-
Posts
-
(163:3.4) And then said Peter, “But, Master, we have left everything to follow you, what then shall we have?” And Jesus spoke to all of the twelve: “Verily, verily, I say to you, there is no man who has left wealth, home, wife, brethren, parents, or children for my sake and for the sake of the kingdom of heaven who shall not receive manifold more in this world, perhaps with some persecutions, and in the world to come eternal life. But many who are first shall be last, while the last shall often be first. The Father deals with his creatures in accordance with their needs and in obedience to his just laws of merciful and loving consideration for the welfare of a universe.
And I’ll add to the list above, the Captains of the ships, these forums, you Bonita (Rexford) and others who persecute anyone who dares to follow Jesus and his Father within, instead of submitting to “authority”.
i have no idea about Rexford but I see Bonita as an enormous resource to be taken more seriously, not as an adversary. Don’t let yourself get in the way.
imho
Good question Bonita.
There are no “captains” of any public forum….only participants and moderators (the poor cat herders…hahaha). No one here or at TB claims any authority nor has any. At study groups focused on the UB, it is that text which is held in common for joint study and discussion. And then there are those who do not sincerely seek any understanding they do not already hold and hope to impose their own preconceptions and prejudices upon all others….they get preachy and make proclamations and demand others believe and or act as they do. But the seasoned student knows that all we can truly share are the text itself and our own limited, incomplete, transitory, and partial understandings of that text with one another based on our own personal experience.
This is not enough for some who are eager to sow seeds of doubt and anxieties and disharmony. Those who cannot get along with others and contribute to any group dynamic are, perhaps, in need of transformation….or new groups. I am tired of your accusations nod. You claim the Revelation to be Dangerous and twist and torment its contents and then whine and make false accusations when no audience stands to applaud. Unfortunate. Pontification and declarations will not suffice in a classroom of other students….we are not an audience but a group of students held together by study of a specific book of facts…which does not require any belief in the facts discussed or the book containing the facts. Get over it.
You dare to claim the persecution here of those “…who dares to follow Jesus…” – what a preposterous accusation. Fascinating and illuminating. Perplexing as well.
Gene wrote: . . . i have no idea about Rexford but I see Bonita as an enormous resource to be taken more seriously, not as an adversary. Don’t let yourself get in the way.Thanks Gene. Van/nod has gotten it into his head that Rexford and I are one and the same person. Clearly he doesn’t know me very well. Anyone who knows me has heard me say a gazillion times that I would never in my life join TB as long as trigger-happy Larry is in charge. I have no respect for the man. Why would I subject myself to his skewed judgment for a fourth time? It doesn’t make any sense. But I’ll take it as a complement since I think Rexford is brilliant. I don’t mind being confused with him at all. But, Van/nod (who never uses his real name, did you notice?) should know that there are such things as kindred spirits, personalities who are similar to one another, and minds that run in channels of “astonishing similarity”. That’s just the way the universe operates. Gonna have to get used to it.
And have you noticed that Van/nod never admits that he has something mixed up in his head? I pointed out that we are not pilots, the Adjusters are, and he simply cannot acknowledge that he was wrong about that. Is it because I’m a woman? Nah, can’t be. He thinks I’m a man named Rexford and he thinks Rexford’s a woman named Bonita. Poor fella. He’s all mixed up and it’s my fault because, like Bradly, and maybe Rexford too, I point out what’s in TUB and what ain’t. Gonna have to get used to it.
16:8.4 Personalities may be similar, but they are never the same. Persons of a given series, type, order, or pattern may and do resemble one another, but they are never identical.
7:1.6 Spirit-gravity pull and response thereto operate not only on the universe as a whole but also even between individuals and groups of individuals. There is a spiritual cohesiveness among the spiritual and spiritized personalities of any world, race, nation, or believing group of individuals. There is a direct attractiveness of a spirit nature between spiritually minded persons of like tastes and longings. The term kindred spirits is not wholly a figure of speech.
16:6.3 The fact of the cosmic mind explains the kinship of various types of human and superhuman minds. Not only are kindred spirits attracted to each other, but kindred minds are also very fraternal and inclined towards co-operation the one with the other. Human minds are sometimes observed to be running in channels of astonishing similarity and inexplicable agreement.
But, Van/nod (who never uses his real name, did you notice?)
Alright Bonita/Rexford, my real name is Van Winkle.
Although I’ve been more than recently woken up, my dog’s name is Wolf. He’s a sheep dog.
Alright Bonita/Rexford, my real name is Van Winkle. Although I’ve been more than recently woken up, my dog’s name is Wolf. He’s a sheep dog.
How sadly insincere. I’ll call you “Rip” for short. You have my sympathies.
VanAmadon wrote: See, I knew you would get it.But Rip, you just got done telling me that I don’t get it. Could you make up your minds?
VanAmadon wrote: Interesting that you should ask this Bonita. Rexford doesn’t know either.Anyway, back to my question from this morning: What does “be submissive to the captain of someone else’s ship” mean??What does “be submissive to the captain of someone else’s ship” mean??If I explained this to you Bonita then you might be robbed of the experience of having the source of all knowledge reveal it to you from within.Failure to do so may affect your organization’s support by those in planetary authority of that epochal revelation known by you as The Urantia Book.
HaHaHaHaHa . . . . . what a load of poppycock. These people just get more and more desperate for attention all the time. What a great giggle to start out the new year. Toooooo funny.
If not so already….I just want to make it very clear that these are not Ben’s words but those of another he inquired about – the “quoting” mechanism seems to abbreviate reply text in an unfortunate manner in this particular case. The quote is actually from Nick S.’s Treatise posted by Ben with his pertinent questions.
It is unfortunate, to me, that Ben hasn’t had opportunity to re-join the conversation…I’d love to hear from you on this or any other topic you might wish. I would say however that as a newer reader/student, your very best resource is the UB itself. Study groups are a complimentary and supporting device/community…but there simply is no adequate substitute for time in the text with the Spirit of Truth whispering to you in its intimate way. So, enjoy your reading and studies!!
One of the amazing aspects of reading, for me, is how often the text will raise a question in mind only to then provide the answer within a paragraph or page….kind of eerie. That plus the fact of how my growing understanding and implementation of the text in perspective adjustment and better motives, intentions, and priorities in living has, over the years and readings, expanded illumination and meanings in the same text already read/studied multiple times in the past. The combination of these two phenomena demonstrates the power of the authors to understand the human mind and their skills at presenting complexities and unknown facts in a way that makes the reading and study of the Papers so satisfying and so enticing….I always felts encouraged to keep moving forward in this banquet and feast for the mind.
Thanks for clearing up the matter of the fellowship. As for the position of the foundation, I looked it up. They don’t tollarate channeling or those who practice it either.
Anyone who knows me has heard me say a gazillion times that I would never in my life join TB as long as trigger-happy Larry is in charge. I have no respect for the man. Why would I subject myself to his skewed judgment for a fourth time? It doesn’t make any sense. But I’ll take it as a complement since I think Rexford is brilliant.
I find this fascinating “Bonita” where if I recall correctly you still have an account at TB under the name “Bonita”, and it was activated back in Dec., 2006. When I first joined TB I took some time to look around and I notice another member how you had engaged, and I found it curious as to why that person had developed such an adversarial attitude so I browsed many of that persons posts and noticed that that person really wasn’t like that in the beginning of their tenure there, but then I noticed that you had been engaging with that person in a subject that seemed to be beyond your knowledge where that person was attempting to make a scientific comparison to the UB and you just wouldn’t stop confronting that person with non-relevant UB trivia. That’s when I made the assumption that it was your engagement that turned that person into something that he was not. Fascinating?
Most all of your post are still accessible on TB, and that surprised me a little when you mentioned Larry above, and that you had subscribed to TB four times? Or, am I misreading that, to personal interaction with Larry, where I can understand your animosity because I have had difficulty with his personality, but more so his attitude about channeling, where he admitted having been taught in the subject and was more aware of members attempting to focus on that subject, where I believe you and he got into it a little. But what puzzles me is the “fourth time” issue where, where as I read it seems to indicate that you have been on TB four times, or am I misunderstanding your mention of this? Because, I too believe that you may have been behind the “Rexford” Avatar, primarily in the style of writing, but the general personally patterns behind the narrations. Not to mention that Bradly, AKA, FanofVan, seemed to have attached himself to Rexford, not much different then here. No offense Bradly, just an observation.
Since this topic has already off-topic it seem to be okay to mention this here, only because it would seem that those individuals who seem to defend certain accusations, tend to defend them because there is truth behind them?
Fascinating indeed how personality patterns can be read so well and seem to stay with a person regardless of names used.
VanAmadon wrote: If I explained this to you Bonita then you might be robbed of the experience of having the source of all knowledge reveal it to you from within.Okay Rip. Obviously you already know and are unwilling to share because you can’t. I guess you can’t because it’s against some spiritual law that mandates that I have to find secret knowledge all on my own. But, then I’ll get rewarded with the keys to the clubhouse and I’ll be a member of the elites like you, right? Well, thanks for thinking of my welfare. That’s mighty fine of yah. I’ll get right on it. Thanks a zillion.
But what puzzles me is the “fourth time” issue where, where as I read it seems to indicate that you have been on TB four times, or am I misunderstanding you mention of this.
Yup, you are misunderstanding. If I went back to TB as Rexford, it would have been my fourth time back at that troll hole. Three times was all I could bear, so a fourth time is just ludicrous. Why would I punish myself like that? Makes no sense. I think, but I’m not absolutely sure, that I left some time around 2007, with some really nasty words for Larry as I slammed the door on that unbearable place for good. I read occasionally, but find it droll and uninteresting.
What does “be submissive to the captain of someone else’s ship” mean??If I explained this to you Bonita then you might be robbed of the experience of having the source of all knowledge reveal it to you from within.Still at it. And still and again taking over a topic begun by another to insert your obfuscations and Notisms in ways which detract from and destroy a conversation that is obviously important to the one who began it. A very rude and self centered form of entertainment.This illustrates something interesting for the mods and the community here to consider. I find it striking that at UBRON and here over the same weekend that two different fellow students sincerely inquired as to the import and meaning of Nick’s Treatise (the timing of the inquiry is not odd as it was recently email blasted to many addresses at once). Both persons received multiple and sincere responses for which they showed genuine appreciation and gave witness of the importance of the community’s response, not only to them personally, but to groups of others who shared their own concerns and questions.Then suddenly and seemingly out of nowhere at both forums, two different voices appeared who attempted, simultaneously it would appear, to distract, diffuse, and redirect the conversation away from the subject and both began to demean other posters and hijacked the conversation. I’m sure I’m being a little paranoid and it’s all simple coincidence but……So the supposed topic of Nick’s Treatise is the lack of harmony and unity and it purports to favor both but I wonder. At this very time when these very objectives are actually finding traction and gaining some momentum, all of a sudden here comes the Treatise of demand and threat creating confusion, alarm, and consternation/anxiety.I must say how very impressed with both student bodies/communities in their mutually thoughtful and supporting replies which resulted in great relief to both inquiring parties and how neither interloper was able to detract or disrupt this community process….but nod keeps trying nonetheless.I wonder what the mods and the students here might do to prevent such topical hijackings or how best to respond to them. For this tactic is part of a larger and sinister strategy of disruption and obviously offers no value or meaning related to the topics thusly hijacked. I would encourage everyone to consider at least objecting to and pointing out the fact when someone appears to be intent only on disruption by offering nothing related to the topic at hand. Every poster is free to start any topic any time. But it is pure rudeness and error to hijack conversations and subjects under discussion.So, from me, please leave the discussion nod until you have something topical to contribute and if there is something you actually wish to discuss, please begin a topic for THAT discussion. Just sayin’…..
I think, but I’m not absolutely sure, that I left some time around 2007
If I’m not mistaken it was around May of 2010. And I believe that Larry had removed some of the posts you indicated as “really nasty words for Larry”. Besides it would have taken that long to put 1773 posts into that system.
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.