Agondonters

[Bradly]

See’s what?  Exactly please.   Not knowing truth is no evil.  Choosing falsehoods over truth known certainly is.  One purpose of the UB: deliver facts of reality to bring truth through its realization.  Humanity has many great ideals and a great many who work on their behalf.  Understanding will deliver progress to the each and the all.  Is there a “program” or merely a legacy based on fear and suffering I wonder?

[Van Amadon]

This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.

Bradly,

I’m getting tired of this.

I’m talking about everybody seeing how the truth is being denied.

You said that there isn’t a cost to follow Jesus. But there is. Saying that there isn’t a cost, is a denial of the truth.

Bonita said “We don’t have to give up materialism” and goes on to say we are material beings that need material things. So you can’t say she meant “We don’t have to give up material things”. Why is she doing that?

Material-ism most definitely needs to be “given up”.

Please explain why you and Bonita keep insisting these kind of things.

Keep misrepresenting the truth?

It feels like it’s a program.

 

[Bonita]

VanAmadon wrote:

Bradly wrote:

Nothing of value must be surrendered

Bradly, I see that you support the idea that, if you say it enough times, that black is white, the people who read your words will give up, and give in to it. Black will never be white. Hear what is revealed about the surrender of “value”.

163:2.5 Then said the young man: “But, Master, I am not content to be your disciple; I would be one of your new messengers.” When Jesus heard this, he looked down upon him with a great love and said: “I will have you to be one of my messengers if you are willing to pay the price, if you will supply the one thing which you lack.” Matadormus replied: “Master, I will do anything if I may be allowed to follow you.” Jesus, kissing the kneeling young man on the forehead, said: “If you would be my messenger, go and sell all that you have and, when you have bestowed the proceeds upon the poor or upon your brethren, come and follow me, and you shall have treasure in the kingdom of heaven.”

163:2.6 When Matadormus heard this, his countenance fell. He arose and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. This wealthy young Pharisee had been raised to believe that wealth was the token of God’s favor. Jesus knew that he was not free from the love of himself and his riches. The Master wanted to deliver him from the love of wealth, not necessarily from the wealth. While the disciples of Jesus did not part with all their worldly goods, the apostles and the seventy did. Matadormus desired to be one of the seventy new messengers, and that was the reason for Jesus’ requiring him to part with all of his temporal possessions.

163:2.7. Almost every human being has some one thing which is held on to as a pet evil, and which the entrance into the kingdom of heaven requires as a part of the price of admission. If Matadormus had parted with his wealth, it probably would have been put right back into his hands for administration as treasurer of the seventy. For later on, after the establishment of the church at Jerusalem, he did obey the Master’s injunction, although it was then too late to enjoy membership in the seventy, and he became the treasurer of the Jerusalem church, of which James the Lord’s brother in the flesh was the head.

163:2.8.Thus always it was and forever will be: Men must arrive at their own decisions. There is a certain range of the freedom of choice which mortals may exercise. The forces of the spiritual world will not coerce man; they allow him to go the way of his own choosing.

So did Jesus ask Matadormus for a trifle?

How about this:

“Heed well what you have just seen. This poor widow cast in more than all the others, for all these others, from their superfluity, cast in some trifle as a gift, but this poor woman, even though she is in want, gave all that she had, even her living.”

WOW!  When did a pet evil become value????   This makes no sense at all.  Maybe reflection on the following quote is in order???

^100:3.3 In the contemplation of values you must distinguish between that which is value and that which has value. You must recognize the relation between pleasurable activities and their meaningful integration and enhanced realization on ever progressively higher and higher levels of human experience.

[Bonita]

VanAmadon wrote:  Bonita said “We don’t have to give up materialism” and goes on to say we are material beings that need material things. So you can’t say she meant “We don’t have to give up material things”. Why is she doing that?

Perhaps I did not explain myself very well, although Bradly easily understood what I meant and you should too Enno if you read the entire post.  You completely ignored the part about allowing spirit to dominate the material level.  I wrote:

No wait!  We don’t have to give up materialism, we have to learn how to allow spirit to dominate it.  We have to live a material life!  No floating Buddhas . . .

Bradly said we have to eagerly give up materialisms.  Note the “s” on the end.  He wasn’t talking about the philosophy of materialism, which is obviously a falsehood.  I should have included the “s” in my post, but was in a hurry.  But even so, you should have been able to understand the core of my message.  The fact that you so quickly accuse me of a falsification and misrepresentation of the truth is quite troubling.  How about asking for a clarification if you think something is wrong?

Not all of our materialistic tendencies are evil, and not all need to be given up.  That’s an over generalization of reality.  We all need to eat, we all need to sleep, we all need clothing, fuel sources and a host of other things to survive on this planet, all of which are material.  Jesus did not give up any of these material things but he dealt with them in a spiritual manner.

 

 

[nelsong]

 

VanAmadon wrote:

Bradly, I’m getting tired of this. I’m talking about everybody seeing how the truth is being denied. You said that there isn’t a cost to follow Jesus. But there is. Saying that there isn’t a cost, is a denial of the truth. Bonita said “We don’t have to give up materialism” and goes on to say we are material beings that need material things. So you can’t say she meant “We don’t have to give up material things”. Why is she doing that? Material-ism most definitely needs to be “given up”. Please explain why you and Bonita keep insisting these kind of things. Keep misrepresenting the truth? It feels like it’s a program.

So I take it that you have a handle on truth but Bonita and Brad do not?

Who else sees this implied misrepresentation? I would like to know. Stand up and be counted, please.

[Van Amadon]

This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.

nelsong wrote:

So I take it that you have a handle on truth

Handle? No. But Oz does have handles.

 

 

[Bonita]

nelsong wrote:  So I take it that you have a handle on truth but Bonita and Brad do not?

Oh geez!  I’m not claiming to have a handle on truth.  I don’t claim anything of the sort.  I’m just here to study, discuss, and share my ideas.  Most of the people I have encountered on these forums disagree with me about everything.  I’m used to that and I really don’t care.  But I don’t think it has anything to do with the revelation of truth.  Isn’t that what folks on channeling forums try to do?  Convince you that they have new truth that no one else has?  No, that is definitely not my bailiwick.  If you don’t like what I say, that’s fine with me.  I just don’t think it’s helpful to constantly derail conversations and fling ad hominem just because you don’t like what’s being said.  That’s just weird and more than a bit self-centered.  That’s how I see it.

[Bradly]

Thanks Nelson!!

Like Bonita, this tadpole claims no great wisdom or grip on truth…I too am here to learn knowledge by sharing the contents of fact and universe reality as delivered by the gift of Epochal Revelation (a book Enno claims to be dangerous).  Enno also attacks me at TruthBook with great regularity and gusto – in between apologizing for his shock shtick and personal difficulties.  I am here to learn.  I utilize the text as the center piece of that learning.

Now I am accused of being a truth denier and a manipulator in league with another/others to deceive.

I asked Enno to specify the “cost” of spiritizing our dual nature.  He offers nothing but unrelated text about a rich boy wanting to be an Apostle and keep his riches as “proof” of how much it costs to buy God’s love and salvation, which “pet evil” has nothing at all to do with his claim….this is about attachments and divided love and loyalty.  Enno’s grasp of the text is slippery at best and is delivered unceasingly with darkness, doubts, fears, and anxieties…hardly evidence of the sublime peace that a believer might display from hope, faith, and confidence in God and the friendly universe the Revelation proclaims to us all.

To the Mods:  I’m getting a little tired too to be frank.  A historical review of Enno’s posts here should provide sufficient evidence of his value or lack thereof in his attendance on this Forum.  He constantly disrupts discussion and discovery, personalizes taunts and accusations, and adds little to nothing to true dialogue since he will not answer any questions directly or respond when found to be in contradiction to the text itself.  It’s dang discombobulating and disruptive IMO.  You’re call of course.  How many warnings does such a disruptor get I wonder?

I’m taking a few days on the road now.  Thanks to those who participate and read along and those who provide this study group and support it daily…well done.  Perhaps I’ll regain some patience by then?  Yes indeed.

Carry on everyone and enjoy.  There will always be obstacles and challenges for our learning and our understanding.  May God’s light within guide us beyond all uncertainties and all doubts!!  = )

[Bonita]

Bradly wrote: To the Mods:  I’m getting a little tired too to be frank.  A historical review of Enno’s posts here should provide sufficient evidence of his value or lack thereof in his attendance on this Forum.  He constantly disrupts discussion and discovery, personalizes taunts and accusations, and adds little to nothing to true dialogue since he will not answer any questions directly or respond when found to be in contradiction to the text itself.  It’s dang discombobulating and disruptive IMO.  You’re call of course.  How many warnings does such a disruptor get I wonder?

Thanks so much for speaking up Bradly.  I’m of the same mind.  We were having such a lovely conversation.  I was sincerely enjoying it and looking forward to more.  Now I can’t remember what the heck we were talking about at all.  I do wish the constant disruptions would cease.  Many, many times I’ve thought of walking away from this forum because I find it to be so disheartening to be beaten up every time you open your mouth.  It’s so sad.

Have a great time on your road trip, but frankly, there’s little reason for me to be here either.  Perhaps the study group starting Memorial weekend might be a worthwhile venture . . .  we’ll see.

 

[Keryn]

Bradly wrote:

To the Mods: I’m getting a little tired too to be frank. A historical review of Enno’s posts here should provide sufficient evidence of his value or lack thereof in his attendance on this Forum. He constantly disrupts discussion and discovery, personalizes taunts and accusations, and adds little to nothing to true dialogue since he will not answer any questions directly or respond when found to be in contradiction to the text itself. It’s dang discombobulating and disruptive IMO.

 

I feel the same way.  Enno’s posts come across as insincere attempts to bait study group members into contentious discussions rather than to contribute productively to the topics being discussed.  This is not just a one-time thing but a pattern of behavior that is disruptive and divisive.  (Please note that I refer to “Enno’s posts” and not to Enno personally, as I have never met him so I cannot speak of him other than what he types into the threads here.)

[nelsong]

VanAmadon wrote:

nelsong wrote:

 

sorry

[nelsong]

nelsong wrote:

VanAmadon wrote:

nelsong wrote:

sorry

[Van Amadon]

Ok.

I’m not good with this. No way is it my intention to derail the discussions. I’m just baffled by some of the statements regarding the truth that I see made here sometimes.

I knew the Urantia Book was true the second I thumbed through it for the first time. Maybe that wasn’t your experience. But it was mine. I saw the truth before, in the other things in life too, which is why it was so heartfelt for me to read about the truth in the Urantia Book back then, when I was much younger than I am now.

For me, discovering the truth has been a certain kind of journey, I must admit. Although, having lived to a ripe old age now, I still know what’s true and what isn’t, pretty much like I always have.

I have spent close to my whole life getting in trouble for speaking up about the truth. So it’s nothing new here. I still get in trouble a lot with friends and family when I refer to the truth, and especially when I do it with the truths of the Urantia Book in mind.

I see now that I need to realize though, that the truth, as I perceive it, may be just that.

In fact my perception may not be the truth at all. So from your comments (all of you) I think it would be best that I remember that: “Truth, what is truth—who knows?”

No, I’m not being facetious, I’m grasping that if all of you are telling me that I have the truth incorrectly understood, and that it is disruptive to the discussions on this forum, then it will be best for me to not discuss the truth with you anymore. Because the derailment of truth is what I’m against, and if that can’t be a part of the discussion, I’ll have to respect that, and leave the discussion to you.

Enno

[Bonita]

140:8.28 The right to enter the kingdom is conditioned by faith, personal belief. The cost of remaining in the progressive ascent of the kingdom is the pearl of great price, in order to possess which a man sells all that he has.

I’m wondering if anyone here really believes that you must sell everything you have in order to remain in the Father’s kingdom and progress spiritually?  I doubt anyone would take that literally, but even metaphorically it has different levels of meaning.  I personally perceive this to mean that God demands total loyalty.  Anything that prevents total loyalty must be forfeited, but those things are not just material items, they can be attitudes and ideas as well.

Loyalty is related to faith, and thus to agondontership.  However, true loyalty is not about loyalty to things, but to persons, specifically the Father of us all. Loyalty is meaningless without a person.  Loyalty to a person engenders trust, and we know that faith and trust go together.  When they say that faith alone is all you need to enter the kingdom of heaven, that is because faith also brings along with it loyalty and trust. Maintaining an attitude of loyalty and trust is price of remaining there.

Have you ever wondered why Jesus asked James and Andrew so many times if they trusted him? To both of them he answered with, ” if you trust me, then trust your brethern more.”  That means be more loyal to the persons in your life than the things and attitudes that separate you.

Loyalty is an attitude necessary for continued sonship, and sonship brings with it all the blessings one could ever need. I believe that is what the quote is getting at.

39:4.11  What is loyalty? It is the fruit of an intelligent appreciation of universe brotherhood; one could not take so much and give nothing. As you ascend the personality scale, first you learn to be loyal, then to love, then to be filial, and then may you be free; but not until you are a finaliter, not until you have attained perfection of loyalty, can you self-realize finality of liberty.

89:10.2 Sin must be redefined as deliberate disloyalty to Deity. There are degrees of disloyalty: the partial loyalty of indecision; the divided loyalty of confliction; the dying loyalty of indifference; and the death of loyalty exhibited in devotion to godless ideals.

 

[Mara]

Bonita wrote:

I’m wondering if anyone here really believes that you must sell everything you have in order to remain in the Father’s kingdom and progress spiritually?

I do not believe it.

Jesus often *berated* the apostles for taking literally his teachings.  Take the golden rule for example.

180:5.5[Part IV]

The golden rule, when divested of the superhuman insight of the Spirit of Truth, becomes nothing more than a rule of high ethical conduct. The golden rule, when literally interpreted, may become the instrument of great offense to one’s fellows. Without a spiritual discernment of the golden rule of wisdom you might reason that, since you are desirous that all men speak the full and frank truth of their minds to you, you should therefore fully and frankly speak the full thought of your mind to your fellow beings. Such an unspiritual interpretation of the golden rule might result in untold unhappiness and no end of sorrow.

And this:

140:6.8[Part IV]

And then said Jesus: “But you will stumble over my teaching because you are wont to interpret my message literally; you are slow to discern the spirit of my teaching. Again must you remember that you are my messengers; you are beholden to live your lives as I have in spirit lived mine. You are my personal representatives; but do not err in expecting all men to live as you do in every particular. Also must you remember that I have sheep not of this flock, and that I am beholden to them also, to the end that I must provide for them the pattern of doing the will of God while living the life of the mortal nature.”

And . . .

142:7.17[Part IV]

Jesus replied: “Thomas, Thomas, how long before you will acquire the ability to listen with the ear of the spirit? How long will it be before you discern that this kingdom is a spiritual kingdom, and that my Father is also a spiritual being? Do you not understand that I am teaching you as spiritual children in the spirit family of heaven, of which the fatherhead is an infinite and eternal spirit? Will you not allow me to use the earth family as an illustration of divine relationships without so literally applying my teaching to material affairs? In your minds cannot you separate the spiritual realities of the kingdom from the material, social, economic, and political problems of the age? When I speak the language of the spirit, why do you insist on translating my meaning into the language of the flesh just because I presume to employ commonplace and literal relationships for purposes of illustration? My children, I implore that you cease to apply the teaching of the kingdom of the spirit to the sordid affairs of slavery, poverty, houses, and lands, and to the material problems of human equity and justice. These temporal matters are the concern of the men of this world, and while in a way they affect all men, you have been called to represent me in the world, even as I represent my Father. You are spiritual ambassadors of a spiritual kingdom, special representatives of the spirit Father. By this time it should be possible for me to instruct you as full-grown men of the spirit kingdom. Must I ever address you only as children? Will you never grow up in spirit perception? Nevertheless, I love you and will bear with you, even to the very end of our association in the flesh. And even then shall my spirit go before you into all the world.”

[Author]

Posts