-
Posts
-
Can we build on lectio divina and TUB? The revelators call it ‘autorevelation’ I believe.
Me here: I think this is the answer to how and why the same reader finds new things or new connections in the text by multiple readings and also why we each digest the text uniquely as well. Personal/autorevelation is always at work by the mind and spirit ministries. There’s a quote about that:
2. The Fact of Religion
(1105.5) 101:2.1 The fact of religion consists wholly in the religious experience of rational and average human beings. And this is the only sense in which religion can ever be regarded as scientific or even psychological. The proof that revelation is revelation is this same fact of human experience: the fact that revelation does synthesize the apparently divergent sciences of nature and the theology of religion into a consistent and logical universe philosophy, a co-ordinated and unbroken explanation of both science and religion, thus creating a harmony of mind and satisfaction of spirit which answers in human experience those questionings of the mortal mind which craves to know how the Infinite works out his will and plans in matter, with minds, and on spirit.
(1106.1) 101:2.2 Reason is the method of science; faith is the method of religion; logic is the attempted technique of philosophy. Revelation compensates for the absence of the morontia viewpoint by providing a technique for achieving unity in the comprehension of the reality and relationships of matter and spirit by the mediation of mind. And true revelation never renders science unnatural, religion unreasonable, or philosophy illogical.
Scratch out the “mindal.” I should not have put that in there.B.B., why would you not include “mindal”, where it is a vital form of expressive communication, and would expand on your subject’s premise. It is also vital to understanding physical personality.
(334.7) 30:1.113 There are spirits: spirit entities, spirit presences, personal spirits, prepersonal spirits, superpersonal spirits, spirit existences, spirit personalities — but neither mortal language nor mortal intellect are adequate. We may however state that there are no personalities of “pure mind”; no entity has personality unless he is endowed with it by God who is spirit. Any mind entity that is not associated with either spiritual or physical energy is not a personality. But in the same sense that there are spirit personalities who have mind there are mind personalities who have spirit. Majeston and his associates are fairly good illustrations of mind-dominated beings, but there are better illustrations of this type of personality unknown to you. There are even whole unrevealed orders of such mind personalities, but they are always spirit associated. Certain other unrevealed creatures are what might be termed mindal- and physical-energy personalities. This type of being is nonresponsive to spirit gravity but is nonetheless a true personality — is within the Father’s circuit.
Midi, I agree with you. But honestly I responded in that manner with Bonita because I did not want a trivial item detract from the overall message I am putting forth; that is, there are different levels of revelation interpretation. In fact, there are places in TUB where the revelators reinforce that idea. I cited one example where a Melchizedek and Divine Counselor source the exact same revelation verse yet yield two distinct interpretations. The idea that one only should approach TUB linearly or literally serves to stifle personal growth, IMO.
BB
Can we build on lectio divina and TUB? The revelators call it ‘autorevelation’ I believe. Me here: I think this is the answer to how and why the same reader finds new things or new connections in the text by multiple readings and also why we each digest the text uniquely as well. Personal/autorevelation is always at work by the mind and spirit ministries. There’s a quote about that: 2. The Fact of Religion (1105.5) 101:2.1 The fact of religion consists wholly in the religious experience of rational and average human beings. And this is the only sense in which religion can ever be regarded as scientific or even psychological. The proof that revelation is revelation is this same fact of human experience: the fact that revelation does synthesize the apparently divergent sciences of nature and the theology of religion into a consistent and logical universe philosophy, a co-ordinated and unbroken explanation of both science and religion, thus creating a harmony of mind and satisfaction of spirit which answers in human experience those questionings of the mortal mind which craves to know how the Infinite works out his will and plans in matter, with minds, and on spirit. (1106.1) 101:2.2 Reason is the method of science; faith is the method of religion; logic is the attempted technique of philosophy. Revelation compensates for the absence of the morontia viewpoint by providing a technique for achieving unity in the comprehension of the reality and relationships of matter and spirit by the mediation of mind. And true revelation never renders science unnatural, religion unreasonable, or philosophy illogical.
Can one’s autorevelation augment another’s revelation? Do not indwelling TAs communicate? Just throwing that thought out there for massaging…
BB
BB – I think you are talking about why and how plainly written text can be individualized in our understanding and utilization of the same words which does lead to the question as to the cause of this effect. But I do think it is more a function of the individual mind rather than the words written. I know you will forgive my prior misunderstandings related to a metaphorical interpretation of the text…..you really discuss this personalization of understanding and the effect of personal revelation upon the epochal revelation the UB claims to be. How do these different forms of revelation interact for the truthseeker/believer? As always, you lead us into interesting contemplation and discovery. Sorry to be so dense. The text below illustrates that the authors do intend for the epochal version to be “literal” I think….to clarify and reduce confusion would not be served by any other method I don’t believe. Lack of clarity would be unintended IMO in such a text book of cosmology facts related to the purpose and process presented.
(1109.4) 101:4.3 Truth is always a revelation: autorevelation when it emerges as a result of the work of the indwelling Adjuster; epochal revelation when it is presented by the function of some other celestial agency, group, or personality.
(1109.5) 101:4.4 In the last analysis, religion is to be judged by its fruits, according to the manner and the extent to which it exhibits its own inherent and divine excellence.
(1109.6) 101:4.5 Truth may be but relatively inspired, even though revelation is invariably a spiritual phenomenon. While statements with reference to cosmology are never inspired, such revelations are of immense value in that they at least transiently clarify knowledge by:
(1109.7) 101:4.6 1. The reduction of confusion by the authoritative elimination of error.
(1109.8) 101:4.7 2. The co-ordination of known or about-to-be-known facts and observations.
(1110.1) 101:4.8 3. The restoration of important bits of lost knowledge concerning epochal transactions in the distant past.
(1110.2) 101:4.9 4. The supplying of information which will fill in vital missing gaps in otherwise earned knowledge.
(1110.3) 101:4.10 5. Presenting cosmic data in such a manner as to illuminate the spiritual teachings contained in the accompanying revelation.
BB – I think you are talking about why and how plainly written text can be individualized in our understanding and utilization of the same words which does lead to the question as to the cause of this effect. But I do think it is more a function of the individual mind rather than the words written. I know you will forgive my prior misunderstandings related to a metaphorical interpretation of the text…..you really discuss this personalization of understanding and the effect of personal revelation upon the epochal revelation the UB claims to be. How do these different forms of revelation interact for the truthseeker/believer? As always, you lead us into interesting contemplation and discovery. Sorry to be so dense. The text below illustrates that the authors do intend for the epochal version to be “literal” I think….to clarify and reduce confusion would not be served by any other method I don’t believe. Lack of clarity would be unintended IMO in such a text book of cosmology facts related to the purpose and process presented.
(1109.4) 101:4.3 Truth is always a revelation: autorevelation when it emerges as a result of the work of the indwelling Adjuster; epochal revelation when it is presented by the function of some other celestial agency, group, or personality. (1109.5) 101:4.4 In the last analysis, religion is to be judged by its fruits, according to the manner and the extent to which it exhibits its own inherent and divine excellence. (1109.6) 101:4.5 Truth may be but relatively inspired, even though revelation is invariably a spiritual phenomenon. While statements with reference to cosmology are never inspired, such revelations are of immense value in that they at least transiently clarify knowledge by: (1109.7) 101:4.6 1. The reduction of confusion by the authoritative elimination of error. (1109.8) 101:4.7 2. The co-ordination of known or about-to-be-known facts and observations. (1110.1) 101:4.8 3. The restoration of important bits of lost knowledge concerning epochal transactions in the distant past. (1110.2) 101:4.9 4. The supplying of information which will fill in vital missing gaps in otherwise earned knowledge. (1110.3) 101:4.10 5. Presenting cosmic data in such a manner as to illuminate the spiritual teachings contained in the accompanying revelation.Okay, so epochal revelation is reduced to a literal reading. But then what about the example I provided? A Melchizedek and Divine Counselor produce different interpretations based on one 4th epochal revelation verse. What is your understanding of that?
BB
Can one’s autorevelation augment another’s revelation? Do not indwelling TAs communicate? Just throwing that thought out there for massaging…
Me here: I don’t think so BB but I may again misunderstand. Now you approach the topic of “second hand” revelation, not directly but an opening to further discussion. It would depend upon your definition of “augment”. To a degree, yes, the forums demonstrate, to me, the ability to utilize someone else’s perspective to augment my own. But we are taught that truth requires experiential personalization to be “true”, so truth cannot be transferred from one mind to another either. No one’s auto revelation is FOR another as some do claim such powers of transference….that they have access to that which others do not and their auto/personal revelation (or mind at mischief) is for others…oracling and channeling and portending specifically. According to text, there are only epochal and personal revelation…not second hand.
The TA question is very interesting and like minded folk do share some connectivity as described in several sections of the book. Looking forward to more…..
As you can see two different revelators are sourcing the same 4th epochal revelation verse yet rendering different meanings
I don’t see different meanings in those quotes. What different meanings do you get?
Lucifer is not a part of Judeo history.
Check out this site:
As you can see two different revelators are sourcing the same 4th epochal revelation verse yet rendering different meanings
I don’t see different meanings in those quotes. What different meanings do you get?
In one explanation, we are told the verse expresses the idea that Divine Mind consciously is aware of all things. And in another explanation we are told the verse explains the ability of Angels (Seraphims) automatically to know the exact count of hairs on one’s head. Those are two different explanations of one verse.
BB
Those are two different explanations of one verse.
No they’re not. Angels are the offspring of the divine mind. There’s no difference between the two quotes. They have the same exact meaning, as do the other two quotes about hair counting, 150:4.3 and 165:3.4. All four quotes are saying the same thing.
Lucifer is not a part of Judeo history.
Check out this site: http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10177-lucifer
Bonita, Lucifer is not a character in any Judeo writings, nor is he a part of their history. Lucifer is a Latin translation (arguably an interpretation) of the Hebrew, Isaiah 14, first appearing in the Latin Vulgate, then making its way into the English translation of the LXX and, lastly, KJV. However, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, is part of Judeo history and is the person mentioned in Isaiah 14 as “Haylal.” The Prophet Isaiah represents the king as a ‘morning star’; the morning star was a celestial body worshiped by Babylonians. I am not sure why you posted that link.
I have attached a facsimile of Isaiah 14.12 for your verification.
“How art thou fallen from Heaven, O-day-star, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, That didst cast lots over the nations!”
Haylal is translated as “O-day-star.”
BB
Those are two different explanations of one verse.
No they’re not. Angels are the offspring of the divine mind. There’s no difference between the two quotes. They have the same exact meaning, as do the other two quotes about hair counting, 150:4.3 and 165:3.4. All four quotes are saying the same thing.
Angels are the offspring of Divine Mind, but the divine mind is distinct from them. The two references do not express the same thought, Bonita, otherwise credit for this ability would have been attributed to one and not both. Both angels and divine mind possess an “omniscience” ability; that is two different explanations of the verse. I think you are trying to rationalize here.
BB
Angels are the offspring of Divine Mind, but the divine mind is distinct from them.
How do you figure that? The ability to know the hairs on your head is a function of the divine mind which is shared and serviced by angels. I see absolutely no difference in the MEANING of the quotes. Revelation concerns meanings and values.
I think you are trying to rationalize here.
Isn’t that what you’re doing?
How do you figure that? The ability to know the hairs on your head is a function of the divine mind which is shared and serviced by angels.Exactly, Bonita! Yes, it is shared by the two…. TWO, not one…. but TWO.
Bonita, you and I both have the ability to walk upright. We share this ability because of our common ancestor who, once upon a time, evolved to walk upright; and he transmitted this ability to future generations. Now, if I write a book, and in one section I state: “Homo Erectus walked,” in another section I state: “Bonita walked,” and in the last chapter of that same book, I state: “Brooklyn_born walked.” Did I not convey three separate thoughts? And what is the common factor in all three? The act of WALKING.
I don’t know how else to explain it. As soon as I find the other epochal quotes used differently by different revelators, I will post them for your review.
BB
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.