GeorgeW

It seems to me that, despite evident and self-admitted skepticism, you are deeply motivated by the study of religion in terms of historical events, cultural outgrowths, psychological aspects, spiritual values, authoritatively accredited authenticity, etc...

Brent, Your perception about me is correct.

However, with all due respect, you seem to avoid directly addressing the question. If you would rather not discuss this or reveal your personal beliefs, that is understandable. Please just say so and I will drop the issue.

If you don't mind discussing it, let me be blunt. Do you think the UP are divine revelation? If so, on what basis did you arrive at this belief? If not, why do you recommend these writings to those in this forum?

George

I used to belong and will be returning to the United Church of Canada, which is quite progressive both politically and in approach to doctrine.

I would advise not to seek 100% theological compatibility. My principal criterion is nothing objectionable. Then, the more positive, the better.

George

Raven,

We are social animals and need interaction with other people. Facebook, IMO, is not the answer. As you note, it is more difficult to find real connections, so places like a church can offer a community that will help satisfy our social need. But, just any ole church wouldn't work for many of us. If we have to buy into incompatible doctrines, the price may be to high.

George

Brent,

I do not think that any of these sources can be "categorically determined as authentic." At least, I have never seen a plausible case presented.

Also, I don't object to those who do believe in divine revelation unless statements in the texts are asserted as 'true' based on this status.

Yes, I am skeptical about claims of divine revelation, but I would be interested of what evidence you might have but have yet refrained from presenting. And, please don't be deterred by my personal skepticism, others participants here may be less so.

George

2. Then allow others to be where they are.

Yes. We all have different experiences, personalities and needs. And, these naturally manifest in our religious beliefs. As long as one's beliefs are benign, I argue for tolerance and understanding (although this is really, really hard sometimes).

George

When faced with these kinds of situations, or confrontations, what can one say without being horrible? Is there a polite way to say "Stop pointing your finger at me!!"? I'm not interested in (or capable of, really) getting into a theological/Biblical discussion with her.

Raven, I really think there is little value in debating the Bible or religion with your friend. She will not convince you and you are not very likely to convince her. IMO, the best way to maintain the friendship is to explain to her that you have different views from her on religion and that any discussion of that topic is likely to lead to discord.

George

Often, she'll say things like, "I don't drink, because I'm a Christian." Or, "I don't believe in premarital sex, because I'm a Christian." I understand that her fundy background directs a lot of her day-to-day life, but I'm not always sure how much of it is Biblical and how much of it is just fundy socialization.

There is no general prohibition of which I am aware against drinking alcohol in the Bible. And, Jesus was himself a wine maker.

George

Brent,

I suppose one could either read the UP as fictional fantasy or as divine revelation. If it is the first, it could be entertaining and maybe insightful, but this genre is not my personal cup of tea. If it the latter -- which I understand it purports to be -- then I would want some basis for accepting it as such.

History is full of alleged divine revelations and revealers. Surely, they are not all authentic (since they don't fundamentally agree). So, how do we go about separating the authentic from the inauthentic? On what basis do we accept the UP and reject the Qur'an, the Bible, the Book of Mormon or whatever. If you were here proposing any writing as divine revelation, I would be asking the same question.

George

While, I might agree with some of the sentiments expressed, it is the statements like the following that give me pause.

"Let not the discussions of the humanity or the divinity of the Christ obscure the saving truth that Jesus of Nazareth was a religious man who, by faith, achieved the knowing and the doing of the will of God; he was the most truly religious man who has ever lived on Urantia."

What is the source of this information? On what basis should we accept it?

George

Trillions of inhabited planets is amazing. Having them named and organized and populated . . . well . . .

Yes. The UP papers do not seem to be claiming possibilities on scientific grounds, but divine revelations.

George

Sadly, they are the exception, and not the rule.

Happily, enough to prove that homophobia is not an inherent characteristic or a requisite value.

George

I think our own SECULAR United States is a pretty darn good example. It's not perfect, but I've traveled extensively in religious theocracies and they kind of suck in comparison, IMHO.

Or secular, anti-religious systems.

George

Keane says that democracy is the first human government in that it is not dependent on a deity or a religion for authority.

Interesting. I had not thought about this or read this before. I guess it is true that previous rulers (all?) claimed divine authority.

George

Heaven is located somewhere. It has a finite size. Heaven is eternal in the sense that it will exist forever.

Hornet,

This is an opinion stated as an established fact.

George

I think that as we move forward in time, a gradual secular society built on social constructions of cooperation, compromise and negotiation will replace most religious institutions.

It seems that you would like to see the demise of religion. How come? Conversely, what would lead you the think that a secular society would be cooperative and compromising?

George

While I don't think that Christianity or the Bible causes homophobia, it certainly does nothing to ameliorate the societal stigma directed toward persons of same gender attraction.

I would agree with this except for the sweeping generalization about Christianity. Not all Christians are homophobic. There are Christian churches that actively promote acceptance.

George

Yes, but how does the timeline of evolution play out when we can make a conscious distinction between cooperation and competitiion? And, how do progressives honor both? Or, do progressives honor both? I do not know.

It is all the product of evolution. He argues the social side got really turned on when we became agriculturalists. Do we honor both? We have no choice, we are humans. That is who we are.

George

My biological predisposition often leaves me in a state of conflict. Do I move towards cooperation or towards competition to achieve my goals?

Haidt says we are 90% chimps ("competition to achieve my goals") and 10% bees ("move toward cooperation"). We are both individualistic and we are social. We have the two natures and that is a source of many of our inner conflicts.

George

Joseph, Excellent points. Racism, sexism and homophobia have not been eliminated, but a lot of progress has been made just in our lifetimes.

George

Sure, but unlike a god, it isn't necessary to sacrifice humans, animals, dignity and common sense to appease.

Norm, religion does not necessarily entail sacrifice or appeasement.

However, as Haidt shows (in The Righteous Mind), sacrifice does serve a social function in helping to bond a group whether secular (like boot camp, fraternity/sorority initiations, etc.) or religious.

If the absence of religion led to some Utopian world, you might have a point. But, this was tried by the USSR, Red China and Cambodia and the result was no better and, in a number of ways, worse.

George

Have you read Bishop Spong's book, "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism"?

 

He has an interesting take on this. Someone appearantly suggested to him that Paul may have been repressing same sex attraction.

Brian, Yes, I have read what Bishop Spong has said about Paul's sexual orientation. I too think it is a stretch. To 'diagnose' someone 2,000 years ago from a series of writings in which nothing is explicitly expressed is, IMO, highly speculative.

George

Is humanity really moving in the direction of empathy??

Absolutely. Dutch mentioned PInker. His book is The Better Angels of Our Nature. The evidence is overwhelming, it is unambiguous - humans are becoming less violent over time.

George

I think there is such similarity because ALL religion is man-made.

Religion is the institution for dealing with religious thought that some really smart people who specialize in these matters think is predisposed in our genes (Boyer, Barret, Atran, Haidt are some that I am aware of). So, it would be "man-made" in the same sense that the nuclear family, or language, is man-made.

George

The construct of masculine and feminine traits is merely a human construction.

I don't agree with "merely." Yes, a human construction, but out of a biological reality. The maleness/femaleness behavior of bears or peacocks is not social construction. Dimorphism and different hormones are not socially created.

George

George,

 

I think his point was more that horses, like Animists, would still imagine God in a form they are familiar with - whether it be an old man on a throne, a caring mother cuddling creation, a horse, or rocks, trees etc.

But animists don't think of God in anthropomorphic terms. Their gods are trees, animals, clouds, stones, etc. Yes, these are familiar things so horses could well (if they were to imagine) imagine god(s) as apples, young girls, hay and the like - but not necessarily a horse.

George