Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Sun Nov 17, 2019 8:52 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3916
alwilliams767 wrote:
I sometimes wonder if some human prejudices were inadvertently added to the papers during their compilation... not maliciously, but humanly...

Some things in the Revelation make me wonder this... the talk of the admixture of the races, the omission of may facts on the dinosaurs... other things. Then again, the Authors warn of (at least part of) this saying that much of the scientific presentation is due to be outdated, or was already outdated, even at the time of the presentation.

One explanation may be that we are EXPECTED to do our own homework. There is great danger in being presented all the answers. it makes one complacent.

Thoughts?


Inadvertent human prejudices? Humanly? Commission? What of the admixture of our 10 planetary races into the eventual homogenized singular human race?

Certainly not all facts on all topics would fit in one book or one room or one building. I think what was included was purposeful and the editing was contentious...and brutal. Just an opinion and not getting the humanization angle.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3916
BB declares: "In any event, for the record, I am NOT a skeptic."



But also says: "Personally I reject the racial papers. I no longer even post on them as they possess of little spiritual value to me. I do not view them divinely inspired to any significant degree . More than likely there was little to no human concept by which the celestials could translate the race concept to us. And what they were able to use resulted in a grotesque, arguably racist doctrine (eugenics)."


And: "I reject the race papers in whole. They originate in a mind (contact commission) reflecting the racial climate of a pre-civil rights, scientific racism era. I accept the spiritual revelations but filtered through my autorevelation; I especially accept the mind and afterlife papers. I wholeheartedly accept the moral teachings of Jesus. The literal interpretation of TUB to me is the baseline upon which numerous, if not, infinite personal interpretations rest, so I do not limit myself to it; in fact, I actively seek to go beyond it. The historical narratives, for example, the rebellion, I accept, in toto; however I believe there are factual errors in them.

TUB is the work of men inspired by divine beings (from the rarefied to the most material) like any other religious or spiritual text. In a nutshell, this is my position on TUB and it is NOT up for debate."


And the definition of skeptic/skeptical???????

skep·ti·cal
[ˈskeptək(ə)l]

ADJECTIVE
not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.

synonyms: dubious · doubtful · having reservations · taking something with a pinch of salt · doubting · questioning · cynical · distrustful · mistrustful · suspicious · disbelieving · misbelieving · unconvinced · incredulous · hesitant · scoffing


Me here: To have questions or doubts and seek understanding or to even disbelieve the UB....that's all good and not an unusual approach to the study of the UB or any other presentation of claimed fact. But to endless attempt to prove the validity of one's disbelief and skepticism is something more when the purpose and agenda is to disprove and discredit the work in question.


A serious issue for the community's consideration.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 968
I agree with FanofVan - there is nothing wrong with being a skeptic/ being skeptical. In fact, it's healthy!

I think one of the points Bradly is trying to make, and I agree with this, is that if someone is initiating a new post specifically to discuss a particular point of skepticism about TUB, they should start that thread in The Skeptics Corner part of the forum. That is just respectful forum ettiquette, IMO.

Also, BB, I have to say that I have read, and re-read, FoV's posts on this thread and I do not see anything that demonstrates a personal attack on you. FoV is passionately posting a contrary perspective to your own, and using your own words to show his contrasting viewpoint; but I see nothing personal. Certianly, I've seen much more, VERY PERSONAL, attacks on FoV on many threads here and they seem to go unremarked by many. <shrug>

We're all adults here. Let's not be whiners (speaking to myself here as well).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
Moderator already explained the TOS. No labeling should be placed people. Just address the points. I think that that is a fair and simple request. I already posted the definition of a skeptic/skepticism. It is someone who doubts or rejects the entire work. I do not claim to reject TUB and I don't even have to explain myself but I do anyhow. If the mods deem that my posts are skeptical in nature than I will accept them being moved to the appropriate forum. However, calling me a skeptic is a TOS violation.


Agon D. Onter wrote:
I agree with FanofVan - there is nothing wrong with being a skeptic/ being skeptical. In fact, it's healthy!

I think one of the points Bradly is trying to make, and I agree with this, is that if someone is initiating a new post specifically to discuss a particular point of skepticism about TUB, they should start that thread in The Skeptics Corner part of the forum. That is just respectful forum ettiquette, IMO.

Also, BB, I have to say that I have read, and re-read, FoV's posts on this thread and I do not see anything that demonstrates a personal attack on you. FoV is passionately posting a contrary perspective to your own, and using your own words to show his contrasting viewpoint; but I see nothing personal. Certianly, I've seen much more, VERY PERSONAL, attacks on FoV on many threads here and they seem to go unremarked by many. <shrug>

We're all adults here. Let's not be whiners (speaking to myself here as well).

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
Agon, here is TOS# 5 that is in violation:

Quote:
5. ...insinuations that call into question another person's motives...

I am not a skeptic and do not want anyone to place that label on me.

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 968
brooklyn_born wrote:
Agon, here is TOS# 5 that is in violation:

Quote:
5. ...insinuations that call into question another person's motives...

I am not a skeptic and do not want anyone to place that label on me.



Speaking for myself only: in general in life I am skeptical of new information until I have been able to investigate it thoroughly, apply critical thinking skills, and then check with my internal truth meter before accepting the new info. I am not ashamed!

I say it proud, "I'm a skeptic!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
That is cool. But I will follow TOS guidelines and just address your points on TUB. I don't need to call you a name or put a label on you to address your points. TOS# 5 guideline makes sense! :biggrin:

Agon D. Onter wrote:
brooklyn_born wrote:
Agon, here is TOS# 5 that is in violation:

Quote:
5. ...insinuations that call into question another person's motives...

I am not a skeptic and do not want anyone to place that label on me.



Speaking for myself only: in general in life I am skeptical of new information until I have been able to investigate it thoroughly, apply critical thinking skills, and then check with my internal truth meter before accepting the new info. I am not ashamed!

I say it proud, "I'm a skeptic!"

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
I will also say this, I find that people who resort to name calling usually are mentally/intellectually defeated or frustrated. So they resort to ad hominems, strawman and red herring arguments.

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 968
Sigh ... "Name calling" is when someone calls a person "Dumbo" or "Big nose" or "Fatso". Saying someone is a skeptic is just an observation. An observation that a person exhibits the behavior of having doubts or questions about something. It's not an insult. Some of us consider it a compliment.

Being skeptical is an essential part of the scientific method of discovery, after all.

A scientific or empirical skeptic is one who questions beliefs on the basis of scientific understanding. ... Most scientists, being scientific skeptics, test the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation using some type of the scientific method.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3916
It should be noted that the Skeptics Corner gains a much greater audience than any posts in Q&A or General Discussion. Much more trending! Check out the numbers!

Want an audience? There you go!

:!: :idea: 8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
smh. Here is the TOS again.

Quote:
5. ...insinuations that call into question another person's motives...



Name calling or placing labels on people is NOT allowed. Did I ever claim to be a skeptic? No. A person's observation is irrelevant. Labeling a person is a TOS violation.

Maybe we should request the moderator explain this, again, since there is confusion over it.



Agon D. Onter wrote:
Sigh ... "Name calling" is when someone calls a person "Dumbo" or "Big nose" or "Fatso". Saying someone is a skeptic is just an observation. An observation that a person exhibits the behavior of having doubts or questions about something. It's not an insult. Some of us consider it a compliment.

Being skeptical is an essential part of the scientific method of discovery, after all.

A scientific or empirical skeptic is one who questions beliefs on the basis of scientific understanding. ... Most scientists, being scientific skeptics, test the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation using some type of the scientific method.

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
Here are the TOS. I selected the ones violated in this thread. Please adhere to them.


5. Use language that is inconsistent with our community standards as a family friendly site, including the use of sarcasm directed at any individual personality, insinuations that call into question another person's motives, swear words or profanity. Ad Hominem attacks are also discouraged, and will - most likely - lead to post deletions, locked threads, and even the removal of posting privileges.

6. Impede or otherwise prohibit communication by disrupting the discussion including, without limitation, using screen names in topical chats that are offensive to the topic or posting depictions that are offensive and/or repeatedly posting off-topic comments in a topical chat.


8. Use language that is intended to demean, victimize, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals on the basis of age, disability, ethnicity, gender, race, religious beliefs or sexual orientation. Hate speech and/or images are always unacceptable.

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3916
fanofVan wrote:
From the Guidelines:

"This discussion board, as an extension of the Truthbook.com website, has one primary goal:
To be a safe place where newcomers to The Urantia Book can ask questions and explore the teachings of The Urantia Book in a communal setting.

In a sense, this forum is a Virtual Urantia Book Study Group. Specifically, it is a place for new readers to meet long-time readers. We welcome long-time readers as a valuable resource for assisting newcomers to better understand the teachings of The Urantia Book; this discussion board is provided for the benefit of long-time readers too, keeping our primary goal in mind."



"...explore the teachings of the Urantia Book..."


"...for assisting newcomers to better understand the teachings of the Urantia Book..."

It seems to me that such a goal means this group is to take the claims, teachings, and words of the authors of the UB literally....as written. That we study what the UB says to thereby discover meanings and value and that the authors intentionally wrote what they meant and that they mean what they say. If this is true, then why are some who disagree with and defy these guidelines allowed free reign in this "communal setting" to attack the Papers and to insert their contradictions and doubts and personal theories which have nothing whatsoever to do with the Paper themselves? Is this a study group of the Urantia Book? Or has it changed into something else...and something less?

A serious question for the community.


Would someone please point out how BB's words and beliefs and posts here support or promote this stated "one primary goal".


Is this the primary goal? To explore the teachings to better understand the teachings? And what of those posters and posts which have no such intention? Wasn't the Skeptic's Corner and Abner's Corner provided for such people and topics?


If not this poster and topic, then who and what and when?


Just asking..........


Still asking...... :!: :roll: 8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 9:13 am +0000
Posts: 1032
Location: Denver CO
To All,

I have been away for the past week. When I left, the board seemed relatively, mercifully, quiet. How disappointing to find another conflagration here in this thread. Personality vs personality, rather than idea vs idea.

Here's a simple lesson in common courtesy:

When someone says something you disagree with or you suspect that their motive may be less-than-honorable... rather than accuse, the courteous thing to do is ask a question: "What I hear you saying is (fill in the blank) To me, this sounds like (fill in the blank) Am I right in my assessment? Can you explain further?

Then, allow the person to respond in kind (hopefully reflecting back the same courtesy to you). AND allow anyone reading the thread to join in the assessment and decide FOR THEMSELVES what is the real meaning and value of the discussion and the posts. Descending into personalities is a sure recipe for hurt feelings and gross misunderstandings. And - this kind of approach effectively deters others from joining the fray...who wants to get in the middle of a shouting match?

There is a lot of material in The Urantia Book, some controversial, much requiring real thought and discernment; not everyone agrees on every part of it, nor does everyone HAVE to agree. It is a book of information that invites deep thought. We are sentient beings with God-given minds. Not accepting parts of the book, or having honest doubts about parts of it do not make us bad people, or unworthy of participation in the discussions. In fact, finding such differences should inspire us to get creative with our own thinking, making our case to one another, whilst remaining on friendly terms. Coming down on a poster before really exploring where they're coming from is not a good way to air out our differences. Getting someone's back up is not a productive way of getting to the real issue - the real idea.

We are all students here. None of us is expert at The Urantia Book, much less relations with our fellow sojourners. Part of education is questioning and honest doubt. Again - Jesus was a master at reading peoples' hearts - we are not. But we are capable of demonstrating tact and tolerance, of growing into a more skillful means of engaging our fellows in order to try and find their heart and their true reason for thinking as they do. Psychologizing, "awful-izing," calling people out in accusatory ways, is an effective killer of true communication.

Please folks...try harder to be kind, to be understanding, to be gracious, to accept differences, and to love one another.

MaryJo


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3916
(from November 12, 2009 from the Skeptics Corner on the topic of Reincarnation):

"Hello All,

I'm sure everyone knows that this is a Urantia Book discussion forum -- we discuss our understanding of the teachings of TUB and how they apply to us. So obviously it's not a forum for discussing the merits of our own personal philosophies -- we've had members drop in and slap their philosphies across the various topics as if their personal opinions had some weight of logic or some manner of merrit associated with them... as if they were of equal value with those of epochal revelation.

We're each entitled to our opinions and we all have opinions about things we know next to nothing about. One of the beauties of studying the teachings of TUB is that they provide a foundation for forming informed opinions, so that what we think has some basis in solid reality. So, basically we don't care whether you believe in reincarnation, werewolves, zombies, ghosts, UFOs, fortune telling, good and bad luck, or psychic healing. [b]What we do care about is how your opinions relate to or are justified or validated through the teachings of TUB.

[/b]No one is compelled to take everything they read in TUB as absolute truth -- you are encouraged to mull over what it's presenting, to test its teachings against your own perceptions of truth.If you do conclude that the book is what it claims to be you might ask yourself, if I were alive during Jesus' time, how much of what Jesus said would I believe. Or, if I had lived with Melchizedek, how much of what Melchizedek said would I have accepted. Same with Adam and Eve, same with the Prince and his staff. Are your perceptions sharp enough to pick and choose from these previous epochal revelations of truth? But, if you don't believe that TUB lives up to its claim then it's much easier to dismiss what it says; even then we'll expect you here to back up your opinions with something more concrete than "it's just my opinion" since we really aren't particularly interested in just your opinions.

You say you deeply question the teachings of TUB but you've offered no examples. Questioning without a foundation for the question may be naive. If you're going to say you question some aspect of TUB, give an example of what TUB discloses that you question and back that up with why you question it -- saying there is much supporting evidence is not supporting evidence at all -- there really is no supporting evidence despite the wishes and desires; there's conjecture, there are interesting stories, there's nothing approaching the proof provided by TUB to refute these myths.

..you cannot come to this UB discussion forum and say TUB lied; sorry, that's unacceptable. To those who accept TUB as the revelation it claims to be, your assertation is on a par with saying Jesus also lied about reincarnation and astrology. If you feel compelled to make dogmatic statements provide facts to substantiate them, not personal opinion, since this is, after all, a discussion forum about the teachings of TUB, not about the opinions of its members.

Are your beliefs based in rational thought or are they more the result of whimsy? It might be beneficial to take some time out and to take in a movie, the recently released Men Who Stare at Goats to be specific. It does a great job of exposing the unproductivity of wishful and fanciful thinking -- of exposing where unfounded speculation can lead, of chronicling why a reasonable approach to life in general is more valuable than refusing to face reality. Let's resist the urge to make a habit of staring at goats."


Best wishes,
Larry Watkins


And on November 14...same topic as above (this is very vintage LWatkins - declaring we are not here to coddle disbelievers, skeptics, personal theories or opinions or fables instead of the UB!):

"-- there were two problems with this thread right from the beginning. The first is it was originally posted in Open Discussion and not in Skeptic's Corner -- Admin moved it here, where it would still have been met with reproach for its initial tone.

We're open to a degree of skepticism (critical thinking would be a better term since skepticism connotes an initial negative attitude) but we'll not condone "the Urantia Book lies" as a point of view for discussion and that required correcting.

Not only does the Truthbook website have a wealth of information covering many of the topics in The Urantia Book -- such as reincarnation... it's always a good place to begin to look into a topic -- but reincarnation has been discussed often and thoroughly here on the discussion board over the past years and tends to become a launching pad for psychic foolery. A post made 3 years ago can be just as relevant to a topic as one made today -- everyone is encouraged to use the search facility and to familiarize themselves with what has transpired here over the years. Inactive topics can be unlocked and reactivated if there's more to be added.

Neither is this discussion board open to promoting personal opinion that runs contrary to the teachings of TUB -- and that's been explained in my previous post above. What is the value of a board where everyone is free to promote their own opinions about things in general or a particular philosophy of life that has no basis in the revelation and to keep running over the same topics like a gerbil on a wheel? If it's already been said, already been thrashed about and there's nothing new to be added to the mix then it's time to move on to something more currently meaningful."

Larry



posted by Bradly aka fanofVan 8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  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