-
Posts
-
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.Awesome, sounds like another Van/nodism to me. I’ll add it to my collection.
“Thou shall not be unfriendly.” September 18, 2016
“True religion does not belittle”, October 21, 2016
“I’ve discovered that my self-understanding cannot exceed the understanding I possess of you. And everyone else too.” May 10, 2017
I have posted a continuing question regarding the heart of this topic a few posts back.
(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?
If I understand your question correctly: How can any of us discern whether or not we are self-deceived about our own religious experience? How can we tell if our religion is merely an idea, an intellectual crystallization of lifeless religious concepts? If this is what you are asking, it is a very deep philosophical question, since it focuses upon the doubting, suspicious, and fear-ridden nature of the material intellect. How do we know we are not fooling ourselves, when we think we have a religion?
The Book gives us the answer: faith is how we know we are not fooling ourselves. There are any number of quotes on faith which directly address this question. I could list them, but I’m fairly certain you have seen all of them before and thought about each one. And your question really seems to reach for something more than a simple accounting of all of the many thoughts about faith which we have been given. We can think about faith endlessly and in any number of different ways. But faith is something more than a thought, something more than thinking, something more than contemplation, even something more than self-consciousness itself.
The feeling of religious assurance is more than an emotional feeling. The assurance of religion transcends the reason of the mind, even the logic of philosophy. (101:0.3)
If pressed, I would say that faith is an actual experience of something real which is utterly beyond the ability of emotion, reason or logic to really appreciate, explain or categorize. There are no words, thoughts or categories which can describe this experience, because it is so unlike anything else of which we are aware. If there is some inspiring reality present in religious experience that is ultimately mysterious, inexplicably eternal, and ineffably unique, this might, perhaps, be sufficient personal proof that we are not fooling ourselves.
I agree with you George. But I don’t think you fully understand what Enno is getting at.
Enno’s last post shines light on his real motive. I don’t think he is very much interested in recognizing if he himself has fallen prey to reducing religion to an idea. I don’t think that thought ever crossed his mind. What he seems to be interested in is how to recognize when other people have reduced religion to just an idea.
True motives are such very, very difficult things to discern. So difficult, in fact, that the Universal Censors must rely upon seconaphim called Discerners of Spirits to accurately determine them.
They are the only seconaphim attached to the Universal Censors but are probably the most uniquely specialized of all their fellows. Regardless of the source or channel of information, no matter how meager the evidence at hand, when it is subjected to their reflective scrutiny, these discerners will forthwith inform us as to the true motive, the actual purpose, and the real nature of its origin. (28:5.19)
The Discerners of Spirits carry on these intricate services by virtue of inherent “spiritual insight,” if I may use such words in an endeavor to convey to the human mind the thought that these reflective angels thus function intuitively, inherently, and unerringly. When the Universal Censors behold these presentations, they are face to face with the naked soul of the reflected individual; and this very certainty and perfection of portraiture in part explains why the Censors can always function so justly as righteous judges. (28:5.20)
I recognize when other people have reduced religion only to an idea by what they say and how they’re going about it. Especially is this noticeable when they respond to what someone else says as if it is directed at them personally, when it’s not. It’s a curious but discernible phenomenon which exemplifies the ingeniousness of the self-deception we’re discussing. Isn’t it?
I recognize when other people have reduced religion only to an idea by what they say and how they’re going about it.
Well, perhaps you think you can recognize this in others, but how can you be certain, really. After all, how can any one of us tell whether or not there is not still a spark of living faith hidden somewhere beneath all of dead ashes of a stereotyped religion which has been adopted by another? What I mean is, don’t judgments about eternal life belong to God and God alone?
Van Amadon wrote: It’s a curious but discernible phenomenon which exemplifies the ingeniousness of the self-deception we’re discussing. Isn’t it?
And there you have it! Exactly as I’ve said it is. No further proof required. And so we continue the with character assassination through innuendo. Lovely! No problem. I’m up for the game.
Enno, you never answered this question I asked two pages ago:
Would you mind illustrating what you mean by “stereotyped religious doctrines and dogmas” of the Urantia Book?
And furthermore, is what you wrote below also applicable to the Urantia Book? And if not, why not?
Van Amadon wrote: 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?You see George, I think the question is directed toward identifying TUB readers who have retreated to a so-called “false shelter of stereotyped religious doctrines and dogmas”. It asks how to identify fellow readers who have intellectually crystallized religious concepts and are thus ingeniously self-deceived by their ideas. Obviously, if only self-deceived people are guilty of this, there would be no benefit from looking into a mirror. Self-examination would be to no avail. There would be a kind of spiritual blindness, right? And before you know it, you might be led right along the same path, following a blind person. Very dangerous business, which is why Enno thinks TUB is a dangerous book.Don’t forget these ingenious Van/nodisms, they’re rich:As a truthbook, the Urantia Book is flawed because it doesn’t contain ALL truth. Mon Sep 12, 2016
The Dangers of the Urantia Book are of a deep spiritual nature. Mon Sep 12, 2016
Life is dangerous. The Urantia Book is a part of life. Sun Sep 18, 2016
The more you know what the Urantia Book says, the harder the goal becomes what it doesn’t say. Wed Oct 26, 2016
Knowing what the Urantia Book says should encourage the discovery of what it doesn’t say. That’s the goal that gets harder to reach when what it says is ignored. Thu Oct 27, 2016
There seems to be a common thread in all of this asking us to look beyond TUB into something else. What that something else is anyone’s guess. I would hope it is an inner communion with God himself. And if I’m right, there should be no problem reading and studying a revelation that came from God himself. No deception there unless you think God did not have a role in the Revelation. I think he did, through his agents, which is how epochal revelation happens. Now, if you think TUB is dangerous, then you think God is dangerous, and that is a species of ingenious self-deception if I’ve ever seen one.
101:4.3 Truth is always a revelation: autorevelation when it emerges as a result of the work of the indwelling Adjuster; epochal revelation when it is presented by the function of some other celestial agency, group, or personality.
92:4.3 Revelatory religion is propounded by the real spiritual world; it is the response of the superintellectual cosmos to the mortal hunger to believe in, and depend upon, the universal Deities.
Well, perhaps you think you can recognize this in others, but how can you be certain, really. After all, how can any one of us tell whether or not there is not still a spark of living faith hidden somewhere beneath all of dead ashes of a stereotyped religion which has been adopted by another? What I mean is, don’t judgments about eternal life belong to God and God alone?
Brilliant!
This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.
Really weird Bonita. Do you have my house bugged? Maybe Rexford is still alive and well. No deception there right?
Really weird Bonita. Do you have my house bugged? Maybe Rexford is still alive and well. No deception there right?
Talk about ingenious self-deception . . . weird, right? How about answering my two questions? Could you do that?
There is critical information you’ve omitted Enno. We all need to know, what the “stereotyped religious doctrines and dogmas” of the Urantia Book are. Please give us an outline, a list, a few examples perhaps. If TUB readers have fallen into self-deception, as you say is possible, then it would be a great service to reveal the pitfalls. What has been stereotyped? What has turned into a doctrine? What has become dogma about the Urantia Book? It would be helpful if you provided specifics. Otherwise, there’s nothing to discuss.
What are the “stereotyped religious doctrines and dogmas” of the Urantia Book?
The key word is stereotyped.
Unless you don’t think it’s possible for the things the Urantia Book says to become or already are “doctrinal” and “dogmatic,” there is no point in discussing it further. It’s clear to me that there most certainly is Urantia Book doctrine and dogma.
But that’s not the problem.
The problem is in stereotyping it, fixating it, oversimplifying it, standardizing it making it conventional.
So what has turned into a doctrine? What has become dogma about the Urantia Book?
All of it, depending on a certain point of view, or none of it.
But if evolutionary man does not naturally relish hard work, and is inclined to that species of ingenious self-deception (which I am sure I’m guilty of) how does this factor into the distraction it may cause from being wholeheartedly committed to the business of doing the Father’s will?
Unless you don’t think it’s possible for the things the Urantia Book says to become or already are “doctrinal” and “dogmatic,” there is no point in discussing it further.
Got that right!
But if evolutionary man does not naturally relish hard work, and is inclined to that species of ingenious self-deception (which I am sure I’m guilty of) how does this factor into the distraction it may cause from being wholeheartedly committed to the business of doing the Father’s will?
Just what is the business of doing the Father’s will according to Enno? Why isn’t studying the Revelation doing his business? It is essentially his book isn’t it? Didn’t he, through his agents, commission it? Are you saying that people who study TUB are not wholeheartedly committed to the business of doing the Father’s will? If so, why are you here? And don’t tell me you’re here to warn us. Don’t tell me that warning us is what God wants you to do, that you’re here in service of God who wants us all to step back from reading the Revelation and get busy doing his work. If you think that, then there’s a problem . . . a huge sanctimonious problem . . . not one easily solved either.
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.