the individual's continuous spiritual reception that allows the total human experience within the mind of the psyche. In this sense, "Satori" applies to the potential of the human individual to be part of the Revelation, to receive autorevelation as one works and acts, in any moment.

Interpretation is a key issue. We all (all of my friends and each member of my family) wants to say that we have had revelatory experiences, or experiences from which we have derived specific memories of the experience with God. However, those who attest to have had NDE's often progressively amend their language, their narratives of the memory from those experiences, until their stories become hallowed-out symbols of "the light", spiritual beings capable of representing the likeness of family and friendship bonds. If you have too much pride that you must "hang on" to your past or former experiences involving autorevelation, in order to explain it, then how is that helping you to live continuously or eternally as a father unto others? Simply realise that every child is sentient therefore is having their personal autorevelational experience, and answer to a person when that one says he is looking for something better to do.

Yeah, so this only personal interpretation. But I hold that Revelation occurring when the First Source and Center, you know "rising up through the unconsciousness of the individuating human psyche of a human individual", is something only real or valid "if made conscious or intellectually discernible via the human experience," in other words such acts within the psyche as would help that one to realise the will of God, as may be applied personally in one's own labours, (i.e. "autorevelation" as constituted in experiences whereby a person is learning to do the will of the Father). The idea that the Particle-Fragment of the First Source and Center actually lives in the minds of every human individual, is difficult to accept. When the true demands of the unconscious "begin to surface" near conscious levels of human thought, it is because the human individual is seeking those outcomes. However, it is only reasonable to assume that until the age of life and light, there will be a marked difference, between the true longing of the First Source in every individual, and the cultural applications of mandates received from Revelation, the measure of which and the means by which humans attempt to apply new (i.e. "original") and better goals of progress.

_________________
to the Underlaying Unity of All Life so that the Voice of Intuition may guide Us closer to Our Common Keeper


Last edited by SEla_Kelly on Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:23 am +0000, edited 1 time in total.

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
Quote:
There are already such churches. Jim George has started one. There are other congregations. It is a natural urge. 


Bradley, Robert Sarmast came up with an idea he wanted to develop concerning a "Urantia Church" many years ago. Several very loyal readers, including myself, assisted in the development of his ideas and nothing ever came of it. I haven't looked at anything related to it for years, so please stop using that well intended effort on our part, as an intended slight. It is unbecoming.

Jim


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

Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:16 pm +0000
Posts: 993
Location: Nanticoke NY
Haha but I enjoyed Robert Sarmast's presentations! I agree with him when he demands more organisation from Urantia Book readers. I do not know why two Urantia Book readers would not want to marry and engage in a great mutual endeavor to rear a family and build an environment whereby to assist in their children's development and skillsets. I feel as though if I am not really focused on "the welfare and maintenance and preservation" of my own community and family, my attempt to formulate religious community will fail. I trust that Gabriel Commissioned the Urantia Papers at the City of Chicago, to help the western society assimilate to the fact that Abner and the Apostles of John led several Hebrew communities to preserve Jesus' instructions, that we have this book in order to know how those communities may have prospered, and to prepare the measure in Christianity how we may interact and intermarry with the life that those communities may have prospered, and may still possess in human civilization.

My interpretation: in spite of Robert Sarmast's attempt to form a new community called "Urantia Religion", I believe that a true religious community is emerging from Urantia Book readers, who after studying its contents reflect on their actions, and decide to take the obligations of the pages seriously, in a more public or private manner. I feel that you Jim George, and Larry Watkins, and Mary Jo have assembled, as in a Council of Elders, because always offering full consideration, most helpful words, and best advice in a prompt, terse, deliberate (well-understood) manner. That regardless of the name or the functional obligations that one signs onto in life, that in the spirit of truth all Churches are one, in that they are consecrated in their application of God's will in the grand universe.

_________________
to the Underlaying Unity of All Life so that the Voice of Intuition may guide Us closer to Our Common Keeper


Last edited by SEla_Kelly on Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:52 am +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3742
Jim George wrote:
Quote:
There are already such churches. Jim George has started one. There are other congregations. It is a natural urge. 


Bradley, Robert Sarmast came up with an idea he wanted to develop concerning a "Urantia Church" many years ago. Several very loyal readers, including myself, assisted in the development of his ideas and nothing ever came of it. I haven't looked at anything related to it for years, so please stop using that well intended effort on our part, as an intended slight. It is unbecoming.

Jim


No insult intended Jim. Robert is a noted scholar and servant of dissemination. I have never insulted his efforts or motivation and you'll not find a single post of mine that insults his efforts.

And there have been two distinct generations of this effort by both of you, the last not so long ago. Sorry neither has gained much traction but I'm not surprised. I have my own ideas as to why but those are for another discussion.


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
Quote:
And there have been two distinct generations of this effort by both of you, the last not so long ago. Sorry neither has gained much traction but I'm not surprised. I have my own ideas as to why but those are for another discussion.


Please explain, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Jim


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

Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:16 pm +0000
Posts: 993
Location: Nanticoke NY
Each of the Apostles were required to build their own Kingdoms, their own Churches. Every Urantia Religion is different according to the needs of each family. It can only be a good sign, if one family and another family who both read the Urantia Papers in their homes, should learn to interact better. Jim is seeing that Bradley chooses to take notice of Robert's failures, in building his church, rather than his own. Well, but if you can see that Robert Sarmast is one of the leaders in the way or means one might build a new church, to establish new traditions in the modern age according to how one may learn from the nature of Jesus' personality, it is a better form of competiting because this form allows for the expression of every human individual's unique gifts and talents. But what I would really like to see is if children who are born in our current era will actually seize the opportunity to full expression of post-ultimate destiny, as in the total cooperation with this theoretical Mystery Monitor.

_________________
to the Underlaying Unity of All Life so that the Voice of Intuition may guide Us closer to Our Common Keeper


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3742
Jim George wrote:
Quote:
And there have been two distinct generations of this effort by both of you, the last not so long ago. Sorry neither has gained much traction but I'm not surprised. I have my own ideas as to why but those are for another discussion.


Please explain, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Jim


There was a topic entitled The Urantia Church by Robert you were party to announcing the relaunched church in mid 2016, with an August 2016 announced date. You have no idea eh? Hmmmm.....

It was my understanding that you and Robert had changed your target market/audience/flock from readers and students of the Revelation to unassociated and unaffiliated Christian believers looking for a new church family. Perhaps I misunderstood? So no luck with either group then?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3742
SEla_Kelly wrote:
Each of the Apostles were required to build their own Kingdoms, their own Churches. Every Urantia Religion is different according to the needs of each family. It can only be a good sign, if one family and another family who both read the Urantia Papers in their homes, should learn to interact better. Jim is seeing that Bradley chooses to take notice of Robert's failures, in building his church, rather than his own. Well, but if you can see that Robert Sarmast is one of the leaders in the way or means one might build a new church, to establish new traditions in the modern age according to how one may learn from the nature of Jesus' personality, it is a better form of competiting because this form allows for the expression of every human individual's unique gifts and talents. But what I would really like to see is if children who are born in our current era will actually seize the opportunity to full expression of post-ultimate destiny, as in the total cooperation with this theoretical Mystery Monitor.


No shame in failure...it is the mirror where we may truly see ourselves. Success is built upon failure and disappointment. I am actually a fan of Robert's as all my posts here for many years will affirm. He is a great self determined worker in the vineyard and a testament to faith and the Revelation. You and Jim are both way off base. Insulting indeed.

Anyone familiar at all with Robert's service knows he has many accomplishments and victories to his everlasting credit.


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
Good grief Bradley, are you so petty?

In 2016 Robert and I shared a couple of emails, PERIOD.

Nothing ever came of anything and I decided I was not being led of the spirit to be involved in any way. Why are you so adamant on affiliating me with this?

All I ever did, EVER, was talk with Robert.

So, once and for all, I am not affiliated nor do I sponsor the concept of a Urantia Church. But it was an interesting idea.

And then there is this. In 1970 after I made my decisions to follow God to the fullest extent of my abilities, I found the Urantia Book. I was immediately faced with a decision way back in the beginning. My question was how could I prove that this book is what it says it is. Should I learn the book and become a book scholar, or should I live the book and see if my life is transformed by God as it says it will be. I chose the latter. How I do that is none of your business to evaluate. If you sincerely desire to help then be honest about your feelings and assist me in what you find questionable, but please stop challenging me and everyone who posts something your understanding doesn't quite appreciate.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 133 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: Google [Bot]


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