Fatherly and Motherly love

[TUB]

Here is a connection between women and the Supreme. Our relation to the supreme is where we get our cosmic morality, and women are naturally more moral than men. Is that just a coincidence? I think not. I would think that of course a child learns about God through their mother. The entire concept of the Mother in TUB IMO is revealed in such a way as to make you work for it. I think it is like this because no human being has had really any good conception of God the Mother the authors are essentially restricted in just how much they can reveal about her. They cannot over reveal something no human being has thought of, the best the best they can do is give hints IMO. I notice in some parts of the book the authors will relay information that humans feel comfortable with before hitting them with something completely out of left field. I think the authors have purposively put the Supreme papers in the middle of the book because they wanted to warm people up to concepts they were more familiar with first like God the Father.

So just because the authors don’t say “we learn about God the Supreme from a Mother” doesn’t mean that isn’t true. It could just be that not really many human beings have ever made that connection in the first place so they can’t reveal it. How many human beings are even aware of God the Mother? I doubt many at all. And the ones that are probably haven’t made many ideational connections. Unless of course they are a 1st circler or something like that.

 

“The temporal relation of man to the Supreme is the foundation for cosmic morality, the universal sensitivity to, and acceptance of, duty. This is a morality which transcends the temporal sense of relative right and wrong; it is a morality directly predicated on the self-conscious creature’s appreciation of experiential obligation to experiential Deity”

 

“Woman, however, has always been the moral standard-bearer and the spiritual leader of mankind. The hand that rocks still fraternizes with destiny”

 

^{(938.7) 84:6.3} Male and female are, practically regarded, two distinct varieties of the same species living in close and intimate association. Their viewpoints and entire life reactions are essentially different; they are wholly incapable of full and real comprehension of each other. Complete understanding between the sexes is not attainable.

 

 

[Bonita]

 

TUB wrote:

I think the authors have purposively put the Supreme papers in the middle of the book because they wanted to warm people up to concepts they were more familiar with first like God the Father.

I always thought that the authors put the four papers about the Supreme directly before the Jesus papers for a reason, and that is because Michael’s bestowals exhausted all the potentials of present finite experience, thus qualifying him to portray the divinity of the Supreme Being to his creatures (33:2.4).   The Supreme is both creature and Creator, and our Master Michael satisfies both in one person (116:3.3).   Quotes which state that Michael is a revelation of the Supreme are: 119:8.3; 119:8.5; 119:8.7; 120:0.7.

 

 

 

[TUB]

Who says it can’t be both? :) I agree that the Supreme papers are meant to be attached to Michael.

[André]

Hi fellows,

5 years later, have we succeed make a step forward concerning “gender” identification ?

I think Julian, we are stuck in our relative reality plan of existence with definitions like here Father/Mother whom are an obligation passage for creatures born with this dual parenthood.

What about evolutive different situation concerning 2 Fathers, 2 Mothers … where gender’s identification reached unprecedent apperception ?   People of unknown or indeterminate gender !

Could it be explain as the Art of living ?

^{160:1.3 (1772.4)} The more complex civilization becomes, the more difficult will become the art of living. The more rapid the changes in social usage, the more complicated will become the task of character development.

Isn’t what this UB quote refered to ?

Now regarding defaillance of 2 first epochal status, it all depends “on us” to figure out an issue. (can’t find quote)

p.s. I know my post derivate from the tread but i am sincere.☺

[Julian]

Hello Andre! I can’t believe it has been five years since I started this thread! The subject still interests me but I am saddened when I see some radical feminists denigrating both motherhood and fatherhood. To be honest, my personal childhood has made it hard for me to relate to God as either Mother or Father. I almost always pray to “my Father” but I think this is more out of custom based on my Christian roots.

Thank you for your interest Andre!

[André]

Salut Julian,

… but I am saddened when I see some radical feminists denigrating both motherhood and fatherhood.

… just for the talk Julian, how come those “radicals” opinions, expressed by “others” affect your mood or perception considering this UB’s quote.

139:6.5   Go then, Judas, and do well that which has been intrusted to you but leave Nathaniel, your brother, to give account of himself to God.

Heard me well. Sad about it OK, but dispirit or discourage is of another consequences.

In my case i struggle sometimes to not let this “outside tension” affected myself beyound measure and “mind my own business”.

André

p.s. what is your idea about my previous post ?

[Author]

Posts