-
Posts
-
In looking up stuff about TUB online, I came across people who view ACIM as compatible with TUB. They consider the two works to be on the same level, at least, that is my ttake on it. I tried to read ACIM once and it didn’t make sense to me so I stopped reading it. Recently we were discussing a certain document and came to the conclusion that it was not “ligit.” I thought I’d try to read acim again, just to see how others think, and wanted the thoughts of our little corner of the urantia book community on it. Any one ever tried to read it or read it and practiced it? Last time I tried to read it the course gave me a headache. I guess I should have a bottle of Aleave handy if I plan to read the course. If any one practiced the course workbook, what were the effects? For me, I did a week’s worth of lessons and felt like I’d been dropped off a cliff and hadn’t landed yet. That was another reason why I stopped reading/practicing it.
I spent a few years trying to make sense of that nonsense . . . even went to one of those new age churches where they were teaching it. Finally used the book and the workbooks as kindling. Feel much better now.
I thought I’d try to read acim again, just to see how others think, and wanted the thoughts of our little corner of the urantia book community on it.
I tried reading it years ago, but the writing style was confusing. I couldn’t make heads or tails of it. I tested myself by thoughtfully reading a paragraph, followed by reviewing that paragraph to see if I could re-state what it was attempting to convey to readers. I gave up because I couldn’t make sense of it. For me it lacked the quality of expression I knew was possible. Already was I a student of the UB. When you get used to excellent post-graduate presentations such as the material text of the UB on our origin, history and destiny, to me everything else paled by comparison. I like straightforward sentences attractively arranged in coherent paragraphs grouped sequentially, paragraph by paragraph, under specific sections within a chapter, or *PAPER* as designated in the UB.
Currently we have a UB student in our study group who very much likes acim and often makes comparisons of her understanding of acim to her understanding of the UB. I think it is natural for people to want to compare various texts. Each one of us has a personal frame of reference that informs us, or maybe prejudices us, on the approach to the UB: a unique text made into a unique book. Several years ago a new reader who was deeply into acim started coming to study group. I couldn’t tell if she were trying to make the UB fit into her preconceptions or trying to make her preconceptions fit into the UB material. As in our experience over many years with many readers, so with her we patiently answered every one of her questions to the best of our abilities, and there were many questions. After about a year and a half, she graciously bowed out of our group, saying she needed to do more thinking.
92:7.3 The many religions of Urantia 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 Urantia 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..ACIMers, Mormons, etc, are on a journey too.115:1.2 Conceptual frames of the universe are only relatively true; they are serviceable scaffolding which must eventually give way before the expansions of enlarging cosmic comprehension.Never heard of it
not a believer in miracles
but im certain their use of the word has meaning other than miracles?
. . . im certain their use of the word has meaning other than miracles?
I don’t know. Do people still believe in *miracles*? I think many people of faith believe in miracles. But then many people of faith also believe in demons. Here is instruction from the UB:
120:4.5 Urantia mortals have varying concepts of the miraculous, but to us who live as citizens of the local universe there are few miracles, and of these by far the most intriguing are the incarnational bestowals of the Paradise Sons. The appearance in and on your world, by apparently natural processes, of a divine Son, we regard as a miracle — the operation of universal laws beyond our understanding. Jesus of Nazareth was a miraculous person..136:8.2 Jesus very wisely foresaw that the working of miracles and the execution of wonders would call forth only outward allegiance by overawing the material mind; such performances would not reveal God nor save men. He refused to become a mere wonder-worker. He resolved to become occupied with but a single task — the establishment of the kingdom of heaven.Gene wrote: but im certain their use of the word has meaning other than miracles?This could be a good place to start explaining where ACIM and TUB are different. ACIM’s first chapter attempts to define miracles. Essentially, it states that everything that comes from love is a miracle, which might be acceptable if it stopped right there, and if we all had the same definition of love. But, the chapter goes on to further describe miracles and messes up a ton of stuff along the way.
It says that miracles mean life . . . well okay . . . but then says you will be told all you need to know by “His Voice”. So, are we supposed to just live and let live while waiting to hear “His Voice” which will come automatically? TUB says no, we need to seek.
It says miracles are involuntary habits, not under conscious control because if we consciously select miracles they will be misguided. Now that is total nonsense if you trust what TUB describes as the need for wholehearted, sincere conscious decisions for progress. AICM wants us to be amoebas.
ACIM says miracles are natural and if they don’t occur something is wrong. Well yeah . . . it means you’re not alive, not loving, and according to ACIM logic, not acting like an amoeba.
The next description of miracles is that they are everyone’s right but no one can have their rights without first being purified. My question: how do you purify an amoeba?
Next is the social justice, communistic appeal of the book which everyone seems to love, and in my opinion, the reason for its sales. Miracles heal because those who have something give to those who lack something. Miracles are “haves” giving to the “have-nots.” But think about it, if miracles come from unconscious habits, how does this actually happen? I’m guessing that “His Voice” makes it happen somehow without you being conscious of it, that is, as long as you’re a living purified amoeba.
Furthermore, ACIM goes on to explain that this social justice which comes from the “haves” giving to the “have-nots” has the cosmic power to reverse all physical laws. Now, these so-called physical laws apparently have nothing at all to do with physics. Physical laws are reversed because both givers and the receivers get more love due to the miracle. All I can say is that I didn’t know love was subject to physical laws, like gravity . . . TUB tells us that love is a feature of personality relations; it is the greatest spirit reality and responsive to the Father’s personality gravity circuit.
Then ACIM tells us that prayer is the medium for miracles. Now this makes sense if amoebas could pray, maybe only purified amoebas pray, don’t know. But ACIM can’t leave it there, it messes things up even more by going on to state that love is received through prayer followed by expression as a miracle. TUB tells us something different. Yes, all love comes from God, but it’s not about receiving love followed by sharing it. According to TUB, we’re not even aware of God’s love until we actually share it. This is a very fine point, one not appreciated by the author of ACIM who leaves the reader with the impression that prayer allows you to store up God’s love which makes you a “have”, and then you share it with a “have-not” in order to create the miracle. But somehow you do this without thinking or free will choice.
117:6.10 All true love is from God, and man receives the divine affection as he himself bestows this love upon his fellows. Love is dynamic. It can never be captured; it is alive, free, thrilling, and always moving. Man can never take the love of the Father and imprison it within his heart. The Father’s love can become real to mortal man only by passing through that man’s personality as he in turn bestows this love upon his fellows. The great circuit of love is from the Father, through sons to brothers, and hence to the Supreme. The love of the Father appears in the mortal personality by the ministry of the indwelling Adjuster. Such a God-knowing son reveals this love to his universe brethren, and this fraternal affection is the essence of the love of the Supreme.
Then ACIM mucks everything up beyond understanding by saying that miracles are thoughts. First they tell us not to think, then they tell us that we have two ways of thinking, physical and spiritual without explaining how amoebas do that. It then states later that miracles will make your mind one with God. So again, social justice makes you one with God . . . giving what you “have” to those who “have-not”. And that just opens the door to self-righteousness, in my opinion. I’m also wondering if the “have-nots” don’t have “His Voice” for some reason, but I digress.
Anyway, this is just the first page of what I consider to be confusional, human derived poppycock. But I can understand why some people like it. I don’t. I think it’s a mess.
Oh, I just have to share this from ACIM before I go: Miracles enable you to heal the sick and raise the dead because you made sickness and death yourself, and can therefore abolish both. Chapter 1:24
Can you see where this is going? How it scrambles up potential truth into twisted knots? How it is partial and thus potentially evil as well as potentially true? That’s why it’s so confusing. The author wants you to think that all the confusion in understanding it is due to its mystical source, but it’s actually caused by it’s lack of a true source. It’s human derived. The door is wide open to erroneous ideas, whereas TUB narrows that opening significantly by being divinely derived and revelational. And, the more you read TUB the less confused you get, whereas the more you read ACIM, the more confused you get. At least that was my experience. (Needed both Tylenol and Aleve.)
2:7.4 The false science of materialism would sentence mortal man to become an outcast in the universe. Such partial knowledge is potentially evil; it is knowledge composed of both good and evil. Truth is beautiful because it is both replete and symmetrical. When man searches for truth, he pursues the divinely real.
TUB just does not have confusing information. The only difficulties I encountered was some of the science and there are several brilliant science types who read TUB that have cleared this up with scientific type debunking.
Also, someone close to me has extensive experience helping drug addicted people in the NA program. Almost all who reconstruct their lives successfully believe the change to be miracle but I see it as dedication and hard work. And there is no way I would attempt to convince them otherwise.
can anyone define what a miracle is?
We are told that deity has direct mind manipulation of matter/energy prerogatives. If me as a human person could witness this with no explaination or insight or coaching it would certainly be a miracle.
water into wine as an example.
There are no miracles….and yet so much that is miraculous! A miracle is anything witnessed where the witness has no explanation for the phenomena witnessed. The less knowledge and experience one has, the more “miracles” one witnesses! We are told the scientific method helps reduce the primitive and fear based perspective where everything is due to the “hand” of God or is good or bad luck, etc.
There are those phenomena which even the authors of the Papers find miraculous or are considered miracle…but they are clear to point out this perspective is also based on their own personal lack of knowledge, understanding, and experience.
This is one of the greatest distinctions between the Papers and CIM – there are causes and effects that are quite real and well understood for the sincere tadpole to embrace….an appreciation for the miraculous does not require that reality and systems/personalities be hidden or given mystery by the use of the term “Miracles”. The proof of this pudding is how CIM increases confusions and while paradox is also a natural and functional form of reality-grasping and transcendence, CIM presents contradictions rather than paradox….very confusing indeed! Or so it was to me. I read the UB before however so a comparative analysis was unavoidable and not favorable to CIM.
Gene wrote: can anyone define what a miracle is?When I wake up in the morning with all my faculties and body parts intact, I consider it a miracle, especially if I can remember what I did yesterday and what I’m supposed to do today. Definitely a miracle for me, which makes me exceedingly grateful. I say that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but many seemingly insignificant things are, to me, small miracles of truth, beauty and goodness . . . little flashes of light. I do think each person has their own definition of the miraculous, that which makes them feel connected to the transcendental level of reality . . . the stuff that amazes them enough to cause wonder and inspire the heart to give thanks.
TUB just does not have confusing information. The only difficulties I encountered was some of the science and there are several brilliant science types who read TUB that have cleared this up with scientific type debunking.
Also, someone close to me has extensive experience helping drug addicted people in the NA program. Almost all who reconstruct their lives successfully believe the change to be miracle but I see it as dedication and hard work. And there is no way I would attempt to convince them otherwise.
can anyone define what a miracle is?
We are told that deity has direct mind manipulation of matter/energy prerogatives. If me as a human person could witness this with no explaination or insight or coaching it would certainly be a miracle.
water into wine as an example.
There are no miracles….and yet so much that is miraculous! A miracle is anything witnessed where the witness has no explanation for the phenomena witnessed. The less knowledge and experience one has, the more “miracles” one witnesses! We are told the scientific method helps reduce the primitive and fear based perspective where everything is due to the “hand” of God or is good or bad luck, etc.
There are those phenomena which even the authors of the Papers find miraculous or are considered miracle…but they are clear to point out this perspective is also based on their own personal lack of knowledge, understanding, and experience.
I must agree with “Bradly” that, “there are no miracles”, and there is much to be said for what “Gene” has presented as well for there will always be those who will associate the unknown to miracles, which have not yet been identified in today’s science. Where until things that have not been explained, may be considered as miraculous, and can be associated to God, where there will always be somethings that cannot be explained, so until then, why not just believe that miracles are possible. The UB has explained that many of the so called miracles, can be attributed to the manipulation of time, where in my own research and experience have determined that time is a separate entity, which has certain properties, some that can be seen, although does not explain all of time’s properties. I have experienced that there are pockets of local space or areas, if you will, that does not conform to normal properties, in that within these pockets, light is slowed, to a point where matter moving within these areas is not reflected to the visual cortex as would be normally expected. Having observed this phenomena, I concluded that it could be explained through an electromagnetic field that was in line with this visual aberration and also affected the reflective quality through glass or mirrors, where it seemed to alter or bend this reflected light. This does explain a miracle but it would explain that there are some who are less curious, about what they have repeatedly seen or experienced, and would consider this as a miracle, even if it was a repetitive and reproducible phenomena.
So miracles are things which cannot be explained in our understanding of reality, but there is no reason to assume that there are realities which cannot be seen, which can manipulate time in such a way as to change one thing to another, regardless of reason or purpose. It is these phenomena, which cannot be explained, that is either a miracle to a lesser mind, who would rather just believe, then question why this may be possible. By lesser mind, I refer to those who either do not have the experience, time or interest to look for another possible theory as an explanation, and others who like to find out more, as to why these things are possible. If it were not for these phenomena, there would be no reason for science to continue to find answers which can contribute to progress.
So, bottom line would be that if things seem to change or are miraculous, there must also be an additional factor or authority which is manipulating our reality that seems to change from time to time. The question is, who or what is behind these changes which cannot be seen, and why?
(1530.5) 137:4.13 But this was in no sense a miracle. No law of nature was modified, abrogated, or even transcended. Nothing happened but the abrogation of time in association with the celestial assembly of the chemical elements requisite for the elaboration of the wine. At Cana on this occasion the agents of the Creator made wine just as they do by the ordinary natural processes except that they did it independently of time and with the intervention of superhuman agencies in the matter of the space assembly of the necessary chemical ingredients.
Don’t forget the acim workbook and teachers manual… A year long meditation program incorporating the nonsense as well as question and answers… in that order. I just spent several hours reading the text part of the course and based on it, I don’t think I’ll try any of the meditations. And I need a drink… a very strong drink… A bottle of Crown sounds about right… to help me get acim out of my head… OWWWWWW! No wonder this gave me a headache last time! Then again, the whisky would give me a headache too… Lesser of two evils?
Seriously though. If I were going to follow a religious path, I’d want it to make some sort of sense. That’s why I follow the teachings of TUB. It makes sense more than any other religious way, if I’m making sence, that I’ve studied… including acim.
That interval which is the varying degree of transcendence between what we observe and our interpretation is a revelation in itself. It may be timeless but it is an interval for us. If someone were in there manipulating they would really be in trouble don’t you think?
Gene,
On January 23 you wrote this: “The only difficulties I encountered was some of the science and there are several brilliant science types who read TUB that have cleared this up with scientific type debunking.”
I am curious who are those brilliant science types who read TUB. Can you say? I am not questioning your credibility, but only curious about how much involvement with the UB is found among scientists. And I’m wondering what was debunked. Not being a scientist, I can’t comment on cosmic physical details, but still remain interested in scientists’ progress regarding non-material origins.
One is Philip Calabrisi
Nigel on this forum has written quite a bit.
dr Chris Halverson – maybe not a scientist but does get into TUB science.
Also, if a man like hawking would take the time to read the revelation i am certain he would help readers be more comfortable with the science parts.
Gene, On January 23 you wrote this: “The only difficulties I encountered was some of the science and there are several brilliant science types who read TUB that have cleared this up with scientific type debunking.” I am curious who are those brilliant science types who read TUB. Can you say? I am not questioning your credibility, but only curious about how much involvement with the UB is found among scientists. And I’m wondering what was debunked. Not being a scientist, I can’t comment on cosmic physical details, but still remain interested in scientists’ progress regarding non-material origins.
curious: are there parts of the revelation that get into science that concern you?
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.