The Late Great Urantia Revelation

[freelight]

I don't see any limits to your ability to stretch

Does what is infinite have any limits?



pj

 

[Lost Comet]

do you believe Jesus is God?

I lean heavily toward the UB's version of Jesus' divinity (God of our local universe), but am not entirely convinced even though I would think along the same lines even as a child, long before I heard of the UB.

do you believe that is important?

No, I do not think it is particularly important. Jesus answers the question himself in the UB: “It matters little what idea of the Father you may entertain as long as you are spiritually acquainted with the ideal of his infinite and eternal nature.” (1783.5) 161:1.3

 

[Lost Comet]

meant "secret" to Nathaniel and to the rest of the Church until your papers came to light whenever they did so.

Seems that "modern" thought went into this "secret" dialog.

tWINs

I would most certainly think so! The authors make no bones about it.

 

[Lost Comet]

The goal of the Course is spiritual enlightenment, not metaphysical speculation. (Anything else would be deemed a distraction.)

Sounds like Zen, but ACIM has too much "metaphysical speculation" to be Zen.

That's why I stated previously that the Course basically appeals to those who are on the mystical quest.

The Course appeals only to some who are on the "mystical quest."

The UB is much more balanced; it does not disregard the rational mind.

 

[freelight]

The UB is much more balanced; it does not disregard the rational mind.

2 different books on a variety of levels, approach and context. ACIM has its own rationale so to speak - for those looking for something more resonant with traditional/orthodox christian theology, but upgraded with a greater cosmic revelation and comprehension of the universe, the evolving creation and man's divine destiny....the UB excels there....at least on a 'relational, practical, social' level. ACIM to me is more theoritical, a tour-guide of spiritual psychology and 'perspective'.



pj

 

[Damian]

Sounds like Zen, but ACIM has too much "metaphysical speculation" to be Zen.

But it doesn't appear to offer enough metaphysical speculation to satisfy your "rational mind."

The Course appeals only to some who are on the "mystical quest."

The UB is much more balanced; it does not disregard the rational mind.

That's your opinion. I obviously do not share it. The UB holds little attraction for me. It appears to have limited spiritual value.

 

[Damian]

ACIM to me is more theoritical, a tour-guide of spiritual psychology and 'perspective'.

The Course is not merely theoretical; it is also pragmatic.

 

[Lost Comet]

But it doesn't appear to offer enough metaphysical speculation to satisfy your "rational mind."

Actually, there's too much. If it wants to be Zen, it should be Zen.

When I was in the Air Force, I was stationed at a base whose commander tried to make it a cross between civilian life and the military. It didn't work. Some people adapted, but overall, it created confusion and morale dropped.

That's your opinion. I obviously do not share it. The UB holds little attraction for me. It appears to have limited spiritual value.

Yes, it is my opinion. It is also my opinion that it is dangerous to present teachings to the world that disregard human nature while it attempts to "heal" it.

I am well aware that some people think the UB and ACIM are complementary, and there is indeed much overlap. But the message ACIM delivers is, basically, the separation never happened but it must be healed. It presumes guilt and denies it at the same time. This gives me a great deal of difficulty.

The UB's message is quite different: we human beings come out of the world in part, and in part come in to the world. There is no "fall" or "forgetting." That what comes out of the world, the material-finite, is invaded or "infected" by the spiritual-infinite in order that the finite might be "lifted up." As a result, a third and different entity is created from both -- a living soul.

I hope Chrys reads the above paragraph. I would like to hear her(?) comments on it.

 

[Caino]

"When the philosophy of man leans heavily toward the world of matter, it becomes rationalistic or naturalistic. When philosophy inclines particularly toward the spiritual level, it becomes idealistic or even mystical. When philosophy is so unfortunate as to lean upon metaphysics, it unfailingly becomes skeptical, confused. In past ages, most of man’s knowledge and intellectual evaluations have fallen into one of these three distortions of perception. Philosophy dare not project its interpretations of reality in the linear fashion of logic; it must never fail to reckon with the elliptic symmetry of reality and with the essential curvature of all relation concepts." UB (The Reality of Religious Experience).


Caino

 

[Damian]

But it doesn't appear to offer enough metaphysical speculation to satisfy your "rational mind."

Actually, there's too much. If it wants to be Zen, it should be Zen.

Which one is it? Too much, or not enough? Previously, you were complaining that the Course did not provide enough to satisfy your rational mind.

Whereas ACIM is two-dimensional and ambiguous in matters that are important to my (hopefully) rational mind, the UB is seven-dimensional and satisfying. "Total, infinite reality is existential in seven phases and as seven co-ordinate Absolutes." (4.13) 0:3.1

That's your opinion. I obviously do not share it. The UB holds little attraction for me. It appears to have limited spiritual value.

Yes, it is my opinion. It is also my opinion that it is dangerous to present teachings to the world that disregard human nature while it attempts to "heal" it.

We will have to agree to disagree.

I am well aware that some people think the UB and ACIM are complementary, and there is indeed much overlap. But the message ACIM delivers is, basically, the separation never happened but it must be healed. It presumes guilt and denies it at the same time. This gives me a great deal of difficulty.

This is not true. It does not deny the experience of guilt. It acknowledges the problem and addresses it.

The UB's message is quite different: we human beings come out of the world in part, and in part come in to the world. There is no "fall" or "forgetting." That what comes out of the world, the material-finite, is invaded or "infected" by the spiritual-infinite in order that the finite might be "lifted up." As a result, a third and different entity is created from both -- a living soul.

The term "infected" does not exactly resonate with me. But if you feel that it speaks to you, then do whatever it is that you feel is right for you.

I hope Chrys reads the above paragraph. I would like to hear her(?) comments on it.

I suggest that you also inform him that UB does not appear to ensure universal salvation.

"The greatest punishment (in reality an inevitable consequence) for wrongdoing and deliberate rebellion against the government of God is loss of existence as an individual subject of that government. The final result of wholehearted sin is annihilation. In the last analysis, such sin-identified individuals have destroyed themselves by becoming wholly unreal through their embrace of iniquity." 2:3.2 UB

 

[Lost Comet]

"When the philosophy of man leans heavily toward the world of matter, it becomes rationalistic or naturalistic. When philosophy inclines particularly toward the spiritual level, it becomes idealistic or even mystical. When philosophy is so unfortunate as to lean upon metaphysics, it unfailingly becomes skeptical, confused. In past ages, most of man’s knowledge and intellectual evaluations have fallen into one of these three distortions of perception. Philosophy dare not project its interpretations of reality in the linear fashion of logic; it must never fail to reckon with the elliptic symmetry of reality and with the essential curvature of all relation concepts." UB (The Reality of Religious Experience).


Caino

Yes, exactly. There must be balance. There are posters in TOL, both atheistic and Christian, that exemplify the linear line of thought, which is materialistic in nature. Others lean heavily on the mystical.

Me? I don't know. Logic is a tool but not the determiner of my religion. I'm interested in metaphysics and the mystical, but they are accompanied by an equal interest in revelation and science. Am I confused? Not nearly as much as I once was. The seven-dimensional approach I mentioned earlier provides the rational frame I have long sought -- and I don't think I could have found it through logic or without the UB.

Which one is it? Too much, or not enough? Previously, you were complaining that the Course did not provide enough to satisfy your rational mind.

It tries to do both -- and that's the problem. Hence, the AF analogy. It’s apophatic theology or cataphatic theology; not both. Trying to do both only confuses. If you want to do the latter, do it right. Do it in a way that makes some sense. (see below)

This is not true. It does not deny the experience of guilt. It acknowledges the problem and addresses it.

Yes, it addresses the problem by saying the separation is our fault (we are guilty of a self-made illusion) and we must be "healed" even though the separation never happened and therefore we aren't guilty (it's not our fault).

How and why perfection succumbed to the illusion is not addressed at all.

The term "infected" does not exactly resonate with me. But if you feel that it speaks to you, then do whatever it is that you feel is right for you.

My term, not the UB's.

I suggest that you also inform him that UB does not appear to ensure universal salvation.

Neither does the Bible (according to some interpretations). Nor did I say otherwise.

 

[Damian]

Which one is it? Too much, or not enough? Previously, you were complaining that the Course did not provide enough to satisfy your rational mind.

It tries to do both -- and that's the problem. Hence, the AF analogy. It’s apophatic theology or cataphatic theology; not both. Trying to do both only confuses. If you want to do the latter, do it right. Do it in a way that makes some sense. (see below)

I believe the Course has the right balance between positive (cataphatic) theology and negative (apophatic) theology. It also has the right balance between theology and psychology. I find it to be illuminating, not confusing. But if confuses you, then don't read it. It's not your path.

This is not true. It does not deny the experience of guilt. It acknowledges the problem and addresses it.

Yes, it addresses the problem by saying the separation is our fault (we are guilty of a self-made illusion) and we must be "healed" even though the separation never happened and therefore we aren't guilty (it's not our fault).

The analytical mind is incapable of resolving the paradox that is existence.

"Salvation is a paradox indeed! What could it be except a happy dream? It asks you but that you forgive all things that no one ever did; to overlook what is not there, and not to look upon the unreal as reality." - "A Course in Miracles"

How and why perfection succumbed to the illusion is not addressed at all.

"An honest question is a learning tool that asks for something that you do not know. It does not set conditions for response, but merely asks what the response should be. But no one in a conflict state is free to ask this question, for he does not want an honest answer where the conflict ends." - "A Course in Miracles"

I suggest that you also inform him that UB does not appear to ensure universal salvation.

Neither does the Bible (according to some interpretations). Nor did I say otherwise.

The Course does. That's a difference that Chrysostom may be interested to learn.

 

[Lost Comet]

I believe the Course has the right balance between positive (cataphatic) theology and negative (apophatic) theology. It also has the right balance between theology and psychology. I find it to be illuminating, not confusing. But if confuses you, then don't read it. It's not your path.

Well, we can certainly agree that it is not for me. However, I don't find it's underlying message confusing at all, just its theology. There's nothing new in it, but it can be confusing to the uninitiated and be a roadblock to genuine seekers. Like I said, The Impersonal Life presents the same message in a much simpler way and in just a few pages. It's the way ACIM presents itself as a theology-psychology that creeps me out. I'm not sure why, but probably because the theology, in the context of an admittedly profound psychology, is extremely weak. (Note: I just read all I could stand just to be sure.)

The analytical mind is incapable of resolving the paradox that is existence.

Yes. That is something I've said many times. But we still need a conceptual frame in which to think.

"Salvation is a paradox indeed! What could it be except a happy dream? It asks you but that you forgive all things that no one ever did; to overlook what is not there, and not to look upon the unreal as reality." - "A Course in Miracles"

"An honest question is a learning tool that asks for something that you do not know. It does not set conditions for response, but merely asks what the response should be. But no one in a conflict state is free to ask this question, for he does not want an honest answer where the conflict ends." - "A Course in Miracles"

ACIM can be summed-up in a single sentence: We believe what we want to be. Or, As a Man Thinketh. Again, there's nothing new or revolutionary about ACIM. If anything, it's a new spin on ancient ideas, maybe even a rip-off, like televangelists.

With this I absolutely agree. Where ACIM (as well as The Impersonal Life and As a Man Thinketh) fails and and the UB excels is the answering of honest questions and smoothing the road for the rational mind.

The Course does. That's a difference that Chrysostom may be interested to learn.

LOL! Maybe you're right. Like I said, we believe what we want to be.

Of this, I am sure: we don’t speak of one stone being better than another without assigning a function. Take away the function, and the relative worth of stones disappear; take away mind, the stones themselves disappear.

The UB puts it this way:

(1228.6) 112:2.11 As mind pursues reality to its ultimate analysis, matter vanishes to the material senses but may still remain real to mind. When spiritual insight pursues that reality which remains after the disappearance of matter and pursues it to an ultimate analysis, it vanishes to mind, but the insight of spirit can still perceive cosmic realities and supreme values of a spiritual nature. Accordingly does science give way to philosophy, while philosophy must surrender to the conclusions inherent in genuine spiritual experience. Thinking surrenders to wisdom, and wisdom is lost in enlightened and reflective worship.

This is something where ACIM and the UB are in agreement.

 

[Caino]

"Salvation is a paradox indeed! What could it be except a happy dream? It asks you but that you forgive all things that no one ever did; to overlook what is not there, and not to look upon the unreal as reality."

- "A Course in Miracles"

Salvation can be taken for granted in the same way that a child of a healthy family doesn't have to continually "earn" his way back in the home. Jesus said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician".

People do commit offences of relative imperfection, our task in forgiving them is, in actuality, to "un-judge" them. If we have not judged then there is no need to forgive.

The quote above from ACIM takes one to a mystical place of intoxicating non-reality. The seductive allure of denial.

The UB:

"The cross forever shows that the attitude of Jesus toward sinners was neither condemnation nor condonation, but rather eternal and loving salvation. Jesus is truly a savior in the sense that his life and death do win men over to goodness and righteous survival. Jesus Loves men so much that his Love awakens the response of Love in the human heart. Love is truly contagious and eternally creative. Jesus’ death on the cross exemplifies a Love which is sufficiently strong and divine to forgive sin and swallow up all evil-doing. Jesus disclosed to this world a higher quality of righteousness than justice — mere technical right and wrong. Divine Love does not merely forgive wrongs; it absorbs and actually destroys them. The forgiveness of Love utterly transcends the forgiveness of mercy. Mercy sets the guilt of evil-doing to one side; but Love destroys forever the sin and all weakness resulting therefrom. Jesus brought a new method of living to Urantia. He taught us not to resist evil but to find through him a goodness which effectually destroys evil. The forgiveness of Jesus is not condonation; it is salvation from condemnation. Salvation does not slight wrongs; it makes them right. True Love does not compromise nor condone hate; it destroys it. The Love of Jesus is never satisfied with mere forgiveness. The Master’s Love implies rehabilitation, eternal survival. It is altogether proper to speak of salvation as redemption if you mean this eternal rehabilitation."UB​

Caino

 

[Damian]

Well, we can certainly agree that it is not for me. However, I don't find it's underlying message confusing at all, just its theology. There's nothing new in it, but it can be confusing to the uninitiated and be a roadblock to genuine seekers. Like I said, The Impersonal Life presents the same message in a much simpler way and in just a few pages. It's the way ACIM presents itself as a theology-psychology that creeps me out. I'm not sure why, but probably because the theology, in the context of an admittedly profound psychology, is extremely weak. (Note: I just read all I could stand just to be sure.)

I agree that the Course can be confusing to the uninitiated. That's why I do not recommend that beginners should attempt to tackle it. They will most likely be overwhelmed. But I would say the same thing for any great spiritual/philosophical work. You have do acquire a basic overview of the underlying thought system before you delve deeper into it.

Yes. That is something I've said many times. But we still need a conceptual frame in which to think.

The Course does provide a conceptual framework. But ultimately a paradox can only be resolved by the intuitive mind, not the analytical one. And that's exactly what the Course is seeking to do - to resolve the paradox by developing the intuitive mind (our spiritual faculty).

ACIM can be summed-up in a single sentence: We believe what we want to be. Or, As a Man Thinketh. Again, there's nothing new or revolutionary about ACIM. If anything, it's a new spin on ancient ideas, maybe even a rip-off, like televangelists.

Actually, the Course can be better summed up as: "Love is letting go of fear." Verbally expressing this truth is easy; experientially realizing it is not. But if you feel that you are spiritually whole and enlightened, then certainly there would no reason for you to be interested in the Course. Only those who realize that they are mentally ill seek therapy. And that's exactly what the Course is - a self-study course in spiritual psychotherapy. It's goal is to heal the mind.

With this I absolutely agree. Where ACIM (as well as The Impersonal Life and As a Man Thinketh) fails and and the UB excels is the answering of honest questions and smoothing the road for the rational mind.

To reiterate: You are failing to grasp the purpose of the Course. The purpose is not to answer all the ego's questions. Answering all the ego's questions only serves to reinforce the illusion. (Questioning reality was the beginning of illusions.)

"To study the error itself does not lead to correction, if you are indeed to succeed in overlooking the error. And it is just this process of overlooking at which the course aims." - "A Course in Miracles"

LOL! Maybe you're right. Like I said, we believe what we want to be.

The idea of annihilation is anathema to the Course. Our annihilation, if it were possible, would be the annihilation of God himself.

"Complete unconsciouness is impossible. You can rest in peace only because you are awake." - "A Course in Miracles"

 

[Damian]

Salvation can be taken for granted in the same way that a child of a healthy family doesn't have to continually "earn" his way back in the home. Jesus said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician".

People do commit offences of relative imperfection, our task in forgiving them is, in actuality, to "un-judge" them. If we have not judged then there is no need to forgive.

The quote above from ACIM takes one to a mystical place of intoxicating non-reality. The seductive allure of denial.

If you believe the experiential knowledge of God (of Love itself) to be non-reality, then you are correct. Personally, I do not share this view.

 

[Lost Comet]

If you believe the experiential knowledge of God (of Love itself) to be non-reality, then you are correct. Personally, I do not share this view.

Did your thinking mind shut down, or did you get lost in a mystical fog? As a response, this makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Damian]

Did your thinking mind shut down, or did you get lost in a mystical fog? As a response, this makes no sense whatsoever.

What exactly is it that you do not understand?

 

[Caino]

If you believe the experiential knowledge of God (of Love itself) to be non-reality, then you are correct. Personally, I do not share this view.

Love and error are both real.....in the experience of the finite ascender.

"God loves the sinner and hates the sin: such a statement is true philosophically, but God is a transcendent personality, and persons can only love and hate other persons. Sin is not a person. God loves the sinner because he is a personality reality (potentially eternal), while towards sin God strikes no personal attitude, for sin is not a spiritual reality; it is not personal; therefore does only the justice of God take cognizance of its existence. The love of God saves the sinner; the law of God destroys the sin. This attitude of the divine nature would apparently change if the sinner finally identified himself wholly with sin just as the same mortal mind may also fully identify itself with the indwelling spirit Adjuster. Such a sin-identified mortal would then become wholly unspiritual in nature (and therefore personally unreal) and would experience eventual extinction of being. Unreality, even incompleteness of creature nature, cannot exist forever in a progressingly real and increasingly spiritual universe."​

my underline



Caino

 

[Damian]

Love and error are both real.....in the experience of the finite ascender.

"God loves the sinner and hates the sin: such a statement is true philosophically, but God is a transcendent personality, and persons can only love and hate other persons. Sin is not a person. God loves the sinner because he is a personality reality (potentially eternal), while towards sin God strikes no personal attitude, for sin is not a spiritual reality; it is not personal; therefore does only the justice of God take cognizance of its existence. The love of God saves the sinner; the law of God destroys the sin. This attitude of the divine nature would apparently change if the sinner finally identified himself wholly with sin just as the same mortal mind may also fully identify itself with the indwelling spirit Adjuster. Such a sin-identified mortal would then become wholly unspiritual in nature (and therefore personally unreal) and would experience eventual extinction of being. Unreality, even incompleteness of creature nature, cannot exist forever in a progressingly real and increasingly spiritual universe."​

my underline

This appears to be teaching some form of "annihilationism." If so, then I do not accept this doctrine.