↗ Live site
Preview: a read-only copy of the forum. To post or reply, use the current forum.

Intellectual crystallization of religious concepts.

87 posts · 7 participants · started Jun 16, 2017, 1:59 PM

  1. There were no compromises!

    As a reminder, this part of the discussion is about how the socialization of revealed religion always (without exception) requires the price of compromise.

    Always does the socialized religion of a new revelation pay the price of compromise with the established forms and usages of the preceding religion which it seeks to salvage. (144:7.1)

    The religion of Jesus was incorporated into Christianity, which appeared as “a new order of living.” This socialization of revealed religion involved numerous compromises with evolutionary religion. The midwayer highlights some of the major compromises made in paper 195.

    195:0.3. Upon such a stage of human society the teachings of Jesus, embraced in the Christian message, were suddenly thrust. A new order of living was thus presented to the hungry hearts of these Western peoples. This situation meant immediate conflict between the older religious practices and the new Christianized version of Jesus’ message to the world. Such a conflict must result in either decided victory for the new or for the old or in some degree of compromise. History shows that the struggle ended in compromise.
    195:0.6.1. Organization. Paul was a great organizer and his successors kept up the pace he set.
    195:0.7.2. Christianity was thoroughly Hellenized. It embraced the best in Greek philosophy as well as the cream of Hebrew theology.
    195:0.8.3. But best of all, it contained a new and great ideal, the echo of the life bestowal of Jesus and the reflection of his message of salvation for all mankind.
    195:0.9.4. The Christian leaders were willing to make such compromises with Mithraism that the better half of its adherents were won over to the Antioch cult.
    195:0.10.5. Likewise did the next and later generations of Christian leaders make such further compromises with paganism that even the Roman emperor Constantine was won to the new religion.
    195:0.11. But the Christians made a shrewd bargain with the pagans in that they adopted the ritualistic pageantry of the pagan while compelling the pagan to accept the Hellenized version of Pauline Christianity. They made a better bargain with the pagans than they did with the Mithraic cult, but even in that earlier compromise they came off more than conquerors in that they succeeded in eliminating the gross immoralities and also numerous other reprehensible practices of the Persian mystery.
    195:0.12. Wisely or unwisely, these early leaders of Christianity deliberately compromised the ideals of Jesus in an effort to save and further many of his ideas. And they were eminently successful. But mistake not! these compromised ideals of the Master are still latent in his gospel, and they will eventually assert their full power upon the world.
    So, there were compromises and lots of them in the socialization of the religion revealed by Jesus. Since this always occurs, we should expect that compromises will have to be made as the religion revealed in The Urantia Book becomes progressively socialized. Or we can refuse to compromise like Abner, whose purer version of the religion of Jesus “never progressed as did the Hellenized version and was eventually lost in the Islamic movement.” (195:1.11)
  2. Yes, but the compromise EVOLVED over time.  George, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that you are advocating some sort of short cut around time.  If not, then you must be asking what can be done to encourage evolution through compromise.  But compromise with what?  Would you mind explaining what compromises you think should be made which will lead to one world religion?  Or are you only concerned with one world Urantia Book religion?  I’m confused by that.  The Urantia Book is not a religion as I understand it.  If you think it is, that may be the problem.  If you’re trying to form a new religion based upon the Urantia Book, I think you have a steep uphill climb.

    And isn’t this topic about intellectual crystallization of religious concepts?  How does this apply to your concerns George?  I am not following your logic.

  3. 195:10.11 But mistake not! these compromised ideals of the Master are still latent in his gospel, and they will eventually assert their full power upon the world.

    It sounds to me that compromised ideals are not the favored outcome.  Why compromise?  It seems less than ideal to me. Go for full power!  donchya think?

  4. (102:2.7) You cannot conceive of religion without ideas, but when religion once becomes reduced only to an idea, it is no longer religion; it has become merely a species of human philosophy.

    If a species of ingenious self-deception through resorting to a retreat to the false shelter of stereotyped religious doctrines and dogmas has crept into life, resulting in intellectual crystallization of religious concepts, how would you know religion has been reduced only to an idea, being in effect, ingeniously self-deceived?

    (102:2.7) Intellectual crystallization of religious concepts is the equivalent of spiritual death.

     

  5. Now that the fact the revealed religion always has to make some compromises with evolutionary thought to become socialized has been established, it’s logical to ask what sort of compromises must be made, when they should be made, and how they should be made. It’s hard to say whether or not the Urantia movement (I realize you dislike this phrase, but its hard to think of another) has really made any compromises to this point. I don’t think so, but I’m open to any examples to the contrary. So, perhaps we can agree that any such compromises lie in the future. But what these future compromises might be, I really have no idea. Will the religion of Jesus, as re-presented in the Book, come to dominate Christianity? Will Christianity co-opt, subsume, or reject this re-revealed religion? Or will something altogether different take place? These are questions beyond my ken.

    But I did bring up the possibility that UAI and the Fellowship might be able to reach some sort of compromise over the issue of dissemination, so that they could work more harmoniously together. A closer cooperation between the two seems like a good thing, but this certainly does not require any sort of organizational merger between the two. If their different ideas about dissemination have become so intellectually crystallized that their adherents refuse to give an inch, then compromise seems unlikely. Even a compromise where each group agrees to respect the dissemination approach of the other without endorsing it or participating in it would constitute an improvement in their relations, it seems to me, although I understand others might not see it this way.

    “Why compromise?” No two people think about or understand things in exactly the same way. If they are to socialize their efforts to achieve some religious purpose, they must come to some common accord among themselves. They must be willing to make some minor compromises and concessions, if they hope to work harmoniously with others and achieve their common religious purpose. No one ever has to compromise. But if they join with others in common purpose, this requires everyone else to conform to this individual’s personal thoughts, understandings, and beliefs.

     

     

  6. In post 25652 I described my interpretation of what a worldwide, or global religion would look like.  Since I wrote that I found some supporting quotes.  This next quote is about sovereignty, transferring it to God.  I believe this can be translated into the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man as a symbol.

    134:4.4 Religious peace–brotherhood–can never exist unless all religions are willing to completely divest themselves of all ecclesiastical authority and fully surrender all concept of spiritual sovereignty. God alone is spirit sovereign.

    The following quote speaks of religious groups (parties, sects, cults, etc., none of which are uniform), which relinquish authority, or sovereignty.  I believe a worldwide representative group fully dedicated to the sovereignty of God could result in the beginning of religious unity.

    134:4.6 The kingdom of heaven in the hearts of men will create religious unity (not necessarily uniformity) because any and all religious groups composed of such religious believers will be free from all notions of ecclesiastical authority–religious sovereignty.

    To create one single overarching global religion is not what TUB is advocating.  Such a thing would attempt to create uniformity, but not necessarily unity.  Human beings are diverse creatures originating from varying cultures.  It would be wrong to demand conformity to one single approach to Deity since no such thing exists in reality.  There is the Way, that Jesus described, and that is through him who represents the Father as the evolving Supreme.  But the Supreme depends on each individual, in his/her own way, contributing to the whole as members equal in God’s eyes.

    TUB describes the Urmeia group as a possible prototype.  What might work is a Cymboyton-like group of faith-sons from all religions to establish a global see. But even that would not have any power at all unless all religions recognize and accept its role in representing the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. As long as there are religions on earth that deny the fatherhood of God, there’s no hope for this to happen.  There can be no compromise on that.

    134:4.10 The Urmia religionists lived together in comparative peace and tranquillity because they had fully surrendered all their notions of religious sovereignty. Spiritually, they all believed in a sovereign God; socially, full and unchallengeable authority rested in their presiding head – Cymboyton. They well knew what would happen to any teacher who assumed to lord it over his fellow teachers. There can be no lasting religious peace on Urantia until all religious groups freely surrender all their notions of divine favor, chosen people, and religious sovereignty. Only when God the Father becomes supreme will men become religious brothers and live together in religious peace on earth.

    [Note, the above quote says “God the Father”, not just any old God, but a Father. You can’t have brothers without a father. You can’t have a family without brothers (and sisters).]

     

     

  7. If you want to pursue a side issue within this topic, that’s fine, but I hope you won’t get too far off the rails. I have posted a continuing question regarding the heart of this topic a few posts back.

    #25659

    I hope you might take a look.

     

  8. George Park wrote:  It’s hard to say whether or not the Urantia movement (I realize you dislike this phrase, but its hard to think of another) has really made any compromises to this point. I don’t think so, but I’m open to any examples to the contrary. So, perhaps we can agree that any such compromises lie in the future.

    How about looking at it this way:  TUB itself is a compromise.  We are told that the mission of revelation is to sort and censor the religions of evolution, and it does so by not being too far removed from them.  TUB clearly builds upon evolutionary religion.  It is already in contact with evolutionary religion, clarifying misunderstandings of mythological biblical teaching.  By utilizing what we already accept, it propels us forward.  It is a concession to the knowledge we already own, in a sense, a compromise.  TUB did not arrive with radically new ideas unattached to normal human thinking.  TUB arrived with ideas already embedded within our collective psyche.  That is a necessary compromise which has already occurred.

    George Park wrote:  But I did bring up the possibility that UAI and the Fellowship might be able to reach some sort of compromise over the issue of dissemination, so that they could work more harmoniously together. A closer cooperation between the two seems like a good thing, but this certainly does not require any sort of organizational merger between the two. If their different ideas about dissemination have become so intellectually crystallized that their adherents refuse to give an inch, then compromise seems unlikely. Even a compromise where each group agrees to respect the dissemination approach of the other without endorsing it or participating in it would constitute an improvement in their relations, it seems to me, although I understand others might not see it this way.

    George, I stay far clear of politics, including TUB politics.  I personally have no clue how those two organizations work and I’m not interested either.  Bradly tells us they are working well together, at least I think he’s said that.  What is it about dissemination that isn’t working, in your mind?  Are you sure you’re really talking about dissemination, or are you talking about evangelism? proselytizing? recruiting? missionary work?  When it comes to dissemination, I think it’s about publishing and spreading books.  I find it dull, but a necessary part of the process.  If, on the other hand, you’re talking about spreading the revelation, like spreading the gospel, or spreading the Word, then we’re not on the same page at all about that.  In regards to that, I think more groups are necessary, not less.

    George Park wrote: No two people think about or understand things in exactly the same way.
    Exactly?  Well maybe not literally exact,  but at least “akin”.  There are kindred spirits whose minds run in very similar channels.  This is actually how social groups form . . .  by people who think about something similarly.  They tend to cooperate well with one another.

    16.6.3  The fact of the cosmic mind explains the kinship of various types of human and superhuman minds. Not only are kindred spirits attracted to each other, but kindred minds are also very fraternal and inclined towards co-operation the one with the other. Human minds are sometimes observed to be running in channels of astonishing similarity and inexplicable agreement.

    George Park wrote:  But if they join with others in common purpose, this requires everyone else to conform to this individual’s personal thoughts, understandings, and beliefs.

    Is this a typo?  Who is this individual you’re referring to whose thoughts everyone must conform to??  Lost me on that one.  Isn’t that how creepy cults start?  It sounds like authoritarianism to me.  The only person I intend to conform my thoughts to is my Thought Adjuster . . . just sayin’.

  9. Who is this individual you’re referring to whose thoughts everyone must conform to??
    When a species of self-deception has crept in, looking in the mirror won’t do any good.
  10. If a species of ingenious self-deception through resorting to a retreat to the false shelter of stereotyped religious doctrines and dogmas has crept into life, resulting in intellectual crystallization of religious concepts, how would you know religion has been reduced only to an idea, being in effect, ingeniously self-deceived?

    Sorry for the derailment, Enno.  Let me attempt to get back on track.

    Reducing religion to an idea is not always a self-deception.  Some people do that on purpose, they turn religion into philosophy on purpose.   The question becomes, “what is the difference between philosophy and religion, and what is the difference between ideas and ideals?”  Here’s your quote again:

    102:2.7 You cannot conceive of religion without ideas, but when religion once becomes reduced only to an idea, it is no longer religion; it has become merely a species of human philosophy.

    First of all, philosophy is not religion, I think we can all agree on that.  Philosophy is that middle ground which attempts to tie together the facts of matter with the truths of religion.  It is a compromise of sorts with the purpose of unifying the total human experience, both material and supermaterial.  Philosophy can become unbalanced or distorted. If philosophy leans more towards materialism, or matter, it becomes naturalistic (think man-made global warming).  If it leans heavily toward spirit, it becomes mystical (think channelling).  TUB tells us that philosophy can also lean toward metaphysics, or the abstract, in which case philosophy deteriorates altogether. None of it is good.  Reducing religion, or God to just an idea is locking him into those distorted philosophical zones leaning toward naturalism, mysticism or metaphysics.  It denies the individual the opportunity for personal experience with God due to a preference for a mental attitude about God.

    TUB tells us the difference between ideas about God and the ideals of God.  Ideas are discovered with the material intellect, ideals are experienced in the soul. One is philosophical, the other religious. Ideas are the material mind’s reaction to the outer world; ideals are the soul’s reaction to the inner world.  Ideas are products of the intellect; ideals are the product of spiritual insight.  Ideas are the product of the intellect attempting to know about God; ideals are the product of the soul experiencing God.  In truth, to be effective, they both must be harmonized.

    111:4.10  Ideas may take origin in the stimuli of the outer world, but ideals are born only in the creative realms of the inner world.

    169:4.7  Jesus employed the word God to designate the idea of Deity and the word Father to designate the experience of knowing God.

    160:5.9 Yes, you can have a religion without this God, but it does not mean anything. And if you seek to substitute the word God for the reality of this ideal of the living God, you have only deluded yourself by putting an idea in the place of an ideal, a divine reality. Such beliefs are merely religions of wishful fancy.

  11. Who is this individual you’re referring to whose thoughts everyone must conform to??
    When a species of self-deception has crept in, looking in the mirror won’t do any good.
    Awesome, sounds like another Van/nodism to me.  I’ll add it to my collection.

    “Thou shall not be unfriendly.” September 18, 2016

    “True religion does not belittle”,  October 21, 2016

    “I’ve discovered that my self-understanding cannot exceed the understanding I possess of you. And everyone else too.”  May 10, 2017

     

  12. I have posted a continuing question regarding the heart of this topic a few posts back.

    Van Amadon wrote:

    (102:2.7) You cannot conceive of religion without ideas, but when religion once becomes reduced only to an idea, it is no longer religion; it has become merely a species of human philosophy.

    If a species of ingenious self-deception through resorting to a retreat to the false shelter of stereotyped religious doctrines and dogmas has crept into life, resulting in intellectual crystallization of religious concepts, how would you know religion has been reduced only to an idea, being in effect, ingeniously self-deceived?

    If I understand your question correctly: How can any of us discern whether or not we are self-deceived about our own religious experience? How can we tell if our religion is merely an idea, an intellectual crystallization of lifeless religious concepts? If this is what you are asking, it is a very deep philosophical question, since it focuses upon the doubting, suspicious, and fear-ridden nature of the material intellect. How do we know we are not fooling ourselves, when we think we have a religion?

    The Book gives us the answer: faith is how we know we are not fooling ourselves. There are any number of quotes on faith which directly address this question. I could list them, but I’m fairly certain you have seen all of them before and thought about each one. And your question really seems to reach for something more than a simple accounting of all of the many thoughts about faith which we have been given. We can think about faith endlessly and in any number of different ways. But faith is something more than a thought, something more than thinking, something more than contemplation, even something more than self-consciousness itself.

    The feeling of religious assurance is more than an emotional feeling. The assurance of religion transcends the reason of the mind, even the logic of philosophy. (101:0.3)

    If pressed, I would say that faith is an actual experience of something real which is utterly beyond the ability of emotion, reason or logic to really appreciate, explain or categorize. There are no words, thoughts or categories which can describe this experience, because it is so unlike anything else of which we are aware. If there is some inspiring reality present in religious experience that is ultimately mysterious, inexplicably eternal, and ineffably unique, this might, perhaps, be sufficient personal proof that we are not fooling ourselves.

  13. I agree with you George.  But I don’t think you fully understand what Enno is getting at.

    Enno’s last post shines light on his real motive.  I don’t think he is very much interested in recognizing if he himself has fallen prey to reducing religion to an idea. I don’t think that thought ever crossed his mind.  What he seems to be interested in is how to recognize when other people have reduced religion to just an idea.

  14. True motives are such very, very difficult things to discern. So difficult, in fact, that the Universal Censors must rely upon seconaphim called Discerners of Spirits to accurately determine them.

    They are the only seconaphim attached to the Universal Censors but are probably the most uniquely specialized of all their fellows. Regardless of the source or channel of information, no matter how meager the evidence at hand, when it is subjected to their reflective scrutiny, these discerners will forthwith inform us as to the true motive, the actual purpose, and the real nature of its origin. (28:5.19)

    The Discerners of Spirits carry on these intricate services by virtue of inherent “spiritual insight,” if I may use such words in an endeavor to convey to the human mind the thought that these reflective angels thus function intuitively, inherently, and unerringly. When the Universal Censors behold these presentations, they are face to face with the naked soul of the reflected individual; and this very certainty and perfection of portraiture in part explains why the Censors can always function so justly as righteous judges. (28:5.20)

     

     

  15. I recognize when other people have reduced religion only to an idea by what they say and how they’re going about it. Especially is this noticeable when they respond to what someone else says as if it is directed at them personally, when it’s not. It’s a curious but discernible phenomenon which exemplifies the ingeniousness of the self-deception we’re discussing. Isn’t it?

  16. I recognize when other people have reduced religion only to an idea by what they say and how they’re going about it.

    Well, perhaps you think you can recognize this in others, but how can you be certain, really. After all, how can any one of us tell whether or not there is not still a spark of living faith hidden somewhere beneath all of dead ashes of a stereotyped religion which has been adopted by another? What I mean is, don’t judgments about eternal life belong to God and God alone?

  17. Van Amadon wrote:  It’s a curious but discernible phenomenon which exemplifies the ingeniousness of the self-deception we’re discussing. Isn’t it?

    And there you have it!  Exactly as I’ve said it is.  No further proof required.  And so we continue the with character assassination through innuendo. Lovely!  No problem. I’m up for the game.

    Enno, you never answered this question I asked two pages ago:

    Would you mind illustrating what you mean by “stereotyped religious doctrines and dogmas” of the Urantia Book?

    And furthermore, is what you wrote below  also applicable to the Urantia Book?  And if not, why not?

    Van Amadon wrote: If a species of ingenious self-deception through resorting to a retreat to the false shelter of stereotyped religious doctrines and dogmas has crept into life, resulting in intellectual crystallization of religious concepts, how would you know religion has been reduced only to an idea, being in effect, ingeniously self-deceived?
    You see George, I think the question is directed toward identifying TUB readers who have retreated to a so-called “false shelter of stereotyped religious doctrines and dogmas”.   It asks how to identify fellow readers who have intellectually crystallized religious concepts and are thus ingeniously self-deceived by their ideas.  Obviously, if only self-deceived people are guilty of this, there would be no benefit from looking into a mirror.  Self-examination would be to no avail.  There would be a kind of spiritual blindness, right?  And before you know it, you might be led right along the same path, following a blind person.  Very dangerous business, which is why Enno thinks TUB is a dangerous book.
    Don’t forget these ingenious Van/nodisms, they’re rich:

    As a truthbook, the Urantia Book is flawed because it doesn’t contain ALL truth. Mon Sep 12, 2016

    The Dangers of the Urantia Book are of a deep spiritual nature. Mon Sep 12, 2016

    Life is dangerous. The Urantia Book is a part of life. Sun Sep 18, 2016

    The more you know what the Urantia Book says, the harder the goal becomes what it doesn’t say.  Wed Oct 26, 2016

    Knowing what the Urantia Book says should encourage the discovery of what it doesn’t say. That’s the goal that gets harder to reach when what it says is ignored.  Thu Oct 27, 2016

    There seems to be a common thread in all of this asking us to look beyond TUB into something else.  What that something else is anyone’s guess.  I would hope it is an inner communion with God himself.  And if I’m right, there should be no problem reading and studying a revelation that came from God himself.  No deception there unless you think God did not have a role in the Revelation.  I think he did, through his agents, which is how epochal revelation happens.  Now, if you think TUB is dangerous, then you think God is dangerous, and that is a species of ingenious self-deception if I’ve ever seen one.

    101:4.3 Truth is always a revelation: autorevelation when it emerges as a result of the work of the indwelling Adjuster; epochal revelation when it is presented by the function of some other celestial agency, group, or personality.

    92:4.3 Revelatory religion is propounded by the real spiritual world; it is the response of the superintellectual cosmos to the mortal hunger to believe in, and depend upon, the universal Deities.

     

     

  18. Well, perhaps you think you can recognize this in others, but how can you be certain, really. After all, how can any one of us tell whether or not there is not still a spark of living faith hidden somewhere beneath all of dead ashes of a stereotyped religion which has been adopted by another? What I mean is, don’t judgments about eternal life belong to God and God alone?

    Brilliant!

  19. Really weird Bonita. Do you have my house bugged? Maybe Rexford is still alive and well. No deception there right?

    Talk about ingenious self-deception . . . weird, right?  How about answering my two questions?  Could you do that?

     

  20. Answer yours? Answer mine.

Reply on the current forum

↑ Back to top