"The Book belongs to the era immediately to follow…."

242 posts · 12 participants · started Jan 20, 2015, 5:30 PM

1. M

   MaraParticipant
   Feb 7, 2015, 7:40 PM

   nelsong wrote: . . . we as a human race, bound together by brotherhood really need to be together about that two stepping.

   Paper 81 is a good one for anyone interested in the development of modern civilization.  81. Development of Modern Civilization

   In there they talk about “the civilization” now evolving on Urantia and how it grew out of and is predicated upon these factors 81:6:2 – factors that release man power  for the accomplishment of higher tasks. 81:2:1

   They speak of  economic upheavals, moral crosscurrents, and the sociologic rip tides . . and the thousands of people who have become dislocated.  These are psychologically unsettled times, especially in war-torn areas, but even elsewhere.

   99:4:6 During the psychologically unsettled times of the twentieth century, amid the economic upheavals, the moral crosscurrents, and the sociologic rip tides of the cyclonic transitions of a scientific era, thousands upon thousands of men and women have become humanly dislocated; they are anxious, restless, fearful, uncertain, and unsettled; as never before in the world’s history they need the consolation and stabilization of sound religion. In the face of unprecedented scientific achievement and mechanical development there is spiritual stagnation and philosophic chaos.

   Are we moving forward too fast in our achievements and developments? (Rhetorical question.  How do you hold back achievements and developments?) 
2. N

   nelsongParticipant
   Feb 7, 2015, 8:33 PM

   

    

3. E

   emanny3003Blocked
   Feb 9, 2015, 11:58 AM

   Mara wrote:

   Are we moving forward too fast in our achievements and developments? (Rhetorical question.  How do you hold back achievements and developments?)

   The powers that be are certainly trying to hold back achievement and development. Every child deserves a trophy. Every country deserves our lifestyle or else our life style should be curtailed and down graded so that others do not feel bad.

   The global climate change MUST be manmade in order to justify the redistribution of achievement and development. We must humble ourselves before man.

   If we humble ourselves before man we cannot humble ourselves before God. Progress then comes to a screeching halt.

4. B

   BradlyParticipant
   Feb 9, 2015, 11:17 PM
   nelsong wrote:

   I believe the urge to help will always translate (devolve) into a communist Marxist ideology unless enlightened. Without enlightenment history shows that successful people become the slave class, enslaved to those who want (or the few that really need) help. the best way to help an able bodied person is make available opportunity to self help.

    

   Nelson – this reminds me of “false sympathy” – to feel sorry for those suffering the consequences of their own choices and then being saddened and perhaps desperate thereby.  I agree our sense of “fairness” seems distorted and not enlightened.  I read an economic theory decades ago which declared that if all the wealth in the world were suddenly divided proportionately to all the world’s population, it would take less than a decade to, more or less, return to its former position disproportionately once again.  An interesting theory with some merit I think.  Fairness lies in opportunity, not in its appreciation and utilization, which is personalized by priority, effort, intellect, and integration with the spirit nature.  Being spiritual does not make one rich and being poor does not make one less spiritual but when we apply the spiritized mind to the vicissitudes of material life, the material life has far less hold upon us and much less alluring distraction both.  Good post.  Thanks.

   "Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."

5. E

   emanny3003Blocked
   Feb 10, 2015, 12:42 AM

   Agreed.

6. N

   nelsongParticipant
   Feb 10, 2015, 1:33 AM

   The powers that be are certainly trying to hold back achievement and development. Every child deserves a trophy. Every country deserves our lifestyle or else our life style should be curtailed and down graded so that others do not feel bad.

   The global climate change MUST be manmade in order to justify the redistribution of achievement and development. We must humble ourselves before man.

    

   I call it political correctness. But then again, what does politics really have to do with how we treat each other? The real effort is to have our thoughts, ambitions, desires and achievements dictated to us from the time we are kids – as in “CORE VALUES”.and have faith in the politician that knows how to alter the climate.

   I suppose that some people need this sort of thing but I don’t understand it, I can only oppose it.

7. E

   emanny3003Blocked
   Feb 10, 2015, 11:36 AM

   nelsong wrote:

   I call it political correctness. But then again, what does politics really have to do with how we treat each other? The real effort is to have our thoughts, ambitions, desires and achievements dictated to us from the time we are kids – as in “CORE VALUES”.and have faith in the politician that knows how to alter the climate.

   I suppose that some people need this sort of thing but I don’t understand it, I can only oppose it.

   Yes nelsong, we must oppose it. It is much more that political correctness, it is political theft. It is an attempt at mass collective steeling of wealth, intellectual property and achievement.

   There is no virtue in forced altruism.

8. M

   martineParticipant
   Apr 26, 2015, 6:06 AM

   Sorry for the late post.

   Nearly all, if not all ideological conflicts arise from that premier bifurcation in human disposition, namely between right and left, between conservatism and progressivism (or liberalism), between fascism and democracy, etc., etc..  The only difficulty with this interpretation though, is that the right/left dualism seems to have been always with us. You can find it described in ancient Greek literature in the story of Epimetheus and Prometheus, and who knows, perhaps earlier as well. It just seems to manifest differently according to the times. They are probably naturally selected traits and will likely always remain a variable of individual difference within the human population.  Therefore, the UB must be referring to an oncoming crisis so mutually threatening or destructive so as to shock everyone into a general realization that there actually is such a thing as ‘common good’ and ‘public interest’, which at present are alien and threatening phrases to power elites here and around the world.

9. B

   BradlyParticipant
   Apr 26, 2015, 1:32 PM
   Mara wrote:

   “The Book belongs to the era immediately to follow the conclusion of the present ideological struggle.”

   An article called “History of The Publication Mandate: The Timing of The Urantia Book: Introduction to the Publication Mandate” by Carolyn Bowman Kendall was published in the UAI Journal Vol 21, No 4 December 2014.

   https://urassoc.arko.nyc/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Journal_Vol-21_No-4_en.pdf

   So my question is: What is the present ideological struggle all about? Do you think they are talking about an ideological struggle in terms of religion, or something else? By my way of thinking we’re not ever going to have uniformity of viewpoint. We can aim for unity of ideals, goals and purposes 99:5:7, relative to the era just ahead of us when the present ideological struggle comes to an end.

   https://urassoc.arko.nyc/the-publication-mandate/

    

   Me here:  Greetings Martine!!  I reposted the original here since this topic has gotten so long for my response to yours.  So glad you have added your voice.  Your perspective is shared by many…a pending cataclysmic event or series of events which will redirect humanity suddenly toward a more singular focus of purpose and cooperation.  As a child of the 60s, I was certain it would be mutual nuclear destruction between the USSR and the USA which would bring the world to its knees.

   Now we face climate change which could displace billions from their homes and change the supply of food and water in catastrophic ways.  This will be a long, slow process providing opportunity for response and a more global approach to solution.

   One of the things I find interesting though that offers an alternative view to cataclysm is the globalization of commerce and communication and its functional ability, perhaps, to also build such a bridge of cooperation and mutual support.

   Interesting.

   "Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."

10. B

    BonitaParticipant
    Apr 26, 2015, 2:20 PM

    I’m sorry, but the idea that the world needs disasters in order to move forward is antediluvian thinking which has its roots in the ancient past. It has no place in reality.  You would think that after hundreds of thousands of years people would stop believing that change only comes from cataclysmic crises.  I don’t understand it.  After all this time of believing that destruction must precede construction, one must wonder if the human psyche can ever shake off the damage done by dualistic beliefs born many millennia ago in Persia.  Will this ludicrous mythology ever stop afflicting the human mind? Jesus worked so hard to teach us that we don’t have to destroy old things in order to grow new.  Evolution, not revolution . . . the new eventually crowds out the old  . . . the tares parable . . .  living truth drives out error  . . . reality wins every time it’s tried.

    p1592  Lead men into the kingdom, and the great and living truths of the kingdom will presently drive out all serious error.

    p1043  But it has often been the error of the teachers of new truth to attempt too much, to attempt to supplant slow evolution by sudden revolution.

11. M

    MaraParticipant
    Apr 26, 2015, 4:33 PM

    martine wrote:  Sorry for the late post.

    Welcome to the forum martine!  Never too late.  So glad you joined us.

    The revelators tell us mortals can never attain philosophic uniformity (103:1:1).  Aren’t ideologies all about philosophic viewpoints, philosophic worldviews, in various arena of human relations? 

    When they tell us teamwork is one of the most important lessons to be learned here (28:5:14), I think they are talking about working groups of people with diverse viewpoints and perspectives focused on finding the best way forward.

    Whether or not catastrophic events occur on our world,  remember that science, morality and religion will prevail among those who are putting things back together.

    16:9:5   Civilizations are unstable because they are not cosmic; they are not innate in the individuals of the races. They must be nurtured by the combined contributions of the constitutive factors of man — science, morality, and religion. Civilizations come and go, but science, morality, and religion always survive the crash.

    I was surprised to read these remarks about secularism, especially the last sentence!  Who would have thought it?

    195:8:3   At the time of this revelation, the prevailing intellectual and philosophical climate of both European and American life is decidedly secular — humanistic. For three hundred years Western thinking has been progressively secularized. Religion has become more and more a nominal influence, largely a ritualistic exercise. The majority of professed Christians of Western civilization are unwittingly actual secularists.

    If professed Christians of Western civilization are unwittingly actual secularists, what can be said about other religions?  Are they secularistic too?  Will they undergo a reformation from within?  Is this the struggle? We know true religion is a personal experience and relationship.  But in the West there was a revolt against ecclesiastical authoritarianism.  Consider this:

    195:8:6   Secularism can never bring peace to mankind. Nothing can take the place of God in human society. But mark you well! do not be quick to surrender the beneficent gains of the secular revolt from ecclesiastical totalitarianism. Western civilization today enjoys many liberties and satisfactions as a result of the secular revolt. The great mistake of secularism was this: In revolting against the almost total control of life by religious authority, and after attaining the liberation from such ecclesiastical tyranny, the secularists went on to institute a revolt against God himself, sometimes tacitly and sometimes openly.
12. N

    nelsongParticipant
    Apr 26, 2015, 4:46 PM

    In regard to climate change I was watching Frozen Planet and they were hawking the man caused version of same.

    it was interesting because they were at North Pole proving their poini showing deminishing frozen ocean ice.

    it was also interesting they were showing the enemy which were man made islands made for extracting oil from under the ice.

    it occurred to me the hypocracy aspect of the show because the oil is a fossil fuel and dinosaurs or other creatures lived right there in the distant past in order for that oil to form there. It was not iced over then and likely more than once since then, all before humans began using fossil fuels.

13. M

    martineParticipant
    Apr 26, 2015, 6:02 PM

    Well it would have been helpful had the authors elaborated more on the specifics of the term ‘ideological struggle’. If we knew more about just what it is, we might be able to better address it. It could be as Lynne Kulieke said; it’s just nationalism in its various guises. That  seems offers the highest probability of a nuclear event.  And, stupid as it is, history is full of examples of things having to resolve into a catastrophe. Our Civil War was a good example of that.

14. B

    BonitaParticipant
    Apr 26, 2015, 6:13 PM

    195:8.6 The great mistake of secularism was this: In revolting against the almost total control of life by religious authority, and after attaining the liberation from such ecclesiastical tyranny, the secularists went on to institute a revolt against God himself, sometimes tacitly and sometimes openly.

    From what I gather, they’re talking about secular humanism with this quote.  Secular humanism is another thing I don’t understand.  It is the impetus for the belief in global warming.  Another thing I don’t understand is why secular humanists feel the need to shame other humans.  Well . . . .  maybe I do understand it in a way . . .  I guess if humans take the place of God and other humans don’t live up to whatever characteristics that are currently considered to be godlike, then they need to be shamed in order to save the planet?  No wait . . . I still don’t get it.  Why does the planet need to be saved again and what role do puny little humans have in such an enormous adventure?  I’m lost.  Whatever happened to saving souls, particularly your own?  What a tangled psychic mess this generation is in.  No wonder they all want weed made legal.  Without God, how else can they wade through all this crap?

15. M

    MaraParticipant
    Apr 26, 2015, 6:33 PM

    martine wrote:  If we knew more about just what it is, we might be able to better address it.

    Yes, I hoped the bright thinkers on this blog would help ferret out just what it is.  I’m still thinking about it.  And thinking about it in terms of the UB, given that the UB  arrived in era of ideological struggle and for the era immediately to follow the current struggle.

    I think we should stay out of the weeds – all the hot button current event issues.  I’m sure everyone has strong opinions about current issues.  I’m asking about the book and when “it will be more readily possible to formulate the cosmos of a new and improved era of human relationships.”
16. B

    BonitaParticipant
    Apr 26, 2015, 7:05 PM

    martine wrote: And, stupid as it is, history is full of examples of things having to resolve into a catastrophe. Our Civil War was a good example of that.

    The only thing resolved by the American Civil war was the issue over states vs. federal rights, and that was only partially solved by maintaining the union.  We’re still fighting over state vs. federal rights.  Slavery was not the reason for the war; it became an issue after the Battle of Bull Run.  And the war did absolutely nothing to end bigotry; in fact, bigotry got worse after the war and is still a huge issue today, turn the TV on anytime to see it in action.  In a sense, we’re still fighting that war today.  Also, it was neither the Civil War nor the Emancipation Proclamation which freed the slaves; it was the 13th amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified 8 months after the end of the war.
17. M

    martineParticipant
    Apr 26, 2015, 7:48 PM

    I would have to disagree about the ‘states rights’ issue as the cause of the Civil War. That is what the southern states repeated after the war and thus seized the narrative of the war, after they lost. However, if you go back and read the pre-war source documentation – the declaration of war by the South and the various tirades in Congress by southern Representatives, it’s completely unambiguous that the issue was slavery, and especially over the non-return of runaway slaves escaping to the North. They specifically said it was. This documentation is summarized in The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader, by James W. Lowewen and Edward Sebesta.

18. A

    AnonymousInactive
    Apr 26, 2015, 8:08 PM

    Much of the grievances presented, which seemed to be the underlying cause of the American Civil War, can be better understood by examining the differences between the “Constitution of the United States”, versus “Constitution of the Confederate States of America“.

19. B

    BonitaParticipant
    Apr 26, 2015, 8:12 PM

    Yes, but again, the fugitive slave laws were a states’ rights issue.  When you boil it all down, slavery was  not the main reason the war was fought.  It was obviously a focal issue and an important one. My point is that all the devastation of that war did little to resolve the big issues, issues we are still dealing with today.  And likewise, there is no catastrophe that will resolve this planet’s problems, nor its ideological struggles.

20. A

    AnonymousInactive
    Apr 26, 2015, 8:26 PM

    The “ideological struggles” as presented can be associated with the following UB quotes:

    (1074.4) 97:9.22 The next king, Amaziah, had trouble with the revolting tax-paying Edomites and their neighbors. After a signal victory he turned to attack his northern neighbors and was just as signally defeated. Then the rural folk revolted; they assassinated the king and put his sixteen-year-old son on the throne. This was Azariah, called Uzziah by Isaiah. After Uzziah, things went from bad to worse, and Judah existed for a hundred years by paying tribute to the kings of Assyria. Isaiah the first told them that Jerusalem, being the city of Yahweh, would never fall. But Jeremiah did not hesitate to proclaim its downfall.

    (1074.5) 97:9.23 The real undoing of Judah was effected by a corrupt and rich ring of politicians operating under the rule of a boy king, Manasseh. The changing economy favored the return of the worship of Baal, whose private land dealings were against the ideology of Yahweh. The fall of Assyria and the ascendancy of Egypt brought deliverance to Judah for a time, and the country folk took over. Under Josiah they destroyed the Jerusalem ring of corrupt politicians. *

    Then the aftermath:

    (1075.1) 97:9.25 With the overthrow of Necho by Nebuchadnezzar, Judah fell under the rule of Babylon and was given ten years of grace, but soon rebelled. When Nebuchadnezzar came against them, the Judahites started social reforms, such as releasing slaves, to influence Yahweh. When the Babylonian army temporarily withdrew, the Hebrews rejoiced that their magic of reform had delivered them. It was during this period that Jeremiah told them of the impending doom, and presently Nebuchadnezzar returned.

    (1075.2) 97:9.26 And so the end of Judah came suddenly. The city was destroyed, and the people were carried away into Babylon. The Yahweh-Baal struggle ended with the captivity. And the captivity shocked the remnant of Israel into monotheism.

    (1075.3) 97:9.27 In Babylon the Jews arrived at the conclusion that they could not exist as a small group in Palestine, having their own peculiar social and economic customs, and that, if their ideologies were to prevail, they must convert the gentiles. Thus originated their new concept of destiny — the idea that the Jews must become the chosen servants of Yahweh. The Jewish religion of the Old Testament really evolved in Babylon during the captivity.

    (1075.4) 97:9.28 The doctrine of immortality also took form at Babylon. The Jews had thought that the idea of the future life detracted from the emphasis of their gospel of social justice. Now for the first time theology displaced sociology and economics. Religion was taking shape as a system of human thought and conduct more and more to be separated from politics, sociology, and economics.

    (1075.5) 97:9.29 And so does the truth about the Jewish people disclose that much which has been regarded as sacred history turns out to be little more than the chronicle of ordinary profane history. Judaism was the soil out of which Christianity grew, but the Jews were not a miraculous people.

     

Reply on the current forum