Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:21 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 164 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:17 am +0000
Posts: 137
Caligastia wrote:
"nodAmanaV" -- Thanks for the acknowledgment, but it would be difficult to be on one side or another, because there are far to many sides here, which have not really been defined, including "Johnnybones", where when I find a record which continually skips on the same track, it would be considered as a broken record which I generally put in file 13. But when someone answers an honest question and the recipient of the answer does not comprehend the answer given, then it is sometimes necessary to restate the answer in various words until they either sink in or no longer have any meaning. Therefore, for some individuals who persist to show their intellect by continued repetition of illogical proclamations without diverse reasoning to support their proclamations are just broken.


Hi Ewald,

I must tell you that I am surprised that you keep a file on me. I do not keep a file on you at all, but I do have a long memory.

As I recall, you "friended" me a few years ago on this forum when I was a newbie as loucol (Louis) when you were "As Above so Below". I took it as a gracious gesture on your part. You soon made specific requests of me to bring up topics that would segway your agenda. Remember that you left this forum at that time in a huff and demanded that all of your posts be deleted.

You PM me on UAB forum to egg me on to go after Bonita and Brad, warning me about their alliance and the true nature of Bonita. At one point I asked you, "Midichlorian", to stop emailing me because I told you that I no longer trusted you. Now you appear here as Caligastia.

And you call me a broken record and illogical.

I admit that I mixed it up quite a bit with Brad and Bonita, in a less than tactful manner, but that was because I respect them and their commitment to TUB. I can be a pain in the ass. I just have a disagreement with them in their academic and fundamentalist approach to TUB. It is not my approach, but in spirit, we are the same. I also admit that I warn against hypocrisy and idolatry a bit much but it is because I see a tendency in such error in myself. Me thinks that I doth protest too much.

I feel a bit uncomfortable, however, that you carry a file on me. Are you FBI or CIA? :shock:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4460
Johnnybones wrote:
Caligastia wrote:


Hi Ewald,

I must tell you that I am surprised that you keep a file on me. I do not keep a file on you at all, but I do have a long memory.

As I recall, you "friended" me a few years ago on this forum when I was a newbie as loucol (Louis) when you were "As Above so Below". I took it as a gracious gesture on your part. You soon made specific requests of me to bring up topics that would segway your agenda. Remember that you left this forum at that time in a huff and demanded that all of your posts be deleted.

You PM me on UAB forum to egg me on to go after Bonita and Brad, warning me about their alliance and the true nature of Bonita. At one point I asked you, "Midichlorian", to stop emailing me because I told you that I no longer trusted you. Now you appear here as Caligastia.

And you call me a broken record and illogical.

I admit that I mixed it up quite a bit with Brad and Bonita, in a less than tactful manner, but that was because I respect them and their commitment to TUB. I can be a pain in the ass. I just have a disagreement with them in their academic and fundamentalist approach to TUB. It is not my approach, but in spirit, we are the same. I also admit that I warn against hypocrisy and idolatry a bit much but it is because I see a tendency in such error in myself. Me thinks that I doth protest too much.

I feel a bit uncomfortable, however, that you carry a file on me. Are you FBI or CIA? :shock:



:smile: 8)

Louis - I appreciate such candor and forthrightness. This explains a lot to me (if true, and I have no reason to suspect otherwise). First, it verifies my initial observation on this topical thread regarding some similarities in your perspective and that of Cal's when I offered the opinion that perhaps you two were brothers by different mothers (still not an insult by word or intent). Your post verifies that, indeed, such similarities in presentation are founded upon familiarity and some sharing of specific philosophy.

Second, it helps me understand why and how we got cross-ways a few months ago after being so amiable for so long prior to that episode here and at the Association Forum more recently. I have been distressed by such a result (and take full responsibility for my own contribution by a lack of tact, patience, kindness, and understanding in our apparent disagreements). While I still lack understanding, I gain appreciation and hope for reconciliation.

While Cal remains coy about his new "handle" here, it is obvious to us all that he has both motive and agenda by its use. This "experiment" as he called it in the first post here has design and purpose, neither of which he has clearly described, except by this:

Cal says: "For the most part my choice of the avatar name of "Caligastia" had several reasons, some which I cannot directly mention here, but for the most part, it was an experiment in human nature, to see who many individuals would respond to a poster who choose a "avatar name" who's character in the Urantia Book, was presented as a villain, although if one actually studies the entries in the UB regarding this character, one might find that initially he was just following orders, from the system authority, not much different than being in the military, and having to actualize orders as instructed, whether the officer agrees or disagrees with such orders."

Me here: One can surmise from this "explanation" that the name chosen was a trial balloon if you will to measure the community's potential response to his planned presentation related to the leaders of our system rebellion (and, perhaps, all similar rebellions at the System level of universe administration) and the subsequent administrative response to rebellion and then the presentation of that event to other universe citizens (specifically us mortals on Urantia by the presentation of those events in the UB). These are interesting topics. And one may accept that which is written at face value - the prima facia presentation as recorded - or one may speculate and insert additional causes and effects to consider.

Unfortunately, Cal has made several claims in his subsequent presentation which directly contradict much within the UB regarding the rebellion, including: that the Prince of Urantia was "set up" for failure purposefully by his superiors; that there was a administratively planned delay in the Prince's assignment to Urantia (which actually was the awaiting of the arrival of the primary races of color which always triggers the arrival of a Prince); that the Prince's failure at his post was the cause of and ground zero for the System rebellion (when there is no evidence that the Prince experienced ANY failures of his mission here prior to the rebellion itself); and then Cal built a proposition of responsibility, guilt, unfairness, and unreliability of the Super and Local universe authorities, administrators, and caretakers based on this collection of fantasy, fallacy, and falsehoods - not one of which he has been willing to revisit or justify.

He makes false claims to validate a predetermined conclusion or proposition and then jumps forward to present the conclusions regardless of how false are the premises upon which the conclusion must rest. It is structurally unsustainable and flawed reasoning by any measure of logic.

You, Louis, have presented the very real factor of experiential bias as an element for consideration in both the events related to rebellion and the presentation of both the facts and the truth of that event. Which is, indeed, a reasonable and logical factor for our consideration in all matters. In my opinion, however, your reasonableness here has been hijacked by another's motive and agenda.

To extend through Cal's presentation, the destination ahead and irrefutable conclusion is that we have been manipulated by propaganda by those who are not trustworthy in their ministries to us mortals and that neither Michael nor the Father are in control of God's purpose, plan, and process for universe mercy and justice in the ascension of universe citizens.

Cal has not been forthright enough to claim this resulting conclusion and proposition. His coy and clever arguments hide by their focus on small points and confusions while ignoring both the false premises and the startling result that his proposition includes. It is fine if this is what he believes and/or what he gleans and gains from the text itself. But it is deceptive and deceitful to hide such a belief in the circular arguments and reasoning as presented.

The danger, in my opinion, of such a proposition is that only doubt and fear can result by the claim that those in charge of our world and system and constellation and local universe and super universe and all creation cannot be trusted with that responsibility or a presentation of facts and truth presented to us mortals. I find it to be an exercise in fear mongering and the sowing of the seeds of doubt among truth seekers and readers of the TruthBook.

This is not an attack upon the person represented by the chosen name of our fallen Prince - but it is presented in opposition to the premises given, the reasoning applied, the proposition itself, and the conclusions which result. This is about issues, presentations, content, and the lack of logic applied. While Cal presents endless arguments in defense of his proposition, I am reminded of a little piece of Mota:

(557.14) 48:7.30 28. The argumentative defense of any proposition is inversely proportional to the truth contained.

Thanks Louis for the clarity. Best wishes.

Brad aka fanofVan

:wink: 8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4460
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.

There are those who claim the power to revise or continue or complete or interpret this book. Always have been such special and self anointed ones since the UB was published. But this proposition presented by Cal is unique in my experience.

My only hope here is to provide sufficient contrast to such a presentation that each reader might decide for themselves what the UB means to them and not allow the words of another (including mine) to define what the Urantia Book is or means or its value or its importance in their life.

(1222.5) 111:6.6 Science is the source of facts, and mind cannot operate without facts. They are the building blocks in the construction of wisdom which are cemented together by life experience. 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.

(1222.6) 111:6.7 The expansion of material knowledge permits a greater intellectual appreciation of the meanings of ideas and the values of ideals. 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.

Me here: For myself, I have come to enjoy the enhanced confidence and comfort by the UB's presentations of my place in this grand and glorious creation and my faith in the loving mercy ministry of our Creator and his power, purpose, plan, and process for his children in the family of God. I trust our Father and this friendly universe of his creation.

(1108.3) 101:3.4 Through religious faith the soul of man reveals itself and demonstrates the potential divinity of its emerging nature by the characteristic manner in which it induces the mortal personality to react to certain trying intellectual and testing social situations. Genuine spiritual faith (true moral consciousness) is revealed in that it:


(1108.4) 101:3.5 1. Causes ethics and morals to progress despite inherent and adverse animalistic tendencies.*

(1108.5) 101:3.6 2. Produces a sublime trust in the goodness of God even in the face of bitter disappointment and crushing defeat.

(1108.6) 101:3.7 3. Generates profound courage and confidence despite natural adversity and physical calamity.

(1108.7) 101:3.8 4. Exhibits inexplicable poise and sustaining tranquillity notwithstanding baffling diseases and even acute physical suffering.

(1108.8) 101:3.9 5. Maintains a mysterious poise and composure of personality in the face of maltreatment and the rankest injustice.

(1108.9) 101:3.10 6. Maintains a divine trust in ultimate victory in spite of the cruelties of seemingly blind fate and the apparent utter indifference of natural forces to human welfare.

(1108.10) 101:3.11 7. Persists in the unswerving belief in God despite all contrary demonstrations of logic and successfully withstands all other intellectual sophistries.

(1108.11) 101:3.12 8. Continues to exhibit undaunted faith in the soul’s survival regardless of the deceptive teachings of false science and the persuasive delusions of unsound philosophy.

(1108.12) 101:3.13 9. Lives and triumphs irrespective of the crushing overload of the complex and partial civilizations of modern times.

(1108.13) 101:3.14 10. Contributes to the continued survival of altruism in spite of human selfishness, social antagonisms, industrial greeds, and political maladjustments.

(1108.14) 101:3.15 11. Steadfastly adheres to a sublime belief in universe unity and divine guidance regardless of the perplexing presence of evil and sin.

(1108.15) 101:3.16 12. Goes right on worshiping God in spite of anything and everything. Dares to declare, “Even though he slay me, yet will I serve him.”

(1108.16) 101:3.17 We know, then, by three phenomena, that man has a divine spirit or spirits dwelling within him: first, by personal experience — religious faith; second, by revelation — personal and racial; and third, by the amazing exhibition of such extraordinary and unnatural reactions to his material environment as are illustrated by the foregoing recital of twelve spiritlike performances in the presence of the actual and trying situations of real human existence. And there are still others.

(1109.1) 101:3.18 And it is just such a vital and vigorous performance of faith in the domain of religion that entitles mortal man to affirm the personal possession and spiritual reality of that crowning endowment of human nature, religious experience.

:wink: :biggrin: 8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 10:09 pm +0000
Posts: 1817
Before we go too far afield here, here are selected excerpts from the poster guidelines for the discussion board and this topic:

The following Urantia movement-related controversies are banned from discussion in any of the forums (overt or covert):

* Individual people that read The Urantia Book that do not please you.

Please Do Not:

1. Impersonate or misrepresent yourself or forge or otherwise seek to conceal or misrepresent the origin of any Content provided by you.

2. Collect or harvest any data about other users.

11. Attempt to harvest or collect member information, including screen names.

16. Defraud or deceive our members. This may result in your account being suspended.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:55 am +0000
Posts: 432
Brad,

You are correct that at any given moment, when a mortal on this planet is confronted with the existence of The Urantia Book, and ponders its origin and nature, it is forced to choose among a finite set of possibilities which can be reduced down to two fundamental questions:

(a) Authorship: Is the origin of the content human or non-human?
(b) Authority: Can the content be trusted to be true, factual, thus official? Is it authoritative?

You take the cross product of the potential answers to these questions, and you get four possibilities:

1. Human authorship with no authority (pure work of fiction from human imagination).
2. Human authorship with authority (divinely inspired work of the human intellect).
3. Non-human authorship with no authority (more advanced beings with hidden agendas, non-benevolent gods, a "work of the devil")
4. Non-human authorship with authority (a true gift from the Gods).

I also agree with your general observation that usually the mind of reader transitions among these conclusions.

For me, almost immediately, conclusion #1 seemed very unlikely (too much of it felt true, the use of language is unmatched, etc.), so I pretty much started out at conclusion #2. Eventually, I was forced through reason alone to accept that this conclusion is a logically inconsistent position to hold.

The remaining possibilities concern issues of the heart. Once I ruled out #1 and #2, I was struck with grave doubts and real fears concerning possibility #3 for many years. But when I dived in and searched the material looking for any signs of a sinister agenda, I simply could not find any real, actual evidence of an ulterior motive. I now hold that an honest evaluation will led the soul to eventually conclude that based on its content, there cannot be superintelligent fraud being conducted within the ideas presented in the Papers.

I have also concluded that whatever evidence of malfeasance one "finds" within The Urantia Book is, in reality, a reflection of darkness in one's own heart. If you are sincere enough in your search, your heart must find that possibility #4 is the only logical explanation for this phenomenon. It is inevitable for those who are headed Godward. But it will always be a choice. Reason alone cannot compel a person to settle on conclusion #4.

Cal is (still) stuck at possibility #3. When confronted with TUB, many traditional church believers also immediately jump to #3, or wobble between #1 and #3. Some might have enough tolerance and security in their belief to settle at #2. But you cannot get to #4 without reading it and without trusting it. It truly requires living faith for your heart to get to #4, not mere belief.

I suspect every single human being on this planet will eventually have to contend with this process concerning that which is presented by these advanced beings, be it here or on the mansion worlds. So we cannot get too upset when we find people at #3. It is only natural.

- quil


Last edited by quil on Fri Jun 05, 2015 1:11 pm +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:15 pm +0000
Posts: 232
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?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4460
Cal - just a couple of points of clarification. I did not say that choice #3 "must" be accepted at all and do not know why you would put such words in my mouth after my many dozens of posts to the contrary here at TruthBook. Indeed, I have claimed such a belief, which I do hold for myself, to be an "irrational" belief without significant time in the text and much experience in living its precepts. Your quote was the qualification in paranthesis, clearly, that IF one comes to believe #3, then one must also accept the caveats presented within the text itself. Further obfuscation and deflection on your part.

I also would like to correct your false claim that I believe my destiny or anyone's destiny is "in the hands of celestials". Poppycock. Never said it. Never thought it. Get real Cal. My destiny is in my own hands and by my own free will choices and I have also clearly presented this concept hundreds of times here at TruthBook - as you well know!!

But the heavens are filled with those who do assist mortal and all other ascenders along the path to Paradise and Finality and I do call these celestials as well as Deity. The first half of the UB introduces them by name and relationship and function and role. I am not isolated and I cannot ascend without their able assistance, this is true. God's plan and process includes the time and space adventure in the universe of universes and trillions upon trillions of beings work together in that plan and process for the purposes outlined in the Revelation.

Neither am I complacent in my confidence in the purpose, plan, and process described. I strive and yearn and choose and change and transcend and become. This loyal tadpole waits on no one in my delightful dance into eternity.

Oh, and let me know when you wish to acknowledge and discuss your claims about Nebadon's rulers and administrators setting up any being for failure and your claim that the Prince did fail on Urantia and your claim that Urantia itself had anything whatsoever to do with Lucifer's Manifesto and conspiracy to denounce God's existence in defiance of universe reality. These drive by shootings of yours which you refuse to revisit and discuss but then utilize to support your conclusions and propositions simply will not stand without challenge. You said it. You wrote it for the record, as you say. You think it forgotten? Or without meaning? Or, like me, simply without merit or value?

And personally, I have no animosity toward the one time Prince or the ruler of Satania. I pity their status and hope for their repentance and rehabilitation. I find it presumptuous to take such a name but indicative and demonstrative of the mortal who would do so and will not call you by that name out of respect for the fallen. Mercy is yet extended Cal to your namesake....but his free will choice will not accept it. Sin carries the seed of its own destruction. The refusal to acknowledge reality and align one's self with reality is suicide Cal. The rebel leaders are committing suicide. How are they to rejoin reality without choosing to do so when free will is inviolate in God's universe of universes? How Cal? Is God to force them? Is he to set them free despite their self chosen non-reality? To what purpose? To sow further seeds of sin and iniquity and mischief upon the rest of the family of God?

Your distrust of God is most unfortunate. Yours must be a weak or terrible God to say the things you do. I must choose my path and align my self and identity with love and Father or I too will perish by my own choices. It is the law of mercy and justice at work. I find it magnificent to the degree I understand it. Free will. Fear not God's mercy or justice or his creation or his created. Each is allowed to choose. Some make very bad choices. But mercy credits give us all plenty of opportunity for the eternal adventure.

8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:17 am +0000
Posts: 137
Caligastia wrote:
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.


You went to such trouble for nothing, Ewald. Perhaps you do not understand our American phrase, "tongue in cheek". Perhaps you are more familiar with, "foot in mouth", on your side of the pond. Since you are apparently British, my previous unnecessary question should have been; Are you MI 5? :roll:

It is equally troubling that you have placed me in the trash can (file 13) with Oscar the grouch. I am grouchy at times but there is not enough room in here for the both of us. Now I really have given away my age. :lol:

As for the broken record thing; thanks for the "Mr. Smith goes to Truthbook". Repetition is a very effective way of learning. Jesus learned the scriptures by that method. If it is good enough for him it should be good enough for you and for Mr. Smith. BTW, I claim no authority.

Sorry for being a pain in the ass, but I love saying the word ass and I love repetition. Ass, ass, ass...ad infinitum. Of course, I mean 'ass' as a subgenus of Equus.

Peace and Good Humor to all.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:15 pm +0000
Posts: 232
fanofVan wrote:
[. . .] Your quote was the qualification in paranthesis, clearly, that IF one comes to believe #3, then one must also accept the caveats presented within the text itself. Further obfuscation and deflection on your part.
[. . .]

"fanofVan" I'm not sure how you misinterpreted my words again where I presented "where if, as you say, “#3 must be accepted,” which in your wording could be considered as true," in that which I have underlined, indicated that "your words could be considered true", which is an acknowledgment to your statement as true, but I added "considered" in that I would not necessarily agree with the way you worded your statement, but in the use of the word "must" which is arbitrary, would be one of the words which I would not consider being true. If you didn't understand my narration, why didn't you just ask? When are you getting those new spectacles, or stop speed reading?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:15 pm +0000
Posts: 232
quil wrote:
I suspect every single human being on this planet will eventually have to contend with this process concerning that which is presented by these advanced beings, be it here or on the mansion worlds. So we cannot get too upset when we find people at #3. It is only natural.

- quil

Your assessment "quil" is clear enough in its overall presentation, however you may not have added additional possible factors which I am more inclined to lean toward, and that is the method of editing and compiling the first three books of the UB, where it must be presumed that the editors have taken some liberty in the construction of the text as would have been presented. Where many of the hyphenated words which have no specific standing or definition available might have been assumed where if from verbal dictation notes, I'm not sure that a presenter would add punctuation within their narration. Although, as reported there are no notes to confirm an accurate transcription, therefore much speculation may have been applied in the segregation of information presented and how it was intended to be recited as a narrative. In reviewing some of the editors notes after publication, there have been some words used which where presented by different editors where they were spelled differently for the same intention but their actual meaning or definition was less accurate for usage.
So, overall, I do not present that the Urantia Book is or is not as indicated, but I do know from the way is was edited that the context could easily have been misaligned to present a forethought conclusion.
Therefore there can be much of the editing commission presented within the text which may not have been the total intention of the authors?
There are some areas where it looks like the transcription notes might have been dropped on the floor and picked up and placed back in the wrong order, because in some cases, in reading full sections, some of the narrations seem to be mixed up, although the overall context would require scrutiny in order to make an orderly procession in the subject.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:55 am +0000
Posts: 432
If I am understanding you correctly, then you seem to be saying that you do accept that non-human intelligent agencies were involved in formulation of The Urantia Book. If not then we can probably just stop the discussion right there. If that's what you believe, that's totally fine with me. At this point I just want to clarify your stance concerning this question. This is so we can have some semblance of a conversation with a mutually understood frame of reference.

Let's just assume that you definitely agree celestial agencies were working with mortals in Chicago during those years of the early 20th century in the formulation of the presentation of the papers.

Due to my inferior intellect the rest of what you said was hard for me to follow. But nevertheless I will try to restate it. In your last post, you seem to be saying that at some point before its publication, one or more actors (be them human or non-human) corrupted the work, thus undermining its credibility. And the implication is that because of this fact (or mere possibility?), you do not accept it as authoritative.

Other threads have explored such theories, particularly the possibility of human revision, and I am not sure diving into deep discussion concerning them is appropriate for this topic right now. But I will have to at least address it, since you did bring it up.

On the one hand, you seem to claim that these beings are cunning enough to influence human events on this planet to culminate in a work of this magnitude being published. You even seem to accept some of the material they had a hand in producing. Yet you deny them the power to discover this corruption, however innocent, that you allege. Or perhaps you contend that these errors in fact were discovered (since they did have a whole decade to detect them), but strangely they were unable or unwilling to pull the plug on the whole endeavor by that point.

It's just hard for me to follow you because it seems like you are willing to accept some of the claims TUB makes as true, but not all of them. So whenever someone points out an inconsistency, you use your doubt of the full authenticity of the work as justification as to why they are incorrect. You seem to contend the sections you don't agree with or you think were subject to error simply aren't valid. You do realize you can never lose an argument like that, right? I hope you understand why that's a problem.

The lines you draw are completely arbitrary. You sketch them to fit whatever assumptions you want so you can rationalize any pet conclusion you'd like. You will not find much audience anywhere in the entire universe if you continue to insist on projecting your fantasies as reality. You also make the allegations you make with no basis whatsoever. You just offer up unsubstantiated possibilities. It's hardly constructive, but I guess that's the point of this "experiment."

I am sure you have already found a way to rationalize whatever scenario you have conjured to maintain security of your current belief system. I am sure that anything I say that you disagree with, you will argue. I have said time and again this is pointless, and I do ask myself why I even bother. Immaturity on my part.

Do you expect or even want to convince anyone of anything? If that is not your goal, then why bother? Can you state in one or two sentences exactly your purpose here, and of this thread? Will you answer the questions you have been asked with maximum efficiency? And must you always have the last word?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:55 am +0000
Posts: 432
You know what, instead of indulging the rhetoric in my last post, which was in part fueled by impatience (thus not constructive, either).. I humbly request that you answer just one very simple, very direct question.

You just suggested that, to you, it's possible that one or more pages of transcription notes were shuffled out of order and you implied this error made its way into the text because you were able to detect it. That's an interesting claim and by my reckoning the only one you've made so far that has at least some chance of being objectively evaluated.

Where specifically can I find an example of this in TUB?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:15 pm +0000
Posts: 232
“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.”



Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 1393
Cal wrote:
"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”?"

When it comes to TUB and this forum, this is “The Human Paradox”, that human existence as we enjoy it here and now on this planet includes (for those who make it a part of their lives) the UB. But all along, life was lived just fine without it. Why? Because within us there exists more than enough of the agencies in the universe needed to minister to us according to our desires so we can be made aware of what's REALLY important in life through personal revelation. Personal revelation unfolds continuously throughout every moment of our lives. We only need to be receptive. TUB is an adjunct. It's extra. So is this forum. If the involvement with this forum and TUB distracts from the primacy of personal revelation, that would be a "Human Paradox" my friends.


Last edited by nodAmanaV on Sun Jun 07, 2015 9:59 am +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 8:59 pm +0000
Posts: 332
Location: North Dakota
50:7.1 On first thought it might appear that Urantia and its associated isolated worlds are most unfortunate in being deprived of the beneficent presence and influence of such superhuman personalities as a Planetary Prince and a Material Son and Daughter. But isolation of these spheres affords their races a unique opportunity for the exercise of faith and for the development of a peculiar quality of confidence in cosmic reliability which is not dependent on sight or any other material consideration. It may turn out, eventually, that mortal creatures hailing from the worlds quarantined in consequence of rebellion are extremely fortunate. We have discovered that such ascenders are very early intrusted with numerous special assignments to cosmic undertakings where unquestioned faith and sublime confidence are essential to achievement.

The emphasized above is simply missing in all your presentations and all your efforts to validate your alternative analytical style are useless against real faith. In that sense you do represent the one who's name you use. In your misguided attempt to get things right you refuse to use the ordained process of faith, relying instead on your own mind to be sufficient. Surely you know that mind alone is devoid of that capability; that only mind submitted to true spirit over control and guidance will allow you to achieve your goal. Why do you persist? What pleasure could be worth all this? As a little child we trust, and in so doing, grow. Where is your trust, in your own thoughts?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 164 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: No registered users


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