Answer to an honest question.

lwatkins wrote:

Before we go too far afield here, here are selected excerpts from the poster guidelines for the discussion board and this topic: [. . .]

Thank you “Iwatkins” for your guiding interjection, it is appreciated, and well noted by most.

Johnnybones wrote:

Caligastia wrote:

“skips on the same track,” [. . .] “broken record” [. . .] “file 13.” [. . .]

I must tell you that I am surprised that you keep a file on me. [. . .] And you call me a broken record [. . .] I feel a bit uncomfortable, however, that you carry a file on me. Are you FBI or CIA?

Again “Johnnybones” another exercise in “asking unnecessary questions”, for you either show your age or, as you have presented in earlier reply presentations that you misinterpreted, from context, many key phrases and words used by specific authors, but not necessarily their implied meaning which can be implied in various fashion, rather than purpose.
I’m not sure as to your misunderstanding by my use of phrases or combination of words, but I would have no reason to keep a file on you or anyone else, because they are recorded here as fact and for posterity, so if I may, explain to you the origin of various phrases listed above.

Quote:

“File 13 is a euphemism for the trash can. The phrase is especially used in the U.S. military, and is less common outside of the United States. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the expression round file or circular file is more common (in reference to trash cans typically being round). Expressions such as "I'll place that memo in file 13" are often heard in offices as a joking way of saying, "I'm going to throw away that memo."
History –
The first known citation of "File 13" was in 1941. The phrase's origins may perhaps be traced to 13 being a supposedly unlucky number, although the exact source is unknown. Another explanation refers to the fact that there are 12 months in the year, and a file is typically kept for each, with the 13th file being non-existent (the garbage can). According to Slangsearch: Air Force, "File 13" refers to an aircraft's garbage can.”

As for “Broken record” and “skips on the same track,” I present the following:
From “Assertiveness”: “Techniques of assertiveness can vary widely. Manuel Smith, in his 1975 book When I Say No, I Feel Guilty, offered some of the following behaviors:

Quote:

Broken record
The "broken record" technique consists of simply repeating your requests or your refusals every time you are met with resistance. The term comes from vinyl records, the surface of which when scratched would lead the needle of a record player to loop over the same few seconds of the recording indefinitely. "As with a broken record, the key to this approach is repetition ... where your partner will not take no for an answer."

A disadvantage with this technique is that when resistance continues, your requests may lose power every time you have to repeat them. If the requests are repeated too often, it can backfire on the authority of your words. In these cases, it is necessary to have some sanctions on hand.

Fogging
Fogging consists of finding some limited truth to agree with in what an antagonist is saying. More specifically, one can agree in part or agree in principle.

Negative inquiry
Negative inquiry consists of requesting further, more specific criticism.

Negative assertion
Negative assertion is agreement with criticism without letting up demand.

I-statements
I-statements can be used to voice one's feelings and wishes from a personal position without expressing a judgment about the other person or blaming one's feelings on them.

So, in general, it would seem that your approach has been noted and would deem a need to flip the record, and play the other side, or put a new record on the Victrola. It has little to do with your intelligence, because you have shown previously that you can contribute viable information, but the constant repetition merely pushes you away from any creditable presented content, without additional coo berating information.

nodAmanaV wrote:

One more thing, identifying yourself with "Caligastia" is quite interesting. I think I know why one would do that in a forum like this but it's definitely not what most would even think to do, myself included. What and who we identify ourselves with is second only to what and who we desire to be in truth IMO. So I'm very curious, would you mind taking a few moments to tell us why you have taken on such a provocative username?

Okay, I thought that I presented that with my OP (opening post) but, another would be as you say “such a provocative username?” – where there has always been in every major literary work, where there are several sides presented to a story line, a “villain” presented, if for no other reason as to focus attention on what may be considered as a representation of “good” verses “evil”. Where the “Bible” and the “Urantia Book” are no different. But, with the UB, and somewhat with the Bible, there are additional factors which are present that would expand on that premise which expands on these two and adds many, many more attributes and attitudes, which can quickly get lost in translation when one only focuses on these two alone. Therefore, at the time of my choosing this avatar name, I could have chosen several different names, but “Caligastia” was really the only one which could be conceived as being real in the minds of those who, literally believe in the story presented within the UB, not that there are no other topics presented within, but many who relate wholeheartedly, to a specific single agenda, as to the purpose of the UB, could believe that “Caligastia” might be real, because he has been incorporated in the UB as still being around, and alive, so to speak. From the varied responses received, as I mentioned before, some of the responses were as expected, with some exceptions.
Although, with this topic, it has shown that there are still animosities towards a name, regardless of possible facts or truths which may have been presented, that if nothing else, that a name alone carries with it history which has been implied throughout history, which may or may not be true, because there is no evidence which can be associated other than from the storyline. Therefore, we can truly not study any text, without examining the text, as text before the many sides being presented can be seen as having a common factor. If all exists within God, then all who exist within that realm have a purpose that can be attributed to God, regardless of God’s reasoning. So, it would seem that “good” cannot be defined without a contrast to “evil” but can one associate “mercy” with either? If one side’s with either “good” or “evil”, to force one or the other out of existence, will there never be a “peace” between them without applying “mercy” to balance each out, for one cannot exist without the other. Jesus knew that He could not bring “peace” to the world through taking sides, so He presented “mercy” as a compromise from the attitudes of extreme good or extreme evil, as a fulcrum as a balance with extreme mercy. If various sides do not listen or identify with some common factor which divide them, can there never be peace.

fanofVan wrote:

This is what strikes me as most peculiar, psychologically speaking, in Cal's presentation of the UB: It has always been apparent to me that readers have three basic choices or conclusions available in our consideration of this text (some of us have transitioned through all three).

1. That this is a work of fantasy and fiction which is a worthless presentation of no value.

2. That this is a human authored collection of hypothesis and human truth realizations formulated into a unifying conceptual presentation that was inspired and contains that which is inspirational and does indeed contain truths helpful to the truth seeker.

3. That this book is what it claims to be, from whom it claims as authors and authority, and is a sincere presentation of facts and truths of great significance - a gift - for our personal and planetary well being - written with as much clarity, precision, accuracy, and relevance as the celestials could possibly muster.

(#3 must be accepted, when it is accepted, with the caveats of translation, mortal intellectual and experiential limitations, other limitations imposed by those authorities in charge of its presentation, and the experiential bias of the authors. Louis has clearly offered these caveats which do support the claims and words within the text itself.)

But, it seems to me, Cal has offered up a new concept: that the Revelation is indeed authored by celestials and authorized by our universe rulers and administrators BUT it is not truthful regarding administration, adjudication, mercy, justice, free will, and a well ordered universe. The UB is a manipulation of reality in its presentation of reality.
[. . .]

Your presentation here today “fanofVan”, has been well presented and very well voiced. However, as to your putting words in my mouth, by indicating that I have indicated that there is no “truth” within the Urantia Book is misleading, where I would only indicate that by your last statement presented above, that if anyone can define “reality” as absolute, then it could never be manipulated, but as you indicate previously in your statement, that you believe that our destiny is in the hands of the “celestials” and that we have no active part in changing that destiny because the Urantia Book tells us this? Where I ask, how can one sit back and allow either side, as has been portrayed in the UB, to determine our destiny without playing an active part in its decision making, where if, as you say, “#3 must be accepted,” which in your wording could be considered as true, however what can be done unless there is a common ground found without bias thinking?

“quil” –

Before responding to any specific question presented I must address some of the claims made by some that the Urantia Book, because of its size and magnitude in text, could not have been presented by human mind or hands, yet my initial claim where if this text be presented by celestial authority, specifically the first three books, from its initial start of presentation and actual publication, then also required a commission to edit or arrange said material into a presentable format. Where any time humans are involved in translating material, regardless of language and any complexity in its arrangement based on verbal transcripts where there has been admitted removal of source material, would either indicate deception or at its very least error, or alternative purpose, whatever it may be, if any.
We do know that the authority by which this narrative was presented was also linked with religious groups associated with Mormon’s or LDS, where we also know from their history that these organizations also had internal quarrelling to the point of calling them Wars within the factions therein. Many of the internal documentation from within these organizations were presented through proclaimed prophets and deemed as revelation, presented via visions from alternative sources, not much different from the sources in the UB.
Also, when examining some of these presented narratives one could surmise various links to text presented, where “Michael” shows as a key character. As an example I would present from “The DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS” various verse, which seems to ascertain this association.

Quote:

Section 27-11 – “And also with Michael, or a Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;”

Section 78-16 – “Who hath appointed a Michael your prince, and established his feet, and set him upon high, and given unto him the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning of days or end of life.”

Section 107-54 – “And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the
prince, the archangel.”

Section 128-(21-22) – “(21) And again, the voice of God in the chamber of old a Father Whitmer, in Fayette, Seneca county, and at sundry times, and in divers places through all the travels and tribulations of this Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints! And the voice of Michael, the archangel; the voice of Gabriel, and of Raphael, and of divers angels, from Michael or Adam down to the present time, all declaring their dispensation, their rights, their keys, their honors, their majesty and glory, and the power of their priesthood; giving line upon line, precept upon precept; here a little, and there a little; giving us consolation by holding forth that which is to come, confirming our hope!
(22) Brethren, shall we not go on in so great a cause? Go forward and not backward. Courage, brethren; and on, on to the victory! Let your
hearts rejoice, and be exceedingly glad. Let the earth break forth into singing. Let the dead speak forth anthems of eternal praise to the King Immanuel, who hath ordained, before the world was, that which would enable us to redeem them out of their prison; for the prisoners shall go free.”

Where in presenting such information, as above, would indicate a similarity, within context and content, and also as in sheer volume in text that has been recorded, would also indicate the possibility of a similar endeavor equal in size and complexity. Therefore, when one examines corresponding text, from various sources, a case can be made as to similarities in narration. Also, the method of sourcing this material, although possibly coincidental, is also possibly the same?
Nevertheless, this would not necessarily invalidate the presentation provided by the Urantia Book, but would, or might, indicate possible manipulation, therefore its content, as being presented from their source, as presented may be valid but can only be determined based on its content and prophetic revelation as presented via human interface, which is fallible, as has been described in the Urantia Book, therefore must be examined with a grain of salt.

Regarding my mention of hyphenated words or the use of dashes, En dash, or Em dash, would be interesting, when presented in the Urantia Book almost 9000 times, where their use does have specific grammatical purpose, and usage, where the “hyphen” is used to join words, and a “dash”, which sometimes can be used in place of the “hyphen” but primarily when used as an “En dash”, is ‘used to indicate spans or differentiation, where it may be considered to replace "and" or "to"’, but depending on style and usage are often used with spaces and the “Em dash” are used without spaces. So, regardless of usage and presentation within text, a “hyphen” might be used incorrectly, where an “En dash” would or could be used, thereby changing the meaning of a sentence or the context within the narration, could change.

My point regarding punctuation within the UB, is simple, where if the material was verbally presented, and transcribed through listening to the spoken word, how would those who edited the published text, know through this method of presentation, what the authors would have intended to project in meaning and thought? Where the method of editing could easily change the meaning of that presentation.

Also, paragraphs generally depict a point or idea, where in many of the segregated text within the UB, would indicate “paragraphs” with either multiple sentences or segments using semicolons, which would need to have some form or structure, which would not necessarily be distinguishable from the spoken word, so based on the presented writing style used in the Urantia Book, could the use of a semicolon, have been mistaken for a period, or in reverse.

If one reads these presentations without the general use of punctuation, as a flowing narrative, there would be areas where the thought being proposed changes, and a natural break can be assumed, but when sentences change thought within a given paragraph, how would one denote that this would indicate a new paragraph, or a standalone sentence.

If one were to take sections of the UB and break them down to each sentence, without grouping, one might find in their reading sequentially, that it is difficult to ascertain how many of the individual sentences link up with the sectioned subject matter. Many of these sentences, by themselves are statements which are unrelated to the subject section.

I recently, in another thread, looked at the section named “6. The Human Paradox” – where by definition “paradox” for this section might be defined as “any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature.” Braking down each sentence, as in the order presented, I found that many of the statements or sentences presented, where unrelated to each other when reassembled as originally indicated in text, but what I found interesting was, although there were some “contradictory” proclamations presented, there was no real expression of what is or was “The Human Paradox”? However, the restatement of “paradox” in number (9) might indicate that any of the prior statements could define “The Human Paradox” but then attempts to explain the reasoning within number (9). So the possible answers could imply many factors presented, or all of the factors being presented, but no real definite explanation. So, what is “The Human Paradox”?

Quote:

6. The Human Paradox

(01)Many of the temporal troubles of mortal man grow out of his twofold relation to the cosmos.

(02)Man is a part of nature — he exists in nature — and yet he is able to transcend nature.

(03)Man is finite, but he is indwelt by a spark of infinity.

(04)Such a dual situation not only provides the potential for evil but also engenders many social and moral situations fraught with much uncertainty and not a little anxiety.

(05)The courage required to effect the conquest of nature and to transcend one’s self is a courage that might succumb to the temptations of self-pride.

(06)The mortal who can transcend self might yield to the temptation to deify his own self-consciousness.

(07)The mortal dilemma consists in the double fact that man is in bondage to nature while at the same time he possesses a unique liberty — freedom of spiritual choice and action.

(08)On material levels man finds himself subservient to nature, while on spiritual levels he is triumphant over nature and over all things temporal and finite.

(09)Such a paradox is inseparable from temptation, potential evil, decisional errors, and when self becomes proud and arrogant, sin may evolve.

(10)The problem of sin is not self-existent in the finite world.

(11)The fact of finiteness is not evil or sinful.

(12)The finite world was made by an infinite Creator — it is the handiwork of his divine Sons — and therefore it must be good.

(13)It is the misuse, distortion, and perversion of the finite that gives origin to evil and sin.

(14)The spirit can dominate mind; so mind can control energy.

(15)But mind can control energy only through its own intelligent manipulation of the metamorphic potentials inherent in the mathematical level of the causes and effects of the physical domains.

(16)Creature mind does not inherently control energy; that is a Deity prerogative.

(17)But creature mind can and does manipulate energy just in so far as it has become master of the energy secrets of the physical universe.

(18)When man wishes to modify physical reality, be it himself or his environment, he succeeds to the extent that he has discovered the ways and means of controlling matter and directing energy.

(19)Unaided mind is impotent to influence anything material save its own physical mechanism, with which it is inescapably linked.

(20)But through the intelligent use of the body mechanism, mind can create other mechanisms, even energy relationships and living relationships, by the utilization of which this mind can increasingly control and even dominate its physical level in the universe.

(21)Science is the source of facts, and mind cannot operate without facts.

(22)They are the building blocks in the construction of wisdom which are cemented together by life experience.

(23)Man can find the love of God without facts, and man can discover the laws of God without love, but man can never begin to appreciate the infinite symmetry, the supernal harmony, the exquisite repleteness of the all-inclusive nature of the First Source and Center until he has found divine law and divine love and has experientially unified these in his own evolving cosmic philosophy.

(24)The expansion of material knowledge permits a greater intellectual appreciation of the meanings of ideas and the values of ideals.

(25)A human being can find truth in his inner experience, but he needs a clear knowledge of facts to apply his personal discovery of truth to the ruthlessly practical demands of everyday life.

(26)It is only natural that mortal man should be harassed by feelings of insecurity as he views himself inextricably bound to nature while he possesses spiritual powers wholly transcendent to all things temporal and finite.

(27)Only religious confidence — living faith — can sustain man amid such difficult and perplexing problems.

(28)Of all the dangers which beset man’s mortal nature and jeopardize his spiritual integrity, pride is the greatest.

(29)Courage is valorous, but egotism is vainglorious and suicidal.

(30)Reasonable self-confidence is not to be deplored.

(31)Man’s ability to transcend himself is the one thing which distinguishes him from the animal kingdom.

(32)Pride is deceitful, intoxicating, and sin-breeding whether found in an individual, a group, a race, or a nation.

(33)It is literally true, “Pride goes before a fall.”

Urantia Book Forum

Who is online