The Late Great Urantia Revelation

[freelight]

God's relation to the individual.......

God's relation to the individual.......

Does God have free will?

God is free as much as His divine nature and character allows for such freedom, however unlimited or limited. Why do you ask, and what is your opinion on the matter?

While on the subject of a soul's freedom of choice (call it 'free will' if you like) in its relationship to 'God' - this Paper covers the subject clearly here -

God's Relation to the Individual

I usually recommend a serious researcher to read the Foreward and first 12 papers at least...for a good foundational understanding of the cosmological premise and terms of the Revelation. One must become familiar with such to facilitate learning.


pj

 

[Damian]

What do the terms "unreality" and "reality" mean in the context of the UB?

First, you should understand two things. First, to me, the UB is not the all and end all; second, the answers are my own as per your request.

Okay. But you have made some scathing criticisms of the Course while simultaneously extolling the virtues of the UB. So, I am attempting to understand why you think the UB is so vastly superior to the Course.

In the context of the UB, "reality" is a relative term; the REAL sustains the relatively unreal. ACIM is a relatively dualistic either/or -- either something is real or it is not; there is no middle.

It is true that the Course is basically dualistic in the sense that it holds that you are either "awake" or "asleep." As I said before, the goal of the Course is spiritual awakening.

As I stated before, we believe what we want to be. I believe reason trumps idealism because I want it to be so. That we can know God directly, without the intervention of ideas, does not change that. Tools should be adequate to the task. Many "isms" are the result of unprepared minds encountering the Divine.

I have no idea what you are attempting to communicate here.

Our highest and most profound beliefs or wants can never be more than relative to that what IS. They can never be more than approximations. They prepare us for an encounter our true Self -- THAT which is in all things -- so we won't be overwhelmed by it. They prepare our minds for an ineffable encounter with the REAL, the I AM.

To reiterate: The goal of the Course is Self-realization (i.e. experiential knowledge of God).

 

[Damian]

While on the subject of a soul's freedom of choice (call it 'free will' if you like) in its relationship to 'God' - this Paper covers the subject clearly here -

God's Relation to the Individual

I usually recommend a serious researcher to read the Foreward and first 12 papers at least...for a good foundational understanding of the cosmological premise and terms of the Revelation. One must become familiar with such to facilitate learning.

Thanks. That's helpful. (Actually, I have already read the first paper.)

God is free as much as His divine nature and character allows for such freedom, however unlimited or limited. Why do you ask, and what is your opinion on the matter?

I am asking because I do not believe that the "free will" defense for the justification of "hell" or "annihilationism" is adequate.

 

[freelight]

the body of teaching as a whole......

the body of teaching as a whole......

Thanks. That's helpful. (Actually, I have already read the first paper.)

You're welcome. Some great stuff to ponder,...and no matter one's opinion of the material, its very consistent in its theology, eschatology, cosmology.

I am asking because I do not believe that the "free will" defense for the justification of "hell" or "annihilationism" is adequate.

Yes, I figure this is because of your view of the divine will. However, there is more to it from a UB point of view, - many interesting factors to consider and explore.


pj

 

[Lost Comet]

Okay. But you have made some scathing criticisms of the Course while simultaneously extolling the virtues of the UB. So, I am attempting to understand why you think the UB is so vastly superior to the Course.

I thought I made myself clear:

We believe what we want to be. I believe reason trumps idealism because I want it to be so. That we can know God directly, without the intervention of ideas, does not change that. Tools should be adequate to the task. Many "isms" are the result of unprepared minds encountering the Divine.

I'm sorry that you do not understand.

It is true that the Course is basically dualistic in the sense that it holds that you are either "awake" or "asleep." As I said before, the goal of the Course is spiritual awakening.

I know. But who's in charge of the awakening? I'll tell you: The same Presence that tells a chick when it's time to come out of its shell. In this respect, The Impersonal Life is superior to ACIM:

You may, with your personality, try a thousand times a thousand times to burst through the shell of your human consciousness.

It will result only, if at all, in a breaking down of the doors I have provided between the world of tangible forms and the real of intangible dreams; and the door being open, you then no longer can keep out intruders from your private domain, without much trouble and suffering.

--The Impersonal Life

I also happen to agree with the UB:

(1000.2) 91:7.1 Mysticism, as the technique of the cultivation of the consciousness of the presence of God, is altogether praiseworthy, but when such practices lead to social isolation and culminate in religious fanaticism, they are all but reprehensible. Altogether too frequently that which the overwrought mystic evaluates as divine inspiration is the uprisings of his own deep mind. The contact of the mortal mind with its indwelling Adjuster, while often favored by devoted meditation, is more frequently facilitated by wholehearted and loving service in unselfish ministry to one’s fellow creatures.

To reiterate: The goal of the Course is Self-realization (i.e. experiential knowledge of God).

Conversations With God, The Impersonal Life, As a Man Thinketh, Oneness, and many, many other books carry the exact same same message.

But let's say ACIM's dualistic approach is right. Where does that leave us from an experiential point of view? Why the illusion of separation? Why all this?

The UB delineates between existential and experiential deity. Say, for example, you could enter into a Matrix (like the movie) and experience another existence, another life, like what happened to Captain Picard in a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode. Would you awake unchanged? Can you imagine a better way to escape the experiential limitations of unqualified infinity?

 

[Lost Comet]

I am asking because I do not believe that the "free will" defense for the justification of "hell" or "annihilationism" is adequate.

And what if it is the decision of the host-self (the material self) to "uncreate" itself? To have nothing to do with Reality? To take the blue pill, as it were? Would God honor the request?

 

[Damian]

It is true that the Course is basically dualistic in the sense that it holds that you are either "awake" or "asleep." As I said before, the goal of the Course is spiritual awakening.

I know. But who's in charge of the awakening?

"You will awaken to your own call, for the Call to awake is within you." - "A Course in Miracles"

I also happen to agree with the UB:

(1000.2) 91:7.1 Mysticism, as the technique of the cultivation of the consciousness of the presence of God, is altogether praiseworthy, but when such practices lead to social isolation and culminate in religious fanaticism, they are all but reprehensible. Altogether too frequently that which the overwrought mystic evaluates as divine inspiration is the uprisings of his own deep mind. The contact of the mortal mind with its indwelling Adjuster, while often favored by devoted meditation, is more frequently facilitated by wholehearted and loving service in unselfish ministry to one’s fellow creatures.

You seem to be misinformed. The Course does not teach meditation.

But let's say ACIM's dualistic approach is right. Where does that leave us from an experiential point of view?

Happy?

Why the illusion of separation? Why all this?

Why the separation?

"Love separates for the sake of union." - Rumi

But if you really want a full-fledged metaphysical explanation, then you will probably have to read Hegel or Whitehead. As I said before, the Course is not really given to metaphysics. Also, the Course is not concerned with the past or the future - only with the here and now.

The UB delineates between existential and experiential deity. Say, for example, you could enter into a Matrix (like the movie) and experience another existence, another life, like what happened to Captain Picard in a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode. Would you awake unchanged? Can you imagine a better way to escape the experiential limitations of unqualified infinity?

I don't know what you are asking here. Perhaps it is because I am only familiar with the original Star Trek - the one with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. "Beam me up Scotty. I think I had enough."

 

[Damian]

And what if it is the decision of the host-self (the material self) to "uncreate" itself? To have nothing to do with Reality? To take the blue pill, as it were? Would God honor the request?

Then you would experience illusions instead of reality. But God cannot really uncreate his Self.

"Death is the central dream from which all illusions stem." - "A Course in Miracles"

 

[freelight]

fusion............

fusion............

And what if it is the decision of the host-self (the material self) to "uncreate" itself? To have nothing to do with Reality? To take the blue pill, as it were? Would God honor the request?

Some religious schools hold that a soul being eternal in nature, cannot 'uncreate' itself, because it cannot die or cease to be. Annihilation would be impossible if such were the case. We'd have to delve into and define what 'death' is, and the terms 'soul de-struction' or 'dis-integration' are probably helpful here, seeing that a living soul is comprised of component parts, as it were.

The mortal or material self had a beginning in time, and is not promised immortality or eternal life, unless it chooses to do God's will, choosing Life, fusing with the spirit-fragment of God (the thought-adjuster), living in harmony with Spirit, etc. At some point then in the mortals progress, the soul eventually 'fuses' with the Spirit-adjuster...and from that time on...the soul is 'immortalized', there being a marriage for all eternity of the soul and 'God'.
So, true immortality ultimately depends on 'fusion'


pj

 

[Damian]

Some religious schools hold that a soul being eternal in nature, cannot 'uncreate' itself, because it cannot die or cease to be. Annihilation would be impossible if such were the case. We'd have to delve into and define what 'death' is, and the terms 'soul de-struction' or 'dis-integration' are probably helpful here, seeing that a living soul is comprised of component parts, as it were.

Also, there are some schools of thought that teach that souls are not separate (which is the Course's position...although the Course actually employs the term "mind" rather than "soul").

The mortal or material self had a beginning in time, and is not promised immortality or eternal life, unless it chooses to do God's will, choosing Life, fusing with the spirit-fragment of God (the thought-adjuster), living in harmony with Spirit, etc. At some point then in the mortals progress, the soul eventually 'fuses' with the Spirit-adjuster...and from that time on...the soul is 'immortalized', there being a marriage for all eternity of the soul and 'God'.
So, true immortality ultimately depends on 'fusion'

It seems to me that the UB has a rather negative view of mysticism. Is that a fair assessment?

 

[Lost Comet]

"You will awaken to your own call, for the Call to awake is within you." - "A Course in Miracles"

Yes, but not by effort on your part.

You seem to be misinformed. The Course does not teach meditation.

Really?

Workbook Lesson 1
Nothing I See Means Anything.

Nothing I see in this room [on this street, from this window, in this place] means anything.

Now look slowly around you, and practice applying this idea very specifically to whatever you see:

This table does not mean anything.

This chair does not mean anything.

This hand does not mean anything.

This foot does not mean anything.

This pen does not mean anything.

Then look farther away from your immediate area, and apply the idea to a wider range....​

This is a meditation!

Happy?

Who's happiness?

Why the separation?

"Love separates for the sake of union." - Rumi

But if you really want a full-fledged metaphysical explanation, then you will probably have to read Hegel or Whitehead. As I said before, the Course is not really given to metaphysics. Also, the Course is not concerned with the past or the future - only with the here and now.

Tried that. And the Course is psychology wearing a metaphysical cloak, probably to lull the reader into thinking something new and profound is being said. Nothing can be further from the truth.

I don't know what you are asking here. Perhaps it is because I am only familiar with the original Star Trek - the one with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. "Beam me up Scotty. I think I had enough."

By delineating between existential and experiential Deity, the UB explains what ACIM ignores: why and how separation is mutually beneficial.

Rumi notwithstanding, ACIM is circular and self-defeating: a mistake was made and it must be healed by realizing the mistake never happened.

 

[Damian]

Yes, but not by effort on your part.

I agree - at least in the final analysis.

"When peace comes at last to those who wrestle with temptation and fight against the giving in to sin; when the light comes at last into the mind given to contemplation; or when the goal is finally achieved by anyone, it always comes with just one happy realization; "I need do nothing." - "A Course in Miracles"

That "I need do nothing" is very Zen-like.

Really?
This is a meditation!

I guess we have very different definitions of meditation.

Who's happiness?

God's Self.

By delineating between existential and experiential Deity, the UB explains what ACIM ignores: why and how separation is mutually beneficial.

And how exactly is this critical piece of information helping you achieve spiritual enlightenment?

 

[Lost Comet]

Also, there are some schools of thought that teach that souls are not separate (which is the Course's position...although the Course actually employs the term "mind" rather than "soul").

Let's assume the soul is eternal (not to be confused with "immortal").

Before the beginning that never was, God was one. Being one, he became lonely, and so he became many. Being the effect of a perfect Primary Cause, eternal souls would themselves be perfect, unless you were willing to concede that the Perfect would author imperfection.

I am not willing to make that concession; you must if you want to explain how and why eternal souls succumbed to illusion. By not doing so, ACIM takes you in circles: you are a perfect being who made a mistake, is now insane, and must be healed by realizing that the mistake never happened.

Berkeleian philosophy is preferable.

It seems to me that the UB has a rather negative view of mysticism. Is that a fair assessment?

NO! Read the excerpt! It's cautionary, but not negative.

 

[Lost Comet]

I agree - at least in the final analysis.

"When peace comes at last to those who wrestle with temptation and fight against the giving in to sin; when the light comes at last into the mind given to contemplation; or when the goal is finally achieved by anyone, it always comes with just one happy realization; "I need do nothing." - "A Course in Miracles"

That "I need do nothing" is very Zen-like.

Yup.

I guess we have very different definitions of meditation.

There is no one methodology.

God's Self.

Yes, but remember the second part of the question: Why the illusion of separation? Why all this?

What is it about separation that makes God happy? See below.

And how exactly is this critical piece of information helping you achieve spiritual enlightenment?

It's not about "enlightenment." It's about experience, and not just the experience of enlightenment (union), but also of separation and freedom. Enlightenment being the goal is selfish, and selfishness prevents the achievement of enlightenment.

 

[freelight]

mysticism.....

mysticism.....

It seems to me that the UB has a rather negative view of mysticism. Is that a fair assessment?

Only in the extemes or misuse of such which reflects an imbalanced life, focusing more on isolation from human involvement or visionary experiences, which may include some delusion or imagination of the psyche. Otherwise, the UB presents many levels of 'mind' and 'spirit' involved in the souls evolutionary ascent and 'religious experience', via prayer, meditation, worship, contemplation, spiritual intelligence...and most important on a human level of interaction...social service, fraternity, brotherhood.

Here are some more quotes on mysticism -

100:5.8 There is great danger associated with the habitual practice of religious daydreaming; mysticism may become a technique of reality avoidance, albeit it has sometimes been a means of genuine spiritual communion. Short seasons of retreat from the busy scenes of life may not be seriously dangerous, but prolonged isolation of personality is most undesirable. Under no circumstances should the trancelike state of visionary consciousness be cultivated as a religious experience.

In Paper 100, see part 5, "Conversion and Mysticism'.

101:1.1 True religion is not a system of philosophic belief which can be reasoned out and substantiated by natural proofs, neither is it a fantastic and mystic experience of indescribable feelings of ecstasy which can be enjoyed only by the romantic devotees of mysticism. Religion is not the product of reason, but viewed from within, it is altogether reasonable. Religion is not derived from the logic of human philosophy, but as a mortal experience it is altogether logical. Religion is the experiencing of divinity in the consciousness of a moral being of evolutionary origin; it represents true experience with eternal realities in time, the realization of spiritual satisfactions while yet in the flesh.

pj

 

[Caino]

Adding to freelights line of thinking:


.....btw freelight, I shut down my Face Book page, it was causing problems. It can be a weird phenomenon that social networking stuff. didn't want you to think you were unfriended.

ok,

RELATIVITY OF CONCEPT FRAMES​

115:1.1 "Partial, incomplete, and evolving intellects would be helpless in the master universe, would be unable to form the first rational thought pattern, were it not for the innate ability of all mind, high or low, to form a universe frame in which to think. If mind cannot fathom conclusions, if it cannot penetrate to true origins, then will such mind unfailingly postulate conclusions and invent origins that it may have a means of logical thought within the frame of these mind-created postulates. And while such universe frames for creature thought are indispensable to rational intellectual operations, they are, without exception, erroneous to a greater or lesser degree.

115:1.2 Conceptual frames of the universe are only relatively true; they are serviceable scaffolding which must eventually give way before the expansions of enlarging cosmic comprehension. The understandings of truth, beauty, and goodness, morality, ethics, duty, love, divinity, origin, existence, purpose, destiny, time, space, even Deity, are only relatively true. God is much, much more than a Father, but the Father is man's highest concept of God; nonetheless, the Father-Son portrayal of Creator-creature relationship will be augmented by those supermortal conceptions of Deity which will be attained in Orvonton, in Havona, and on Paradise. Man must think in a mortal universe frame, but that does not mean that he cannot envision other and higher frames within which thought can take place.

115:1.3 In order to facilitate mortal comprehension of the universe of universes, the diverse levels of cosmic reality have been designated as finite, absonite, and absolute. Of these only the absolute is unqualifiedly eternal, truly existential. Absonites and finites are derivatives, modifications, qualifications, and attenuations of the original and primordial absolute reality of infinity.

115:1.4 The realms of the finite exist by virtue of the eternal purpose of God. Finite creatures, high and low, may propound theories, and have done so, as to the necessity of the finite in the cosmic economy, but in the last analysis it exists because God so willed. The universe cannot be explained, neither can a finite creature offer a rational reason for his own individual existence without appealing to the prior acts and pre-existent volition of ancestral beings, Creators or procreators."



Caino

 

[Damian]

Let's assume the soul is eternal (not to be confused with "immortal").

Before the beginning that never was, God was one. Being one, he became lonely, and so he became many. Being the effect of a perfect Primary Cause, eternal souls would themselves be perfect, unless you were willing to concede that the Perfect would author imperfection.

I am not willing to make that concession; you must if you want to explain how and why eternal souls succumbed to illusion. By not doing so, ACIM takes you in circles: you are a perfect being who made a mistake, is now insane, and must be healed by realizing that the mistake never happened.

Berkeleian philosophy is preferable.

To reiterate: The Course is not attempting to provide a philosophical or metaphysical solution. Why? Because it cannot be done! Rationality only takes you to the point where you realize that a rational solution is not possible. At the end of the day we are left with a paradox...a mystery. That's why I said the Course qualifies as a form of mysticism.

Merriam-Webster defines "mysticism" as "the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)"

The ego will keep asking...but why?...but why?... but why? That's what will take you in circles. Having said that, the Course does provide a working theology. The creation, the separation, and the unification occurred as one simultaneous act in eternity. God is love and "love separates for the sake of union." That's what creation involves. That's just the way it is.

 

[Damian]

I guess we have very different definitions of meditation.

There is no one methodology.

Agreed. But I do not call that "exercise" meditation. It all depends on on how you define the term. By the way, the Course actually teaches that its "metholodogy" (if that is the right word) is much more efficient than contemplation or meditation.

What is it about separation that makes God happy?

Because that's how he comes to know himself. Awareness must separate in order for self-awareness to occur. God comes to know his self through "us" - the "thoughts" of God.

And how exactly is this critical piece of information helping you achieve spiritual enlightenment?

It's not about "enlightenment." It's about experience, and not just the experience of enlightenment (union), but also of separation and freedom.

I thought you had a problem with "separation." Now it would appear that you want to experience the separation. Which one is it?

Enlightenment being the goal is selfish, and selfishness prevents the achievement of enlightenment.

Sounds like a paradox to me. It also sounds like the goal is actually spiritual enlightenment (to know God).

Just curious. Is the God of the UB in eternity or time?

 

[Damian]

Only in the extemes or misuse of such which reflects an imbalanced life, focusing more on isolation from human involvement or visionary experiences, which may include some delusion or imagination of the psyche. Otherwise, the UB presents many levels of 'mind' and 'spirit' involved in the souls evolutionary ascent and 'religious experience', via prayer, meditation, worship, contemplation, spiritual intelligence...and most important on a human level of interaction...social service, fraternity, brotherhood.

Here are some more quotes on mysticism

What about "sat chit ananda?" What about "non-dual awareness?"

 

[freelight]

A totality of reality approach, a cosmic overlay.......

A totality of reality approach, a cosmic overlay.......

What about "sat chit ananda?" What about "non-dual awareness?"

The UB does not come from that premise alone, as does Advaita Vedanta and other forms of non-duality, which is a path that one can take based more in jnana-yoga, the direct-path approach to Self-realization(knowledge), where there is no seperation between the 'Self' and 'God' for 'God' is the Only Infinite Self, 'Brahman' and 'atman' being of one qualitative substance, and identity. We of course pursue the pure non-dual path in our Non-Duality thread. The UB presents a cosmology of the totality of reality, both from the infinite and finite perspectives,..but mostly from the latter...for our benefit...so everything shared expands the maximum language capacities for explaining the cosmos 'relationally'. The spaceless, timeless, absolute, eternal, infinite Being of 'God' Itself, cannot be comprehended by finite man, apart from the fragment of infinite in his own soul (the Thought-Adjuster) and what may be acquired when the soul fuses with the Father-fragment in future eternity.

The Papers are consonant with a traditional Christian theology (using the terms of popular theology and human knowledge) and conception of 'God' yet expand and augment such with-in a greater cosmic comprehension and infinite perspective, correcting some misperceptions in traditional Christian theology, being what the celestials call the Fifth Epochal Revelation (EFR) to our planet (Urantia)...Jesus' ministry (bestowal) was the 4th, if my memory serves me.

The Papers are great for expanding the mortal finite view to cosmic proportions, expanding its vision of the timeless, absolute, eternal infinite Deity, the divine purpose of creation, the orders of angels or 'divine Sons', the ascension-plan of the mortals of space and time (us), and most importantly the ministry of Jesus, who is our Creator-Son, the actual sovereign Lord and Creator of this local universe, who incarnated here. We've already shared in our 2 Urantia threads resource links covering the similarities and differences that UB theology has with traditional/orthodox Christianity.

Dr. Meredith J. Sprunger has many excellent articles on the subject -

UB deviations from traditional christian doctrine

:thumb:


pj