-
Posts
-
103:1:1 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.3:1:12 The fluctuations of the Father’s presence are not due to the changeableness of God. The Father does not retire in seclusion because he has been slighted; his affections are not alienated because of the creature’s wrongdoing. Rather, having been endowed with the power of choice (concerning Himself), his children, in the exercise of that choice, directly determine the degree and limitations of the Father’s divine influence in their own hearts and souls. The Father has freely bestowed himself upon us without limit and without favor. He is no respecter of persons, planets, systems, or universes. In the sectors of time he confers differential honor only on the Paradise personalities of God the Sevenfold, the co-ordinate creators of the finite universes.196:1:2 The time is ripe to witness the figurative resurrection of the human Jesus from his burial tomb amidst the theological traditions and the religious dogmas of nineteen centuries. Jesus of Nazareth must not be longer sacrificed to even the splendid concept of the glorified Christ. What a transcendent service if, through this revelation, the Son of Man should be recovered from the tomb of traditional theology and be presented as the living Jesus to the church that bears his name, and to all other religions! Surely the Christian fellowship of believers will not hesitate to make such adjustments of faith and of practices of living as will enable it to “follow after” the Master in the demonstration of his real life of religious devotion to the doing of his Father’s will and of consecration to the unselfish service of man. Do professed Christians fear the exposure of a self-sufficient and unconsecrated fellowship of social respectability and selfish economic maladjustment? Does institutional Christianity fear the possible jeopardy, or even the overthrow, of traditional ecclesiastical authority if the Jesus of Galilee is reinstated in the minds and souls of mortal men as the ideal of personal religious living? Indeed, the social readjustments, the economic transformations, the moral rejuvenations, and the religious revisions of Christian civilization would be drastic and revolutionary if the living religion of Jesus should suddenly supplant the theologic religion about Jesus.
Very wordy. Your time is better spent thinking with your TA and not cutting and pasting. You cannot serve two Master. The time you take away from God is unwisely spent. Regurgitating text is time away from God even if the words are about God. These words are not God.
102:1:5 God is so all real and absolute that no material sign of proof or no demonstration of so-called miracle may be offered in testimony of his reality. Always will we know him because we trust him, and our belief in him is wholly based on our personal participation in the divine manifestations of his infinite reality.Then why do you not bear witness to your Thought Adjuster and personally participate in the divine manifestations of his infinite reality?
Quoting TUB is very impersonal because it is not a person.
Very wordy. Your time is better spent thinking with your TA and not cutting and pasting. You cannot serve two Master. The time you take away from God is unwisely spent. Regurgitating text is time away from God even if the words are about God. These words are not God.
True Manny, the Urantia Book is “very wordy”, but you yourself have mentioned that you have written a book regarding the science aspects of the UB, and I must assume that you also used words to express your thoughts. But, in the case of this forum/blog, it is helpful to present its text for comparison, specifically when attempting to express one’s personal understanding of its context. Since the UB has a life of its own, I do often read many of the presented text, and look up those presentations on my various digital versions, where I can search many of the presented ideas and assimilations. In so doing I have found many changes within the context as presented from my first reading, where it would seem futile for me to reread the book from cover to cover, where in its life cycle of understanding, would change again within a short period of time.
However, as you say “These words are not God.” But, depending on one’s interpretation of the activity of the Thought Adjuster from within, would require much practice and personal mind processing in order to truly understand any meaning that might be interpreted as coming from the TA. You have mentioned several times, in your own reference to the/your TA, where if you are sure that you have mastered this understanding as being your TA, and thereby being the will of God as He would have you minister to others and yourself, would normally be a personal communion and it might otherwise be augmented without questioning ones own pre-thoughts prior to acting out, through words, out Fathers Will. Where, going back to your proclamation that “These words are not God”, is again true but if you could communicate through mindal means, you may better understand our Fathers use of every form of communication.
Nevertheless, I can “serve two Masters” as long as one of those masters is myself, and I agree with the other’s perspective. Even if the actions are mine, and the consequence our Father’s, I still have to live with my actions, and if my actions cause an adverse consequence to someone else, I still have to take responsibility.
True Manny, the Urantia Book is “very wordy”, but you yourself have mentioned that you have written a book regarding the science aspects of the UB, and I must assume that you also used words to express your thoughts.
Yes but I acknowledge that my words are not my thoughts but only symbols of my thoughts.
But, in the case of this forum/blog, it is helpful to present its text for comparison, specifically when attempting to express one’s personal understanding of its context.
OK, but only if one admits that it is only a text and nothing more. Not a LIVING revelation.
Since the UB has a life of its own, I do often read many of the presented text, and look up those presentations on my various digital versions, where I can search many of the presented ideas and assimilations.
I assume you use the phrase “life of its own” as a figure of speech. TUB has no life and it is not living. It is a crystalized text.
In so doing I have found many changes within the context as presented from my first reading, where it would seem futile for me to reread the book from cover to cover, where in its life cycle of understanding, would change again within a short period of time.
The book is dead and changes not. What changes is your reaction to the text as you have progressed.
But, depending on one’s interpretation of the activity of the Thought Adjuster from within, would require much practice and personal mind processing in order to truly understand any meaning that might be interpreted as coming from the TA. Y
The TA’s communication is not subject to interpretation, it is direct. Practicing the presence of God is communion. This is oneness. This takes practice indeed.
You have mentioned several times, in your own reference to the/your TA, where if you are sure that you have mastered this understanding as being your TA, and thereby being the will of God as He would have you minister to others and yourself, would normally be a personal communion and it might otherwise be augmented without questioning ones own pre-thoughts prior to acting out, through words, out Fathers Will.
I have mastered nothing and never claimed this. My practice is personal. I have no “pre-thoughts” and really do not find this term worthy of meaning. My thoughts originate with the thinker of the thoughts. I cannot think before I think. And words are not acts. Words can bely thoughts but acts cannot. When words bely thoughts, the resulting words are hypocritical.
Where, going back to your proclamation that “These words are not God”, is again true but if you could communicate through mindal means, you may better understand our Fathers use of every form of communication.
The Father has no form and makes no use of forms of communication. The Father is direct and without form. I can do nothing else but communicate through mindal means. What other means is there?
Nevertheless, I can “serve two Masters” as long as one of those masters is myself, and I agree with the other’s perspective. Even if the actions are mine, and the consequence our Father’s, I still have to live with my actions, and if my actions cause an adverse consequence to someone else, I still have to take responsibility.
You can only serve one Master because you cannot be a Master to yourself. There is only one Mind, and either you are of that Mind or you are not. To God there is only two kinds of persons, those that abide in Him and those that do not. Actions are always preceded by thought. If the thought abides in God, then no harm can come to someone else. The thought that does not abide in God is unreal and the action that follows has no consequence to another, only to oneself. No one can take responsibility for the reaction of another. Your actions only affects you. Forgive others and you are forgiven.
MidiChlorian wrote: True Manny, the Urantia Book is “very wordy”, but you yourself have mentioned that you have written a book regarding the science aspects of the UB, and I must assume that you also used words to express your thoughts.
Yes but I acknowledge that my words are not my thoughts but only symbols of my thoughts.
Okay, so what you are saying is that the words which you are typing on these blog pages, and those you put in your book, are only symbols that are a projection of your thoughts, but being that they are your thought symbols, they would only be discernible by you, and that anyone who would read your book, would need to have access to your thoughts or mind, or cosmic mind, to be able to understand what you wrote? If you wrote your book in reference to what is in the Urantia Book, did you use any UB quotes as a comparison or, did you take what you perceived to be written in the UB and put that in your own words? If so, even though the UB is in public domain, would what you wrote not be deserving of due credit? Or, have you taken that which has been presented in the UB as your own?
MidiChlorian wrote: But, in the case of this forum/blog, it is helpful to present its text for comparison, specifically when attempting to express one’s personal understanding of its context.
OK, but only if one admits that it is only a text and nothing more. Not a LIVING revelation.
Yes, the Urantia Book is text, but there are many who would believe that it represents more, or as you say, less. Would you also profess that the Biblical “Book of Revelation” is also just text, although it was professed to be presented through Jesus? Which, would be a similar parallel, yet only in the minds of those who believe it is, and for any others, just word symbols which have no meaning at all, just fiction. Therefore, all that has been presented in the Bible, New Testament, that references Jesus, is all fiction as well? If this is your case also, regarding the UB, then why bother reading it at all? It would seem that in some cases you can have two masters, depending on your thoughts?
MidiChlorian wrote: Since the UB has a life of its own, I do often read many of the presented text, and look up those presentations on my various digital versions, where I can search many of the presented ideas and assimilations.
I assume you use the phrase “life of its own” as a figure of speech. TUB has no life and it is not living. It is a crystalized text.
Yes and No, where no, in that every peace of literary work comes to life when read by several people, and that these readings can take on a much different form or meaning from which the authors may have intended. What one reads becomes a form of experienced thought which is resident in the mind as memory, and as one rereads these words again, that which was read previously now takes on a different meaning only because when one started to first read the work, they did not know what to expect. Having then read the work, and by rereading it, that which was read at first takes on a different meaning, thereby changing the context of the word and symbols used.
MidiChlorian wrote: In so doing I have found many changes within the context as presented from my first reading, where it would seem futile for me to reread the book from cover to cover, where in its life cycle of understanding, would change again within a short period of time.
The book is dead and changes not. What changes is your reaction to the text as you have progressed.
The answer to my previous reply should also apply here as well.
MidiChlorian wrote: But, depending on one’s interpretation of the activity of the Thought Adjuster from within, would require much practice and personal mind processing in order to truly understand any meaning that might be interpreted as coming from the TA.
The TA’s communication is not subject to interpretation, it is direct. Practicing the presence of God is communion. This is oneness. This takes practice indeed.
I have addressed this a little better in another reply to your reply on a different topic, yet as you say that “the TA’s communication” “is direct” and your previous comments which I interpret you indicating that your perception of consciousness is singular in nature, where if this was correct, would you be able to distinguish between you and the TA, and even with practice, would your mind replaces one vocal tone as if it is another? Could this be considered as an alternate reflection of your conscious self?
MidiChlorian wrote: You have mentioned several times, in your own reference to the/your TA, where if you are sure that you have mastered this understanding as being your TA, and thereby being the will of God as He would have you minister to others and yourself, would normally be a personal communion and it might otherwise be augmented without questioning ones own pre-thoughts prior to acting out, through words, out Fathers Will.
I have mastered nothing and never claimed this. My practice is personal. I have no “pre-thoughts” and really do not find this term worthy of meaning. My thoughts originate with the thinker of the thoughts. I cannot think before I think. And words are not acts. Words can bely thoughts but acts cannot. When words bely thoughts, the resulting words are hypocritical.
How can your practice be personal if in your responses to other, here, that they should use their TA, whereby this implies that you have experience in doing likewise but, your mention above where you say, “My thoughts originate with the thinker of the thoughts” would indicate more than one thinker? Regarding the term I used, “Pre-thoughts” was in its context used to mean, think before one acts, in that if one responds to something without thinking, it is a reflex action, and is generally not a function of the mind but of the primal creature.
MidiChlorian wrote: Where, going back to your proclamation that “These words are not God”, is again true but if you could communicate through mindal means, you may better understand our Fathers use of every form of communication.
The Father has no form and makes no use of forms of communication. The Father is direct and without form. I can do nothing else but communicate through mindal means. What other means is there?
With God, all things are possible, even with “forms of communication.” If you cannot see the Father, than you are not living within Him. It would also seem that your interpretation of “mindal” is that which your thoughts are most commonly presented within the mind, which is a representation of the verbal self consciousness. This is not what the UB is referring to when it uses “mindal”. At best, I might describe it as an unconscious realization of a complete thought pattern, which has accessed specific memory locations from that which has been experienced before. It only takes the form of words or verbal symbols, when recalled into mind. But there are others forms.
MidiChlorian wrote: Nevertheless, I can “serve two Masters” as long as one of those masters is myself, and I agree with the other’s perspective. Even if the actions are mine, and the consequence our Father’s, I still have to live with my actions, and if my actions cause an adverse consequence to someone else, I still have to take responsibility.
You can only serve one Master because you cannot be a Master to yourself. There is only one Mind, and either you are of that Mind or you are not. To God there is only two kinds of persons, those that abide in Him and those that do not. Actions are always preceded by thought. If the thought abides in God, then no harm can come to someone else. The thought that does not abide in God is unreal and the action that follows has no consequence to another, only to oneself. No one can take responsibility for the reaction of another. Your actions only affects you. Forgive others and you are forgiven.
If “There is only one mind,” then I assume you are referring to the “cosmic mind”, if so, then what I wrote may have gone over your head. Notwithstanding, that it is important to “know thyself” before one can know, and commune with the TA, or our Father from within.
If one does not take responsibility for their own actions, including what they might think may come from the TA as well, which in some cases might indicate that whatever the action was, that it came from the TA rather than the self, is the difference between spirit and material being. When you say that “Your actions only affects you” is not totally true, because depending on that action, and if that action cases another harm, then by forgiving them will not relinquish your responsibility for redemption of your action. Would you forgive yourself, and not another, or would all one’s actions be justified as God’s Will?
emanny, I would like to know your thoughts on the following. This may detract from the subject of the thread, so I ask its author for forgiveness. TUB contains epochal revelation whose purpose is to evolve humanity’s understanding of God. How important is epochal revelation at the individual level, if at all; and how would compare auto-revelation and epochal revelation in terms of importance to the individual? Thanks!
BB
Okay, so what you are saying is that the words which you are typing on these blog pages, and those you put in your book, are only symbols that are a projection of your thoughts, but being that they are your thought symbols, they would only be discernible by you, and that anyone who would read your book, would need to have access to your thoughts or mind, or cosmic mind, to be able to understand what you wrote? If
Yes.
Or, have you taken that which has been presented in the UB as your own?
No.
Would you also profess that the Biblical “Book of Revelation” is also just text, although it was professed to be presented through Jesus?
Yes, it is text, but must be given true meaning by one who knows the Spirit of Truth.
Which, would be a similar parallel, yet only in the minds of those who believe it is, and for any others, just word symbols which have no meaning at all, just fiction. Therefore, all that has been presented in the Bible, New Testament, that references Jesus, is all fiction as well? If this is your case also, regarding the UB, then why bother reading it at all? It would seem that in some cases you can have two masters, depending on your thoughts?
Persons give meaning to meaningless text. Fiction to those that the words do not ring true, but true to those that are filled with the Spirit. Reading TUB is not a bother because it rings true. I cannot make an idol of text, however. Words that are given meaning by persons can be discerned as true because the person has a spirit core.
There is only one Master to serve. There is only one source of thought.
Having then read the work, and by rereading it, that which was read at first takes on a different meaning, thereby changing the context of the word and symbols used.
This is because you give the text meaning. In a subsequent reading, you have a different experience resume.
I have addressed this a little better in another reply to your reply on a different topic, yet as you say that “the TA’s communication” “is direct” and your previous comments which I interpret you indicating that your perception of consciousness is singular in nature, where if this was correct, would you be able to distinguish between you and the TA, and even with practice, would your mind replaces one vocal tone as if it is another? Could this be considered as an alternate reflection of your conscious self?
Thought Adjusters are not persons and I am a person. Me and my TA are easily distinguishable.
How can your practice be personal if in your responses to other, here, that they should use their TA, whereby this implies that you have experience in doing likewise but, your mention above where you say, “My thoughts originate with the thinker of the thoughts” would indicate more than one thinker? Regarding the term I used, “Pre-thoughts” was in its context used to mean, think before one acts, in that if one responds to something without thinking, it is a reflex action, and is generally not a function of the mind but of the primal creature.
I do have experience with communicating with my TA but I never claimed that I had “mastered” that communication. There is only on “Thinker” because There is only one thought. We live in Him and He lives in us. How many multiples can you make of that? No one can act without first thinking. A reflex is not an action because no mind was in play. Even the primal creature has a mind and is ministered by the adjutant mind spirits.
If you cannot see the Father, than you are not living within Him.
Although I cannot see the Father with my physical eyes I perceive Him by His gift of faith.
At best, I might describe it as an unconscious realization of a complete thought pattern, which has accessed specific memory locations from that which has been experienced before.
I cannot follow you when you use terms that are meaningless like, “unconscious realization”. How can one realize anything if one is unconscious?
But there are others forms.
There are infinite forms. But only One is formless.
If “There is only one mind,” then I assume you are referring to the “cosmic mind”, if so, then what I wrote may have gone over your head. Notwithstanding, that it is important to “know thyself” before one can know, and commune with the TA, or our Father from within.
I do not know what you are saying here. I can commune with my TA but I cannot know my TA because it is not a person. I can only know other persons. I can know the Father as a person, but I cannot know the Father fragment as a preperson. Is this going over your head?
If one does not take responsibility for their own actions, including what they might think may come from the TA as well, which in some cases might indicate that whatever the action was, that it came from the TA rather than the self, is the difference between spirit and material being. When you say that “Your actions only affects you” is not totally true, because depending on that action, and if that action cases another harm, then by forgiving them will not relinquish your responsibility for redemption of your action. Would you forgive yourself, and not another, or would all one’s actions be justified as God’s Will?
Nothing can come from the TA because it is not a person. What harm can come to another by my actions. Hurt feelings from insults and betrayals? Broken bones from physical violence? Financial harm from theft? Physical death by extreme violence?
What harm can come to me by another’s actions?
Are any of these so called harms reconciled in eternity? God resides in eternity and we reside in Him who resides in eternity. Forgiveness means to “look past”. Eternity is forgiving because it washes away sin.
Our thoughts, words and actions are justified in eternity. There is justice in God and God is in eternity and we are in God and He is in us.
This is God’s Will.
emanny, I would like to know your thoughts on the following. This may detract from the subject of the thread, so I ask its author for forgiveness. TUB contains epochal revelation whose purpose is to evolve humanity’s understanding of God. How important is epochal revelation at the individual level, if at all; and how would compare auto-revelation and epochal revelation in terms of importance to the individual? Thanks!
Hi BB, I will take a stab at answering your very sincere questions. Mind you, I can only offer an opinion.
TUB is epochal because it gives important information that helps save time. A revelation is a disclosure of information. This does not mean that TUB can be purposeful in gaining humanity an understanding of God. God is an infinite person and only eternity can disclose an understanding of God. He can be known as a person by other persons and TUB is not a person. TUB does not know God, it is only a text.
Jesus is a living revelation of The Father. He and the Father are One. The individual is well cared for by the various spirit ministries.
Auto revelation is the imparting of truths that comes about through direct communication with ones TA. This is not describable because it is direct and devoid of intermediary symbolism. This is a spiritual experience and is not relatable to others in words. It is relatable to others as love.
Regards, Manny
4:1.5 God upholds “all things by the word of his power.” And when new worlds are born, he “sends forth his Sons and they are created.” God not only creates, but he “preserves them all.” God constantly upholds all things material and all beings spiritual. The universes are eternally stable. There is stability in the midst of apparent instability. There is an underlying order and security in the midst of the energy upheavals and the physical cataclysms of the starry realms.
The Stoic concept of the logos, or The Word, which permeates all of reality giving order and stability to all things, I think comes closest to describing the way the universe works. The problem with the Stoics, however, is that their concept of the logos, or The Word, was divested of personality. Although the UB tells us that stoicism was a superior philosophy and a sublime morality, it fell short because it failed to recognize God as a person. The Word is a person. Nevertheless, stoicism heavily influenced Christianity.
121:4.3 . The Stoic. Stoicism was the superior philosophy of the better classes. The Stoics believed that a controlling Reason-Fate dominated all nature. They taught that the soul of man was divine; that it was imprisoned in the evil body of physical nature. Man’s soul achieved liberty by living in harmony with nature, with God; thus virtue came to be its own reward. Stoicism ascended to a sublime morality, ideals never since transcended by any purely human system of philosophy. While the Stoics professed to be the “offspring of God,” they failed to know him and therefore failed to find him. Stoicism remained a philosophy; it never became a religion. Its followers sought to attune their minds to the harmony of the Universal Mind, but they failed to envisage themselves as the children of a loving Father. Paul leaned heavily toward Stoicism when he wrote, “I have learned in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.”
emanny, I would like to know your thoughts on the following. This may detract from the subject of the thread, so I ask its author for forgiveness. TUB contains epochal revelation whose purpose is to evolve humanity’s understanding of God. How important is epochal revelation at the individual level, if at all; and how would compare auto-revelation and epochal revelation in terms of importance to the individual? Thanks!
Hi BB, I will take a stab at answering your very sincere questions. Mind you, I can only offer an opinion. TUB is epochal because it gives important information that helps save time. A revelation is a disclosure of information. This does not mean that TUB can be purposeful in gaining humanity an understanding of God. God is an infinite person and only eternity can disclose an understanding of God. He can be known as a person by other persons and TUB is not a person. TUB does not know God, it is only a text. Jesus is a living revelation of The Father. He and the Father are One. The individual is well cared for by the various spirit ministries. Auto revelation is the imparting of truths that comes about through direct communication with ones TA. This is not describable because it is direct and devoid of intermediary symbolism. This is a spiritual experience and is not relatable to others in words. It is relatable to others as love. Regards, Manny
Thanks, Manny.
BB
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.