-
Posts
-
102:2.7 (1120.4) Evolutionary man does not naturally relish hard work. To keep pace in his life experience with the impelling demands and the compelling urges of a growing religious experience means incessant activity in spiritual growth, intellectual expansion, factual enlargement, and social service. There is no real religion apart from a highly active personality. Therefore do the more indolent of men often seek to escape the rigors of truly religious activities by a species of ingenious self-deception through resorting to a retreat to the false shelter of stereotyped religious doctrines and dogmas. But true religion is alive. Intellectual crystallization of religious concepts is the equivalent of spiritual death. You cannot conceive of religion without ideas, but when religion once becomes reduced only to an idea, it is no longer religion; it has become merely a species of human philosophy.
After studying the Urantia Papers thoroughly for many years, is it possible, and at what point and why, might the “religious concepts” of the revelation become intellectually crystallized?
The two key phrases of that quote in response to your question are these: “true religion is alive” and “once becomes reduced only to an idea, it is no longer religion”.
As long as TUB readers, regardless of how many years they have studied the Papers, puts the concepts into *living* practice in their day to day life, they are practicing “true religion”. If one reads the Papers, one time or one hundred times, but does not allow the concepts to alter their approach to daily living or their striving to follow the leadings of their Thought Adjuster and become more Godlike, that is likely to lead to ‘intellectual crystallization of religious concepts’.
This quote says it better than I can:
110:6.17 (1211.2) The motivation of faith makes experiential the full realization of man’s sonship with God, but action, completion of decisions, is essential to the evolutionary attainment of consciousness of progressive kinship with the cosmic actuality of the Supreme Being. Faith transmutes potentials to actuals in the spiritual world, but potentials become actuals in the finite realms of the Supreme only by and through the realization of choice-experience. But choosing to do the will of God joins spiritual faith to material decisions in personality action and thus supplies a divine and spiritual fulcrum for the more effective functioning of the human and material leverage of God-hunger. Such a wise co-ordination of material and spiritual forces greatly augments both cosmic realization of the Supreme and morontia comprehension of the Paradise Deities.
Well said Keryn!!
Like you, I find the answer to Enno’s question within the text he posted: “To keep pace in his life experience with the impelling demands and the compelling urges of a growing religious experience means incessant activity in spiritual growth, intellectual expansion, factual enlargement, and social service. There is no real religion apart from a highly active personality.”
Concepts which do not affect/impact/determine/drive/deliver behavior are static, dead, and crystalized. Religious living is a reaction, response, and reflection which requires expression through our primary motives in life, our intentions at every intersection of choice, our priorities of living, and our responses to every circumstance and situation faced in our life. Once this Way of Living and Destiny Perspective is engaged, then the adventure is one of fine tuning and gaining wisdom by the experience of making better and better choices over time. Better and better means with more insight and purpose and love….all 3 of which are progressive for the one who is attentive and focused on how best to serve….God, family, community, and the Kingdom.
I think “intellectually crystalized” might mean different things: the ceremonial rote and repetitive creedal dogmas which deliver no great meaning or value or life adjustment in response to those; the prejudiced mind which believes it knows everything it needs to or desires which prevents growth and progressive understanding, wisdom, and truth in our expression of faith; and any substitution of knowledge and belief for faith….. which requires its expression in action.
102:2.3 (1119.8) It is difficult to identify and analyze the factors of a religious experience, but it is not difficult to observe that such religious practitioners live and carry on as if already in the presence of the Eternal. Believers react to this temporal life as if immortality already were within their grasp. In the lives of such mortals there is a valid originality and a spontaneity of expression that forever segregate them from those of their fellows who have imbibed only the wisdom of the world. Religionists seem to live in effective emancipation from harrying haste and the painful stress of the vicissitudes inherent in the temporal currents of time; they exhibit a stabilization of personality and a tranquillity of character not explained by the laws of physiology, psychology, and sociology.
Highly active personality minus Mota = ??
a human who struggles against a belligerent self??
an energy deficit of a type we can only imagine??
Will, that requires a kick in the rear??
challenging situations??
faith – Agondonter style??
able to leap tall buildings in a single bound??
After studying the Urantia Papers thoroughly for many years, is it possible, and at what point and why, might the “religious concepts” of the revelation become intellectually crystallized?
What do you mean by become intellectually crystallized?
Is it possible (as students of the Urantia Papers) to turn the liberty of true religious living into “a species of ingenious self-deception through resorting to a retreat to the false shelter of stereotyped religious doctrines and dogmas?”
The intellectual crystallization of “stereotyped religious doctrines and dogmas” of the Urantia Book that is.
“Intellectual crystallization”, can also be associated to psychology, where it has been used in the UB about 7 times. It would be interesting to see how it is referenced in “psychology” as related to “intellect”.
Fluid and crystallized intelligence
In psychology, fluid and crystallized intelligence (respectively abbreviated Gf and Gc) are factors of general intelligence, originally identified by Raymond Cattell. Concepts of fluid and crystallized intelligence were further developed by Cattell’s student, John L. Horn.
Fluid intelligence or fluid reasoning is the capacity to reason and solve novel problems, independent of any knowledge from the past. It is the ability to analyze novel problems, identify patterns and relationships that underpin these problems and the extrapolation of these using logic. It is necessary for all logical problem solving, e.g., in scientific, mathematical, and technical problem solving. Fluid reasoning includes inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.
Crystallized intelligence is the ability to use skills, knowledge, and experience. It does not equate to memory, but it does rely on accessing information from long-term memory. Crystallized intelligence is one’s lifetime of intellectual achievement, as demonstrated largely through one’s vocabulary and general knowledge. This improves somewhat with age, as experiences tend to expand one’s knowledge.
The terms are somewhat misleading because one is not a “crystallized” form of the other. Rather, they are believed to be separate neural and mental systems. Crystallized intelligence is indicated by a person’s depth and breadth of general knowledge, vocabulary, and the ability to reason using words and numbers. It is the product of educational and cultural experience in interaction with fluid intelligence.
Fluid and crystallized intelligence are thus correlated with each other, and most IQ tests attempt to measure both varieties. For example, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) measures fluid intelligence on the performance scale and crystallized intelligence on the verbal scale. The overall IQ score is based on a combination of these two scales.
The intellectual crystallization of “stereotyped religious doctrines and dogmas” of the Urantia Book that is.
Would you mind illustrating what you mean by “stereotyped religious doctrines and dogmas” of the Urantia Book?
So….I’m a little confused. There’s a belief set agreed upon by students of the UB? Or even those who have come to believe its claims for itself? I know the Foundation, Fellowship, and Association offer no such list or set – creed or doctrine.
It’s my understanding that the UB is the antithesis of those. I thought the Papers teach a personal and unique experience and expression of our life with God? I thought the TA, angels, and Spirit of Truth personalized an actual experience of growing in truth and wisdom? I thought the only measure for one’s success in such an experience were the fruits of the Spirit…not any intellectualized assent and agreement to creeds, doctrines, beliefs, behaviors, ceremonies, rites, etc.?
Are you asking if the facts of universe reality presented are dogma, creed, or religion? They’re not. Those are given to provide the pilgrims of time with orientation of our place and destiny within the universe reality to relieve confusion and error in perspective. The actual religious experience must be lived….individually and quite uniquely personal…between ourselves and God.
The Papers have much to say on “dogma or dogmas” and creeds and doctrines. Not anything good either.
Another false premise IMO which may only lead to false conclusions and assertions in its defense as a proposition. So, pray tell what are the creeds, doctrines, and dogmas presented in the UB? If we’re living the teachings then nothing becomes crystalized….and if you’re not living and growing and bearing fruit, then it hardly matters what your doctrines and creeds might be.
I think it’s pretty clear that at least one author of TUB has every intention of helping us crystallize our thoughts. But this type of crystallization, as points out, is not a process of turning thoughts into concrete, which is what happens when they become dogmatized.
32:5.6 Nevertheless, I have done my best to portray something of our viewpoint, to tell you somewhat of our understanding of things eternal. I am endeavoring to aid you in the crystallization of your thoughts about these values which are of infinite nature and eternal import.
To dogmatize, according to the dictionary, means to represent something as incontrovertible truth. Incontrovertible means that dogmatized truth cannot be disputed. It is therefore sanctified, and all morality must align itself accordingly. This is how wars start, and our world is at war. This type of thinking is the bane of our current civilization, and it is evidenced on all levels of reality; scientific, philosophic (political) and religious. So many believe they are privy to incontrovertible truth about one thing or another and that’s total rubbish. Any reader of TUB who has crystallized only a fraction of what is written, would recognize the absurdity of this type of thinking, not to mention the evil it represents.
might the “religious concepts” of the revelation become intellectually crystallized?
“Evolutionary man does not naturally relish hard work,” and it is easier to “retreat to the false shelter of stereotyped religious doctrines and dogmas.” In the short term, it appears likely that the religious concepts in this revelation will become philosophically refined, hardening over time into increasingly precise definitions, until there are various sets of doctrinal beliefs around which numerous religious sects will form. This slightly pessimistic outlook for the near term seems justified by the fact that intellectual crystallization has already occurred in the Urantia movement. There are deep doctrinal differences over how the revelation should be disseminated, and these sincerely held beliefs have led to a sectarian fracturing of our movement. While it is a very good thing that the organizations are now trying to minimize their differences, both UAI and the Fellowship have their origins in fundamentally different approaches to dissemination. There is still a great divide between the two, and both see themselves as the sole legitimate successor of the former Urantia Brotherhood.
Like some others on this forum, I remember a time when we were organizationally unified, before this bitter breakup. Many regrettable things were said and done on all sides, some of which have yet to be forgiven and forgotten. While everyone in the movement still appreciates the supreme spiritual value of this epochal revelation for both the individual and world civilization, we hold on to our different ideas about how to disseminate it. We are unified in our humble adoration of the spiritual values and truths in the Book, yet we persist in believing in the unassailable righteousness of our intellectual ideas about its dissemination. Why do we elevate these ideas to the level of moral imperatives, so that any further discussion is precluded and any possibility of compromise is prevented?
What has occurred with the idea of dissemination is likely to occur with other religious concepts, it seems to me, unless we are willing to accommodate some variation in the religious ideas and beliefs of others. The Fatherhood of God is personally discovered by each child of the Father, but the brotherhood of the children of God cannot be realized in isolation, apart from the socialization of religion. And socialization requires some measure of compromise by every idealist who would join with others to fulfill the common purposes of a religious group.
Always does the socialized religion of a new revelation pay the price of compromise with the established forms and usages of the preceding religion which it seeks to salvage. Baptism was the price which the followers of Jesus paid in order to carry with them, as a socialized religious group, the followers of John the Baptist. John’s followers, in joining Jesus’ followers, gave up just about everything except water baptism. (144:7.1)
The socialization of revealed religion always requires some compromise with evolutionary religion. The above compromise was unanimously agreed to by the followers of Jesus and John after a great deal of very hard work undertaken with the utmost sincerity.
These twenty-four men had a truly remarkable experience these two weeks when they were compelled to face problems and compose difficulties without Jesus. They learned to differ, to debate, to contend, to pray, and to compromise, and throughout it all to remain sympathetic with the other person’s viewpoint and to maintain at least some degree of tolerance for his honest opinions. (144:6.11)
It is possible for ardent idealists with the same spiritual motives to compose their personal differences and work together with unity of purpose. These twenty-four men show us how we might overcome the rather embarrassing situation in which the Urantia movement now finds itself: How are we to preach the brotherhood of man, when we cannot even realize it within our own ranks?
Christianity is seriously confronted with the doom embodied in one of its own slogans: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” The non-Christian world will hardly capitulate to a sect-divided Christendom. (195:10.11)
What is true for Christianity is equally true for this new revelation of religion. An honest self-appraisal might lead to the unpleasant conclusion that we, as a group, are like the blind leading the blind. We speak eloquently and with one voice, as it were, of the glories of spiritual brotherhood under the Fatherhood of God, but we, as a social group, have failed to realize this profound truth in our relations with our fellow believers: we know not whereof we speak. Who is not inspired by the spiritual idealism of Don Quixote, an idealism so overwhelming that it absolutely refuses to compromise with any inconvenient facts the world might throw at it? But the followers of Jesus were not so blinded by spiritual truth that they failed to recognize the truth of facts. They willingly undertook the hard work required to reach that place where they could “pay the price of compromise” required for reconciliation with their fellow believers.
In friendship,
George
Oh . . . . no, no, no . . . I can’t believe I just read that! Maybe I’m over reacting. Wait a couple of minutes, I’m going to go walk around the room a few times and then bang my head on the wall once or twice. Can’t believe what I just read . . . mutter, mutter, mutter . . . maybe I’m not understanding it properly. I’ll be back when I’m calmer. Meanwhile . . . what the heck are you talking about George??? What on God’s green earth is wrong with more than one social group?????
what the heck are you talking about George???
That’s quite the reaction, much stronger than I anticipated to the simple idea of people joining together to foster and promote the revelation. What is it, exactly, that you find so objectionable?
George
Well . . . I probably shouldn’t respond until I’ve walked around the house some more and banged my head on the wall a few extra times, but here goes . . .
Did Jesus have only one social group disseminating the gospel while he walked the earth? Was there only one social group after Jesus ascended? How many sects, or social groups with differing interpretations of the gospel were there from the very gitgo? Well . . . more than one, that’s for sure. What’s wrong with more than one social group? I think it is part of the grand plan. Gasp!
Personally, I think it’s better to have more than one social group, sect, party or whatever you want to call them. I think it’s both good and wise to have several different approaches, not only to dissemination, but to the Revelation as a whole. There are many different types of people in this world and some are drawn to one interpretation of the kingdom more than another, not unlike Abner, James and Paul who formed three different social groups and approaches to the gospel according to their interpretation.
Actually, I think there should be as many groups as people need . . . hence the call for study groups, maybe, yah think? It’s only when one group starts to lord it over the others that problems begin. And that seems to me that’s exactly what you’re doing here, trying to claim a superior view and scorning those who don’t share it. That’s just my impression though . . . may need a little more head banging to see your point of view.
As I see it, the danger of having one single party is that it can quickly claim to be the One and Only True Party. And that’s rubbish!! In fact, learning to work together with differing ideas, not only about dissemination, but interpretation of the Revelation, is healthy. Unity only deteriorates when one party attempts to rule over the other, claims superiority or spreads rumors that the “other party” is preventing progress . . . and if only we could get rid of that “other party” or convert that “other party” we’d all be happy, clappy and snappy. More rubbish.
And that brings to mind another question. Just what sort of movement are you talking about George? Are you talking about a conversion movement? a teaching movement? a ministerial movement? What exactly are you attempting to do with your movement? What’s the purpose? Ahhh . . . . now if there is only ONE movement, with only ONE purpose, it better be a really, really good ONE that satisfies every single soul, otherwise you’re going to have people forming breakaway splinter sects in order to meet their needs.
Just what is the purpose of socializing religion, of forming social religious groups?
99:6.2 There is a real purpose in the socialization of religion. It is the purpose of group religious activities to dramatize the loyalties of religion; to magnify the lures of truth, beauty, and goodness; to foster the attractions of supreme values; to enhance the service of unselfish fellowship; to glorify the potentials of family life; to promote religious education; to provide wise counsel and spiritual guidance; and to encourage group worship. And all live religions encourage human friendship, conserve morality, promote neighborhood welfare, and facilitate the spread of the essential gospel of their respective messages of eternal salvation.
Do you think ONE group can do all that and satisfy every single creature on this planet? If you do, then I have a bridge I’d like to sell you. Okay, said enough. Going back to letting off steam. Think I’ll clean a few bathrooms . . . mop some floors . . . scream at the TV . . . is it time for a glass of wine yet?
Yes Bonita…had exactly the same thought…the patterns of organization, service, infrastructure, and dissemination in Part IV is that of a united ministry by diverse groups of people of particular skills and priorities.
As to “objectionable”, I would add my objection to the presentation of personal opinion and subjective experience/perspective as though it were a factual recital of objective historical record…it is certainly not that! I respect George’s opinion and view and he’s certainly entitled to it and his experience is his own. But my memory does not hold the same recollections at all.
Another objection would be the inference that dissemination of the FER has failed or falters today. I also do not understand any peculiar or significant differences in the priorities or methods of “dissemination” between the Association and Fellowship. There are or may be some distinctions and unique projects to be sure. But what’s so profoundly different in your opinion? And what’s the “great divide”? You mean the narrowing and rising fissure that is already bridged by many and by much? Seems to be plenty of exaggeration amongst your opinions George.
Dissemination is in the wind now as well as with the Foundation, Fellowship, Association, UBIS, UU….and so many other organizations of dedicated disseminators…..there will only be more…..and more…..and many more.
And finally, and personally, I find your “blind leading the blind” accusation insulting….and not just to me but to thousands of faithful servants of dissemination now and over time. Your low opinion of others was also stated as a fact….unfortunate. But nice to know your opinion.
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.