Evidence

[kristina411]

I'm not avoiding this thread because I believe the above issues have repeatedly taken place in this thread... I just literally dont have the time to devote to continuing this conversation. This conversation was more productive with certain posters, not so much with others. It was a pleasure being able to speak to all of you and I hope what I have said resonates somewhere so our next conversation can be more productive. I will be sure to keep in mind the issues Christians bring to the table as well. Take care.

 

[JGG]

I didn't learn from my ancestors. Just thought I would add that. And add to it, it's not my responsibility to convince you. If someone wants convincing or the knowledge I have, they have to do the work to get it, and I do believe Colter agrees on this part.

And what work have you done to get this knowledge?

If you're not trying to push your beliefs on others, then you're right, you have no need to produce evidence. That would be ridiculous. They would be your personal beliefs, for you only, and not the business of anyone else.

I think we solved the problem.

 

[Colter]

Let's take for instance, our host Kristina, and Colter: Their specific, individual belief systems, it seems are different in many aspects (knowing what I do of Colter, and making broad assumptions about Kristina). It's safe to assume that one of them (or their religious ancestors) has added falsehood to truth, or discarded portions of truth.

How would I know which of you (if not both) is preaching a distorted truth or outright lie if I do not demand evidence that yours is actually is truth? How would I know what part is distorted, false, or absent if I did not scrutinize your respective claims? I can't do it based on "trust me, I'm right." Then let's add in hundreds of thousands of other belief systems, and millions of additional claims and do it again.

We need structured rules for this "game", and "Because I'm special, and I said so!" doesn't cut it.

This addresses the phenomenon of why Kristina and I are unified in faith while having different beliefs, emphasis mine:

Philosophy of Religion​

"The unity of religious experience among a social or racial group derives from the identical nature of the God fragment indwelling the individual. It is this divine in man that gives origin to his unselfish interest in the welfare of other men. But since personality is unique — no two mortals being alike — it inevitably follows that no two human beings can similarly interpret the leadings and urges of the spirit of divinity which lives within their minds. A group of mortals can experience spiritual unity, but they can never attain philosophic uniformity. And this diversity of the interpretation of religious thought and experience is shown by the fact that twentieth-century theologians and philosophers have formulated upward of five hundred different definitions of religion. In reality, every human being defines religion in the terms of his own experiential interpretation of the divine impulses emanating from the God spirit that indwells him, and therefore must such an interpretation be unique and wholly different from the religious philosophy of all other human beings.

When one mortal is in full agreement with the religious philosophy of a fellow mortal, that phenomenon indicates that these two beings have had a similar religious experience touching the matters concerned in their similarity of philosophic religious interpretation.

While your religion is a matter of personal experience, it is most important that you should be exposed to the knowledge of a vast number of other religious experiences (the diverse interpretations of other and diverse mortals) to the end that you may prevent your religious life from becoming egocentric — circumscribed, selfish, and unsocial.

Rationalism is wrong when it assumes that religion is at first a primitive belief in something which is then followed by the pursuit of values. Religion is primarily a pursuit of values, and then there formulates a system of interpretative beliefs. It is much easier for men to agree on religious values — goals — than on beliefs — interpretations. And this explains how religion can agree on values and goals while exhibiting the confusing phenomenon of maintaining a belief in hundreds of conflicting beliefs — creeds. This also explains why a given person can maintain his religious experience in the face of giving up or changing many of his religious beliefs. Religion persists in spite of revolutionary changes in religious beliefs. Theology does not produce religion; it is religion that produces theologic philosophy.

That religionists have believed so much that was false does not invalidate religion because religion is founded on the recognition of values and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience. Religion, then, is based on experience and religious thought; theology, the philosophy of religion, is an honest attempt to interpret that experience. Such interpretative beliefs may be right or wrong, or a mixture of truth and error.

The realization of the recognition of spiritual values is an experience which is superideational. There is no word in any human language which can be employed to designate this “sense,” “feeling,” “intuition,” or “experience” which we have elected to call God-consciousness. The spirit of God that dwells in man is not personal — the Adjuster is prepersonal — but this Monitor presents a value, exudes a flavor of divinity, which is personal in the highest and infinite sense. If God were not at least personal, he could not be conscious, and if not conscious, then would he be infrahuman. " UB 1955

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Completely untrue! Religionists are challenged to seek the will of God and are subject to the values of their respective religion. Just because you failed at it doesn't hold true for others.

How do you define "failure" in this case? I failed at religion because I developed the habit of critically examining the claims of my own religion? I failed at it because I could no longer justify continued belief in something for which there was no good reason to believe? What exactly was my failure? Go on Teacher, tell me how to do religion the right way...

Religion grows in enlightenment, but true to form, the carping critics continue to hold contempt prior to investigation guaranteeing a life of perpetual ignorance.

In what way does religion grow in enlightenment?

 

[JGG]

This addresses the phenomenon of why Kristina and I are unified in faith while having different beliefs, emphasis mine:

Philosophy of Religion​

"The unity of religious experience among a social or racial group derives from the identical nature of the God fragment indwelling the individual. It is this divine in man that gives origin to his unselfish interest in the welfare of other men. But since personality is unique — no two mortals being alike — it inevitably follows that no two human beings can similarly interpret the leadings and urges of the spirit of divinity which lives within their minds. A group of mortals can experience spiritual unity, but they can never attain philosophic uniformity. And this diversity of the interpretation of religious thought and experience is shown by the fact that twentieth-century theologians and philosophers have formulated upward of five hundred different definitions of religion. In reality, every human being defines religion in the terms of his own experiential interpretation of the divine impulses emanating from the God spirit that indwells him, and therefore must such an interpretation be unique and wholly different from the religious philosophy of all other human beings.

When one mortal is in full agreement with the religious philosophy of a fellow mortal, that phenomenon indicates that these two beings have had a similar religious experience touching the matters concerned in their similarity of philosophic religious interpretation.

While your religion is a matter of personal experience, it is most important that you should be exposed to the knowledge of a vast number of other religious experiences (the diverse interpretations of other and diverse mortals) to the end that you may prevent your religious life from becoming egocentric — circumscribed, selfish, and unsocial.

Rationalism is wrong when it assumes that religion is at first a primitive belief in something which is then followed by the pursuit of values. Religion is primarily a pursuit of values, and then there formulates a system of interpretative beliefs. It is much easier for men to agree on religious values — goals — than on beliefs — interpretations. And this explains how religion can agree on values and goals while exhibiting the confusing phenomenon of maintaining a belief in hundreds of conflicting beliefs — creeds. This also explains why a given person can maintain his religious experience in the face of giving up or changing many of his religious beliefs. Religion persists in spite of revolutionary changes in religious beliefs. Theology does not produce religion; it is religion that produces theologic philosophy.

That religionists have believed so much that was false does not invalidate religion because religion is founded on the recognition of values and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience. Religion, then, is based on experience and religious thought; theology, the philosophy of religion, is an honest attempt to interpret that experience. Such interpretative beliefs may be right or wrong, or a mixture of truth and error.

The realization of the recognition of spiritual values is an experience which is superideational. There is no word in any human language which can be employed to designate this “sense,” “feeling,” “intuition,” or “experience” which we have elected to call God-consciousness. The spirit of God that dwells in man is not personal — the Adjuster is prepersonal — but this Monitor presents a value, exudes a flavor of divinity, which is personal in the highest and infinite sense. If God were not at least personal, he could not be conscious, and if not conscious, then would he be infrahuman. " UB 1955

So nobody's beliefs could be declared wrong? Everybody is simultaneously right, even when one person's beliefs contradict another persons?

 

[Colter]

How do you define "failure" in this case? I failed at religion because I developed the habit of critically examining the claims of my own religion? I failed at it because I could no longer justify continued belief in something for which there was no good reason to believe? What exactly was my failure? Go on Teacher, tell me how to do religion the right way...



In what way does religion grow in enlightenment?

* You thought your way out of religion rather then exchanging your worldly way for the ways of the indwelling spirit. The finite mind discounting the infinite mind because it can't or wont be subjected to it's leading.

* Religion grows by ongoing revelations both great and small.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This addresses the phenomenon of why Kristina and I are unified in faith while having different beliefs:

Philosophy of Religion​

"The unity of religious experience among a social or racial group derives from the identical nature of the God fragment indwelling the individual.

...

When one mortal is in full agreement with the religious philosophy of a fellow mortal, that phenomenon indicates that these two beings have had a similar religious experience touching the matters concerned in their similarity of philosophic religious interpretation.

Or it reflects the culturally familiar religion common to the upbringing of those individuals reporting a unity of religious experience. Why is that not considered a possibility? It's not surprising that individuals influenced predominately by a particular religion would report a unity of religious experience, however imperfect that unity may be.

It is this divine in man that gives origin to his unselfish interest in the welfare of other men.

Why must it come from a divine origin? Why can't man's unselfish interest in the welfare of other men be something human?

Rationalism is wrong when it assumes that religion is at first a primitive belief in something which is then followed by the pursuit of values. Religion is primarily a pursuit of values, and then there formulates a system of interpretative beliefs. It is much easier for men to agree on religious values — goals — than on beliefs — interpretations. And this explains how religion can agree on values and goals while exhibiting the confusing phenomenon of maintaining a belief in hundreds of conflicting beliefs — creeds. This also explains why a given person can maintain his religious experience in the face of giving up or changing many of his religious beliefs. Religion persists in spite of revolutionary changes in religious beliefs. Theology does not produce religion; it is religion that produces theologic philosophy.

As I noted in another thread, the problem with this is that valuing is not in itself a religious act, it's a human act. People develop values regardless of whether they attach theological significance to them or not.

That religionists have believed so much that was false does not invalidate religion because religion is founded on the recognition of values and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience. Religion, then, is based on experience and religious thought; theology, the philosophy of religion, is an honest attempt to interpret that experience.

If it's an honest attempt at interpretation, then why wouldn't it welcome a critical assessment of the resultant claims?

Such interpretative beliefs may be right or wrong, or a mixture of truth and error.

How does one determine whether the resultant interpretative beliefs are likely to be right or wrong, and how does one go about identifying the errors so that they may be corrected? Presumably this issue bears some importance given how often the interpretative beliefs of one religion (or denomination) come into direct conflict with the interpretative beliefs of another.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

* You thought your way out of religion rather then exchanging your worldly way for the ways of the indwelling spirit.

I was thinking too much? Seriously? You would have had me think less so that I remained religious?

The finite mind discounting the infinite mind because it can't or wont be subjected to it's leading.

Deepak, is that you?

* Religion grows by ongoing revelations both great and small.

And what happens when those purported revelations contradict previous or ongoing revelations? How is that conflict resolved?

 

[Colter]

So nobody's beliefs could be declared wrong? Everybody is simultaneously right, even when one person's beliefs contradict another persons?

Yes, if we are to get along on earth then no one has the right to assert "authority" over another's beliefs.

I liken it to the appreciation of art, everyone comes away with a different experience of the composition, no one interpretation is perfect. We agree the art is there......but then some Atheist with a rebellious, contrarian spirit, will start asking stupid questions like "how do we know that's art?"

 

[Colter]

From the UB, Jesus at Lake Urmia in Persia a year prior to the begining of his public work. As a caravan leader he stayed with a non sectarian religious community for a few weeks. This is from one of his own personal talks:

Sovereignty — Divine and Human​

(1486.4) 134:4.1 The brotherhood of men is founded on the fatherhood of God. The family of God is derived from the love of God — God is love. God the Father divinely loves his children, all of them.

(1486.5) 134:4.2 The kingdom of heaven, the divine government, is founded on the fact of divine sovereignty — God is spirit. Since God is spirit, this kingdom is spiritual. The kingdom of heaven is neither material nor merely intellectual; it is a spiritual relationship between God and man.

(1486.6) 134:4.3 If different religions recognize the spirit sovereignty of God the Father, then will all such religions remain at peace. Only when one religion assumes that it is in some way superior to all others, and that it possesses exclusive authority over other religions, will such a religion presume to be intolerant of other religions or dare to persecute other religious believers.

(1487.1) 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.

(1487.2) 134:4.5 You cannot have equality among religions (religious liberty) without having religious wars unless all religions consent to the transfer of all religious sovereignty to some superhuman level, to God himself.

(1487.3) 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.

(1487.4) 134:4.7 God is spirit, and God gives a fragment of his spirit self to dwell in the heart of man. Spiritually, all men are equal. The kingdom of heaven is free from castes, classes, social levels, and economic groups. You are all brethren.

(1487.5) 134:4.8 But the moment you lose sight of the spirit sovereignty of God the Father, some one religion will begin to assert its superiority over other religions; and then, instead of peace on earth and good will among men, there will start dissensions, recriminations, even religious wars, at least wars among religionists.

(1487.6) 134:4.9 Freewill beings who regard themselves as equals, unless they mutually acknowledge themselves as subject to some supersovereignty, some authority over and above themselves, sooner or later are tempted to try out their ability to gain power and authority over other persons and groups. The concept of equality never brings peace except in the mutual recognition of some overcontrolling influence of supersovereignty.

(1487.7) 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." UB 1955

 

[Colter]

I was thinking too much? Seriously? You would have had me think less so that I remained religious?



Deepak, is that you?



And what happens when those purported revelations contradict previous or ongoing revelations? How is that conflict resolved?

* Or overthinking, using a screwdriver when you needed a hex.

* No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

* The Shaman of new revelation gets nailed to a tree.

Promoters of the UB are bitterly hated by the Pharisees of Christianity. We will be hated and persecuted. I have managed to earn a lifetime ban form Bible Truth Discussion Forum.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

* Or overthinking, using a screwdriver when you needed a hex.

Usually people say, "If you think about it, it makes sense." You seem to be saying, "If you stop thinking about it, it makes sense."

* The Shaman of new revelation gets nailed to a tree.

So conflict between previous and ongoing revelations is resolved through violence?

Promoters of the UB are bitterly hated by the Pharisees of Christianity. We will be hated and persecuted. I have managed to earn a lifetime ban form Bible Truth Discussion Forum.

In what way does being persecuted signify that one's religious claims must therefore be true?

 

[Colter]

Usually people say, "If you think about it, it makes sense." You seem to be saying, "If you stop thinking about it, it makes sense."



So conflict between previous and ongoing revelations is resolved through violence?



In what way does being persecuted signify that one's religious claims must therefore be true?

* If you thought a little more about the spirit of what I'm saying and less about trying to find fault, then you will get it. But it is a bit of a paradox.

* No, violence isn't the answer, but it's often what happens to prophets and seers. Religion is stubborn, it generally must have reform forced upon it. In a future age adherents of the UB who become to dogmatic about the revelation will be confounded with new more expanded concepts which will appear to them to conflict with their dogma.

* Being persecuted doesn't make anything true. Atheist antagonize believers because that is the kind of discontented people they are, but that doesn't mean they are right.

"Conceptual frames of the universe are only relatively true; they are serviceable scaffolding which must eventually give way before the expansions of enlarging cosmic comprehension."

"Religion must continually labor under a paradoxical necessity: the necessity of making effective use of thought while at the same time discounting the spiritual serviceableness of all thinking."​

 

[Archaeopteryx]

* If you thought a little more about the spirit of what I'm saying and less about trying to find fault, then you will get it. But it I a bit of a paradox.

I have thought about the spirit of what you are saying. It's not as profound as you think.

* No violence isn't the answer, but it's often what happens to prophets and seers. Religion is stubborn, it generally must have reform forced upon it. In a future age adherents the UB who become to dogmatic about the revelation will be confounded with new more expanded concepts which will appear to them to conflict with their dogma.

Then perhaps there is a better method? One that doesn't rely on superstition and dogma which is often protected from scrutiny with violence?

* Being persecuted doesn't make anything true. Atheist antagonize believers because that the kind of people they are, but that doesn't mean they are right.

You see, it's comments like this that get people offside with you. Here you are claiming that atheists antagonise because, well, that's just the kind of people they are. Criticism of your poorly founded claims and your overly hostile way of presenting them (what you call 'antagonism') is not the same as persecuting you for making those claims.

 

[quatona]

To some being persecuted is a sweet dream.

 

[Colter]

I have thought about the spirit of what you are saying. It's not as profound as you think.



Then perhaps there is a better method? One that doesn't rely on superstition and dogma which is often protected from scrutiny with violence?



You see, it's comments like this that get people offside with you. Here you are claiming that atheists antagonise because, well, that's just the kind of people they are. Criticism of your poorly founded claims and your overly hostile way of presenting them (what you call 'antagonism') is not the same as persecuting you for making those claims.

* Its not a matter of it's profundity, it's a matter of one being able to see it and another thinking its all gibberish. Jesus taught in parables for that reason, a truth seeker would get it, a trouble maker would go away confused.

* The history of what happened is not a method of choice, prophets speak to established authority, the authority doesn't like it. If a big enough threat they mistreat and kill. Jesus didn't teach closed minded dogma, he taught living truth.

* You doubt my God, I doubt your sincerity. I think you are argumentative for the sake of it.

 

[bhsmte]

* Its not a matter of it's profundity, it's a matter of one being able to see it and another thinking its all gibberish. Jesus taught in parables for that reason, a truth seeker would get it, a trouble maker would go away confused.

* The history of what happened is not a method of choice, prophets speak to established authority, the authority doesn't like it. Jesus didn't teach closed minded dogma, he taught living truth.

* You doubt my God, I doubt your sincerity. I think you are argumentative for the sake of it.

Of course you doubt his sincerity, do you really have a choice to convince yourself otherwise?

If someone does not believe in your God, it must be because they are not sincere.

 

[Colter]

"There was a good man who was a householder, and he planted a vineyard. He set a hedge about it, dug a pit for the wine press, and built a watchtower for the guards. Then he let this vineyard out to tenants while he went on a long journey into another country. And when the season of the fruits drew near, he sent servants to the tenants to receive his rental. But they took counsel among themselves and refused to give these servants the fruits due their master; instead, they fell upon his servants, beating one, stoning another, and sending the others away empty-handed. And when the householder heard about all this, he sent other and more trusted servants to deal with these wicked tenants, and these they wounded and also treated shamefully. And then the householder sent his favorite servant, his steward, and him they killed. And still, in patience and with forbearance, he dispatched many other servants, but none would they receive. Some they beat, others they killed, and when the householder had been so dealt with, he decided to send his son to deal with these ungrateful tenants, saying to himself, `They may mistreat my servants, but they will surely show respect for my beloved son.' But when these unrepentant and wicked tenants saw the son, they reasoned among themselves: `This is the heir; come, let us kill him and then the inheritance will be ours.' So they laid hold on him, and after casting him out of the vineyard, they killed him. When the lord of that vineyard shall hear how they have rejected and killed his son, what will he do to those ungrateful and wicked tenants?" Jesus​

 

[Colter]

Of course you doubt his sincerity, do you really have a choice to convince yourself otherwise?

If someone does not believe in your God, it must be because they are not sincere.

People can ask questions without really wanting an answer other than the one they think they already know.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

* Its not a matter of it's profundity, it's a matter of one being able to see it and another thinking its all gibberish. Jesus taught in parables for that reason, a truth seeker would get it, a trouble maker would go away confused.

* The history of what happened is not a method of choice, prophets speak to established authority, the authority doesn't like it. If a big enough threat they mistreat and kill. Jesus didn't teach closed minded dogma, he taught living truth.

* You doubt my God, I doubt your sincerity. I think you are argumentative for the sake of it.

Here's another reason why people are often put offside with you: you baselessly cast aspersions on their character, calling them insincere. You seem to have great difficulty accepting the fact that someone could sincerely not believe what you believe. When they express their sincere doubt at your claims, you accuse them of being "argumentative" and "antagonistic." My impression is that you question their sincerity because you have no way of answering their questions. Your UB quotations don't substitute for a carefully thought-out answer.