Jump to content

The Urantia Papers


Brent

Recommended Posts

Are you seeking to define "one path to G-d" based on your experience. That sounds like dogma.

 

Myron

 

Myron.

 

No not really. Just sharing my personal experience and asking a few sincere questions as a result that come to mind.....

Perhaps he (Brent) will have an answer that i might not have yet considered.

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joseph,

 

I think your question goes to the heart of the issue of inspiration and authority of scripture. If one does not accept a particular writing as divinely inspired, then the question immediately arises – so, where is the beef? However, if one does accept the writing as divine revelation, every word can convey meaning.

 

In order to accept a scripture as authoritative, I think, generally requires a great deal of priming by family and/or friends. I don’t think the inspiration of any of the scriptures is self-evident in the writing itself although it seems so to the properly primed and conditioned reader.

 

I am not suggesting that there is no beef in any of the Holy Scriptures or the UPapers, but just that there is a quite different perception of them from the point of view of the believer and the non-believer.

 

So, I suggest that there are two different approaches to introducing a new scripture (to adults). One is to persuade the reader that it is divine revelation. The second is to demonstrate the value and relevance to the reader. I think that you, I and others are asking for the second.

 

George

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes friends,

 

To Joseph I will surely agree and, when all is said and done, I surmise that even the authors of the UP will thankfully admit that salvation by faith requires no inkling of universe cosmology, planetary history, revealed theology, or sublime philosophical concepts. Your observation is addressed by the core teaching, that we are each personally sonshipped by God with an absolute and pristine fragment of Chemself in our minds, the "Mystery of Mysteries". It is entirely voluntary and according to individual disposition whether anyone chooses to be informed of the possible intricacies in God's infinite creation. However, there are some particular details that imo do serve to strengthen a pleasing and comprehensive balance of understanding. One of those deals with our Creator Son, claimed by the authors to have lived his bestowal life in the flesh as Jesus of Nazareth.

 

To Myron I will say -

I could hardly presume to speak for Dr. William Sadler’s intentions, who reached the age of 93 before passing in 1969. From what I have gathered, it would seem difficult to fathom any other outcome from the process which transpired than for the UPapers to have been published/introduced.

 

According to the historical archives maintained by the Urantia Book Fellowship, Dr. Sadler was likely introduced to the human “contact personality” as early as 1906. This was five years before the doctor and his wife went abroad to study psychiatry in Leeds and Vienna. This unidentified man, possibly the husband of a patient of Dr. Lena Sadler, consulted with Dr. William due to a bizarre sleeping behavior.

 

The Sadler’s began hosting a weekly Sunday afternoon social gathering at their home in January of 1923 which came to be known as “the forum”. In February of 1925, the curiosity of forum participants was aroused when Dr. Sadler spoke of his perplexities regarding the unusual case of his “sleeping subject”. The group decided to begin submitting questions to the purported “superhuman personalities” which vocalized through this individual during his sleep.

 

“Some sources indicate that Dr. Lena Sadler was a key figure…reported to have believed right from the start that something significant was occurring whereas Dr. Sadler remained skeptical until 1936. He wanted to abandon the process at several points but continued at her insistence.” UB Fellowship archives

 

Parts I-III were composed through a drawn out process of questioning by the forum and refinement by the purported revelators until completed in 1934. Part IV, The Life and Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, was entirely unanticipated and was received complete in February of 1935.

 

In the papers themselves, the authors make the claim that their presentation is an “epochal revelation” to our planet that was authorized by the administrators (Ancients of Days) of the superuniverse within which our evolutionary world spins.

 

From this brief sketch you may surmise that the UPapers are not chiefly concerned with theories of human psychology, per se. Those who invest their time and energy toward a thorough evaluation while managing to withhold premature interim judgments will be richly rewarded, imo.

 

In good spirit,

Brent

Edited by Brent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

George/Joseph,

 

Believe me friends, fruitless and empty efforts at persuasion are as unattractive to me as to anyone halfway aware. I’ve more respect for the sanctity of free-will than that. The recognition or certification of divine revelatory status is not the point, to me anyway.

 

As for my demonstrating the value and relevance of the UPapers, I suspect that is a continuing service challenge for me which will be qualified more by my own capabilities than any lack of the same in the work.

 

A Dios friends,

Brent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brent,

 

Perhaps some will enjoy stretching conception by attempting to grasp the immensities ...

 

"Perhaps some will ..." is so distancing personally. What if the sentence started "I enjoy . . "

 

UP 21:1:2 So --

 

Creator Son and Daughter of the Infinite Spirit - parents of a local universe? A family group with a gnostic genealogy? Probably fictionally related to papa, sarayu and jesus.

 

I understand this to be fiction and on the same level of interest as The Shack. I still would rather you said what you understand in your own words.

 

Dutch

Edited by glintofpewter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Brent,

 

You have answered my questions to my satisfaction and i am in agreement with your conclusion in your answer and that there may be particular details that may strengthen ones balance of intellectual understanding. Specifically you have indicated to me...

 

" It is entirely voluntary and according to individual disposition whether anyone chooses to be informed of the possible intricacies in God's infinite creation. However, there are some particular details that imo do serve to strengthen a pleasing and comprehensive balance of understanding. One of those deals with our Creator Son, claimed by the authors to have lived his bestowal life in the flesh as Jesus of Nazareth."

 

Peace,

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recently I listened to a conversation between Joshua Landy and Michael Saler about the Re-enchantment of the World (Max Weber said the world had become disenchanted when only that which is quantifiable was consider truth.) they describe this re-enchantment as a secular movement to fill the void left by the God of faith. Re-enchantment occurs in the redemption of fiction. Fans of a particular fictions such as Sherlock Holmes or Star Trek gather to discuss and write papers about the fiction. They also point out that in this frame for observing lies the wonderful world of the imagination. The Bible, dismissed as as fiction is then redeemed as fiction because fiction itself is raised in value.

 

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/fren-ital/opinions/podcast/opinions.xml. Search this page for michael saler or re-enchantment to find the podcast.

 

It strikes me that the universes in Upapers are a world re-enchanted by a quasi-science..Which then becomes a modern scientific setting for Jesus. At least that is how it strikes.me. But I need to start at the bottom of the genealogy.'

 

There is, in a sense, a father, creator son, and mother, daughter of the infinite spirit, who create/are the source of- (or is there another word/phrase to describe their relation to the local universe? and why is this important in understanding who Jesus is if Jesus is only one of many Creator Sons

 

Myron

 

would you expand on this?

 

Is he talking about the comos inrtojected into human psychology or human psychology projected onto the cosmos?

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dutch,

 

As I noted in a prior post, Sadler was a student of Freud and associate of Adler and Jung. Adler and Jung both broke with Freud on the issue of the nature of the unconscious. In fact, in Jung's last public encounter with Freud (October, 1913) he stated that no theory of the psyche that followed either Freud (the extravert) or Adler (the introvert) could do justice to the human condition. For Freud, the Urantia Papers would be nothing more than accepted myth. For Adler, the Urantia Papers would be a personal myth projected onto the outer world. The key phrase in Jung's departure from Freud is "to do justice" concerning the positions of Freud and Adler. The progressive perspective I have tried to maintaIn here is that Freud and Adler were both attempting to say something true about the world (Searle, 1992). It is a matter of your orientation in relation ... world-to-mind or mind-to-world. Jung and Whitehead agree on the grounds that we need to keep a balance in this relationship, but that balance keeps changing as we adapt to the flow of life itself.

 

Myron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello friends, how're y'all?

 

From the start of this thread, I’ve tried to sincerely and appropriately share my view of the UPapers as a highly valuable, though generally misunderstood and thus underutilized progressive resource.

 

In serving to demonstrate the value and relevance of this "Wisdom Tradition", I am ipso facto looking to be persuasive to some degree. Lest I be convicted of being “slippery” as in the ‘shadow of a hair’s turning’, please let me qualify my earlier use of the phrase “fruitless and empty efforts at persuasion…” as referring to something like a salesman who knowingly promotes a worthless bill of goods.

 

Your assessments of the validity of UP revelatory claims or of the admittedly unverifiable “possible intricacies in God’s infinite creation”, are completely within the realm of free will sanctity, a gift of God which I humbly honor. You have my sincere gratitude for also honoring mine.

 

As a total skeptic I saw no reason at all to bore myself with reading the UPapers. When my shallow opinion was challenged, I decided to document evidence in support of my contention that over 2000 pages of quasi-religious and likely delusional fabrications written in the early 1930’s contained mountains of illogical inconsistencies and outright falsehoods and thus deserved summary dismissal. Right from the Foreward, the interwoven theological and cosmological complexities presented somewhat of a challenge comparable with study of an advanced scientific or technical text. It seemed so “far out” and unverifiable that to achieve a complete reading (‘skipping’ would overlook perjorative evidence) I found it necessary to adopt a detached investigative attitude, to pigeonhole my own incredulity and to treat it as a benign science-fiction parading as revelation.

 

Dutch wrote: “It strikes me that the universes in Upapers are a world re-enchanted by a quasi-science...Which then becomes a modern scientific setting for Jesus. At least that is how it strikes.me. But I need to start at the bottom of the ‘genealogy’.

 

There is, in a sense, a father, creator son, and mother, daughter of the infinite spirit, who create/are the source of- (or is there another word/phrase to describe their relation to the local universe? and why is this important in understanding who Jesus is if Jesus is only one of many Creator Sons?”

There are thousands of students of the UPapers worldwide, each with their own initial impression and subsequent perspective. Many folks are put off by the difficult reading of Parts I & II, but were intrigued and attracted enough by Part IV: The Life and Teachings of Jesus to treat it as an enjoyable ‘stand-alone’ (700 page) fiction. Harry McMullan, CEO of Alliance Steel Corp. in Oklahoma City, has published a separate paperback Part IV called Jesus: A New Revelation. Quoting from the back cover:

 

Is this a work of fiction, or genuinely a new revelation? Whatever you conclude, this story is likely to affect you deeply, perhaps permanently. Read it out of spiritual hunger or merely from curiosity, but do not miss the opportunity to encounter "the greatest truths mankind can ever hear".

Among the primary subjects of the UP that I believe worthy of elaboration and discussion is their portrayal of the life and teachings of Jesus as well as the truth about his personal relationship to the kingdom of heaven. I had thought it best to attempt a broad cosmological overview covering the hypotheses of the Paradise Deities and their residential superuniverse of Havona as a backdrop for positing the pre-existent nature of our local Creator Son. My intention was not to confuse or overawe with superfluous complexities, but to contextualize a majestic view of Christ Jesus and his bestowal life upon this world. My sense is that this is somewhat as the authors also intended by their arrangement of the actual text.

 

As time allows, I’d like to pick up where we left off by posting some further UP quotes and add some of my thoughts about Jesus’ pre-existence as our Creator Son. Hope you'll join in sometime...

 

All the best of many blessings,

Brent

 

“Faith transforms the philosophic God of probability into the saving God of certainty in the personal religious experience. Skepticism may challenge the theories of theology, but confidence in the dependability of personal experience affirms the truth of that which has grown into faith.” UP 102:6.4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myron,

 

I must admit to being ‘out-of-the-loop’ regarding Dr. Sadler’s leaning with respect to his professional associates and their divergent viewpoints.

 

As I understand the history, Dr. Sadler would certainly never have made any such claim of authorship. “Dr. Sadler was a highly respected psychiatrist who taught at the Post-graduate School of Medicine at Chicago University. For almost thirty years he was also a lecturer in Pastoral Counseling at McCormick Theological Seminary.” (Sprunger)

 

I suspect some of the dozens of books written by Dr. Sadler would likely broach the subject of transmarginal consciousness. Whether or not there was any “nod towards W. James” is a question I can’t answer.

 

As far as the subject of transmarginal consciousness relates to the reception of the UPapers, Dr. Sprunger writes:

 

Our group of ministers discovered a possible reference to the individual somehow involved in the materialization of The Urantia Book . It is found in the appendix of Sadler's book, The Mind at Mischief, published in 1929. He says, "Eighteen years of study and careful investigation have failed to reveal the psychic origin of these messages. I find myself at the present time just where I was when I started. Psychoanalysis, hypnotism, and intensive comparison fail to show that the written or spoken messages of this individual have origin in his own mind. Much of the material secured through this subject is quite contrary to his habit of thought, to the way in which he has been taught, and to his entire philosophy. In fact, of much that we have secured, we have failed to find anything of its nature in existence. Its philosophic content is quite new, and we are unable to find where very much of it has ever found human expression." (p. 383)

 

During Dr. Sadler's investigation of this phenomenon, he consulted men like Howard Thurston, the renowned slight-of-hand artist who devoted considerable time to exposing fraudulent mediums and psychics. He also conferred with Sir Hubert Wilkens, the noted scientist and explorer involved in investigating psychic phenomena. They all agreed that the phenomena connected with this individual could not be classified with other types of psychic phenomena such as automatic writing, telepathy, clairvoyance, trances, spirit mediumship, channeling, or split personality.

 

On May 7, 1958 our group of ministers met with Dr. Sadler to discuss the origin of The Urantia Book. He gave us a paper listing every imaginable form of subconscious mind or psychic activity. At the bottom of the outline a note said: "The technique of the reception of The Urantia Book in English in no way parallels or impinges upon any of the above phenomena of the marginal consciousness." He went on to tell us that so nearly as he could determine, the appearance of Urantia papers was associated with some form of superconscious mind activity. On numerous occasions Dr. Sadler told me that he did not know how the materialization was accomplished. He said that almost everything known about the origin of The Urantia Book is found in various places in the book.

 

So Myron, whereas among Freud, Adler, and Jung there is much analysis of the subconscious and/or unconscious (personal and collective) mind, it appears that the appearance of the UPapers as well as the thrust of their teachings are rather more oriented toward superconscious mind activity. According to the UP, this realm "above" consciousness is where contact is made with real spiritual ministries (in contrast to the potent archetypal symbols of the sub/unconscious mind) resulting in the actual birth and growth of a soul of potential survival value.

 

I hope that helps, bro.

Brent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brent, I have to say that for me its whatever grabs ya. Also, maybe a case of things being as simple or as complex as we want to make them, or perhaps as we need them to be. There is a story of the Buddha holding up a flower and someone "got it", while others needed a little bit more in the way of deep analysis of the essencelessness of phenomena, perhaps a hundred lifetimes worth!

 

Jesus summed up the law and the prophets by saying that they merely said "love God and love your neighbour as yourself", and maybe the NT could be summed up by "we are saved by grace". Yet perhaps we all, in our own way, "search the scriptures daily for in them we think we have life"

 

I do think that we know God by, and in, love, but by thought never. I think thought can become very complex, yet the call is to become as a little child.

 

So I suppose we get back to whatever grabs ya!

 

:)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brent,

 

Many here are not aware of the background conditions out of which the Urantia Papers emerged. Could you, for example, compare the Urantia Papers to Theosophy? To Gnosticism? To Whitehead and Jung? They all belong to the same era.

 

My opinion is that Whitehead and Jung were more "grounded" in their views. Both accepted an upper and lower limit to human consciousness.

 

Myron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myron,

 

Theosophy and various other religio-philosophical movements were extant or emerging concurrently with the reception of the UPapers. Forms of Gnosticism, though, appear to date from much the more distant past.

 

While discussion of such religio-social evolution, philosophy, and psychology could yield valuable insights and broadened perspective, I feel that going there would end up diluting my focus on the text of the UP. Perhaps this is something you would like to explore in a new thread?

 

Drawing from ‘apocryphal’ sources, the purported superhuman beings involved in presenting the UPapers supposedly realized the need for and had been planning and anticipating the release of a written form of “epochal” revelation to our planet for several centuries. The association of Dr. Sadler (and subsequently the “forum” group) with the “contact personality” apparently presented a rare and fortuitous circumstance which they were prepared to utilize for our advantage.

 

In good spirit,

Brent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Derek,

 

You wrote: “Brent, I have to say that for me its whatever grabs ya. Also, maybe a case of things being as simple or as complex as we want to make them, or perhaps as we need them to be. There is a story of the Buddha holding up a flower and someone "got it", while others needed a little bit more in the way of deep analysis of the essencelessness of phenomena, perhaps a hundred lifetimes worth!”

Have you seen the Hubble photos and recent probability projections of trillions of planetary systems such as ‘Super-Earth,’ 1 of 50 Newfound Alien Planets, Could Potentially Support Life? Will our desire or need for simplicity make the universe of universes any less complex or more essenceless? Honestly, the very concept of “essencelessness” is self-contradictory, imo. The closest Google search comes to it is “senselessness” - no disrespect intended my friend. :unsure:

 

Though this Buddhist anecdote ranges far afield from UP teachings, it seems to me that any “analysis of the essencelessness of phenomena” would inherently seek for meanings/values of some sort, but would eventually bear fruitlessness. If I haven't “got it”, then so be it! B)

 

A one-eyed person can never hope to visualize depth of perspective. Neither can single-eyed material scientists nor single-eyed spiritual mystics and allegorists correctly visualize and adequately comprehend the true depths of universe reality. All true values of creature experience are concealed in depth of recognition. (from Jesus' "Discourse on Reality" 130:4.4)

 

You wrote: “I do think that we know God by, and in, love, but by thought never. I think thought can become very complex…”

 

I wholeheartedly agree that we only discover God through love, but going further will propose that experiential perception of this same God of love necessarily occurs within mind. Wonderful semantics, eh?

 

The divine spirit makes contact with mortal man, not by feelings or emotions, but in the realm of the highest and most spiritualized thinking. It is your thoughts, not your feelings, that lead you Godward. The divine nature may be perceived only with the eyes of the mind. But the mind that really discerns God, hears the indwelling (Father fragment), is the pure mind. "Without holiness no man may see the Lord." All such inner and spiritual communion is termed spiritual insight. Such religious experiences result from the impress made upon the mind of man by the combined operations of the (Father fragment) and the Spirit of Truth (bestowal of the Creator Son) as they function amid and upon the ideas, ideals, insights, and spirit strivings of the evolving sons of God. 101:1.3

 

You continued: “…yet the call is to become as a little child.”

 

 

I take this call as one to a quality of faith, and not to the intellectual simplicity of a child...

 

The faith of Jesus attained the purity of a child's trust. His faith was so absolute and undoubting that it responded to the charm of the contact of fellow beings and to the wonders of the universe. His sense of dependence on the divine was so complete and so confident that it yielded the joy and the assurance of absolute personal security. There was no hesitating pretense in his religious experience. In this giant intellect of the full-grown man the faith of the child reigned supreme in all matters relating to the religious consciousness. It is not strange that he once said, "Except you become as a little child, you shall not enter the kingdom." Notwithstanding that Jesus' faith was childlike, it was in no sense childish.

196:0.11-12

May we all be “grabbed” by God!

A Dios amigo,

Brent

Edited by Brent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

 

Since my original plan (loosely limiting this thread to discussions directly concerned with the text itself) was modified to include peripheral issues, I will attempt some further clarification related to a question which seems dear to you and is naturally raised in any introduction of the UPapers: Revelatory authority?

 

You wrote: “If one does not accept a particular writing as divinely inspired, then the question immediately arises – so, where is the beef? However, if one does accept the writing as divine revelation, every word can convey meaning.”

 

Agreed, but to make the obvious point:

If it is divinely inspired, then whether anyone accepts it, or not, has no bearing on the claim.

 

You wrote: “In order to accept a scripture as authoritative, I think, generally requires a great deal of priming by family and/or friends. I don’t think the inspiration of any of the scriptures is self-evident in the writing itself although it seems so to the properly primed and conditioned reader.”

 

This view is common to skepticism. It generally discounts the real possibility of revelatory origin and implies ‘priming’ or ‘conditioning’ as the rationale for acceptance. Also, I disagree with the thought that divine inspiration cannot be revealed in the writing itself.

 

Still, although the authors make unequivocal statements claiming the revelatory nature of the UPapers, neither believing nor disbelieving will affect the value and relevance of the text. Perceptions will be relatively distorted in either case.

 

You wrote: “So, I suggest that there are two different approaches to introducing a new scripture (to adults). One is to persuade the reader that it is divine revelation. The second is to demonstrate the value and relevance to the reader. I think that you, I and others are asking for the second.”

 

Therefore, I think that any effort to persuade regarding the subject of revelatory authority would be both pointless and counterproductive. Actual demonstration of the value and relevance of the UPapers will be conditioned by the depth of my own wisdom and communication skills, or lack thereof.

 

Deeper discussion of this issue would perhaps afford the opportunity to present additional context provided by the authors themselves.

 

In good spirit,

Brent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brent,

 

The E of P and I my mention of it was merely my sense of humour.....it goes back a long way.

 

Yet, such can be linked to revelations from Hubble telescopes and such.

 

Simplicity also.

 

sadly, at the moment, I have no time, but then again, really I do not see any real argument between us.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(snip)

 

Agreed, but to make the obvious point:

If it is divinely inspired, then whether anyone accepts it, or not, has no bearing on the claim.

 

Brent,

 

This can certainly be said of any book making such a claim.

 

 

This view (priming by family and friends) is common to skepticism. It generally discounts the real possibility of revelatory origin and implies ‘priming’ or ‘conditioning’ as the rationale for acceptance. Also, I disagree with the thought that divine inspiration cannot be revealed in the writing itself.

 

it seems to me that skepticism is not a not a negative thing. Or as Wiki SAYS..... Skepticism (or scepticism) has many definitions, but generally refers to any questioning attitude of knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.

 

 

Still, although the authors make unequivocal statements claiming the revelatory nature of the UPapers, neither believing nor disbelieving will affect the value and relevance of the text. Perceptions will be relatively distorted in either case.

 

it seems to me that it is better to question than to believe such a cliam. Believing such a claim without questioning often leads to the conditioning that i think George was speaking of.

 

Therefore, I think that any effort to persuade regarding the subject of revelatory authority would be both pointless and counterproductive. Actual demonstration of the value and relevance of the UPapers will be conditioned by the depth of my own wisdom and communication skills, or lack thereof.

 

I concur that it would be counterproductive. So as George said originally and because the papers are so long and complex, i would also ask, " So where is the beef?"

 

 

In good spirit,

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

 

I will attempt some further clarification related to a question which seems dear to you and is naturally raised in any introduction of the UPapers [. . . ]

 

Therefore, I think that any effort to persuade regarding the subject of revelatory authority would be both pointless and counterproductive [. . .]

 

Deeper discussion of this issue would perhaps afford the opportunity to present additional context provided by the authors themselves.

Brent,

 

I would not say this is an issue "dear" to me, but rather one of interest. And, yes, I think that trying to persuade some of us of its "revelatory authority" would be a waste of cyberspace, and perhaps counterproductive. That is why I suggested earlier that you demonstrate its value and relevance by including appropriate references in the general discussions.

 

I agree with Joseph that healthy scepticism is a good thing, not bad.

 

George

Edited by GeorgeW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW Brent,

 

To clarify my words, by repeating "so where is the beef? i am not looking in the context of a wise crack but rather looking for something said in the Upapers (without having to read it all) that is the heart of the message that perhaps is not included in the Bible. Something that might speak to me or others deeply and be of possible benefit in my spiritual walk. If you asked me that of the Bible, i could probably provide you with a brief summation of the relevant teachings of Jesus that were of great value to me and perhaps possibly to others just by referencing Mathew 5-7.

 

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friends,

 

We’re agreed then, that personal belief in the revelatory origin of any written work has no bearing on the validity of any such claim. We also share recognition that persuasive efforts intended to support such claims are generally pointless and perhaps counterproductive.

 

As for “Where’s the beef?” (not even slightly taken as a wise-crack), there’s so much to present that this portion will require both pleasing presentation on my part and some ‘mastication’ (reading) on yours. So, we’ll see how it goes…

 

Since Mathew 5-7 was brought up, some might have the interest (and time) to read and comment on UP 140: The Ordination of the Twelve (The Sermon on the Mount). This jump into Part IV is ahead of the semi-scheduled sequence that I’ve sort of planned, but I don’t mind.

 

I enjoy contributing to other threads with UP “beef”, but want to be sensitive to such service effort being perceived as overbearing or being “Johnny-one-note”.

 

A Dios friends,

Brent

 

And here is mystery: The more closely man approaches God through love, the greater the reality--actuality--of that man. The more man withdraws from God, the more nearly he approaches nonreality--cessation of existence. When man consecrates his will to the doing of the Father's will, when man gives God all that he has, then does God make that man more than he is. 117:4.1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Mathew 5-7 was brought up, some might have the interest (and time) to read and comment on UP 140: The Ordination of the Twelve (The Sermon on the Mount). This jump into Part IV is ahead of the semi-scheduled sequence that I’ve sort of planned, but I don’t mind.

Brent,

 

Can you summarize what is particularly relevant or insightful about this passage that would be different from, or supplemental to, Mat. 5-7 in the New Testament?

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brent,

 

Can you summarize what is particularly relevant or insightful about this passage that would be different from, or supplemental to, Mat. 5-7 in the New Testament?

 

George

To a certain extent, this question seems relevant to the whole subject of the UP. Looking at past posts, and the suggestion that the part of the UP that dealt with the actual life and teachings of Jesus would be beneficial to read as a stand alone...........700 pages! Containing the "greatest truths mankind can ever hear"! Though I identify as a Pure Land Buddhist, I have found that the gospels as found in the NT full of the "greatest truths mankind can ever hear." I'd even say that just a single parable of the kingdom would suffice. 700 pages? Sorry.

 

I must be on a bit of a downer.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service