Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Mon Apr 06, 2020 10:30 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 217 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 15  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 12:42 pm +0000
Posts: 2411
Location: Central New Mexico, USA
Wow! That's quite a collection, Iris! I didn't read them all. After I got a perception of what the message was, they seemed obscene and so I quit reading them. But it appears as though radical feminists (or "feminazi's" as Rush Limbaugh calls them) are another brand of extremists, like white supremists, or political terrorists. But I really don't think anybody here on TruthBook.com subscribes to such.

As students of the Urantia Papers, understanding the value of the home, appreciating the ideals of pair marriage, seeing the home as the cradle of civilization, knowing the meaning of intelligent wedlock, being aware of what all went into finding the ideal home environment for Jesus to be born into, recognizing that the home provides the basis for the development of human character ... all these values, whether they are able to be realized in fullness or not, are values precious to us all of us here, I am sure.

_________________
Gerdean O'Dell
Author: "Secrets of Promise"


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

Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:44 am +0000
Posts: 1773
Gerdean,

Glad you agree that radical feminists are obscene.

iris


Last edited by Bonita on Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:53 am +0000, edited 1 time in total.

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

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:19 pm +0000
Posts: 959
Sometimes one just has to walk away.

Peace to all....
jo


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

Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:44 am +0000
Posts: 1773
Good bye


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

Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 12:42 pm +0000
Posts: 2411
Location: Central New Mexico, USA
Actually, it was the diatribe that was obscene.

Leave it to Cleaver.

_________________
Gerdean O'Dell
Author: "Secrets of Promise"


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

Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:44 am +0000
Posts: 1773
Quote:
"Divine love does not merely forgive wrongs; it absorbs and actually destroys them. The forgiveness of love utterly transcends the forgiveness of mercy. Mercy sets the guilt of evil-doing to one side; but love destroys forever the sin and all weakness resulting therefrom. Jesus brought a new method of living to Urantia. He taught us not to resist evil but to find through him a goodness which effectually destroys evil. The forgiveness of Jesus is not condonation; it is salvation from condemnation. Salvation does not slight wrongs; it makes them right. True love does not compromise nor condone hate; it destroys it. The love of Jesus is never satisfied with mere forgiveness. The Master's love implies rehabilitation, eternal survival. It is altogether proper to speak of salvation as redemption if you mean this eternal rehabilitation." 2018:01


Last edited by Bonita on Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:57 am +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:05 pm +0000
Posts: 669
Location: Tulsa, OK
Jo, I seem to have elevated the collective blood pressure a bit with my comments. I’ll try and be specific, and kind, with my responses.

Jo said:

Quote:
Well, Ray...even though I was a little disappointed in your reaction to what I wrote, I'm not really surprised. Although I must admit that I was "caught off guard" at your closing condescending remark. It has been a long time since this ploy has been used on me...it's obviously still in use.


That was, to me, a very strange reaction, Jo. Let’s see, I said in my closing remark,

Quote:
Jo, I hope whatever difficulties you have had with men and women in your past and present are soon healed and that your present and future finds you primarily in physical, mental and spiritually fragrant environments.


Are you saying you’ve had no difficulties in your past with either men or women? Having had difficulties would make you “normal” in my opinion. We are all trying to heal. Some wounds take more time to heal than others and I was sincere in sending you best wishes in your present and future efforts. You seemed very angry and angry is OK however peace with the past and present is even more OK. I apologize if you saw it as condesending.

Jo said:

Quote:
For the record, I wasn't attacking you or your own reality. But you are coming from a completely different living and biological mind set.


Exactly – I explained / defined my completely different living mindset in order to provide context to my comments. The nuclear family I grew up in was an Ozzie and Harriet mind set – the Cleavers were cloned from my Mom and Dad. Only when the last child was in high school did my mom return to the work force where she excelled. Mom "being there" for her kids when they came home from school was a high priority for my Mom and Dad. Dad had to work two jobs for many years to keep beans on the table for six kids but he did it cheerfully. All the kids helped around the house, as did my Dad. My Mom wore an apron – so did I when I had to wash the dishes – it keeps your clothes dry!

Jo said:

Quote:
What reason would there be for you to understand something you didn't experience? None.


Why wouldn’t I want to try and understand? I respond to rational thought like all others and I am often confused by raw emotion until context is provided.

Jo said:

Quote:
What reason would there be for you to take the posture of defense? Don't have a clue. I wasn't the one that opened up this topic.


If I was defending, I guess it was the reality I grew up in. Otherwise, I don’t have a clue what you are addressing.

Jo said:

Quote:
Also, I didn't leave out the men who stood shoulder to shoulder with us during that period either...re-read please.


I reread but failed to notice a single positive comment about men.

Jo said:

Quote:
What I described was, in fact, a reality for many other people. All did not live in your world, nor should those that lived a different reality be negated or ridiculed if it was different from yours. I believe we each hold a piece of the truth, even if some are uncomfortable with looking at that truth.


I agree with that however you weren’t negated or ridiculed by the FACT that I lived a different reality.

Jo said:

Quote:
I stand by what I wrote and am grateful to have been a small part of our struggle for the progression for all human beings on this planet. And I'm still at it....even if it makes others a little uncomfortable. Change only comes when the discomfort becomes too great.


Change is not necessarily difficult however it is always uncomfortable because it is different. When you cross your arms, you probably do it the same way every time without thinking about it – right over left or left over right. However, if I asked you to reverse the way you normally do it, you would find it fairly easy to do but also find it uncomfortable. Try it in the privacy of your own home!

Jo, my perspective IS conservative. Therefore, my worldview will always be different from those whose worldview is liberal. This in no way negates liberals or demeans their life experience. It means we are processing our experiences at opposite ends of the continuum. The end result is often spirited debate which I must admit I do enjoy from time to time.

I sincerely hope all is well in your world, and as always,

All the best, Ray


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

Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 12:42 pm +0000
Posts: 2411
Location: Central New Mexico, USA
Come on, Iris. There's no need to be vague. You and Jo have rubbed each other the wrong way for quite some time. I incline to be friends with both of you so I find it very frustrating to see you at odds and, further, how you both seem to inadvertently exascerbate the problem simply by being yourselves.

Perhaps being referred to in the third person is one thing. Putting labels on people and assuming values based on labels is another prejudicial practice that does not serve enlightened communications. Furthermore, I have seen you defend the medical profession, while I have seen Jo defend the recovery movement. It is perfectly understandable that you should each feel a keen loyalty to the fields in which you have dedicated your time and energy, and from which you have both derived so much genuine satisfaction. But it seems there is a competitive edge here, as if perhaps one were superior to the other, and in ministry, we are equal.

Liberal is an adjective used to describe Jesus. Today it is a word used to lable Democrats. Conservative is a word often used to describe and label Republicans. In New Mexico, the long-standing party is the Conservative Democrat, but the City of Rio Rancho, where I live is a new community dominated by Republicans from New York and New Jersey. The common concern, next to schools and activities for the youth, is real estate value. Appearances are very important. When someone comes in who is not politically correct, they are looked at with suspicion. Many times I have felt that sense of being social alienation from my peers, and I definitely felt that when I entered this thread. It started with the disparaging remarks about John Lennon and his song "Imagine" which was classified as Caligastian, implicating the entire mindset of Cultural Creatives as uncivilized and somehow not sanctioned by the Urantia Book. The law of attraction went into effect and things went fine until we took exception to the idea that we have deteriorated from the lofty plateau of the 50s and it went downhill from there.

It's politics that keep getting in the way of our sorority here, Iris. Even the remark about women in Washington, under the circumstances, could be construed as a slam against Hillary Clinton and her "radical feminine" supporters. Just because women are "liberated" does not mean they automatically support Hillary and it doesn't mean they are "feminazi."

Socio-economic considerations run a close second. It is in that context that anything less than freshly squeezed orange juice for breakfast seems to invite condescension. Not everybody is suited to attend the opera or enjoys hours on end of hobnobbing with the intelligencia. Some folks find value in telling war stories of their battle with the bulge or with the bottle. All of us are called to serve and we can't all serve the DAR.

Is it unfortunate that as we become enlightened we become more sensitive?
Quote:
Religious insight possesses the power of turning defeat into higher desires and new determinations. Love is the highest motivation which man may utilize in his universe ascent. But love, divested of truth, beauty, and goodness, is only a sentiment, a philosophic distortion, a psychic illusion, a spiritual deception. Love must always be redefined on successive levels of morontia and spirit progression. (P.2096 - §5)
Or is it a real step in the direction of redefining love on successive levels of politics, economics and sociology?

_________________
Gerdean O'Dell
Author: "Secrets of Promise"


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

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:19 pm +0000
Posts: 959
Ray, again, your lived reality needs no defense...it is your's. Please just accept the fact that I was not attacking, but you may have gotten caught in the crossfire and I apologize for that. Not sure how else to phrase it.

I may have misunderstood, but I thought that a comparison of the differences in previous generations and a breakdown in the family structure today was taking place here, so I added my perspective from my own living experience. I do admit to becoming over-the-top passionate about what occurred in the late 60's into the 80's b/c I was in the middle of those changes. I may have come across too harshly...it wasn't meant as a put down but it could have been perceived as such. I also admit to responding/reacting to a put down, or maybe just a dismissal of feminists. I can still, and probably will continue to react to untruth about what actually did occur during those years...especially when that comes from someone who evidently was not there to experience it.

Iris's posting of half-truths taken out of context (from the writings of an extreme fringe of the women's movement) made clear (for me) the need for more clarification.

My original post, the one that seems to have triggered so much animosity, did build momentum as I continued to write. As I stated, the paragraph of questions was directed towards women, not any particular one woman but women as a whole...because I was discussing the "Women's Movement" and the resulting changes in our society. I do admit that I held one particular personality in mind when I referred to the women that were helped, but failed to realize it, and that was of Phyllis Shafly. Over the past decades she has consistently misrepresented the truth while using that misinformation to move herself into a more financially lucrative and public lifestyle (but then that is just my perception).

When I read Iris's post, I was really set back on my heels. First of all b/c such misinformation is still believed today and passed along to others as factual and complete; and 2nd b/c her post was so venomous. I signed off last night after I read it...just had to step away b/c frankly, it was disheartening. I couldn't plow through all that she posted (appears to be from one or two sources whose author(s) also pulled the quotes out of context...so there was very little cohesion between the quotes and the facts during that time period). But I did read through enough to realize that in all these decades of progress (along w/the misunderstandings and mistakes) there are still pockets of intelligent women who have been misinformed. It wasn't until I checked this forum this morning that I realized her words were actually directed towards myself, and probably had little to do w/the topic at hand (which is probably just as well).

So, for clarity...the word "feminism" should not be confused with "radical". I never used that term so it's unclear why the label was attached to anything I wrote or to myself. If my words are re-read, in fact, if anyone cares to re-read any of my posts over the year and 1/2 that I've been present here on the forum, it's doubtful that you will find any reference to "death or destruction", or a negative action wished towards anyone, any place or any thing (but be prepared to be bored). Iris is proficient w/the English language, and is well aware that at no time have I advocated hate.

That gets me to the term "radical". As Gerdean pointed out:

But it appears as though radical feminists (or "feminazi's" as Rush Limbaugh calls them) are another brand of extremists, like white supremists, or political terrorists.

It isn't difficult to locate and identify a "radical" element in any movement, be it religious or political...and everything in between. We are more than aware of the "radical" elements on the fringes of the FER. We may not identify w/that element, we may wish that it didn't exist b/c it confuses the actual truth, but it is present and part of our reality. Like it not, agree w/it or not, these fringes of a group do serve a purpose, if for no other reason than to stimulate motivation in those who see the danger in not correcting the misinterpretations of the truth. Usually the fringe groups die down, or die out, once the Truth of a movement has taken root. If there is no truth in the movement, it will eventually cease to exist, except in our collective memories as an example of where we were and how we have made course corrections in our progression.

To Iris...

For the life of me, Iris, I do not understand why you have the perception that I...

Actually, what is really obscene is the way one particular person continues to attack other people and get away with it.

Maybe the administration can point this out for me. Most of us tend to be blind to our own faults and I'm no exception. Admittedly we have different viewpoints, and our respective approach to communicating is nothing alike, but I don't recall any "continuous attacks on other people", a singular attack on another person, or attacks on you. We've had our moments of "toe to toe"...I'll usually stand up when someone is attempting to bully me down. But I became tired of it. Once I realize that you've taken any differing opinion or perspective as a personal affront (usually, although not always, when I'm responding to someone else), it doesn't take long for me to just go away and allow you to have the last word. I do realize that I antagonize you by just showing up on this forum, and it then disintegrates into being about personalities and not the topic at hand. Because of that, and because I value the opportunity for as many as possible to join in on these discussions, I have refrained from posting much these past several months. It's draining to be confronted by one person whenever I attempt to participate, and the whole point of the subject then goes down the drain. A spirited discussion can be a rush and a joy. An ongoing debate, especially when one is placed in the almost continuous position of defending what should not have to be defended, is tiresome and pointless. My opinion is minor, and really only of significance to myself. When I recognize discord developing on the board b/c of my presence, and your reaction to my presence, when nothing I say causes any level of improvement, I back off. My goal isn't to interfere or discourage others from posting or reading. My goal is participation. The message of the FER is of overriding importance...not our petty squabbles.

In closing...
Part of my surprise while reading the UB for the first time was in finding that my long held feminist beliefs were aligned w/what Christ practiced toward all of humanity. The more I study those pages, the more convinced I am that my beliefs are on solid ground...and the more I realize that we are only just beginning to understand the scope of what he is teaching us.

Peace
jo


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

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:19 pm +0000
Posts: 959
Gerdean..
I missed your post until just now.

Iris,
She's right that you and I have "rubbed each other the wrong way for quite some time". I've wondered about it often, especially when I begin to respond to someone's post, then hesitate b/c of what (I think) your response may be to mine. It's never as expected! What I think is innocuous, you take offense at. What I think will probably set you off (but I could care less at the time) slips over your head. As I said earlier, lately I just don't bother to join in much...it just hasn't been worth the effort. Real life in real time offers enough every day challenges. At my age I need to conserve my energy and have learned to pick my battles more carefully.

It may be as simple as being two sides of the same coin. Or not.
All I know at this point is that I'm not here to do battle w/anyone. I will stand by what I believe until or if I'm shown there is another side to consider...but I won't be bullied into it. No more than you would be.

I would be more than willing to agree to disagree without hostility.

Peace
jo


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

Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:44 am +0000
Posts: 1773
So here's a quote concerning the claim that Jesus was a liberal, Gerdean. Hogwash. He's not a liberal or a conservative then or now.

Quote:
UB 1581:04 "Jesus never intended to formulate economic theories; he well knew that each age must evolve its own remedies for existing troubles. And if Jesus were on earth today, living his life in the flesh, he would be a great disappointment to the majority of good men and women for the simple reason that he would not take sides in present-day political, social, or economic disputes. He would remain grandly aloof while teaching you how to perfect your inner spiritual life so as to render you manyfold more competent to attack the solution of your purely human problems."


Quote:
UB 1580:04-05 "In his personal life he was always duly observant of all civil laws and regulations; in all his public teachings he ignored the civic, social, and economic realms. He told the three apostles that he was concerned only with the principles of man's inner and personal spiritual life.
"Jesus was not, therefore, a political reformer. He did not come to reorganize the world; even if he had done this, it would have been applicable only to that day and generation. Nevertheless, he did show man the best way of living, and no generation is exempt from the labor of discovering how best to adapt Jesus' life to its own problems. But never make the mistake of identifying Jesus' teachings with any political or economic theory, with any social or industrial system."

UB 1580:06 "Jesus came presenting the idea of active and spontaneous kindness, a love of one's fellow men so genuine that it expanded the neighborhood to include the whole world, thereby making all men one's neighbors. But with all this, Jesus was interested only in the individual, not the mass. Jesus was not a sociologist, but he did labor to break down all forms of selfish isolation."


iris


Last edited by Bonita on Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:58 am +0000, edited 1 time in total.

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

Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 3:16 pm +0000
Posts: 424
Location: Chicopee, MA
:(

[Image considered offensive deleted at members request.
L. Watkins]


The "offensive" image was simply a picture of a person named Bonnie reflected in a mirror. No Bonnies here, right?

Bill,
Faith son

_________________
Read the Urantia Papers. Read them again!
Image

http://billurantia3.bravehost.com//welc ... ALITY.html


Last edited by Bill on Sat Jan 26, 2008 3:35 am +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:05 pm +0000
Posts: 669
Location: Tulsa, OK
Bill, thanks for the healing - NOT. Really, totally unnecessary - not helpful - not funny - somewhat out of character - should be deleted. Ray


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

Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:44 am +0000
Posts: 1773
Quote:
UB549:02 When we are tempted to magnify our self-importance,if we stop to contemplate the infinity of the greatness and grandeur of our Makers, our own self-glorification becomes sublimely ridiculous, even verging on the humorous,. One of the functions of humor is to help all of us take ourselves less seriously. Humor is the divine antidote for exaltation of ego.


Last edited by Bonita on Fri Apr 18, 2008 7:01 am +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted:  
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 10:09 pm +0000
Posts: 1817
Since I'm the one who started this topic I feel some responsibility to keep things straight — its intention being to share insights that may come up during the highly illuminating weekly study group I attend. I'm happy to see that it's stirred a wide range of discussion and expression — that's the purpose of having a discussion board as well as a study group. And it doesn't concern me that the discussion here whips about like an uncontrolled high pressure water hose since my initial purpose was to spur discussion, even argument — so long as we remain civil and within the guidelines that's fine with me. And for those who don't have a study group to attend this topic can provide some further lessons about how the book can be studied as well as an avenue for participation.

Gerdean has directly addressed a topic I posted — up until now there have been a few complaints about why I'd post such a thing which I've not felt it necessary to answer, but in one of the recent above posts she said "It started with the disparaging remarks about John Lennon and his song "Imagine" which was classified as Caligastian, implicating the entire mindset of Cultural Creatives as uncivilized and somehow not sanctioned by the Urantia Book." That's a comment I can address.

John Lennon wasn't above reproach — disparaging remarks can be applied to him just as readily as they can be applied to just about any pop culture icon. The point of the "Imagine" post wasn't to say how bad John Lennon was as a person or what an awful song he wrote — the point was to provide a lesson that no matter what the source and no matter how appealing or beautiful the message appears to be we need to function in this world with our wits about us. It was acknowledged that "Imagine" is a beautiful song — nearly everyone agrees. And it was pointed out that if you remove your predisposition toward idolizing something beautiful that the words of the song do appear to be taken directly from the Lucifer Manifesto — a study group insight that is not only obvious once you objectively compare the words of the song with the Manifesto but it's also a totally unique perspective in my experience. I'd never heard anyone put that assessment together before so I was fascinated by that insight. If the observation stirs other reactions that's fine, that's what a study group is for. It was not, however, portrayed that John Lennon was in cahoots with the devil — what was said was that even with the best of intentions, depending upon one's frame of reference, it's possible to connect either with something spiritually uplifting, like the song "Let it Be" or something profane, like "Imagine" regardless of the beauty it's encapsulated in. Read the words — it is Caligastian. There is no implication, as Gerdean concluded, "that the entire mindset of Cultural Creatives as uncivilized and somehow not sanctioned by the Urantia Book" — that's a conclusion she's chosen to jump to of her own accord, having nothing to do with the content or intention of the post regarding the song.

It's my intention to add a weekly post resulting from what's discussed at the Friday study group so expect that this topic may take another mad sway at any time. It may be that nothing will strike me as unique and I won't post, but that's not normally the case, so hang in there.

To tie these comments in with comments made above in another, jak said: "Iris's posting of half-truths taken out of context (from the writings of an extreme fringe of the women's movement) made clear (for me) the need for more clarification." Maybe she would like to elaborate — I found no half-truths in Iris's post — they came across as real as anything to me. I was married to a feminist for 8 years — I've lived through all those statements first hand and I'm familiar with most all of the authors; they were the forefront, not the extreme fringe of the feminist movement — history is history and revisionist history should be challenged. I found no misinformation in Iris's post, the "venom" jak mentions coming directly from the lips of the authors themselves.

Jak has asked to have it pointed out where she comes across as "attacking" — I'll just say that I've been contacted by more than one person to try to alert her to her method of communication. Jak, I appreciate much of what you post, you do often come across as angry or confrontational but you also come across as very sensitive and caring so I prefer not to get involved unless things become too out of line. In a sense Jak, your posts remind me of the original manner of posts we received from Iris for which she was given a suspension. Iris is the only person who's been suspended who's actually taken the criticism to heart and come back as a valuable contributor. Usually criticism and suspension sends people off the deep end and they self-destruct and are no longer allowed to participate under their initial user name.

I'd like to suggest that any time anyone has a beef with another poster that it be addressed primarily in private, either by email or by pm. I tend to address problems openly here because administrators are frequently accused of having behind the scenes agendas. If I have a problem with what's being posted I'll make it publically known for the benefit of the poster as well as to inform those reading the posts. If you have a personal beef, it's much preferable that it's carried out in private and not in public.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 217 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: Google [Bot], 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group