Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:11 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 193 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 13  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: DANGERS OF DEMOCRACY
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 969
Riktare wrote:
SEla_Kelly wrote:
When excellence is proven, then the same act a second time no longer considered excellent. The act which represents excellence often sets the new standard, but such acts are always unique, yes? I just don't understand how an excellent act can be repeated.


Actually you are right and bring up a rather important observation. An excellent performance can certainly be repeated but then it becomes merely a good or very good performance. The excelling quality is no longer present because the bar or standard has been raised. And therein lies the difficulty in continuing to perform excellently. You need to at least apply a similar exceptional performance in a different realm.


The Urantia Book seems to say otherwise.

Quote:
64:4.1 (720.7) The Neanderthalers were excellent fighters, and they traveled extensively. They gradually spread from the highland centers in northwest India to France on the west, China on the east, and even down into northern Africa. They dominated the world for almost half a million years until the times of the migration of the evolutionary races of color.


Did the Neanderthalers fight only once?

Quote:
39:3.7 (1553.3) James Zebedee was a well-balanced thinker and planner. Along with Andrew, he was one of the more level-headed of the apostolic group. He was a vigorous individual but was never in a hurry. He was an excellent balance wheel for Peter.


Was James a helpful balance wheel on only one occasion?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DANGERS OF DEMOCRACY
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3926
I am so confused and amused by this polarity of understanding of the definition of such a common term and concept. Our agreement is not important but I would like to understand these qualifications and limits some of us impose upon excellence.

Jim says only sacred/spiritual matters and results can be excellent but not material, scientific, or secular matters. And another has claimed only God is or can be excellent. Stephen and Riktare now claim excellence is a singular event which cannot be repeated but must be exceeded to again be considered excellent.

From whence come these standards and qualifiers I wonder? Excellent is a description of qualities which in measure and by comparison exceeds the average. I agree it is a relative term of description that relies on the subjective experience and opinion of whoever applies it. Indeed there is no objective standard.

Average is an objective and determinable amount. Excellent is greater than the average. How much greater? That depends on who achieves it or witnesses it or experiences it or measures it. Evidently we each measure this quality of experience differently. To each their own.

So this claim means I have only had one excellent meal in my life...the most excellent one? For there is no lesser or greater excellence but only one measure? And I have enjoyed only one excellent sunrise? And only one baby's smile has been excellent and all others then mediocre...or worse? Fascinating perspective.

So is excellence, like kat claims, an objective standard...hers is the God standard by which we may only fail and never achieve...to which all efforts by all beings are uniformly compared, measured, and applied? So then my best will never be best and therefore never excellent like Stephen and now Riktare claims (the Moses example)?

Is there any supporting evidence or documentation for these, so far, self defined limits to excellent and excellence? Who decides which experience and which expression is excellent or not? And which is most or less excellent? So of all the choices we make and acts we take and experiential wisdom gained which add to soul and the Supreme, only one is excellent or contains excellence?

A very curious claim indeed.

8)

:2.4 (857.1) Since the one hundred corporeal members of the Prince’s staff carried germ plasm of the Andonic human strains, it would naturally be expected that, if they engaged in sexual reproduction, their progeny would altogether resemble the offspring of other Andonite parents. But when the sixty rebels of the staff, the followers of Nod, actually engaged in sexual reproduction, their children proved to be far superior in almost every way to both the Andonite and the Sangik peoples. This unexpected excellence characterized not only physical and intellectual qualities but also spiritual capacities.

The excellence of the Nodites appears universal and not exclusive to one particular Nodite...and they were not God.

Thanks Agon!! I can always depend upon your reasoning and comprehension and perspective. Well said.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DANGERS OF DEMOCRACY
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 945
Quote:
64:4.1 (720.7) The Neanderthalers were excellent fighters, and they traveled extensively. They gradually spread from the highland centers in northwest India to France on the west, China on the east, and even down into northern Africa. They dominated the world for almost half a million years until the times of the migration of the evolutionary races of color.

Did the Neanderthalers fight only once?


Every fight entailed a different scenario. On each occasion new challenges were being introduced requiring some new application of skill, awareness, sagacity, novelty, etc., This is the nature of warfare.

Quote:
39:3.7 (1553.3) James Zebedee was a well-balanced thinker and planner. Along with Andrew, he was one of the more level-headed of the apostolic group. He was a vigorous individual but was never in a hurry. He was an excellent balance wheel for Peter.

Was James a helpful balance wheel on only one occasion?


As above. It seems clear that the revelators use the term to express the tendency to excel, time and time again.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DANGERS OF DEMOCRACY
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3926
You mean exceed all former excellence...right? The Moses "rule". Excel is not enough according to your standard. Only the greatest of all excellence can be excellent...right?

And the excellence of the Nodites?

And from what source does this requirement originate?

Sorry....but that's pretty lame Riktare. Just my opinion of course.

In good humor, Bradly. 8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DANGERS OF DEMOCRACY
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 969
Riktare wrote:

Every fight entailed a different scenario. On each occasion new challenges were being introduced requiring some new application of skill, awareness, sagacity, novelty, etc., This is the nature of warfare.


So, by your definition, they would have had to outperform themselves on EVERY occasion in order to maintain their excellence. If they had a bad day, got nicked on the shoulder in a fight and fell in a faint that particular day, they would no longer be excellent, ever.

Reminder of how you explained it:
Quote:
An excellent performance can certainly be repeated but then it becomes merely a good or very good performance. The excelling quality is no longer present because the bar or standard has been raised. And therein lies the difficulty in continuing to perform excellently. You need to at least apply a similar exceptional performance in a different realm. Staleness can lead to mediocrity.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DANGERS OF DEMOCRACY
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 945
Strange... I thought it was pretty clear when I first explained it and nothing is different in my last post. I guess it is your (both of yours) particular interpretations of what I was saying to force the condition "EVERY occasion". Just a bit of careful thought might lead us to consider that something substantial will have changed from occasion to occasion to earn a performance an excel quality. I would unquestionably put the last 2 responses in the category of unwarranted bickering.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DANGERS OF DEMOCRACY
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3926
"Unquestionably"? Hahaha. Good one. Subjective opinions are never without question Riktare. Or should not be anyway.

So no sources or support for these different definitions?

The spirit only standard.

The God only standard.

The Moses-rule standard.

The better than average subjective experience standard. Supported by every dictionary definition.

Hmmmmm.....

Please bicker with the dictionary all you wish.

:wink:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DANGERS OF DEMOCRACY
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:11 pm +0000
Posts: 932
Riktare wrote:
Actually you are right and bring up a rather important observation. An excellent performance can certainly be repeated but then it becomes merely a good or very good performance. The excelling quality is no longer present because the bar or standard has been raised. And therein lies the difficulty in continuing to perform excellently. You need to at least apply a similar exceptional performance in a different realm. Staleness can lead to mediocrity.

To an actively growing person maybe that is not so difficult. We are continually presented with new situations and opportunities for service and performance. Certainly the divine plan incorporates that by design...


Brilliant observation Riktare. If there is such a thing as good, better and best, then the bar of excellence is always being raised. Being the best in any situation is excellent, but if the same exact situation recurs, then something better than best is necessary to exceed the standard level of excellence. If I run a marathon and break the current record of the fastest and most excellent time for that marathon, then my new time is more excellent than the one I beat, which then becomes less than excellent. But another will eventually come along and make my excellent performance less excellent as well. Opportunities for greater excellence seem to be the way of life, the divine plan, but the FINALITY of excellence belongs only to the Father. It begins and ends in him.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DANGERS OF DEMOCRACY
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3926
Where is it written that only the best is excellent? And whose best? Compared to what?

The Nodites genetics were only superior and excellent once? Compared to God's genes no less? Or they got more genetically superior every day until they didn't?

Such distortions are making for some real contortionism to be displayed here.

:roll: Please provide ANY documentation in support of these definitions....which so far also contradict each other. Pick a lane for Pete's sake.

:?:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DANGERS OF DEMOCRACY
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 969
I think katroof and riktare are just messin' with ya, Bradly. :(


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DANGERS OF DEMOCRACY
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:11 pm +0000
Posts: 932
Riktare wrote:
Just a bit of careful thought might lead us to consider that something substantial will have changed from occasion to occasion to earn a performance an excel quality.


That makes total sense because excellency, like truth, is relative. Final excellency, also like final truth, only exists with the Father. All things and beings relative to the Father participate in relative truth and relative excellency or perfection. The Father's way is always the best way, the right way and the perfect way for any given situation or circumstance. And of course, every situation and circumstance will be constantly changing out here in the worlds of time and space. That which is deemed divinely excellent at one point in time and space undoubtedly contributes to the Supreme, but it is only one such episode of perpetually changing points in time and space.

(36.2) 2:2.4 Out in the universes, perfection must necessarily be a relative term, but in the central universe and especially on Paradise, perfection is undiluted; in certain phases it is even absolute. Trinity manifestations vary the exhibition of the divine perfection but do not attenuate it.

(1162.4) 106:0.4 2. Maximum finites. This is the present status of all experiential creatures who have attained destiny — destiny as revealed within the scope of the present universe age. Even universes can attain to the maximum of status, both spiritually and physically. But the term “maximum” is itself a relative term — maximum in relation to what? And that which is maximum, seemingly final, in the present universe age may be no more than a real beginning in terms of the ages to come. Some phases of Havona appear to be on the maximum order.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DANGERS OF DEMOCRACY
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3926
Evidently we are done with the actual topic...the danger of the glorification of mediocrity to democracy.

Hope you got what you were looking for Rick!!

Best wishes.

Bradly :biggrin: 8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DANGERS OF DEMOCRACY
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:16 pm +0000
Posts: 1105
Location: Nanticoke NY
fanofVan wrote:
I am so ... amused
Excellent is a description of qualities which in measure and by comparison exceeds the average. I agree it is a relative term of description that relies on the subjective experience and opinion of whoever applies it. Indeed there is no objective standard.

Average is an objective and determinable amount. Excellent is greater than the average. How much greater? That depends on who achieves it or witnesses it or experiences it or measures it. Evidently we each measure this quality of experience differently. To each their own.


132:2.2 "If you are spiritually indolent and morally unprogressive, you may take as your standards of good the religious practices and traditions of your contemporaries."
I move that Bradley's "standard" of excellence is far-too mundane. That his mention of the false "Lebowski Theorem" is his actual condonation of mediocrity. It does not satisfy people in this forum, who seek "mastery", or excellence, in the doing of God's will, the excellence of being fatherly. Anyone could ask for themselves, when he insults Riktare's use of the word "unquestionably"/"undoubtedly", "is this the way Bradley advices his own children?" The standard of "more"/"excellence" being held comparing one human individual's skills to another's? And, so well but he states that a lazy bowler "Mister" Lebowski, the "standard of cool", is an actual progressive more in this democratic and progressive society.

I say that there is nothing excellent under the sun, because I compare myself to the universal Father. Excellence compared with the actual divine qualities bestowable from Christ Michael. I am not excellent compared to God.

Riktare concurrs with I and so what has been seen is Bradley recalcitrate his minor stake in this conversation, even though this idea is indeed very relevent towards this topic "Dangers of Democracy." The worst danger is that you could assume that Bradley actually is providing excellent analysis, that you would assume that since he is more excellent than I, he should be trusted. How do you know that a leader is excellent? Because he is a genius, or because he truly cares for the better interests of every member of his constituency? (I choose the latter).

Yes, Agon, I understand what excellence means, when one feels they must compare themselves to one's neighbour, in terms of physical or intellectual superiority. But true excellence of psychological maturity, what that looks like, only come from the nurturance of faith within the individual. What it looks like to me, is that excellence of the human character can only come through the emergence of the Supreme Being, within that one. Every phase of psychological maturation, deemed to have advance the knowledge (being) of the human's knowledge of God's will, or the actual performance/completion of acts demanded by God, is now the standard of excellence.

The goal in society is not for children to grow up becoming "the best athlete" or "the best astronaut", but to cultivate that healthy aspect of zeal, which unfolds during real psychological maturation. A child may hold that the standard of excellence is to do well at any task, but what does excellence mean to one who is actually a self-directed individual, and how does the idea of a real self-directed individual relate to the essence of democracy, "one who is able to choose".

_________________
to the Underlaying Unity of All Life so that the Voice of Intuition may guide Us closer to Our Common Keeper


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DANGERS OF DEMOCRACY
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3926
SEla_Kelly wrote:
fanofVan wrote:
I am so ... amused
Excellent is a description of qualities which in measure and by comparison exceeds the average. I agree it is a relative term of description that relies on the subjective experience and opinion of whoever applies it. Indeed there is no objective standard.

Average is an objective and determinable amount. Excellent is greater than the average. How much greater? That depends on who achieves it or witnesses it or experiences it or measures it. Evidently we each measure this quality of experience differently. To each their own.


132:2.2 "If you are spiritually indolent and morally unprogressive, you may take as your standards of good the religious practices and traditions of your contemporaries."
I move that Bradley's "standard" of excellence is far-too mundane. That his mention of the false "Lebowski Theorem" is his actual condonation of mediocrity. It does not satisfy people in this forum, who seek "mastery", or excellence, in the doing of God's will, the excellence of being fatherly. Anyone could ask for themselves, when he insults Riktare's use of the word "unquestionably"/"undoubtedly", "is this the way Bradley advices his own children?" The standard of "more"/"excellence" being held comparing one human individual's skills to another's? And, so well but he states that a lazy bowler "Mister" Lebowski, the "standard of cool", is an actual progressive more in this democratic and progressive society.

I say that there is nothing excellent under the sun, because I compare myself to the universal Father. Excellence compared with the actual divine qualities bestowable from Christ Michael. I am not excellent compared to God.

Riktare concurrs with I and so what has been seen is Bradley recalcitrate his minor stake in this conversation, even though this idea is indeed very relevent towards this topic "Dangers of Democracy." The worst danger is that you could assume that Bradley actually is providing excellent analysis, that you would assume that since he is more excellent than I, he should be trusted. How do you know that a leader is excellent? Because he is a genius, or because he truly cares for the better interests of every member of his constituency? (I choose the latter).

Yes, Agon, I understand what excellence means, when one feels they must compare themselves to one's neighbour, in terms of physical or intellectual superiority. But true excellence of psychological maturity, what that looks like, only come from the nurturance of faith within the individual. What it looks like to me, is that excellence of the human character can only come through the emergence of the Supreme Being, within that one. Every phase of psychological maturation, deemed to have advance the knowledge (being) of the human's knowledge of God's will, or the actual performance/completion of acts demanded by God, is now the standard of excellence.

The goal in society is not for children to grow up becoming "the best athlete" or "the best astronaut", but to cultivate that healthy aspect of zeal, which unfolds during real psychological maturation. A child may hold that the standard of excellence is to do well at any task, but what does excellence mean to one who is actually a self-directed individual, and how does the idea of a real self-directed individual relate to the essence of democracy, "one who is able to choose".


Why Stephen do you twist, misquote, and misrepresent my words? What's up with that??!! It is a sign of low character and evil intent. Yet this is the second time this week you have directly falsified my posts...which is easily demonstrated.

I welcome your low opinion of me Stephen. Sometimes validation is found in the insults and opposition of certain others.

Again you falsify my words and bear false witness to insult me. Never did I "states that a lazy bowler "Mister" Lebowski, the "standard of cool", is an actual progressive more in this democratic and progressive society."

Actually I posted a link to what I described as an interesting AND AMUSING article related to the topic of mediocrity and gave no other opinion about the so called theory.

This is also common in your misrepresentations of the Revelation...just making things up to suit yourself.

Glad YOU do not agree with me. Thanks.


Last edited by fanofVan on Sat Jul 20, 2019 3:31 pm +0000, edited 7 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DANGERS OF DEMOCRACY
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:11 pm +0000
Posts: 932
SEla_Kelly wrote:
How do you know that a leader is excellent? Because he is a genius, or because he truly cares for the better interests of every member of his constituency? (I choose the latter).


I agree. Sniping and squabbling is not genius nor is it evidence of having leadership qualities. One who wants to be a leader must be the server of all. Serving the words in a book is not leadership. Serving individual people is.

(316.5) 28:6.18 All of this magnificent creation, including yourself, was not made just for you. This is not an egocentric universe. The Gods have decreed, “It is more blessed to give than to receive,” and said your Master Son, “He who would be greatest among you let him be server of all"

(1452.1) 131:8.3 All good works of true service come from the Supreme.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 193 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 13  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: Google [Bot], Google Feedfetcher


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group