-
Posts
-
I agree. And this is the nature of the 4th epochical revelation and how it gets into our minds independent of the writings of the New Testament authors, no? The urges to worship God and serve our fellow human beings, the sense of brotherhood.
Yup, that’s my opinion too. Scriptures are completely unnecessary and sometimes actually get in the way. I do appreciate people sharing their inspirations though, so I do read scriptures, but with an OPEN MIND to truth.
I agree. And this is the nature of the 4th epochical revelation and how it gets into our minds independent of the writings of the New Testament authors, no? The urges to worship God and serve our fellow human beings, the sense of brotherhood.
Me here: Such an important (and timely) point nelson, well said! We must not forget, perhaps especially in this topic, how truth is disseminated to EVERYONE and not only to those who READ or have books of any kind. It was a crime to read or to own “scripture” for many centuries after the resurrection and the masses were far too illiterate for such to matter much. The written word was quite an exclusive and very limited source of anything at all until the past few centuries, more like one century.
The Mother Spirit is delivering a yearning for truth and the capacity for its discernment to every single mind that ever lived through the Adjutants…not books or scripture. If the mind should come to a state of worship and wisdom, the Father Spirit enters the mind and another connection to truth ministry is empowered. Once the Son Spirit is given, the Spirit of Truth sings the truth and stirs the soul. All work to bring truth, beauty, and goodness to each mind….always.
My opinion now is that love itself is that which brings the brightest and most accessible form of truth to mortal minds and lives. Love is the device or vehicle which verifies a soul to other souls and is the very expression of mortal mind which illuminates truth regardless of beliefs, facts, knowledge, creed, dogma, scripture, etc. The more that love of others drives the mind forward into purpose, priority, intent, and choice, the more enlightened the mind and the more responsive the soul to spirit gravity. Love is Deity’s secret sauce that trumps all other sources of spirit progress and verifies such progress by the fruit that comes from such souls. Don’t need any scripture or holy books for this power or process. Such a mind may be filled with misinformation and believe in falsehoods….doesn’t matter…..not really. What good then any words of any kind if there is no love and no ability to discern truth? It is by this transformative power of love that those who know absolutely nothing about anything “holy” or “written”, no matter how primitive or ignorant, may and do progress in the spirit throughout our history these past million years and still delivers the same to every mind everywhere. Love is truth, words are not. Or not without love too.
BB – I hope you will forgive this tangent of thought on a broader topic that impinges upon the discussion at hand. The following has nothing at all to do with any of your words posted or your beliefs or intentions expressed here or elsewhere….it is not directed AT you Brother but I think it is important. Our recent discussion on the meaning of “revelation” and its source(s) and expression(s) is what brought my mind to the issues below.
I’d like to discuss the topic of channeling and why the Association has a zero tolerance for it at study groups, conferences, and here at the site (the “why” is my expression and not “policy” or stated by the organization….so this is my personal take on it only). It has to do with the claim in the UB that there are only two forms of revelation, especially so since Pentacost; Epochal Revelation and Auto/Personal Revelation (auto means “self” interestingly enough). There is no provision given for the second hand or person to person form of “revelation” claimed by those who hear, speak to, or speak for Deity or celestials. This does not mean that people don’t receive revelation but it does mean IF they receive TRUE revelation, then it is meant for THEM personally.
Such claimants are not peculiar to nor originate with the Urantia Book readership. Mediumship is ancient in its origin and has persisted in many different forms since time began and still does today. Those who participate in it as practitioners claim the ability to hear and often speak to angels, spirits, celestials, even dead or divine persons and feel it their role/calling to share this with others and on their behalf….messages from celestials and for other mortals. The Urantia movement has had a small fringe element of such ones for many decades and they have caused endless confusions and conflicts with these claims and practices. This is an example of the slippery slope that can come if the term revelation is not rather precisely defined and why, I think, the authors took such care to be precise and redundant in their discussions on what revelation is and is not….to eliminate error and reduce confusion about topics filled with error and confusion for most all mortals.
Why do people think they receive revelation? Because we do of course. But the authors admonish and instruct us repeatedly and clearly that any mind in contact with the Adjutants of worship and wisdom and with intuition and imagination has the unfortunate, but quite natural, ability for self delusion, confusion, and all manner of error. A mind that can ascend and transcend MUST ALSO provide the capacity for these other potentials as well. We are taught it is difficult for the mind to sort the wheat and chaff without significant experience in discernment and acquired wisdom by the fruits of the spirit. We are also taught that ONLY the Spirits of Deity (and NOT celestials – Guardians are agents of the Mother’s Spirit remember and they DO work with the TA in some form) speak to mind and that we cannot differentiate one of them from another.
So you see, those who claim authority FOR their mediumship FROM the UB are wrong in multiple ways that contradict that which they claim as their authority to CONTINUE or CORRECT epochal revelation….and that is their claim. They speak to celestials (individually and by name), they speak for those celestials to other mortals giving instruction and news, and they claim this to be revelation….second hand revelation as I call it……or they claim they continue the 5th by “writing about it” – ongoing scripture. Others believe that the UB is revelation but that it requires an unlocking by certain keys of “understanding” and “interpretation” of its “figurative” contents. Truly, there is one on a forum I attend which claims the UB is a metaphorical fairy tale which can only be decoded by charting the stars with astrology. Some who are mediums are gathering “other” reservists for the next epochal upheaval and return of Michael or some other form of “end of times” predictions. The no channeling policy of the Association is really only about the clear declaration that there simply is no provision for such practices and claims in the Revelation itself.
I only say these things to help others understand that long time readers who come to share a “literal” appreciation for the teachings as given and specified therein, have lived with the results of those who believe in the figurative interpretation of an epochal revelation or any continuation of such a revelation by mortal mind and hand. We feel blessed to have been given and to have discovered this truthbook. Now, let me reiterate that it is not important to me or any others I know that readers and students and truthseekers should come to believe the book’s claim about itself because we have come to do so…..none of us believed it either for some period of time – sometimes a long period of time. It is fabled that Sadler was the last forumite to believe it!! So all are welcome here regardless of belief or disbelief, doubt or skepticism, preconception and misconception (we all had plenty of those when we found the UB and we still do to a degree no doubt).
This is what I mean though when I say, the book says what it says and don’t say what it don’t say!! For if this book is not a revelation or if it were written as metaphor, then it is nothing more than words printed on paper. And while a book is truly only words printed on paper, this book has the power to transform lives within its words, if they say what they mean and if the authors meant what they wrote. So we can truly only discuss that which is written and what is written is that this is the 5th Epochal Revelation gifted to our world and the first ever in writing, and that it is authored by celestials, and that they wrote as clearly and precisely as possible given the constraints and limitations acknowledged, and its purpose is to eliminate error and reduce confusion while harmonizing spiritual, scientific, and philosophical realities for believers.
Again….just one tadpole’s opinion and perspective. Cheers!!
It’s interesting that this thread has come full circle. We are now entering the debate which made St. Lucifer famous, the debate concerning Arianism, an idea of which he was staunchly opposed. Below I quoted a brief history of Arianism from the Encyclopedia of World Religions, 2006:
4th-century Christian heresy founded in Alexandria by the priest Arius. He taught that Christ was not coequal and coeternal with God the Father, for the Father had created him. To curb Arianism, the Emperor Constantine called the first Council of Nicaea (325), and the first Nicene Creed declared that God the Father and Christ the Son were of the same substance. Arianism later almost triumphed, but most of the church returned to orthodoxy by the end of the century. Though checked within the Roman Empire, Arianism was by no means dead, particularly among the German tribes in the north who has [sic] been converted to this type of Christianity by Wulfila and his successors. During their invasions into Roman lands, they frequently persecuted the native Christians, but they were themselves eventually destroyed or converted. Thus it was the armies of Justinian I that destroyed Arianism among the Vandals in Africa (533) and the Ostrogoths in Italy (540). The Visigoths in Spain were brought into the church through the conversion of their king in 587.
And, here’s a description of Arianism from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm):
He described the Son as a second, or inferior God, standing midway between the First Cause and creatures; as Himself made out of nothing, yet as making all things else; as existing before the worlds of the ages; and as arrayed in all divine perfections except the one which was their stay and foundation. God alone was without beginning, unoriginate; the Sonwas originated, and once had not existed. For all that has origin must begin to be.
Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence,nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity. The Logos which St. John exalts is an attribute, Reason, belonging to the Divine nature, not a person distinct from another, and therefore is a Son merely in figure of speech. These consequences follow upon the principle which Arius maintains in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that the Son “is no part of the Ingenerate.” Hence the Arian sectaries who reasoned logically were styled Anomoeans: they said that the Son was “unlike” the Father. And they defined God as simply the Unoriginate. They are also termed the Exucontians (ex ouk onton), because they held the creation of the Son to be out of nothing.
Odd that St. Lucifer fought against the idea that the Father and the Son are not one and contended vehemently that they are ONE. It seems to me that Lucifer, the anti-saint, argued the opposite, that the Father and the Son are NOT one; in fact his position was that the Father did not exist at all and that the Son had no inherent right to rule. It seems to me that St. Lucifer and Lucifer the anti-saint were at complete odds on this issue. So why would anyone want to use St. Lucifer as a model for Lucifer the anti-saint? It makes no sense at all. Oh, and incidentally, it was not the midwayers who wrote the Paper 53, The Lucifer Rebellion. It was written by Manovandet Melchizedek, onetime attached to the receivership of Urantia.
Interesting. That does punch a hole in the idea that the history was used in writing the rebellion paper.
BB
The Mother Spirit is delivering a yearning for truth and the capacity for its discernment to every single mind that ever lived through the Adjutants…not books or scripture. If the mind should come to a state of worship and wisdom, the Father Spirit enters the mind and another connection to truth ministry is empowered. Once the Son Spirit is given, the Spirit of Truth sings the truth and stirs the soul. All work to bring truth, beauty, and goodness to each mind….always.
Yes, and because it’s my pet interest, let’s not forget about the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the adjutants, she is superadjutant and a lot of people forget to mention her holy presence within the mind. What makes her so special is the addition of personality presence. The adjutants do not have personality, but the Holy Spirit is a “personality encircuitment.” Her presence is able to enlighten the mind to the presence of the pre-personality of the Father himself, as well as the personality presence of the Spirit of the Father and the Son (Spirit of Truth). The Holy Spirit is part of all bona fide human minds, and “. . . long before either the bestowals of the divine Sons or the universal bestowal of the Adjusters, this influence functions to enlarge man’s viewpoint of ethics, religion, and spirituality.” (p1129:01)
This is what I mean though when I say, the book says what it says and don’t say what it don’t say!! For if this book is not a revelation or if it were written as metaphor, then it is nothing more than words printed on paper. And while a book is truly only words printed on paper, this book has the power to transform lives within its words, if they say what they mean and if the authors meant what they wrote. So we can truly only discuss that which is written and what is written is that this is the 5th Epochal Revelation gifted to our world and the first ever in writing, and that it is authored by celestials, and that they wrote as clearly and precisely as possible given the constraints and limitations acknowledged, and its purpose is to eliminate error and reduce confusion while harmonizing spiritual, scientific, and philosophical realities for believers.
That is the best essay I’ve ever read on the subject. Thank you Brad.
Yes, I agree Brad did well here. A long sentence similar as in found in the book!
We’d all be wise to personally admit we human mortals are not omniscient. This feature of being is attributed to the Paradise Father. Even Jesus did not say he is or was omniscient. We mortals are relegated to the opinion section of the bleachers of life!We mortals are relegated to the opinion section of the bleachers of life!
If you mean that all the truth we experience is relative, then I agree. But I think that truth is more than opinion. Opinions are essentially about facts, not truths. Opinions can be right or wrong, but truth is something that transcends the facts. Truth is always a revelation. So, I don’t think we are stuck in the opinion section as long as we seek truth.
Interesting. That does punch a hole in the idea that the history was used in writing the rebellion paper.
Here’s some more on Arianism from, Christianity, the First Three Thousand Years, by Diarmaid MacCulloch, Viking Press, 2009, pg. 213
Constantine next sponsored a council in an attempt (again not blessed with short-term success) to solve a dispute sparked in the Church of Alexandria. This was yet another episode, and in many ways one of the most decisive, in the long debates about Christology (that is, discussion of the nature and significance of Jesus Christ), and the relationship between Father and Son. An austere and talented priest there called Arius was concerned to make his presentation of the Christian faith intellectually respectable to his contemporaries. To achieve this, he would have to wrestle with the old Platonic problem of the nature of God. If God is eternal and unknowable as Plato pictured him, Jesus Christ cannot be in the same sense God, since we know of him and of his deeds through the Gospels. This means, since the supreme God is one, that Christ must in some respect come after and be other than the Father, even if we accept that he was created or begotten before all worlds. Arius’s opponents accused him of using as a slogan ‘There was when he was not’. Moreover, since the Father is indivisible, he cannot have created the Son out of himself; if the Son was created before all things, it would therefore logically follow that he was created of nothing.
Here, then, was Arius’s Christ: inferior or subordinate to the Father (as indeed Origen and other earlier writers had been inclined to say), and created by the Father out of nothing. In many respects, Arius was the heir of Origen and should be thought of as among theologians of Alexandrian outlook. It has been argued that Arius was not merely preoccupied by logic and that he had a warm concern to present Christians with a picture of a Saviour who was like them and participated in human struggles towards virtue; his Christ was part of the created order, not simply an image of God. Arius certainly found an affectionate following among ordinary Alexandrians, whom he taught simple songs about his ideas. Whatever his motives, by around 318 he had provoked an infuriated opposition in Alexandria, including his bishop, Alexander. Alexander would not be the last bishop to turn the fat that one of his clergy was a rather more acute thinker than himself into a matter of ecclesiastical discipline. His feelings cannot have been eased by the fact that Arius seems to have been previously associated with the rigorist schism of Melitius of Lycopolis.
It’s clear that Arius was onto something but lacked the revelation about the order of Creator Sons which we now have thanks to the UB. I can understand his heresy. Yet we are told that the Father and Son are one, no matter which way you chose to look at it. And this is because of the sovereignty of the Son earned through his seven bestowals, something else only recently revealed to us through the UB. It all makes sense now, but the ancients were trying to figure this out without the benefit of authoritative epochal revelation. And some of them came close with just personal revelation . . . I would say, very close.
Thanks Bonita and Mark. This discussion has led us down some divergent trails of discourse and discovery. BB has an inherent ability to ask questions that do not allow simplistic answers and so often require drilling deeply into the text for any resolution and challenges me to think deeply about my views and attempt their articulation. It is my hope that free and open discussion leads to every reader’s greater appreciation for the Revelation….and for each other. We each have a unique perspective that adds value and enhances meaning upon its sincere contribution that profits all with the ears to hear. I can only speak for me but I truly enjoy and learn from the sharing and the caring displayed by all others here, including those who disagree with my limited understanding and perspective on reality – both the facts and the truths.
Mark has noticed how windy I can be….even in one sentence. Hahaha! Anyone know how many words are in the longest sentence in the UB? I did once upon a time.
Thanks again everyone….and to you BB for hanging in there with us through this process of discovery and reflection. We should all remember the importance of humor to temper our tempers!!!! And Bonita…..you had me cracking up (as usual) with some of your posts my friend. I can clearly see the tongue in your cheek often enough. Peace to all.
Bonita,
My comment was intended to be a simple, but glaring reminder that we are not omniscient and therefore cannot know all things, even all truth. We have opinions about a lot of experiences in life, even about what we believe to be true. The comment was intended to suggest to everyone we humans are the students and God is the all-knowing teacher through his many Sons. We should embrace truth as we discover and experience it! The attitude of the truth seeker is as important as the love of the Teacher. MHO.
Thanks to all of you for your willingness to discuss topics.
MK
Here’s some more on Arianism from, Christianity, the First Three Thousand Years, by Diarmaid MacCulloch, Viking Press, 2009, pg. 213
Constantine next sponsored a council in an attempt (again not blessed with short-term success) to solve a dispute sparked in the Church of Alexandria. This was yet another episode, and in many ways one of the most decisive, in the long debates about Christology (that is, discussion of the nature and significance of Jesus Christ), and the relationship between Father and Son. An austere and talented priest there called Arius was concerned to make his presentation of the Christian faith intellectually respectable to his contemporaries. To achieve this, he would have to wrestle with the old Platonic problem of the nature of God. If God is eternal and unknowable as Plato pictured him, Jesus Christ cannot be in the same sense God, since we know of him and of his deeds through the Gospels. This means, since the supreme God is one, that Christ must in some respect come after and be other than the Father, even if we accept that he was created or begotten before all worlds. Arius’s opponents accused him of using as a slogan ‘There was when he was not’. Moreover, since the Father is indivisible, he cannot have created the Son out of himself; if the Son was created before all things, it would therefore logically follow that he was created of nothing. Here, then, was Arius’s Christ: inferior or subordinate to the Father (as indeed Origen and other earlier writers had been inclined to say), and created by the Father out of nothing. In many respects, Arius was the heir of Origen and should be thought of as among theologians of Alexandrian outlook. It has been argued that Arius was not merely preoccupied by logic and that he had a warm concern to present Christians with a picture of a Saviour who was like them and participated in human struggles towards virtue; his Christ was part of the created order, not simply an image of God. Arius certainly found an affectionate following among ordinary Alexandrians, whom he taught simple songs about his ideas. Whatever his motives, by around 318 he had provoked an infuriated opposition in Alexandria, including his bishop, Alexander. Alexander would not be the last bishop to turn the fat that one of his clergy was a rather more acute thinker than himself into a matter of ecclesiastical discipline. His feelings cannot have been eased by the fact that Arius seems to have been previously associated with the rigorist schism of Melitius of Lycopolis.
It’s clear that Arius was onto something but lacked the revelation about the order of Creator Sons which we now have thanks to the UB. I can understand his heresy. Yet we are told that the Father and Son are one, no matter which way you chose to look at it. And this is because of the sovereignty of the Son earned through his seven bestowals, something else only recently revealed to us through the UB. It all makes sense now, but the ancients were trying to figure this out without the benefit of authoritative epochal revelation. And some of them came close with just personal revelation . . . I would say, very close.
Thanks for supplying that research. I am abandoning the idea that possibly the history was used.
BB
BB – I hope you will forgive this tangent of thought on a broader topic that impinges upon the discussion at hand. The following has nothing at all to do with any of your words posted or your beliefs or intentions expressed here or elsewhere….it is not directed AT you Brother but I think it is important. Our recent discussion on the meaning of “revelation” and its source(s) and expression(s) is what brought my mind to the issues below. I’d like to discuss the topic of channeling and why the Association has a zero tolerance for it at study groups, conferences, and here at the site (the “why” is my expression and not “policy” or stated by the organization….so this is my personal take on it only). It has to do with the claim in the UB that there are only two forms of revelation, especially so since Pentacost; Epochal Revelation and Auto/Personal Revelation (auto means “self” interestingly enough). There is no provision given for the second hand or person to person form of “revelation” claimed by those who hear, speak to, or speak for Deity or celestials. This does not mean that people don’t receive revelation but it does mean IF they receive TRUE revelation, then it is meant for THEM personally. Such claimants are not peculiar to nor originate with the Urantia Book readership. Mediumship is ancient in its origin and has persisted in many different forms since time began and still does today. Those who participate in it as practitioners claim the ability to hear and often speak to angels, spirits, celestials, even dead or divine persons and feel it their role/calling to share this with others and on their behalf….messages from celestials and for other mortals. The Urantia movement has had a small fringe element of such ones for many decades and they have caused endless confusions and conflicts with these claims and practices. This is an example of the slippery slope that can come if the term revelation is not rather precisely defined and why, I think, the authors took such care to be precise and redundant in their discussions on what revelation is and is not….to eliminate error and reduce confusion about topics filled with error and confusion for most all mortals. Why do people think they receive revelation? Because we do of course. But the authors admonish and instruct us repeatedly and clearly that any mind in contact with the Adjutants of worship and wisdom and with intuition and imagination has the unfortunate, but quite natural, ability for self delusion, confusion, and all manner of error. A mind that can ascend and transcend MUST ALSO provide the capacity for these other potentials as well. We are taught it is difficult for the mind to sort the wheat and chaff without significant experience in discernment and acquired wisdom by the fruits of the spirit. We are also taught that ONLY the Spirits of Deity (and NOT celestials – Guardians are agents of the Mother’s Spirit remember and they DO work with the TA in some form) speak to mind and that we cannot differentiate one of them from another. So you see, those who claim authority FOR their mediumship FROM the UB are wrong in multiple ways that contradict that which they claim as their authority to CONTINUE or CORRECT epochal revelation….and that is their claim. They speak to celestials (individually and by name), they speak for those celestials to other mortals giving instruction and news, and they claim this to be revelation….second hand revelation as I call it……or they claim they continue the 5th by “writing about it” – ongoing scripture. Others believe that the UB is revelation but that it requires an unlocking by certain keys of “understanding” and “interpretation” of its “figurative” contents. Truly, there is one on a forum I attend which claims the UB is a metaphorical fairy tale which can only be decoded by charting the stars with astrology. Some who are mediums are gathering “other” reservists for the next epochal upheaval and return of Michael or some other form of “end of times” predictions. The no channeling policy of the Association is really only about the clear declaration that there simply is no provision for such practices and claims in the Revelation itself. I only say these things to help others understand that long time readers who come to share a “literal” appreciation for the teachings as given and specified therein, have lived with the results of those who believe in the figurative interpretation of an epochal revelation or any continuation of such a revelation by mortal mind and hand. We feel blessed to have been given and to have discovered this truthbook. Now, let me reiterate that it is not important to me or any others I know that readers and students and truthseekers should come to believe the book’s claim about itself because we have come to do so…..none of us believed it either for some period of time – sometimes a long period of time. It is fabled that Sadler was the last forumite to believe it!! So all are welcome here regardless of belief or disbelief, doubt or skepticism, preconception and misconception (we all had plenty of those when we found the UB and we still do to a degree no doubt). This is what I mean though when I say, the book says what it says and don’t say what it don’t say!! For if this book is not a revelation or if it were written as metaphor, then it is nothing more than words printed on paper. And while a book is truly only words printed on paper, this book has the power to transform lives within its words, if they say what they mean and if the authors meant what they wrote. So we can truly only discuss that which is written and what is written is that this is the 5th Epochal Revelation gifted to our world and the first ever in writing, and that it is authored by celestials, and that they wrote as clearly and precisely as possible given the constraints and limitations acknowledged, and its purpose is to eliminate error and reduce confusion while harmonizing spiritual, scientific, and philosophical realities for believers. Again….just one tadpole’s opinion and perspective. Cheers!!
You make valid points, as usual! Okay back to studying for me! Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
BB
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.