Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:24 am +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3913
katroofjebus wrote:
SEla_Kelly wrote:
I believe that there is a requirement of faith, certainly.


Absolutely. In fact, that is the only requirement in the covenant between man and God. The son cannot consider himself a son unless he recognizes his Father, the giver of faith and become a faith-son. As a member of the covenant man agrees to accept God's gift of faith and go wherever it takes him; God agrees to do everything else. You can't find a better deal.


I don't think you understood Stephen's meaning by this secondary equivocation of his original proclamation.

Stephen first said: "We are called upon to provide proof of our faith..." and then said: "I believe that there is a requirement of faith, certainly. By doing enough in my life of the flesh as a Urantian, I am required nevertheless to become the self-directed being who has made the consecrated choice, to treat others with kindness & mercy, and to continuously improve upon my personal standards of love."


You then affirmed these claims with a hearty "Absolutely." So we absolutely are called upon to prove our faith and fulfill requirements to demonstrate our faith? And we can calculate and demonstrate that faith by "doing enough" to survive but not any more than what is required for salvation and survival? Is that really what you wish to confirm as "Absolutely"?? For that is indeed what you proclaimed above!

He has previously claimed that public good works were vital to his salvation as well. Then and again above does Stephen contradict the 2000 year old Gospel and the teachings of the Revelation. There is a requirement for faith to be felt, received, and responded to for the birth of soul and our spiritization ...indeed so. But the belief we are required to do "enough" certain things and display certain behaviors is false in my opinion. And misleading and counter productive.

Good choices and behaviors are responses to faith and the Spirit. They are effects of faith and not the causes of faith. Pious and public acts of obedience is precisely the priorities and behavior demonstrated by the Pharisees and Saducees. A false facade that bore no fruits of the Spirit which do not come by our acts but by our faith.

Faith does act for sure. But the faith must come first or nothing said or done is truly sincere or religious or spiritual in meaning or content. Stephen has many times declared here his disbelief in both faith assurance and truth assurance. This further confirms this notion of his that salvation is somehow earned. Likewise has he claimed, many times, that there is no freewill in this life and not until our will is perfect by our own Paradise perfection which is earned and does not come by experience or by freewill!! All of these falsehoods you have so far appeared to support and confirm - "Absolutely!!" - by your blind affirmations and support.

He goes on to say that he will only DO as much in this life as is required for his salvation!! Further verifying this belief of his which is such a contradictions to truth as presented in the UB. Such declarations completely distort and invert the very nature of the faith experience.

Your agreement with him here is quite confusing...for you obviously don't agree with Stephen at all in this matter and claims of his here. Perplexing. I don't think you really understand Stephen so much as you might think. He too has 8 years of posts here which clearly and redundantly demonstrates a very particular perspective and set of beliefs which contradict the UB.

You keep trying here to reaarange and recreate and re-present those declared beliefs of Stephen's to the study group here, in your attempt to harmonize them with the teachings while he disagrees with your efforts, remains silent toward them, or repeats himself and doubles down. Such contortionism is quite something to witness. But IMO you do Stephen and the community a real disservice by such efforts. Haven't you noticed his failure to confirm your misunderstandings and misrepresentations of his declarations and beliefs??

Rather than positively supporting Stephen personally, you instead distort and misrepresent his actual beliefs and then you present this misrepresentation to the study group as some form of validated alignment with the UB. I find it very ironic that you are claiming Stephen to be a poet in order to justify and interpret his beliefs according to the text, while Stephen distorts and contradicts the UB by pretending it to be metaphorical and poetic rather than the literal presentation of the authors' attempt to clearly say what they intend and mean and that they definitively mean what they say. Stephen certainly does not believe this. And thus his constant contradictions of the text. Now you claim Stephen does not mean what he says or does not say what he means and attempt to decipher and justify and explain Stephen's obvious contradictions to text. Perplexing if entertaining.

Now we are provided two different meanings of Stephen's words to parse chaff from wheat!! Oh dear. Is one presentation of Stephen's beliefs not enough to consider?

You claim me hard to understand and then pretend understanding of someone you obviously also do not understand. A most curious demonstration. Just an opinion of course...but Stephen's beliefs are not unknown here or difficult to ascertain. He has shared them here for a long, long time. Over and over. They are consistent if often self contradictory. And many certainly and clearly contradict the Papers. To put words into another's mouth is not helpful...to you or Stephen or the classroom of students gathered here. You will or may eventually become acquainted with his beliefs too.

Until then, it might be best to let others speak for themselves? You are so much more interesting and informative when you simply and directly speak for yourself and not others I think. I hope you will accept this in good humor and the spirit of good will. I am glad you are here. Best wishes.

Bradly. :wink: 8)


Last edited by fanofVan on Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:44 am +0000, edited 10 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3913
SEla_Kelly wrote:
If we are to "fatten upon disappointment", perchance we share our personal disappointments with the Sons of Disappointment.


The existential relationships that guided the finalitor to Paradise, also help you to realise the personal contribution you should've wanted to give to the universe's destiny. The true nature of the father, is to adjust the frame of reference within the perception, so that the creature of time may better perform its own work. Therefore, maturation is not only seen through the efforts of one single human individual, but rather the function of the entire universe. I am not able to define that, I hope that the Adjuster of indwelling renders the eternal counterpart of human experience.

Inherently, people who always do righteousness, such as the Perfect Creators of the Seven Master Superuniverses, do not need to atone for the experiences of having made errors in judgment, or maltreatment of others. But the demands for that, are suitably that any imperfect offering made to the Consummator of Universe Destiny, would not have had that eternalisation, that eternal counterpart of man's own experiences in time: the existential personality transcript which shows how progress of soul-maturation did occur. The transcripts are like a record of "how a creature of space transcended/utilized his own material actualities in order to become like the First Source."

To become a true being, you would want to shed the experiences you had, in order to gain unrevealed superfinite potentials, that are part of your relationship to the First Source and Center, but not part of your experiences. There is always much more to a person than the total of his experiences. But I doubt you can attain all that is beyond this life, as One in Being with the father, until or unless you have completed all the stages in which the First Source has guided you, even in this life of the flesh as a Urantian. It requires "completed faith", knowingness beyond reason, that you even had a segment of the First Source's will to complete, before you could establish your Paradise-Residence and realise personal universe destiny.


My dear Stephen...we are already "true beings" of eternal potential and upon fusion we are true beings of eternity. Our celestial cousins are created as eternal true beings. Tadpoles are true tadpole beings! Are you a false being? What's that?

Who are the Sons of Disappointment? Quote please.

No one .makes offerings to the Consummator of Universe Destiny either....quotes???!!!

Experiential beings never "shed" their experience but grow in wisdom and spirituality by experience.

The God Fragment within and much of Deity itself is also experiential and eternally embraces the experience of time and freewill choices in time.

Good Grief. Mods?? Really?????!!!! Is there no limit?

=; :-$ :-# :-s :roll:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3913
SEla_Kelly wrote:
I believe that there is a requirement of faith, certainly. By doing enough in my life of the flesh as a Urantian, I am required nevertheless to become the self-directed being who has made the consecrated choice, to treat others with kindness & mercy, and to continuously improve upon my personal standards of love. I will make the maximum attainment as a human individual, and not less or more. But I cannot reveal what my choice has been, to others. The spirits of time in the seventh universe may "guess" at what the creature-destiny may become, but I cannot reveal it. If another child of Urantia's relationship with the First Source is experiencially growing: how could the Father realise His Faith in that one? The secret of how each creature will have realised the Father's destiny as a post-ultimate finalised creature, is unrevealed, what an unfathomable reality. But even though the Consummator of Universe Destiny is unrevealed, I believe such personality is like the post-ultimate Minister, the wedding of the finite attained potential of our lives in the flesh with the post-time absolute potential of creature experience. Such a finite Being (the Consummator) could only live in Paradise, and could only reveal the potential of faith individually to you after you had attained the finality of perfection as an experiencial personality. Then, there is theorised a continuum of ever experience in the individual, who is the Supreme Being. What the Architect of the Grand Universe is to all material actualities of space, the Consummator is to fully attained personalities who never sinned. What might be revealed, of your brother's potential faith-relationship to the Universal Father becomes the obligation of man's duty to his siblings to help them attain that, that you should observe the phenomenon of the soul, within the life in the flesh, calling out for help to have attained the fullness of destiny, speaking like a duckling in foreign tones to instruct the Consummator how all experience may be fulfilled in the Grand Universe. All experiencially realisable experiences between the Supreme, the Ultimate, and the Absolute as an extenuational transferrance of one creaturehood to another, throughout all sentient mortal creature experiences, in the continuum of time, as it once had been in the Seven Superuniverses, even will be in the life experiences of tertiary space, in the outer space layers of the grand universe, after the Age of the Supreme Being had been inaugurated, as in the Ages of Life and Light for every single local universe, the 100,000 local universes of Orvonton.


I'm going to need some help with this Stephen....and some text support for so many claims. Let's start with "by doing enough in my life of the flesh": it is sad to record that so many believe there are certain, even very specific things they must do to win God's favor or mercy or forgiveness or love. I'm wondering what you believe you need to "do" exactly? And what is it that happens if you or someone else does not "do" enough? What is the "maximum attainment" you mention above? And please provide specific text to support your beliefs and claims here.

What makes you think the Spirits of Deity have to "guess" about our destiny? Do you believe your motives and intentions and sincerity can be hidden from God?? Don't you know that the Papers does indeed reveal the destiny of mortal believers and those who survive this life and fuse with the TA's in the next level of adventure? It is not a secret or unfathomable at all! The very purpose of the UB as Epochal Revelation is to reveal this very fact and result of our ascendant adventure!!

Where did you read or why do you believe that we ever reach "finality of perfection"? What does that mean? And what makes you think the Consummator has any role of revealing our finality or destiny to us? Where did you come up with that? Why do claim that our destiny or that the Supreme is merely "theorized" by the authors of the Revelation? Is this another declaration of your disbelief of the claims in the UB?

And what is "an extenuational transference" of one creaturehood to another? Are you talking about the relationship between experiential beings and experiential Deity?

And please explain what any of these claims has to do with the topic - The doctrine of "original sin" & Christianity.

You seem intent on rewriting the Revelation to suit yourself and your own fantasies and belief systems Stephen. So little of what you post can be found or supported in text. Indeed, it seems you endlessly contradict the UB with every post. Likewise does it appear you have no interest whatsoever in the actual teachings given us in the Urantia Papers.

Which truly begs the question as to why you are here?

:-$ :-& :?:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:11 pm +0000
Posts: 932
fanofVan wrote:
I don't think you understood Stephen's meaning by this secondary equivocation of his original proclamation.

Stephen first said: "We are called upon to provide proof of our faith..." and then said: "I believe that there is a requirement of faith, certainly. By doing enough in my life of the flesh as a Urantian, I am required nevertheless to become the self-directed being who has made the consecrated choice, to treat others with kindness & mercy, and to continuously improve upon my personal standards of love."


You then affirmed these claims with a hearty "Absolutely." So we absolutely are called upon to prove our faith and fulfill requirements to demonstrate our faith? And we can calculate and demonstrate that faith by "doing enough" to survive but not any more than what is required for salvation and survival? Is that really what you wish to confirm as "Absolutely"?? For that is indeed what you proclaimed above!


Calm down Bradly. Obviously you've completely misunderstood Stephen. What he is saying is that we are required to act on faith, grow in faith and live our lives according to our faith. Faith is enough to enter the kingdom of God but we are told numerous times that we must grow and progress in order to stay in the kingdom. That's the message, and it's clear to me. Stephen acts on faith by doing what he can (enough) to become self-directed (self-mastered) with a consecrated choice to treat others the way the Father treats them, with love. What is so hard to understand about that? It's absolutely true.

(1583.2) 140:8.28 The right to enter the kingdom is conditioned by faith, personal belief. The cost of remaining in the progressive ascent of the kingdom is the pearl of great price, in order to possess which a man sells all that he has.

(1596.5) 142:1.3 2. By faith in the fatherhood of God you may enter the kingdom of heaven, thus becoming the sons of God.

(2054.3) 193:2.2 You may enter the kingdom as a child, but the Father requires that you grow up, by grace, to the full stature of spiritual adulthood.

(1736.3) 156:2.6 He told them they could not stand still; they must go forward in righteousness or retrogress into evil and sin.

(1917.1) 176:3.5 You cannot stand still in the affairs of the eternal kingdom.

fanofVan wrote:
He has previously claimed that public good works were vital to his salvation as well. Then and again above does Stephen contradict the 2000 year old Gospel and the teachings of the Revelation. There is a requirement for faith to be felt, received, and responded to for the birth of soul and our spiritization ...indeed so. But the belief we are required to do "enough" certain things and display certain behaviors is false in my opinion. And misleading and counter productive.


I've haven't seen Stephen write anything like that. Regardless of what has happened in the past, it's the present we are discussing. Besides, it's highly likely that you misunderstood him in the past as well. By saying "enough" he means all he is capable of, and that is enough in God's eyes.

fanofVan wrote:
Good choices and behaviors are responses to faith and the Spirit. They are effects of faith and not the causes of faith. Pious and public acts of obedience is precisely the priorities and behavior demonstrated by the Pharisees and Saducees. A false facade that bore no fruits of the Spirit which do not come by our acts but by our faith.


I can't see where Stephen has said anything to suggest he wants to be a pompous Pharisee. What he did say is that he feels required to grow in faith by bringing forth the fruit of his faith in helping others. Shouldn't we all be doing that? I admire him for such positive thinking.

fanofVan wrote:
Faith does act for sure. But the faith must come first or nothing said or done is truly sincere or religious or spiritual in meaning or content.


I know a few atheists and agnostics who are quite sincere, so I disagree there. But I agree that people are capable of grafting their humanistic good deeds onto the tree of living faith which unfortunately produces only social fruit, all part of the kingdom of good. But they are nonetheless very sincere as far as I can tell, misguided but sincere. It's another case where motives and intentions can be good and yet not God's will.

fanofVan wrote:
Stephen has many times declared here his disbelief in both faith assurance and truth assurance. This further confirms this notion of his that salvation is somehow earned.


Again, I haven't read anything of Stephen's to suggest such beliefs, but regardless, his beliefs are none of your business, nor mine. It's much more likely that you've misunderstood him and also impugned negative motives on him, something you chronically do for some reason, along with jumping to your own conclusions.

fanofVan wrote:
Likewise has he claimed, many times, that there is no freewill in this life and not until our will is perfect by our own Paradise perfection which is earned and does not come by experience or by freewill!! All of these falsehoods you have so far appeared to support and confirm - "Absolutely!!" - by your blind affirmations and support.


Obviously you have a problem with blindness also. It's clear to me, and probably others, that Stephen means we are not fully liberated until we have become perfected in our desire to do the Father's will. Until then our free will is hedged with limitations, not fully liberated. He's referring to liberty, not freedom. Surely you know the difference? If not read these references:

(1301.6) 118:8.1 In the time-space creations, free will is hedged about with restraints, with limitations.
(435.4) 39:4.11 As you ascend the personality scale, first you learn to be loyal, then to love, then to be filial, and then may you be free; but not until you are a finaliter, not until you have attained perfection of loyalty, can you self-realize finality of liberty.

fanofVan wrote:
He goes on to say that he will only DO as much in this life as is required for his salvation!! Further verifying this belief of his which is such a contradictions to truth as presented in the UB. Such declarations completely distort and invert the very nature of the faith experience.


He didn't say that. You have to read the entire sentence in context to understand the meaning. Taking one word out of a sentence is intellectually dishonest. Here's the full sentence:
Quote:
By doing enough in my life of the flesh as a Urantian, I am required nevertheless to become the self-directed being who has made the consecrated choice, to treat others with kindness & mercy, and to continuously improve upon my personal standards of love.


Doing enough means he's required to all he can to consecrate his free-will choice to treating others with love. What is wrong with that? NOTHING.

fanofVan wrote:
Your agreement with him here is quite confusing...for you obviously don't agree with Stephen at all in this matter and claims of his here. Perplexing. I don't think you really understand Stephen so much as you might think. He too has 8 years of posts here which clearly and redundantly demonstrates a very particular perspective and set of beliefs which contradict the UB.


It's the other way around Bradly. You don't understand Stephen. You impugn motives and attack individual words that jump out at you. You really need to calm down and try harder to understand your brother.

fanofVan wrote:
You keep trying here to reaarange and recreate and re-present those declared beliefs of Stephen's to the study group here, in your attempt to harmonize them with the teachings while he disagrees with your efforts, remains silent toward them, or repeats himself and doubles down. Such contortionism is quite something to witness. But IMO you do Stephen and the community a real disservice by such efforts. Haven't you noticed his failure to confirm your misunderstandings and misrepresentations of his declarations and beliefs??


Sorry to be such a disappointment to you Bradly. Perhaps it's because you have yet to accept the fact that Stephen has a deep understanding of the Revelation and an unusual manner of expressing himself. But if you open your mind to finding truth, you'll find it regardless of its source. It appears to me that you've completely closed your mind to the possibility that Stephen is capable of expressing truth or wisdom, otherwise, you'd find it.

(1949:6)180:5.4 The true child of universe insight looks for the living Spirit of Truth in every wise saying. The God-knowing individual is constantly elevating wisdom to the living-truth levels of divine attainment; the spiritually unprogressive soul is all the while dragging the living truth down to the dead levels of wisdom and to the domain of mere exalted knowledge.

fanofVan wrote:
Rather than positively supporting Stephen personally, you instead distort and misrepresent his actual beliefs and then you present this misrepresentation to the study group as some form of validated alignment with the UB.


How audacious of you to pretend to know Stephen's beliefs. They are none of your business. And even more presumptuous is your insistence that I'm here to distort meaning when it is you who has done that very thing by distorting the meaning of the word "enough".

fanofVan wrote:
I find it very ironic that you are claiming Stephen to be a poet in order to justify and interpret his beliefs according to the text, while Stephen distorts and contradicts the UB by pretending it to be metaphorical and poetic rather than the literal presentation of the authors' attempt to clearly say what they intend and mean and that they definitively mean what they say. Stephen certainly does not believe this. And thus his constant contradictions of the text. Now you claim Stephen does not mean what he says or does not say what he means and attempt to decipher and justify and explain Stephen's obvious contradictions to text. Perplexing if entertaining.

Now we are provided two different meanings of Stephen's words to parse chaff from wheat!! Oh dear. Is one presentation of Stephen's beliefs not enough to consider?


This coming from a person whose writing is not undecipherable. I think it's all about motes, not wheat. Besides, poets have value. Here's the highest human philosophy, bordering on mota, about poets:

(557.6) 48:7.22 20. Only a poet can discern poetry in the commonplace prose of routine existence.

fanofVan wrote:
You claim me hard to understand and then pretend understanding of someone you obviously also do not understand. A most curious demonstration. Just an opinion of course...but Stephen's beliefs are not unknown here or difficult to ascertain. He has shared them here for a long, long time. Over and over. They are consistent if often self contradictory. And many certainly and clearly contradict the Papers. To put words into another's mouth is not helpful...to you or Stephen or the classroom of students gathered here. You will or may eventually become acquainted with his beliefs too.


Yes, your writing is much harder to understand than Stephen's because Stephen's writing has soul. I also think you are equally guilty when it comes to contradicting the Revelation. I've pointed this out dozens of times since I've been here. You're living in a glass house, so I recommend you not throw stones.

But of much more importance is this habitual problem of yours, accusing me of falsehood. You said I PRETEND to understand. How dare you judge my motives, since you're not capable of knowing them. This horrible habit of yours is quite despicable. Maybe it's your "pet evil".

(1802.3) 163:2.7 Almost every human being has some one thing which is held on to as a pet evil, and which the entrance into the kingdom of heaven requires as a part of the price of admission.

fanofVan wrote:
Until then, it might be best to let others speak for themselves? You are so much more interesting and informative when you simply and directly speak for yourself and not others I think. I hope you will accept this in good humor and the spirit of good will. I am glad you are here. Best wishes.

Bradly. :wink: 8)


Maybe you can take your own advice? Pretending that what you said is all in good humor is in itself rather laughable. You don't smack a person around and then say it's all in good fun unless you're in a boxing match, which I am not.

Regardless of all you said, I still agree with Stephen and I still think you have made a giant mountain out of a little ant hill; actually out of nothing at all since the whole diatribe arose from one word "enough". And it wasn't enough that you attacked a made-up meaning of the word, you also dredged up eight years of past sins to be relitigated, completely ignoring the concept of forgiveness. I say ENOUGH ALREADY. it's boring and unfriendly.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3913
Stephen's beliefs are not my inventions...and he has redundantly claimed all of those listed...despite your doubts.

You interpret him...I read his own redundant words of belief posted over 1000 times.

Again you claim Stephen does not mean the words he writes...no matter how often or how repeatedly he says the same things. Who's is the insult? Those who disagree with what someone says or those who disregard it?

Why would you call Stephen's beliefs posted here over time "sins" needing forgiveness? Wow.

I consider them merely a record of writing and pattern demonstrating a body of rather consistent claims. But then I have actually read them...unlike yourself.

I look forward to his confirmation of your understanding.


Last edited by fanofVan on Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:07 am +0000, edited 4 times in total.

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

Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:16 pm +0000
Posts: 1097
Location: Nanticoke NY
Let's start with "by doing enough in my life of the flesh": it is sad to record that so many believe there are certain, even very specific things they must do to win God's favor or mercy or forgiveness or love. I'm wondering what you believe you need to "do" exactly? And what is it that happens if you or someone else does not "do" enough? What is the "maximum attainment" you mention above? And please provide specific text to support your beliefs and claims here.

What makes you think the Spirits of Deity have to "guess" about our destiny?
I didn't say that they "have to". I said they "are allowed to".

Do you believe your motives and intentions and sincerity can be hidden from God??
Motives and sincerity may be hidden from the world. Jesus did not reveal to man what man was not capable of realising within his own mind. All that man cannot become is unrevealed, and knowledge of the Universal Father's transcendant exigency, his infinitude beyond the Supreme Realisation of Grandfanda is immense.
My motives and my sincerity are derived from God, who is Himself hidden!

Don't you know that the Papers does indeed reveal the destiny of mortal believers and those who survive this life and fuse with the TA's in the next level of adventure?
This is the final level of adventure: life in the flesh as a human individual on planet Urantia.

It is not a secret or unfathomable at all! The very purpose of the UB as Epochal Revelation is to reveal this very fact and result of our ascendant adventure!!
The UB cannot reveal that to man unless he had realised the truth already, unless that potential were real in the human heart.


Where did you read or why do you believe that we ever reach "finality of perfection"?
I don't know.

What does that mean?
It means that as a finalitor, you must reach beyond personality unification, to find the transcendant-absolute total value of God's Gift, the Adjuster.

And what makes you think the Consummator has any role of revealing our finality or destiny to us?
Not necessarily us. The Consummator has a role for children, though. Children from Urantia who attain the finality of their experience in the seventh superuniverse, and whose faith has revealed the life they already had on Paradise, will want to perform their part of the destiny of the grand universe. And to do that, comes the realisation that I must offer my experiences completely to the Consummator. Beyond unified personality, is the hope that all of my experiences would be shared with the Consummator, that the Consummator Herself as a Paradise Personality, can achieve Her Own Destiny.


Where did you come up with that?
It comes from the logical introspection of the nature of the Consummator, a Child of the Universal Father and the Supreme Being.

Why do claim that our destiny or that the Supreme is merely "theorized" by the authors of the Revelation?
I didn't claim that. I am the one who made that theorization.

Is this another declaration of your disbelief of the claims in the UB?
Who dares to declare that there is disbelief!


And what is "an extenuational transference" of one creaturehood to another?
It is a shared experience between two supremely unified personalities: between a finalter and a Paradise Son, between a finaliter and a Havona Being, between one finaliter and another. But those that have been offered to the Consummator, and shared through the Consummator.

Are you talking about the relationship between experiential beings and experiential Deity?
Sure!

And please explain what any of these claims has to do with the topic - The doctrine of "original sin" & Christianity.
I am relating this to the concept that Jesus was without blemish, and that Michael attained his universe destiny, as a being of Urantia. So how can the sons of men adjust from the concept of original sin, to the concept of how one might attain universe destiny after having attained personality unification.

the actual teachings given us in the Urantia Papers.
The actual teachings given to us is not the Urantia Papers but rather the experiences that we have in life, and in these experiences the Universal Father is always with us.


Why you are here?
Amen. Why does any of us exist? I believe that I have found a role in life, but I don't even know my true purpose. However, I am capable of giving this testimony as a former Catholic who has salvaged his own "perfonal version original sin" from error.


katroofjebus wrote:
I can't see where Stephen has said anything to suggest he wants to be a pompous Pharisee. What he did say is that he feels required to grow in faith by bringing forth the fruit of his faith in helping others. Shouldn't we all be doing that? I admire him for such positive thinking.

You're right. I didn't ask to be one, and I don't want to be one. I miss the days in this forum where people wrote about their personal experiences. I miss the days where everyone supported each other, where members spoke about their own family-struggles freely. I miss the days where people were sincere in their questions, and the questions were always about how to transcend the personal dilemmas of life, and news about the progress of other ascenders on urantia. I will much rather prefer to "shut up" when there is no need for I to speak! But as it is now, this forum, the member-quorum of this forum, is not being concerted in a manner that is focusing on Urantia's every day circumstances, and you lay upon this name Stephen, which I am required to defence, all of your objective inaccuracies about life. Well guess what! If I were an an administrator of thos forum, I would allow for the sharing of real stories, and I have no tolerance for tautology or those who claim to be philosophical who have not openly corrected personal errors. And I am bound to this timeframe! I do not encourage other members of my family seek to become the clerkship of a Pharisee (as a career), because there is a much higher duty for them! John the Baptist is the highest Pharisee of our Land Urantia, the greatest among us, and for all his teaching, rewarded Herod with a hearty-feast.

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


Last edited by SEla_Kelly on Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:20 am +0000, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3913
Thanks for the clarification Stephen. You failed to answer these questions I asked and you posted:

"Let's start with "by doing enough in my life of the flesh": it is sad to record that so many believe there are certain, even very specific things they must do to win God's favor or mercy or forgiveness or love. I'm wondering what you believe you need to "do" exactly? And what is it that happens if you or someone else does not "do" enough? What is the "maximum attainment" you mention above? And please provide specific text to support your beliefs and claims here."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:11 pm +0000
Posts: 932
SEla_Kelly wrote:
katroofjebus wrote:
I can't see where Stephen has said anything to suggest he wants to be a pompous Pharisee. What he did say is that he feels required to grow in faith by bringing forth the fruit of his faith in helping others. Shouldn't we all be doing that? I admire him for such positive thinking.


You're right. I didn't ask to be one, and I don't want to be one. I miss the days in this forum where people wrote about their personal experiences. I miss the days where everyone supported each other, where members spoke about their own family-struggles freely. I miss the days where people were sincere in their questions, and the questions were always about how to transcend the personal dilemmas of life, and news about the progress of other ascenders on urantia.


Then you'd need posters to be just as interested in living truth as they are in following the letter of the law.

(1502.6) 135:6.8 He counseled the teachers to instruct in the spirit as well as the letter of the law.

Incidentally, our brethren here on Urantia are not yet ascenders. If they were, they would immediately fuse and translate to mansonia. Our brethren in the kingdom here on Urantia are called faith-sons.

(447.5) 40.6.1You will be reckoned as ascending sons the instant fusion takes place, but the status of the mortals of time and space is that of faith sons ––


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3913
fanofVan wrote:
Thanks for the clarification Stephen. You failed to answer these questions I asked and you posted:

"Let's start with "by doing enough in my life of the flesh": it is sad to record that so many believe there are certain, even very specific things they must do to win God's favor or mercy or forgiveness or love. I'm wondering what you believe you need to "do" exactly? And what is it that happens if you or someone else does not "do" enough? What is the "maximum attainment" you mention above? And please provide specific text to support your beliefs and claims here."


???? :?:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 9:35 am +0000
Posts: 562
First, the "sin" and fall was among the administrators within Michaels government. The result was "confusion" and the introduction of the "meme of rebellion" on earth. So we are born into a bad neighborhood, confusion about origins and destiny, confusion about what sin is, often rebels without a cause. That's why the revelators say "sin must be redefined and deliberate disloyalty to deity".


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: Azacar


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