-
Posts
-
We know that as a teen Jesus refused to join the Zealots, and later when his brother Jude, who was passionately anti-Roman made patriotic outbursts, we know Jesus counseled him against such behavior. If protesting is such a great thing, why didn’t Jesus encourage his brother Jude to keep it up? Personally I don’t see protests as being very productive in the long run, especially if there is a lot of passion and volatile feelings from would-be martyrs for a cause. Yes, they draw attention to their beliefs, but is that the best way to educate society as to their concerns?
Probably in China, where the ordinary man has no voice, where there is no free press, group protests, or marches might be effective in cracking the ice. But in a free democracy, I think there are better ways to get your message out. Mob protests tend to get angry and we know what anger is: it’s like a stone hurled into a hornet’s nest (48:7.20).
I think it’s better for large groups to assemble in order to do something positive. Are protests generally for something or against something? Usually they’re against something. I think if the folks who are against something could come up with a way to articulate and promote whatever it is they are for, they would have greater success. The positive generally overcomes the negative. Personally, I’m never impressed with crowds of angry, screaming, emotional people. I don’t think it’s the best way to go about making a point, and I don’t think Jesus would counsel anyone to do that either, given the way he lived his life and the way he taught his brother Jude.
We know that as a teen Jesus refused to join the Zealots, and later when his brother Jude, who was passionately anti-Roman made patriotic outbursts, we know Jesus counseled him against such behavior. If protesting is such a great thing, why didn’t Jesus encourage his brother Jude to keep it up? Personally I don’t see protests as being very productive in the long run, especially if there is a lot of passion and volatile feelings from would-be martyrs for a cause. Yes, they draw attention to their beliefs, but is that the best way to educate society as to their concerns? Probably in China, where the ordinary man has no voice, where there is no free press, group protests, or marches might be effective in cracking the ice. But in a free democracy, I think there are better ways to get your message out. Mob protests tend to get angry and we know what anger is: it’s like a stone hurled into a hornet’s nest (48:7.20). I think it’s better for large groups to assemble in order to do something positive. Are protests generally for something or against something? Usually they’re against something. I think if the folks who are against something could come up with a way to articulate and promote whatever it is they are for, they would have greater success. The positive generally overcomes the negative. Personally, I’m never impressed with crowds of angry, screaming, emotional people. I don’t think it’s the best way to go about making a point, and I don’t think Jesus would counsel anyone to do that either, given the way he lived his life and the way he taught his brother Jude.
Protests do seem to be the last and least effective resort of the oppressed, albeit very large peaceful protests can be effective. Crowd size makes a significant difference to onlooking office holders. And you’re probably right that organic grass-roots organizational activity is more effective. But it is incorrect to say the ordinary Chinese citizen has NO voice. He or she does have a voice at the village level, where there are direct elections, and without regard to party affiliation. Mistake not the village level is quite powerful in Chinese society. The current, vigorous, anti-corruption campaign is making them even more powerful. And successful, responsible voting at that level could mean greater and broader voting rights in the future.
Richard E Warren
We know that as a teen Jesus refused to join the Zealots, and later when his brother Jude, who was passionately anti-Roman made patriotic outbursts, we know Jesus counseled him against such behavior. If protesting is such a great thing, why didn’t Jesus encourage his brother Jude to keep it up? Personally I don’t see protests as being very productive in the long run, especially if there is a lot of passion and volatile feelings from would-be martyrs for a cause. Yes, they draw attention to their beliefs, but is that the best way to educate society as to their concerns? Probably in China, where the ordinary man has no voice, where there is no free press, group protests, or marches might be effective in cracking the ice. But in a free democracy, I think there are better ways to get your message out. Mob protests tend to get angry and we know what anger is: it’s like a stone hurled into a hornet’s nest (48:7.20). I think it’s better for large groups to assemble in order to do something positive. Are protests generally for something or against something? Usually they’re against something. I think if the folks who are against something could come up with a way to articulate and promote whatever it is they are for, they would have greater success. The positive generally overcomes the negative. Personally, I’m never impressed with crowds of angry, screaming, emotional people. I don’t think it’s the best way to go about making a point, and I don’t think Jesus would counsel anyone to do that either, given the way he lived his life and the way he taught his brother Jude.
Bonita, your post reminded me of the part of TUB where Jesus sees the temple being desecrated by the money changers, walked amongst them and said, “Excuse, me; I think the temple would be so much nicer without all this commerce going on, which distracts from the spiritual teachings that are intended to be done here.”
Oh, wait. I remembered that wrong.
173:1.6(1890.1) As Jesus was about to begin his address, two things happened to arrest his attention. At the money table of a near-by exchanger a violent and heated argument had arisen over the alleged overcharging of a Jew from Alexandria, while at the same moment the air was rent by the bellowing of a drove of some one hundred bullocks which was being driven from one section of the animal pens to another. As Jesus paused, silently but thoughtfully contemplating this scene of commerce and confusion, close by he beheld a simple-minded Galilean, a man he had once talked with in Iron, being ridiculed and jostled about by supercilious and would-be superior Judeans; and all of this combined to produce one of those strange and periodic uprisings of indignant emotion in the soul of Jesus.
173:1.7(1890.2) To the amazement of his apostles, standing near at hand, who refrained from participation in what so soon followed, Jesus stepped down from the teaching platform and, going over to the lad who was driving the cattle through the court, took from him his whip of cords and swiftly drove the animals from the temple. But that was not all; he strode majestically before the wondering gaze of the thousands assembled in the temple court to the farthest cattle pen and proceeded to open the gates of every stall and to drive out the imprisoned animals. By this time the assembled pilgrims were electrified, and with uproarious shouting they moved toward the bazaars and began to overturn the tables of the money-changers. In less than five minutes all commerce had been swept from the temple. By the time the near-by Roman guards had appeared on the scene, all was quiet, and the crowds had become orderly; Jesus, returning to the speaker’s stand, spoke to the multitude: “You have this day witnessed that which is written in the Scriptures: ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations, but you have made it a den of robbers.’”
If Jesus had not wanted the crowd to join him in demonstrating in that manner, he could have told them to stop, but he didn’t. He allowed them to express their passionate objections, even to the point of causing possible property damage and loss of livestock.
Protesting something real is different than protesting something that isn’t real. I look around and my jaw drops.
Real journalism doesn’t exist, it’s a betrayal of public trust.
I’m astonished that in this community of UB readers, who post in these types of forums, there’s such a wide gulf of how the Spirit of Truth is interpreted.
It doesn’t speak well to what the purpose of revelatory instruction is for.
Or perhaps more likely, it doesn’t speak well of how revelatory instruction is being comprehended.
There isn’t anything about uninspired revelation that’s gray.
Yet, some will still insist that it’s black or white.
I want to clarify that I am not trying to say that Jesus advocated all protests or protest activity. I think the reason the story about the money changers in the temple, in contrast to the situation with his brother Jude, is to show that Jesus understood there are situations for which it is appropriate and situations for which it is not. Jesus, being the Son of God, had perfect judgment and ability to discern the most effective way to make an impact. As imperfect mortals, we do not. I agree with Bonita that a good number of protests are ineffective and even harmful. But the TUB says that it is our intentions that matter. Even ineffective protests start out with honorable intentions in many cases.
But some protests ARE effective. The recent March for Science is a good example. Thousands of people participated all around the country, and there were no cases of violence or arrests. The signs and messaging were mostly positive, advocating that the federal government make use of scientific data in determining policies that impact people’s lives and well-being.
And successful, responsible voting at that level could mean greater and broader voting rights in the future.
Did the Chinese ordinary man vote to make the recent changes to the country’s constitution? Or did they have representatives who voted for them?
If Jesus had not wanted the crowd to join him in demonstrating in that manner, he could have told them to stop, but he didn’t. He allowed them to express their passionate objections, even to the point of causing possible property damage and loss of livestock.
I think you’re reading something into that incident that isn’t there. Jesus’ purpose was to decrease chaos caused by the heated argument over money, the noisy bullocks and the loud rebuking of a simpleton. His goal was to produce calm and stability, a positive outcome. The short-term chaos was a natural outcome. Anything short of a miracle would not have stopped that reaction. But, it was over quickly and resulted in a very positive outcome. And more to my point, there were no angry screaming or name calling protesters. They didn’t loot, pillage or burn the place down. Jesus’ actions had but one blunt message which could not be delivered any other way: Get out, you’re not wanted here!
So, is righteous indignation the reason people protest? Is righteous indignation a reason to riot, burn down buildings, loot, pillage and destroy things? Is righteous indignation a reason to threaten people’s lives and spew angry rhetoric? What exactly is righteous indignation? And how did Jesus chose to manifest his “tremendous capacity for righteous indignation”(122:5.3) which he inherited from his mother?
Keryn,
The federal government is massively in violation of the trust of the people.
No one holds them accountable for their blatant criminal activities, except the non-politician president recently elected who is overwhelmed by the crooks.
I respectfully would like to know why, under these circumstances, it is being promoted for this overwhelmingly corrupt government to “make use” of anything?
Everything they “make use” of ends up in their offshore bank accounts.
Respectfully, don’t you see that?
OMG
secular scientists providing data to swamp rats so they can make policy to impact my life?
makes me wonder how Confederacy could have been defeated.
but I like the idea of our man in the house on the hill with a whip. Maybe it’s the cats meow for draining the swamp.
Bonita, your points about Jesus are spot on. Sadly, those of us who live out our lives on Urantia are, for the most part, incapable of perfection of judgment. People make mistakes and do unwise things all the time. The good news is, that’s how we learn and improve. That’s how evolution works.
I stand with you in opposition to demonstrations that “pillage, burn, name call, loot and destroy things.” Fortunately, those are less frequent than the peaceful ones.
Keryn, The federal government is massively in violation of the trust of the people. No one holds them accountable for their blatant criminal activities, except the non-politician president recently elected who is overwhelmed by the crooks. I respectfully would like to know why, under these circumstances, it is being promoted for this overwhelmingly corrupt government to “make use” of anything? Everything they “make use” of ends up in their offshore bank accounts. Respectfully, don’t you see that?
I agree with your statement, bolded, above. Scientific data, though, is objective facts. Yes, facts can be used to support deceptive policies etc. but that’s just the reality of living on our planet right now. Facts, when used as objective tools to inform, can be helpful. When tools are available, I think they should be put to use. Don’t you?
Gene – not all scientists are secular. Plenty of them believe in God; in fact, you’ll find many scientists who are sincere believers amongst the Urantia Book community.
The following is a list of requirements for a representative form of government, which is the ideal:
71:2.9-19 There are ten steps, or stages, to the evolution of a practical and efficient form of representative government, and these are:
1. Freedom of the person. Slavery, serfdom, and all forms of human bondage must disappear.
2. Freedom of the mind. Unless a free people are educated — taught to think intelligently and plan wisely — freedom usually does more harm than good.
3. The reign of law. Liberty can be enjoyed only when the will and whims of human rulers are replaced by legislative enactments in accordance with accepted fundamental law.
4. Freedom of speech. Representative government is unthinkable without freedom of all forms of expression for human aspirations and opinions.
5. Security of property. No government can long endure if it fails to provide for the right to enjoy personal property in some form. Man craves the right to use, control, bestow, sell, lease, and bequeath his personal property.
6. The right of petition. Representative government assumes the right of citizens to be heard. The privilege of petition is inherent in free citizenship.
7. The right to rule. It is not enough to be heard; the power of petition must progress to the actual management of the government.
8. Universal suffrage. Representative government presupposes an intelligent, efficient, and universal electorate. The character of such a government will ever be determined by the character and caliber of those who compose it. As civilization progresses, suffrage, while remaining universal for both sexes, will be effectively modified, regrouped, and otherwise differentiated.
9. Control of public servants. No civil government will be serviceable and effective unless the citizenry possess and use wise techniques of guiding and controlling officeholders and public servants.
10. Intelligent and trained representation. The survival of democracy is dependent on successful representative government; and that is conditioned upon the practice of electing to public offices only those individuals who are technically trained, intellectually competent, socially loyal, and morally fit. Only by such provisions can government of the people, by the people, and for the people be preserved.
I’m interested in discussing #4, since that is what protesters claim they are doing, exercising their right to free speech. The quote recommends freedom of all forms of expression. Is that meant to include violence . . . violence in either word or deed?
It seems, by reading these next quotes, that violence may be an inevitable natural state, but not a preferred one:
70:1.1 Violence is the law of nature, hostility the automatic reaction of the children of nature, while war is but these same activities carried on collectively. And wherever and whenever the fabric of civilization becomes stressed by the complications of society’s advancement, there is always an immediate and ruinous reversion to these early methods of violent adjustment of the irritations of human inter associations. [This is where we are today! It too will pass.]
71:5.2 The ideal state undertakes to regulate social conduct only enough to take violence out of individual competition and to prevent unfairness in personal initiative.
Is a war of words, or a war of ideas, any better than a war of actions and deeds? Perhaps it’s the goal of evolution to move in that direction, then finally abandon both kinds of wars?
When tools are available, I think they should be put to use. Don’t you?Let the free market make use of these tools. The federal government isn’t supposed to be in business to be in business. Aren’t you outraged that the vast majority of politicians who never sold anything, made anything, never ran a business themselves or even had a job outside of being a politician, are often, if not always, multi millionaires in the end? This blatant activity is over the pale.Scientific data, though, is objective facts.
Keryn, it’s not the data but the interpretation of the data that folks are concerned about. Interpretations vary and not all can be correct. As new data comes in, interpretations change. That’s what science is all about, which is why some folks get so upset, myself included, when science is turned into an organized secular religion which declares a certain interpretation of data to be fixed and final . . . then presume to have moral authority over anyone who disagrees. It’s not really possible to make science, which is quantitative, into something that is qualitative without causing distortion of one or the other.
(2077.1) 195:6.5 Science is a quantitative experience, religion a qualitative experience, as regards man’s life on earth. Science deals with phenomena; religion, with origins, values, and goals.
The triad: “Truth, Beauty and Goodness” is expressed in many different ways in TUB – one is fact, meaning and value.
However it is expressed the triad is inseparable.
im certain that protesters had science, philosophy and religion foremost on their minds
Scientific data, though, is objective facts.
Keryn, it’s not the data but the interpretation of the data that folks are concerned about. Interpretations vary and not all can be correct. As new data comes in, interpretations change. That’s what science is all about, which is why some folks get so upset, myself included, when science is turned into an organized secular religion which declares a certain interpretation of data to be fixed and final . . . then presume to have moral authority over anyone who disagrees. It’s not really possible to make science, which is quantitative, into something that is qualitative without causing distortion of one or the other.
(2077.1) 195:6.5 Science is a quantitative experience, religion a qualitative experience, as regards man’s life on earth. Science deals with phenomena; religion, with origins, values, and goals.
Bonita, once again you and I agree. Science is a tool, and like all tools, it can be employed for either good or evil ends.
It’s ironic with scientific data in that much of it is paid for by the federal government (NIST, NSF, CDC etc.) yet, increasingly, the government is withholding that data from the very taxpayers who paid for it. Because they don’t agree with the findings, they toss it in a locked safe that only the elites, with their billions and government connections, can get into.
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.