Is the Urantia Book a branch of Christianity?

[McCulloch]

In the comments and suggestions forum

[the Urantia Book] Is Definitely Not a Branch of Christianity!

I disagree. The question for debate is, "Are the believers of the Urantia Book a branch of Christianity?"

The UB papers include a lot of material about the life and teaching of Jesus. They make the claim that they are following his examples and his teaching. From my perspective, that makes them Christian.

If they are not Christian what religion are they? They are not Buddhist, Sikh, Jewish, Hindu, Islamic, Taoist, Zoroastrian or neo-pagan. They even call themselves Jesusonians.

The teachings in the Urantia Book differ in significant ways from the teachings of the Bible. This is quite apparent. But then so do the Jehovah's Witnesses' teachings and the Mormons'. All of these groups are branches of Christianity in the sense that they make the claim to be the true religious followers of Jesus Christ rather than making the claim to be the true religious followers of Gautama Buddha, the Sikh Gurus, Mohammed et al.

I do not claim that they are true followers of the Christian faith. I don't think that anyone can objectively identify the true followers of Jesus Christ's teachings. But even if they do not follow the teachings of Jesus that does not remove them from being categorized as Christian. It just makes them into heretical Christians.

[McCulloch]

Now, whether or not the Urantia Book supports the practice of channeling, is another question (only answered by the content of the book itself), and I do not believe it does.

CHANNELLING - a modern term to describe philosophical or spiritual counsel through mediums, clairvoyants or clairaudients.
According to Webster's Dictionary: the practice of professedly entering a meditative or trancelike state in order to convey messages from a spiritual guide.
Unless someone can prove that channelling is unchristian, the support or lack of support for channelling in the Urantia Book is irrelevant to this thread. I believe that there are a number of mystical branches (heretical to some) of Christianity.

[Rob]

CHANNELLING - a modern term to describe philosophical or spiritual counsel through mediums, clairvoyants or clairaudients.

According to Webster's Dictionary: the practice of professedly entering a meditative or trancelike state in order to convey messages from a spiritual guide.

Unless someone can prove that channelling is unchristian, the support or lack of support for channelling in the Urantia Book is irrelevant to this thread. I believe that there are a number of mystical branches (heretical to some) of Christianity.

Thanks for the definition McCullock. The fact is, that per the definition above, the Urantia Book does not support channeling.

The [angels] at present on Urantia, all of whom are of honorable standing, are not connected with the phenomena of so-called "mediumship"; and they do not, ordinarily, permit humans to witness their sometimes necessary physical activities or other contacts with the material world, as they are perceived by human senses. (865.6)

Evolutionary religion is born of a simple and all-powerful fear, the fear which surges through the human mind when confronted with the unknown, the inexplicable, and the incomprehensible. Religion eventually achieves the profoundly simple realization of an all-powerful love, the love which sweeps irresistibly through the human soul when awakened to the conception of the limitless affection of the Universal Father for the sons of the universe. But in between the beginning and the consummation of religious evolution, there intervene the long ages of the shamans, who presume to stand between man and God as intermediaries, interpreters, and intercessors. (986.3)

While they may have practiced deception in minor matters, the great majority of the shamans believed in the fact of their spirit possession. Women who were able to throw themselves into a trance or a cataleptic fit became powerful shamanesses; later, such women became prophets and spirit mediums. Their cataleptic trances usually involved alleged communications with the ghosts of the dead. Many female shamans were also professional dancers. (987.1)

Religious meanings progress in self-consciousness when the child transfers his ideas of omnipotence from his parents to God. And the entire religious experience of such a child is largely dependent on whether fear or love has dominated the parent-child relationship. Slaves have always experienced great difficulty in transferring their master-fear into concepts of God-love. Civilization, science, and advanced religions must deliver mankind from those fears born of the dread of natural phenomena. And so should greater enlightenment deliver educated mortals from all dependence on intermediaries in communion with Deity. (1013.6)

Even with a Spirit of Truth endowed mind, the Adjusters cannot arbitrarily invade the mortal intellect prior to the appearance of moral decision. But when such a moral decision has been made, this spirit helper assumes jurisdiction direct from Divinington. There are no intermediaries or other intervening authorities or powers functioning between the divine Adjusters and their human subjects; God and man are directly related. (1187.3)

I don't think most mainstream traditional Christian groups foster or support the use of so-called spiritual intermediaries such as "mediums, clairvoyants or clairaudients." The Urantia Book would not support for example, the intercessionary saints of the Catholic church, but then, neither does most of the reformed and Protestant churches either. These are facts which place the teachings of the book in context.

[Woody]

If anybody cares.......and this info seems irrelevant to the topic anywho

The Teaching Mission (TM) associated with The Correcting Time (CT) Program is not a club or organization that has official or registered members.

However, again, if anyone cares, I consider myself to be a PART of the TM, and am proud of it. And I am likewise a believer in these 2 movements, and am proud of it.

Any more useless questions?

[bernee51]

If anybody cares.......and this info seems irrelevant to the topic anywho

The Teaching Mission (TM) associated with The Correcting Time (CT) Program is not a club or organization that has official or registered members.

However, again, if anyone cares, I consider myself to be a PART of the TM, and am proud of it. And I am likewise a believer in these 2 movements, and am proud of it.

Interesting - I am happy that it all gives meaning and purpose to your life for that is the most accessed function of all belief systems.

Any more useless questions?

Other than that one?

[Bro Dave]

In the comments and suggestions forum

[the Urantia Book] Is Definitely Not a Branch of Christianity!

I disagree. The question for debate is, "Are the believers of the Urantia Book a branch of Christianity?"

The UB papers include a lot of material about the life and teaching of Jesus. They make the claim that they are following his examples and his teaching. From my perspective, that makes them Christian.

It all depends on your perspective. I think most readers of the Urantia Book, consider themselves followers of Christ, rather than Christians. The difference is following the religion practiced by Jesus, rather than the religion about Jesus.

If they are not Christian what religion are they? They are not Buddhist, Sikh, Jewish, Hindu, Islamic, Taoist, Zoroastrian or neo-pagan. They even call themselves Jesusonians.

Yup! And, that’s much closer as a definition. They follow Jesus’ teachings, and are not a cult about him.

The teachings in the Urantia Book differ in significant ways from the teachings of the Bible. This is quite apparent. But then so do the Jehovah's Witnesses' teachings and the Mormons'. All of these groups are branches of Christianity in the sense that they make the claim to be the true religious followers of Jesus Christ rather than making the claim to be the true religious followers of Gautama Buddha, the Sikh Gurus, Mohammed et al.

I do not claim that they are true followers of the Christian faith. I don't think that anyone can objectively identify the true followers of Jesus Christ's teachings. But even if they do not follow the teachings of Jesus that does not remove them from being categorized as Christian. It just makes them into heretical Christians.

With all due respect, Christian coined the name, and are therefore within their right to exclude whom they will. And, believe me, they mostly exclude anyone who disavows Jesus as the sacrificial substitute for inherited sins.

The Urantia Book is not exclusionary, and shows the truth and value of each religion. Would that Christianity were as welcoming. Also, the Urantia book teaches that we are all God's children, and all that is required to attain eternal life, is to accept your birthright. (which, by the way, is what Jesus said in the Bible!)

Bro Dave

[McCulloch]

The UB papers include a lot of material about the life and teaching of Jesus. They make the claim that they are following his examples and his teaching. From my perspective, that makes them Christian.

It all depends on your perspective. I think most readers of the Urantia Book, consider themselves followers of Christ, rather than Christians. The difference is following the religion practiced by Jesus, rather than the religion about Jesus.

I think that the distinction is rather fine. Would it be correct to say that UB readers are a branch of Christianity more akin to Progressive Christianity, Liberal Christianity or Unitarianism than to Evangelicalism, Fundamentalism or Catholicism?

If they are not Christian what religion are they? They are not Buddhist, Sikh, Jewish, Hindu, Islamic, Taoist, Zoroastrian or neo-pagan. They even call themselves Jesusonians.

Yup! And, that’s much closer as a definition. They follow Jesus’ teachings, and are not a cult about him.

But it is Jesus not one of the other religious leaders that they look to.

With all due respect, Christian coined the name, and are therefore within their right to exclude whom they will. And, believe me, they mostly exclude anyone who disavows Jesus as the sacrificial substitute for inherited sins.

Every one of the many sects of Christianity chooses to exclude a different set of believers. I know of one group that seriously debated whether those who use many cups for communion rather than one cup are really Christians. For the most part, the "liberal" side of that argument won. The One-Cuppers graciously allowed that those using many cups were erring brethren, but brethren none-the-less. Yes, many Christians exclude those believers in Christ who disavows Jesus as the sacrificial substitute for inherited sins. But that lack of recognition does not exclude them historically or sociologically from being a branch of the rather multi-facetted movement attributed to Jesus.

The Urantia Book is not exclusionary, and shows the truth and value of each religion. Would that Christianity were as welcoming. Also, the Urantia book teaches that we are all God's children, and all that is required to attain eternal life, is to accept your birthright. (which, by the way, is what Jesus said in the Bible!)

Like the Progressive Christians, the UB reading Jesusonians, are an inclusionary rather than exclusionary branch of Christianity.

[Bro Dave]

For non-christians, especially atheists and agnostics, anyone who puts there faith in Jesus is a Christian. I understand, and actually that's fine with me. My point was, it is NOT fine with fundamentalist Christians. You want to call me a Christian? No problem. In fact there are many Christians who exclude Catholics from thier club!

Bro Dave

[Rob]

Would it be correct to say that UB readers are a branch of Christianity more akin to Progressive Christianity, Liberal Christianity or Unitarianism than to Evangelicalism, Fundamentalism or Catholicism?

That sounds like a very fair statement to me. Of course, here is the little twist. In many respects the UB is similar to Liberal Christianity, but nevertheless, some are still not comforatable in the Church. I attend the Buddhist temple with my children, along with attending a Liberal Christian church, as half of their relatives are Buddhist. In this way, I teach my children to understand more than one tradition. They have no problem worshiping with their Buddhist cousins or Christian cousins (they are half Korean, and Koreans are a mixture of both in their culture), although we have a preference at home for the teachings of Jesus as portrayed in the Urantia Book. But I consider it part of their intellectual education to learn to appreciate the best in the worlds major religious traditions so they can recognize the wisdom and compassion they hold in common.

But I want to add a caviat about labeling Catholicism to quickly. I am not a Catholic, and never have been, but I have been a student of Religious Studies and Comparative Religion for over 30+ years, and I have watched as Catholic Theologians have increasingly participated in the growing inter-faith dialogue, and are now contributing some of the leading edge thinking in this area. I know they don't represent the Pope, or necessarily the laymans view, but the fact is, academically, they are creating some very, very, liberal stuff. For example, I just received the other day two titles for a research project I am working on, one being "Buddhist and Christians: Through Comparative Theology to Solidarity," and the other being "The Concept of God in Global Dialogue." Honestly, you would be surprised by some of the thought coming out of these efforts; they are first rate progressive and liberal theologies. You won't find anything like that comming from the evangelical fundamentalist camp.

If they are not Christian what religion are they? They are not Buddhist, Sikh, Jewish, Hindu, Islamic, [etc.] .... They even call themselves Jesusonians.

It's a fair question. The truth is the UB speaks approvingly the best in each one of the faiths you note above, and teaches that we should find the best in our neighbors religion and borrow it, rather than condemning the worst.

The many religions of [Earth] are all good to the extent that they bring man to God and bring the realization of the Father to man. It is a fallacy for any group of religionists to conceive of their creed as The Truth; such attitudes bespeak more of theological arrogance than of certainty of faith. There is not a [Earth] religion that could not profitably study and assimilate the best of the truths contained in every other faith, for all contain truth. Religionists would do better to borrow the best in their neighbors' living spiritual faith rather than to denounce the worst in their lingering superstitions and outworn rituals. (1012)

Like the Progressive Christians, the UB reading Jesusonians, are an inclusionary rather than exclusionary branch of Christianity.

Yes, the UB is most definitely inclusionary; its basic premise is that all the religions of the world are good in that they lead humans to experience God (of course 'God' is open to definition) and to love and serve their fellow humans. If the fruits of love, wisdom, compassion, and unselfish service are forthcoming, what does it matter if one calls oneself a Buddhist or Christian, a Jew or Muslim, Sikh, etc.

As the years passed, this young carpenter of Nazareth increasingly measured every institution of society and every usage of religion by the unvarying test: What does it do for the human soul? does it bring God to man? does it bring man to God? (1388)

[Cathar1950]

I would think the UB would be in the same category as the Seventh Day Adventist, possible Mormon would be another valid comparison.
The SDA influence is obvious. Considering the the editors/writers had been devout SDA. According to Gardner there are both Liberal UBers and Fetish UBers. But I don't think they belong in the classification of liberal Christianity. More of fringe/cult sect with Christian overtones.

[Rob]

I would think the UB would be in the same category as the Seventh Day Adventist, possible Mormon would be another valid comparison.

Labels are easy when one doesn't know what they are speaking about. Cathar is once again Parroting Gardner's sloppy research, and is as ignorant of what the Urantia Urantia Book actually teaches as Gardner, since neither has read it, and Cathar simply mouths and parrots Gardner's stereotypes. Why doesn't Cathar follow the rules of this debate forum for once and provide some specific evidence to support his claims? Because the moderators do not require him to abide by the rules, seems obvious. I note, that there are as many differences (perhaps more) than similarities, and the only way one would know would be to examine the evidence, something he has consistently failed to provide.

The Urantia Book compares the indwelling Spirit of God to the concept of the Buddha-nature in Buddhism, so does that mean it is in the same "category" as Buddhism? Of course not, each must be evaluated based upon the contents taken as a whole, which will reveal both similarities and differences. The Urantia Book teaches there is no such thing as hell; so do Seventh Day Adventist; on the other hand, Seventh Day Adventist teach only a select 144,000 are going to be saved (or something like that) and a literal interpretation of scripture (as do fundamentalist Christians, who are closer to Seventh Day Adventist than the teachings of the Urantia Book), and the Urantia Book teaches neither.

According to Gardner ...[more parroting of the same] But I don't think they belong in the classification of liberal Christianity. More of fringe/cult [and more parroting] sect with Christian overtones.

The teachings of the Urantia Book are firmly within the Liberal Christian "category," and in fact are on equal level with the best in leading edge thought coming out of academic Religious Studies, Comparative Religion, Philosophy of Religion, and Inter-Faith Dialogue.

At this point, Cathar's continued abuse of this forums rules, his blind dogmatic parroting of Gardner with absolutely no effort to provide evidence or quotations to support his claims, is little more than the same argumentative style of biblical literalists (except he uses Gardner instead of the Bible), and reveals a deep seated prejudice, rather than an informed view supported by evidence.