What's with all the Urantia stuff?

[harvey1]

Why do we need so many threads on this site to cover the Urantia book? It gives intellectual newcomers the impression that this site is weird. It sends the wrong message for those who might otherwise have some pretty interesting things to say. This is the first time I've heard of this book until I arrived at this site. Why not combine all the Urantia threads into one thread?

[harvey1]

Let's be realistic Harvey, all beliefs have the potential to become dominant irrespective of their merit. It wouldn't be the first time that "small segments of society" presented beliefs based on divine revelation Either we must reject all unsupported testimony (and throw out most of the Christian Bible) or take it on the chin that religions will for ever come and go with the tides of human fancy.

I disagree, but this is not the place to debate this issue.

[Sandycane]

edit

[Dilettante]

I tend to doubt revelations in general, and the UB is no exception. I first came across the Urantia Book several years ago, during one of my trips to the US. I found it on a shelf in the religious section of a large bookstore in Portland Oregon. I skimmed through it and I thought it was a work of fiction. Then I came across Martin Gardner's "On the Wild Side". I bought it and, to my surprise, he mentioned the UB in two articles inside. I was really surprised to read that it had followers and that they claimed it was a revelation. To me, it reads so clearly like a work of fiction!
The problem with the UB is that it doesn't seem to have really given rise to a full-fledged religion. It's hard to tell what exactly is it that Ub followers have in common.
Incidentally, Sandycane, are you an Esperantist? I clicked on the wikipedia link you provided and started reading the text in a language totally unkown to me, yet perfectly understandable (probably because my native language is Spanish).

[Sandycane]

edit

[Sandycane]

edit

[Rob]

Hello McCulloch!

It Is Definitely Not a Branch of Christianity! The red-headed heathen step-child would be more welcome than the UB'ers in any Christian congregation. And I'm sure the UB'ers would agree.

Everyone,

It has been brought to my attention that someone was offended by this remark. It was an attempt at humor (I thought the made that clear). I guess some didn't think it funny and I apologize.

Apology accepted Sandy. The question though Sandy is what kind of humor is this? Personally, I find nothing Christ like about calling someone, even in so-called humor, "red-headed-heathen-step-children," especially in light of Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan and his teachings to love our enemies.

I wonder if Jesus would use such forms of humor? I suppose, since you reject the conclusion form some the biblical scholars that Jesus would never have refered to the Samaritans as "dogs," you feel well might have used such "vulgar" humor, or why else would one who calls themself a follower of Christ resort to such a form of attempted humor?

I notice you have edited out your little equation "UB = different Jesus" implying the Jesus that readers of the UB worship cannot be the same Jesus you worship. I guess we will know who the followers of Jesus are by their fruits, and I note that the Urantia Book has the following to say about humor:

"You ... have allowed much that is at once vulgar and unkind to become confused with your humor."

I fail to see how such vulgar humor edifies anyone, let alone the one who engages in it.

This leads me to believe that I personally must let go of my sarcastic bent, and learn to raise my standards when it comes to humor, so that even in my humor I represent my Lord.

Romans 14

4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

(...)

16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:

17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.

19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

(....)

22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

[Sandycane]

edit

[otseng]

OK, Sandycane has apologized. Let's drop it.

Also, may I suggest we have a clean slate? I think we all know now the principles of this forum. Respect for all and civility in our posts. There have been just too many personal comments lately on the forum and it is causing more harm than good. We are here to have civil debates, not to blast one another.

So, I would ask all to not make any comments on a fellow poster. If you do need to do so, send him/her a PM, but do not make it public. Thanks in advance.

[Cathar1950]

Rob wrote:

I wonder if Jesus would use such forms of humor? I suppose, since you reject the conclusion form some the biblical scholars that Jesus would never have refered to the Samaritans as "dogs," you feel well might have used such "vulgar" humor, or why else would one who calls themself a follower of Christ resort to such a form of attempted humor?

I think the "Parable of the good Samaritan" is a perfect example of WWJD considering he didn't have to call them "red headed step children" it was implied. Every one thought the Samaritain as worse then a heathen.