Urantia Book Questions

[Super Universe]

Not a religion, huh? The last paper states "To 'follow Jesus' means to personally share his religious faith and to enter into the spirit of the Master's life of unselfish service for man." This is Christianity with a pseudo-scientific, almost Scientological veneer. The book itself claims to be an expansion of Christianity. You stated correctly; this is not for me. Knowledge may be found in a book, but not one that relies on outdated scientific models and theological misconception. Wisdom is certainly not found in a book, but in experience.

Not to mention I prefer Erde-Tyrene as the name of our world, if we're going to be taking from science fiction.


Yes, I gathered. So simplified that it resembles nearly all Abrahamic religions.


No, that was when you were saying it wasn't a religion. To which Quintesence stated that not all religions are organized in such a manner. However there is most certainly tradition, as it relies on Judeo-Christian mythology and Medieval Christian concepts. (i.e. the whole "Lucifer" thing.)


No, having faith means believing things without solid evidence. Having an open mind means one is being open-minded.


You're prejudging. You don't know what influences my beliefs, or what relation desire has to that.


Yes you were, when you called me a "male Paris Hilton," I believe it was.


No it doesn't. How do you think we teach meteorology and biology to grade schoolers?

The UB is not a religion but I guess that depends on your definition. I said it gave detailed information on Jesus.

You use a different name for the earth? So every being in the universe has to accept your name for the earth? It's not about you. This is exactly what I warned against. Humans can't handle a universe that does not put their wishes first.

When I said there are no traditions I meant there are no rituals. Is there history? Yes. Humans have a history. The universe has a history. Angels and humans have a history.

Having faith means believing things without solid evidence? Fine, use your definition.

There will never be any solid evidence of God provided to you. There will be theory that supports the idea of God, and, if you could, which you won't, but if you could ascend to heaven you will actually see God, He looks like a star. But a star is not proof that what you are seeing is actually God though. Beings in heaven get extra sensory feelings so they know that God exists. But you want what you want as you want it and when you want it and if it's not perfectly your way then it's unacceptable. You're not going to be at the next level very long before they cut bait.

I'm prejudging, I don't know what influences your beliefs? I prejudge that you breathe. I prejudge that you intake food. I prejudge that you laugh, not very often though. I prejudge that you bleed. Yep, I'm prejudging you. You're human so your emotions affect you. Unless you're trying to say that you have absolute control over your emotions. Wait, you're Spock?

I was insulting you by calling you a male Paris Hilton? I didn't say that you were the male Paris Hilton. I said that I don't want to sit next to a male Paris Hilton in class. But, just statistically speaking, someone has to be a male Paris Hilton, why not you?

How do I think you teach meteorology and biology to grade schoolers? I assume you simplify the subjects to a great degree.

Why are you wasting time here?

Every tree need not grow.

 

[Super Universe]

Er...right...OK! This is precisely what 1920s cosmology said - that was the point of my first post. The writers of the UB (presumably having observed what happened to the Bible's 'cosmology') were obviously smart enough to include a 'disclaimer' suggesting that it just wasn't time for the true cosmology to be revealed (that's the section I quoted earlier from Paper 101) and that (in another part) 'human knowledge would have to evolve'. That part, at least, is true, but you seem to be taking the Book as the final 'verbatim' word on scientific matters we now know to have been incorrectly understood in the Book - the writers themselves didn't even make that claim.

The angels don't know when things are going to be revealed. I think only God knows because only He has the connection to our mind. God doesn't explain Himself, not even to the angels.

The book is not verbatim on scientific matters. It just gets you thinking.

How can the sun rotate perpendicular to the ecliptic plane? Something flipped the sun. What the heck could have done that? Maybe somehow it turns itself over time and will eventually rotate around and come back to rotating the same direction as the ecliptic plane? I don't know.

As for the big bang, I don't like that the scientists assumed that all the galaxies came from one place when they know that violates the laws of gravity.

And, if they find out that the galaxies did not come from the same place that throws out the age of the universe estimate.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

The UB is not a religion

Right, it just seeks to "personally share" Jesus' religious faith. Which would be Judaism, by the way.

You use a different name for the earth? So every being in the universe has to accept your name for the earth?

Did I say that? No. I said I prefer that to Urantia. My personal preference (which that's not actually it, by the way) does not speak for a demand of all the universe. Yet does not Urantia insist that the name of our planet is Urantia? That every being in the universe calls it this, and we must accept that too? It's not all about you.

When I said there are no traditions I meant there are no rituals.

Then say rituals. I gather that Urantia is prone to trying to re-define words, but "tradition" and "ritual" mean different things to everyone else. If you wish to be understood, you must speak plainly.

And not all religions have rituals.

Having faith means believing things without solid evidence? Fine, use your definition.

Not mine; the definition for "faith."

There will be theory that supports the idea of God, and, if you could, which you won't, but if you could ascend to heaven you will actually see God, He looks like a star.

What was that you said about pre-judging?

That may be what your god looks like, but none of mine.

But you want what you want as you want it and when you want it and if it's not perfectly your way then it's unacceptable. You're not going to be at the next level very long before they cut bait.

You're pre-judging again.

I'm prejudging, I don't know what influences your beliefs? I prejudge that you breathe. I prejudge that you intake food. I prejudge that you laugh, not very often though. I prejudge that you bleed. Yep, I'm prejudging you. You're human so your emotions affect you.

Those are not prejudices. Those are biological facts. My emotions may affect me, but you have no evidence that they influence my beliefs; only prejudices and assumptions.

How do I think you teach meteorology and biology to grade schoolers? I assume you simplify the subjects to a great degree.

And they are able to grasp it to where they know why it rains, or that our bodies don't operate off delicate "humors". They know the various systems of the body, what makes clouds, etc. (Well, they did. There's no telling now for the future of American education.) All of this without knowing the finer details of meteorology or biology that baffle college graduates.

Why are you wasting time here? Every tree need not grow.

You created this thread to answer questions - or criticisms - of the Urantia Book. As questions ultimately necessitated investigation of your source material, all that is left are criticisms.

For instance, what is the purpose of having this "enlightening" message or information? Why can it not be made easier to understand, if it is necessary? And why is objection quickly met with furious frustration and assertions that the - for lack of a better word - uninitiated won't attain heaven?

I don't like that the scientists assumed that all the galaxies came from one place when they know that violates the laws of gravity.

Do tell, how does the Big Band violate the laws of gravity? Especially when we don't fully understand gravity as is?

 

[siti]

How can the sun rotate perpendicular to the ecliptic plane?

No, it rotates about an axis that is perpendicular to the ecliptic plane - i.e. its rotation is in the same direction as the motion of the planets - approximately.

scientists assumed that all the galaxies came from one place when they know that violates the laws of gravity.

No again, the first galaxies did not form until at least a few hundred million years after the Big Bang - by then the universe (the observable bit) was already very, very large indeed - probably more than 10 billion light years across, by my rough calculation. Because expansion is related to red shift (z), the scale factor can be estimated from the red shift by taking the reciprocal of 1+z. The (observable) universe is currently estimated to be about 93 billion light years in diameter and the red shifts for the earliest galaxies about z=6 so the observable universe was about 1/7 of its current size when these galaxies emitted the light we now observe (a few hundred million years after the Big Bang) - 1/7 times 93 bn = very approx. 13 bn light years.

 

[Super Universe]

Right, it just seeks to "personally share" Jesus' religious faith. Which would be Judaism, by the way.


Did I say that? No. I said I prefer that to Urantia. My personal preference (which that's not actually it, by the way) does not speak for a demand of all the universe. Yet does not Urantia insist that the name of our planet is Urantia? That every being in the universe calls it this, and we must accept that too? It's not all about you.


Then say rituals. I gather that Urantia is prone to trying to re-define words, but "tradition" and "ritual" mean different things to everyone else. If you wish to be understood, you must speak plainly.

And not all religions have rituals.


Not mine; the definition for "faith."


What was that you said about pre-judging?

That may be what your god looks like, but none of mine.


You're pre-judging again.


Those are not prejudices. Those are biological facts. My emotions may affect me, but you have no evidence that they influence my beliefs; only prejudices and assumptions.


And they are able to grasp it to where they know why it rains, or that our bodies don't operate off delicate "humors". They know the various systems of the body, what makes clouds, etc. (Well, they did. There's no telling now for the future of American education.) All of this without knowing the finer details of meteorology or biology that baffle college graduates.


You created this thread to answer questions - or criticisms - of the Urantia Book. As questions ultimately necessitated investigation of your source material, all that is left are criticisms.

For instance, what is the purpose of having this "enlightening" message or information? Why can it not be made easier to understand, if it is necessary? And why is objection quickly met with furious frustration and assertions that the - for lack of a better word - uninitiated won't attain heaven?


Do tell, how does the Big Band violate the laws of gravity? Especially when we don't fully understand gravity as is?

Jesus preached against Judaism. He preached against the ten commandments. He preached forgiveness instead of "an eye for an eye". He taught new concepts, some of the Jews accepted them and some didn't.

Urantia does not insist anything. The UB is a book. It's pages don't open by themselves.

The word I used both times was "traditions" not tradition. Your emotions are influencing what you're reading. You're trying to guess what I'm saying instead of slowing down and taking it as it's written. That is EXACTLY what you are not supposed to do. You can't learn complicated advanced topics if you keep trying to put your spin on everything before you've even finished reading the sentence. You're thinking too much. You should practice meditating.

Not all religions have rituals? I didn't say they did, I gave you a generalization. You argue just to argue. You think that if you find a single fault, a mispelled word here or there, that it invalidates everything. The only thing it invalidates is you because no one has to live up to your standards, you have to live up to theirs. You're not in charge in this universe.

The dictionary says that faith is:

Confidence or trust in a person or thing. Belief that is not based on proof. Belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion. Belief in anything as a code of ethics, standards of merit. A system of religious belief. So, neither one of us had it perfectly right.

What did I say about pre-judging? If you're human, you prejudge. Realize it, try to stop it.

You want what you want, I'm prejudging? No, that's what you've been doing. Arguing that you have to have things your way. You have to have the Cliff Notes of a book before you will open it just to make sure there is no Christianity in it otherwise you lose your socks.

I have no evidence that emotions influence your beliefs? I have four pages of it.

Your grade school students understand simple meteorology and biology? I'm sure they do. What about String Theory? I bet they don't have a clue and no one would attempt to teach it to them just yet. They have to mature and even then, some will get it and some won't. It's the same in the next level.

I created this thread to answer questions or criticism of the UB? I did, Rapture Era had some criticism of it in another thread that I wanted to address but I didn't want to derail that other thread. I don't have a problem with addressing criticism, but you haven't read the book so you're just trying to play logic games with what I have told you about it. You think, man, if I can prove that this guys premise doesn't agree with his conclusion then God can't really exist. Even if you did win every debate against Christians that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.

All that is left are criticisms? Siti and I are discussing certain topics such as the soul.

What is the purpose of having this UB information? Beings are born primitive, over time they evolve and information is given to them. Eventually they evolve to the point that they know everything that beings in heaven know and angels will be visible and Jesus will return to the Earth. That is called being settled in "Light and Life".


Why can't the information be easier to understand? You're asking why the universe is not simple, because heaven is forever and things would get really boring if there was not an almost infinite number of experiences. It would be like watching the same movie over and over and over again.

Why don't the uninitiated attain heaven? To get to heaven there is only one thing you have to do, be willing to do the will of God. That's it. But, that thing has many branches that all must be achieved. You can't do the will of God if you won't accept that God exists. You can't do the will of God if you don't understand how His universe works. You can't do the will of God if you want to violate certain universal rules.

Certain angels may have rebelled at times, it's happens but it's rare, but angels don't come from heaven so they only know what they've been told about God. Ascended beings who have made it into heaven NEVER rebel against God or the divine plan (Jesus' plan). It does not happen. It can't happen. You don't get in if there is doubt.


How does the big bang violate the laws of gravity? Uhhh, all matter coming from one place. Matter has gravity so an infinite amount of matter and gravity in one place, sounds like a big black hole, not an inflationary event.

We don't fully understand gravity as it is? We know it's cumulative, unlike other forces, and we know that it's strength falls off with the square of the distance, and we know it never shuts off.

You really don't like God, do you? You're very angry. You think you can logically argue God out of existence. To you, God can't exist, because if He really does exist and He allowed you to (insert trauma) then He's not good enough for you.

Someone else dug a pit and put you in it but you didn't have to dig it deeper and deeper and deeper so that now there is almost no possible way to get out.

 

[Super Universe]

No, it rotates about an axis that is perpendicular to the ecliptic plane - i.e. its rotation is in the same direction as the motion of the planets - approximately.
No again, the first galaxies did not form until at least a few hundred million years after the Big Bang - by then the universe (the observable bit) was already very, very large indeed - probably more than 10 billion light years across, by my rough calculation. Because expansion is related to red shift (z), the scale factor can be estimated from the red shift by taking the reciprocal of 1+z. The (observable) universe is currently estimated to be about 93 billion light years in diameter and the red shifts for the earliest galaxies about z=6 so the observable universe was about 1/7 of its current size when these galaxies emitted the light we now observe (a few hundred million years after the Big Bang) - 1/7 times 93 bn = very approx. 13 bn light years.

The sun rotates about an axis that is perpendicular? Okay, I need to look that up again.

The first galaxies did not form until at least 100 million years after the big bang? So all those particles didn't have gravity? That violates the laws of physics. That's not science. You're trying to force it.

Let me give you an idea that you've probably never heard, not saying it's correct, this is just a brain exercise, but, what if space experienced a big bang but with no particles, just space expanding from a central point, and every galaxy had it's own formation of particles, sort of a very active quantum flux that formed permanent particles, essentially a nebula. And over time the nebula formed into a galaxy and as that was happening space was also expanding and even accelerating it's expansion? That doesn't violate the law of gravity.

 

[siti]

You're trying to force it.

No I'm not - I'm not asking you to believe it - I am just correcting the inaccurate statements you made about what BB theory says. I don't know if its 'true' - but I do have a reasonable grasp of what it says and when people dismiss it on the basis of misconceptions I feel duty bound (as a scientist) to help them understand what it says.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Jesus preached against Judaism. He preached against the ten commandments.

No he didn't. Jesus referenced and backed up every single one of them. In fact, in John 15:10 he says "I have kept my Father's commandments".

Urantia does not insist anything. The UB is a book.

Of course it does. Just because it's a book that must be read does not mean that it doesn't have a message that it insists upon.

The word I used both times was "traditions" not tradition.

The plural of a word - how distinctive. Yet in both instances they are not necessarily the same as a ritual. My "emotions" aren't influencing what I am reading, the factual meaning of words is. If you want your meaning to be clear, then use clear language.

You should practice meditating.

I do. While we're telling each other what to do, you should stop assuming things about me.

You argue just to argue. You think that if you find a single fault, a mispelled word here or there, that it invalidates everything.

No, I debate to learn. The only reason this is devolving into an argument is because you have nothing to teach.

no one has to live up to your standards, you have to live up to theirs. You're not in charge in this universe.

And neither are you. It is amusingly tragic that when your presentation is challenged, your retort is to attack and demean the person. It shows a poor form, that the "knowledge" you offer is insubstantial, and only makes you seem wise and mysterious to the foolish.

If your accusative logic above is correct, then you too must live up to everyone's standards; including mine. It is self-defeating.

The dictionary says that faith is: Confidence or trust in a person or thing. Belief that is not based on proof. Belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion. Belief in anything as a code of ethics, standards of merit. A system of religious belief. So, neither one of us had it perfectly right.

Belief not based on proof - is that not what I said?

having faith means believing things without solid evidence.

Oh, would you just look at that.

You have to have the Cliff Notes of a book before you will open it just to make sure there is no Christianity in it otherwise you lose your socks.

When you go about touting "Jesus Christ", one doesn't even need the "cliff-notes" to know that it's a Christian off-shoot. What I wanted was for you to actually discuss it, rather than issue homework. To show that you truly know it, rather than simply reference it.

Your grade school students understand simple meteorology and biology? I'm sure they do. What about String Theory?

I am sure that string theory can be simplified to where children can understand it, by those who know it. Oh wait, it was!

I don't have a problem with addressing criticism, but you haven't read the book

I told you that I had downloaded it. How do you know I haven't read it?

You think, man, if I can prove that this guys premise doesn't agree with his conclusion then God can't really exist.

That's funny, that you think this about proving your god doesn't exist.

Beings are born primitive, over time they evolve and information is given to them. Eventually they evolve to the point that they know everything that beings in heaven know and angels will be visible and Jesus will return to the Earth. That is called being settled in "Light and Life".

Now, are you saying here that Jesus will return to Earth (I thought it was Urantia?) when people know what heaven knows? Or just the individual? Are you trying to instigate Armageddon with knowledge? If so, it's doing a poor job at it, I'd say.

Why can't the information be easier to understand? You're asking why the universe is not simple,

If children can grasp string theory, and meteorology, and biology, or even the Christian heaven and hell, then your book has no excuse. Instead you hide it behind mystery and obfuscation, when a closer observation reveals there's nothing to be said and the vague promise of updates in information.

You can't do the will of God if you don't understand how His universe works.

And you can't understand how the universe works with outdated and wrong information.

You can't do the will of God if you want to violate certain universal rules.

There is no violating The Law. It is physically impossible for both Men and Gods.

How does the big bang violate the laws of gravity? Uhhh, all matter coming from one place.

And yet matter is able to disappear into one place; a singularity of unmeasurable mass the size of a pinhead.

You really don't like God, do you? You're very angry.

You really need to stop assuming and straw-manning. This isn't about your god, this is about your book.

what if space experienced a big bang but with no particles, just space expanding from a central point,

Explain how nothing can expand.

 

[Super Universe]

No he didn't. Jesus referenced and backed up every single one of them. In fact, in John 15:10 he says "I have kept my Father's commandments".


Of course it does. Just because it's a book that must be read does not mean that it doesn't have a message that it insists upon.


The plural of a word - how distinctive. Yet in both instances they are not necessarily the same as a ritual. My "emotions" aren't influencing what I am reading, the factual meaning of words is. If you want your meaning to be clear, then use clear language.


I do. While we're telling each other what to do, you should stop assuming things about me.


No, I debate to learn. The only reason this is devolving into an argument is because you have nothing to teach.


And neither are you. It is amusingly tragic that when your presentation is challenged, your retort is to attack and demean the person. It shows a poor form, that the "knowledge" you offer is insubstantial, and only makes you seem wise and mysterious to the foolish.

If your accusative logic above is correct, then you too must live up to everyone's standards; including mine. It is self-defeating.



Belief not based on proof - is that not what I said?


Oh, would you just look at that.


When you go about touting "Jesus Christ", one doesn't even need the "cliff-notes" to know that it's a Christian off-shoot. What I wanted was for you to actually discuss it, rather than issue homework. To show that you truly know it, rather than simply reference it.


I am sure that string theory can be simplified to where children can understand it, by those who know it. Oh wait, it was!

I told you that I had downloaded it. How do you know I haven't read it?


That's funny, that you think this about proving your god doesn't exist.


Now, are you saying here that Jesus will return to Earth (I thought it was Urantia?) when people know what heaven knows? Or just the individual? Are you trying to instigate Armageddon with knowledge? If so, it's doing a poor job at it, I'd say.


If children can grasp string theory, and meteorology, and biology, or even the Christian heaven and hell, then your book has no excuse. Instead you hide it behind mystery and obfuscation, when a closer observation reveals there's nothing to be said and the vague promise of updates in information.


And you can't understand how the universe works with outdated and wrong information.


There is no violating The Law. It is physically impossible for both Men and Gods.


And yet matter is able to disappear into one place; a singularity of unmeasurable mass the size of a pinhead.


You really need to stop assuming and straw-manning. This isn't about your god, this is about your book.


Explain how nothing can expand.

Jesus did not preach against Judaism? When they brought the adulteress to him and asked what should we do with her, Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". The ten commandments says that you should stone to death adulterers. When they asked Jesus about the sabbath He said "What man would not go after his lost goat even on the sabbath". Doing work on the sabbath was also punishable by stoning. Jesus said about the ten commandments "I have come to fulfill them" because He was trying to give the Jews a more advanced set of rules to go by but He knew those old commandments were part of the foundation of Jewish society so He could not just outright dismiss them. He was trying to say that the commandments served their purpose for a past time.

He kept His Father's commandments, not Moses commandments. God's "commandments" are the rules of physics, which are unbreakable, even for Jesus. He also meant that He was following the divine plan by bestowing onto the earth as a human.

You can't figure it all out on your own. No one can. We need other views, other information.

Also, John the Baptist does not make universal policy. No human does, so the bible is not the perfect word of God that some people think it is. There is a great deal of human influence in it, for instance, "You shall pay a ransom on the census." God doesn't want money but the temple priests sure as heck did, so they wrote a temple policy book that ended up in the Old Testament and now Jews worship it as if it's God's word.

The UB is a book that must be read? No one is forced to read it. It has a message, you don't have to accept it. Even in the next level you still don't have to accept it, you just won't be ascending.

I don't have to use "your" words. You can't get your way with the universe. It's not yours.

I should stop assuming things about you? No thanks, it's fun.

I have nothing to teach YOU. No one can fill a cup that is already full.

I'm not in charge of this universe? And I don't want to be, there are many things I would change. I look at this one as practice before the real game begins.

You said "believing things without solid evidence", not, "belief that is not based on proof". If you want your meaning to be clear, then use clear language.

You want me to discuss the UB, rather than have you do your own research on it? No, you want to argue with a Christian because you didn't get the special toy you wanted one Christmas and you're still very upset about it.

String Theory can be simplified where children can understand it? That's my point. I did simplify the UB. You don't have to like my simplification, it's not your universe, it never was, and it never will be.

How do I know you haven't read the UB? It's 1,800 pages, that's how I know. You can't read it in a few days and if you're reading from front to back then you're still a week or two away from the Life of Jesus.

It's funny, I think you're trying to prove that God doesn't exist? It's really not funny. It's sad, what humans do to other humans, what parents do to their children, causing trauma that will affect them the rest of their lives.

Is it the Earth or Urantia? What is water called around the world? Which name is the most correct? Does the water change to fit the name it's called or does it stay the same?

Armaggedon? So that's it, you're afraid, finally, the reason you don't like Christianity. Whew, and it only took four pages. I'm the best psychiatrist ever. Okay, humans receive revelation but often they misunderstand context. Humanity will never be judged as a whole. You are judged as an individual at the next level. Now, the earth will be destroyed in about 2.8 billion years when the sun expands into a red giant.

I can't understand how the universe works with outdated and wrong information? Yep, it's all wrong. Only you are right. You have everything you need to be successful in the universe. Good luck with that.

It's physically impossible to violate the law? Depends on what law you are talking about. God's laws, the laws of physics, yes, no one can violate them, not even Jesus. Angelic laws can be violated but there is a punishment.

Matter can disappear into one place, a black hole? But that does not violate the law of gravity.

I should stop straw manning? I knew you wanted to argue logic. Well, your arguments are Ad Hominem's, so there.

This isn't about God, it's about "my" book? No, it's about you not getting the life you wanted and you're really, really upset about it.

Explain how nothing can expand? I didn't say nothing expanded, I said space, and we're going to have to figure out dark matter and dark energy to answer that.

 

[Quintessence]

One of my greatest fears is that someone will try and start a religion based upon the UB. That would ruin everything it tries to teach. When people form groups they develop a sense of superiority over others. No one is superior, we might be better at certain things but we're not superior to anyone else.

I find this a very strange perspective for a couple of reasons. Firstly, on the order of thinking religions have to be about groups (coincidentally, I created a thread on the topic of "religion alone" quite recently). But more importantly, on the assumption that group behavior creates a sense of superiority. I just don't see that. There is nothing about being in a group that necessitates having or developing an inflated ego. I must say I'm curious where you got that idea from, and why you would believe that.

 

[BSM1]

I find this a very strange perspective for a couple of reasons. Firstly, on the order of thinking religions have to be about groups (coincidentally, I created a thread on the topic of "religion alone" quite recently). But more importantly, on the assumption that group behavior creates a sense of superiority. I just don't see that. There is nothing about being in a group that necessitates having or developing an inflated ego. I must say I'm curious where you got that idea from, and why you would believe that.

I would think it would take at least two to create a religion. Up to that point it's just one person yelling. Evidently you haven't been exposed to the ego driven religious groups of the south. I wouldn't be surprised to someday read on one of those electronic marques in front of most churches nowadays: "My Jesus can kick your Jesus' butt".

 

[Quintessence]

The concepts are confusing and very foreign to humans. I've read it once in it's entirety and gone back many times, I still go back and read parts.

We can't wrap our mind around the idea that the universe is actually full of life, angels and alien. We have extraordinary ego's. We think that if life exists elsewhere then it has to be microbes. I like to use the Star Trek series as an example, we have this idea that we are the best in all the universe, we have the best technology, when really we're only a few up from the bottom of a very long list.

The thing is this, we haven't been anywhere except the moon so how come we think it's all empty? Because it has to be for us to maintain our inflated ego. If we realize that we're not really special to God then we're just another grain of sand on an endless beach. People can't handle that.

We? Who is this "we?"

 

[Quintessence]

I would think it would take at least two to create a religion.

What do you think led you to that conclusion?

Evidently you haven't been exposed to the ego driven religious groups of the south.

Nope. But @Super Universe made it sound like this sort of behavior was an inevitable outcome of religion, which is super strange to me because it is completely at odds with my own personal experiences of various religions.

 

[Super Universe]

I find this a very strange perspective for a couple of reasons. Firstly, on the order of thinking religions have to be about groups (coincidentally, I created a thread on the topic of "religion alone" quite recently). But more importantly, on the assumption that group behavior creates a sense of superiority. I just don't see that. There is nothing about being in a group that necessitates having or developing an inflated ego. I must say I'm curious where you got that idea from, and why you would believe that.

It's human to inflate your ego. It happens under the surface, it's not necessarily talked about in the open at church, they don't sit around and say to each other "We're going to heaven and everyone else is going to burn", but some of them think that.

There was this "Christian" forum I tried to get on one time, this was just after Hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans. Those Christians were happy about it, they thought it was God punishing New Orleans for having the Mardi Gras. They saw it as confirmation that God was a jealous God and was still punishing people like in the Old Testament.

People want to feel special, we don't like the idea that we're average or below average. We use whatever we can to put others down in our own mind and that naturally raises us up. That is the reason behind all hate, if you can put down a whole group of people, who are not like you, well, it makes you feel better about yourself.

If you are an American, don't you have an American "ego"? Don't you have a sense that we are the world leaders and have more responsibility in world affairs than other nations?

Why do you think religions have to be about groups? Why can't we have a God Theory that just exists as an ever evolving idea among all people that is discussed, even debated, and accepted as a work in progress?

Why do we have to form a group?

You know, as a kid, what I never understood about church, they would close the doors. I never understood that. I mean, yeah, I know that in winter it's cold outside so you have to close the doors and in summer the bugs would get in but, I just thought the doors should always be open.

 

[Super Universe]

We? Who is this "we?"

Humans.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I'm at work, so a full reply won't be posted - yet. But @Super Universe, are your replies going to be purely ad hominem strawman arguments? Because if so, there's hardly a point.

Sent from Windows 10 Mobile

 

[Quintessence]

Humans.

Which humans?

Not all humans are anthropocentric or conceptualize of themselves and the world in the manner you described back there.

 

[Super Universe]

I'm at work, so a full reply won't be posted - yet. But @Super Universe, are your replies going to be purely ad hominem strawman arguments? Because if so, there's hardly a point.

Sent from Windows 10 Mobile

They have to be strawman or ad hominem's, right? Because if they're not and they're actually true, well, that means that you have been traumatized and well, no one likes to admit that.

Ever see the movie "Good Will Hunting"? If you have, do you remember the part, at the end, where Robin Williams tells Will "Those things that happened to you weren't your fault". And, at first Will says "Yeah, I know". But Robin Williams keeps telling that to him over and over until Will realizes that he's been acting out because of the way he was treated by adults when he was a kid.

Well, it's not your fault.

All of us have trauma. I've been around the world, never met someone yet who doesn't have some sort of trauma. It's how we handle it that matters.

 

[Super Universe]

Which humans?

Not all humans are anthropocentric or conceptualize of themselves and the world in the manner you described back there.

Sure they do, but there are different degrees of ego and selfishness.

The main thing, I think, is to realize it and try to work on it.

 

[Quintessence]

It's human to inflate your ego.

It is also human to do the opposite. I think you're making some generalizations about how humans regard themselves and the world that do not hold up to scrutiny. Here's another one:

People want to feel special, we don't like the idea that we're average or below average.

Some people feel that way. Not all.

Why do you think religions have to be about groups?

I don't, and that's not what I said. It sounded like you felt religions had to be about groups. If this does not reflect your sentiment, feel free to correct me.