Jump to content
Urantia Book Forum, conversations with other readers
-Scott-

Can an evil life lead to death?

Recommended Posts

Getting down to fundamentals, it is neither the soul nor the mind that chooses. Only the personality has free will. Only the personality can choose. Only the personality can make decisions.

 

It follows, therefore, that when horses and dogs appear to be making choices, they are not in fact doing so.

 

This makes me wonder whether all of my apparent choices are actual choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll reproduce this quote again. Maybe it will help delineate the difference between a natural form of will derived from the lower adjutants and free will as a function of personality.

 

 

130.2.8 That afternoon Jesus and Ganid had both enjoyed playing with a very intelligent shepherd dog, and Ganid wanted to know whether the dog had a soul, whether it had a will, and in response to his questions Jesus said: “The dog has a mind which can know material man, his master, but cannot know God, who is spirit; therefore the dog does not possess a spiritual nature and cannot enjoy a spiritual experience.
The dog may have a will derived from nature and augmented by training, but such a power of mind is not a spiritual force, neither is it comparable to the human will, inasmuch as it is not reflective — it is not the result of discriminating higher and moral meanings or choosing spiritual and eternal values.
It is the possession of such powers of spiritual discrimination and truth choosing that makes mortal man a moral being, a creature endowed with the attributes of spiritual responsibility and the potential of eternal survival.” Jesus went on to explain that it is the absence of such mental powers in the animal which makes it forever impossible for the animal world to develop language in time or to experience anything equivalent to personality survival in eternity. As a result of this day’s instruction Ganid never again entertained belief in the transmigration of the souls of men into the bodies of animals.

 

Here is another quote that explains the difference between human personality and human adjutant mind. Personality has an indigenous ability to react to morality. Personalities have indigenous morality and virtue whereas the animal minds (lower human adjutant mind included) have indigenous intuitions related to duty.

 

16:7.1 Intelligence alone cannot explain the moral nature.
Morality, virtue, is indigenous to human personality.
Moral intuition, the realization of duty, is a component of human mind endowment and is associated with the other inalienables of human nature: scientific curiosity and spiritual insight. Man’s mentality far transcends that of his animal cousins, but it is his moral and religious natures that especially distinguish him from the animal world.

 

Therefore, all of your moral decisions are made by your personality, whereas your reflex decisions related to duty may be derived from the animal level of mind. I believe that most of our decisions are hybrids. Those that lean more toward virtue and righteousness (supremacy) are the circle making decisions of personality which grow the soul.

 

 p1210:1  110:6.6 Every decision you make either impedes or facilitates the function of the Adjuster; likewise do these very decisions determine your advancement in the circles of human achievement. It is true that the supremacy of a decision, its crisis relationship, has a great deal to do with its circle-making influence; nevertheless, numbers of decisions, frequent repetitions, persistent repetitions, are also essential to the habit-forming certainty of such reactions.
Edited by Bonita

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's interesting but not quite what I was after. Let me try a different tack. The omments you made, such as "Only thr personality can choose. Only personality makes decisions," sounded like you think all choices, not just moral ones, require personality. Now I'm not so sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those statements were in reference to the topic of the thread, "can an evil life lead to death" – choices that determine whether or not the a person survives into eternity. Clearly, some decisions are reflex decisions that do not require personality at all, such as the decision to remove your finger from an open flame. My comments were in regards to decisions that determine whether or not a person chooses to go on as a universe phenomenon. I hope I'm clear. I'm trying to keep my posts short and to the point. Sometimes these little details fall through the cracks with this approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The soul cannot be used to make decisions until after death when it becomes the basis for the new mind; all it can do during one's earthly life is reinforce the decisions made by personality.

 

That is what I am referencing. At death when our soul choose survival, I am curious if some people's souls do not choose eternal survival even before they have become iniquitous. It seem's like there are many people who's soul's do not choose to survive once material life is over and for the life of me I cannot comprehend how this is possible outside of Inquity. Perhaps only an Iniquitous persons soul would not choose this eternal career. I know alot of people think that only an Iniquitous person can lose survival but I cannot help but think that sometimes people who are not necessarily dead inside reject eternal survival. Though I could be wrong, maybe iniquity is the only way to destruction.

 

 

Obviously though I understand many people do go to the mansion world's and are given a 2nd chance at the end of an age when all the sleeping survivor's awake, so I suppose this is where so many people find themselves on a sin stricken world like our's.

 

The passage about an adjuster who has been in 15 previous human being's has alway's made me wonder though, I have a hard time imagining this adjuster being in 15 iniquitous human being', but perhaps that is just what happened all of them. I just wonder if some people choose to forsake the eternal career at death even before they become iniquitous.

 

Neither does the soul make final decisions until death or translation divorces it from material association with the mortal mind except when and as this material mind delegates such authority freely and willingly to such a morontia soul of associated function.

 

 

That's interesting but not quite what I was after. Let me try a different tack. The omments you made, such as "Only thr personality can choose. Only personality makes decisions," sounded like you think all choices, not just moral ones, require personality. Now I'm not so sure

 

Yea IMO I think there is a huge difference between personality descision's and animal descision's. Hence why (IMO) a person who is not born of spirit is destined to be a "intellectual parrot" or a "social automation" without spiritual insight we don't really activate our personality and we just sort of respond based on our animal tendancy's. Of coarse I don't believe that any child or really young person can reach a point of "social automation" or "intellectually parroting" I think people have to put alot of effort into rejecting the leading's of their thought adjuster to finally achieve this state of being and I believe this take some year's of conditioning.

Edited by boomshuka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's interesting but not quite what I was after. Let me try a different tack. The omments you made, such as "Only thr personality can choose. Only personality makes decisions," sounded like you think all choices, not just moral ones, require personality. Now I'm not so sure.

 

I didn't have much time yesterday to develop this, but this morning I have a little time and I want to make it clear, again, that the personality is responsible for free will. There are at least two instances that I'm aware of in TUB that describe either will derived from nature or the partial emergence of will. The Book does not elaborate on that, but it does go out of its way to define the free will that functions in will creatures. In Paper 66 that we're reading in OPAD, the revelator defines will as: "the ability to choose the path of eternal survival . . ." and that it " . . . has developed in the mind of primitive man."

 

Mind is necessary for human will to function, but free will is not indigenous to mind; it is the property of the personality using the mind. I believe that will derived from nature and the phenomenon of partial emergence of will is, however, indigenous to mind. For the purpose of this discussion on survival, I am using the term "will" or "free will" as the revelator intended, "the ability to choose the path of eternal survival . . ."

 

I think that a lot of confusion develops over the use of the words "decision" and "choice/choose", both of which take place in mind (and soul, which is morontia mind); but, the two words, "decision" and "choice" are not synonymous with the word "will". Will is that feature of personality which enforces and executes the decisions and choices made by mind. Will is more aptly described as "the POWER of choice" or the "decision-making POWER", and it belongs to personality, not to mind.

 

107:7.5 Throughout a universe of created beings and nonpersonal energies
we do not observe will, volition, choice, and love manifested apart from personality.

 

110:2.5 You as a personal creature have mind and will. The Adjuster as a prepersonal creature has premind and prewill. If you so fully conform to the Adjuster’s mind that you see eye to eye, then your minds become one, and you receive the reinforcement of the Adjuster’s mind. Subsequently,
if your will orders and enforces the execution of the decisions of this new or combined mind,
the Adjuster’s prepersonal will attains to personality expression through your decision, and as far as that particular project is concerned, you and the Adjuster are one. Your mind has attained to divinity attunement, and the Adjuster’s will has achieved personality expression.

 

29:4.13 Personality is not necessarily a concomitant of mind.
Mind can think even when deprived of all power of choice
, as in numerous of the lower types of animals and in certain of these subordinate physical controllers.

 

On another note, Boom continues to state that the soul chooses survival at death. Technically speaking, it is not the soul that chooses survival at death. Only the personality can choose survival and it does so by transferring its seat of identity from the material mind to the soul. This is the work of the personality and it is accomplished within the psychic circles prior to death. It cannot be twisted around backwards, the way Boom is suggesting, where the soul makes a choice for the personality to survive, although I admit that it sounds more poetic. That's just not the way it works according to TUB and I keep trying to get this point across with apparently little success. It's a fine point but essential to understanding the work of the personality in its relation to the soul during our short but eventful lives.

 

112:5.4 But mortal personality, through its own choosing, possesses the power of transferring its seat of identity from the passing material-intellect system to the higher morontia-soul system which, in association with the Thought Adjuster, is created as a new vehicle for personality manifestation.

 

The work of the personality is most profound and obvious when our personalities are under attack. God chose to allow Jesus to be a perfect example of what to do when our personality is attacked. Jesus said: “resist not evil treatment of one’s personality, evil injury to one’s feelings of personal dignity.” The entire Passion played out in an exquisitely plain and obvious manner in order for us to see the majesty of personality as it makes choices to survive against all manner of evil without one scintilla of defense, revenge, hostility, retaliation, vitriol, animosity or anything short of perfection of will (God's will). It's all about the personality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't have much time yesterday to develop this, but this morning I have a little time and I want to make it clear, again, that the personality is responsible for free will. There are at least two instances that I'm aware of in TUB that describe either will derived from nature or the partial emergence of will. The Book does not elaborate on that, but it does go out of its way to define the free will that functions in will creatures. In Paper 66 that we're reading in OPAD, the revelator defines will as: "the ability to choose the path of eternal survival . . ." and that it " . . . has developed in the mind of primitive man."

 

The word "will" seems to be used a bit loosely in the UB. As a philosopher, these things draw my attention like a magnet. I want to know whether "will" and "free will" are interchangeable, or whether, according to the UB, there is such a thing as will that is not free.

 

107:7.5 Throughout a universe of created beings and nonpersonal energies we do not observe will, volition, choice, and love manifested apart from personality.

 

The dog may have a will derived from nature and augmented by training, but such a power of mind is not a spiritual force, neither is it comparable to the human will, inasmuch as it is not reflective — it is not the result of discriminating higher and moral meanings or choosing spiritual and eternal values.

 

On the face of it, this is a contradiction. The dog has a natural will, so it's false that we do not observe will apart from personality. But the passage, which you quoted, goes on:

 

but such a power of mind is not a spiritual force, neither is it comparable to the human will, inasmuch as it is not reflective — it is not the result of discriminating higher and moral meanings or choosing spiritual and eternal values.

 

Okay. So, when I choose what to order from a restaurant menu, am I exercising my will? My free will? When my dog chooses, or seems to choose, which food to eat, if I offer more than one, is he exercising will?

 

A few posts back, you wrote:

 

Clearly, some decisions are reflex decisions that do not require personality at all, such as the decision to remove your finger from an open flame. My comments were in regards to decisions that determine whether or not a person chooses to go on as a universe phenomenon.

 

You don't really regard reflex behaviors as decisions, do you? Such behavior is involuntary, after all. There is a meaningful distinction between voluntary and involuntary behavior. Volition, or "act of will" appears to have something to do with it, no? If volition is not seen apart from personality, then what distinguishes voluntary from involuntary behavior in dogs? Or do you think there is no such distinction in dogs.

 

Mind is necessary for human will to function, but free will is not indigenous to mind; it is the property of the personality using the mind. I believe that will derived from nature and the phenomenon of partial emergence of will is, however, indigenous to mind. For the purpose of this discussion on survival, I am using the term "will" or "free will" as the revelator intended, "the ability to choose the path of eternal survival . . ."

 

It's a very unfortunate definition, since in normal English the terms "will" and "free will" have much broader application. It's not clear from this definition whether choosing a shirt involves free will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

Good thread Boom,

 

Does this quote speak at all to the thread's title question? The word "antagonism" stands out, eh?

 

...But mortal mind without immortal spirit cannot survive. The mind of man is mortal; only the bestowed spirit is immortal. Survival is dependent on spiritualization by the ministry of the Adjuster--on the birth and evolution of the immortal soul; at least, there must not have developed an antagonism towards the Adjuster's mission of effecting the spiritual transformation of the material mind.... P.565 - §1

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I am not saying that the soul is directing the personality.

 

What I am trying to understand is how someone would not choose survival after death and yet not be iniquitous -if thats even possible-. For the longest time I couldn't understand how a personality and soul would not want to go to the mansion world's.

 

Yea Rick that quote definitely helps me understand how someone could put themselves in a position to reject survival.

 

I am just trying to understand the different way's that people can put themselves in jeopordy.

Edited by boomshuka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The word "will" seems to be used a bit loosely in the UB. As a philosopher, these things draw my attention like a magnet. I want to know whether "will" and "free will" are interchangeable, or whether, according to the UB, there is such a thing as will that is not free.

 

107:7.5 Throughout a universe of created beings and nonpersonal energies we do not observe will, volition, choice, and love manifested apart from personality.

 

Again, I'm now a little short on time but I'd like to throw out a few observations and thoughts before I get involved in something else and completely forget (senility). If you look at the above quote, you will notice that they are talking about created beings. It is my understanding that when TUB is talking about created beings they are talking about will creatures. The term "will creature" is fairly specific in TUB and refers to human beings as the lowest level of will creatures. Therefore, other creatures, such as animals, would not be considered will creatures or created "beings".

 

The dog may have a will derived from nature and augmented by training, but such a power of mind is not a spiritual force, neither is it comparable to the human will, inasmuch as it is not reflective — it is not the result of discriminating higher and moral meanings or choosing spiritual and eternal values.

 

On the face of it, this is a contradiction. The dog has a natural will, so it's false that we do not observe will apart from personality. But the passage, which you quoted, goes on:

 

but such a power of mind is not a spiritual force, neither is it comparable to the human will, inasmuch as it is not reflective — it is not the result of discriminating higher and moral meanings or choosing spiritual and eternal values.

 

Okay. So, when I choose what to order from a restaurant menu, am I exercising my will? My free will? When my dog chooses, or seems to choose, which food to eat, if I offer more than one, is he exercising will?

 

Again, the dog is not a created being, but one might wonder then, "What is natural will? It is my understanding that natural will is not free will; it has not been completely released from dependence on antecedent causation and response. The reason why the dog chooses to eat or not to eat something is based upon cause and effect, whereas your decision to eat scallops or shrimp may be based upon something else unrelated to cause and effect. That's not to say that the human mind does not also make decisions based upon cause and effect. It means that the free will is capable of giving power to decisions other than those. (hope that's clear)

 

5:6.8 Having thus provided for the growth of the immortal soul and
having liberated man’s inner self from the fetters of absolute dependence on antecedent causation, the Father stands aside
. Now, man having thus been liberated from the fetters of causation response, at least as pertains to eternal destiny, and provision having been made for the growth of the immortal self, the soul,
it remains for man himself to will the creation or to inhibit the creation
of this surviving and eternal self which is his for the choosing. No other being, force, creator, or agency in all the wide universe of universes can interfere to any degree with the absolute sovereignty of the mortal free will, as it operates within the realms of choice, regarding the eternal destiny of the personality of the choosing mortal. As pertains to eternal survival, God has decreed the
sovereignty of the material and mortal will
, and that decree is absolute.

 

You don't really regard reflex behaviors as decisions, do you? Such behavior is involuntary, after all. There is a meaningful distinction between voluntary and involuntary behavior. Volition, or "act of will" appears to have something to do with it, no? If volition is not seen apart from personality, then what distinguishes voluntary from involuntary behavior in dogs? Or do you think there is no such distinction in dogs.

 

Well, this is the fuzzy area that confuses most TUB readers and we attempted to breach this subject on the Mind and Minds thread. The first mind adjutant, the spirit of intuition, is the one that involves perception and reflex. The second mind adjutant is the spirit of understanding, also known as the spirit of prompt decision, and involves the association of ideas. There is nothing to suggest that a reflex withdrawal of a finger from the fire is an active decision since it involves only the first mind adjutant, but that is only because the reflex activity occurs at the spinal cord level. The very same impulse that causes you to pull your finger away as a reflex continues to travel up the cord to the brain which assesses the reason why it happened through the association of ideas, as well as the actual perception of pain. It's a matter of the amount of time it takes to traverse the nervous system and nothing else. Have you ever noticed that you will pull your finger away from something that is very hot before you actually feel the pain? The experience of pain is delayed. That's because of the extra length of axon the nerve impulse has to travel to reach the brain for the perception to be interpreted as an experience, the experience of pain. If we had our brains up our butts, then we wouldn't have the luxury of spinal reflex arcs and would have to reason our way through every decision and mankind would never survive. We'd have to feel pain first and then decide whether or not we want to remove our finger from the fire. By then it would be burnt off. What's unique about mind and the spirit of understanding is that once the reflex activity happens and the mind experiences the pain, the spirit of understanding enables the animal or human to make the decision to avoid putting the finger into fires.

 

36:5.6 1.
The spirit of intuition
— quick perception, the primitive physical and inherent reflex instincts, the directional and other self-preservative endowments of all mind creations; the only one of the adjutants to function so largely in the lower orders of animal life and the only one to make extensive functional contact with the nonteachable levels of mechanical mind.

36:5.7 2.
The spirit of understanding
— the impulse of co-ordination, the spontaneous and apparently automatic association of ideas. This is the gift of the co-ordination of acquired knowledge, the phenomenon of quick reasoning, rapid judgment, and
prompt decision
.

 

So no, I don't think the reflex itself is a decision, but it is part of a decision that has nothing at all to do with free will. It is part of a cause and effect reaction that results in a primitive form of learning, something a dog or any animal is capable of. The difference between human free will and that type of will is that a human can hear about another person getting burned by putting his/her finger in the fire and make a decision not to do it without ever having experienced it himself. There is no antecedent causation necessary for that freewill decision.

 

It's a very unfortunate definition, since in normal English the terms "will" and "free will" have much broader application. It's not clear from this definition whether choosing a shirt involves free will.

 

Consider the following quote:

 

110:6.6
Every decision
you make either impedes or facilitates the function of the Adjuster; likewise do these very decisions determine your advancement in the circles of human achievement. It is true that the supremacy of a decision, its crisis relationship, has a great deal to do with its circle-making influence; nevertheless, numbers of decisions, frequent repetitions, persistent repetitions, are also essential to the habit-forming certainty of such reactions.

 

TUB says EVERY decision. It does not say every moral decision; it says every decision. A lot of people balk at that and don't agree that whether or not you choose a short-sleeved or long-sleeved shirt, blue or white, fitted or full-cut, silk or cotton, buttoned collar or stays, cufflinks or no cufflinks makes any difference whatsoever to God. TUB admits that these decisions are not supremacy or crisis decisions, but how do we know for sure if they are not important decisions? I know a person who refuses to hire anyone who shows up at an interview without a suit and a white long-sleeved dress shirt. He wants to see the cuffs hanging a certain length below the jacket sleeve, anything else is a non-hire. Now why does this matter? Maybe the individual applying for that job really needs to get it for his good and the good of others, and one bad shirt decision can ruin his chances. This is an extreme example, but I don't think anyone can say with certainty that these decisions don't matter on some level. So, whether or not I choose to eat the yogurt or the banana bread for breakfast may not matter a hill of beans to God, but it might, so I ask. We're a team, but my personality is in charge of making the freewill choice after we discuss the various options. But I confess that I live my inner life much differently than most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I am not saying that the soul is directing the personality.

 

What I am trying to understand is how someone would not choose survival after death and yet not be iniquitous -if thats even possible-. For the longest time I couldn't understand how a personality and soul would not want to go to the mansion world's.

 

Yea Rick that quote definitely helps me understand how someone could put themselves in a position to reject survival.

 

I am just trying to understand the different way's that people can put themselves in jeopordy.

 

Boom, it's simple. It's called ego. Survival demands sacrifice of selfishness. Some people don't want to do that. The question is why? I'm thinking it has to do with power and willfulness. (Look at Lucifer)

 

p1590: 03 Jesus portrayed conquest by sacrifice, the
sacrifice of pride and selfishness.

 

146:2.5 4. There is a basic law of justice in the universe which mercy is powerless to circumvent.
The unselfish glories of Paradise are not possible of reception by a thoroughly selfish creature of the realms of time and space.
Even the infinite love of God cannot force the salvation of eternal survival upon any mortal creature who does not choose to survive. Mercy has great latitude of bestowal, but, after all, there are mandates of justice which even love combined with mercy cannot effectively abrogate. Again Jesus quoted from the Hebrew scriptures: “I have called and you refused to hear; I stretched out my hand, but no man regarded. You have set at naught all my counsel, and you have rejected my reproof, and because of this rebellious attitude it becomes inevitable that you shall call upon me and fail to receive an answer. Having rejected the way of life, you may seek me diligently in your times of suffering, but you will not find me.”

 

111:1.9 Mind is your ship, the Adjuster is your pilot, the human will is captain. The master of the mortal vessel should have the wisdom to trust the divine pilot to guide the ascending soul into the morontia harbors of eternal survival.
Only by selfishness, slothfulness, and sinfulness can the will of man reject the guidance of such a loving pilot
and eventually wreck the mortal career upon the evil shoals of rejected mercy and upon the rocks of embraced sin. With your consent, this faithful pilot will safely carry you across the barriers of time and the handicaps of space to the very source of the divine mind and on beyond, even to the Paradise Father of Adjusters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a philosopher, these things draw my attention like a magnet.

As well they should! And who can forget our issues with the concept of Truth. The sort of Truth that idealists "live or die for" is clearly different from that trueness we associate with mere facts. In paper 101 [(1111.4) 101:5.14], Truth is described as a "technique of personality assurance", something made accessible to us [(1111.8) 101:6.4], personally, by our Adjuster and Michael's Spirit of Truth. As has been pointed out before, such a concept of Truth really needs its own word. Likewise with Love.

 

But getting back to will. I think Bonita's thoughts about the "fetters of antecedent causation" point the way:

 

"[...] and having liberated man’s inner self from the fetters of absolute dependence on antecedent causation, the Father stands aside."

In the context of personality performance, the intension of the concept of will seems grander that just rational and logical choice. Such discrimination is what the various levels of mind seem designed for. But the UB is introducing a meaning for will that seems aligned with our direction of intent, or the roots of our motivation. This is the "free will" that can choose to launch out in the sole company of TRUTH:

 

"Faith most willingly carries reason along as far as reason can go and then goes

on with wisdom to the full philosophic limit; and then it dares to launch out upon

the limitless and never-ending universe journey in the sole company of TRUTH."

[(1141.5) 103:9.7]

Recall that the authors warned us, twice [(9.4) 0:6.2, (469.1) 42:2.1] about "such paucity of language".

 

Loving the truths of will :)

Nigel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, I'm now a little short on time but I'd like to throw out a few observations and thoughts before I get involved in something else and completely forget (senility). If you look at the above quote, you will notice that they are talking about created beings. It is my understanding that when TUB is talking about created beings they are talking about will creatures. The term "will creature" is fairly specific in TUB and refers to human beings as the lowest level of will creatures. Therefore, other creatures, such as animals, would not be considered will creatures or created "beings".

 

I just browsed all instances of "created being(s)" and you appear to be right. It's (yet another) odd usage, since animals appear to be "created" by the same intelligently designed evolutionary processes that gave rise to us. And since the word "creature" means nothing other than "created being", there seems to be no reason to assert that dogs and horses are not created beings.

 

Again, the dog is not a created being, but one might wonder then, "What is natural will? It is my understanding that natural will is not free will; it has not been completely released from dependence on antecedent causation and response. The reason why the dog chooses to eat or not to eat something is based upon cause and effect, whereas your decision to eat scallops or shrimp may be based upon something else unrelated to cause and effect. That's not to say that the human mind does not also make decisions based upon cause and effect. It means that the free will is capable of giving power to decisions other than those. (hope that's clear)

 

Well, it's as clear as it could be, given that this is one of the most vexing issues in metaphysics. Philosophers refer to this as a "contracausal conception of free will". I'm just in the middle of yet another book on this very issue (Rationality in Action, by John Searle). The dog's choice may be causally determined, but it is still a choice of some sort. It's not an involuntary behavior, like a sneeze or a reflex response.

 

Well, this is the fuzzy area that confuses most TUB readers and we attempted to breach this subject on the Mind and Minds thread. The first mind adjutant, the spirit of intuition, is the one that involves perception and reflex. The second mind adjutant is the spirit of understanding, also known as the spirit of prompt decision, and involves the association of ideas. There is nothing to suggest that a reflex withdrawal of a finger from the fire is an active decision since it involves only the first mind adjutant, but that is only because the reflex activity occurs at the spinal cord level. The very same impulse that causes you to pull your finger away as a reflex continues to travel up the cord to the brain which assesses the reason why it happened through the association of ideas, as well as the actual perception of pain. It's a matter of the amount of time it takes to traverse the nervous system and nothing else. Have you ever noticed that you will pull your finger away from something that is very hot before you actually feel the pain? The experience of pain is delayed. That's because of the extra length of axon the nerve impulse has to travel to reach the brain for the perception to be interpreted as an experience, the experience of pain.

 

To my way of thinking, there's nothing mindal about reflex action at all. We can build robots with reflexes, like

, that reflexively rights itself when thrown off balance. For us, things like the startle response are reflexes, not initiated by volition, not chosen, and often not even subject to conscious veto. We engage in many behaviors automatically, that is, without conscious control, although we can take over conscious control of them, for a while anyway. We don't normally choose the movements that constitute walking; we just choose the destination. But we can, if we like, try to choose how to place each foot on the ground, and so on. Walking is not a reflex behavior, but it is partly automatic. We consciously choose to start and stop walking; that's what makes it voluntary, even if most of the actual process is automatic. Catching one's balance when one slips is a reflex behavior, however.

 

What's unique about mind and the spirit of understanding is that once the reflex activity happens and the mind experiences the pain, the spirit of understanding enables the animal or human to make the decision to avoid putting the finger into fires.

 

An interesting question is whether it's only a decision for freewill creatures. For animals, perhaps it's merely operant conditioning.

 

We have a four year-old dog. When he was about 7 months old, he was run over by a bicyclist. The bike literally ran right over the middle of him, sending him rolling and screaming in the dirt. Incredibly, there were no serious injuries. I thought he'd probably bleed internally and die, but he didn't even limp, after a day or so. But he still is extremely nervous around bicycles, and tries to avoid them. I expect that will be part of him for the rest of his life.

 

Human beings are much the same, at least in terms of tendencies, but we can and sometimes do, make the conscious choice to override the conditioning, to confront the stimulus and veto the response. It's not easy, of course, but it's an option. That extra level of executive capacity appears to be the domain of personality. It involves, among other things, conceptualizing the future, a prerogative of personality, according to the UB.

 

So no, I don't think the reflex itself is a decision, but it is part of a decision that has nothing at all to do with free will. It is part of a cause and effect reaction that results in a primitive form of learning, something a dog or any animal is capable of. The difference between human free will and that type of will is that a human can hear about another person getting burned by putting his/her finger in the fire and make a decision not to do it without ever having experienced it himself. There is no antecedent causation necessary for that freewill decision.

 

I agree, although I'd say "sufficient" rather than "necessary". And, as explained above, the ability to veto our conditioning, is another mark of free will.

 

Consider the following quote:

 

110:6.6
Every decision
you make either impedes or facilitates the function of the Adjuster; likewise do these very decisions determine your advancement in the circles of human achievement. It is true that the supremacy of a decision, its crisis relationship, has a great deal to do with its circle-making influence; nevertheless, numbers of decisions, frequent repetitions, persistent repetitions, are also essential to the habit-forming certainty of such reactions.

 

TUB says EVERY decision. It does not say every moral decision; it says every decision. A lot of people balk at that and don't agree that whether or not you choose a short-sleeved or long-sleeved shirt, blue or white, fitted or full-cut, silk or cotton, buttoned collar or stays, cufflinks or no cufflinks makes any difference whatsoever to God. TUB admits that these decisions are not supremacy or crisis decisions, but how do we know for sure if they are not important decisions? I know a person who refuses to hire anyone who shows up at an interview without a suit and a white long-sleeved dress shirt. He wants to see the cuffs hanging a certain length below the jacket sleeve, anything else is a non-hire. Now why does this matter? Maybe the individual applying for that job really needs to get it for his good and the good of others, and one bad shirt decision can ruin his chances. This is an extreme example, but I don't think anyone can say with certainty that these decisions don't matter on some level. So, whether or not I choose to eat the yogurt or the banana bread for breakfast may not matter a hill of beans to God, but it might, so I ask. We're a team, but my personality is in charge of making the freewill choice after we discuss the various options. But I confess that I live my inner life much differently than most.

 

Again, I agree with you. This can't be right! I never agree with you more than once per post! Although I'm not a fan of much of existentialism, I do agree with one of its axioms: All decisions are formative, and therefore none are truly inconsequential. When explaining this to students, I use the metaphor of a block of marble. The sculptor knocks a bit off with each tap of the chisel. It can't be put back. Decisions are like that. Each one "sculpts" one's basic nature as a person. That is, each one, no matter how trivial, contributes to what sort of person one is. It's inescapable. From the standpoint of the UB, the morontia soul takes the place of the block of marble, I suppose. Much lighter, too.

 

I'd go with the yogurt.

 

@boom -- I think one of the best representations of how and why people might not choose survival, even after death, is found in C. S. Lewis's book The Great Divorce. If you haven't read it, I strongly recommend it. It's a kind of afterlife scenario where a bus leaves each day from Purgatory to Heaven. At the outskirts of Heaven, people discover what it takes to stay there, and they typically get back on the bus and return. The place they return to is Purgatory is they finally leave it; Hell if they don't. You may not care for the theology of Heaven and Hell (although it makes better sense than any other attempt that I've seen to make these concepts intelligible), but the psychology of the choice is masterfully presented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea just the thought adjuster who has been in 15 different human's has made me wonder that there are perhaps many humans who do not choose survival after death and for the life of me I couldnt understand that. But perhaps there is a self induced -natural- resistance to the spiritual world in some human being's that they have developed by their own free will. God knows why anyone would do that hahah. I guess Power and a craving for destruction would be 2 possible answer's.

 

Anyway's Regarding free-will I love these quotes in the u.b

 

The Urantia Book, (54:2.2)

 

The moral will creatures of the evolutionary worlds are always bothered with the unthinking question as to why the all-wise Creators permit evil and sin. They fail to comprehend that both are inevitable if the creature is to be truly free. The free will of evolving man or exquisite angel is not a mere philosophic concept, a symbolic ideal. Man's ability to choose good or evil is a universe reality. This liberty to choose for oneself is an endowment of the Supreme Rulers, and they will not permit any being or group of beings to deprive a single personality in the wide universe of this divinely bestowed liberty--not even to satisfy such misguided and ignorant beings in the enjoyment of this misnamed personal liberty.

 

 

 

The Urantia Book, (7:0.5)

When matter, mind, and spirit are unified by creature personality, we are unable fully to predict the decisions of such a freewill being.

 

Here's one that tie's into the current topic.

 

The Urantia Book, (48:6.6)

 

Evolutionary man finds it difficult fully to comprehend the significance and to grasp the meanings of evil, error, sin, and iniquity. Man is slow to perceive that contrastive perfection and imperfection produce potential evil; that conflicting truth and falsehood create confusing error; that the divine endowment of freewill choice eventuates in the divergent realms of sin and righteousness; that the persistent pursuit of divinity leads to the kingdom of God as contrasted with its continuous rejection, which leads to the domains of iniquity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Boom, all,

 

I still think the mind is where we get into trouble. I ran across this paragraph while looking for something else and I think these statements apply to the topic.

 

P.69 - §8
Eternal survival of personality is wholly dependent on the choosing of the mortal mind, whose decisions determine the survival potential of the immortal soul. When the mind believes God and the soul knows God, and when, with the fostering Adjuster, they all
desire
God, then is survival assured. Limitations of intellect, curtailment of education, deprivation of culture, impoverishment of social status, even inferiority of the human standards of morality resulting from the unfortunate lack of educational, cultural, and social advantages, cannot invalidate the presence of the divine spirit in such unfortunate and humanly handicapped but believing individuals. The indwelling of the Mystery Monitor constitutes the inception and insures the possibility of the potential of growth and survival of the immortal soul.

 

All the best,

Meredith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here's another paragraph that applies:

 

P.142 - §1
Mortal man has a spirit nucleus. The mind is a personal-energy system existing around a divine spirit nucleus and functioning in a material environment. Such a living relationship of personal mind and spirit constitutes the universe potential of eternal personality. Real trouble, lasting disappointment, serious defeat, or inescapable death can come only after self-concepts presume fully to displace the governing power of the central spirit nucleus, thereby disrupting the cosmic scheme of personality identity.

 

Inescapable death an only come after self-concepts presume fully to displace. . . .

 

All the best,

Meredith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just browsed all instances of "created being(s)" and you appear to be right. It's (yet another) odd usage, since animals appear to be "created" by the same intelligently designed evolutionary processes that gave rise to us. And since the word "creature" means nothing other than "created being", there seems to be no reason to assert that dogs and horses are not created beings.

 

I still haven't quite figured out the TUB rules for using words like: creatures, beings, persons, entities and identities. They seem to delineate a difference between entities, beings and personalities but it's not entirely clear to me when it is proper to use each one. Obviously, those entities and beings without personality cannot be called personalities, but I always thought beings were persons and entities were generally things or "other-than-human persons" . . . apparently not so. Likewise, there are creatures that are not persons, but are they beings or entities or something else?

 

Well, it's as clear as it could be, given that this is one of the most vexing issues in metaphysics. Philosophers refer to this as a "contracausal conception of free will". I'm just in the middle of yet another book on this very issue (Rationality in Action, by John Searle). The dog's choice may be causally determined, but it is still a choice of some sort. It's not an involuntary behavior, like a sneeze or a reflex response.

 

I believe that the dog's ability to choose is not based upon reflection (ability to comprehend meaning). The dog cannot fathom time, that is, what happened yesterday and what might happen tomorrow if I make this choice. Also, the dog mind cannot comprehend the meaning behind cause and effect in such a way to utilize it creatively or manipulate it. A dog can be trained to connect a certain cause with a certain effect, but I don't believe it can imagine an effect without such training.

 

Jesus taught Ganid that the dog has a will derived from nature and he described it as coming from mind, and I think that this is the distinction. Free will is a feature of personality whereas partial will or natural will is a feature of mind alone. Personality has the freedom and power to put will derived from mind into action based upon the phenomenon of consciousness, another unique feature of personality. So, when TUB uses phrases like, " Eternal survival of personality is wholly dependent on the choosing of the mortal mind," they take it for granted that it is the personality choosing options presented by mind, since personality cannot make choices without mind (as far as I understand it).

 

I also think what is meant by the term, "partial emergence of will" means the ability of only six of the seven mind adjutants to make contact and function with a creature mind. Once the seventh adjutant makes contact and becomes functional, a creature becomes more than just a creature, it becomes a "will creature". Personality does not begin to function until all seven adjutants are in use and this coincides with the seventh psychic circle.

 

p1209:1  110:6.1  The sum total of personality realization on a material world is contained within the successive conquest of the seven psychic circles of mortal potentiality.
Entrance upon the seventh circle marks the beginning of true human personality function.

 

p1210:08
The seventh circle
.
This level is entered when human beings develop the powers of personal choice, individual decision
, moral responsibility, and the capacity for the attainment of spiritual individuality.
This signifies the united function of the seven adjutant mind-spirits under the direction of the spirit of wisdom,
the encircuitment of the mortal creature in the influence of the Holy Spirit, and, on Urantia, the first functioning of the Spirit of Truth, together with the reception of a Thought Adjuster in the mortal mind. Entrance upon the seventh circle constitutes a mortal creature a truly potential citizen of the local universe.

 

I think the only clues that TUB gives us about the transition from creature will to will creature is in the story of Andon and Fonta. TUB tells us exactly when they became will creatures, yet it seems as though they were clearly able to make decisions prior to that point, which suggests that there was natural will and then the partial emergence of will prior to the appearance of bona fide will which allowed our planet to be registered as an inhabited world.

 

The sixth adjutant made contact with the twins when they were ten years old. TUB says it signified something akin to human mind (partial emergence of will), and a year later they made a decision which resulted in being recognized as human (will creatures). But prior to this, when they were nine years old, they made a series of decisions/agreements which tells me that there was some kind of will present. I'm also under the inclination that they had personality that was not fully functional, which would make them different from other creatures, such as dogs. So I'm not 100% certain that this example is wholly transferrable to animals.

 

62:5.8 When about nine years of age, they journeyed off down the river one bright day and held a momentous conference. Every celestial intelligence stationed on Urantia, including myself, was present as an observer of the transactions of this noontide tryst. On this eventful day they arrived at an understanding to live with and for each other, and this was the first of a
series of such agreements
which finally culminated in the decision to flee from their inferior animal associates and to journey northward, little knowing that they were thus to found the human race.

 

62:5.9 While we were all greatly concerned with what these two little savages were planning, we were powerless to control the working of their minds;
we did not—could not—arbitrarily influence their decisions.
But within the permissible limits of planetary function, we, the Life Carriers, together with our associates, all conspired to lead the human twins northward and far from their hairy and partially tree-dwelling people. And so, by reason of their own intelligent choice, the twins did migrate, and because of our supervision they migrated northward to a secluded region where they escaped the possibility of biologic degradation through admixture with their inferior relatives of the Primates tribes.

 

62:6.5 Imagine our joy one day—the twins were about ten years old—when the spirit of worship made its first contact with the mind of the female twin and shortly thereafter with the male. We knew that something closely akin to human mind was approaching culmination; and when, about a year later, they finally resolved, as a result of meditative thought and purposeful decision, to flee from home and journey north, then did the spirit of wisdom begin to function on Urantia and in these two
now recognized human minds
.

 

Here is a quote that mentions bona fide will:

 

24:2.8 Census Directors register the existence of a new will creature when the first act of will is performed; they indicate the death of a will creature when the last act of will takes place. T
he partial emergence of will observed in the reactions of certain of the higher animals
does not belong to the domain of the Census Directors. They keep count of nothing but
bona fide will creatures
, and they are responsive to nothing but will function. Exactly how they register the function of will, we do not know.

 

Here is another quote that suggests that human beings go through similar phases of will prior to the appearance of bona fide will. We know that children do not usually enter into the seventh psychic circle until their fifth year. Prior to that, I believe they have personality but not fully functional personality (ability to utilize free will) and therefore do not have bona fide will. This quote describes the criteria the Thought Adjuster considers before selecting a human to indwell. In the quote, note the reference to the seventh adjutant, the spirit of wisdom.

 

108:1.4 1. Intellectual capacity. Is the mind normal? What is the intellectual potential, the intelligence capacity?
Can the individual develop into a bona fide will creature? will wisdom have an opportunity to function?

 

Again, I agree with you. This can't be right! I never agree with you more than once per post!

 

I know! I'm in such a state of shock, I hardly know what to say . . . haven't been able to think straight ever since. I think it may have actually caused a break in the time-space continuum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea just the thought adjuster who has been in 15 different human's has made me wonder that there are perhaps many humans who do not choose survival after death and for the life of me I couldnt understand that. But perhaps there is a self induced -natural- resistance to the spiritual world in some human being's that they have developed by their own free will. God knows why anyone would do that hahah. I guess Power and a craving for destruction would be 2 possible answer's.

 

Hi Boom,

 

First let me apologize for wandering into a conversation about free will. And then, let me thank you for being so gracious to tolerate it. I'm sure that you think that I'm just being picky about who or what does the choosing to survive, and in a way, on the surface it doesn't really matter because the decision not to survive has to be one that involves the entire/whole personality, which would include mind and soul.

 

120:2.9 But no superhuman repercussions will attend your earthly career apart from the will of the Paradise Father unless you should, by an act of conscious and deliberate will, make an undivided decision which would terminate in
whole-personality choice
.

 

So, I guess you're wondering why 15 people would make a conscious, deliberate, whole-personality choice not to survive. Let me say that anything one does consciously and knowingly that goes against or is disloyal to the will of God is sin. It is when this becomes a habit and a preference that it becomes iniquity. Iniquity does not have to be murder, rape and mayhem; it can simply be the loss of the desire to be like God. If we make it a habit to push God away in favor of our own ideas and desires, then we essentially cut him off and make it impossible to survive.

 

p150:03,13:4.5 The determiner of the differential of spiritual presence exists in your own hearts and minds and consists in the manner of your own choosing, in the decisions of your minds, and in the determination of your own wills. This differential is inherent in the freewill reactions of intelligent personal beings, beings whom the Universal Father has ordained shall exercise this liberty of choosing. And the Deities are ever true to the ebb and flow of their spirits in meeting and satisfying the conditions and demands of this differential of creature choice,
now bestowing more of their presence in response to a sincere desire for the same and again withdrawing themselves from the scene as their creatures decide adversely in the exercise of their divinely bestowed freedom of choice. And thus does the spirit of divinity become humbly obedient to the choosing of the creatures of the realms.

 

13:4.4 Physical authority, presence, and function are unvarying in all the universes, small or great. The differing factor in spiritual presence, or reaction, is the fluctuating differential in its recognition and reception by will creatures. Whereas the spiritual presence of absolute and existential Deity is in no manner whatever influenced by attitudes of loyalty or disloyalty on the part of created beings, at the same time
it is true that the functioning presence of subabsolute and experiential Deity is definitely and directly influenced by the decisions, choices, and will-attitudes of such finite creature beings — by the loyalty and devotion of the individual being
, planet, system, constellation, or universe. But this spiritual presence of divinity is not whimsical nor arbitrary; its experiential variance is inherent in the freewill endowment of personal creatures.

 

 

Why the Adjuster leaves during the life of a person and why an Adjuster does not return to claim a sleeping survivor I believe has much to do with the receptive willingness of the personality to receive him. TUB tells us that human things/persons must be known in order to be loved but spiritual things/beings must be loved in order to be known. If there is no love for God, God cannot show up. That's why I don't get upset when my sons tell me that they don't believe in God. Belief in God is not as important as love of truth, beauty and goodness which are attributes of God and necessities of love. My sons do love truth, beauty and goodness and they are very loving people, therefore I know they will more than likely survive.

 

102:1.1 The work of the Thought Adjuster constitutes the explanation of the translation of man’s primitive and evolutionary sense of duty into that higher and more certain faith in the eternal realities of revelation.
There must be perfection hunger in man’s heart
to insure capacity for comprehending the faith paths to supreme attainment. If any man chooses to do the divine will, he shall know the way of truth. It is literally true, “Human things must be known in order to be loved, but
divine things must be loved in order to be known
.” But honest doubts and sincere questionings are not sin; such attitudes merely spell delay in the progressive journey toward perfection attainment. Childlike trust secures man’s entrance into the kingdom of heavenly ascent, but progress is wholly dependent on the
vigorous exercise of the robust and confident faith
of the full-grown man.

 

There are a lot of different issues to discuss surrounding the question as to why a person would spurn the love of God but this post is already too long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again Boom,

 

Another thought occurred to me last night. One of the big reasons personalities disintegrate is pride.

 

111:6.9 Of all the dangers which beset man’s mortal nature and jeopardize his spiritual integrity,
pride is the greatest
. Courage is valorous, but egotism is vainglorious and suicidal. Reasonable self-confidence is not to be deplored. Man’s ability to transcend himself is the one thing which distinguishes him from the animal kingdom.

 

111:6.10 Pride is deceitful, intoxicating, and sin-breeding whether found in an individual, a group, a race, or a nation. It is literally true, “pride goes before a fall.”

 

163:6.6 And now, while I would not quench your spirit of rejoicing, I would sternly warn you against the subtleties of pride, spiritual pride. If you could understand the downfall of Lucifer, the iniquitous one, you would solemnly shun all forms of spiritual pride.

 

179:4.2 Jesus said: “While it is necessary that I go to the Father, it was not required that one of you should become a traitor to fulfill the Father’s will. This is the coming to fruit of the concealed evil in the heart of one who failed to love the truth with his whole soul. How deceitful is the intellectual pride that precedes the spiritual downfall! My friend of many years, who even now eats my bread, will be willing to betray me, even as he now dips his hand with me in the dish.”

 

Not all pride is bad, it's the pride that results in an attitude of self-admiration that is so destructive. I don't think it's an accident that TUB goes into so much detail about the pride in Lucifer and Judas, two vainglorious and suicidal personalities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest one4all
Hi again Boom,

 

179:4.2
Jesus said:
"
While it is necessary that I go
[(mandatory)]
to the Father, it
was not
required
[(optional)]
that one of you should become a traitor to fulfill the Father's will
[(prophetic)]
. This is the coming to fruit
[ion]
of the
concealed
[one-under-cover-of-darkness]
evil
[(this is not who or what you may think)]
in the heart of one who failed
[NOT]
to love
[(deceptive-staightment)]
the truth with his whole soul. How deceitful is the
intellectual
[mind]
pride that precedes the spiritual
[mind]
downfall!
My friend of many years
, who even now eats my bread, will be
willing
to betray me, even as
he
now dips his hand
[is]
with me
in the dish
[death]
."

!Never voluntier unless you know the consiquences!

Not all pride is bad, it's the pride that results in an attitude [(attribute)] of self-admiration that is so destructive. I don't think it's an accident that TUB goes into so much detail about the pride in Lucifer and Judas, two vainglorious and suicidal personalities.

 

Just had to add a thought, i'm loving it.

Edited by one4all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I read there really got me curious. This concept that jesus spoke about really peaked my curiosity

"all forms of spiritual pride"
I wonder if it is possible to grab a hold of spiritual substance and distort it so much that it could potentially cut us off from the guidance of the thought adjuster more quickly than just a regular material pride.

 

I think about a kid or young person who is pridefull who fall's again and again and its almost childish, yet when I think about "spiritual pride" this seem's much more dangerous. One of my favourite movies "There Will Be Blood" I think gives a good example of this. In the movie One man is pridefull in a material sense, he want's nothing more than to just make money for himself. Yet there is another character in the movie who pretends to be a messenger of god in order to gain attention for himself and he almost half heartidly believe's in his mission even though he is clearly a fraud. I just like how the movie contrasts 2 different forms of evil with just the regular old pride for material thigns where someone is just "ignorant" or uknowing of spiritual reality's and than the more ugly form of spiritual pride. Anyway's the Pharasee's in Jesus day also seem to have grabbed a hold of this "spiritual pride" and in jesus' dealings with them he seemed to have a much more dier warning to them. -Im just sort of rambling hahah.-

 

 

Of coarse though I guess when someone is living in this type of evil they would definitely be sinning a pretty good clip hahah so I suppose its impossible to just be purely evil and not sin at some point. This topic makes me curious about something else as well. Spiritual being's like Lucifer etc must not be innately divine. Yet a lowly human being is indwelt by an Extremely Divine being "thought adjuster". I find it amazing that such a lowly creature like us can be given a guide of divinity directly from god, yet a being born in a high place like Lucifer is not given such a divine gift to help him connect directly to the divine source "God".

 

The adjuster's presence makes me think how we are Literlaly Sons of God. :D. Amazing to think that a lowly creature like us can actually have god's living presence within our own being :). You would almost think that someone would have to be born as an incredible spiritual being to have god's living presence, yet here we are as "material creatures of time and space" with that ability to literlaly have god become living within us as shown by the life of Jesus.

 

I wonder if apart of Lucifer Looked opun the Thought Adjuster's with distain and contempt much like Judas looked opun Jesus with distain and contempt. -Just speculating- lol.

Edited by boomshuka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest one4all
Something I read there really got me curious. This concept that jesus spoke about really peaked my curiosity I wonder if it is possible to grab a hold of spiritual substance and distort it so much that it could potentially cut us off from the guidance of the thought adjuster more quickly than just a regular material pride.

 

I think about a kid or young person who is pridefull who fall's again and again and its almost childish, yet when I think about "spiritual pride" this seem's much more dangerous. One of my favourite movies "There Will Be Blood" I think gives a good example of this. In the movie One man is pridefull in a material sense, he want's nothing more than to just make money for himself. Yet there is another character in the movie who pretends to be a messenger of god in order to gain attention for himself and he almost half heartidly believe's in his mission even though he is clearly a fraud. I just like how the movie contrasts 2 different forms of evil with just the regular old pride for material thigns where someone is just "ignorant" or uknowing of spiritual reality's and than the more ugly form of spiritual pride. Anyway's the Pharasee's in Jesus day also seem to have grabbed a hold of this "spiritual pride" and in jesus' dealings with them he seemed to have a much more dier warning to them. -Im just sort of rambling hahah.-

 

 

Of coarse though I guess when someone is living in this type of evil they would definitely be sinning a pretty good clip hahah so I suppose its impossible to just be purely evil and not sin at some point. This topic makes me curious about something else as well. Spiritual being's like Lucifer etc must not be innately divine. Yet a lowly human being is indwelt by an Extremely Divine being "thought adjuster". I find it amazing that such a lowly creature like us can be given a guide of divinity directly from god, yet a being born in a high place like Lucifer is not given such a divine gift to help him connect directly to the divine source "God".

 

The adjuster's presence makes me think how we are Literlaly Sons of God. :D . Amazing to think that a lowly creature like us can actually have god's living presence within our own being :) . You would almost think that someone would have to be born as an incredible spiritual being to have god's living presence, yet here we are as "material creatures of time and space" with that ability to literlaly have god become living within us as shown by the life of Jesus.

 

I wonder if apart of Lucifer Looked opun the Thought Adjuster's with distain and contempt much like Judas looked opun Jesus with distain and contempt. -Just speculating- lol.

 

 

Boomshuka: I like the Movie/Media reference; Like they say a picture is worth a 1000 words. Regarding Danager; I believe that the best visual media that I have seen to date that really represents the dangers of what can happen to the mind when one no longer has a filter or controller like a thought adjuster is the movie "The Thirteenth Floor".

It's actually too real to life of what I think you might be looking for as the danger you might be referring too.

It is a difficult DVD to find. If you have a desire to watch it and can not find a copy I can mail you my copy. The movie takes from the past into the future. If you need more info and links let me know!

Edited by one4all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure I will check it out and let you know what I think I watch alot of movies online threw Megavideo, or I will download them threw Isohunt hahah I am not a saint.

Edited by boomshuka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi boom!

 

I wonder if a part of Lucifer looked upon the Thought Adjuster's with distain and contempt much like Judas looked opun Jesus with distain and contempt..

Interesting speculation. This highlights one of many Lanonandek dilemmas: for us our Adjuster offers a hint of a glimpse of purpose beyond the finite, beyond the experience of these youngest of Local Universe Sons:

 

The Thought Adjuster is the cosmic window through which the finite creature may faith-glimpse the certainties and divinities of limitless Deity, the Universal Father." [(1129.1) 103:0.1]

Do Lanonandeks have such a cosmic window? While we increasingly come to know -- experientially -- our Adjuster, Adjusters are by nature beyond the perception (and understanding) of Lanonandeks. With regard to the very existence of Adjusters, Lanonandeks must use the challenging technique of faith. They say that in Nebadon, this need allows for an exquisite opportunity for Local Sons to grow. But as those of us from quarantined worlds know, there is a cost :)

 

Nigel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi boom!

 

 

Interesting speculation. This highlights one of many Lanonandek dilemmas: for us our Adjuster offers a hint of a glimpse of purpose beyond the finite, beyond the experience of these youngest of Local Universe Sons:

 

 

Do Lanonandeks have such a cosmic window? While we increasingly come to know -- experientially -- our Adjuster, Adjusters are by nature beyond the perception (and understanding) of Lanonandeks. With regard to the very existence of Adjusters, Lanonandeks must use the challenging technique of faith. They say that in Nebadon, this need allows for an exquisite opportunity for Local Sons to grow. But as those of us from quarantined worlds know, there is a cost :D

 

Nigel

 

Yea that's why I thought that maybe Lucifer would resent human's and Thought adjuster's because we are given this opportunity to move beyond faith into experience of sonship by actually discovering the living God within our mind's where as these being's must rely on Faith and a long long period of time of slow ascension. We have an ascension that is like an elevator. I mean Jesus of Nazereth literlaly made it possible for human being's to really know God within a SHORT period of time..... (32) year's was his life span right? 32 year's and he showed it was possible for mortal's to literly discover god.

 

It reminds me of the character of the Eternal Son, and how even though the eternal son is no where near as powerfull as God he is able to Love created beings just as much as God can. Just as this love of jesus for human being's can literlaly become a love that we can have for other human being's and all of this is possible with the thought adjuster who can channel divine goodness into human's :).

 

(IMO) Becaues of the Thought Adjuster we are able to have a Rightousness/ Character / love that is divine like where as these being's must aquire this character/ ability to love threw their own experience without the aid of a thought adjuster making their ascent to divinity a little bit slower. Obviously though the powerfull nature of a being like Lucifer won't be something we aquire untill much later, but in rightousness we can probably surpass these beings in a short span of time as shown by Jesus who was probably functioning on a rightous level far greater than anything we can imagine. I am not saying mortals are better hahah, just its pretty obvious with Jesus that human's can attain a rightous character that is incredibly strong in a Very short period of time.

 

-just ranting-....hahah...I guess another way to look at is human beings are capable of attaining God-likeness (adjuster likeness). Not in the sense of sheer power, but in the truest sense of what god is (Love) and divine rightouesness. Ultimately God is Love and we are given the oppurtunity to transfer our Value's and morales from human to divine from the finite to infinity and from temporal to eternal.

 

(1118.3) 102:0.3 This saving faith has its birth in the human heart when the moral consciousness of man realizes that human values may be translated in mortal experience from the material to the spiritual, from the human to the divine, from time to eternity.

 

In that very sentance they say from "human to the divine" makes me feel even more sure that in this life time while we cannot be divine in the power sense, we can acheive a rightous character derived from human value's that is divine, and nothing is more god-like than a rightous character, seing as though God is Love. Of coarse it would be nice to be aware of all things at once hahaha i'd be happy with that god power to hahah Im just joking.

 

Of coarse Paradise Sons and Daughter's are born into Divinity and born as Rightouss beings hahah.

Edited by boomshuka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...