lwatkins wrote:Boomshuka -- why are you trying to explain things here when you really don't understand them? Wouldn't it be better to ask an intelligent question and hope for an intelligent answer -- or do some research first and then explain what you've learned and ask for clarification. Anybody can say they once "read the book" but have forgotten most of it. If you have something to contribute then please do, otherwise, what's the point?
I am guessing you thought I was completly wrong about how the soul is the offspring of the mind and the thought adjuster. I am only quoting jessean to defend myself in that he is speculating as I am and so is everyone, and yet you are singling me out.... Again here is speculation from jessean.
"(IMO) ‘Soul’ is neither qualitative or quantitive, as an eternal value, and it is this value that enables the human to worship the Father without the need of even the Mystery Monitor (TA). Many think the way to the Father is through the Mystery Monitor, and to be sure it is a tool, but not the only one we have."
And his statement is contradicted in this U.B statement in which I was referring to in my prevous post.
"1218.8 111:2.10 The inevitable result of such a contactual spiritualization of the human mind is the gradual birth of a soul the -JOINT OFFSPRING- of an adjutant mind dominated by a human will that craves to know God, working in liaison with the spiritual forces of the universe which are under the overcontrol of an actual fragment of the very God of all creation — the Mystery Monitor."
Again it's not difficult to see that the "birth of a soul" is the "offspring" of the mind working in liason with thought adjuster of which under its control are the spiritual forces.So clearly the Thought Adjuster and the mind give birth to the soul.Again jessean and you I am sure assumed I was 100 percent wrong without u.b proof, it does not matter I dont take offense.
This simple fact leads into my next point about young children with "small" souls, the reason I brought this up was just to try and find information in the Urantia Book regarding "INBETWEEN" which is the topic of conversation in this forum, and I thought perhaps that the description or nature of Nursery Worlds may offer some value information regarding jessean's interest in the "inbetween", also because in this conversation there was mention and question about what happen's to the soul and what is the soul.
Anyway's Clearly because the thought adjuster does not arrive " on the average, just prior to the sixth birthday" than it is clear that these children's evolutionary soul's will be not as developed as a mature adult, seing as they have just at 6 year's old began to the ability to have souls when they have their first morale choice as the Urantia book states. .Not to mention as Dr. Chris Halvorson has pointed out that in the Urantia book , it is possible for a child to die young and if both his parents are Iniquitous and fail to survive the child will fail to survive. Again this is in the urantia book and I will find where it talks about this seemingly very rear situation if I must for the sole purpose of defending my point about how children's souls are not as developed as a mature adult's who are concentrated on the father's will. and I can quote chris from the cosmic citizen radio show on this phenomon and go and find a quote If I must I know this website has a great deal of respect for his ability to interpret the Urantia Book and so do I.
Again jessean made statement's contradicting all those points in the Urantia book without providing evidence, again it doesn't matter though who is right or wrong. Interpereting the Urantia Book wrong is something we all do, we all make mistake's, and we should as jessean said all keep trying our best.
Again I will find these quotes to substantiate all my claim's if I have to.
I made one major urantia book reference error in this recent posting in which I APOLOGISED for again.
"I think that the soul never leaves the thought adjuster. not sure though.."
The rest of what I said was a response to Jesseans hypothetical "IN BETWEEN" world, in which I responded in opinion format to a hypothetical situation.. Just as every other person has responded hypothetically to Jesseans' question about an "in between". The entire premise of this conversation " inbetween" is speculation. Yet you are singling out my speculation.
The other statement that I made that you had a major issue with regarding the Urantia Book was my statement about how we would be physically intimate with material son's in daughters if we had not done so this life.
Even though I was wrong about that I was not 100 percent wrong, and as stated we will have intimate and close personal association with a Material son or daughter if we do not become intimate with someone in this life, and again I was somewhat wrong in stating the physical aspect of our intimacy but I APOLOGISED for my error.
The 3rd posting you had a serious issue with was what I posted about the unusual conversation I had, and I agreed to never bring that up in this forum as I agreed it is innapropriate for this setting.
It seem's you are taking what I say very seriously. Why dont you just voice your real issue with me.
Most of my post's have been about my simple intention about how much I love the Father, and how motivated I am to grow in love for my brothers and sister's. If you go threw all of my post's there is a clear direction in where I am going.
I don't care how much I know about the Urantia Book it doesn't matter anyway's, and to be honest I do know alot, alot more than I let on but I am not interested in that I dont want to quote the urantia book endlessly because I will never make any friends on this forum doing that, everyone at some point will think I am preaching to them.
All that I believe that matter's is our -desire- to do the father's will and our -desire- to do good to other's, and most of my post's if you go threw them have been orientated around both my appreciation and desire of the father, and my appreciation and desire to love human beings more and more. I know the spirit of jesus teaching's and I am trying my best to live them.
I can quote the Urantia verbadum if you like, but I doubt I will make as many friends with that approach.
This entire conversation and topic of debate has been all speculation.
Again I just admited to this forum that I made a mistake in my post in remembering some of the fact's of the Urantia book papers. why don't you lay off buddy how many times do I have to apologize for making a mistake in my remembering of the book to satisfy you? I said I made a mistake already in that I did not remember that part of the book as it was stated. It does not bother me that I made a mistake in remembering that section of thee book, I doubt most reader's had that section memorized as it was stated anyway's, I doubt you did. So I am not embarrased and don't consider my mistake a huge deal, why are you taking what I say so seriously?