-
Posts
-
As to teachers: we are taught that the universe is actually a university of learning and that we all must both learn and teach to learn best. Everyone teaches in a way. The student teaches by the questions they ask, and the explanations they then challenge or require, and by the presentation and defense of their knowledge, understanding, and conclusions. So I do not understand the clone issue….except and until there is but one teacher/guru with “followers” who accept the guru as an authority and adopt the dogma offered up…..as opposed to a teacher’s true role which is founded on the transfer of knowledge and information (education) and not on the interpretation of that knowledge and information (creedal propaganda). On a public forum such as this, all learn and all teach in one way or another. And a forum is a place for the discussion of ideas and ideals and for debating the merits of those positions, especially those which find opposition. Such is a patterned process that seems common at every level of Local Universe affairs.
Fiction is not fact….by definition. And just because the UB does not mention something does not in any way result in its non-existence. When I say the UB says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t I mean that those who declare the UB says so and so or what it says means such and such, that the text itself is the authoritative source for what it does say and what it means to say…..and that the individual’s interpretation or reiteration of what the book says must stand the scrutiny of what the book actually says – or does not say. Sorry this seems so confusing to you but I think it clear enough.
It is true that not all of the book is of interest to all students equally and this, I think, demonstrates its comprehensive spectrum of knowledge presented to help bridge the human gap or chasm dividing religion and science we know today. It must present both the spiritual side of our nature and the material side to appeal to and construct that central role that philosophy takes in unifying these dual realities inherent in our level of being – the dual nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos. I do not understand much of the science presented to be sure….but I love to read the excitement of the “science” folk on multiple forums as they build new theorems and compare mortal science with that presented in the UB. The readership is larger based on the spectrum of facts presented and their relationship that delivers both context and perspective for the broadest audience possible. There’s something for everyone including sociologists, historians, mathematicians, religionists, atomic and astro physicists, philosophers, and many others. Its comprehensive nature is purposeful and functional….if not inclusive of the totality of all facts and reality which would neither fit in a book (or library) and would include that which is incomprehensible to us and would violate the evolutionary, time based, process of required experience.
As to the claim that the book is written literally and as clearly as possible within the limits of language, words, and audience comprehension, I only repeat what the book itself claims for itself. You dispute the book’s claim on this and not mine if you say otherwise. You may believe it fiction or allegory if you wish. I don’t. We’ll just disagree on that one. I’ll leave your personal commentary and well intended advice as posted and without comment, except I often do learn more from those I do not readily understand or agree with than from those whose understanding is closer to my own – that’s good advice Midi. Thanks.
Bradly, your position is much better understood, in your narration presented above. Well written, organized and presented and easier to understand your point of view, although I may not agree with every statement, where some are generalized, but overall your presentation helps me to understand where you are coming from, in general. Thanks.
Your first paragraph would be a good topic for discussion in that your opening sentence makes a lot of sense, however I understand the use of the word “universe” in its context, and can agree, but only in the sense that the “universe” must be considered from the perspective of our world and present times, also taking into consideration our world’s past history, if for no other reason then to keep or establish a personal reality, even if it comes from personal experience or experiences otherwise presented from others. It is your statement above “The student teaches by the questions they ask,” which is one of the points which I attempted to project, similar to the “apprentice, journeyman and master,” where at a certain point the master, having taught what he had to offer the apprentice, and through the journey through life, has picked up and or expanded the teachings of the master, whereby the master now learns, not only through his own experience but also from the experiences the apprentice has or is experiencing. Nevertheless, the key word there is “questions”, where when the “questions” stop and are projected or assumed as answers or for that mater rebellious, and where the master responds with action before questioning misunderstanding, it can be conceived as oppression by the apprentice/student. This is something which I have much experience with, having had many masters as teachers, where there must always be a certain amount of respect shown towards a teacher if one wishes to learn what they have to offer, even if what you are learning is what not to do under certain circumstances. One of my first lessons learned when I was twelve years old and working under one of my many Uncles, where everyone older then me and friends with my father, were to be addressed as Uncle so and so, where while sitting behind a fire made up of scrap lumber, socializing prior to retiring to tents for the night, because this was a two week job in the country where there was no commuting back and forth to home, having been placed under the authority of Uncle Hans, my nose started to bleed and having a mouth full of blood, spit into the fire. Not having a second to spare, Uncle Hans backhands me across the face where I fell backwards off the log I was sitting on, and there were no words spoken. Having repositioned myself I instinctively said to him that I spit into the fire because I had blood in my mouth and didn’t want to spit blood on the ground. I got a retractile look and all went back to normal, having realized that my Uncles response was instinctive and came from old traditions which sometimes can not be taught but must be experienced. You don’t spit on a fire, but also you avoid bleeding on ground, where there has been too much blood soaked ground in this world, spilled from unjust means, therefore it was okay to spit in the fire because it was blood, not disrespect for tradition.
Therefore, when student/teachers attempt to re-rail what they consider as error where it is really only their own obsession which they have become complacent in their thinking and becomes the driving force for their actions, becomes an oppression of others and should not be considered as learning but as learned regardless of reason.
Thanks again Bradly for your response. Maybe we can discus some of the points where I disagree, from your presentation above at a later date?
I do not think she was being sarcastic. But let’s say she was, that sarcasm was very insulting.
Yes I was being sarcastic. It’s just one more service I offer. Sarcasm is a form of irony. Irony is a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character’s words or actions are made clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character. Clearly you are unaware of this preoccupation you have with the rebellion, even though every single reader of this forum knows that whenever there’s a discussion about Lucifer and the rebellion, you can be found in the middle of it.
I do not think she was being sarcastic. But let’s say she was, that sarcasm was very insulting.
Yes I was being sarcastic. It’s just one more service I offer. Sarcasm is a form of irony. Irony is a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character’s words or actions are made clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character. Clearly you are unaware of this preoccupation you have with the rebellion, even though every single reader of this forum knows that whenever there’s a discussion about Lucifer and the rebellion, you can be found in the middle of it.
And I think you are preoccupied with harassing people who do not view TUB in the same light as you. Bonita, I can be preoccupied with any part of TUB I so desire. Do you realize that I am within that right? Do you realize if I want to post topics exclusive to rebellion I could do so? I think you should be put on notice that harassment, trolling and stalking are TOS violations.
At this point we can end the argument, Bonita. Okay? If it continues it is considered harassment. I am asking you to stop as I am stopping. Please respect my wishes. Thank you.
BB
Brooklyn_born wrote: . . . .actually, I post up some of my innovations to see if they can withstand scrutiny by veteran readers. That is how I gauge the strength of ideas.Well that’s interesting. Then why do you get so defensive and argumentative when veteran readers give their opinion? And why would you value the scrutiny of veteran readers if you believe, as you’ve claimed many times, that they’re all close minded? Doesn’t add up. Not even a little bit.
At this point we can end the argument, Bonita. Okay? If it continues it is considered harassment. I am asking you to stop as I am stopping. Please respect my wishes. Thank you.
What argument? I’m not having an argument. I have no idea what you’re talking about. By the way, why are you talking to me?I believe that they, in general, have a very rigid mindset. I also think age plays a role; the older one is the more settled less open one gets.
There you go again! Another insult! I think that qualifies as harassment. You really need to stop.
Bradly, did you read Bonita’s post where I quoted the entire paragraph and recut the portions above which she said “me and Brad”, in implying only you and her “stand up against sophistries”, where the implication is that everything that Bonita has stated in this thread includes you as well, . . .
There is no such implication. Brad is his own person, as I am. He has stood up against misrepresentation of the UB on multiple forums, which incidentally I do not contribute. I consistently point out misrepresentations of the UB on this forum. Nothing at all was implied about Brad and the sophistries presented in this thread. It seems you read something between the lines that simply was not there. And hemorrhoid cream is very useful. You should not disparage hemorrhoid cream.
MidiChlorian wrote: . . . but as usual it would seem that you may need to progress out of kindergarten and move up to a little higher grade, to be able to understand what I actually wrote.Now that’s just hideous. How condescending. Honestly! It’s disgusting. Talk about harassment.
I’m assuming that my statement may have went over Bonita’s head as well, but check with her and see if she understood the language I was specking in print, with B.B.
I admit. I do not know what specking is.
You could be right that Church history has no bearing on TUB. But I think the topic warrants further research. In my opinion there are enough coincidences to warrant one. Also I don’t think I said that rebellion papers primarily are a metaphorical presentation. I do believe, however, that figurative, spiritual and personal meanings could be gleaned from them. (quoting me: “The topic presented in the UB is universally profound; the interpretation of its meaning proferred is trivial in comparison. So which is it? Did the midwayers narrate church history? Or did they narrate a real event with real characters in real time with real results and implications? Can’t be both ways.”)
Neither. My theory which is very weak, admittedly, is that Church history is a part of the rebellion history. The rebellion and its effects filtered down onto our world and throughout the ages.
Me here: On the first page of this topic, Keryn says: “I think if one looks hard enough, one could find parallels to TUBs war in heaven with some period in history of almost any organized religion.”
It appears then that Keryn was the first to recognize your position BB – that the history of the church can be studied as an EFFECT of rebellion or as a REFLECTION of similar issues and repercussions?? Rather than the story of the rebellion told in the UB is ABOUT church history rather than a factual account of an actual event??
I must admit that I have been trying to respond to some notion (misperception?) of mine that you were claiming the rebellion story was a fiction meant to represent some minor aspect of mortal, evolutionary institutional religious history. Obviously my misunderstanding and Keryn immediately understood which you acknowledged by saying: “True but “Lucifer” is UNIQUE to the Catholic Church; it first appears in the Latin Vulgate. Lucifer isn’t a part of Judeo history or the 4th epochal revelation, nor is it found in the original Hebrew text of Isaiah the Prophet. Why did the revelators use the name of a super being exclusive to the Catholic Church?”
Here the topic seemed to go down a rabbit hole of controversy about the name Lucifer and who used it first. Unfortunate.
I hope BB you will take this minor point of critique as friendly as it is intended when I say that it is confusing when a theory or its defense is presented with multiple inconsistancies. By example, on one hand you claim great allegiance to ancient Hebrew scripture while on the other you quote UB text against clinging so tightly to ancient scripture in order to argue that I should not cling so tightly to the text of the UB. Say what?? You also acknowledged that epochal revelation would likely be intended to be read literally but then argued that this is not so in all cases but that figurative interpretation of a text intended to be read literally is fine and dandy. You then stated that the UB could be understood on multiple levels at the same time. This may be true as there are specific reality patterns presented therein which do impinge upon multiple intersections of cause and effect – but this does NOT mean that the text is in some places one way and other places the other way but, rather would mean that in addition to a literal reading and meaning, it may also be illuminative of additional meanings to the student – multiple is multiple and not rotational or exclusive to the alternative.
The book claims it is written as clearly and concisely as possible to give a factual, if constrained, presentation of reality and history and source and destiny. This is either a fact or it is a fiction. If it is a fiction, then it matters not how one perceives it to be interpreted. If it is fact, then it is to be read as a presentation of fact. The differences in understanding facts lies in the reader and not in the facts themselves. To morph the facts to fit the theory of interpretation is to deny the fact ever was a fact.
This process of discussion and debate is best when we can remove the ego from the argument and become comfortable when we find ourselves in contradiction and circularity of thinking showing inconsistancies in our thought process. I spent many years in debate back in the day; nothing more irrelevant than one’s own opinion when tasked with arguing both sides of an issue and the requirement to eliminate all emotion/passion from the presentation of logic and fact when pressing a point in either direction.
I’m sorry you feel misunderstood and do honestly think it has been a pretty confusing discussion primarily due to a lack of clarity as to your original question and the side track of ancient scriptures. By the way, the UB is the first written epochal revelation. The bible, including the New Testament, is not such a revelation but the holy books written by men, edited by them, and translated by them. The Prince, Adam and Eve, Melchizedik, and Jesus were living revelations of universal fact and truth. My opinion is that it is highly unusual, perhaps even unique, to have a written epochal revelation and that if it is indeed that, it is to be taken quite literally indeed.
I hope you will continue to discover meaning and value in the study of the UB and look forward to more interesting discussions to come. Peace.
Now my tone changes and I posted my feelings in effort at least to put you on notice and perhaps dissuade you from closing your mind!
Wait! Who are you to put me on notice? Is this your customary behavior towards women? Is this a cultural thing? Only in your mind is my mind closed. And that makes your mind really confused.
Plus accusing someone of being close minded is not an insult.
Oooh . . . is that right? Okay then. YOU are close minded and narrow minded too. Are you insulted? Your mind is so closed that there no longer is a door to open. Do you find that offensive? Personally, I find it offensive that you don’t consider it offensive to throw stones like that. I suggest you just stop it, and that’s my notice.
Here I am discussing a topic with someone whose mind had already been made. Wow. A waste.
So let me get this right. Unless you can change someone’s mind to agree with your ideas, a discussion is a waste of time? So, you need to have the upper hand, to give notice, to demand that your ideas take priority over another person’s ideas or it’s a waste of time to have a discussion. That’s close minded, narrow minded, and lazy too. Are you insulted?
Brooklyn_born wrote: Being close minded does not make you evil.
Think again. A closed mind is exactly what Judas had; it’s exactly what the crucifiers of Jesus suffered from. There most definitely is a moral equivalent. So stop hurling insults at me and accusing me of being evil. It’s insulting.
A friend of Lucifer is a person who is familiar with his issues and thinks about them all the time; a person who talks about them all the time; and, a person who claims that anybody who finds the thoughts and discussions about him ridiculous is closed minded. Maybe you’re not a friend, I don’t know. Only you know that. But you get very defensive when someone disagrees with you whenever it comes to Lucifer and his rebellion, like you’re some kind of expert on him and the rebellion. So maybe you are.
Your sly remark: …I know you are proud of your 20 years of study, but I have more than a decade on you . . .
I don’t know why you think that is sly. It is right out front with no deceit or hidden meaning. I think you are proud of your 20 years of study, and who wouldn’t be. That is not disrespectful. And I’m telling you that I’ve been studying for over 30 years. What’s wrong with that? It’s the truth. Why do you disrespect my 30 years of study? I think you do. And I don’t think you believe that my 30 plus years of study is any where near the quality of your 20 years. I think that’s very offensive. Seems to me that everything has to go your way or you’re just not happy. I’m sick of your complaints about me being close minded, sly and disrespectful, which is why you’re hearing so much from me about it. I will not just walk away and let you get away with mistreating me. And, I’m highly offended that you think you can put me on notice about anything. Who do you think you are?
Try again, Bonita. The FACT IS, I have posted 16 topics to this forum. Of the 16 ONLY TWO touch on the topic of rebellion. That amounts to 14 percent. 14 percent does not even come close to OBSESSION. My turn now….. I think YOU are obsessed with harassing people who do not tow your view of TUB. And I also think you EXAGGERATE. How’s that, Bonita? Fair assessment?
Read my post again. I said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about topics. I said all POSTS. And, I said on all FORUMS, not just this one. It looks like an obsession or preoccupation to me. No problem. As you say, you are free to whatever obsession you choose. I’m obsessed with the soul, the mind and the Spirit of Truth. Most of my posts are on those subjects. But none of those threads devolve into chaos and confusion like Lucifer threads, like this one has. I think you should be on notice about that, since we’re giving out notices here.
If you think challenging ideas that cannot be supported in the UB as harassment , like your claim that the Epic of Gilgamesh is the Second Epochal Revelation, then this is a very sad state of affairs. If your ideas are sound, you should be happy to have them challenged. You’re never happy about it, you go bonkers and run off to the gym. I’m just saying that you cannot say things like the New Testament is the Fourth Epochal Revelation or that the Universal Father rebelled agains the Eternal Son and get away without a challenge. I’m sorry you think that is harassment, but not sorry enough to stop. I will challenge every bad idea put up on this forum as long as I can read and type. So get used to it. Grow a tougher skin.
The bible, including the New Testament, is not such a revelation but the holy books written by men, edited by them, and translated by them. The Prince, Adam and Eve, Melchizedik, and Jesus were living revelations of universal fact and truth. My opinion is that it is highly unusual, perhaps even unique, to have a written epochal revelation and that if it is indeed that, it is to be taken quite literally indeed.
Thank you so much for that. I thought I was the only one willing to speak up and challenge the idea that the New Testament is the Fourth Epochal Revelation. Holy cow! Just to think about that is scary as hell. If the New Testament is the Fourth Epochal Revelation then it was meant only for Christians. What about the rest of the world? Didn’t Jesus come for everyone? I’m flabbergasted that anyone would make such a claim, take the time to defend it and then get insulted when no one agrees with it. Stunned actually. Really stunned.
This process of discussion and debate is best when we can remove the ego from the argument and become comfortable when we find ourselves in contradiction and circularity of thinking showing inconsistancies in our thought process. I spent many years in debate back in the day; nothing more irrelevant than one’s own opinion when tasked with arguing both sides of an issue and the requirement to eliminate all emotion/passion from the presentation of logic and fact when pressing a point in either direction.
Bradly, as you say above that this is or should be a “process of discussion and debate”, which I agree but, in B.B.s defense as to the topics title, which has been under attack, to some degree, I would propose that it is a viable method of presenting a debate using an “antithesis” where which this topic would seem to qualify.
The book claims it is written as clearly and concisely as possible to give a factual, if constrained, presentation of reality and history and source and destiny. This is either a fact or it is a fiction. If it is a fiction, then it matters not how one perceives it to be interpreted. If it is fact, then it is to be read as a presentation of fact. The differences in understanding facts lies in the reader and not in the facts themselves. To morph the facts to fit the theory of interpretation is to deny the fact ever was a fact.
The book is written clear enough when taking into account complex subject matter, or at least controversial subject matter, and I know that you did not understand my inference to an implied fictional notation, where lets face it we would not be here debating anything regarding the UB if we did not think that there is some measure of fact implied or literally written. However, I also understand that you do not support the multiple overlapping topical content within the context of the UB, which is fine and understood, but I also see various patterns within the text, by its use of specific words and which repeat within the various sections of the book that, I believe are brilliantly structured and presented through its use of grammar or for that mater the lack of its use, assuming that, as I have mentioned before, had human intervention through editing, which at that point cannot be verified or validated unless you can compare the original transcripts. Nevertheless my inference to fiction or Sci-Fi type of fiction is not intended to be actual but, what I find as a possible danger when the literal reading of this text becomes literal fact in the minds of those who may have closed their minds to some form of reality, whereby even if written as fact, with some additional dynamic underlying meaning which can be interpreted any way possible and could affect other readers to interpret alternate meanings and even act upon them, such as a subject which I have always found a possible problem just waiting to acted out, is the presentation that after death or life in the flesh, one proceeds onto the Mansion worlds, etc., etc., where the concept as written does make sense but, for those individuals who are waiting in the wings for the next ship to another world, who may be susceptible to suggestion or fanatics that the way this text is presented just might promote suicide, just because the UB says that when I die, I’ll be taken to another world. As an example I present a portion of one of Bonita’s posts which could be considered that the literal text is a fact, only by the why she presets it, regardless as to whether she can prove it or not, or whether someone less stable might take the way she presents the following as fact:
What’s a system world, a universe world, a super world, and a central universe world? None of that makes sense. If you want to break it down into “worlds”, what about the seven mansion worlds? That’s seven, not four. Actually, there’s a total of fifty-six Jerusem worlds that we have to visit. Actually, the number 56 shows up a lot. And, where do we go after the seven mansion worlds one might ask? We Go to Jerusem itself, then Edentia and all its satellites, then to Salvington and the surrounding educational worlds there, onto Uversa and its worlds, finally landing in Havona, which has many worlds that must be traversed. So how does that all add up to four?
If you cannot prove this type of statement as fact, and present it as fact, even if it is fact but mealy presented within the narration like fiction, it cannot be proved, at least with our current science, therefore must be presented with some measure of doubt, if for no other reason as to keep those who do not have the reading skills grounded to some reasonable form of reality. Believe me, there are far to many people out there who are very easily influenced, and waiting for the next scheduled flight out to Never land. I’m just waiting for someone to commit suicide and leave a letter stating that the UB’s literal writing made me do it, and the lawyers would be lining up to rack in the spoils.
Me here: On the first page of this topic, Keryn says: “I think if one looks hard enough, one could find parallels to TUBs war in heaven with some period in history of almost any organized religion.” It appears then that Keryn was the first to recognize your position BB – that the history of the church can be studied as an EFFECT of rebellion or as a REFLECTION of similar issues and repercussions??That is possible. But what makes this particular Church rebellion history unique is the name, “Lucifer;” it shares the name with the celestial being.Rather than the story of the rebellion told in the UB is ABOUT church history rather than a factual account of an actual event??What I know for a fact is the celestials use a name of earthly origin, that being, “Lucifer”. So that suggests to me that they can avail themselves of earthly sources (history) to recount celestial narratives (is a celestial event “history”?). To what extent, if at all, did they use Church’s history on St. Lucifer still is under investigation. And does it render the narrative fiction if that is to be the case? No. I do not see it that way. Assuming this is indeed the case, what I see is the use of elements from history that are nearly identical or at least can capture the essence of those events that took place in the Heavens. I think it is more practical to take that route than to recount purely celestial/spiritual events (language barriers?)..Besides Lucifer, another example of “history” (again, are celestial events historical?) in TUB I believe is sourced, in part or whole, from earlier writings is the bestowal career of Michael. Let me segue for just a minute to address that. Take for instance the scripture, “The Ascension and Martyrdom of Isaiah.” It predates TUB and speaks of Christ’s descent and ascent, and bestowal career through the seven Heavens. If the revelation already was recorded why would not the celestials make use of it?I must admit that I have been trying to respond to some notion (misperception?) of mine that you were claiming the rebellion story was a fiction meant to represent some minor aspect of mortal, evolutionary institutional religious history.I am not saying it is fiction. I think the celestial rebellion was spiritual (to be more precise, morontial) in nature so again we encounter what I believe is language barrier, which necessitates, for revelators, the use of every tool at their disposal for the narration.Obviously my misunderstanding and Keryn immediately understood which you acknowledged by saying: “True but “Lucifer” is UNIQUE to the Catholic Church; it first appears in the Latin Vulgate. Lucifer isn’t a part of Judeo history or the 4th epochal revelation, nor is it found in the original Hebrew text of Isaiah the Prophet. Why did the revelators use the name of a super being exclusive to the Catholic Church?” Here the topic seemed to go down a rabbit hole of controversy about the name Lucifer and who used it first.The fact is the Latin Church used it first. We have primary source to back that up.I hope BB you will take this minor point of critique as friendly as it is intended when I say that it is confusing when a theory or its defense is presented with multiple inconsistancies. By example, on one hand you claim great allegiance to ancient Hebrew scripture while on the other you quote UB text against clinging so tightly to ancient scripture in order to argue that I should not cling so tightly to the text of the UB.Bradly, I don’t think you understand my position. First, I do not believe that there is falsehood in TUB. In fact, it rectifies errors in older revelations recorded as scripture. Further, I have absolutely no problem with a literal reading of TUB. I think you have a solid grasp of core TUB tenets. However, where you and disagree is approach; that is, what approach at reading is allowed. You are a literal “only-st” reader. I do not believe we are restricted to that one approach. My position is that there are four: Literal, figurative, spiritual and personal.Say what?? You also acknowledged that epochal revelation would likely be intended to be read literally but then argued that this is not so in all cases but that figurative interpretation of a text intended to be read literally is fine and dandy.Yes my position is there are four types of reading of revelation: literal, figurative, personal and spiritual, as I believe is outlined in TUB.You then stated that the UB could be understood on multiple levels at the same time.The multiple levels are the four listed above.This may be true as there are specific reality patterns presented therein which do impinge upon multiple intersections of cause and effect – but this does NOT mean that the text is in some places one way and other places the other way but, rather would mean that in addition to a literal reading and meaning, it may also be illuminative of additional meanings to the student – multiple is multiple and not rotational or exclusive to the alternative.My position is you can extract spiritual, literal, personal or figurative meanings from that text. It all depends on the reader. The literal is always the base-line for any revelation, and what unifies its readers socially; the literal is what allows us to share this book with others. But it does not stop there. What about autorevelation? What about degree of spiritual receptivity to the ministries? The reading becomes less social and more personalized or individualized as we move away from the literal into the realm of figurative, spiritual and personal.The book claims it is written as clearly and concisely as possible to give a factual, if constrained, presentation of reality and history and source and destiny.I have no problem with that statement. However, I would qualify it with the fact that revelations in the book also can be partial and distorted in meaning more or less due to language barriers, and transient for some of its content.This is either a fact or it is a fiction. If it is a fiction, then it matters not how one perceives it to be interpreted. If it is fact, then it is to be read as a presentation of fact.I think revelation transcends fact and fiction. What I mean is you can find truth in fiction (eg., parables) but you do not necessarily have to find fact in truth.The differences in understanding facts lies in the reader and not in the facts themselves.I make a distinction between fact and revelation. The latter transcends the former. I do not believe one needs fact to find truth.To morph the facts to fit the theory of interpretation is to deny the fact ever was a fact.I do not restrict truth to the criteria for “facts.”This process of discussion and debate is best when we can remove the ego from the argument and become comfortable when we find ourselves in contradiction and circularity of thinking showing inconsistancies in our thought process.Indeed.I spent many years in debate back in the day; nothing more irrelevant than one’s own opinion when tasked with arguing both sides of an issue and the requirement to eliminate all emotion/passion from the presentation of logic and fact when pressing a point in either direction. I’m sorry you feel misunderstood and do honestly think it has been a pretty confusing discussion primarily due to a lack of clarity as to your original question and the side track of ancient scriptures.The discussion is back on track. All is not in vain. I am looking forward to positive outcomes.By the way, the UB is the first written epochal revelation. The bible, including the New Testament, is not such a revelation but the holy books written by men, edited by them, and translated by them.I am hesitant to agree with you. Earlier epochal revelations were received. Were they recorded? Yes. Were they corrupted in their recording? Yes. TUB still recognizes them as “revelations” and goes so far as to reference them. There are many narratives of scriptures resembling revelations in TUB. Jesus took on the title “Son of Man” from one such scripture, as an example.The Prince, Adam and Eve, Melchizedik, and Jesus were living revelations of universal fact and truth.And you and I would not know even of their names were they not recorded. These revelations were recorded as scripture.My opinion is that it is highly unusual, perhaps even unique, to have a written epochal revelation and that if it is indeed that, it is to be taken quite literally indeed. I hope you will continue to discover meaning and value in the study of the UB and look forward to more interesting discussions to come. Peace.In a next post i will give an actual example of approaching one revelation literally, spiritually, figuratively and personally. Perhaps that could give you a better idea.BB
Brooklyn_born wrote: I do not think she was being sarcastic. But let’s say she was, that sarcasm was very insulting.
Yes I was being sarcastic. It’s just one more service I offer. Sarcasm is a form of irony. Irony is a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character’s words or actions are made clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character. Clearly you are unaware of this preoccupation you have with the rebellion, even though every single reader of this forum knows that whenever there’s a discussion about Lucifer and the rebellion, you can be found in the middle of it.
B.B., it would seem that Bonita’s last statement, underlined above, was really not directed towards you but to me, even if she says otherwise, I admittedly have been the one who is preoccupied with Lucifer and the Rebellion, and have contributed my opinion far more then you have, where I have in your other thread and this one continued to indicate that if it was not for the priori knowledge or understanding given the name Lucifer, that the name by itself, has convicted the name, before any evidence could be presented, as I have stated that given the information regarding Lucifer, in the UB has not presented any evidence which could convict Lucifer of any wrong doing, based on the UB narration alone. Therefore, by using the name Lucifer in the UB, whether there is any actual historic evidence through alternate names or reference, would have been a sentence of death even prior to a selection of a jury. Therefore, your threads opening premise was destined to fail but was of sound reasoning and being that your defense it true, it was actually manifested by my actions. So, don’t take what Bonita said as personally against you, because she is combining all of her dislikes, even the raping of angels, goes back to Scott (TUB), all lumped into one, or anyone that fits the bill.
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.