Jump to content
Science Forums

The Urantia Revelation


Majeston
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't understand what the "multiquote" button does. I click on it but not much happens. Perhaps someone can help? More below.

 

Forgive me Furchizedek, I don't want to gang up on you, God knows I've been there on this forum and it's not comfortable.

 

Agreed, and no problem. Yes, it can get rough here. And I am struck by the exact similarities of the type if arguments against TUB here that I get on a religious group that I'm on, which is basically, "It's wrong because it's not what we believe."

 

For sure the Christian Fundamentalists are a hard nut to crack but you exhibit the exact same tendencies? The difference is your theology but the resultant behavior is the same as theirs.

 

It appears to me the culprit is religion.

 

No, not at all. That's what I'm saying. The culprit is dogmatism, and you and others here exhibit the same tendencies as well in your promotion of, and defense of, Science as The Ultimate Source of All Truth. Your theology is Science, and the resultant behavior is the same too. It's funny in a way if you don't see your own failing in this regard. The Christians don't see theirs either. Pardon me for a minute for this bible quote but Jesus said, Mat 7:5 "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." And yet no one thinks this applies to them or their group or their beliefs. Jesus must have been talking about someone else.

 

That's how many of us feel with you, no matter what solid evidence is produced, you will reject it because your mind is already made up.

 

I think you said that before. I reject modern sciences theories, hypotheses, and conjecture as "solid evidence" or proof. The example of the fourfold increase in stars in the Milky Way is a good one. What used to be science truth is now now anymore. And what's the difference between "solid evidence" and just plain vanilla evidence? If you say it's "solid" does that mean I have to accept it more?

 

Have you looked up "dark matter" and "dark energy" on Wikipedia? Both make up 96% of the Universe and science knows nothing about it. Oh, you might say, "They know it's very dark." That's wrong. It's called "dark" because it's so hypothetical they don't know anything about it, at all. 96% of the Universe. How can you or science be smug about your "evidence" when 96% of the Universe is totally unknown something or other? Don't you see a problem with that?

 

You're right, read literally it's a mess of contradictions but I have discovered an interpreting anomaly that reveals a different picture. I put it on the theology forum if you care to take a gander. If it weren't for this I would have rejected the Bible and some Apocrypha long ago.

 

Is the above material from someone else talking about the bible? I am not following this.

 

I have studied the UB and it contains no anomaly.

 

Hmm. I don't know who said the above. It doesn't sound like you, DDuck.

 

We just don't suddenly arrive.

 

I guess I'll have to go back and see if I can see where the above is coming from.

 

According to UB we're unenlightened beings who need to learn our place in the hierarchal order of ascended beings. The UB tells us what we should do - that's not learning, it's dictation.

 

Where does the UB say all these things? Provide quotes please. Paraphrasing really sucks and oftentimes it's also biased. Quotes are always best. When anyone says, "According to the UB..." or According to the Bible..." or "According to modern science...," I want to see quotes, not opinions of what someone thinks something says.

 

Your tenacity is admirable but a refusal to consider the facts is (I'm sorry to say) the very strong indicator of indoctrination. Been there, done that, so I recognize the signs.

 

LOL! Have it your way. I disagree about the state of my alleged "refusal to consider the facts." I can't comment on your been there, done that experience.

 

I have read a good deal but I see no evidence of an anomaly, which would be the case if it was divinely inspired.

 

I'm going to stop here because apparently the above is not from you, DDduck.

 

-Furchizedek

 

 

Knowledge 'builds upon itself' like a reverse pyramid. Science is building upon the groundwork knowledge of others who have gone before. The only thing I fear for science is they will become so smart, they will forget that 'knowledge untempered with love' is dangerous.

 

 

 

It most definitely seems that his religious bent gave impetus to his life.

 

 

 

What was wrong with Paul? It's not that they possessed notoriety but that they were after it and what better way than to produce a book like Joseph Smith!

 

 

 

 

You should read some of the stuff science is coming up with, it's mind boggling. They're not just talking about doing this stuff, they're actually doing it!

 

 

 

 

Are you angry and if so, why? Your links are always related to them and let's face it, without them the UB would not be a reality.

 

 

 

 

That's not your call. I was simply pointing out that it's always religious people who are coming up with these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If not quite the “sane; civil and respectful exploration and discussion of the UB facts” that Majestron proposed (due in some part to his use of words such as “ludicrous” in response to those who disagreed with his religious faith) this thread has been interesting to me, and informative. Despite having lots of contact with Seventh Day Adventists (I’m a vegetarian, as are Adventists, and live in Montgomery County, Maryland, where the church is headquartered, has a college, and a hospital, and several nice food and book stores), until researching the Sadlers, I knew little of the history of their church, and nothing at all of its connection to the Urantia Book, which I’m finding an increasingly interesting document, from a theological perspective.

 

Hypography is a site for people who like science, so, unsurprisingly, many of the people here know science well, in general and in specialized domains, well enough to have a intimate understanding of what modest is trying to convey in post #60 when he stressed the severity of the misconception implied when someone denigrates a scientific idea as “just a theory”. Science is interested in explanations which can be tested, not in revelations substantiated by acts of religious faith.

 

The UB appears clearly to me to be a religious revelation. Unlike a scientific theory, supporters of the UB do not seek to modify it when it’s “facts” are disproven by observation.

 

In 57:6.2, the UB states unambiguously to me, that Mercury has "one hemisphere always turned toward the Sun".

 

This idea was predicted by the best scientific theory of the 17th through early 20th century. In 1880, using some of the best optical telescopes available at the time, Giovanni Schiaparelli (better known for his detailed observation of Mars) made observations supported this theory. In 1965, using the newly constructed Arecibo radio telescope, equipped with powerful radio transmitters, G. H. Pettengill and R. B. Dyce made observation disproving this. The theory of gravity and planetary motion was promptly revised to agree with this observation, which was confirmed with additional radar observations, and in 1974, by close-up optical imaging the Mariner 10 probe.

 

Schiaparelli, who was long dead and gone when his observations were proven wrong, was not branded a liar or a false prophet, but simply as an honored, dedicated scientist who reached erroneous conclusions. Though scientists prefer, of course, to be right, in science, being wrong is not a dishonor.

 

Unlike the astrophysics and planetary astronomy community, however, the Urantia movement has not taken the simple path of admitting that the statement in the UB is wrong, and correcting it. Like Schiaparelli, the authority who confirmed this prediction, allegedly an “Orvonton Divine Counselor” (I may misunderstand the alleged authorship of the UB, so please correct me if I misspeak in the first part of this sentence), is unavailable for comment. Unlike Schiaparelli, however, this alleged entity is considered by the Urantia movement to be infallible, so when a claim attributed to him is proven wrong by observation, one of these apologies is typically offered:

  • The observation is wrong
  • The claim was misunderstood

This response is characteristic of a religion. It is not of science. Despite statments in the UB of preference of science over “ancient superstition and thinly disguised magic” (eg: 88:6.8), in it’s preference for revelation over theory, the Urantia movement appears to me more observant of the the former than the latter, and the UB to be, paradoxically, recommending that it not be accepted as revealed truth.

 

I prefer the character and community of scientists to that of religionists, so frequent hypography, not online forums such as those linked to by the Urantia Book Fellowships Community Resources page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

modest, on 05 March 2011 - 10:16 AM, said:

...the debate about whether birds came from reptiles or dinosaurs was settled in the '90s with archeological finds in that decade...modest

 

Do you know offhand of a link where I could read more about this?

 

Please people, stop using this "appeal to authority" logical fallacy! When you say "the debate... was settled," you are doing just that, appealing to some authority that you imply settled something for all time! It may not be "settled" next year. Things change. Science changes its mind as new data comes to light and understanding comes to the fore. As previously noted, IT WAS SETTLED in the 1960s that the Milky Way had 100 Billion stars. It was "settled" in 1950 that the Clovis people came across the Bering Land Bridge 10,000 years ago. Now science says something else.

 

I do not understand why intelligent "science people" in particular seem to have a penchant for the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. You of all people should know better. And you do it all the time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UB appears clearly to me to be a religious revelation. Unlike a scientific theory, supporters of the UB do not seek to modify it when it’s “facts” are disproven by observation.

 

None have been disproven.

 

In 57:6.2, the UB states unambiguously to me, that Mercury has "one hemisphere always turned toward the Sun".

 

It may be unambiguous to you, but that's not what it says. It's a complex, compound sentence, possibly deliberately AMbiguously phrased by the revelators, but plenty of people read it differently than you say it reads to you. I think Majeston has already explained it. But what's the use?

 

"The Urantia Book is wrong because it's not what we believe." It violates the basic laws of science. It goes against God's Word. The Apostle Paul said... The Bible says... Science says... The Republicans say... My pastor says...

 

How many ways are there to appeal to authority? Let me count the ways.

 

Anyway, I am out of here, This place is one looney bin too far. Even Godlike Productions (GLP) is not this nutty. I have other interests and this is sucking up too much of my time. Nice to meet you all. Good luck, Majeston. If anyone wants to talk privately about the book I am at [email protected]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If not quite the “sane; civil and respectful exploration and discussion of the UB facts” that Majestron proposed (due in some part to his use of words such as “ludicrous” in response to those who disagreed with his religious faith) this thread has been interesting to me, and informative. Despite having lots of contact with Seventh Day Adventists (I’m a vegetarian, as are Adventists, and live in Montgomery County, Maryland, where the church is headquartered, has a college, and a hospital, and several nice food and book stores), until researching the Sadlers, I knew little of the history of their church, and nothing at all of its connection to the Urantia Book, which I’m finding an increasingly interesting document, from a theological perspective.

 

 

Hi Craig

It appears that both you and DDuck have some interest in the Seventh Day Adventist history. Most likely all religions on the planet are continually evolving in one way or another.

I posted a link to a very interesting document by Dan Massey earlier regarding the Adventists and Sadler, perhaps it was overlooked; I'll repost it.

I hope Furchizedek cools off and comes back when he is feeling calmer -- he has a lot to offer this thread.

 

 

 

Dr. William S. Sadler's Connection
with the Adventist Movement
by Dan Massey
5/13/93

http://urantiabook.org/archive/history/doc171.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, someone earlier suggested that I was "indoctrinated."

 

Furchizedek, it appears that you are at this point completely overwhelmed by a barrage of replies so I will keep this very short. Religious indoctrination doesn't happen because we read something, rather it's brainwashing. Passion is the culprit as it is based on emotion (and therefore untrustworthy) rather than logic.

 

And also, I think that you think of theory as being 'an educated guess'. However, in science a theory is not a conclusion with baseless support, but one that is supported by serious evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that both you and DDuck have some interest in the Seventh Day Adventist history.

 

I had already read the link but thanks.

 

Most likely all religions on the planet are continually evolving in one way or another.

 

Religion is the problem. It has to evolve because it's illogical. Change (back and forth) is the only way it survives.

 

 

"I hope Furchizedek cools off and comes back when he is feeling calmer -- he has a lot to offer this thread.

 

Furchizedek is just being very honest and I personally appreciate that he doesn't hide his emotions. Those emotions however, appear to be based on the desire that the UB be taken seriously. That's not happening and so it's frustrating him (not to mention that he probably feels ganged up on).

 

I tend to be more wary of someone who has a secret ulterior motive, like proselytizing. I have wondered if that's your motivation Majeston, or perhaps your personality is just more easy-going?

 

Regarding the UB, let people pick it apart, that's how we arrive at truth. If it stands in the end then you know you have something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

name='Furchizedek'

 

I don't understand what the "multiquote" button does. I click on it but not much happens. Perhaps someone can help? More below.

 

it's just easier to put the start of quotations in [] and the end in [/] with the word 'quote' in those brackets

 

No, not at all. That's what I'm saying. The culprit is dogmatism, and you and others here exhibit the same tendencies as well in your promotion of, and defense of, Science as The Ultimate Source of All Truth. Your theology is Science, and the resultant behavior is the same too. It's funny in a way if you don't see your own failing in this regard.

 

I think it's more the ability to view the subject without passion - we can see so much clearer without it. If we cannot divorce passion from a topic then most likely our ideas are clouded.

 

An impartial audience only looks at the evidence.

 

 

I reject modern sciences theories, hypotheses, and conjecture as "solid evidence" or proof.

 

Then you are rejecting the truth.

 

Have you looked up "dark matter" and "dark energy" on Wikipedia? Both make up 96% of the Universe and science knows nothing about it.

 

Actually they know quite a bit about it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/the-hubris-of-holism_b_820601.html

 

 

Is the above material from someone else talking about the bible? I am not following this.

 

See my subject thread in theology, 'Interpreting Anomaly in Bible and some Apocrypha'

 

On another note Furchizedek, it's probably good to keep your posts short. If they get too long we just scroll through them and things get missed. Actually, it's probably a good rule for everyone to follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57:6.2 The planets nearest the sun were the first to have their revolutions slowed down by tidal friction. Such gravitational influences also contribute to the stabilization of planetary orbits while acting as a brake on the rate of planetary-axial revolution, causing a planet to revolve ever slower until axial revolution ceases, leaving one hemisphere of the planet always turned toward the sun or larger body, as is illustrated by the planet Mercury and by the moon, which always turns the same face toward Urantia.

 

Here is a quote from the Urantia Books itself.

 

http://urantiabook.org/newbook/papers/p057.htm

 

Murcury doesn't keep one hemisphere facing the sun. Ergo, the book, at least in this part, is wrong. And before you say anything about 'interpreting the phrase incorrectly', how else can it be interpreted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modest- I believe this is what Furchizedek is referring to

 

Thank you. The prospect of searching for it seemed prohibitive :)

 

I've now read 41.7-9. It doesn't explain what "universal space-energies" are or how they would function to give stars an unnaturally long lifetime.

 

41.8 echos, to the best of its ability, mid-40s understanding of nuclear fusion in stars. You can compare it to this. Urantia clearly has no understanding of the fusion of heavier elements as would be expected—it was solved in the mid 50's.

 

Wikipedia:

On average, main-sequence stars are known to follow an empirical Mass–luminosity relation|mass-luminosity relationship...

 

Thus, the lifetime of a star on the main sequence can be estimated by comparing it to solar evolutionary models...

Modest this is all gross generalization

 

It says quite clearly that it is an estimation that holds on average.

 

and it appears that it postulates that all stars are basically composed of the same basic material.

 

Knowing a star's mass and luminosity is enough to calculate a first order approximation of the star's lifetime. For a more exact answer stellar models consider many other things, composition being just one.

 
Perhaps this is one reason why science postulates; speculates, theorizes, conjectures that our sun is 4.5 billion years old as you repeat and will only last 5 billion more years.

 

Huh?

 

Do you mean... you think that because I quoted an equation which depends only on mass and luminosity that "science" only ever considers mass and luminosity in stellar models? I hope I misunderstand.

 

 

What is the solar composition according to Urantia, and what kinds of fusion are happening there and at what rate? Please be specific.

 

Urantia tells us that the our sun is 6 billion years old and will last another 25 billion years.

 

Multiple lines of independent evidence disagree.

 

If you knew how to look at that evidence then you'd either have to believe your eyes or believe what Urantia tells you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furchizedek (I've been spelling it wrong!) and Majeston:

 

Here's the link just in case you were having trouble finding it:

http://scienceforums.com/topic/23122-interpreting-method-for-the-bible-and-some-apocrypha/page__p__304714__fromsearch__1#entry304714

 

I would think nothing of the Bible and Apocrypha if I had not found this interpreting anomaly.

 

If something is from God it will have some kind of divine stamp; something that no human (or computer) could match.

 

I question the UB because it claims to be written by divine beings but yet there is no sign of the divine interpreting methodology that God Himself put in place.

 

If therefore, this method does not exist in the UB - that can only mean one of two things:

 

- the UB author was a very creative human being,

- the UB was inspired by divine but apostate angels.

 

As I believe in angels myself I tend to think the latter because of some of the spiritual information - although much of the Bible is misquoted in the UB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furchizedek (I've been spelling it wrong!) and Majeston:

 

Here's the link just in case you were having trouble finding it:

http://scienceforums.com/topic/23122-interpreting-method-for-the-bible-and-some-apocrypha/page__p__304714__fromsearch__1#entry304714

 

I would think nothing of the Bible and Apocrypha if I had not found this interpreting anomaly.

 

If something is from God it will have some kind of divine stamp; something that no human (or computer) could match.

 

I question the UB because it claims to be written by divine beings but yet there is no sign of the divine interpreting methodology that God Himself put in place.

 

If therefore, this method does not exist in the UB - that can only mean one of two things:

 

- the UB author was a very creative human being,

- the UB was inspired by divine but apostate angels.

 

As I believe in angels myself I tend to think the latter because of some of the spiritual information - although much of the Bible is misquoted in the UB.

 

hi DDuck,

I read your paper earlier today. I can appreciate where you are at at this time in your journey. I wish to be honest with you and therefor aam having a bit of trouble because I do not wish to offend you or discourage your spiritual quest. Let me respond to you in this manner...... Have you used any of the search tools I pointed out before, especially the topic function at the Fellowship site? Your study was done on "wisdom"........I perceive that you might be able to make great strides with that topic and really develop it if you would read some of the references on "wisdom". In the UB. And then perhaps combine it with the biblical quotes you have gleaned.

I'm on a new IPad and haven't yet been able to figure out how to copy and paste between different applications yet.

you might also take a look at the Rodan of Alexendria section since many people find it very easy to relate to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will take another look Furchizedek. I'm in a bit of a rush. What page of this thread is it on?

 

 

 

May I suggest you try using the [] (open/beginning) and [/] (close/end) brackets at the beginning and end of the quote you wish to highlight.

 

Put the word 'quote' in the brackets (must be after the slash in the closing brackets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mageston,

 

Re your: "hi DDuck,

I read your paper earlier today. I can appreciate where you are at at this time in your journey. I wish to be honest with you and therefor aam having a bit of trouble because I do not wish to offend you or discourage your spiritual quest."

 

Mageston, If you are worried about offending me please don't, I'd prefer if you spoke plainly. If you consider me a potential UB convert then you are definitely on the wrong track because I'm not on a spiritual quest.

 

As I said earlier, if there's something to the UB it will be able to stand on its own without you and Furchizedek needing to defend its supposed authenticity at every turn. However, so far the UB is not standing up to criticism in a number of areas.

 

The link that I posted is only a very tiny portion of my overall studies, using the interpreting method I introduced. I simply didn't want to overwhelm people with a magnitude of information that the human brain was never meant to process all at once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mageston, I'm just taking your last post in parts so there's no confusion.

 

Have you used any of the search tools I pointed out before, especially the topic function at the Fellowship site? Your study was done on "wisdom"........I perceive that you might be able to make great strides with that topic and really develop it if you would read some of the references on "wisdom".

 

Not sure where the Fellowship Site is in order to use the topic function!

 

I just used 'search the Urantia site'.

 

 

And then perhaps combine it with the biblical quotes you have gleaned.

 

For sure there is mention of wisdom but the UB never seems to explain 'what that is' except to say it's enlightenment. If I can never know exactly what it is, then how can I know when I've learned it?

 

Solomon said that wisdom was the principle thing to gain so any teachings regarding it cannot be vague.

 

(1101.4) 100:6.9 The characteristic difference between evolved and revealed religion is a new quality of divine wisdom which is added to purely experiential human wisdom. But it is experience in and with the human religions that develops the capacity for subsequent reception of increased bestowals of divine wisdom and cosmic insight.

 

If religion is the medium through which all bestowals of wisdom come then is one religion closer to the truth than others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If something is from God it will have some kind of divine stamp; something that no human (or computer) could match.

 

I question the UB because it claims to be written by divine beings but yet there is no sign of the divine interpreting methodology that God Himself put in place.

 

If therefore, this method does not exist in the UB - that can only mean one of two things:

 

- the UB author was a very creative human being,

- the UB was inspired by divine but apostate angels.

 

As I believe in angels myself I tend to think the latter because of some of the spiritual information - although much of the Bible is misquoted in the UB.

 

 

DD if it is your intention to make some spiritual progress in your life you are probably going to have to let go of some of your acquired fallacies regarding the "bible"

 

As far as the "divine interpreting methodology that God put in place there is only one that I know of and that is the little fragment that God himself placed within your mind. That is the only "divine interpreting methodology" that you have or will ever have for all eternity.

 

I see you are haviing trouble making progress, so I'll post this little diddy for you personally. Perhaps it has something in it for you.

 

 

155:6 THE SECOND DISCOURSE ON RELIGION

 

And so, while they paused in the shade of the hillside, Jesus continued to teach them regarding the religion of the spirit, in substance saying:

 

You have come out from among those of your fellows who choose to remain satisfied with a religion of mind, who crave security and prefer conformity. You have elected to exchange your feelings of authoritative certainty for the assurances of the spirit of adventurous and progressive faith. You have dared to protest against the grueling bondage of institutional religion and to reject the authority of the traditions of record which are now regarded as the word of God. Our Father did indeed speak through Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, Amos, and Hosea, but he did not cease to minister words of truth to the world when these prophets of old made an end of their utterances. My Father is no respecter of races or generations in that the word of truth is vouchsafed one age and withheld from another. Commit not the folly of calling that divine which is wholly human, and fail not to discern the words of truth which come not through the traditional oracles of supposed inspiration.

 

I have called upon you to be born again, to be born of the spirit. I have called you out of the darkness of authority and the lethargy of tradition into the transcendent light of the realization of the possibility of making for yourselves the greatest discovery possible for the human soul to make—the supernal experience of finding God for yourself, in yourself, and of yourself, and of doing all this as a fact in your own personal experience. And so may you pass from death to life, from the authority of tradition to the experience of knowing God; thus will you pass from darkness to light, from a racial faith inherited to a personal faith achieved by actual experience; and thereby will you progress from a theology of mind handed down by your ancestors to a true religion of spirit which shall be built up in your souls as an eternal endowment.

 

Your religion shall change from the mere intellectual belief in traditional authority to the actual experience of that living faith which is able to grasp the reality of God and all that relates to the divine spirit of the Father. The religion of the mind ties you hopelessly to the past; the religion of the spirit consists in progressive revelation and ever beckons you on toward higher and holier achievements in spiritual ideals and eternal realities.

 

While the religion of authority may impart a present feeling of settled security, you pay for such a transient satisfaction the price of the loss of your spiritual freedom and religious liberty. My Father does not require of you as the price of entering the kingdom of heaven that you should force yourself to subscribe to a belief in things which are spiritually repugnant, unholy, and untruthful. It is not required of you that your own sense of mercy, justice, and truth should be outraged by submission to an outworn system of religious forms and ceremonies. The religion of the spirit leaves you forever free to follow the truth wherever the leadings of the spirit may take you. And who can judge—perhaps this spirit may have something to impart to this generation which other generations have refused to hear?

 

Shame on those false religious teachers who would drag hungry souls back into the dim and distant past and there leave them! And so are these unfortunate persons doomed to become frightened by every new discovery, while they are discomfited by every new revelation of truth. The prophet who said, "He will be kept in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on God," was not a mere intellectual believer in authoritative theology. This truth-knowing human had discovered God; he was not merely talking about God.

 

I admonish you to give up the practice of always quoting the prophets of old and praising the heroes of Israel, and instead aspire to become living prophets of the Most High and spiritual heroes of the coming kingdom. To honor the God-knowing leaders of the past may indeed be worth while, but why, in so doing, should you sacrifice the supreme experience of human existence: finding God for yourselves and knowing him in your own souls?

 

Every race of mankind has its own mental outlook upon human existence; therefore must the religion of the mind ever run true to these various racial viewpoints. Never can the religions of authority come to unification. Human unity and mortal brotherhood can be achieved only by and through the superendowment of the religion of the spirit. Racial minds may differ, but all mankind is indwelt by the same divine and eternal spirit. The hope of human brotherhood can only be realized when, and as, the divergent mind religions of authority become impregnated with, and overshadowed by, the unifying and ennobling religion of the spirit—the religion of personal spiritual experience.

 

The religions of authority can only divide men and set them in conscientious array against each other; the religion of the spirit will progressively draw men together and cause them to become understandingly sympathetic with one another. The religions of authority require of men uniformity in belief, but this is impossible of realization in the present state of the world. The religion of the spirit requires only unity of experience—uniformity of destiny—making full allowance for diversity of belief. The religion of the spirit requires only uniformity of insight, not uniformity of viewpoint and outlook. The religion of the spirit does not demand uniformity of intellectual views, only unity of spirit feeling. The religions of authority crystallize into lifeless creeds; the religion of the spirit grows into the increasing joy and liberty of ennobling deeds of loving service and merciful ministration.

 

But watch, lest any of you look with disdain upon the children of Abraham because they have fallen on these evil days of traditional barrenness. Our forefathers gave themselves up to the persistent and passionate search for God, and they found him as no other whole race of men have ever known him since the times of Adam, who knew much of this as he was himself a Son of God. My Father has not failed to mark the long and untiring struggle of Israel, ever since the days of Moses, to find God and to know God. For weary generations the Jews have not ceased to toil, sweat, groan, travail, and endure the sufferings and experience the sorrows of a misunderstood and despised people, all in order that they might come a little nearer the discovery of the truth about God. And, notwithstanding all the failures and falterings of Israel, our fathers progressively, from Moses to the times of Amos and Hosea, did reveal increasingly to the whole world an ever clearer and more truthful picture of the eternal God. And so was the way prepared for the still greater revelation of the Father which you have been called to share.

 

Never forget there is only one adventure which is more satisfying and thrilling than the attempt to discover the will of the living God, and that is the supreme experience of honestly trying to do that divine will. And fail not to remember that the will of God can be done in any earthly occupation. Some callings are not holy and others secular. All things are sacred in the lives of those who are spirit led; that is, subordinated to truth, ennobled by love, dominated by mercy, and restrained by fairness—justice. The spirit which my Father and I shall send into the world is not only the Spirit of Truth but also the spirit of idealistic beauty.

 

You must cease to seek for the word of God only on the pages of the olden records of theologic authority. Those who are born of the spirit of God shall henceforth discern the word of God regardless of whence it appears to take origin. Divine truth must not be discounted because the channel of its bestowal is apparently human. Many of your brethren have minds which accept the theory of God while they spiritually fail to realize the presence of God. And that is just the reason why I have so often taught you that the kingdom of heaven can best be realized by acquiring the spiritual attitude of a sincere child. It is not the mental immaturity of the child that I commend to you but rather the spiritual simplicity of such an easy-believing and fully-trusting little one. It is not so important that you should know about the fact of God as that you should increasingly grow in the ability to feel the presence of God

 

When you once begin to find God in your soul, presently you will begin to discover him in other men's souls and eventually in all the creatures and creations of a mighty universe. But what chance does the Father have to appear as a God of supreme loyalties and divine ideals in the souls of men who give little or no time to the thoughtful contemplation of such eternal realities? While the mind is not the seat of the spiritual nature, it is indeed the gateway thereto.

 

But do not make the mistake of trying to prove to other men that you have found God; you cannot consciously produce such valid proof, albeit there are two positive and powerful demonstrations of the fact that you are God-knowing, and they are:

 

The fruits of the spirit of God showing forth in your daily routine life.

The fact that your entire life plan furnishes positive proof that you have unreservedly risked everything you are and have on the adventure of survival after death in the pursuit of the hope of finding the God of eternity, whose presence you have foretasted in time.

Now, mistake not, my Father will ever respond to the faintest flicker of faith. He takes note of the physical and superstitious emotions of the primitive man. And with those honest but fearful souls whose faith is so weak that it amounts to little more than an intellectual conformity to a passive attitude of assent to religions of authority, the Father is ever alert to honor and foster even all such feeble attempts to reach out for him. But you who have been called out of darkness into the light are expected to believe with a whole heart; your faith shall dominate the combined attitudes of body, mind, and spirit.

 

You are my apostles, and to you religion shall not become a theologic shelter to which you may flee in fear of facing the rugged realities of spiritual progress and idealistic adventure; but rather shall your religion become the fact of real experience which testifies that God has found you, idealized, ennobled, and spiritualized you, and that you have enlisted in the eternal adventure of finding the God who has thus found and sonshipped you.

 

And when Jesus had finished speaking, he beckoned to Andrew and, pointing to the west toward Phoenicia, said: "Let us be on our way."

 

 

http://urantiabook.org/newbook/papers/p155.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...