-
Posts
-
Louis, you continue to ask questions that are clearly answered in TUB.
I ask no questions that I do not know the answer to, Keryn.
See that nothing potentially idolatrous is left on the planet at the time of your departure.(120:3.7)
So Jesus was concerned with potential idolatrous writings and objects. This is the theme that I present here continuously. Scripture is not idolatrous but it is potentially idolatrous. TUB is not idolatrous but it is potentially idolatrous. I read TUB as I would read a textbook. I take its message at face value. I give TUB no life of its own. I do not allow the book to create a consciousness of its own or of anyone else. The book is not a person.
The Spirit of Truth does not create a consciousness of itself but that of Christ Michael.
If I ask obvious questions it is to draw out thoughtful discussion, not marmish reprimands.
Keryn wrote: Please read papers 120 which describes the prebestowal charge to Michael by Immanuel. Also, see paper 136 in which Jesus remembers the counsel that was given him.Yup. See 120:0:1Well, sorry, you’ll have to deal with another “marmish reprimand” because you got it wrong. Read the quote again.
Refrain from all writing upon permanent materials; enjoin your associates to make no images or other likenesses of yourself in the flesh. See that nothing potentially idolatrous is left on the planet at the time of your departure.
Let’s consider what “idolatry” meant in the context of this quote.
idolatry in the Bible
image-worship or divine honour paid to any created object. Paul describes the origin of idolatry in Rom. 1:21-25: men forsook God, and sank into ignorance and moral corruption (1:28). The forms of idolatry are, (1.) Fetishism, or the worship of trees, rivers, hills, stones, etc. (2.) Nature worship, the worship of the sun, moon, and stars, as the supposed powers of nature. (3.) Hero worship, the worship of deceased ancestors, or of heroes. In Scripture, idolatry is regarded as of heathen origin, and as being imported among the Hebrews through contact with heathen nations. The first allusion to idolatry is in the account of Rachel stealing her father’s teraphim (Gen. 31:19), which were the relics of the worship of other gods by Laban’s progenitors “on the other side of the river in old time” (Josh. 24:2).
Of course the book is not a person. On that, we agree!
Well, sorry, you’ll have to deal with another “marmish reprimand” because you got it wrong. Read the quote again.
Refrain from all writing upon permanent materials; enjoin your associates to make no images or other likenesses of yourself in the flesh. See that nothing potentially idolatrous is left on the planet at the time of your departure.
Objects and writings are the OBJECT of idolatry. It is the person that make idols of objects. A person can make an idol out of a speck of dust. An idol is simply a THING that a person puts before God. A thing that is dead and given life by a persons will.
BTW, I did not get it wrong. I am quite clear on this.
How do you presume to know how any of us are using TUB? How can you know our intent. You are posting on this forum that has as its stated purpose gaining an increased understanding of the Urantia Book. Therefore, if any of us are making idols of the book, you are as well.
I do not believe we are. But the point is, Louis, if YOU believe we are, then you should first remove the beam from your own eye before attempting to remove the mote from ours.
Therefore, if any of us are making idols of the book, you are as well.
Idols cannot be questioned. I do not make an idol of TUB because I question it, here and there.
You and your friends cannot question TUB because the idol you have made of it cannot be questioned.
I do not believe we are. But the point is, Louis, if YOU believe we are, then you should first remove the beam from your own eye before attempting to remove the mote from ours.
I do not presume to attempt removal of the mote from your eyes. That you must do yourself.
How in the world can you presume to know whether I, or any of us here, ever questions TUB? Just because we don’t post questions on every thread doesn’t mean we never ask them.
It is clear you are much more interested in studying all of us who post here, rather than in studying TUB. It’s flattering, really; but, at least in my case, your time could be much better spent elsewhere.
How in the world can you presume to know whether I, or any of us here, ever questions TUB? Just because we don’t post questions on every thread doesn’t mean we never ask them.
By ‘questioning’ I do not mean asking questions but challenging the bias therein. I have not seen any challenges as to the veracity of the text by your click although I may have missed it, as you say.
It is clear you are much more interested in studying all of us who post here, rather than in studying TUB. It’s flattering, really; but, at least in my case, your time could be much better spent elsewhere.
You are spot on Keryn. I would rather be a “fisher of men” than a ‘book worm’. Worms are for hooks to be used by the fisherman. Would you rather study a dead set of words, or the a living brother who is indwelled with a fragment of The Father?
Throughout my first reading of TUB, over a period of 5 months, I was continuously assessing the veracity of the book and working to understand any bias that it may contain. Two years later and now well into my third reading of the book, I have moved beyond that and the book has become very much alive to me; moreso than any other book I have ever experienced.
You have your experience, I have mine. You presume to know how others use the book but you do not know.
By ‘questioning’ I do not mean asking questions but challenging the bias therein. I have not seen any challenges as to the veracity of the text by your click although I may have missed it, as you say.
In the manor indicated “By ‘questioning'”, would your inherent intention therein to challenge “bias”, “a particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, especially one that is preconceived or unreasoned”, also apply to your own “bias”? Where, I understand your inclination to pry away one’s personal understanding of the narration within the UB from a cloned articulation, sometimes without personal understanding as to the authors reason(s) for its presentation, with a possible alternative insight to the context, where it would seem that your approach borders on an alternate definition of “bias”, in that “to cause to hold or exhibit a particular bias; to influence, especially unfairly” that which is personal opinion, regardless of purpose.
I can see the potential in such a motive but, to do so without your own personal injection of the interpretation of the UB text, where you have presented some, to little avail because, I believe you have not presented a full case for your arguments presented, which may be do to another definition of “bias” where an “unreasonably hostile feelings or opinions about a social group; prejudice”, where it may [not] have been received without “bias”. Nevertheless, regarding your current general position, regarding the UB, seems to have changed from previous contributions.
. . . I would rather be a “fisher of men” then a ‘book worm’. Worms are for hooks to be used by the fisherman. Would you rather study a dead set of words, or the a living brother who is indwelled with a fragment of The Father?
Question, Manny – is your mention above, “a living brother who is indwelled with a fragment” a brother who is spiritually fused with the Father, or just has a TA? Where in your preference to “rather be a ‘fisher of men'”, would that not have come from a book, where your alternative “rather” . . . “then a ‘book worm'” be somewhat hypocritical, to some degree?
Hi Midi, thanks for the opportunity to clarify and define my terms.
In the manor indicated “By ‘questioning’”, would your inherent intention therein to challenge “bias”, “a particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, especially one that is preconceived or unreasoned”, also apply to your own “bias”?
All person are biased in that they have unique experience and are unique in personality, human or divine. The bestower of personality is bias free and no respecter of persons. Of course I do not exclude myself from bias and I freely admit it. But I also acknowledge that since God is no respecter of persons that my bias is every bit as valid as that of any other creature in the universe because God has said so. I humble myself before God, with brothers I may exhibit meekness and deference as I see fit. I consider myself a reasonable person and so I hold my biases as being reasonable. My biases are not preconceived because I cannot hold a bias until I have given it thought.
Where, I understand your inclination to pry away one’s personal understanding of the narration within the UB from a cloned articulation, sometimes without personal understanding as to the authors reason(s) for its presentation, with a possible alternative insight to the context, where it would seem that your approach borders on an alternate definition of “bias”, in that “to cause to hold or exhibit a particular bias; to influence, especially unfairly” that which is personal opinion, regardless of purpose.
I have every right to tap into the cosmic mind as anyone else. There is diversity of thought and I identify with that diversity. I have no personal understanding of the book’s authors because I do not know them personally and words in the text is devoid of personality or life. I have no influence on anyone, fairly or unfairly, because I have no access into anyone’s mind. My purpose is not without regard, it is to do the Will of God and to be the Will of God.
I can see the potential in such a motive but, to do so without your own personal injection of the interpretation of the UB text, where you have presented some, to little avail because, I believe you have not presented a full case for your arguments presented, which may be do to another definition of “bias” where an “unreasonably hostile feelings or opinions about a social group; prejudice”, where it may [not] have been received without “bias”. Nevertheless, regarding your current general position, regarding the UB, seems to have changed from previous contributions.
I do not interpret TUB, I take it at face value. I cannot interpret that which is static and dead as are words on paper. I can interpret another person through the lens of my bias, I admit.
It is not my purpose to present a case for argument and I cannot take responsibility for another’s reaction to me or what I write on this blog.
If nothing else, I evolve and change. I am not of a stagnant mind. I acknowledge this and offer no defense for it. It is called ‘progress’. Those that keep quoting the same things from TUB change not. We can make no progress towards perfection without change.
Question, Manny – is your mention above, “a living brother who is indwelled with a fragment” a brother who is spiritually fused with the Father, or just has a TA? Where in your preference to “rather be a ‘fisher of men’”, would that not have come from a book, where your alternative “rather” . . . “then a ‘book worm’” be somewhat hypocritical, to some degree?
Fused or not, we have access to our TA. The TA is in our mind. I deny hypocrisy here where have stated above because I freely acknowledge that I use TUB as a text. I do not consider TUB as a living revelation because it is not a person that changes and evolves. I do not make an idol of TUB. I do not practice medicine ‘by the book’. That would be insane when one has to minister to persons that do not read the book.
All person are biased in that they have unique experience and are unique in personality, human or divine. The bestower of personality is bias free and no respecter of persons. Of course I do not exclude myself from bias and I freely admit it. But I also acknowledge that since God is no respecter of persons that my bias is every bit as valid as that of any other creature in the universe because God has said so. I humble myself before God, with brothers I may exhibit meekness and deference as I see fit. I consider myself a reasonable person and so I hold my biases as being reasonable. My biases are not preconceived because I cannot hold a bias until I have given it thought.
Manny, not “all person[s] are biased”, but as you say are more “unique” and therefore those “unique experiences” make them different, one from another, therefore each should be considered and addressed uniquely, based on the addressors understanding of their personality. One might say that we cannot perceive another’s personality, but this is not true, even though not absolute perception, in that personality profiling is used in criminal investigations in order to better understand a motive of operation or action. Yet, you state that “The bestower of personality is bias free and no respecter of persons”, yet this is an attribute of God, and I am sure that you do not put yourself above or equal to God, regardless of perceived deity. We are still human, and “to ere, is human, forgive divine.”
I have every right to tap into the cosmic mind as anyone else. There is diversity of thought and I identify with that diversity. I have no personal understanding of the book’s authors because I do not know them personally and words in the text is devoid of personality or life. I have no influence on anyone, fairly or unfairly, because I have no access into anyone’s mind. My purpose is not without regard, it is to do the Will of God and to be the Will of God.
What you state above is mostly true, but how do you know that you can even “tap into the cosmic mind”? The cosmic mind has an endless number of channels and they may overlap those which border any one specific bandwidth, so bleed through or bleed over can make understanding difficult. There are a few UB quotes which describe this, and how to overcome this specific issue, but if you assimilate the cosmic mind as a possible interface used by the Thought Adjuster, you may be mistaken, where the Thought Adjuster is just that, when in tone with the TA, it provides the appropriate adjustments to the mind’s arena of thought, to isolate those overlapping bandwidths as to a more personal interpretation to the individual.
I do not interpret TUB, I take it at face value. I cannot interpret that which is static and dead as are words on paper. I can interpret another person through the lens of my bias, I admit.
It is not my purpose to present a case for argument and I cannot take responsibility for another’s reaction to me or what I write on this blog.
If nothing else, I evolve and change. I am not of a stagnant mind. I acknowledge this and offer no defense for it. It is called ‘progress’. Those that keep quoting the same things from TUB change not. We can make no progress towards perfection without change.
Manny, if you take the UB “at face value”, then why have you written a book, regarding it scientific content? If your interpretation is from “face value” then what you have perceived from the science in the UB should require no affirmation or differentiation.
If you do not “present a case for argument” or debate, then why present your view point which seems to be perceived as an argument. If this is true, then those who would disagree with any persons responses, are you advocating that those individuals just ignore your posts?
Actually Manny, those repetitive UB quote posts, actually do change, if you take into consideration that the authors have indicated that from time to time many words should be looked up in the dictionary, because their meanings seem to change, or have been expanded over time. And perfection can only be achieved by the individual where “perfection” is not a requirement to achieving “light and life”, where its opposite is darkness and death. “Walk towards the light” Manny, Ha-ha-ha.
Fused or not, we have access to our TA. The TA is in our mind. I deny hypocrisy here where have stated above because I freely acknowledge that I use TUB as a text. I do not consider TUB as a living revelation because it is not a person that changes and evolves. I do not make an idol of TUB. I do not practice medicine ‘by the book’. That would be insane when one has to minister to persons that do not read the book.
I agree that the Urantia Book is not a person, and if a revelation, then it would be specific to individuals, therefore may not be specifically meant for you but, then I would assume that you could say the same thing, regarding the Bible and other text. Regarding the TA, not everyone has a Thought Adjuster; this is explained in the UB, so are you really sure that you have one?
I’m glade that you “do not practice medicine ‘by the book'” because every patient must be treated as an individual and would not necessarily be described in the pages of those books, but then the practice of medicine would seem to be arbitrary in that why would one “practice” instead of apply known science. “First of all, do no harm.”
Manny, not “all person[s] are biased”
I qualified that statement by saying that the bestower of personality is not biased. Bias is merely having a point of view that is unique because of a unique personality and experiences had through that personality.
One might say that we cannot perceive another’s personality, but this is not true, even though not absolute perception, in that personality profiling is used in criminal investigations in order to better understand a motive of operation or action.
We do not perceive personalities we recognize personality. Profiling is inexact to the extreme, yet can be helpful.
Yet, you state that “The bestower of personality is bias free and no respecter of persons”, yet this is an attribute of God, and I am sure that you do not put yourself above or equal to God, regardless of perceived deity. We are still human, and “to ere, is human, forgive divine.”
The Father bestows personality and therefore has no bias as to persons. I am not sure what you have written here. Of course this is an attribute of God. We are human indeed and we must forgive our brother in order to fully receive forgiveness for ourselves. God forgives before being asked.
What you state above is mostly true, but how do you know that you can even “tap into the cosmic mind”?
To anyone willing, on can exchange your mind for the mind of Jesus of Nazareth. This is the cosmic mind, and availing yourself of its utility is a matter of will and will alone. The cosmic mind needs no interpretation because it speaks directly.
Manny, if you take the UB “at face value”, then why have you written a book, regarding it scientific content?
Because I take TUB at face value. I do not believe that it contains lies, only biases (points of view).
If your interpretation is from “face value” then what you have perceived from the science in the UB should require no affirmation or differentiation.
It is not my interpretation, I take TUB as axiomatic. Axioms are givens, self-evident truths. No affirmation or differentiation is required at all.
If you do not “present a case for argument” or debate, then why present your view point which seems to be perceived as an argument.
It must be purely your perception, not my intent. An argument means one is desirous of a victory. I don’t much care for arguments because any winning is but a pyrrhic victory.
If this is true, then those who would disagree with any persons responses, are you advocating that those individuals just ignore your posts?
Everyone is free to engage in a discussion or simply ignore a post, yes. There is but a couple handfuls of persons writing on this forum, the rest are not engaging or simply ignoring the posts, take your pick.
Actually Manny, those repetitive UB quote posts, actually do change, if you take into consideration that the authors have indicated that from time to time many words should be looked up in the dictionary, because their meanings seem to change, or have been expanded over time. And perfection can only be achieved by the individual where “perfection” is not a requirement to achieving “light and life”, where its opposite is darkness and death. “Walk towards the light” Manny, Ha-ha-ha.
The words do not change but the reader does change. A person gives meaning to words, they have no meaning themselves.
It is wise to walk towards the light but equally wise to not walk alone. One must walk hand in hand with ones bother in faith. The kingdom of heaven is at hand but cannot be entered alone, but as an individual with brothers in hand.
I agree that the Urantia Book is not a person, and if a revelation, then it would be specific to individuals, therefore may not be specifically meant for you but, then I would assume that you could say the same thing, regarding the Bible and other text.
Yes.
Regarding the TA, not everyone has a Thought Adjuster; this is explained in the UB, so are you really sure that you have one?
Yes.
but then the practice of medicine would seem to be arbitrary in that why would one “practice” instead of apply known science. “First of all, do no harm.”
There is no such animal as “known science”. There are only currently practiced standards of care. Medicine is an art that utilizes current modalities of treatments that are based on research and statistics. These modalities are constantly changing and reflect the latest information available. No harm can come of anything in a universe where God reigns.
Forgive me Manny, for not having continued my response replies, where the hour was getting late. Nevertheless, there are a few point which I might address.
MidiChlorian wrote: One might say that we cannot perceive another’s personality, but this is not true, even though not absolute perception, in that personality profiling is used in criminal investigations in order to better understand a motive of operation or action.
We do not perceive personalities we recognize personality. Profiling is inexact to the extreme, yet can be helpful.
As I indicated in my statement above, personality profiling is not an absolute science but, there are individuals who can take even written responses from arbitrary conversations or even written responses, and deduce a specific personal attitude which is working in an individuals mindset or even intention to purpose. There are many tools used today to help various professionals in making personality assessments, the most common to the past is the MMPI, yet I prefer the underlying premise to Myers-Briggs, myself. Where even on these Blogs, a person with experience, can insightfully read a persons underlying meaning as to the way they respond to specific query, or statements. As you say, it “can be helpful.”
MidiChlorian wrote: What you state above is mostly true, but how do you know that you can even “tap into the cosmic mind”?
To anyone willing, on[e] can exchange your mind for the mind of Jesus of Nazareth. This is the cosmic mind, and availing yourself of its utility is a matter of will and will alone. The cosmic mind needs no interpretation because it speaks directly.
I’m not sure that the statement in the UB, regarding the ability to “exchange your mind for the mind of Jesus of Nazareth”, should be taken literally, fore if this were an absolute truism, then those who would prevail to do so, would be more reminiscent of His general presentation, and would have overlaid His with theirs, and would have little showing of their own personality showing. Nevertheless, one might perceive that this statement may imply that the “mind of Jesus” would be an impression taken in by Jesus’ life and teachings, where it is there to assimilate.
MidiChlorian wrote: If you do not “present a case for argument” or debate, then why present your view point which seems to be perceived as an argument.
It must be purely your perception, not my intent. An argument means one is desirous of a victory. I don’t much care for arguments because any winning is but a pyrrhic victory.
Yes, I do perceive that in many cases some of your replies are meant to be argumentative, but I look at them more so as an opportunity for a good debate. I seek no “victory”, only an opportunity to present my opinion or evidence for the subject being presented, and when possible, to learn from this type of engagement, for the benefit to myself and acquire experience as to how other persons think. Where, I know how I think, but in order to get a general idea of how others are thinking, along the same subject lines, their responses give me a parallel for comparison.
MidiChlorian wrote: but then the practice of medicine would seem to be arbitrary in that why would one “practice” instead of apply known science. “First of all, do no harm.”
There is no such animal as “known science”. There are only currently practiced standards of care. Medicine is an art that utilizes current modalities of treatments that are based on research and statistics. These modalities are constantly changing and reflect the latest information available. No harm can come of anything in a universe where God reigns.
I beg to differ, regarding “known science” when it comes to biophysics and the human organism. Although, that which is written in those books, earlier mentioned, I prefer “Merck Manual”, and “eMedicine” narratives myself, which I use prior to visiting a Physician, and attempt to ascertain their abilities through their understanding of any specialty they profess too. You would be surprised how many Medical Specialists acquired their specialist status by taking supplemental add on courses after hours, just to be able to get a higher co-pay but, notwithstanding, “Medicine is [not] an art”, it is a science applied to human beings, where each human is different and even when those books indicate “current modalities of treatments” regardless of “statistics”, which constantly change, day to day, as you say, a Physician would need to take most of their time reading all of the research in order to be on top of their game or Art.
You state that “No harm can come of anything in a universe where God reigns.” What universe are you living in? Because, if this is true, then God is not reigning in this universe, because I have seen and partaken of too much pain, suffering and death in this one. There is some truth in the saying, “Physician, heal thyself.”
As I indicated in my statement above, personality profiling is not an absolute science but, there are individuals who can take even written responses from arbitrary conversations or even written responses, and deduce a specific personal attitude which is working in an individuals mindset or even intention to purpose. There are many tools used today to help various professionals in making personality assessments, the most common to the past is the MMPI, yet I prefer the underlying premise to Myers-Briggs, myself. Where even on these Blogs, a person with experience, can insightfully read a persons underlying meaning as to the way they respond to specific query, or statements. As you say, it “can be helpful.”
I disagree. These tests are bogus. Perhaps face to face assessments are helpful but I find the field of psychology to be largely irrelevant.
I’m not sure that the statement in the UB, regarding the ability to “exchange your mind for the mind of Jesus of Nazareth”, should be taken literally, fore if this were an absolute truism, then those who would prevail to do so, would be more reminiscent of His general presentation, and would have overlaid His with theirs, and would have little showing of their own personality showing. Nevertheless, one might perceive that this statement may imply that the “mind of Jesus” would be an impression taken in by Jesus’ life and teachings, where it is there to assimilate.
I think it should be taken literally. Mind is not personality. Minds can be shared.
Yes, I do perceive that in many cases some of your replies are meant to be argumentative, but I look at them more so as an opportunity for a good debate. I seek no “victory”, only an opportunity to present my opinion or evidence for the subject being presented, and when possible, to learn from this type of engagement, for the benefit to myself and acquire experience as to how other persons think. Where, I know how I think, but in order to get a general idea of how others are thinking, along the same subject lines, their responses give me a parallel for comparison.
I prefer the word “provocative” to the word “argumentative”. My intent is to provoke deeper thinking.
I beg to differ, regarding “known science” when it comes to biophysics and the human organism. Although, that which is written in those books, earlier mentioned, I prefer “Merck Manual”, and “eMedicine” narratives myself, which I use prior to visiting a Physician, and attempt to ascertain their abilities through their understanding of any specialty they profess too. You would be surprised how many Medical Specialists acquired their specialist status by taking supplemental add on courses after hours, just to be able to get a higher co-pay but, notwithstanding, “Medicine is [not] an art”, it is a science applied to human beings, where each human is different and even when those books indicate “current modalities of treatments” regardless of “statistics”, which constantly change, day to day, as you say, a Physician would need to take most of their time reading all of the research in order to be on top of their game or Art.
We are in complete disagreement on this topic. I was a biomedical engineer, was in academic medicine and a researcher for a while and in private for the last 20 years. I can tell you that we know very little about anything. If you think otherwise then you have swallowed the propaganda jagged little pill. Reading research papers and articles is forced upon the physician to maintain licensure and board certification. It is a racket to make money and says nothing of the competence of a physician. I pray at each patient encounter because I really so not know how to help a patient without God. Don’t hang your hat on science, for it is a false idol.
You state that “No harm can come of anything in a universe where God reigns.” What universe are you living in? Because, if this is true, then God is not reigning in this universe, because I have seen and partaken of too much pain, suffering and death in this one. There is some truth in the saying, “Physician, heal thyself.”
I live in God and He resides in eternity. You must not be bitter, Midi. All tears are wiped away in eternity. Did not Jesus suffer pain and suffering and death? I cannot heal myself or anyone else. Only God heals.
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.