-
Posts
-
Greetings! Vern, I agree with considering what Jesus would do in all situations and circumstances. Thankfully we are provided much for our example in the UB. I think we might consider the Master’s ministry in contrast to the Romanization of Christianity related to the employment and integration of paganisms to become more attractive by being more popular. I think our issue here reflects much for us to ponder. I recall how the 5,000 who were fed in their expectations of signs, wonders, and miracles so quickly shrunk when the Master denied them more of the free fish and bread. Their disappointment was a lesson for the apostles….and for us. Jesus showed no interest in popularity but in the presentation of universal truth and finding those stalwart ones who would persist without wonders to captivate them into service.
Did Jesus not love or stop loving the 5,000 when he refused to feed their self serving needs? No, of course not. We may love and not serve error both I think. Is it love to assist and facilitate the ingestion of poison or rotten bread and bitter fruit because others do so or wish to? No. The topic is important. But the mods here do not establish such policies and there is no need to hold them responsible or request that they overrule the Association’s policy. Some day, perhaps, the student body will be mature enough generally to shun the priests among us but, for now anyway, the banishment of priests from our group is functional and necessary IMO.
Personally, I’d rather have one activated servant leader (like you Vern) than a thousand “members”. For such a loyal and faithful steward of truth moves mountains in service to others. Glad to be on this team with you and Rick and all. The Revelation will not fail because of priests or their exclusion either one. Peace.
Some day, perhaps, the student body will be mature enough generally to shun the priests among us but, for now anyway, the banishment of priests from our group is functional and necessary IMO.
Have you not proclaimed yourself as “student” and “tadpole” who has much to learn, yet your voice is heard as if you present your opinion as a “priest” among those who wish to share their own opinion as students of “the spirit of truth”?
For one who wishes to become a frog, or is a frog, yet persists on being only a tadpole, and continuing to speak as a student, yet preaches as a student teacher, presuming that other’s speak with a forked tongue and no body with legs and no tail, might best perceive other as they wish to be perceived? But, that is only my opinion, and should not, priests banish the priests, but who then needs priests if we have a Book — Yes/No?
Hello Midi – so you think I sound priestly? Interesting. It is true that we who share the UB are students of both the text itself and the Spirit of Truth and TA and Holy Spirit by personal revelation….personal and epochal. Both are intended to compliment the other and support one another in mind for us to learn better thereby and grow in the Spirit. I wonder then when one conflicts or contradicts the other, what the truth seeker is to do? We are told that epochal revelation is given to reduce such confusions and eliminate the errors that are inherently potential within the mortal mind. So, my tadpole’s opinion is that when the mind believes it is connected with those and that which are not the TA and that the mind is receiving messages on behalf of others (second hand revelation), which contradicts the epochal facts and truths presented, that one should be suspicious of one’s personal conclusions based on this or any such falsehood.
On the tadpole thing…..I think all those who walk the world or the mansion worlds and are not yet fused with the Adjuster are tadpoles. This is but a personal opinion. The tadpole goes through many stages like ascenders move through the circles so I find it analogous – but such an opinion is not textual in any sense. So I do not presume I am a frog and do not mean any insult to myself or any other by claiming to be a tadpole. A “forked tongue” would presume dishonesty and insincerity….and I’ve made no such claim against anyone here. The policy discussed does not make judgments either about those who believe in such powers as claimed by some.
I have no authority and represent no one’s opinion but my own and often warn other readers against accepting anything based on the words of any other mortal (especially my own). Best wishes.
Some day, perhaps, the student body will be mature enough generally to shun the priests among us but, for now anyway, the banishment of priests from our group is functional and necessary IMO.
If one places “IMO” at the end of a statement, it is overlooked, after the fact, where it is presented, as an afterthought to the primary forethought. Therefore, when I read your statement above, it is presented as a mandate, where if one would place the “IMO” at the beginning of the statement as, [ It is my opinion that, –] then adding the statement, but then by stating “student body” would indicate all students, and that “to shun the priests” would indicate that you believe there are individuals who deem themselves as “priests”, and then to indicate that those who you deem as “priest(s)” who may have been banished or sanctioned, is “functional and necessary”, for the group as you see it, and would therefore not be an opinion.
Also, when or if the moderators make a decision to take action based on the greater good of the group, and there are individuals who have an opinion as to these actions based on policy, should be accepted as a debate, however when, as you say, and influence your “opinion” upon others whereby making no specific statement as to priesthood, other than your implication that they have no place or voice here, is a leading statement to insight others to your, so called opinion, which is not much different than what a preacher would do from the pulpit.
As to “tadpoles”, my implication is that they only live in water and until they grow legs and loose their tail, and move to dry land, would not have a clear understand of those frogs who live on land, and can live for a little time back in the water, in that a tadpole is only a transitional state, where evolution must change this creature into the next stage as a frog. Therefore, by insisting that a tadpole can stay a tadpole would also indicate a refusal in evolutional change.
Therefore, if evolution is progressive change, hopefully forward, then even a tadpole must have an open mind, and compromise, or allow new visions or insights to be presented, possibility for update or change and should not be shunned, because as these new, younger, readership of the Urantia Book present themselves with different ideas and ideals, who are you to stop evolution in its tracks? Thereby, a priest’s normal attitude, to squash anything which does not fit into that priest’s belief or taught doctrine, will only evolve into the loss of a congregation because of their need for dominance over their so called flock.
Also, when you state “It is true that we who share the UB are students of both the text itself and the Spirit of Truth and TA and Holy Spirit by personal revelation….” how can one share “the Spirit of Truth and TA and Holy Spirit”, have you some information or ability to look into other’s minds to assess their understand and or workings of their TA or how they comprehend the “Spirit of Truth” or for that mater, the “Holy Spirit”, whereby the only unforgivable sin is that associated with one’s own understanding and action towards the “Holly Spirit”, whereby would you really wish to be responsible for someone else’s association with the “Spirit’s” where your opinion dominates their action?
As an example, you said above: “Did Jesus not love or stop loving the 5,000 when he refused to feed their self serving needs? No, of course not. We may love and not serve error both I think. Is it love to assist and facilitate the ingestion of poison or rotten bread and bitter fruit because others do so or wish to?” Do you personally know what was in Jesus’ mind as to His actions? Also, someone who eats “rotten bread” may need penicillin, or the “ingestion of poison” can be associated to most if not all medications prescribed today, when truly done as an action based on symptomology rather than true understanding of the issues. So, you pose your statement as a question but do you not really believe in what you say, No?
Greetings…as to Jesus’ state of mind, I am certain that love dominated his mind in this and all situations. I did not claim what was in mind but only that his love was not withheld by his decisions regarding the incident. But we are told that the end of the feeding was a calculation and purposeful demonstration of how futile it is to make appeal or teach by wonders and miracles:
152:5.2 (1704.1) Of the five thousand who were miraculously fed, and who, when their stomachs were full and their hearts empty, would have made him king, only about five hundred persisted in following after him. But before these received word that he was back in Bethsaida, Jesus asked Andrew to assemble the twelve apostles and their associates, including the women, saying, “I desire to speak with them.” And when all were ready, Jesus said:
152:5.3 (1704.2) “How long shall I bear with you? Are you all slow of spiritual comprehension and deficient in living faith? All these months have I taught you the truths of the kingdom, and yet are you dominated by material motives instead of spiritual considerations. Have you not even read in the Scriptures where Moses exhorted the unbelieving children of Israel, saying: ‘Fear not, stand still and see the salvation of the Lord’? Said the singer: ‘Put your trust in the Lord.’ ‘Be patient, wait upon the Lord and be of good courage. He shall strengthen your heart.’ ‘Cast your burden on the Lord, and he shall sustain you. Trust him at all times and pour out your heart to him, for God is your refuge.’ ‘He who dwells in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.’ ‘It is better to trust the Lord than to put confidence in human princes.’
152:5.4 (1704.3) “And now do you all see that the working of miracles and the performance of material wonders will not win souls for the spiritual kingdom? We fed the multitude, but it did not lead them to hunger for the bread of life neither to thirst for the waters of spiritual righteousness. When their hunger was satisfied, they sought not entrance into the kingdom of heaven but rather sought to proclaim the Son of Man king after the manner of the kings of this world, only that they might continue to eat bread without having to toil therefor. And all this, in which many of you did more or less participate, does nothing to reveal the heavenly Father or to advance his kingdom on earth. Have we not sufficient enemies among the religious leaders of the land without doing that which is likely to estrange also the civil rulers? I pray that the Father will anoint your eyes that you may see and open your ears that you may hear, to the end that you may have full faith in the gospel which I have taught you.”
152:6.5 (1705.5) Jesus thus endeavored to prepare the apostles for the impending shock — the crisis in the public attitude toward him which was only a few days distant. He explained to the twelve that the religious rulers of Jerusalem would conspire with Herod Antipas to effect their destruction. The twelve began to realize more fully (though not finally) that Jesus was not going to sit on David’s throne. They saw more fully that spiritual truth was not to be advanced by material wonders. They began to realize that the feeding of the five thousand and the popular movement to make Jesus king was the apex of the miracle-seeking, wonder-working expectance of the people and the height of Jesus’ acclaim by the populace. They vaguely discerned and dimly foresaw the approaching times of spiritual sifting and cruel adversity. These twelve men were slowly awaking to the realization of the real nature of their task as ambassadors of the kingdom, and they began to gird themselves for the trying and testing ordeals of the last year of the Master’s ministry on earth.
Midi asks above: “Also, when you state “It is true that we who share the UB are students of both the text itself and the Spirit of Truth and TA and Holy Spirit by personal revelation….” how can one share “the Spirit of Truth and TA and Holy Spirit”, have you some information or ability to look into other’s minds to assess their understand and or workings of their TA or how they comprehend the “Spirit of Truth” or for that mater, the “Holy Spirit”, whereby the only unforgivable sin is that associated with one’s own understanding and action towards the “Holly Spirit”, whereby would you really wish to be responsible for someone else’s association with the “Spirit’s” where your opinion dominates their action?”
Me here: Actually, my statement says …we who share the UB are students of….. However, I do think we may each share with others the Spirit within in multiple forms of expression, especially in service and by love do we express but also through song and dialogue and all forms of sharing and caring. Such a sharing would not be an “assess”ment of one another. I am unaware of “unforgiveable sin” – what does God not forgive? And certainly each of us is the only responsible one for our relationship with God and our religious experience and free will choices. None should allow their actions to be determined by or dominated by the expressions or pronouncements of others….or as said before – by anyone’s opinions (especially my own).
But this is one of the issues related to those who proclaim to speak for others and provide instruction to others on behalf of still others. Priesthoods are formed thereby. And according to the story of the 5000, there has always been an audience eager to be dazzled and fed for those who make such claims for themselves. The point is that the Association’s policy regarding that claim and practice which contradicts the UB, is not a demonstration of any lack of love, but is an expression of the love for the truth given and the potential victims of such practices and has the practical function of differentiation organizationally.
You seem eager to make me into or appear to be a priest Midi. My posts are but my opinion except when I post text itself. I ask none to accept my opinion. I hope to take disagreement easily, gain in my own perspective, and lessen my own prejudice by the perspectives and opinions of others. Evidently my sentence structure needs attention though for clearer communication.
I hope to take disagreement easily, gain in my own perspective, and lessen my own prejudice by the perspectives and opinions of others.
If by your usage of “prejudice” which you assign to yourself, and hope to “lessen” through “disagreement” which you admit to comes “easily” but, then to associate this with the “perspectives” of other’s which with, whose “difference of opinion”, become “dissension”, which could easily be interpreted as presenting evil with evil, rather than presenting evil with good? When making double negative statements, it can be implied as “evil for evil” and can be conceived as deceptive, or as with a forked tongue, which is part of the sentence structure to be sure, but over time it would seem to have become habitual, as coming from “Other Memory”, which may be considered as “genetic memory”. However, I do not think that this nature will lessen over time?
“disagreement” — “difference of opinion; dissent – quarrel; dissension; argument.”
“perspective” — “the state of one’s ideas, the facts known to one, etc., in having a meaningful interrelationship” — “the faculty of seeing all the relevant data in a meaningful relationship” or, “a mental view or prospect: the dismal perspective of terminally ill patients.“
“prejudice” — “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.”
Moderator-2 wrote: UAI has consistently upheld their strict policy prohibiting the promotion of channeling activities, either directly or indirectly, at their conferences, within their publications, or on their website.I appreciate that UAI holds to this policy. People who disagree with the policy have a right to do so. I think right now in the post-publication era of the UB (1955 to the present), the channeling fad is a new example of the mind at mischief. In the case of UAI and this website policies are made by the combined wisdom of leaders who by nature and experience have arisen to leadership positions. The group as a whole decides policy. And the group has every right to do so. Do you remember where Jesus said:( 181:2:16) In my universe and in my Father’s universe of universes, our brethren-sons are dealt with as individuals in all their spiritual relations, but in all group relationships we unfailingly provide for definite leadership. Our kingdom is a realm of order, and where two or more will creatures act in co-operation, there is always provided the authority of leadership.Jesus is concerned the individual and his personal and purely religious problems. Regarding the co-ordination of divergent human interpretations of religious questions and upon the socialization of religion, he said we have to solve these non-spiritual problems ourselves.144:6:3 Andrew and Abner alternated in presiding over these joint meetings of the two apostolic groups. These men had many difficulties to discuss and numerous problems to solve. Again and again would they take their troubles to Jesus, only to hear him say: “I am concerned only with your personal and purely religious problems. I am the representative of the Father to the individual, not to the group. If you are in personal difficulty in your relations with God, come to me, and I will hear you and counsel you in the solution of your problem. But when you enter upon the co-ordination of divergent human interpretations of religious questions and upon the socialization of religion, you are destined to solve all such problems by your own decisions. Albeit, I am ever sympathetic and always interested, and when you arrive at your conclusions touching these matters of nonspiritual import, provided you are all agreed, then I pledge in advance my full approval and hearty co-operation. And now, in order to leave you unhampered in your deliberations, I am leaving you for two weeks. Be not anxious about me, for I will return to you. I will be about my Father’s business, for we have other realms besides this one.”Midi – The term “prejudice” is defined somewhat differently in the UB and without the “unfavorable” element (still undesirable however), or so I understand it (there are dozens of examples found by a key word search). Current usage can describe any -ism like racism, sexism, etc. But as presented in the UB, it also means a loyalty to preconception or current knowledge and belief which inhibits growth by its rigidity or inflexibility and prevents new truths and understanding to blossom in mind. It is a normal tendency of material mind to be jealous of its own perspective and conclusions and requires purposeful management and diminishment without then coming to believe anything and everything – to lack prejudice is not to expand gullibility for example.
Louis describes one element of such prejudice as “experiential bias” which I think accurate in its way and describes a limitation that each mind must be aware of – our perspective is limited by our experience and also by our internal loyalty to our own understanding. One may be prejudice with knowledge, thought, or reason by the definition used in the UB I think – it is limited knowledge, it is thoughtful to some degree, and a reasoned belief whereby the knowledge, thought, and reasoning is limited, distorted, narrow, and may often be something learned from others and blindly accepted – or traditional/cultural/familial in origination.
I did not say I hoped to “lessen” my prejudice BY “disagreement” nor did I say disagreement “comes” easily – I said I try to “take” disagreement easily or agreeably to learn thereby from the perspective of others which may disagree with my own – thus the reference to my prejudice and my wish to lessen it by listening to and learning from the perspectives of others. I don’t find no double negatives in my prior sentences (haha – now that’s a double negative). It is unfortunate that you seek out “implications” and innuendo by the words I choose to express myself or that you believe me to be deceptive. Your lessons in grammar imply suspicions and judgments of character I find regrettable….but you must decide for yourself what my motives and agenda may be. As we all do by the words chosen and manner written by all posters here.
While my English, grammar, and writing skills leave ample room for improvement, I am unsure how “genetic memory” affects those since these are learned skills and tools and not innate or genetic by any measure; an interesting proposition you give.
I think we seem to have exhausted the topic as you have offered nothing related to the topic itself in your critique of my perspective as presented and the presentation itself. We seem to be just chasing my tail here.
I thank the moderators for allowing time to explore the issue of removing the post and their explanation which I find appropriate. Thanks to all. Think I’ll move over to Vern’s new topic – “What is inexcusable?” – an interesting beginning on the topic.
(1087.3) 99:1.6 Religion must not become organically involved in the secular work of social reconstruction and economic reorganization. But it must actively keep pace with all these advances in civilization by making clear-cut and vigorous restatements of its moral mandates and spiritual precepts, its progressive philosophy of human living and transcendent survival. The spirit of religion is eternal, but the form of its expression must be restated every time the dictionary of human language is revised.
Mara wrote: …when you enter upon the co-ordination of divergent human interpretations of religious questions and upon the socialization of religion, you are destined to solve all such problems by your own decisions.Mara, as you know, I am no fan of the “Channeling Policy” and consider it as “millstone around the neck” of Urantia Association International in the essential work of fostering spiritual brotherhood.Time will tell.Till such time as such a policy can be reviewed, you will need to be very sure you have the wisdom to differentiate between the message and the messenger, for it is not within human capacity to judge the worth of another soul.
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.