Brent

Derek, It's gratifying to hear you consider that the UPapers may confirm your bless`ed assurance. On another note, recently I've had occasion to focus a bit on the UP teachings on evolution. The doings of Michael Dowd et al on Evolutionary Christianity have been worth noting, as some here are aware. A few months ago I got into Carter Phipp's Evolutionaries: Unlocking the Spiritual and Cultural Potential of Science's Greatest Idea, which some here may also have enjoyed reading. This led to Steve McIntosh's (a long-time UPapers reader, by the way) Integral Consciousness & the Future of Evolution and Evolution's Purpose: An Integral Interpretation of the Scientific Story of Our Origins. With Phipp's connection to Andrew Cohen and EnlightenNext magazine/organization as well as Philip Clayton, PhD (Dean of Faculty at Claremont School of Theology) Brian McLaren, and others, I'm becoming more informed of what's being termed "the evolution of enlightenment", or "evolutionary enlightenment" and "emergent" Christianity. What I've found, so far, is how much more advanced and satisfyingly comprehensive are the teachings contained within the UPapers (indited circa early 1930's) than the aforementioned post-modern, integral, avant garde philosophical/theological evolutionary reaches and their preceding scaffolding. Simply amazing how under appreciated and underutilized due to the UP's supposed "esoteric" pedigree... A great wealth of deep insight regarding time-space evolution can be garnered from the UPapers as a whole. Some of the most intriguing, thought-provoking, and admittedly difficult evolutionary concepts for students are found concentrated in the Foreward and 4 papers near the end of Part III. Those being titled: The Supreme Being (UP 115) The Almighty Supreme (UP 116) God the Supreme (UP 117) Supreme and Ultimate: Time and Space (UP 118) Though I'm quite certain of their value, the serious evaluation of the Foreward and these four papers isn't an appetizing prospect for many folks. Even with the amplifying cohesion of related contexts in the entire work, several of the UPapers can be relatively challenging. Anywho, just thought I'd offer those links for any folks inclined to really dig the "evolutionary" Supreme. In good spirit, Brent

Derek, Your point that a human weakness for word/book fetishes eventually seeks to establish “authority” with adverse consequences appears quite accurate. Not surprisingly, this same preference for the consolations of authority can be found among less spiritually mature members of the worldwide community of Urantia Book readers. I’m optimistic though, with the lessons of history and the superb teachings found within the text, that notions of “mandatory” authority will never take root among students of the UPapers. Our discussion has led me to reread a powerful denouncement of the religions of authority. From 155:5 & 155:6 – “The Discourse on True Religion” & “The Second Discourse on Religion”, I'll share this more positive excerpt: In good spirit, Brent

Hi Derek, Taking liberties to re-order your emphases by transposing two sentences, I find much, if not complete, agreement with the way “(you) see it”. You wrote: “Possibly it can be claimed that this particular book is different and provides relevant answers, answers at this time necessary to the correct progress of humanity. So be it.” You preceded with: “As I see it, the last thing humankind - or indeed, any "kind" - need is another book, sacred, holy, authoritative, or whatever.” Thanks, and all the best back to you , Brent

Hi Joseph, Thanks for the consistently kind way you've expressed your "direct" approach. This is a path which I've also trodden. To which I'll add this quote: In good spirit, Brent

Greetings PC friends, I know it's been a while since I've posted, tho I do stop in occasionally to check the pulse here. Looks to me like the beat is overall positive, progressively consistent and still searching. Just to add to the mix, thought I'd pass on a recent Urantia Papers utube intro for consideration. All the best blessings to All of you who love, Brent

George, I know the subject of ‘free will’ has been approached and debated repeatedly, and I wouldn’t want to waylay a discussion of ‘natural evil before the fall’. But in short, my understanding of “truly free” is that it refers to spiritual-choice realities (within which, after all is said and done on this planet, we progress eternally) rather than physical, cultural, or particular environmental happenstance. Best regards, Brent

PC friends, I beg your pardons, if off the subject for a moment - We’re all aware of how easily intentions can be misconstrued when participating in online forums. Many folks have long mused that e-dialogue suffers from the loss of clarifying overtones and nuances available with face-to-face communications. The link I posted did provide, imo, a valuable ( if admittedly broad) perspective on the subject of ‘evil’. I’ve no doubt that forum participants here are imminently capable of researching any reference links I might offer in ‘debate and dialogue’ or elsewhere, if they so choose. When I later commented that some participants may have found the suggested research difficult, this was in recognition that such an investigation could be daunting due to the perhaps confusing volume of in-depth material presented. Please forgive me if my fumbling efforts to serve have given offense of superiority or condescension in any way. It seems to me that this statement/question neglects a more plausible view: God is omnipotent, good, and infinitely wise. Che knows that without the potential for evil and suffering, the exercise of choice by evolutionary mortal will creatures would be nullified. We would be deprived of the opportunity to cooperate with our indwelling spirits in developing souls of eternal survival value. It seems obvious that world conditions are some ages still removed from settlement in Light and Life. And yet, all is well with my soul. Sincerely, Brent

Dutch, Although I differ with any negative implication, your comment that you find the UP authors’ wording sometimes oddly obfuscating is certainly understandable, if unfortunately common in my experience. In my view, when referring to ‘evolutionary’ religions the authors are not utilizing the term as an adjective defining something which is naturally subject to change, but rather as descriptive of these religions technique of origination as contrasted with ‘revelatory’ religion. Without getting sidetracked further in that semantic, we do agree with their “fair observation” that institutional religions in general “emphasize conservative inertia rather than progressive momentum”. I’m not sure I get your point regarding their statement that primitive evolutionary belief in ghosts has actually contributed to the foundation for a philosophy of revealed religion which will eventually supersede and obviate those same evolutionary superstitions. I don't see any deliberate put-down of the past. Your suggestion that the authors seem (to you) to have intended aiding in the reformation of religion through the “co-ordination and sorting of present day knowledge” may well be valid. That said, it’s my understanding that they are proscribed by the “laws of revelation” from any overt action such as starting “a new branch” of religion. They know that “human wisdom must evolve”, and that any such “a new and appropriate symbolism” “cannot be manufactured, it must grow” in order to be progressively viable in the long term. (UP 101:4.1,2; 87:7.3,6) If time allows, I'd enjoy further exploration of the potential for evolving growth and progressive enculturation of reformed evolutionary religion aided by revelational inspiration. With sincere appreciation, Brent

George and PC friends, Doubtful that my understanding will satisfy, I'll continue a little longer for those who are finding it difficult to research the subject from the multiple perspectives of the reference I've already linked. In my opinion the term ‘natural evil’ has no applicable meaning. As I explained earlier, ‘potential’ evil originates from the differentials inherent in progressive time-space evolution while ‘actual’ evil (perhaps ‘moral’ evil fits loosely here) does not manifest absent unconscious or unintended erroneous will-choice. By the way, since the appearance of human will-choice was certified on high nearly 1 million years ago, this has nothing to do with the timing of Adam and Eve’s mission in the Levant roughly 38,000 years ago (according UP:74). Sin arises through deliberate choosing of error; whereas iniquity derives from habitual sin. In friendship, Brent

Joseph, Do you so completely discountenance subjectivity that ‘you’ propose there are no “point(s) along a continuum”? My understanding is that subjective-mind differentiation is essential to progressive time-experience, otherwise what’s the point (pun intended) of any of this? Thus the concept of ‘potential’ evil is evolutionarily valid, even though ‘actual’ error is dependent upon subjective choice. In good spirit, Brent

PC friends, To me, the concept of ‘natural evil’ as a precursor to human will-choice can only be understood as the potential for error which is “inherent in evolutionary growth”. The authors of the Urantia Papers thoroughly addressed the questions of evil, error, sin, and iniquity. Perhaps this link to the subject of evil from an online topical index will aid some in deeper examination. We might consider, for example: And from the ‘Jesus’ papers, UP 148: 4 – Evil, Sin, and Iniquity Best regards, Brent

Dutch, "He ain't heavy, he's my brother."

dark wonder hope; flash unlimited faith...

PC friends, In Part III - THE HISTORY OF URANTIA (beginning with UPaper 57: THE ORIGIN OF URANTIA), the authors of the UPapers deal quite extensively with the evolutionary history of our beloved home planet. Herein, they also address some aspects of evolutionary socialized religion (as distinct from "personal" faith) and its periodic advancement through epochal revelatory adjustments. As I'm particularly drawn to the enculturation of revealed religion and am involved in some related disussion on other boards, I've thought to post some UP quotes which may find beneficial lodgement here on PC forums. Without any specific agenda, I'll "wing it" so to speak, anticipating progressive participation, perhaps, from friends so inclined. From Paper 92 - THE LATER EVOLUTION OF RELIGION, Section 3: THE NATURE OF EVOLUTIONARY RELIGION Vaya con Dios, Brent

Thanks Derek, for your introduction of Wayne Teasdale, now added to my Amazon wish list ... Yvonne, I'd like to pray with you for more interspiritual community. It'll come to us... Loving progress, Brent

Well said, and understood, brother Derek. Brent

I agree. While saying there are no limitations on divine omnipotence, theists’ prayers should implicitly recognize that there are acts within God’s potential capability that Che will not unwisely do. 144:2 – THE DISCOURSE ON PRAYER 144:3 – THE BELIEVER’S PRAYER 144:4 – MORE ABOUT PRAYER 144: 5 – OTHER FORMS OF PRAYER Loving regards, Brent

PC Friends, Skeptical concern regarding the authors’ claims of authority may have temporarily abated. What’s helpful to grasp, imo, is that there’s no need to accept the Urantia Papers as divine revelation in order to profit from reading them. A question arose on another thread regarding God’s omnipotence. Brother George W suggested that a quote from UP 3:2 - “Within the bounds of that which is consistent with the divine nature, it is literally true that ‘with God all things are possible.’.” says nothing unless the bounds are defined. To me, it’s simply another way of saying that God can do anything Che chooses – which rules out un-Godlike actions. Does this therefore beg the question: What actions are “consistent with the divine nature” – Godlike? In loving service, Brent

The question of what God can do would likely sidetrack a more limited focus on prayer constraints. Would you care to delve into UP: 2 - THE NATURE OF GOD and UP: 3 - THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD for a few mind expanding ideas regarding the boundaries of Ches infinite perfection and consider a new thread? In your service, Brent

George, This statement/question appears to me mixing apples and oranges. Since humans are not infinite, infallible, and absolutely perfect, then any question of human omnipotence, even within the bounds of human nature, is simply rhetorical, imo. God’s omnipotence, however, is limited only by Ches loving perfection. Brent

No doubt my mind’s lazy streak would just as soon take a pass on examining the particular distinctions between this or that theoretical theism. I would, however, hazard offering a resource in consideration of constraints (and other aspects) of prayer vis-a-vis an omnipotent God. Imo, the above quotes present a view which provides interesting context to the question of God’s power in relation to prayer, no matter how we might choose to slice and dice theism. Some quotes below from a purported session between Jesus and his apostles contain other seeds of insight regarding constraints upon prayer. If you find value in these ideas, you might also be inspired to appreciate the entirety of UPaper 91: THE EVOLUTION OF PRAYER, which addresses primitive prayer - evolving prayer - prayer and the alter ego - ethical praying - social repercussions of prayer - province of prayer - mysticism, ecstasy, and inspiration - praying as a personal experience - & conditions of effective prayer, in some depth. In loving service, Brent

Dutch, Sure, those would fall into a short list... As an seasoned hand here, you're probably spot on regarding the likely distance such a conversation would reach. Be well blessed, Brent

Dutch, I imagine “Believers in Exile” also sense a need for the advancement, ennoblement, and preservation of human culture in the midst of multi-level disorienting (albeit essential) change. Cultural disintegration is still a real possibility. Not surprisingly, socio-religious culture is confronted with the challenge to develop new symbolisms adequate to unify and carry the spiritual assets of our forebears forward. Even professed “deculturated” Progressive Christians are playing a part in this transition, it seems to me. Anyhow, I find the subject of enculturation to be largely misunderstood and would enjoy participating in an intelligent discussion thread, depending on forum interest. Peace, Brent

Dutch, Speaking of enculturation, would you be interested in having another thread related to this quite rich subject? If so, I’d be very interested in what PC forum members think about a chapter from Henry and Regina Wieman’s work (The Normative Psychology of Religion) titled “The Cultus and Its Emotional Accompaniments”. Some folks may have heard of Weiman, a prominent theologian of the last century (Henry Nelson Wieman (1884–1975) was an American philosopher and theologian. He became the most famous proponent of theocentric naturalism and the empirical method in American theology and catalyzed the emergence of Religious Naturalism in the latter part of the 20th century.). If it would serve a purpose here, I might offer some of my own observations regarding differences between Unity and the teachings of the Urantia Papers in another thread also, having been regularly and then intermittently involved with that group from the late 1980’s thru 2005 or so. Best wishes, Brent

Friends, Though the purported authors’ controversial categorization of the Urantia Papers as epochal revelation of superhuman origin should not be taken lightly, I found that by postponing judgmental determination I was able to evaluate the context and benefit by actually studying the content. These recent discussions have stirred me to link other material into this ongoing thread. We obviously share some religious interests, and tonight I’m wondering whether some of you might find value in UP 100: RELIGION IN HUMAN EXPERIENCE, the subsections of which are entitled: Religious Growth, Spiritual Growth, Concepts of Supreme Value, Problems of Growth, Conversion and Mysticism, Marks of Religious Living, and The Acme of Religious Living (Jesus). Perhaps a selection of excerpts from each subsection, for example, might serve to encourage some here to invest a deeper look for value and lead to fruitful discussion? I'm pretty busy at work lately, but I'll try to keep up... All the best, Brent