-
Posts
-
I have often thought about why the First Source and Centre refers to himself as the Universal Father rather than the Universal Mother. What is the cosmic difference between fatherhood and motherhood? In what sense is God our Father and how does this differ from TUB’s portrayal of God as our Mother. The expression “fatherly love” appears in TUB ten times whereas “motherly love” does not appear at all. And yet we have this fascinating insight into the qualitative difference between the Universal Father’s love and the Eternal Son’s love:
P.75 – §10 God is love, the Son is mercy. Mercy is applied love, the Father’s love in action in the person of his Eternal Son. The love of this universal Son is likewise universal. As love is comprehended on a sex planet, the love of God is more comparable to the love of a father, while the love of the Eternal Son is more like the affection of a mother. Crude, indeed, are such illustrations, but I employ them in the hope of conveying to the human mind the thought that there is a difference, not in divine content but in quality and technique of expression, between the love of the Father and the love of the Son.
I would very much welcome any comments or viewpoints related to this subject.
Love,
Julian
The concept of Father means the originator, the source and initiator. The concept of Mother means the sustainer, the minister, nurturer and upholder.
According to TUB the Father loves each individual as though they are the only individual in the universe. The Supreme Mother loves every person through the whole and the individuality of the whole. I liken this to comparing a laser beam to a blanket. The Father loves you because of what you are becoming, he sees the beginning from the end. He can see you as you exist in eternity. He loves a 7th circler as much as he loves a 1st circler. He does not love you through the whole. When he looks at you, you are the only person he sees and likewise with every other individual in the universe. With the Supreme progress is important. The Supreme is a upholder, focalizer and encompasser. There is one facet of “The Father” that I think is like the Mother, and that is the Infinite Upholder facet. That Infinite Upholder/Universal Absolute facet is the furthest removed from the personal facet of the Father. “Think of him lastly as Infinite Upholder”. I am pretty sure all “Mother” type Deity originated from the downstepping of this facet as God the Absolute, God the Ultimate and God the Supreme. Mother type Deity is not only added on to the Son as the (Mother-Son) but also the Infinite Spirit as the (Infinite Mother Spirit).
(1290.8) 117:6.22 The Father is no respecter of persons; he treats each of his ascending sons as cosmic individuals. The Supreme likewise is no respecter of persons; he treats his experiential children as a single cosmic total.
(1288.1) 117:6.2 If you truly desire to find God, you cannot help having born in your minds the consciousness of the Supreme. As God is your divine Father, so is the Supreme your divine Mother, in whom you are nurtured throughout your lives as universe creatures. “How universal is the Supreme — he is on all sides! The limitless things of creation depend on his presence for life, and none are refused.”
(1288.4) 117:6.5 The morontia soul of an evolving mortal is really the son of the Adjuster action of the Universal Father and the child of the cosmic reaction of the Supreme Being, the Universal Mother. The mother influence dominates the human personality throughout the local universe childhood of the growing soul. The influence of the Deity parents becomes more equal after the Adjuster fusion and during the superuniverse career, but when the creatures of time begin the traversal of the central universe of eternity, the Father nature becomes increasingly manifest, attaining its height of finite manifestation upon the recognition of the Universal Father and the admission into the Corps of the Finality.
(1240.1) 112:7.19 True it is, you mortals are of earthly, animal origin; your frame is indeed dust. But if you actually will, if you really desire, surely the heritage of the ages is yours, and you shall someday serve throughout the universes in your true characters — children of the Supreme God of experience and divine sons of the Paradise Father of all personalities
I thought it was the impersonal presence of Deity which manifests regard for the whole rather than the part (118:10.11). I don’t think the qualities of motherhood are impersonal. The Adjusters are impersonal, however.
The Almighty aspect of the Almighty Supreme is impersonal. It is the power aspect. The power (Almighty) is power-synthesizing with the personality (Supreme). The Supreme is the Personality.
1304.2) 118:9.9 God the Supreme is the personalization of all universe experience, the focalization of all finite evolution, the maximation of all creature reality, the consummation of cosmic wisdom, the embodiment of the harmonious beauties of the galaxies of time, the truth of cosmic mind meanings, and the goodness of supreme spirit values. And God the Supreme will, in the eternal future, synthesize these manifold finite diversities into one experientially meaningful whole, even as they are now existentially united on absolute levels in the Paradise Trinity.
(1290.8) 117:6.22 The Father is no respecter of persons; he treats each of his ascending sons as cosmic individuals. The Supreme likewise is no respecter of persons; he treats his experiential children as a single cosmic total.
If the Almighty Supreme is an impersonal presence of Deity, and if this impersonal presence is concerned with the whole rather than its individual parts, then how is it that the Supreme, which is not the impersonal presence of Deity, also regards the whole rather than the parts? In other words, do you consider both the Almighty Supreme and the Supreme to be blankets rather than laser beams? If so, then how does that jive? Are both the personal and the impersonal presence of Deity concerned with the whole rather than the parts, or just the impersonal, as the quote (118:10.11) says? I’m reading it to mean that it’s only the impersonal part, the Almighty Supreme that does so and not the Supreme.
Michael is the revelation of the Supreme to his creatures. He makes this revelation available to us in the Spirit of Truth who ministers in conjunction with the Holy Spirit. And both of those personal presences are in perfect harmony with the Adjuster, the Father. The whole business is quite personal and individualized.
The Almighty Supreme is the Supreme. Its taking the Supreme and adding a impersonal facet onto it (power-personality synthesis). The Almighty Supreme is both impersonal power and a personality. The Supreme Being is also the Supreme. The Supreme Being also has a totality attitude. The Almighty Supreme is able to have a totality attitude because it is a personality, even though it has a impersonal presence. Energy and Power cannot have an attitude. The Trinity can have a totality attitude because it is an Entity. The Almighty Supreme, The Supreme Being and the Supreme are all one and the same Finite God. The only reason everything in the finite universe is coming together as one whole is because of the Supreme. Her personality is what is co-ordinating that.
<strong class=”bbc”>1 – (10:7.2) As things appear to the mortal on the finite level, the Paradise Trinity, like the Supreme Being, is concerned only with the total—total planet, total universe, total superuniverse, total grand universe. This totality attitude exists because the Trinity is the total of Deity and for many other reasons.
10 – (118:9.9) And God the Supreme will, in the eternal future, synthesize these manifold finite diversities into one experientially meaningful whole, even as they are now existentially united on absolute levels in the Paradise Trinity.
(1290.8) 117:6.22 The Father is no respecter of persons; he treats each of his ascending sons as cosmic individuals. The Supreme likewise is no respecter of persons; he treats his experiential children as a single cosmic total.
(4.9) 0:2.15 4. God the Supreme — the actualizing or evolving God of time and space. Personal Deity associatively realizing the time-space experiential achievement of creature-Creator identity. The Supreme Being is personally experiencing the achievement of Deity unity as the evolving and experiential God of the evolutionary creatures of time and space.
The point I’m trying to make concerns the quality of motherhood. To say that the Father is always concerned with the individual and the Mother always concerned with the whole does not satisfy all the different Mothers described in TUB.
The Supreme may have the quality of motherhood toward the whole but that is not the only mothering attitude of Deity. There is a mothering attitude which is highly individualistic, that is, concerned with the individual parts of the whole. The use of the word Mother covers a gamut of Deities, many of which are intimately concerned with the individual.
The Third Source and Center, The Infinite Spirit is called: the Paradise Mother Spirit and the Infinite Mother Spirit
The Second Source and Center, The Eternal Son is called: the Universal Mother, the Mother-Son, the Eternal Mother-Son, and the Original Mother-Son.
The Original Michael is also called the Original Mother-Son
The Creative Spirit is called: the Universe Mother Spirit, the Universe Mother Creator, the Mother Creator, the Creative Mother Spirit, the Mother-Spirit, and the Spirit-Mother.
The Supreme is called: the Universal Mother, the Mother Supreme, and God the Mother
The Material Daughter is called: Mother Eve
Oh I see…. There are definitely many mothers :). Just to mention one more note about the Supreme, she is still focused on the individual and individual parts its just a focus on the individual parts through the whole. Our Local Mother Spirit ministers to individuals through her Holy Spirit, so I think there is a definite connection to the individual there. In our case as mortals I think there is as equal of a connection to the Father as there is to the Mother “the mother influence dominates mortals through the local universe”. The authors also give other attributes to the Supreme as well like ( upholder, focalizer, summarizer, and encompasser). I have heard some readers speculate that female and male nature could be likened to (Place) and (Direction). I don’t know how I feel about that comparasion though.
Something I have speculated on is that just because the Supreme is a finite God that doesn’t make it some how less important than existential Deity. From the existential and Infinite viewpoint finite reality is a transcendent reality.
Hello to everyone! I wish to thank both Bonita and TUB for their very interesting and useful posts. They have been most helpful to me. I find this topic quite fascinating. It is only natural for us to crave the love of both of our parents….our father and our mother. Thank you Bonita for your simple description differentiating the concepts of father and mother. Given that we have so many cosmic mothers, I am interested in how we experience motherly love as mortals of Urantia. It is apparent that we enjoy the tender nurturing of the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of our Universe Mother Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, who is the Spirit of our Creator Michael, and of course our personal Adjusters, the impersonal Spirit of the Father. We are also told that Michael is motherly: “The trend of administration in the universe of Nebadon suggests that its Creator and ruling Son is one whose nature and character more resemble that of the Eternal Mother Son” P235:2. I also wonder if the ministry of the angelic hosts to us mortals is motherly in nature, given their ultimate origin in “the Infinite Spirit, the original and eternal mother of all the angelic ministers” P205:3. At this very basic mortal level, do you think it’s possible to differentiate experientially between fatherly and motherly love?
At this very basic mortal level, do you think it’s possible to differentiate experientially between fatherly and motherly love?
No, I personally do not, since they all work as one in perfect harmony. And when all three influences, Adjuster, Spirit of Truth and Holy Spirit, function in the human soul, the relationship we have with them is a relationship with the Supreme. [And incidentally, each individual is an indispensable part of the evolution of the Supreme, he being entirely dependent upon the actions of each individual personality for his evolution.]
But perhaps there is one exception to the ability to differentiate fatherly love from motherly love, the personality circuit, which is a direct link to the Father (3:1.6; 5:0.2). The personality circuit is experienced in true worship (5:3.2; 5:6.11). But even then, such an experience has no connection whatsoever to gender based differentiation. It is pure love, an all encompassing love.
There are definitely many mothers
It seems that all Deity except the Father gets the moniker, Mother, in one form or another. I’m guessing that’s because there is only one Father.
I just discovered this forgotten quote which might shed some light. I think it supports TUB’s (the forum participant, not the book) and my contentions that the mother represents the whole as a nurturer.
177:2.5 The child must derive his first impressions of the universe from the mother’s care; he is wholly dependent on the earthly father for his first ideas of the heavenly Father.
It seems to say that a child learns that the universe is a loving, friendly and nurturing place from the mother and learns of the nature of God’s personal dealings with his creatures from the father. But I’m curious how that idea translates to another quote which says that women are the moral standard bearers and spiritual leaders of mankind (84:6.4)? Wouldn’t that suggest that children also learn God’s nature from their mothers? I’m doubtful the two parental influences can be truly separated, each being dependent upon the other for a balanced effect. Thoughts?
That’s an interesting quote Bonita but it provokes more questions in me. In what way is a child “wholly dependent on his earthly father for his first ideas of the heavenly Father”? What can he learn from his earthly father about the heavenly Father that he couldn’t learn from his earthly mother? Perhaps it means that our earthly father’s example can either make us want to know our heavenly Father or the very opposite.
I agree with your comment: But I’m curious how that idea translates to another quote which says that women are the moral standard bearers and spiritual leaders of mankind (84:6.4)? Wouldn’t that suggest that children also learn God’s nature from their mothers?
Any more thoughts?
No. I have no new thoughts on this issue. Our generation is in such flux concerning gender identification that it’s difficult to know what to think. However, fathers have traditionally been the authority figures. Whether or not they use their superior power wisely and lovingly should determine the amount of trust a child has for a higher authority. The presence of a loving father makes a higher Father personable.
Having raised twin boys alone and forced to be both the nurturing mother and the authoritarian father, I realize that it is not the best situation. It confuses children. As it turned out, we solved our issues most often with debate, which drove me to the brink of insanity. However, it did give them the chance to see me as a nurturer while at the same time enabling them to utilize their minds to understand why my decisions were wiser than theirs. It was not a foolproof plan. Sometimes it devolved. But they turned out well in the end, thank God, both happy, well-adjusted and responsible men.
But, because of the lack of a suitable father figure, neither of my sons have a clear concept of God as a loving Father. They still think of God as impersonal, which is very, very sad. I wish it were otherwise. And interestingly, they did not develop the concept of a Mother God either. However, they are both extremely moral persons with very high integrity levels. Perhaps that is the maternal influence? I can only hope.
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.