-
Posts
-
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.
No offense taken…even a little. I look forward to hearing more from you on whatever interests you….and regardless of our agreement. Have a great holiday!
Midi – I was not speaking for anyone by my simple observation that I have met many readers who were very engaged in social activism and community service….and don’t recall any shared POV amongst the readership of disengagement or passive submission to the status quo. Just my own experience. But then I have worked within the movement for 30 years and so have met many service motivated activists too so perhaps my perspective is biased by my experience in that regard. Sorry for the confusion.
Midi – I was not speaking for anyone by my simple observation that I have met many readers who were very engaged in social activism and community service….and don’t recall any shared POV amongst the readership of disengagement or passive submission to the status quo. Just my own experience. But then I have worked within the movement for 30 years and so have met many service motivated activists too so perhaps my perspective is biased by my experience in that regard. Sorry for the confusion.
I can give you that Bradly, it was the method of your presentation which was puzzling in that you found it necessary to prejudge the presentation of the video before even having looked at it. For some it might have implied that you had something against the presenter and for me it hasn’t been the first time this has occurred, where in attempting to determine your motives, I have collected many of your posts which have turned some new forum posters and UB readers away from the Forums. This type of behavior cannot have anything to do with your 30 years of experience with the UB, where one might have assumed that within that time you have progressed past the tadpole stage and learned something about people and the UB. Alas, your previous narrations seem to be the status quo for you. But that might be expected with old dogs.
I said nothing about the video until after viewing it. My preliminary point was presumptions and assertions claimed by the interviewer in his introduction….which, interestingly enough, had nothing much to do with the interview itself. Sheryl gave no opinions on these two “divisions” or POVs claimed by Martin, whose work I have complimented before and feel important, as stated.
I was unaware I was the cause of anyone either joining or departing any forum and for many years now have received much support from many voice on 3 different UB forums. So you think I know nothing of people or the UB? You are welcome to your opinion and I am getting use to your continuous character assessment and assassinations here and at TruthBook. It is a pity you remain so critical, and obsessed. But to each their own.
Generally, it is my intention and priority to give great encouragement to new readers and posters and remain patient in our mutual discovery of perspective and content of the Revelation I hold so dear. I do often argue, debate, and discuss issues with those who make false claims as to the words written in the UB, especially those who claim the need or power to revise, restate, misstate, and otherwise misrepresent the text itself. For one who calls himself Caligastia at TB, for example, you find yourself in contention with far many more readers than just myself. It is your agenda and motive that is made most apparent by your words and your views Cal. I believe you recently proposed that the rebels were subject to heavenly genocide and that there is no liberty in the universe by the example of Lucifer’s mistreatment.
Perhaps you might find your time better spent in some fashion other than analyzing my personality and character flaws? Such personal attacks violate all decorum and the rules of this and other forums….and for good reason. But hey….sling your arrows as you must.
I’ll do my best to persevere and remain eager and joyful to fellowship with my fellow believers. Best I can do for you Caligastia, uh excuse me, Midi here on this forum.
Midi – I was not speaking for anyone by my simple observation that I have met many readers who were very engaged in social activism and community service….and don’t recall any shared POV amongst the readership of disengagement or passive submission to the status quo. Just my own experience. But then I have worked within the movement for 30 years and so have met many service motivated activists too so perhaps my perspective is biased by my experience in that regard. Sorry for the confusion.
I can give you that Bradly, it was the method of your presentation which was puzzling in that you found it necessary to prejudge the presentation of the video before even having looked at it. For some it might have implied that you had something against the presenter and for me it hasn’t been the first time this has occurred, where in attempting to determine your motives, I have collected many of your posts which have turned some new forum posters and UB readers away from the Forums. This type of behavior cannot have anything to do with your 30 years of experience with the UB, where one might have assumed that within that time you have progressed past the tadpole stage and learned something about people and the UB. Alas, your previous narrations seem to be the status quo for you. But that might be expected with old dogs.
I said nothing about the video until after viewing it. My preliminary point was presumptions and assertions claimed by the interviewer in his introduction….which, interestingly enough, had nothing much to do with the interview itself. Sheryl gave no opinions on these two “divisions” or POVs claimed by Martin, whose work I have complimented before and feel important, as stated.
As you indicate above and miss-imply that my reference is to video, and it was to your statement below which the following statements which you made after your first post indicating that the presenter was in error regardless of affirmation to the facts.
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.
Therefore, regardless of actual content which implies that you are a teacher and have been associated with hundreds of students, where I shall present from your own words “with my fellow believers” which cannot be confirmed because you cannot or have not produce any affidavits to that fact, thereby having to take your word for it, NO? Or, is it, Yes? Tricky use of a question mark.
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.
Then after being called out for your accusation of falsehood against that presenter, you made the statements above which, by your own words “I am about to watch the interview”, which makes any previous statement a direct attack on the presenter and not the material for which they presented, as they saw relevant to that subject and their presentation, was by your part a pre-accusation. However, you follow with “(and have enjoyed other interviews by Martin[e] already), which was another inference to a previous presentation by this person where she presented an interview, which was removed by admin upon complaints which you agreed with. So, did you actually “enjoy” it or was that an opportunity to redirect the conversation back to that time and then miss-spell her name, where you had previously used it correctly?
Generally, it is my intention and priority to give great encouragement to new readers and posters and remain patient in our mutual discovery of perspective and content of the Revelation I hold so dear. I do often argue, debate, and discuss issues with those who make false claims as to the words written in the UB, especially those who claim the need or power to revise, restate, misstate, and otherwise misrepresent the text itself. For one who calls himself Caligastia at TB, for example, you find yourself in contention with far many more readers than just myself. It is your agenda and motive that is made most apparent by your words and your views Cal. I believe you recently proposed that the rebels were subject to heavenly genocide and that there is no liberty in the universe by the example of Lucifer’s mistreatment.
I am aware of this posting and your confrontation, and it is a prime example of what I am attempting to impress upon you, in that you seem to miss-quote, or in these cases miss-represent a quotation in order to bring false attention and accusations upon others. As I recall reading that which you presume was written as you defame by you misrepresentation was in a form of a question, which should have produced a debate, which I can provide a quote from you to this other character that you don’t debate, and I can attest to that because where ever there has been an occasion for debate you have either argued and certainly not discussed, because you have numerously told many individuals that they are wrong and your understanding of the UB is unmatched based on your 30 years of experience.
Your wording when saying “I believe” or “so I think” does not negate the remainder of the defamatory remarks, presented in you narration, and then to present other comments or UB quotes which distract from your remarks, and possibly in your mind make everything Okay for you but you still have made your insult to me or others subject to your wrath.
I must admit that within some of the comments that you make, I can read what you really intend or mean to say, and in some cases your knowledge of the UB is proficient, however for the average reader these exemplary impressions are overshadowed by all of the other stuff you put in that in most cases have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Therefore, it is my opinion that you do this to distract and confuse and if this is intentional I would rest my case but if not I would only hope that you take my words as how other persons see you.
I care not so much when you attack me, but when you do so to others who may be less observant, it sets off my anti-discrimination boiling point.
Going back to Bradly’s suggestion that I’m accusing the UB readership of a lack of social/political activism. What I was saying – and have heard other readers say – is that the primary mission of the UB is teaching and spiritual uplift, not dissimilar to the idea that Jesus’s mission was to model the Father to man, and not to make political commentary. I said this is a perspective within the community of UB readers, and having been around them for the last 40 years I’m pretty sure I’m right. I didn’t say it was the prevailing sentiment. My mother subscribed to that notion, so I’m not ‘against’ it. It worked for her and it must work for others. To each his/her own. I guess my suggestion might be that if the belief that ‘the Most Highs rule in the kingdoms of men’ means there’s nothing to concern ourselves with except our own personal spiritual growth, because the celestials will make sure the world is safe enough for that to happen – then, as a community, as ‘Urantians’, it might be the case that we are remiss. I’m not saying we are; I’m not making that accusation. But there was an accusation of ‘fear mongering’ made in the course of the discussion on the ideological struggle thread. I don’t think it was even aimed at me, but there was an implication that such talk was not spiritually productive.
As for the interview itself, I did not make any attempt to sound neutral. I knew Sheryl’s position and wanted to reinforce her freedom in making it. Some might say I ‘egged her on’, but that wouldn’t be accurate either. She’s quite capable of speaking her mind without a lot of prodding. Anyway, I thought it was a good example of a person who translates the teachings of the UB into her own form of activism. I guess a big question in all of this is, ‘So, what is, or should be, the political ideology most consistent with the teaching of The Urantia Book? Dr. Sadler was a progressivist – not quite a ‘Fighting Bob’ LaFollette type of progressivist, but certainly in the same tent. The UB mentions the word ‘progressive’ 315 times, and (if I’m remembering rightly) the word ‘progress’ and its derivations occur over 1200 times on almost 700 pages (no I’m not saying anything about authorship, influences, or the sleeping subject here).
Yes, the video was heavily edited. I took out ‘ums’, ‘ahs’, digressions, parentheticals, and so on. It was 11:30 at night after a long day of shooting – down to my last battery on a single camera. But it was that or nothing. Sorry if she looks like she has Parkinsons. It didn’t look bad on the editing program, but once Youtube gets their hands on it, it degrades; some effects and motion graphics are lost. Vimeo is probably a better option.
My gender – yes, male. Martine is just my first name with the last name initial on the end. The avatar is my daughter evoking an expression of exasperation, which is an excellent representation of my disposition regarding how the world works.
Martine is male! Good to know.
Anyone figured out what the Infinite Spirit’s gender is?
8:1.9 In brief, the Infinite Spirit testifies that, since he is eternal, so also is the central universe eternal.
And then in 8.2.2, among the Infinite Spirit’s titles is “the Paradise Mother Spirit.” If anyone has other references to the gender of the Third Source and Center, call me interested. Very interested to see where I can imagine deity as female (and communicate that image to people who are begging for access to a divine feminine)
The eternal God is our refuge.
He is a faithful Creator.Paper 8 is chock full of references to the Infinite Spirit as ‘he’, so that’s a strong piece of evidence, yet the author does list “the Paradise Mother Spirit” among the Infinite Spirit’s names. It would seem that the Eternal Son (whose titles include ‘the Original Mother-Son’) is more gender-fluid than the Universal Father, and the Infinite Spirit, sometimes called the Paradise Mother Spirit, is still more so.
The eternal God is our refuge.
He is a faithful Creator.Sheesh, sorry I asked
I am not politically active as a TUB reader, I am active as a citizen of USA which is where TUB landed for good reason.
Indeed, what is the idea-o-logic-al struggle?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology
….”Ideology, in the Althusserian sense, is “the imaginary relation to the real conditions of existence.””
I was banned from Truthbook 3 times, (thank you, I considered it an honor) – last time slapped across the virtual divide for being “high maintenance” after being accused of being an anti-semite for asking a simple question of the yakoff (or wha’ever nom de plume he uses) “What is the Jewish equivalent of the “Just War Doctrine”….go look up that lovely example of NON-TUB readers having an unearned ideological protection against CHRISTIAN TUB readers ON A SITE SUPPOSEDLY DEDICATED TO JESUS CALLED TRUTHBOOK.
ROTFLMAO
They throw off anyone who is NOT using TUB for economic “crashes” just like the USA used the Navajo language during WWII. The burden of proof that that is NOT true is on the “innocent” until proven guilty….
Just War Doctrine[edit]
The just war doctrine of the Catholic Church – sometimes mistaken as a “just war theory”[16][17] – found in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 2309, lists four strict conditions for “legitimate defense by military force”:[18]
1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. there must be serious prospects of success;
4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated (the power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition).check, check, check and check…
Greetings Martin – you said – “I guess my suggestion might be that if the belief that ‘the Most Highs rule in the kingdoms of men’ means there’s nothing to concern ourselves with except our own personal spiritual growth, because the celestials will make sure the world is safe enough for that to happen – then, as a community, as ‘Urantians’, it might be the case that we are remiss.”
Me here: What if the primary purpose of the UB is personal religious growth in the spirit by the elimination of error and reduction of confusion and expansion of perspective, and the result is a more robust/active citizen who is confident in their personal destiny and the destiny of the planet in the hands of the Most Highs and in their relationship with God ? I’m having difficulty understanding why you might think that confidence in the Most Highs equates to disinterest or disengagement from the world. Certainly this is not a teaching from the book itself.
Another issue to consider is that there are many forms of activism and service which are not necessarily “political”. Political activism is but one form of activism and politics should be, and often is, a form of true service but service takes on many forms. Many UB students are not active in the “movement” (don’t join organizations, attend study groups or conferences, donate money, etc. or promote dissemination of the book and teachings); my guess is far more than the many thousands who do.
So I am very uncertain as to your meaning here Martin. But the book itself is quite clear – we are to be engaged in service as an expression of our circle progress in spirit and we should be engaged by a desire to serve others in love and not by rule or instruction. It is an outworking of the inward life. Or so I think. Evidently, and obviously, others think differently. Thanks for the reply Martin. And I certainly agree that I or any other student and religionist should be concerned about others and our communities and our world and should act on that concern as the Master did and exhorted all believers to as well.
For any who may have missed it, here’s a link to another interview by Martin of another sister posted here on the Forum:
http://urantia-association.org/forums/topic/lynne-kulieke-on-the-urantia-book/
Thanks for the reasoned responses (although I must have missed something in relation to the Sabinatu post). Anyway, I may post this separately, but here’s something a lot less theoretical, and I hope no less interesting:
No problem, martine, with you missing something about me – thanks for asking for a clarification on what it is you do not understand.
I am also not getting what you are doing, either, other than putting together opinions from TUB readers where the only qualification is that they are known and verified by – whom? – to be TUB readers. God is no respecter of persons….right?
Nothing so far is clearing up for me what “ideologies” are struggling against each other. Even Mara’s contribution is not clearing it up:
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.I do not believe that what I am involved in is “politics”. I am seeking to be of service and in service to a fellow group of believers looking to re-establish experientially earned rule of law, at least amongst ourselves, and get a divorce from the Predators who practice Nihilism, Hedonism and Anarchy. Simple. A quote from TUB and a clip from huffingtonpost to clarify the “irreconcilable differences that warrant that divorce:
68:2.11 (766.1) Vanity contributed mightily to the birth of society; but at the time of these revelations the devious strivings of a vainglorious generation threaten to swamp and submerge the whole complicated structure of a highly specialized civilization. Pleasure-want has long since superseded hunger-want; the legitimate social aims of self-maintenance are rapidly translating themselves into base and threatening forms of self-gratification. Self-maintenance builds society; unbridled self-gratification unfailingly destroys civilization.
I guess a Peace Doctrine (see our re-invent Christianity discussion on this board for a reference) that replaces the Atonement Doctrine needs the self-maintenance boundaries of a Just War Doctrine. Too much damage and too permanent and if only 1% of your liver has cancer, are you going to watch while 50% is destroyed (which is what we have been doing, imo)?
So do TUB readers have a common this-or-that ideological struggle in USA that they want to take on as TUB readers and not as citizens of USA? Then come out of the shadows because based on any sincere discussions about what is actually in TUB, TUB readers need a whole lot of self-correction about what they think they understand as “God’s Will”.
Perhaps a review of this teaching conference will shed some light on the subject. (140:8:2)
1. Doing the Father’s will. Jesus’ teaching to trust in the overcare of the heavenly Father was not a blind and passive fatalism. He quoted with approval, on this afternoon, an old Hebrew saying: “He who will not work shall not eat.” He pointed to his own experience as sufficient commentary on his teachings. His precepts about trusting the Father must not be adjudged by the social or economic conditions of modern times or any other age. His instruction embraces the ideal principles of living near God in all ages and on all worlds.
.
Jesus made clear to the three the difference between the requirements of apostleship and discipleship. And even then he did not forbid the exercise of prudence and foresight by the twelve. What he preached against was not forethought but anxiety, worry. He taught the active and alert submission to God’s will. In answer to many of their questions regarding frugality and thriftiness, he simply called attention to his life as carpenter, boatmaker, and fisherman, and to his careful organization of the twelve. He sought to make it clear that the world is not to be regarded as an enemy; that the circumstances of life constitute a divine dispensation working along with the children of God.
.
Jesus had great difficulty in getting them to understand his personal practice of nonresistance. He absolutely refused to defend himself, and it appeared to the apostles that he would be pleased if they would pursue the same policy. He taught them not to resist evil, not to combat injustice or injury, but he did not teach passive tolerance of wrongdoing. And he made it plain on this afternoon that he approved of the social punishment of evildoers and criminals, and that the civil government must sometimes employ force for the maintenance of social order and in the execution of justice.
.
He never ceased to warn his disciples against the evil practice of retaliation; he made no allowance for revenge, the idea of getting even. He deplored the holding of grudges. He disallowed the idea of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. He discountenanced the whole concept of private and personal revenge, assigning these matters to civil government, on the one hand, and to the judgment of God, on the other. He made it clear to the three that his teachings applied to the individual, not the state. He summarized his instructions up to that time regarding these matters, as:
.
Love your enemies–remember the moral claims of human brotherhood.
The futility of evil: A wrong is not righted by vengeance. Do not make the mistake of fighting evil with its own weapons.
Have faith–confidence in the eventual triumph of divine justice and eternal goodness.
.
2. Political attitude. He cautioned his apostles to be discreet in their remarks concerning the strained relations then existing between the Jewish people and the Roman government; he forbade them to become in any way embroiled in these difficulties. He was always careful to avoid the political snares of his enemies, ever making reply, “Render to Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and to God the things which are God’s.” He refused to have his attention diverted from his mission of establishing a new way of salvation; he would not permit himself to be concerned about anything else. In his personal life he was always duly observant of all civil laws and regulations; in all his public teachings he ignored the civic, social, and economic realms. He told the three apostles that he was concerned only with the principles of man’s inner and personal spiritual life.
.
Jesus was not, therefore, a political reformer. He did not come to reorganize the world; even if he had done this, it would have been applicable only to that day and generation. Nevertheless, he did show man the best way of living, and no generation is exempt from the labor of discovering how best to adapt Jesus’ life to its own problems. But never make the mistake of identifying Jesus’ teachings with any political or economic theory, with any social or industrial system.
.
Mara wrote:. . . will shed some light on the subject. (140:8:2). . . continuing. . .3. Social attitude. The Jewish rabbis had long debated the question: Who is my neighbor? Jesus came presenting the idea of active and spontaneous kindness, a love of one’s fellow men so genuine that it expanded the neighborhood to include the whole world, thereby making all men one’s neighbors. But with all this, Jesus was interested only in the individual, not the mass. Jesus was not a sociologist, but he did labor to break down all forms of selfish isolation. He taught pure sympathy, compassion. Michael of Nebadon is a mercy-dominated Son; compassion is his very nature..The Master did not say that men should never entertain their friends at meat, but he did say that his followers should make feasts for the poor and the unfortunate. Jesus had a firm sense of justice, but it was always tempered with mercy. He did not teach his apostles that they were to be imposed upon by social parasites or professional alms-seekers. The nearest he came to making sociological pronouncements was to say, “Judge not, that you be not judged.”.He made it clear that indiscriminate kindness may be blamed for many social evils. The following day Jesus definitely instructed Judas that no apostolic funds were to be given out as alms except upon his request or upon the joint petition of two of the apostles. In all these matters it was the practice of Jesus always to say, “Be as wise as serpents but as harmless as doves.” It seemed to be his purpose in all social situations to teach patience, tolerance, and forgiveness..The family occupied the very center of Jesus’ philosophy of life–here and hereafter. He based his teachings about God on the family, while he sought to correct the Jewish tendency to overhonor ancestors. He exalted family life as the highest human duty but made it plain that family relationships must not interfere with religious obligations. He called attention to the fact that the family is a temporal institution; that it does not survive death. Jesus did not hesitate to give up his family when the family ran counter to the Father’s will. He taught the new and larger brotherhood of man–the sons of God. In Jesus’ time divorce practices were lax in Palestine and throughout the Roman Empire. He repeatedly refused to lay down laws regarding marriage and divorce, but many of Jesus’ early followers had strong opinions on divorce and did not hesitate to attribute them to him. All of the New Testament writers held to these more stringent and advanced ideas about divorce except John Mark..4. Economic attitude. Jesus worked, lived, and traded in the world as he found it. He was not an economic reformer, although he did frequently call attention to the injustice of the unequal distribution of wealth. But he did not offer any suggestions by way of remedy. He made it plain to the three that, while his apostles were not to hold property, he was not preaching against wealth and property, merely its unequal and unfair distribution. He recognized the need for social justice and industrial fairness, but he offered no rules for their attainment..He never taught his followers to avoid earthly possessions, only his twelve apostles. Luke, the physician, was a strong believer in social equality, and he did much to interpret Jesus’ sayings in harmony with his personal beliefs. Jesus never personally directed his followers to adopt a communal mode of life; he made no pronouncement of any sort regarding such matters..Jesus frequently warned his listeners against covetousness, declaring that “a man’s happiness consists not in the abundance of his material possessions.” He constantly reiterated, “What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?” He made no direct attack on the possession of property, but he did insist that it is eternally essential that spiritual values come first. In his later teachings he sought to correct many erroneous Urantia views of life by narrating numerous parables which he presented in the course of his public ministry. Jesus never intended to formulate economic theories; he well knew that each age must evolve its own remedies for existing troubles. And if Jesus were on earth today, living his life in the flesh, he would be a great disappointment to the majority of good men and women for the simple reason that he would not take sides in present-day political, social, or economic disputes. He would remain grandly aloof while teaching you how to perfect your inner spiritual life so as to render you manyfold more competent to attack the solution of your purely human problems..Jesus would make all men Godlike and then stand by sympathetically while these sons of God solve their own political, social, and economic problems. It was not wealth that he denounced, but what wealth does to the majority of its devotees. On this Thursday afternoon Jesus first told his associates that “it is more blessed to give than to receive.”.5. Personal religion. You, as did his apostles, should the better understand Jesus’ teachings by his life. He lived a perfected life on Urantia, and his unique teachings can only be understood when that life is visualized in its immediate background. It is his life, and not his lessons to the twelve or his sermons to the multitudes, that will assist most in revealing the Father’s divine character and loving personality..Jesus did not attack the teachings of the Hebrew prophets or the Greek moralists. The Master recognized the many good things which these great teachers stood for, but he had come down to earth to teach something additional, “the voluntary conformity of man’s will to God’s will.” Jesus did not want simply to produce a religious man, a mortal wholly occupied with religious feelings and actuated only by spiritual impulses. Could you have had but one look at him, you would have known that Jesus was a real man of great experience in the things of this world. The teachings of Jesus in this respect have been grossly perverted and much misrepresented all down through the centuries of the Christian era; you have also held perverted ideas about the Master’s meekness and humility. What he aimed at in his life appears to have been a superb self-respect. He only advised man to humble himself that he might become truly exalted; what he really aimed at was true humility toward God. He placed great value upon sincerity–a pure heart. Fidelity was a cardinal virtue in his estimate of character, while courage was the very heart of his teachings. “Fear not” was his watchword, and patient endurance his ideal of strength of character. The teachings of Jesus constitute a religion of valor, courage, and heroism. And this is just why he chose as his personal representatives twelve commonplace men, the majority of whom were rugged, virile, and manly fishermen..Jesus had little to say about the social vices of his day; seldom did he make reference to moral delinquency. He was a positive teacher of true virtue. He studiously avoided the negative method of imparting instruction; he refused to advertise evil. He was not even a moral reformer. He well knew, and so taught his apostles, that the sensual urges of mankind are not suppressed by either religious rebuke or legal prohibitions. His few denunciations were largely directed against pride, cruelty, oppression, and hypocrisy..Jesus did not vehemently denounce even the Pharisees, as did John. He knew many of the scribes and Pharisees were honest of heart; he understood their enslaving bondage to religious traditions. Jesus laid great emphasis on “first making the tree good.” He impressed the three that he valued the whole life, not just a certain few special virtues..( 140:8:31 ) The Master offered no solutions for the nonreligious problems of his own age nor for any subsequent age. Jesus wished to develop spiritual insight into eternal realities and to stimulate initiative in the originality of living; he concerned himself exclusively with the underlying and permanent spiritual needs of the human race. He revealed a goodness equal to God. He exalted love–truth, beauty, and goodness–as the divine ideal and the eternal reality..(140:8:32) The Master came to create in man a new spirit, a new will–to impart a new capacity for knowing the truth, experiencing compassion, and choosing goodness–the will to be in harmony with God’s will, coupled with the eternal urge to become perfect, even as the Father in heaven is perfect..
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.