© 2004 Olga López
© 2004 Urantia Association of Spain
One of the most important concepts of LU is undoubtedly that of religion, true religion. Not the religion we inevitably associate with churches, dogmas, and rituals, but the religion that is the product of our personal experience.
True religion is one that truly elevates our spirit, and doesn’t chain it with useless dogmas and rituals. The best religion is personal experience, each person’s faith.
In paper 5, which deals with the relationship of God with individuals, I would highlight this paragraph:
Moral conduct is always an antecedent of evolved religion and a part of even revealed religion, but never the whole of religious experience. Social service is the result of moral thinking and religious living. Morality does not biologically lead to the higher spiritual levels of religious experience. The adoration of the abstract beautiful is not the worship of God; neither is exaltation of nature nor the reverence of unity the worship of God. UB 5:5.4
Following a moral course of action throughout our lives, while desirable and necessary, is not sufficient for our spiritual progress. We must go a step further and consider the existence of God and our relationship with Him. We must acquire religious awareness, not in isolation from the rest of human experience, but rather as an integral part of it:
The experience of God-consciousness remains the same from generation to generation, but with each advancing epoch in human knowledge the philosophic concept and the theologic definitions of God must change. God-knowingness, religious consciousness, is a universe reality, but no matter how valid (real) religious experience is, it must be willing to subject itself to intelligent criticism and reasonable philosophic interpretation; it must not seek to be a thing apart in the totality of human experience. UB 5:5.12
This should apply to each of us: religious experience must not fall into dogmatism or fanaticism, but must be reasoned. Faith must be a living faith. Likewise, we must integrate our personal religious experience with the rest of life’s experiences, so as not to fall into mysticism or fanaticism. It is vital to have an open mind, to recognize that our beliefs may be subject to change, depending on what our experiences dictate. And, above all, to follow that “inner guide” that speaks to us without speaking, and which in LU is called the “Thought Adjuster.”
In point 5 of Document 100, “Religion in Human Experience,” we are shown the right direction regarding living the true religious experience. Here, as a sample, is one of its paragraphs:
“There is great danger associated with the habitual practice of religious daydreaming; mysticism may become a technique of reality avoidance, albeit it has sometimes been a means of genuine spiritual communion. Short seasons of retreat from the busy scenes of life may not be seriously dangerous, but prolonged isolation of personality is most undesirable. Under no circumstances should the trancelike state of visionary consciousness be cultivated as a religious experience.”. UB 100:5.8
Mystical raptures are not only unnecessary, but they are detrimental to our communication with our Adjuster. We must maintain a serene attitude, have faith, but reasoned faith, not blind faith. There is no teacher other than our “divine spark.” If we follow the teachings of the LU, we can see that we are experiencing a gradual but inexorable transformation. The LU transforms us slowly but surely, from the inside out, so that we will hardly ever again feel alone and spiritually helpless.
In LU, it is often stated that religious experience is personal and therefore non-transferable; no one can live it for us, nor can we live that of others. There is no religious authority other than that dictated by intuition and our understanding; there are no dogmas, no official interpretations; we are free to live our religious experience as we see fit. Those who fervently adhere to an “ism” are actually restricting their freedom for the sake of dubious security, in the mistaken hope of earning heaven on earth by following the precepts of the current master or guru.
Religions as institutions were necessary at one stage in the spiritual development of the human species, but it’s time we cast aside those “crutches” and began to walk on our own, to begin seeking God through personal experience, focusing on how we live our filiation with God. I remember a comment in this regard from a “Urantian” friend; he said that the word “God” had too many Judeo-Christian connotations for him, and that’s why he preferred to call Him “Father.”
In paper 86, “The Primitive Evolution of Religion,” we find this paragraph on the evolution of religion and rituals:
Industry, war, slavery, and civil government arose in response to the social evolution of man in his natural environment; religion similarly arose as his response to the illusory environment of the imaginary ghost world. Religion was an evolutionary development of self-maintenance, and it has worked, notwithstanding that it was originally erroneous in concept and utterly illogical. UB 86:7.5
In paper 89, “Sin, Sacrifice, and Atonement,” we find these paragraphs on rituals and ceremonies in general:
The human sacrifice, throughout the course of the evolution of Urantian rituals, has advanced from the bloody business of man-eating to higher and more symbolic levels. The early rituals of sacrifice bred the later ceremonies of sacrament. In more recent times the priest alone would partake of a bit of the cannibalistic sacrifice or a drop of human blood, and then all would partake of the animal substitute. These early ideas of ransom, redemption, and covenants have evolved into the later-day sacramental services. And all this ceremonial evolution has exerted a mighty socializing influence. UB 89:9.1
And so, after long ages the cult of the sacrifice has evolved into the cult of the sacrament. Thus are the sacraments of modern religions the legitimate successors of those shocking early ceremonies of human sacrifice and the still earlier cannibalistic rituals. Many still depend upon blood for salvation, but it has at least become figurative, symbolic, and mystic. UB 89:9.4
Another concept repeatedly emphasized in the Book is that of living faith, as opposed to the blind faith inherent in obedience to a religious institution. Anyone who reads the Book of Truth and makes it a part of their life feels their faith grow stronger every day, immerses themselves fully in the search for Truth, and finds themselves at peace with themselves and with the world. Reading the Book of Truth makes us see the world through different eyes; it broadens our perspective, and this makes many seemingly irrational and abominable things meaningful, allowing us to glimpse the purpose of seemingly arbitrary suffering and evil.
In the penultimate paper of the LU, number 195, entitled “After Pentecost,” a series of extremely interesting reflections are made on the future of Christianity. This paper states that, after Jesus’ resurrection, the error of creating a religion “appropriate” to Jesus was made, emphasizing his divine character and neglecting his earthly life. Too much importance was given to the supposedly supernatural nature of his resurrection, when according to the LU, the only “supernatural” aspect was that his body decomposed much more rapidly than that of any other person, in order to spare millions of heavenly beings the sad spectacle of the slow putrefaction of his mortal body.
This paper also states that the true message of Jesus remains latent in Christianity, and that nothing and no one will be able to completely erase it. In fact, it affirms that it is only a matter of time before humanity understands the message He came to bring us: that we are all children of the Father (and therefore brothers and sisters), and that we will obtain the most precious spiritual treasures by consciously doing His will according to our free will.
I often wonder if the day is near when humanity will fully understand the message of Jesus of Nazareth. I suppose it is an indispensable condition for the Church to undergo a profound internal transformation.
The clash between religions has unfortunately been a constant throughout human history. Is religion really a pretext or the cause of conflict? It seems to be a pretext used by those who govern us (whether openly or in secret) to get us to defend their interests. The common people, the “cannon fodder,” fall into the trap and truly believe they are being called to fight for ideals, to defend the “true religion.” How foolish!
On the relationship between religion and politics, there are a number of very succulent reflections in Rousseau’s work “The Social Contract”:
“Religion considered in relation to society, whether general or particular, can also be divided into two types: namely, the religion of man and that of the citizen. The first, without temples or altars, without rites, limited to the purely interior worship of the supreme God and the eternal duties of morality, is the pure and simple religion of the Gospel, true theism, and what may be called natural divine right. The other, inscribed in a single country, gives it its gods, its own patrons and tutelaries; it has its dogmas, its rites, its exterior worship prescribed by the laws; except for the one nation that follows it, for it everything is infidel, foreign, barbaric; it does not extend the duties and rights of man beyond its altars. Such were all the religions of the first peoples…”
In these paragraphs, Rousseau correctly distinguishes between religion as a personal experience and institutionalized religions, which attempt to impose their truth on the faithful. He says of institutionalized religions (that of citizens) that they are evil “because they are founded on error and lies, they deceive men, make them credulous and superstitious, and smother the true worship of the divinity in a vain ceremony.”
Regarding the religion of man (or “Christianity”), Rousseau says: “By this holy, sublime, true religion, men, children of the same God, all recognize each other as brothers, and the society that unites them is not dissolved even by death.” However, he then points out the defects that this religion entails that considerably harm life in society: “Far from directing the hearts of citizens to the State, it detaches them from it as from all things on earth; I know of nothing more contrary to the social spirit.”
Further on, he says: “For society to be peaceful and harmony to be maintained, it would be necessary for all citizens without exception to be equally good Christians; but if unfortunately a single ambitious person, a single hypocrite, is found (…) he will undoubtedly give a good account of his pious compatriots.” I understand from these words that a society of Christians (that is, of men and women living their social lives according to their personal religion) is not a bad society, but that it contains the danger of not knowing how to react to evil quickly and forcefully enough.
Thinking about all this, I don’t believe that there can be a society of deeply religious people without a lasting social and political organization. What I also don’t believe (and in this I agree with Rousseau) is that this will be the case, not just in the present day, but in the near future. It couldn’t have happened in the 18th century, and unfortunately, it’s not possible now, at the beginning of the 21st century. Spiritually, we haven’t made much progress in these last three centuries. There are many inequalities and injustices that remain painfully prevalent today.
Regarding the conflict between religions, I am reprinting here a fragment of an article published in a free newspaper (unfortunately I do not remember the name of the author), with whose point of view I fully identify:
“The truth is what it is and does not change whether we invoke it as Allah or as Christ. From the point of view of truth, it makes no difference whether we believe that God exists or does not exist. Our thinking does not damage Him, nor overcome Him, nor reverse Him, nor annul Him; otherwise, He would not be God. But if we have already verified that the interpretation of sacred texts separates us and leads us to confrontations, wouldn’t it be more reasonable to look for another way, since millions of people need religion to live from a place of transcendence? Isn’t religion, that is, the relationship between man and divinity, about applying intelligence to the process of life and to the response of that process in one’s own conscience? Living in love, isn’t it the only rite, the only prayer, the only praise that is asked of us?”
It seems inconceivable that, in the 21st century, evolutionary religions have not been completely replaced by the religion of personal experience. That there are still people who believe that “their” God wants them to dress a certain way or that they must blindly believe what a supposedly “holy” book says.
More or less related to this, there is a fact that is narrated in paper 132 of the Book, “The Stay in Rome”:
Jesus, Gonod, and Ganid made five trips away from Rome to points of interest in the surrounding territory. On their visit to the northern Italian lakes Jesus had the long talk with Ganid concerning the impossibility of teaching a man about God if the man does not desire to know God. They had casually met a thoughtless pagan while on their journey up to the lakes, and Ganid was surprised that Jesus did not follow out his usual practice of enlisting the man in conversation which would naturally lead up to the discussion of spiritual questions. When Ganid asked his teacher why he evinced so little interest in this pagan, Jesus answered:
“Ganid, the man was not hungry for truth. He was not dissatisfied with himself. He was not ready to ask for help, and the eyes of his mind were not open to receive light for the soul. That man was not ripe for the harvest of salvation; he must be allowed more time for the trials and difficulties of life to prepare him for the reception of wisdom and higher learning. Or, if we could have him live with us, we might by our lives show him the Father in heaven, and thus would he become so attracted by our lives as sons of God that he would be constrained to inquire about our Father. You cannot reveal God to those who do not seek for him; you cannot lead unwilling souls into the joys of salvation. Man must become hungry for truth as a result of the experiences of living, or he must desire to know God as the result of contact with the lives of those who are acquainted with the divine Father before another human being can act as the means of leading such a fellow mortal to the Father in heaven.”… UB 132:7.1-2
It is quite true that there is no worse deaf person than the one who does not want to hear, but we can always try to help these people discover religion for themselves as a personal experience by observing our ways of life, and trusting that in this way they will come to see the light, by whatever path it may take, which does not necessarily have to be the one we have followed.
Surely we all know more than one person who defines themselves as an “atheist.” Understanding “atheism” as someone who categorically denies the existence of God (we consider someone who neither affirms nor denies his existence to be “agnostic”), I wonder if there can be true atheists without this belief driving them to absolute despair and causing them to commit all sorts of atrocities in front of their fellow human beings. Isn’t it rather that those who call themselves this way have not, deep down, seriously reflected on the consequences of God’s nonexistence? How many of these atheists, when things are looking bad and they see that their hour of death is near, do not commend themselves “to Him above” at the prospect of ceasing to exist forever?
Curiously, many of these “atheists” are precisely people with solid moral principles, who in most cases wouldn’t hurt a fly. They are what you’d call “good people.” In many cases, they’re people who don’t understand how God can allow so much injustice and barbarity to happen in this world, and they react to it by denying His existence. Curiously, a large portion of today’s atheists are so “thanks” to the Catholic Church, that is, in opposition to it; as the film director Buñuel said when he said: “I’m an atheist, thank God.”
Is it worth trying to get these people to see “religious” matters from a different perspective? Perhaps it’s a good idea to try to show them another perspective, to talk to them about free will as a response to God’s apparent indifference to worldly affairs, for example. But only if we discern a certain perceptiveness in the person we are speaking to. As Jesus said in the aforementioned paragraph on page 1466, “God cannot be revealed to those who do not seek him.”
One of the great problems we face in today’s societies is the crisis of values: many worship the god of money, forgetting that money is a means, not an end; aesthetics and outward appearance are highly valued in and of themselves, but not as a reflection of true beauty, which is so illuminatingly discussed in the LU. This is why many people, despite having everything they desire materially, feel empty and jaded.
Many intellectuals of modern times have proclaimed that we live in the era following the “death of God,” of which Nietzsche spoke. That there are no secure values, that everything is relative and precarious. We live in times of disbelief. In the face of this prevailing current of thought, religion as a personal experience can contribute greatly to changing this perception of ethics and religion. It can provide the secure values that people continue to demand. God is not dead; rather, he is closer to us than we think.
In her novel “Anima Mundi,” Italian writer Susana Tamaro portrays a highly sensitive and intelligent young man who doesn’t believe in God, and this leads him to extremely low levels of degradation. The young man falls into the abyss not once, but several times, until finally, searching for a friend as tormented as he is, he meets a nun who helps him see existence from “the other side,” from the perspective of those who have faith. In one of the many conversations they have, the nun, in a very lucid reflection, typical of someone who has lived long and hard lives, tells him that the worst thing about these times we live in is that intelligence doesn’t accompany faith, and this is devastating for individuals in particular and for society in general.
Intelligence and sensitivity make us see this world as an unjust and cruel place, but without faith, we have no reason to act in the face of the shortcomings we encounter. If God doesn’t exist, any other reason to act with love toward our fellow human beings sounds hollow and inconsistent. Or do we act well only out of fear of being punished? Many of our behaviors can only be understood if we consider the “divine spark” within us. It’s true that there are many people who, even while professing to be atheists, are capable of exemplary ethical behavior, but I still think they are not consistent atheists. An atheist who took the denial of God to its ultimate consequences would end up going mad with despair. To paraphrase Dostoevsky: “If God doesn’t exist, then everything is permitted.”