-
Posts
-
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.
That’s hogwash! I think it’s time for a history lesson. There was no compromise. Why did Abner’s group hunker down and avoid both Paul and James’ group? Why did he call Paul a, “clever corrupter of the life teachings of Jesus”? Why did Paul’s group have such a fight over Torah with James’ Jerusalem group, then breakaway from them altogether? Why didn’t they all just get along? Well . . . they didn’t. They fought among themselves quite a bit. Nathaniel got so disgusted he left them all and went out on his own to India. They were NOT all happy, clappy and snappy as you claim. There was the Eastern version (Abner’s), the Jewish version (James’) and the Hellenized version (Paul’s), not to mention Nathaniel’s version and others who went their separate ways to teach. But all those versions, and many more since that time, all identify with Jesus as their leader. And that’s what matters most.
193:6.4 Nathaniel differed increasingly with Peter regarding preaching about Jesus in the place of proclaiming the former gospel of the kingdom. This disagreement became so acute by the middle of the following month that Nathaniel withdrew, going to Philadelphia to visit Abner and Lazarus; and after tarrying there for more than a year, he went on into the lands beyond Mesopotamia preaching the gospel as he understood it.
166:5.4 It was the apparent misfortune of Abner to be at variance with all of the leaders of the early Christian church. He fell out with Peter and James (Jesus’ brother) over questions of administration and the jurisdiction of the Jerusalem church; he parted company with Paul over differences of philosophy and theology. Abner was more Babylonian than Hellenic in his philosophy, and he stubbornly resisted all attempts of Paul to remake the teachings of Jesus so as to present less that was objectionable, first to the Jews, then to the Greco-Roman believers in the mysteries.
166:5.5 Thus was Abner compelled to live a life of isolation. He was head of a church which was without standing at Jerusalem. He had dared to defy James the Lord’s brother, who was subsequently supported by Peter. Such conduct effectively separated him from all his former associates. Then he dared to withstand Paul. Although he was wholly sympathetic with Paul in his mission to the gentiles, and though he supported him in his contentions with the church at Jerusalem, he bitterly opposed the version of Jesus’ teachings which Paul elected to preach. In his last years Abner denounced Paul as the “clever corrupter of the life teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of the living God.”
Your sharp comments are too well-directed to deflect, if I were proposing what you appear to believe I am. It is certainly natural to be suspicious of the motives of others, but my motives are different than you apparently assume.
You quote a favorite paragraph of mine on the “real purpose in the socialization of religion.” You seem fine with the purposes stated in this section, as am I. You do not appear to favor the idea that this socialization of religion should progress beyond the study group level. I understand what you mean by “It’s only when one group starts to lord it over the others that problems begin.” I assume this is what leads to your thought transition from the religious to the political realm, when you remark “the danger of having one single party is that it can quickly claim to be the One and Only True Party.” But following your train of thought, isn’t it obvious that the Urantia movement has already split into two “political parties,” where each claims it knows the one true way to disseminate the teachings, where each is the one true successor of Urantia Brotherhood?
With reference to this paragraph you ask rhetorically, “Do you think ONE group can do all that and satisfy every single creature on this planet?” Let me ask, what do you make of the following:
There are many nations, mostly determined by land distribution, but only one race, one language, and one religion. 52:5.10
No evolutionary world can hope to progress beyond the first stage of settledness in light until it has achieved one language, one religion, and one philosophy. 55:3.22
We are very far from these times, to be sure. But does our remoteness from them necessarily mean that we must abandon all hope of moving even a little bit closer to this ideal of one religion? And what do they really mean, when they talk about one worldwide religion?
From your various dismissive assertions “that’s rubbish!”, “that’s hogwash!!”, and “yuh think?” I suspect you’re not particularly amenable to a simple discussion at this time about where our opinions may differ on certain things. I would point out, however, that the apostles and 12 of John’s followers did in fact reach a unanimous compromise on religious doctrines. You give several examples of where there was a lack of compromise, but you fail to mention all of the compromises Paul made in his formalization of the doctrines of Christianity, particularly with Mithraism.
Peace, my friend.
But following your train of thought, isn’t it obvious that the Urantia movement has already split into two “political parties,” where each claims it knows the one true way to disseminate the teachings, where each is the one true successor of Urantia Brotherhood?
Oh no, not political parties. You misunderstand. I’m referring to religious parties, not unlike the Sadducees and Pharisees in Jesus’ day, which we are told were parties.
137:7.7 The Sadducees consisted of the priesthood and certain wealthy Jews. They were not such sticklers for the details of law enforcement. The Pharisees and Sadducees were really religious parties, rather than sects.
I think Urantia Book readers (notice I avoid the word movement) have formed far more than just two parties. There are many, many if you include all the various channelling groups under the UB umbrella. There are scads of TUB related religious parties. And no, they do not get along very well. But even if you forced them all into one group, they’d still fight with one another over this or that.
George Park wrote: We are very far from these times, to be sure. But does our remoteness from them necessarily mean that we must abandon all hope of moving even a little bit closer to this ideal of one religion? And what do they really mean, when they talk about one worldwide religion?There you go! And you seem to want it to happen magically overnight by revolution rather than evolution . . . just put aside all your differences and try to get along. Be happy, be clappy, be snappy! Well, even if we all did that, we would still have many different religious parties, sects, groups, whatever you want to call them, each one fulfilling a different need. And that’s all good. Even when we get to light and life, when there is only one global religion, I guarantee you there will still be many, many different social religious groups with differing approaches to the same religion while operating under the aegis of one single worldwide religion. That’s healthy.
One worldwide religion is just like one worldwide government. No difference really. What do they say about worldwide, or global government? It has to do with sovereignty. A multitude of religious parties, groups, sects can function peacefully if they relinquish sovereignty to the concept of the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of men. Small groups maintain dominion over their local affairs; national groups are in charge of national affairs and international issues become the responsibility of the global group, with representation from all the local and national groups. There aren’t any fewer groups, just one global representative body which relishes the idea of the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of men.
It’s a simple idea but difficult to execute. No one really wants to relinquish their sovereignty, and no one will unless they see that they are not giving up their freedom in exchange for membership. And they must also see that their representatives to the global group have equal power with other members. Is there a plan like that for Urantia Book readers? If so, it must leave all the current groups intact while accepting representatives from them to the global group. Regardless, it’s all about social and group issues, not personal religion. The individual religionist remains free to engage in personal religious relationships with Deity, regardless of what any group, at any level, has to say about it.
but you fail to mention all of the compromises Paul made in his formalization of the doctrines of Christianity, particularly with Mithraism.
I’m not sure what that has to do with the discussion but I can explain it. First of all, Paul did not formalize the doctrines of Christianity. That was done long, long after his death. Christianity didn’t really emerge as a church until around the 4th Century. Second of all, Paul was a self-appointed apostle; he never met Jesus and was never taught by Jesus, ever! Nor did Paul fraternize with those who were taught by Jesus, so all of his religious ideas came from his own “mystical experience” with Jesus. Paul invented his own religion. He used Jesus. Third of all, Paul did not compromise with Mithraism, Mithraic practitioners compromised with him. It was the other way around. He used them like he used Jesus. When it comes right down to it, the only real difference between Mithraism and Paul’s religion is the name of the dying-rising, divine-human savior.
Here’s what you need to know: Paul, who only knew a mystical version of Jesus, in all his writings, positioned his “mystical Christ” religion as completely separate from the Jesus movement in Jerusalem headed up by Peter and James, two men who knew Jesus intimately in the flesh. Paul rarely if ever spoke of the teachings of Jesus, things he actually taught while alive, but he spoke of experiences with the ascended Jesus who told him things while in a “mystical form”. Paul travelled all through the Diaspora forming congregations that were free from Jewish law. Peter and James knew Jesus as a practicing Jew, a real flesh and blood Jewish man. Paul’s Jesus was not Jewish, but mystical and therefore transcended Jewish law.
Even though Paul preached in synagogues, you have to remember that Gentile “God-Fearers”, were permitted in synagogues. (Recall the phrase “proselyte of the gate, having been neither circumcised nor baptized”). These are the people he recruited, folks on the margins. In fact, Paul got into confrontations with Jews wherever he went. His followers were Gentiles, well educated in the mystery religions, Hellenized folk, and Paul made a point of separating them from Judaism. Paul’s religion made fewer demands on them. They did not have to read, understand and follow Torah. In synagogues they were second-class citizens, but in Paul’s new mystical Christ religion, they were no longer appendages hanging around the gate, but full-fledged mystical members in the body of Christ, and that was a powerful and dramatically appealing lure.
What else was the draw of the mystery religions? Secret mystical experiences with deity, of course, and this is precisely what Paul preached. It was, after all, his own personal experience with the mystical Christ that he was touting as a possibility for everyone. The belief structure is exactly the same in Paul’s religion as it is in Mithraism, as well as other mystery religions that spanned the Mediterranean world at the time. If it wasn’t Mithraism, it was the cults of Osiris, Dionysus and Isis. They all had the same message, a God-human savior who conquers the forces of cosmic evil and promises salvation. Paul borrowed all these ideas and crammed them into his so-called new religion. There were no compromises!
There were no compromises!
As a reminder, this part of the discussion is about how the socialization of revealed religion always (without exception) requires the price of compromise.
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. (144:7.1)
The religion of Jesus was incorporated into Christianity, which appeared as “a new order of living.” This socialization of revealed religion involved numerous compromises with evolutionary religion. The midwayer highlights some of the major compromises made in paper 195.
195:0.3. Upon such a stage of human society the teachings of Jesus, embraced in the Christian message, were suddenly thrust. A new order of living was thus presented to the hungry hearts of these Western peoples. This situation meant immediate conflict between the older religious practices and the new Christianized version of Jesus’ message to the world. Such a conflict must result in either decided victory for the new or for the old or in some degree of compromise. History shows that the struggle ended in compromise.195:0.6.1. Organization. Paul was a great organizer and his successors kept up the pace he set.195:0.7.2. Christianity was thoroughly Hellenized. It embraced the best in Greek philosophy as well as the cream of Hebrew theology.195:0.8.3. But best of all, it contained a new and great ideal, the echo of the life bestowal of Jesus and the reflection of his message of salvation for all mankind.195:0.9.4. The Christian leaders were willing to make such compromises with Mithraism that the better half of its adherents were won over to the Antioch cult.195:0.10.5. Likewise did the next and later generations of Christian leaders make such further compromises with paganism that even the Roman emperor Constantine was won to the new religion.195:0.11. But the Christians made a shrewd bargain with the pagans in that they adopted the ritualistic pageantry of the pagan while compelling the pagan to accept the Hellenized version of Pauline Christianity. They made a better bargain with the pagans than they did with the Mithraic cult, but even in that earlier compromise they came off more than conquerors in that they succeeded in eliminating the gross immoralities and also numerous other reprehensible practices of the Persian mystery.195:0.12. Wisely or unwisely, these early leaders of Christianity deliberately compromised the ideals of Jesus in an effort to save and further many of his ideas. And they were eminently successful. But mistake not! these compromised ideals of the Master are still latent in his gospel, and they will eventually assert their full power upon the world.So, there were compromises and lots of them in the socialization of the religion revealed by Jesus. Since this always occurs, we should expect that compromises will have to be made as the religion revealed in The Urantia Book becomes progressively socialized. Or we can refuse to compromise like Abner, whose purer version of the religion of Jesus “never progressed as did the Hellenized version and was eventually lost in the Islamic movement.” (195:1.11)Yes, but the compromise EVOLVED over time. George, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that you are advocating some sort of short cut around time. If not, then you must be asking what can be done to encourage evolution through compromise. But compromise with what? Would you mind explaining what compromises you think should be made which will lead to one world religion? Or are you only concerned with one world Urantia Book religion? I’m confused by that. The Urantia Book is not a religion as I understand it. If you think it is, that may be the problem. If you’re trying to form a new religion based upon the Urantia Book, I think you have a steep uphill climb.
And isn’t this topic about intellectual crystallization of religious concepts? How does this apply to your concerns George? I am not following your logic.
195:10.11 But mistake not! these compromised ideals of the Master are still latent in his gospel, and they will eventually assert their full power upon the world.
It sounds to me that compromised ideals are not the favored outcome. Why compromise? It seems less than ideal to me. Go for full power! donchya think?
(102:2.7) 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.
If a species of ingenious self-deception through resorting to a retreat to the false shelter of stereotyped religious doctrines and dogmas has crept into life, resulting in intellectual crystallization of religious concepts, how would you know religion has been reduced only to an idea, being in effect, ingeniously self-deceived?
(102:2.7) Intellectual crystallization of religious concepts is the equivalent of spiritual death.
Now that the fact the revealed religion always has to make some compromises with evolutionary thought to become socialized has been established, it’s logical to ask what sort of compromises must be made, when they should be made, and how they should be made. It’s hard to say whether or not the Urantia movement (I realize you dislike this phrase, but its hard to think of another) has really made any compromises to this point. I don’t think so, but I’m open to any examples to the contrary. So, perhaps we can agree that any such compromises lie in the future. But what these future compromises might be, I really have no idea. Will the religion of Jesus, as re-presented in the Book, come to dominate Christianity? Will Christianity co-opt, subsume, or reject this re-revealed religion? Or will something altogether different take place? These are questions beyond my ken.
But I did bring up the possibility that UAI and the Fellowship might be able to reach some sort of compromise over the issue of dissemination, so that they could work more harmoniously together. A closer cooperation between the two seems like a good thing, but this certainly does not require any sort of organizational merger between the two. If their different ideas about dissemination have become so intellectually crystallized that their adherents refuse to give an inch, then compromise seems unlikely. Even a compromise where each group agrees to respect the dissemination approach of the other without endorsing it or participating in it would constitute an improvement in their relations, it seems to me, although I understand others might not see it this way.
“Why compromise?” No two people think about or understand things in exactly the same way. If they are to socialize their efforts to achieve some religious purpose, they must come to some common accord among themselves. They must be willing to make some minor compromises and concessions, if they hope to work harmoniously with others and achieve their common religious purpose. No one ever has to compromise. But if they join with others in common purpose, this requires everyone else to conform to this individual’s personal thoughts, understandings, and beliefs.
In post 25652 I described my interpretation of what a worldwide, or global religion would look like. Since I wrote that I found some supporting quotes. This next quote is about sovereignty, transferring it to God. I believe this can be translated into the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man as a symbol.
134:4.4 Religious peace–brotherhood–can never exist unless all religions are willing to completely divest themselves of all ecclesiastical authority and fully surrender all concept of spiritual sovereignty. God alone is spirit sovereign.
The following quote speaks of religious groups (parties, sects, cults, etc., none of which are uniform), which relinquish authority, or sovereignty. I believe a worldwide representative group fully dedicated to the sovereignty of God could result in the beginning of religious unity.
134:4.6 The kingdom of heaven in the hearts of men will create religious unity (not necessarily uniformity) because any and all religious groups composed of such religious believers will be free from all notions of ecclesiastical authority–religious sovereignty.
To create one single overarching global religion is not what TUB is advocating. Such a thing would attempt to create uniformity, but not necessarily unity. Human beings are diverse creatures originating from varying cultures. It would be wrong to demand conformity to one single approach to Deity since no such thing exists in reality. There is the Way, that Jesus described, and that is through him who represents the Father as the evolving Supreme. But the Supreme depends on each individual, in his/her own way, contributing to the whole as members equal in God’s eyes.
TUB describes the Urmeia group as a possible prototype. What might work is a Cymboyton-like group of faith-sons from all religions to establish a global see. But even that would not have any power at all unless all religions recognize and accept its role in representing the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. As long as there are religions on earth that deny the fatherhood of God, there’s no hope for this to happen. There can be no compromise on that.
134:4.10 The Urmia religionists lived together in comparative peace and tranquillity because they had fully surrendered all their notions of religious sovereignty. Spiritually, they all believed in a sovereign God; socially, full and unchallengeable authority rested in their presiding head – Cymboyton. They well knew what would happen to any teacher who assumed to lord it over his fellow teachers. There can be no lasting religious peace on Urantia until all religious groups freely surrender all their notions of divine favor, chosen people, and religious sovereignty. Only when God the Father becomes supreme will men become religious brothers and live together in religious peace on earth.
[Note, the above quote says “God the Father”, not just any old God, but a Father. You can’t have brothers without a father. You can’t have a family without brothers (and sisters).]
If you want to pursue a side issue within this topic, that’s fine, but I hope you won’t get too far off the rails. I have posted a continuing question regarding the heart of this topic a few posts back.
#25659
I hope you might take a look.
George Park wrote: It’s hard to say whether or not the Urantia movement (I realize you dislike this phrase, but its hard to think of another) has really made any compromises to this point. I don’t think so, but I’m open to any examples to the contrary. So, perhaps we can agree that any such compromises lie in the future.How about looking at it this way: TUB itself is a compromise. We are told that the mission of revelation is to sort and censor the religions of evolution, and it does so by not being too far removed from them. TUB clearly builds upon evolutionary religion. It is already in contact with evolutionary religion, clarifying misunderstandings of mythological biblical teaching. By utilizing what we already accept, it propels us forward. It is a concession to the knowledge we already own, in a sense, a compromise. TUB did not arrive with radically new ideas unattached to normal human thinking. TUB arrived with ideas already embedded within our collective psyche. That is a necessary compromise which has already occurred.
George Park wrote: But I did bring up the possibility that UAI and the Fellowship might be able to reach some sort of compromise over the issue of dissemination, so that they could work more harmoniously together. A closer cooperation between the two seems like a good thing, but this certainly does not require any sort of organizational merger between the two. If their different ideas about dissemination have become so intellectually crystallized that their adherents refuse to give an inch, then compromise seems unlikely. Even a compromise where each group agrees to respect the dissemination approach of the other without endorsing it or participating in it would constitute an improvement in their relations, it seems to me, although I understand others might not see it this way.George, I stay far clear of politics, including TUB politics. I personally have no clue how those two organizations work and I’m not interested either. Bradly tells us they are working well together, at least I think he’s said that. What is it about dissemination that isn’t working, in your mind? Are you sure you’re really talking about dissemination, or are you talking about evangelism? proselytizing? recruiting? missionary work? When it comes to dissemination, I think it’s about publishing and spreading books. I find it dull, but a necessary part of the process. If, on the other hand, you’re talking about spreading the revelation, like spreading the gospel, or spreading the Word, then we’re not on the same page at all about that. In regards to that, I think more groups are necessary, not less.
George Park wrote: No two people think about or understand things in exactly the same way.Exactly? Well maybe not literally exact, but at least “akin”. There are kindred spirits whose minds run in very similar channels. This is actually how social groups form . . . by people who think about something similarly. They tend to cooperate well with one another.16.6.3 The fact of the cosmic mind explains the kinship of various types of human and superhuman minds. Not only are kindred spirits attracted to each other, but kindred minds are also very fraternal and inclined towards co-operation the one with the other. Human minds are sometimes observed to be running in channels of astonishing similarity and inexplicable agreement.
George Park wrote: But if they join with others in common purpose, this requires everyone else to conform to this individual’s personal thoughts, understandings, and beliefs.Is this a typo? Who is this individual you’re referring to whose thoughts everyone must conform to?? Lost me on that one. Isn’t that how creepy cults start? It sounds like authoritarianism to me. The only person I intend to conform my thoughts to is my Thought Adjuster . . . just sayin’.
Who is this individual you’re referring to whose thoughts everyone must conform to??When a species of self-deception has crept in, looking in the mirror won’t do any good.If a species of ingenious self-deception through resorting to a retreat to the false shelter of stereotyped religious doctrines and dogmas has crept into life, resulting in intellectual crystallization of religious concepts, how would you know religion has been reduced only to an idea, being in effect, ingeniously self-deceived?
Sorry for the derailment, Enno. Let me attempt to get back on track.
Reducing religion to an idea is not always a self-deception. Some people do that on purpose, they turn religion into philosophy on purpose. The question becomes, “what is the difference between philosophy and religion, and what is the difference between ideas and ideals?” Here’s your quote again:
102:2.7 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.
First of all, philosophy is not religion, I think we can all agree on that. Philosophy is that middle ground which attempts to tie together the facts of matter with the truths of religion. It is a compromise of sorts with the purpose of unifying the total human experience, both material and supermaterial. Philosophy can become unbalanced or distorted. If philosophy leans more towards materialism, or matter, it becomes naturalistic (think man-made global warming). If it leans heavily toward spirit, it becomes mystical (think channelling). TUB tells us that philosophy can also lean toward metaphysics, or the abstract, in which case philosophy deteriorates altogether. None of it is good. Reducing religion, or God to just an idea is locking him into those distorted philosophical zones leaning toward naturalism, mysticism or metaphysics. It denies the individual the opportunity for personal experience with God due to a preference for a mental attitude about God.
TUB tells us the difference between ideas about God and the ideals of God. Ideas are discovered with the material intellect, ideals are experienced in the soul. One is philosophical, the other religious. Ideas are the material mind’s reaction to the outer world; ideals are the soul’s reaction to the inner world. Ideas are products of the intellect; ideals are the product of spiritual insight. Ideas are the product of the intellect attempting to know about God; ideals are the product of the soul experiencing God. In truth, to be effective, they both must be harmonized.
111:4.10 Ideas may take origin in the stimuli of the outer world, but ideals are born only in the creative realms of the inner world.
169:4.7 Jesus employed the word God to designate the idea of Deity and the word Father to designate the experience of knowing God.
160:5.9 Yes, you can have a religion without this God, but it does not mean anything. And if you seek to substitute the word God for the reality of this ideal of the living God, you have only deluded yourself by putting an idea in the place of an ideal, a divine reality. Such beliefs are merely religions of wishful fancy.
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.