I'm not sure one should dismiss God anymore

[Elok]

Which half is ignored? And I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Satisfaction Doctrine" - are you referring to the teaching that God could not be satisfied except by the blood sacrifice of a perfect specimen?

Yes, that's the doctrine, and I've always found it to be nonsensical, chiefly because it contradicts what Christ himself says. Especially the parables; the unforgiving servant owes 10,000 talents--a ludicrous sum--but had he been willing to absolve what he himself was owed, it would have all gone away. Likewise the prodigal son. The father doesn't worry about the massive inheritance wasted, or his dignity, or a sense of justice. He doesn't ask anyone to make good, he just says "forget it, I have my child back." We're told to forgive seventy times seven, and so on. The satisfaction doctrine simply goes against the spirit of Christianity.

However, the bit you excerpted claims that all Jesus ever talked about was mercy and love and kumbayah, and that's doing just as much violence to the text. He very clearly tells us to be, as it phrases it, "selfish" in the pursuit of our salvation. You know, all those bits about watching for the kingdom, wise virgins tending their own lamps, removing the log from your own eye before fretting about the speck in your neighbor's. Your Urantia Book adores the carrot and scorns the stick, so to speak.

The problem is simply that Jesus's teachings, to say nothing of Paul's, are not so clear-cut as some would like them to be. This doesn't trouble me so much. A complex problem like human nature isn't going to have a simple solution. However, a number of people look past this part to emphasize that, while others do the opposite. And that, too, is more or less to be expected with any received text of any real significance. Just look at how we squabble over the U.S. Constitution, and we haven't had that one-sixth as long, nor had to translate it. Also, the body set up to interpret the Constitution has remained intact in succession and generally universally acknowledged the whole time. And that body hasn't been subject to nearly as much meddling. And the document in question doesn't claim nearly the same degree of authority, and it's shorter, and we can be almost 100% certain that our copies are correct, and and and...

[Caligastia]

Yes, that's the doctrine, and I've always found it to be nonsensical, chiefly because it contradicts what Christ himself says. Especially the parables; the unforgiving servant owes 10,000 talents--a ludicrous sum--but had he been willing to absolve what he himself was owed, it would have all gone away. Likewise the prodigal son. The father doesn't worry about the massive inheritance wasted, or his dignity, or a sense of justice. He doesn't ask anyone to make good, he just says "forget it, I have my child back." We're told to forgive seventy times seven, and so on. The satisfaction doctrine simply goes against the spirit of Christianity.

However, the bit you excerpted claims that all Jesus ever talked about was mercy and love and kumbayah, and that's doing just as much violence to the text. He very clearly tells us to be, as it phrases it, "selfish" in the pursuit of our salvation. You know, all those bits about watching for the kingdom, wise virgins tending their own lamps, removing the log from your own eye before fretting about the speck in your neighbor's. Your Urantia Book adores the carrot and scorns the stick, so to speak.

Violence to the text of the Bible? Why should the text of the Bible be accepted over any other text? IMO, the UB paints a much more consistent and real picture of Jesus than the Bible does. The "stick" part of organized religion is just man's attempt to control the masses. Choosing God's will should be love motivated, not fear motivated. As a Father myself, I want my kids to respect me because they love me - not because they fear me. Why should God be held to a lower standard than that?

The problem is simply that Jesus's teachings, to say nothing of Paul's, are not so clear-cut as some would like them to be. This doesn't trouble me so much. A complex problem like human nature isn't going to have a simple solution. However, a number of people look past this part to emphasize that, while others do the opposite. And that, too, is more or less to be expected with any received text of any real significance. Just look at how we squabble over the U.S. Constitution, and we haven't had that one-sixth as long, nor had to translate it. Also, the body set up to interpret the Constitution has remained intact in succession and generally universally acknowledged the whole time. And that body hasn't been subject to nearly as much meddling. And the document in question doesn't claim nearly the same degree of authority, and it's shorter, and we can be almost 100% certain that our copies are correct, and and and...

That's another thing that makes the UB attractive to me. Although it provides a lot of details about many things, the spiritual concepts are simple and consistent throughout the book - minimizing the arguments over interpretation.

[Jon Miller]

I don't think you understand the biblical fear. It is similar to what you experience when you see a gigantic mountain, or look up into space when you are out alone in the middle of a field. It isn't just what you feel towards a police officer.

Any god will be something to be feared. The Christian God, which is greater than all others, is also the most to be feared.

Sorry, UB seems to me to be one of the "I think we can do better things" which comes from selfishness/pride-fullness and ends up causing hurt. Which isn't a love based action.

If you won't discipline your kids, you are showing less love to them then someone who will, btw. Discipline is part of love, not the antithesis to it. Love without discipline is shallow and weak, and is less.

This is well understood by psychologists/etc.

JM

[David Floyd]

Yes, but parents don't discipline their kids by throwing them in a fiery pit for eternity. That isn't love, either - the punishment has to be proportionate, relevant, and finite if there is any love involved.

[Jon Miller]

I strongly dislike that doctrine, and it isn't biblical.

I definitely don't believe it. My denomination doesn't believe it, nor does many others.

I will go so far to call it a hateful doctrine.

JM

[Jon Miller]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_Hell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna

I didn't realize how much better Eastern Orthodox/etc was than Catholicism. RC really has a lot to answer for.

JM

[Elok]

Violence to the text of the Bible? Why should the text of the Bible be accepted over any other text? IMO, the UB paints a much more consistent and real picture of Jesus than the Bible does. The "stick" part of organized religion is just man's attempt to control the masses. Choosing God's will should be love motivated, not fear motivated. As a Father myself, I want my kids to respect me because they love me - not because they fear me. Why should God be held to a lower standard than that?

Consistent and real? Wiki says this book was published within the past century, and its authorship and sources are unknown. While there may be problems with the Gospel texts, they have a stronger claim to accuracy than that. Of course, there's the whole can of worms with the Gnostic gospels and various deuterocanonical and apocryphal works, which I don't know enough about to argue over. Nor, I suspect, does anyone living. But really, the only criterion you're using is "I don't like that part, so I'll exclude it."

That's another thing that makes the UB attractive to me. Although it provides a lot of details about many things, the spiritual concepts are simple and consistent throughout the book - minimizing the arguments over interpretation.

The only problem being that simple answers to complex questions are rarely correct or helpful. If simplicity is what you're looking for, try Wicca. No moral guidance but "do no harm." Of course, that's so simple that it causes interpretation problems of its own ("friend's wife is cheating on him, is telling or not telling him 'doing harm?'"). Can't speak to the Urantia Book because I've never read it. Apparently it involves extraterrestrials somehow.

[Elok]

I didn't realize how much better Eastern Orthodox/etc was than Catholicism. RC really has a lot to answer for.

JM

Honestly, it's rarely mentioned in services, or sermons. When "hell" is mentioned in the liturgy, it's generally as a term for the sleeping death Christ descended into to free humanity from it. But the quote from the desert father in the Problem of Hell article does seem to depict our stance on it fairly well. Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia (better known as Timothy Ware, author of The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way) argues that there is nothing in the bible or the Fathers indicating that we cannot hope for eventual universal salvation. And we do make it a practice to pray for the dead. Who knows?

I'm curious, however, about your maintaining that Hell is unbiblical. There are a number of parables in which the wicked are consigned to some form of punishment, albeit the nature of the punishment varies and the exact duration, IIUC, is never specified. The clearest support for it seems to be in the parable of Lazarus the beggar (Luke, I believe). The rich man is in torment, but there is a gulf or gap between him and Lazarus, which cannot be crossed.

[Caligastia]

I don't think you understand the biblical fear. It is similar to what you experience when you see a gigantic mountain, or look up into space when you are out alone in the middle of a field. It isn't just what you feel towards a police officer.

Any god will be something to be feared. The Christian God, which is greater than all others, is also the most to be feared.

Sorry, UB seems to me to be one of the "I think we can do better things" which comes from selfishness/pride-fullness and ends up causing hurt. Which isn't a love based action.

If you won't discipline your kids, you are showing less love to them then someone who will, btw. Discipline is part of love, not the antithesis to it. Love without discipline is shallow and weak, and is less.

This is well understood by psychologists/etc.

JM

We seem to have different concepts of fear, and I never said that I don't discipline my kids. I just don't discipline them in anger, or in a way that makes them afraid of me. And you'll have to expand on what you mean by the UB being "I think we can do better things" because that makes no sense to me.

[Caligastia]

Consistent and real? Wiki says this book was published within the past century, and its authorship and sources are unknown. While there may be problems with the Gospel texts, they have a stronger claim to accuracy than that. Of course, there's the whole can of worms with the Gnostic gospels and various deuterocanonical and apocryphal works, which I don't know enough about to argue over. Nor, I suspect, does anyone living. But really, the only criterion you're using is "I don't like that part, so I'll exclude it."

In what way is the authorship of the Bible or any non-canonical works any more verifiable that the UB? None are verifiable, and in spiritual matters we can only rely on our own wisdom or "spiritual sense" or whatever you want to call it.

The only problem being that simple answers to complex questions are rarely correct or helpful. If simplicity is what you're looking for, try Wicca. No moral guidance but "do no harm." Of course, that's so simple that it causes interpretation problems of its own ("friend's wife is cheating on him, is telling or not telling him 'doing harm?'"). Can't speak to the Urantia Book because I've never read it. Apparently it involves extraterrestrials somehow.

Here's the best overview I've seen so far if you're interested:
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Urantia.html

[Elok]

In what way is the authorship of the Bible or any non-canonical works any more verifiable that the UB? None are verifiable, and in spiritual matters we can only rely on our own wisdom or "spiritual sense" or whatever you want to call it.

No, they're not verifiable, but if you want to know what Jesus actually said, you're more likely to get it with Matthew, Mark, Luke or John (which were composed within a couple of centuries) than something written MUCH later by people of an entirely different culture. We can't verify that King Arthur even existed at all, for example, but if he did Geoffrey's brief account is likely to be closer to the truth than Mallory's bloated romance. The fact that Mort d'Arthur is a far more popular and appealing rendition is of no consequence.

[Jon Miller]

Not even composed within a couple centuries, the gospels had to have been composed within 100 years as we have fragments and references to them within 100 years.

JM

[Caligastia]

No, they're not verifiable, but if you want to know what Jesus actually said, you're more likely to get it with Matthew, Mark, Luke or John (which were composed within a couple of centuries) than something written MUCH later by people of an entirely different culture. We can't verify that King Arthur even existed at all, for example, but if he did Geoffrey's brief account is likely to be closer to the truth than Mallory's bloated romance. The fact that Mort d'Arthur is a far more popular and appealing rendition is of no consequence.

I agree that the closer the author is to the subject the more accurate the account will be, but you're making the assumption that the UB was written by 20-century humans. There's no evidence to back that up. At this point we don't have any proof of authorship from anyone. The book itself claims celestial authorship, but there's no evidence to scientifically prove or disprove that. Probably the best way the assess it is to read it and consider whether humans are capable of writing such a thing. Personally, I can't see how humans with egos big enough to think that they could create such a massive fraud would be able to resist the temptation to gain fame and fortune through association with it.

[Heraclitus]

But you are racist by the definition of the term: "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

Race is not the primary determinant of human traits. Sex is stronger for starters.

Also racial differences do not in my opinion produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

[DaShi]

What you say about yourself and what you say do not coincide.