-
Posts
-
In the course of the discussion thread, “The book belongs to the era immediately to follow…” some respondents seemed to suggest that the main duty of UB readers should be to act more or less like ambassadors of the kingdom, so to speak, like Jesus did. Setting examples of spiritual living and bringing the good news of The Urantia Book to the world. I think the implication in this sentiment would be that national or world politics should be in a way, ‘left to Caesar’ – that engaging in talk of ideological struggles leads to ‘fear mongering’ (perhaps because of the inherent sense of threat contained in the notion of an ideological struggle. There are other UB readers who seem to have fairly strong and well-defined political philosophies, and might argue that there is a fairly well-defined political philosophy in the UB as well, and to not adopt at least some minor form of activism in the face of regressive movements is tantamount to being complicit in the physical suffering, and conflict escalations that not only threaten world peace but retard spiritual development. So, all that to preface an interview with Sheryl Cira. (Apologies for the less-than-perfect audio).
Sheryl was interviewed by me at the Urantia Fellowship Summer Study Session in July. She was interviewed because while I was there I announced that I had been taking interviews from any UB readers who would be willing. She was one of them. I have a few others to follow. I posted it here because her testimony raises questions about the social responsibility that may or may not belong to those who subscribe to the truth of The Urantia Book. Or in other words, does the UB explicitly or implicitly prescribe some general orientation toward other humans, and does that in any way obligate one to act on it, and how should it be acted upon for each individual? I don’t have an answer, but the interview generally, at least to me suggested those questions.
There is an implication by you Martine here that most, or many, UB students are not engaged in community and social services and political activism. In my 4 decades of close association with hundreds of students, I can testify this is a false and misleading inference on your part. What student has not read and does not believe that the most idealistic and reality focused religionist is also, inherently, the most productive and active citizen?
A most puzzling proposition you make. And false.
Bradly, moderate your tone. Not cool. I don’t think you caught her meaning quite right. (Also, hello. Strangely enough, this is my first post here)
The eternal God is our refuge.
He is a faithful Creator.Greetings Andy…and welcome!! My comment was not directed at or about the interviewee’s positions at all. The inference is in Martin’s two posts above. Someone who decides to make a body of work by interviewing multiple readers to record their perspective and experience is an important service project IMO.
However, one must be careful of inserting their own opinions/perspective as some layer of editorializing upon that of those being interviewed…also just my opinion. In the first post, Martin offers his assessment of the readership’s belief system relative to citizenship in both the material world and the universe. I take this assessment as Martin’s opinion but no evidence is provided to suggest who or how many believe that the readership can be divided or dissected into these two distinct philosophies of living.
I think the Papers are quite clear in their example and instruction; and my personal experience belies the suggestion that there exists any broad belief that religionists, most especially UB students, shun community/secular activism. I claim exactly the opposite….and not just for myself but for the many, many, many students I know and have met over the years.
I am about to watch the interview (and have enjoyed other interviews by Martin already). But whether I agree with the one being interviewed or not is irrelevant to my point; and I’ll not comment – agree or disagree – with someone who is not here to speak for themselves and engage in actual conversation.
Certainly, everyone has a right to their opinion….I would just suggest that Martin specify that which is his own opinion and clearly divorce such personal opinion from the subject/person of his interviews. The inference is his as presented. Sheryl’s perspective is her own and I look forward to learning about her perspective….in her own words. Journalistic integrity requires a clear gulf between the interviewer and the interviewee or the work becomes diluted and diminished by editorializing the interviewers own perspective. Or so I think.
I appreciate the admonishment regarding my tone. It is something I must improve. Welcome again!
So I guess the thing I still don’t have figured out is Martin/Martine’s gender identity. I had pegged her* as, well, a her.
And yes, cordiality will prevail!
Bless you in your community/social endeavors.
The eternal God is our refuge.
He is a faithful Creator.Andy – well I listened….and I will comment. Sheryl is a fellow child of the 60’s and boomer/activist like me. Really like her. We could really rant and rave together! I agree with HER assessment that the USA has many problems, especially those associated with greed and power and a lack of moral compass within our so called leadership.
I’d love to talk with her about globalizing this perspective and the effects of local/recent bias on a person’s frustration and anger. Her perspective, which I agree with in very large measure, is quite localized relative to the time unit perspective and the globe at large – which was the topic of the interview so no criticism intended. If I agree so much on her USA perspective, no doubt an enlarged conversation and perspective would also reveal much more to agree upon.
Which brings me back to my prior posts: Martin (yeah he’s a guy with a girl’s avatar) presented a personal opinion of his own for which I didn’t hear a single thing said within the interview even remotely related to his own perspective presented in the setup of the interview. Did Sheryl claim there are disinterested and disengaged UB students? I didn’t hear that. And yet, by Martin’s introduction, I certainly expected to. Indeed, Martin’s setup truly imposes assumptions not shared or stated by the interview being setup. A curious form of editorialization….the piece presented had no connection to the assertions and inferences made by Martin above.
I am happy to discuss activism and the role that religionists should or do play. But I do not endorse Martin’s blanket assessment and think it off the mark in multiple ways. Perhaps he will provide greater clarity to his assertions. Or perhaps we might all discuss the many forms of social service and activism we provide in our own efforts to provide both illumination of truth, beauty, and goodness in our daily walk and those causes we support which endeavor to uplift all of humanity into community.
Anyway….I love Sheryl’s voice….and perspective.
Bradly
What I read in Martin’s intro was a presentation of two opposing POVs among UB students. Sounds like you only really absorbed the first one(?) Some say we should let Caesar do his thing and stay out of it; but
There are other UB readers who seem to have fairly strong and well-defined political philosophies, and might argue that there is a fairly well-defined political philosophy in the UB as well, and to not adopt at least some minor form of activism in the face of regressive movements is tantamount to being complicit in the physical suffering, and conflict escalations that not only threaten world peace but retard spiritual development.
The eternal God is our refuge.
He is a faithful Creator.Bradly wrote: There is an implication by you Martine here that most, or many, UB students are not engaged in community and social services and political activism. In my 4 decades of close association with hundreds of students, I can testify this is a false and misleading inference on your part. What student has not read and does not believe that the most idealistic and reality focused religionist is also, inherently, the most productive and active citizen?Funny thing about tone. I do not find a problem with your tone Bradly. Many factors go into whether or not a UB reader becomes engaged in community and social services and political activism. To each his/her own desserts, socially, politically and economically speaking. It is futile to make broad inferences about UB readers. UB readers are as diverse as the populations of our world..What I gather from the following reference is that their are many ideologies, systems of government, many constitutions and/or charters of civil authority and many systems of administrative procedure. And that is because we live on a diverse world.( 70:12:5) Urantia mortals are entitled to liberty; they should create their systems of government; they should adopt their constitutions or other charters of civil authority and administrative procedure. And having done this, they should select their most competent and worthy fellows as chief executives. For representatives in the legislative branch they should elect only those who are qualified intellectually and morally to fulfill such sacred responsibilities. As judges of their high and supreme tribunals only those who are endowed with natural ability and who have been made wise by replete experience should be chosen..As an example they refer to the then 48 states of the USA which demonstrate diverse populations living in peace without war, because the states have surrendered their sovereignty. That doesn’t mean the people think, feel, see alike. On the contrary they do not, though individuals if motivated, can affiliate with socially, politically or economically like-minded people. If UB readers want to affiliate any of these groups of like-minded people, I say good for them..(134:5:13) To use an important nineteenth- and twentieth-century illustration: The forty–eight states of the American Federal Union have long enjoyed peace. They have no more wars among themselves. They have surrendered their sovereignty to the federal government, and through the arbitrament of war, they have abandoned all claims to the delusions of self-determination. While each state regulates its internal affairs, it is not concerned with foreign relations, tariffs, immigration, military affairs, or interstate commerce. Neither do the individual states concern themselves with matters of citizenship. The forty–eight states suffer the ravages of war only when the federal government’s sovereignty is in some way jeopardized..( 134:5:14 ) The forty-eight American free states live together in peace. There are among the citizens of these forty-eight states all of the various nationalities and races that live in the ever-warring nations of Europe. These Americans represent almost all the religions and religious sects and cults of the whole wide world, and yet here in North America they live together in peace. And all this is made possible because these forty-eight states have surrendered their sovereignty and have abandoned all notions of the supposed rights of self-determination..True religionists make good citizens.( 193:0:4) “I admonish you ever to remember that your mission among men is to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom–the reality of the fatherhood of God and the truth of the sonship of man. Proclaim the whole truth of the good news, not just a part of the saving gospel. Your message is not changed by my resurrection experience. Sonship with God, by faith, is still the saving truth of the gospel of the kingdom. You are to go forth preaching the love of God and the service of man. That which the world needs most to know is: Men are the sons of God, and through faith they can actually realize, and daily experience, this ennobling truth.”.Jesus had a lot to say about sonship and citizenship. Here is just a snippet.( 178:1:5) As mortal and material men, you are indeed citizens of the earthly kingdoms, and you should be good citizens, all the better for having become reborn spirit sons of the heavenly kingdom. As faith-enlightened and spirit-liberated sons of the kingdom of heaven, you face a double responsibility of duty to man and duty to God while you voluntarily assume a third and sacred obligation: service to the brotherhood of God-knowing believers..The third and sacred obligation is service to the brotherhood of God-knowing believers. It’s a scared obligation. To God-knowing believers. That’s why I participate on this forum.“In the course of the discussion thread, “The book belongs to the era immediately to follow…” some respondents seemed to suggest that the main duty of UB readers should be to act more or less like ambassadors of the kingdom, so to speak, like Jesus did. Setting examples of spiritual living and bringing the good news of The Urantia Book to the world. I think the implication in this sentiment would be that national or world politics should be in a way, ‘left to Caesar’ – that engaging in talk of ideological struggles leads to ‘fear mongering’ (perhaps because of the inherent sense of threat contained in the notion of an ideological struggle.”
Having been a party to that topical discussion, I cannot recall ANY who held this view. Thus, I am at a loss to understand these two differing POVs. While we all have our own sense of priorities and process for change, who is not in favor of change? Who merely acquiesces to the status quo with indifference and inaction? My experience coincides with Sheryl’s perspective….lots of activists in the Urantia movement. I look forward to that interview to come which supports the other side of this assertion. Who thinks any UB students are or should be passive? Love is a force….or it is a fiction. An interesting topic nonetheless.
It is my experience that political/social activism takes two primary forms: active support for those issues/movements which one feels may improve society; and active opposition against those issues/forces which one feels may retard/regress society.
Been on both sides on this one…until the UB anyway. Now I feel we are better defined by what we support and work toward than what we oppose and work against. But either way, both describe activism to me. I think all “political ideology” is flawed and biased and that no party represents a superior voice….or outcome. The political spectrum is broad, representing many individual points of view – which are, alas, but immature and mortal points of view. We are taught that as go the parts, so goes the whole; and that, it is the love response and love motivated actions which bring the best change to the system, any and every system, in which it operates. The issues are, or should be, far greater than the U.S. political parties and biases – there is a whole world out there to consider.
Interesting topic. Wonder what the Papers have to say on the subject?
Thanks for the support and the quotes Mara. Exactly……! Surely no one is suggesting that activists agree on priorities or tactics or issues? Even UB readers are not in agreement on any such issues. We are very unique in our experience, our maturity, our perspective, and our understanding of what’s really going on among 7 billion humans where the Most Highs rule, especially considering how many mortal epochs are represented by that population. Most of the world does not yet have the leisure and wealth to be active in much except preventing starvation and getting water every day for their family….there’s some issues for action…..and there is a growing love response around our world to serve the suffering as measured and witnessed over the decades.
Sometimes, it is the worst of things which provide the greatest opportunity for love response. I am confident in our progress to date and our ability to progress from here even more. Some can only see that which is dark and have no ability to put context on any forms of improvement. Things are not made perfect quickly or easily and cannot be forced without the force of love itself as the actuating agent for meaningful change. Otherwise, we just move the deck chairs of the Titanic about in new ways by our temporal fixations. Politics is about as trite.
Get right with God….and change the world….within and without.
Seems like we’ve arrived at a more helpful consensus now with Mara’s contribution and further elaboration from Bradly. I’m sorry for any offense I may have caused. Call it the impetuousness of youth! Happy Friday, fellow citizens.
The eternal God is our refuge.
He is a faithful Creator.
I think the Papers are quite clear in their example and instruction; and my personal experience belies the suggestion that there exists any broad belief that religionists, most especially UB students, shun community/secular activism. I claim exactly the opposite….and not just for myself but for the many, many, many students I know and have met over the years.
I am about to watch the interview (and have enjoyed other interviews by Martin already). But whether I agree with the one being interviewed or not is irrelevant to my point; and I’ll not comment – agree or disagree – with someone who is not here to speak for themselves and engage in actual conversation.
Bradly, regardless of your perceived tone, I was more interested in your contradictory statements above which, to me sound hypocritical, but that’s only what I perceived and thought it to be relevant, in that I have underlined, above to two of your statements which seemed to contradict their points as you made them, although when someone gets on a bandwagon, they often don’t realize what they are presenting as others might read into them a different perspective, to be sure.
In that, I am nitpicking now, in your first statement above make your statement and attach “many, many, many students I know and have met”, which implies, you speak for them also, yet they are not present to either “agree or disagree” that you speak for them also but, in your following statement, you acknowledge not having viewed the video presentation, have assessed that “Martin”/Martine’s what she has presented after a prefix and later an answer to a direct question, have made a presumption of error on her part, in that you imply an intrusion on behalf of the person being interviewed, where as you said above, “with someone who is not here to speak for themselves”, is what you actually have, in your previous statement had presumed speaking for others, who are not here to “agree or disagree”.
Therefore, I found it confusing as to your statements and the previous tone presented in your choice of words as I also found its tonal quality as little harsh, but we’ve discussed this before, and is now mute.
Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to view the video discussion and was primarily disturbed in that I noticed the presented cut was edited, and at first thought it to edit out specific content, but later made a presumption that the subject may have some condition which might be related to a seizure disorder, similar to “Michael J, Fox” deals with which is “Parkinson’s disease”, where these subjects often will hold onto something, like a cup, in this subjects case, because her speech otherwise seems extremely lucid, therefore I was able to omit other considerations as to the content of her presentation.
However, regardless of her responses, which seemed to follow along the guidance of the interviewer which in some cases were not necessarily always directed to specific UB subject matter but when put back on track by the interviewer, the subject veered off topic into that which seemed to concern her the most. I must admit that some of the questions presented by the interviewer where not heard as well as I would have liked, therefore I’m not sure as to the initial enticement given for the acceptance of the interview, as understood by the subject.
I must admit that the viewing of additional interviews would be needed, where the premise for the interview, as presented to the interviewed subject, would need to be scripted, and even the interview questions should be scripted where their various responses to the same questions would have more relevance to anticipated outcome.
Overall, I found the interview interesting, to say the least. Thanks for it presentation.
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.