Jump to content


Photo

Preparing for Scholarly Evaluation of The Urantia Book


  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#41 Louis aka loucol

Louis aka loucol

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Florida
  • Interests:Science Philosophy and Religion as they relate to The Urantia Book

Posted 09 December 2012 - 09:29 PM

Hi Howard:

This is a Brotherhood. There is nothing more natural than bickering between brothers, so long as it's done with great love. There is no such thing as an only child in The Kingdom. We must become accustom to a measure of bickering until we grow and mature, perhaps in the schools of ethics on Edentia.

Regards, Louis

PS. Are we not a cult of truth seekers? Are we not on the fringe here?
His Will Be Done

#42 Rick Warren

Rick Warren

    Rick Warren

  • Administrators
  • PipPip
  • 9,923 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 10 December 2012 - 05:41 AM

The infighting between "liberal" Urantians and "fundamentalist" Urantians reminds me of the Judean People's Front vs. the People's Front of Judea. Perhaps if there wasn't so much bickering between its readers, the Urantia Book would be seen by the outside world as more than just a fringe "cult" book.


Creating bickering then pointing to it is a kind of spiritual arson isn't it? Admin Larry W's reply to one of your posts on the UBF board seemed an appropriate response here too Howard, He wrote in part:

...You've just built a straw [m]an and knocked him down... like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

People disagree with some of your posts because you intentionally antagonize them or because they have found a more meaningful answer in the book than the one you've provided. It's not really anyone's job to convince you of anything -- you can make your own decisions -- but when you post ideas that run counter to the teachings of the book you'll just have to expect to be called on them.

Best wishes,
Larry



#43 Bradly aka/fanofVan

Bradly aka/fanofVan

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midwest USA
  • Interests:Gardening, sustainable agriculture/micro-farming, history, philosophy, behavioral psych, economics (quit laughing), the blues, learning from children.

Posted 10 December 2012 - 08:52 AM

Howard - It may be too soon for you to discern the qualitative differences between those you call fundamentalists and liberals, especially on the various forums. You've stated clearly elsewhere that you are a new reader, having read the Jesus Papers only completely with various other "threads" of study. Your understandable unfamiliarity with the text may have considerable conflicts with all reader's preconceptions and prejudices but especially new readers who yet have much text to work through....multiple times to become a "fundamentalist" - which means to me someone who has read, prayed, studied, and lived text sufficiently to come to believe in its total text as Revelation - revealed truth, not inspired truths. The "liberals" are those who take individual quotes from text to verify their preconceptions (fundamentalists might say mis-conceptions) and claim the authority of the text but do so by ignoring much of it and twisting some of it to their "needs" or purposes. Most students are neither....they, quite reasonably, do not claim to be believers in the Revelation but truth seekers and students of another book of truths....and are neither fundamental nor liberal regarding this text of truths.

Those who have come to believe the book (fundamentalists) present the text itself to answer questions about text. Liberals tend to eschew text in favor of attempts to illustrate the teachings by their feelings and experiences of mind and spirit and many claim circles progress, personal guardians, reservist status, rebellion status, astral projection, celestial conversations, visions, transmitting and receiving, etc, etc. Those liberals are more welcome and more vocal at other forums and it can indeed get combative between these two groups. While this is confusing and unfortunate in its way for new readers and students who claim no belief in the text as they may presume a lack of both uniformity AND a lack of unity. But it also profoundly demonstrates a key truth within the text.....truth progression is a completely personalized journey and each pilgrim's truth content will vary widely from one seeker to another. Which brings us back to the fundamental/liberal thing again.

Each seeker is unique and so is each believer. The core belief shared by fundamentalists is the truth of the Revelation. For liberals it is that you can confirm and validate any personal craziness you want by distorting text and claiming its authority as your own. This is a lot of spectrum points for misunderstanding and conflict for working through. You must find your own spot as you read in this spectrum of readers, students, believers, and liberals. We fundamentalists are not fond of direct attacks on the text nor with doubting innuendo....but we are very patient, gentle, and kind (I hope) to all sincere questions and conflicts presented for discussion by student seekers. All must believe what they will Howard. I'm glad you posted how little of our text you have actually read. That explains much. I will try to be more patient with one who has so much more yet to study as you admit for yourself. I would advise you that after decades of debunkers and "liberals", you may wish to consider less inflammatory presentations of your ignorance (simple lack of information/knowledge) and less strident defenses of the same....that is until you have at least read that which you so freely comment on. Questions might work better than declaratives. Some text would also be nice.

I wish you the best in your studies and am "fundamentally" certain of our shared destination.
Peace be upon you."

#44 Bradly aka/fanofVan

Bradly aka/fanofVan

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midwest USA
  • Interests:Gardening, sustainable agriculture/micro-farming, history, philosophy, behavioral psych, economics (quit laughing), the blues, learning from children.

Posted 10 December 2012 - 09:17 AM

This might be a good intersection for the consideration and study of "prejudice", eh? For some might claim that the prejudiced mind of the novice may become the prejudice of the scholar. And the text clearly teaches that we must embrace truth but no so tightly that we cannot grasp more and greater truths. This requires some balanced equilibrium and maturity and humility and dependence on wiser and more experienced minds to lead us...like our TA, soul/morontia mind, the Spirit of Truth, etc. As believer, there is still much more truth to come which will challenge my perceptions of the truths in-hand.

Does this issue of prejudice dimminish by circle and spirit progress? Is there less conflict between lesser and greater truths the more truth one experiences? Is our resolution within truth another form of prejudice? How do we guard against puffery of self and intolerance of disagreement? There's a quote about the more confident one becomes in truth, the less interest or need to be "right" or care what others believe. The prejudice of the weak mind is one thing, that of an experienced seeker another, and of the believer yet another. I wrestle with this personally and would appreciate the group's thoughts. I stand accused here and now of "fundamentalism" which sounds very prejudiced in its presentation - I mean I am accused of prejudice - clinging to my own limited truth. Perhaps so, eh? Thanks.
Peace be upon you."

#45 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 10 December 2012 - 10:03 AM

I for one have very little patience with archaic, fear-based beliefs being presented as revelatory, and I get indignant when people attempt to tie them to the Urantia Book. It drives me crazy. Does that make me a fundamentalist? No. It makes me an evangel for my faith. Rather than prejudice or bickering, I prefer to call it righteous indignation. Even Jesus exhibited righteous indignation, so I see nothing wrong with it, except that it gets some people who are married to fictitious and mythical ideas about the universe over-the-top defensive. When it comes to tolerance, there's some things I just won't tolerate, period. Anyone who tries to tie the UB to any of the following is going to get an earful from me and I don't care who they are: end-of-the-world apocalypse; messianic saviors; devils and demons, hellfire and damnation; judgment day; original sin; atonement; possession; chosen people; magic and mysticism; and all manner of similar folderol, just to name a few. I believe that anyone who wants to believe these things is free to do so, but not free to tie those beliefs to the Fifth Epochal Revelation.

The more truth one experiences, the more tolerant of people one becomes, but the less tolerant of untruth, especially harmful untruth that keeps people from being spiritually, mentally and emotionally free.

Jesus said not to badger and strive with people when presenting the gospel, but to lead them into the kingdom first and then attempt to teach them higher truths. The problem with applying that to this forum and to the Urantia community is that the Urantia Book is not the gospel, nor is it the kingdom, nor is it a higher truth. It's a revelation of a higher level of thinking, a "perfected vision" of reality which people are free to take or leave.

Lead men into the kingdom, and the great and living truths of the kingdom will presently drive out all serious error. When you have presented to mortal man the good news that God is his Father, you can the easier persuade him that he is in reality a son of God. And having done that, you have brought the light of salvation to the one who sits in darkness. Simon, when the Son of Man came first to you, did he come denouncing Moses and the prophets and proclaiming a new and better way of life? No. I came not to take away that which you had from your forefathers but to show you the perfected vision of that which your fathers saw only in part. Go then, Simon, teaching and preaching the kingdom, and when you have a man safely and securely within the kingdom, then is the time, when such a one shall come to you with inquiries, to impart instruction having to do with the progressive advancement of the soul within the divine kingdom." pg. 1592



#46 Rev. Dr. Red

Rev. Dr. Red

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Studying and preaching Truth.
    More info at http://ReverendDrRed.com

Posted 10 December 2012 - 02:53 PM

Is it not fair to say we are ALL fundamentalists?

fundamentalist (adj.) 1920 in the religious sense (as is fundamentalism), from fundamental + -ist. Coined in American English to name a movement among Protestants c.1920-25 based on scriptural inerrancy, etc., and associated with William Jennings Bryan, among others. Fundamentalist is said (by George McCready Price) to have been first used in print by Curtis Lee Laws (1868-1946), editor of "The Watchman Examiner," a Baptist newspaper. The movement may have roots in the Presbyterian General Assembly of 1910, which drew up a list of five defining qualities of "true believers" which other evangelicals published in a mass-circulation series of books called "The Fundamentals." A World's Christian Fundamentals Association was founded in 1918. The words reached widespread use in the wake of the contentious Northern Baptist Convention of 1922 in Indianapolis. Fundamentalism is a protest against that rationalistic interpretation of Christianity which seeks to discredit supernaturalism. This rationalism, when full grown, scorns the miracles of the Old Testament, sets aside the virgin birth of our Lord as a thing unbelievable, laughs at the credulity of those who accept many of the New Testament miracles, reduces the resurrection of our Lord to the fact that death did not end his existence, and sweeps away the promises of his second coming as an idle dream. It matters not by what name these modernists are known. The simple fact is that, in robbing Christianity of its supernatural content, they are undermining the very foundations of our holy religion. They boast that they are strengthening the foundations and making Christianity more rational and more acceptable to thoughtful people. Christianity is rooted and grounded in supernaturalism, and when robbed of supernaturalism it ceases to be a religion and becomes an exalted system of ethics. [Laws, "Herald & Presbyter," July 19, 1922] The original opposition to fundamentalist (within the denominations) was modernist. A new word has been coined into our vocabulary --two new words --'Fundamentalist' and 'Fundamentalism.' They are not in the dictionaries as yet --unless in the very latest editions. But they are on everyone's tongue. [Address Delivered at the Opening of the Seminary, Sept. 20, 1922, by Professor Harry Lathrop Reed, "Auburn Seminary Record"] Applied to other religions, especially Islam, since 1957.

fundamental (adj.) mid-15c., "primary, original, pertaining to a foundation," modeled on L.L. fundamentalis "of the foundation," from L. fundamentum "foundation" (see fundament). Fundamentals "primary principles or rules" of anything is from 1630s.


I do believe there are some people here that are prejudice. Some more so than others.

prejudice (v.) mid-15c., "to injure or be detrimental to," from prejudice (n.). The meaning "to affect or fill with prejudice" is from c.1600. Related: Prejudiced; prejudicing. prejudice (n.) late 13c., "despite, contempt," from O.Fr. prejudice (13c.), from M.L. prejudicium "injustice," from L. praejudicium "prior judgment," from prae-"before" (see pre-) + judicium "judgment," from judex (gen. judicis) "judge." Meaning "injury, physical harm" is mid-14c., as is legal sense "detriment or damage caused by the violation of a legal right." Meaning "preconceived opinion" (especially but not necessarily unfavorable) is from late 14c.
prejudicial (adj.) mid-15c., "causing prejudice;" 1530s, "full of prejudice," from prejudice + -al (1).

While Im at it, lets also take a look at "liberal", shall we?
liberal (adj.) mid-14c., "generous," also, late 14c., "selfless; noble, nobly born; abundant," and, early 15c., in a bad sense "extravagant, unrestrained," from O.Fr. liberal "befitting free men, noble, generous, willing, zealous" (12c.), from L. liberalis "noble, gracious, munificent, generous," lit. "of freedom, pertaining to or befitting a free man," from liber "free, unrestricted, unimpeded; unbridled, unchecked, licentious," from PIE *leudh-ero-(cf. Gk. eleutheros "free"), probably originally "belonging to the people" (though the precise semantic development is obscure), and a suffixed form of the base *leudh-"people" (cf. O.C.S. ljudu, Lith. liaudis, O.E. leod, Ger. Leute "nation, people;" O.H.G. liut "person, people") but literally "to mount up, to grow." With the meaning "free from restraint in speech or action," liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach. It revived in a positive sense in the Enlightenment, with a meaning "free from prejudice, tolerant," which emerged 1776-88. In reference to education, explained by Fowler as "the education designed for a gentleman (Latin liber a free man) & ... opposed on the one hand to technical or professional or any special training, & on the other to education that stops short before manhood is reached" (cf. liberal arts). Purely in reference to political opinion, "tending in favor of freedom and democracy" it dates from c.1801, from Fr. libéral, originally applied in English by its opponents (often in French form and with suggestions of foreign lawlessness) to the party favorable to individual political freedoms. But also (especially in U.S. politics) tending to mean "favorable to government action to effect social change," which seems at times to draw more from the religious sense of "free from prejudice in favor of traditional opinions and established institutions" (and thus open to new ideas and plans of reform), which dates from 1823. Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, "Devil's Dictionary," 1911]

How many can truly say they are a "Liberal" or "Liberal Fundamentalist" on this forum? A few, but definitely not all from what ive read in this forum thus far. One, maybe two, posters are too prejudiced in their own interpretation of reality to understand what Truth is. This prejudice is also causing certain truths of TUB to be skipped over, much like many followers of other faiths do to their own text. Open your minds and be free. Let Truth swallow your heart and mind. Be free, be LIBER- ated.



#47 Rick Warren

Rick Warren

    Rick Warren

  • Administrators
  • PipPip
  • 9,923 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 10 December 2012 - 03:29 PM

Good point Red!

And besides those precise definitions these labels are also relative to the individual, subjective. No two people see others the same. But the main purpose of this Forum is the study and spread of this new revelation. We've found over the years, politics and personality analysis by email is a flawed mission, and it significantly distracts from reading and comprehension of this awesome book, cram-packed, full of facts about how to become living Truth.

#48 Rev. Dr. Red

Rev. Dr. Red

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Studying and preaching Truth.
    More info at http://ReverendDrRed.com

Posted 10 December 2012 - 03:38 PM

I have some more:
atonement (n.) 1510s, "condition of being at one (with others)," from atone + -ment. Meaning "reconciliation" (especially of sinners with God) is from 1520s; that of "propitiation of an offended party" is from 1610s.

attunement (n.) "a bringing into harmony," 1820, from attune + -ment.

messiah (n.) c.1300, Messias, from L.L. Messias, from Gk. Messias, from Aramaic meshiha and Hebrew mashiah "the anointed" (of the Lord), from mashah "anoint." This is the word rendered in Septuagint as Gk. Khristos (see Christ). In Old Testament prophetic writing, it was used of an expected deliverer of the Jewish nation. The modern English form represents an attempt to make the word look more Hebrew, and dates from the Geneva Bible (1560). Transferred sense of "an expected liberator or savior of a captive people" is attested from 1660s

Christ title given to Jesus of Nazareth, O.E. crist, from L. Christus, from Gk. khristos "the anointed" (translation of Heb. mashiah; see messiah), verbal adj. of khriein "to rub, anoint" (see chrism). The L. term drove out O.E. hæland "healer" as the preferred descriptive term for Jesus. A title, treated as a proper name in O.E., but not regularly capitalized until 17c. Pronunciation with long -i-is result of Irish missionary work in England, 7c.-8c. The ch-form, regular since c.1500, was rare before. Capitalization of the word begins 14c. but is not fixed until 17c.

savior (n.) c.1300, "one who delivers or rescues from peril," also a title of Jesus Christ, from O.Fr. sauveour, from L.L. salvatorem (nom. salvator) "a saver, preserver" (cf. Sp. salvador, It. salvatore), from salvatus, pp. of salvare "to save" (see save (v.)). In Christian sense, translation of Gk. soter "savior." Replaced O.E. hælend, lit. "healing," noun use of prp. of hælan (see heal).

I suggest people understand different terms before brushing them aside with your personal "prejudice". I also suggest few re-read the UB. All theses terms ARE in the UB, used in the original sense of yhe word, not modern definitions.

#49 Rev. Dr. Red

Rev. Dr. Red

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Studying and preaching Truth.
    More info at http://ReverendDrRed.com

Posted 10 December 2012 - 03:51 PM

One more:
righteous (adj.) early 16c. alteration of rightwise, from O.E. rihtwis, from riht (see right) + wis "wise, way, manner." Suffix altered by influence of courteous, etc. Meaning "genuine, excellent" is c.1900 in jazz slang. Related: Righteousness.

indignation (n.) c.1200, from O.Fr. indignacion or directly from L. indignationem (nom. indignatio) "indignation, displeasure," noun of action from pp. stem of indignari "regard as unworthy, be angry or displeased at," from indignus "unworthy," from in-"not, opposite of" (see in-(1)) + dignus "worthy" (see dignity).

indignity (n.) 1580s, "unworthiness," also "unworthy treatment; act intended to expose someone to contempt," from L. indignitatem (nom. indignitas) "unworthiness, meanness, baseness," also "unworthy conduct, an outrage," noun of quality from indignus "unworthy" (see indignation). Related: Indignities.

dignity (n.) early 13c., from O.Fr. dignite "dignity, privilege, honor," from L. dignitatem (nom. dignitas) "worthiness," from dignus "worth (n.), worthy, proper, fitting" from PIE *dek-no-, from root *dek-"to take, accept" (see decent).

#50 Louis aka loucol

Louis aka loucol

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Florida
  • Interests:Science Philosophy and Religion as they relate to The Urantia Book

Posted 10 December 2012 - 03:56 PM

Hi Red:

I myself did not even begin to 'get it' till about 5 or 6 readings of TUB. Now after only 12 years and 8 readings I still feel like a freshman. I can imagine a thousand years can go by before I get to a second semester. Definitions are quite important but it is the 'spirit of the words' that will resonate with time, a kind of spiritual marinade. Most on this forum have been in sincere study of TUB for decades. This Truth business is a slow process and words are limited and limiting but effort at understanding by experiencing the book with repeated readings will bear fruit. There are many other ways to Truth but here you will find the bunch who are embracing this revelation as one of the means. I hope you continue your search and your reading of TUB.

Regards, Louis

Edited by LouisM, 10 December 2012 - 06:19 PM.

His Will Be Done

#51 Rev. Dr. Red

Rev. Dr. Red

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Studying and preaching Truth.
    More info at http://ReverendDrRed.com

Posted 10 December 2012 - 04:24 PM

Louis-
Words mean what they mean. If i say i got a point from a movie you would expect a motion-picture. Not a piece of text. Same applies to TUB. Granted multiple readings may reveal hidden truths, you can read something from cradle to grave and not understand it, yet you may also read it and understand it in just one read. How much of a text one understands is entirely upto the open-mindedness of the invidual in conjuction with their mental/spiritual evolution. In other words, you will only get as far as YOU allow yourself. Words used in a text are used over every other word to make a point, to keep that point in context. Otherwise word choice would be irrelevant and written language would cease to exist.

#52 Nigel Nunn

Nigel Nunn

    Poster

  • Administrators
  • PipPip
  • 1,118 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 10 December 2012 - 05:40 PM

From experience, I can confirm that a rapid grok implies either (1) fast to understand or (2) quick to warp an idea to fit preconceptions :unsure:
Nigel

#53 Bradly aka/fanofVan

Bradly aka/fanofVan

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midwest USA
  • Interests:Gardening, sustainable agriculture/micro-farming, history, philosophy, behavioral psych, economics (quit laughing), the blues, learning from children.

Posted 10 December 2012 - 05:46 PM

Rev - your point is good as far as it goes. But eloquence is not universal (or not so I've noticed on this or any forum of any topic). I am quite clumsy in my writing, knowing not the better word to communicate or even most words available to choose from (there's a writing error worthy of an F already....is that a hanging participle? ...don't remember). I agree words mean something, even a great deal but not all are equal in the quest to communicate, eh? And Rick's point is also quite good: for as a trained public speaker and professional consultant, I assure you that facial and body language and voice inflection and eye contact are indispensible for understanding. As a consultant I must hear the words, hear their intent, and listen to the motivation/experience of the speaker to even begin communication....and it cannot be done on paper or by phone People communicate badly....most people most of the time. Active listening is a rarity. People think while another speaks, forming retort or response. Misunderstanding is far more universal than ernest and empathetic listening is.

I disagree with nothing you have said by saying this: there are those here who have a great devotion to the Revelation and have read and re-read it countless times. I assure you that every re-reading brings new meanings and values discernment to each of us every time. There is nothing hidden but the experience in truth for each seeker pilgrim grows and the text's meanings grow right along with the pilgrim's ability to discern and connect those truths already read before.

Friend Howard has read less of the book than you my friend. Do not let him be your guide in your journey within the text. Some come to the Revelation with far more preconception than others and some with a real load of misconception. It is up to each to open their "ears" and hear that which is written. They open in their own way and time. I suggest Howard look up the words respect and scholar. For he surely shows little enough of one for the other on this site (and others). We are not here to confirm other's preconceptions or misconceptions or prejudices or belief systems or philosophies or fears; we are all here to learn what the Revelation says and to connect the multitudeanous (my spelling sucks as much as my grammar I'm afraid....love my editor who I don't consult with here!) points which connect the whole by many threads within and throughout. We also compare text to other writings and beliefs and situations and by so sharing we uplift one another.....BY text....that which we share.

It is amazing to me how similarly the many devoted and long time readers I have known over the decades actually share concepts and truths and progress in the spirit. There is less confusion and contention than you might think....it has much to do with familiarity with text and confidence in the Revelation. The disparity comes from those short in the book and long in the preconceptions of conflict. There are notable exceptions to be sure. Or such is my experience. I would advise you not allow any others to detract from your personal progress in seeking and finding truth. None here deserve enmity and believers hope for but the upliftment of all to Father in Fellowship, with or without the Revelation as a shared experience.
Peace be upon you."

#54 JR Sherrod

JR Sherrod

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, Nevada
  • Interests:I am a Lapidary, and Jewelry Artist & Designer. I love reading the Urantia Book, science fiction, and speculative non-fiction. I am a Choral Singer. I was, at various times in my past, a Military Policeman, Police Instructor, Computer Programmer/Analyst, and Post-secondary technical instructor. I love astronomy, aeronautice & aerospace, and planes & rockets of all types. I bicycle and walk for fun and fitness. I am an Advanced Toastmaster - Bronze. I write Autobiographic Self-Help, and Speculative Non-Fiction.

Posted 10 December 2012 - 06:22 PM

Louis-
Words mean what they mean. If i say i got a point from a movie you would expect a motion-picture. Not a piece of text. Same applies to TUB. Granted multiple readings may reveal hidden truths, you can read something from cradle to grave and not understand it, yet you may also read it and understand it in just one read. How much of a text one understands is entirely upto the open-mindedness of the invidual in conjuction with their mental/spiritual evolution. In other words, you will only get as far as YOU allow yourself. Words used in a text are used over every other word to make a point, to keep that point in context. Otherwise word choice would be irrelevant and written language would cease to exist.


SO . . .

Red, are you telling us you "...read it and understand it in just one read..." when you are talking about the Urantia Book? Am I supposed to be impressed by 17-line definitions of otherwise mundane terms, and/or the grandioise bandying-about of scholarly degrees, when I consider the posts on this forum?

I have had the Urantia Book in my life for 12 years. I have read it cover-to-cover three times, and then some. I read and study this book every single day. I study with the assistence of the One Page A Day (OPAD) thread; I study by reading and researching other topics & threads on this forum; and I study with friends & associates in my home. I am really no more than a novice when it comes to really understanding what TUB offers! I do, also, have College and University degrees, in Criminal Justice, Post-Secondary Technical Education, and Applied Physics. I am an accomplished public speaker, holding the ranking of Advanced Toastemaster in Toastmasters International. I know how to study. I spent years in Criminal Forensic investigations. I have devoted years to teaching and assisting adults to master complex technical subject matter. I tell you these things to lead to this next point:

I am not inclined to trust someone who tells me they have attained full comprehension of the truths in TUB after reading it, partially, one time.

In my opinion, the truths in TUB are only genuinely comprehended by reading the text completely, probably many times, and then actually spending time actually LIVING those truths, every day, to the best of one's ability. Some of the truths therein might only be grasped by living them for decades, even A WHOLE LIFETIME!

I really hope I have mis-understood your intentions and thoughts in your posts. I spent YEARS reading and listening before I offered my own opinions about TUB; and I'm confident in that effort I am only beginning to have a small portion of wisdom; not grand comprehension at all.

Edited by JR Sherrod, 10 December 2012 - 06:25 PM.

Ah! To be host to God, Himself; and to be enriched beyond measure by that incomprehensible treasure!

#55 Rev. Dr. Red

Rev. Dr. Red

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Studying and preaching Truth.
    More info at http://ReverendDrRed.com

Posted 10 December 2012 - 06:35 PM

SO . . .

Red, are you telling us you "...read it and understand it in just one read..." when you are talking about the Urantia Book? Am I supposed to be impressed by 17-line definitions of otherwise mundane terms, and/or the grandioise bandying-about of scholarly degrees, when I consider the posts on this forum?

I have had the Urantia Book in my life for 12 years. I have read it cover-to-cover three times, and then some. I read and study this book every single day. I study with the assistence of the One Page A Day (OPAD) thread; I study by reading and researching other topics & threads on this forum; and I study with friends & associates in my home. I am really no more than a novice when it comes to really understanding what TUB offers! I do, also, have College and University degrees, in Criminal Justice, Post-Secondary Technical Education, and Applied Physics. I am an accomplished public speaker, holding the ranking of Advanced Toastemaster in Toastmasters International. I know how to study. I spent years in Criminal Forensic investigations. I have devoted years to teaching and assisting adults to master complex technical subject matter. I tell you these things to lead to this next point:

I am not inclined to trust someone who tells me they have attained full comprehension of the truths in TUB after reading it, partially, one time.

In my opinion, the truths in TUB are only genuinely comprehended by reading the text completely, probably many times, and then actually spending time actually LIVING those truths, every day, to the best of one's ability. Some of the truths therein might only be grasped by living them for decades, even A WHOLE LIFETIME!

I really hope I have mis-understood your intentions and thoughts in your posts. I spent YEARS reading and listening before I offered my own opinions about TUB; and I'm confident in that effort I am only beginning to have a small portion of wisdom; not grand comprehension at all.


Yes you have misunderstood what what i said.
If im a pastor, why not say so? If i have a degree, why keep it to myself?
Anyhow, im not trying to step on your toes or anyone elses. Nor are ylu the "one or two" my above posts refer to. I wont mention names as i do not want war. However, people should think about it.
People have a problem for some unknown reason when a person of higher intelligence puts forth such intelligence. Im guilty of it as well, i however cannot explain it. I will say though that there are people out thete (i have met a few) who can fully understand texts after just one read; so yes it is possible.
I feel what anyone thinks of me personally is completely irrelevant, so lets avoid that topic, ok? If people are going to continue this "Ive read TUB 30yrs and cover to cover 16 times so i understand more than you" type of nonsense this community will surely either perish or turn into an institution of set beliefs much like the vatican. Thete are those that understand things a faster rates than others. There is nothing wrong with faster or slower learning, whats important is we learn and grow closer to God.

#56 Rick Warren

Rick Warren

    Rick Warren

  • Administrators
  • PipPip
  • 9,923 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 10 December 2012 - 06:44 PM

Yes you have misunderstood what what i said.
If im a pastor, why not say so? If i have a degree, why keep it to myself?
Anyhow, im not trying to step on your toes or anyone elses. Nor are ylu the "one or two" my above posts refer to. I wont mention names as i do not want war. However, people should think about it.
People have a problem for some unknown reason when a person of higher intelligence puts forth such intelligence. Im guilty of it as well, i however cannot explain it. I will say though that there are people out thete (i have met a few) who can fully understand texts after just one read; so yes it is possible.
I feel what anyone thinks of me personally is completely irrelevant, so lets avoid that topic, ok? If people are going to continue this "Ive read TUB 30yrs and cover to cover 16 times so i understand more than you" type of nonsense this community will surely either perish or turn into an institution of set beliefs much like the vatican. Thete are those that understand things a faster rates than others. There is nothing wrong with faster or slower learning, whats important is we learn and grow closer to God.



True enough Red,

As a hall monitor here, I would now ask that ALL personal references be left aside by all participants. Whenever negative personal evaluations become part of a thread, trouble ensues. But most of all, it distracts from the mission, purpose and value of this Forum.

#57 JR Sherrod

JR Sherrod

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, Nevada
  • Interests:I am a Lapidary, and Jewelry Artist & Designer. I love reading the Urantia Book, science fiction, and speculative non-fiction. I am a Choral Singer. I was, at various times in my past, a Military Policeman, Police Instructor, Computer Programmer/Analyst, and Post-secondary technical instructor. I love astronomy, aeronautice & aerospace, and planes & rockets of all types. I bicycle and walk for fun and fitness. I am an Advanced Toastmaster - Bronze. I write Autobiographic Self-Help, and Speculative Non-Fiction.

Posted 10 December 2012 - 06:57 PM

Yes you have misunderstood what what i said.
If im a pastor, why not say so? If i have a degree, why keep it to myself?
Anyhow, im not trying to step on your toes or anyone elses. Nor are ylu the "one or two" my above posts refer to. I wont mention names as i do not want war. However, people should think about it.
People have a problem for some unknown reason when a person of higher intelligence puts forth such intelligence. Im guilty of it as well, i however cannot explain it. I will say though that there are people out thete (i have met a few) who can fully understand texts after just one read; so yes it is possible.
I feel what anyone thinks of me personally is completely irrelevant, so lets avoid that topic, ok? If people are going to continue this "Ive read TUB 30yrs and cover to cover 16 times so i understand more than you" type of nonsense this community will surely either perish or turn into an institution of set beliefs much like the vatican. Thete are those that understand things a faster rates than others. There is nothing wrong with faster or slower learning, whats important is we learn and grow closer to God.


I'm sorry. I sometimes get tripped up on silly little things; like grammer, punctuation, spelling, capitalization, and exaggeration. It is a fault I have that probably needs more time and personal effort to correct!

Rick is right... We need to consider the subject matter, not the subjects reading the matter! :rolleyes:
Ah! To be host to God, Himself; and to be enriched beyond measure by that incomprehensible treasure!

#58 JR Sherrod

JR Sherrod

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, Nevada
  • Interests:I am a Lapidary, and Jewelry Artist & Designer. I love reading the Urantia Book, science fiction, and speculative non-fiction. I am a Choral Singer. I was, at various times in my past, a Military Policeman, Police Instructor, Computer Programmer/Analyst, and Post-secondary technical instructor. I love astronomy, aeronautice & aerospace, and planes & rockets of all types. I bicycle and walk for fun and fitness. I am an Advanced Toastmaster - Bronze. I write Autobiographic Self-Help, and Speculative Non-Fiction.

Posted 10 December 2012 - 07:06 PM

From experience, I can confirm that a rapid grok implies either (1) fast to understand or (2) quick to warp an idea to fit preconceptions :unsure:
Nigel


Hey Nigel... I grok the Heinlein reference!

I loved "Stranger in a Strange Land"! Do you suppose RH ever read the Urantia Book? If so, it would certainly be interesting to hear his 'spin' on it, don't you think?
Ah! To be host to God, Himself; and to be enriched beyond measure by that incomprehensible treasure!

#59 Lev Schoonhoven

Lev Schoonhoven

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Interests:Philosophy, Cosmology

Posted 10 December 2012 - 10:48 PM

I suggest people understand different terms before brushing them aside with your personal "prejudice". I also suggest few re-read the UB. All theses terms ARE in the UB, used in the original sense of yhe word, not modern definitions.


'Original words' are as oxymoronic as 'holy war'. As a figure of speech, it is better suited for referencing the Eternal Son. Nevertheless, attempts to identify 'origins', linguistic or otherwise, is the source of mythology. [1] Word meanings are a function of the context in which they appear and more often emerge in verbalizations preceding written forms.

One would think a thread devoted to "scholarly study" of the Urantia Book would feature a growing bibliogrpahy of scholarly work examining this text rather than talking about such as a future event.

Edited by Lev Schoonhoven, 11 December 2012 - 12:56 AM.


#60 -Scott-

-Scott-

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Camping, Hiking, Soccer, Movies, Games,

Posted 11 December 2012 - 12:08 AM

...You've just built a straw [m]an and knocked him down... like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

People disagree with some of your posts because you intentionally antagonize them or because they have found a more meaningful answer in the book than the one you've provided. It's not really anyone's job to convince you of anything -- you can make your own decisions -- but when you post ideas that run counter to the teachings of the book you'll just have to expect to be called on them.

Best wishes,
Larry



Yes, exactly. I find it amusing when people criticize the u.b on a urantia forum and think that when someone calls them out its a travesty. This is a urantia book forum after all, etleast last time I checked.

Edited by -Scott-, 11 December 2012 - 12:10 AM.

If one man craves freedom -- liberty -- he must remember that all other men long for the same freedom




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users