Jump to content
Urantia Book Forum, conversations with other readers

Recommended Posts

One mistake I have recently discovered that I made, is that I had a traditional catholic view on the Trinity. It would seem that I was looking at the Trinity upside down. The u.b describes that the Father, Son and Spirit escaping The Trinity. This Trinity seems to be on a level of Infinity above the Absoluteness of the Father, Son and Spirit in infinity and it is something other than the combination of just 3 beings.

 

 

 

 

108.1) 10:0.1 THE Paradise Trinity of eternal Deities facilitates the Father’s escape from personality absolutism

 

 

 

 

 

(108.3) 10:0.3 From the present situation on the circle of eternity, looking backward into the endless past, we can discover only one inescapable inevitability in universe affairs, and that is the Paradise Trinity. I deem the Trinity to have been inevitable. As I view the past, present, and future of time, I consider nothing else in all the universe of universes to have been inevitable. The present master universe, viewed in retrospect or in prospect, is unthinkable without the Trinity. Given the Paradise Trinity, we can postulate alternate or even multiple ways of doing all things, but without the Trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit we are unable to conceive how the Infinite could achieve threefold and co-ordinate personalization in the face of the absolute oneness of Deity. No other concept of creation measures up to the Trinity standards of the completeness of the absoluteness inherent in Deity unity coupled with the repleteness of volitional liberation inherent in the threefold personalization of Deity

 

 

So it would seem that the Father, Spirit and Son come from this Trinity. The Trinity does not come from the Father, Spirit or Son. These 3 beings escaped the Trinity. Yet these 3 personalizations of God still can interact in the Trinity as a union of three Deities.

 

 

(116.4) 10:8.3 The Universal Father, the Eternal Son, and the Infinite Spirit are, in a certain sense, the constituent personalities of total Deity. Their union in the Paradise Trinity and the absolute function of the Trinity equivalate to the function of total Deity. And such completion of Deity transcends both the finite and the absonite.

 

So if the Father escaped the Trinity, its likely IMO that he gave up being the only being in reality by doing so. It seems he stepped down from this Infinite God post to be a Father Infintie, and by doing so self-distributed himself in an act of unselfishness and love.

 

 

108.4) 10:1.1 It would seem that the Father, back in eternity, inaugurated a policy of profound self-distribution. There is inherent in the selfless, loving, and lovable nature of the Universal Father something which causes him to reserve to himself the exercise of only those powers and that authority which he apparently finds it impossible to delegate or to bestow.

 

So that answers the queston of why there are other beings. God wanted to experience other beings, so he self-distributed himself in order to experience relationships with other beings, but in doing so he gave up being a being that transcends even the absolute. Yet he didn't give this up totatally, because he still can interact with that aspect of himself that he escaped.

Edited by -Scott-
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest EEB aka AASB-AWSW

. . . .

108.4) 10:1.1 It would seem that the Father, back in eternity, inaugurated a policy of profound self-distribution. There is inherent in the selfless, loving, and lovable nature of the Universal Father something which causes him to reserve to himself the exercise of only those powers and that authority which he apparently finds it impossible to delegate or to bestow.

 

So that answers the queston of why there are other beings. God wanted to experience other beings, so he self-distributed himself in order to experience relationships with other beings, but in doing so he gave up being a being that transcends even the absolute. Yet he didn't give this up totatally, because he still can interact with that aspect of himself that he escaped.

 

So, if He escaped from paradise, thereby being able to distribute Himself infinitely throughout via the Thought Adjuster, and "reserve to himself the exercise of only those powers and that authority which he apparently finds it impossible to delegate or to bestow" would not Lucifer been correct to say that He was not in paradise, and only the idea of Him being their was that of the Son's? Also, it would appear that His wish that His children fuse with Him is His way of distributing His abilities throughout the Grand Universe thereby activating the Supreme Powers through His Will being done, and ultimately being able to associate with the Mother Spirit?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if He escaped from paradise,

 

Its saying that the Father escaped the Paradise Trinity. Not Paradise. He did this so that beings like Lucifer could exist. He put self imposed limits and laws on himself so that we could exist, its not that he had to. God could have remained the Infinite God and remained a being that is essentially limitless reality and everything all at once, but instead he escaped the Trinity and self distributed himself in different personalizations. He actually sacrified unlimited power and unlimited reality of being and put self imposed limitations on himself so that others could fit into reality instead of him just taking up all of reality in all directions. Yet he remains One with all these different facets of himself in this Trinity. This Father-Infinite exists. If he wanted to though he could take all those self imposed restrictions off himself and fill all of reality.

(117.1) 10:8.9 Only infinity can disclose the Father-Infinite.

 

The interesting thing about the Thought Adjusters is that they come from the Infinite Upholder aspect of god. They do not come directly from his personality. If the father were to inject his personality into this reality he would take up all space in all directions. Instead he put space inbetween himself and us so that we would have room to exist and self distributed himself "supreme being". Yet these distributions, personalizations are still God and God is still the Father its just that God is also much more than just a Father.

Edited by -Scott-
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Scott,

 

I get the impression that the Paradise Trinity is simply the inevitable technique by which the Father-Infinite delegates. By delegating the housekeeping of Cosmos-Infinite to Trinity corporation, Dad becomes free to focus on the reason for which He set up the qualified domains (matter, mind, spirit): making possible personal relationships, and then infinitely amplifying those relationships.

 

This may not make much sense until we get a feel for the true nature of personality, and its relationship to love.

 

Nigel

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok ... very carefully notice the wording there, -Scott-

 

The quote does not say that the Father escaped from the Paradise Trinity.

 

Instead, the quote does say that the Father escaped from personality absolutism.

And the quote also says that the way that escape from personality absolutism occurred - what facilitated that escape - was the Paradise Trinity.

 

So - in order to keep from being "imprisoned" in personality absolutism, the Paradise Trinity was formed, which enabled the Father to thus "escape" that personality absolutism.

 

 

 

 

And always remember - taking about imprisonments and escapes is time talk about something that never happened. There never was a point in the distant past when the Father was ostensibly imprisoned in personality absolutism such that any so-called escape was necessary, because there never was a point when the Father was alone. No matter how far back you go (or how far forward you go) there always was, and always will be, the Paradise Trinity.

 

Because the three Sources-Centers are eternal - which means that none of them ever had a beginning (such that at one point they did not exist, but then they were sourced into being), and none of them ever will have an end.

Edited by Absonite
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quote is not ambiguous, in my opinion. Perhaps it would be more valuable to analyze what is meant by personality absolutism in order to understand why the Trinity is necessary in order for the Father to escape from it and why he would want to escape it in the first place.

 

In the very most simple of terms: Personality absolutism means that there could be no other personality than the Universal Father. In that case he's not really a Father, is he? You can't be a father without having a "son". The Trinity allows for fatherhood and the generation of a multitude of personalities (all in his image, by the way). Personality absolutism disallows relationships and God is all about relationships of every kind.

 

10:3.7 In bestowing absoluteness of personality upon the Eternal Son, the Universal Father escapes from the fetters of personality absolutism, but in so doing he takes a step which makes it forever impossible for him to act alone as the personality-absolute. And with the final personalization of coexistent Deity - the Conjoint Actor - there ensues the critical trinitarian interdependence of the three divine personalities with regard to the totality of Deity function in absolute.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The author states that the Trinity was the only inevitable thing in existence, or perhaps it was pre-existence.

I deem the Trinity to have been inevitable. As I view the past, present, and future of time, I consider nothing else in all the universe of universes to have been inevitable.

That includes the three persons, this Trinity is how god has multiple personalizations, because god originally was just one being. Also the trinity transcends the absolute. Which is another clue.

 

This one God has multiple personalizations.

we are unable to conceive how the Infinite could achieve threefold and co-ordinate personalization in the face of the absolute oneness of Deity.

 

I think this quote gives us the same picture. We start off with the Infinite, and than we move to a threefold personalization. That oneness of Deity still remains.

 

Also If the Trinity was just meerly these 3 beings how could it function in relation to these beings at the same time?

Edited by -Scott-
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This really is an interesting topic! It has me thinking, does Lucifer think or believe there is something beyond personality?

 

Well the father is more than just a personality so yes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bonita

 

Describing personality absolutism as meaning that there could be no other personality is an excellent explanation, Bonita.

 

 

 

@-Scott-

 

Yes - the three personalities that the UB references as the Paradise Deities are inevitable because they are eternal. Being eternal (having no beginning and no ending) means that there's just no getting back to any point when all three of them did not exist.

 

I do not see how the other quotes you posted show that the Paradise Deities preclude (prevent) those three deific persons because, well, the Paradise Deities are those three deific persons.

 

Talking about the Paradise Deities as a Trinity is different than talking about them as three persons, similar to how generally talking about a family is different than specifically talking about the individual members of a family. I will use another relationship analogy here: consider just two people. There is Person A and Person B. Each of them are people. Together, Person A and Person B make a business. That business is a third factor which is neither exclusively Person A nor exclusively Person B. Just as Person A can interact in light of the business, Person B also can interact in light of the business. And the business interacts with both Person A and Person B (as well as situations, things, and being beyond those two Persons). So that is an answer via analogy to your question about how the Trinity (which is the Paradise Business) functions in relation to those three Persons at the same time.

 

 

@brooklyn_born

 

It's going to be very easy here to get this thread off the often squirrely theological topic of trinity by diving into talk about Lucifer. To stop that from happening, I made another thread dealing with discerning and discussing Lucifer's problem. Could you continue conversation along that line there, please, just to be sure we don't get diverted here from this discussion as relevant to the Paradise Deities and their three-fold situations?

Edited by Absonite
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the father is more than just a personality so yes.

 

 

TUB is not quite such straightforward and linearly thought out a text it seems. You raised a very interesting topic, Boom. Has Chris done a show on this subject?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bonita

 

Describing personality absolutism as meaning that there could be no other personality is an excellent explanation, Bonita.

 

 

 

@-Scott-

 

Yes - the three personalities that the UB references as the Paradise Deities are inevitable because they are eternal. Being eternal (having no beginning and no ending) means that there's just no getting back to any point when all three of them did not exist.

 

I do not see how the other quotes you posted show that the Paradise Deities preclude (prevent) those three deific persons because, well, the Paradise Deities are those three deific persons.

 

Talking about the Paradise Deities as a Trinity is different than talking about them as three persons, similar to how generally talking about a family is different than specifically talking about the individual members of a family. I will use another relationship analogy here: consider just two people. There is Person A and Person B. Each of them are people. Together, Person A and Person B make a business. That business is a third factor which is neither exclusively Person A nor exclusively Person B. Just as Person A can interact in light of the business, Person B also can interact in light of the business. And the business interacts with both Person A and Person B (as well as situations, things, and being beyond those two Persons). So that is an answer to your question about how the Trinity (which is the Paradise Business) functions in relation to those two Person at the same time.

 

 

@brooklyn_born

 

It's going to be very easy here to get this thread off the often squirrely theological topic of trinity by diving into talk about Lucifer. To stop that from happening, I made another thread dealing with discerning and discussing Lucifer's problem. Could you continue conversation along that line there, please, just to be sure we don't get diverted here from this discussion as relevant to the Paradise Deities and their three-fold situations?

 

Understood! I will cut out the remarks from here and post it over to that thread.

 

BB

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

TUB is not quite such straightforward and linearly thought out a text it seems. You raised a very interesting topic, Boom. Has Chris done a show on this subject?

 

Haha yes actually I am taking what I just learned from Chris Halvorson on this topic and using it in this discussion. If you go to his audio sessions on his website and go to this paper you will see he says a lot of what I am saying.

 

It appears originally the father was all the infinite including the absolutes and that he decided to personalize himself in three beings. So this trinity fascillitated his escape as the only being in the universe. He gave up unlimited power so that others could exist. Or else he would have just filled the entirety of reality and there would have been no room for anyone or anything else.

Edited by -Scott-
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It only appears that such was the case when we're trying to craft a time-based story (which involves talking about beginnings) to describe eternal events which - by definition - had no beginning!

 

The Second Source-Center had no beginning. There was no time when the SSC did not exist. There was no time when the SSC was brought into being. Because if there was a time when the SSC did not exist, and then one day was brought into being, one thing is certain: the SSC would not be eternal.

 

Yet the SSC is eternal!

 

So the story about the FSC chillin alone, then one day deciding stuff would be much better by creating the SSC to hang-out with, is just that - a story that bottom line isn't accurate at all. Because, again, the SSC always existed, exists, and will exist.

 

The same goes for the eternality of the Third Source-Center.

There always was, is, and will be three.

 

 

 

And here's where a theological snafu which has been going round and round the mulberry bush for millennia now regarding trinity theology comes in: whether or not the three eternal Paradise Deities are indeed three distinct personalities compared to each other, instead of being simply self-differentiated aspects of one Being.

Edited by Absonite
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And here's where a theological snafu which has been going round and round the mulberry bush for millennia now regarding trinity theology comes in: whether or not the three eternal Paradise Deities are indeed three distinct personalities compared to each other, instead of being simply self-differentiated aspects of one Being.

 

It's both.

 

5:6.4 There is no personality apart from God the Father, and no personality exists except for God the Father.

 

10:2.5 The personality of the First Source and Center is the personality of infinity minus the absolute personality of the Eternal Son. The personality of the Third Source and Center is the superadditive consequence of the union of the liberated Father-personality and the absolute Son-personality.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Bonita that it is both. In some theoretical beginning there was just The Infinite God and than he personalized into these three beings yet he still remains the Infinite Father. He gave up being a being that is everything, and delegated parts of himself so that others could exist. He put self imposed limitations and laws on himself because he is unselfish. He gave up some of us unlimited nature for us to exist. That is why sharing is god-likeness because he is literally sharing himself.

Edited by -Scott-
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of those times when I don't completely consider the answer as both.

I actually do not completely consider the three Paradise Deities to be three distinct and individual persons compared to each other.

 

Regardless of how often their interaction is analogized using father and son - even if it was all flipped around with regard to gender and/or role and called mother and daughter, or if it was portrayed as just mother and son for that matter - I honestly cannot completely get past how the SSC is not simply the Absolute Personality (and how the TSC is not simply the Absolute Mind) of the FSC.

 

The only time distinct deific personalities ever seems to occur is when I analogize the situation - because the basis of the human analogy starts off from the get go resting on the fact that a human father and his son are indeed unique, different, and individual personalities compared to each other. When I approach the issue without analogizing the situation to humans at all, I don't see three distinct people-persons-personalities. Instead, I see one Being (FSC) with two aspects: Absolute Personality (SSC) and Absolute Mind (TSC) And the FSC only ever expresses and creatively acts using those two deific aspects.

 

And, so, I don't completely see either the need or the importance for the FSC to be considered a different, unique, and individual person-personality compared to the SSC and the TSC. And likewise for the other two Sources-Centers in respective comparison to the FSC.

 

 

I say completely - because I have been lately working on approaching this from a different vantage.

But I'm still working it all out.

 

So, at this point, even though I can (and do) talk about the FSC, the SSC, and the TSC - affirm that they are eternal, and go into and about their various combinations and operations in relation to the rest of reality - when it comes right down to it, I'm currently still primarily considering what I'm talking about as just discussing two different aspects of one Deity (FSC) that has one deific personality (SSC) and one deific mind (TSC).

Edited by Absonite
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it is a matter of perspective; a view of The Trinity from time and space yields a different perspective than if you were standing directly on the Eternal Isle of Paradise looking at these deities. I am not sure if the following adequately gets to that point, but it seems to suggest so IMO.

 

 

10:3.2 We are taught that the Son and the Spirit sustain the same and equal relations to the

Father in the Trinity association. In eternity and as Deities they undoubtedly do, but in

time and as personalities they certainly disclose relationships of a very diverse nature.

Looking from Paradise out on the universes, these relationships do seem to be very

similar
,
but when viewed from the domains of space, they appear to be quite different
.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea BB there are 2 perspectives that are always in play, the top down perspective and the bottom up perspective and neither one is wrong they are both right at the same time. We have the Adjuster who can help give us the top down perspective.

 

 

1261.7) 115:3.3 The primordial stasis of infinity requires segmentation prior to human attempts at comprehension. There is a unity in infinity which has been expressed in these papers as the I AM — the premier postulate of the creature mind. But never can a creature understand how it is that this unity becomes duality, triunity, and diversity while yet remaining an unqualified unity. Man encounters a similar problem when he pauses to contemplate the undivided Deity of Trinity alongside the plural personalization of God.

 

 

So they are making a connection that the I AM is similar to the Trinity in a sense that both are undivided and yet from that springs forth plurals. Ie. From the one unified I AM there springs forth the Infinite one from the Infinitude and from the Trinity springs forth the plural personalizations of god "Father, Son and Spirit". Yet even with that plural personalizations of God there remains the oneness of god. There still is only one God in a sense, yet there are many personalizations of that one God.

 

The way they set up this pagraph is completely opposite of how they would if the Trinity was merely the plural personalizations of God forming the Trinity.

 

3. The Three Persons of Deity

 

(110.7) 10:3.1 Notwithstanding there is only one Deity, there are three positive and divine personalizations of Deity. Regarding the endowment of man with the divine Adjusters, the Father said: “Let us make mortal man in our own image.” Repeatedly throughout the Urantian writings there occurs this reference to the acts and doings of plural Deity, clearly showing recognition of the existence and working of the three Sources and Centers.

 

 

I think his quote again shows that there are 3 personalizations of Deity (God). At the end of this paragraph they show that these are the 3 source and centers. The question people may have after this is well isn't the I AM everything? Isn't the First Source and Center everything? The I AM is the 7 Absolutes, there is a functional level above the Absolute and that is the Infinite. The Infinite is on a higher level than Absolute, and the Trinity is Infinite

(113.8) 10:5.7 The Trinity Infinite
. Also the First Source and Center is an anchor point in Infinity Eternity. Its the center of reality, but that does not mean it touches all of reality. That does not mean because its that anchor in reality that it touches all Infinity. The Trinity is the Deity thatdoes touch all of Infinity and at this high level of Infinity there is the Infinite Father. The Infinite Father IMO is that being that is the I Am, the diversity, the unity and the 3 persons of Paradise. If we think of these relationships instead of going in linear time like fashion and going from a top down fashion without time than I think it makes it easier to see how God is moving down all these functional levels of reality. Interesting that this is the last line in the Trinity Paper-> 117.1) 10:8.9 Only infinity can disclose the Father-Infinite.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited by -Scott-
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for starting this thread. One of the things I like about the Urantia Book is that it more clearly explains the Trinity than the Bible ever does, making the Trinity more real to me than ever before, just as it makes Jesus as the God-man more real to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to perspective consider this quote:

 

115:3.3 The primordial stasis of infinity requires segmentation prior to human attempts at comprehension. There is a unity in infinity which has been expressed in these papers as the I AM — the premier postulate of the creature mind. But never can a creature understand how it is that this unity becomes duality, triunity, and diversity while yet remaining an unqualified unity. Man encounters a similar problem when he pauses to contemplate the undivided Deity of Trinity alongside the plural personalization of God.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@brooklyn_born and -Scott-

 

I agree that the situation seems essentially different depending upon perspective.

 

The perspective I've been using for the three Sources-Centers does not result with me considering them as three different deific persons. Instead, it results with only considering one deific individual (the First Source-Center) who has two deific aspects (the Second Source-Center and the Third Source-Center).

 

So I've been working at finding a way to change my perspective here, such that there can be three deific persons; while maintaining what they represent - without causing all the rest completely to cease making motivating and inspiring sense to me. I want to experience if there is a qualitative difference from using a vantage that makes sense enough for me completely to consider the three Sources-Centers as the Paradise Posse (as three different people) - since there is no non-qualitative difference that I discern when it comes to all the rest of the teachings still working out if those three are considered as one.

 

 

You guys who already, truly, and totally run with considering the Sources-Centers as three deific persons have a leg up on me here - because you're already there! You already consider it like that, and so perhaps your issue is more considering the Sources-Centers as being one Deity, instead of as three. And, of course, there are people who totally use both perspectives. So please, bear with me here as I attempt to explain my tentative process for working this out a bit.

 

 

So, I have been approaching this by redefining how I consider deific personality. Beyond the function of relations, to date, I have considered a person to be a distinct individual - such that people are mutually exclusive individuals. With regard to Deity, I have been changing that perspective, to consider deific personalities as mutually inclusive. Specifically: mutually and concentrically inclusive.

 

Since I already consider the FSC as including the SSC and the TSC, starting has been easy. I have been taking the next step of expanding my perspective to include the other mutual concentric and inclusive possibilities. Listed out, all three are:

 

1. The FSC includes the SSC and the TSC (as aspects)

2. The SSC includes the FSC and the TSC (as aspects)

3. The TSC includes the FSC ad the SSC (as aspects)

 

i.e. One in two, and two in one - all still resulting with three different deific Paradise individuations that express with the other two in intimate inter-association.

 

So none of them are mutually exclusive, because each of them includes the others (where such mutual concentric inclusion only happens with the special case regarding deific personality). And I am at the point of now of intensely contemplating if that mutually concentric inclusion really is viable enough for me to consider #2 (SSC) and #3 (TSC) as truly different individuals - as different people - compared to #1 (FSC) and compared to each other, just as I already consider #1 (FSC) as the individual deific person that I primarily reference as God.

 

The other issue concomitant with all this that I have to bear in mind is whether or not my approach here - considering the three Sources-Centers as mutually inter-concentrically inclusive - is heretical to the point of unacceptably making the rest of the universe frame of the UB non-feasible. I know that some cosmological, theological, and philosophical limits can be pushed a bit, there is room for conceptual and ideological flexibility, without breaking the frame. But I honestly am cautiously attempting not to push such limits to the the point that my perspective becomes so wildly divergent that comprehensible focused conversation in this Forum, using the UB, cannot continue happening.

Edited by Absonite
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest EEB aka AASB-AWSW

From the following URL I found a diagram (symbol) which might better describe the paradise trinity — although in order to parallel the three deities as concentric circles we must look at them, for the moment, as shift-able.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_of_Life

 

In the above URL find a representation of three circles which are shifted, yet still attached (together) but separate, called the “Tripod of Life”. When one looks at this symbol you notice that the three circles positioned in this way will make up seven distinct separate areas. There is also one distinct area in the center, surrounded by three other areas. Also; one will notice that by looking at how the circles are positioned, there is an intersecting point within the center of each circle.

 

Keep in mind that if you imagine concentric circles, one smaller than the other within each other, you can visualize that the symbol below can be made with the three differing circle sizes.

 

200px-Tripod-of-Life_Holy-Trinity.svg.png

 

“The Tripod of Life, representing the Holy Trinity.”

 

Therefore, as Absonite posted above:

 

1. The FSC includes the SSC and the TSC (as aspects)

2. The SSC includes the FSC and the TSC (as aspects)

3. The TSC includes the FSC ad the SSC (as aspects)

 

And as the UB indicates that we should look inward, or look at the above symbol inversely, the intersected center, imagined inversely will encompass all the others, yet allowing for expansion outward. I use the word inversely but, you must image it as negatively, like turning a sock inside out. Therefore, the first source and center would be the nucleus and in essence not visible because it is surrounded by the three deities, yet on the outmost extremities, having their own areas, which have their own intersections.

Edited by EEB aka AASB-AWSW
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The other issue concomitant with all this that I have to bear in mind is whether or not my approach here - considering the three Sources-Centers as mutually inter-concentrically inclusive - is heretical to the point of unacceptably making the rest of the universe frame of the UB non-feasible.

 

I can see how there appears all these contradictions when we start to consider that these 3 Deity are also One Deity as we move up higher from the Absolute to the Infinite. The question people will ask is "well how than is the Universal father still god"? If there is this higher form of god than does that cancel out the Universal father? I see now that the answer is no. The Universal Father is still the God of Gods, yet that is not all of him. He is a personality but much greater than a personality. There is a higher aspect to the Universal Father and that is God the Father "I AM" and from that there seems to be an even higher aspect of him "The Infinite Father", and than to take that one step further there is this theoretical pre-existent reality there seemed to be an even higher form of god IMO and that is The Infinite God. IMO God in theory existed before reality began and in this state he was unlimited reality, taking up all of reality in all directions and in all places and he decided to give up this solitary existence so that he could be a Father and experience relationships. The only way for him to experience relationships with other beings was to make space for them and the only way to make space for other beings was to not fill all of reality. So he chose to take parts of himself and bestow it onto/into others and initially all of these bestowals were literal parts of him. He literally sacrificed himself for others, so that they could exist, and in the beginning the only way for other beings to exist next to this incredible being was for them to be literal parts of himself, if they were anything less they would have just been swallowed up by this one amazing and huge presence of God the Infinite. Though I still believe he holds onto aspects of this Infinite God as the Infinite Father, and I am sure even his personality is aware of what his own real high nature is. In order for human beings to exist IMO it literally took an eternity-age, IMO he had to create enough space/distance from himself in order for there to be room for little creatures to live.

 

This is just a working model I have right now though, I am probably going to tweek this as I discover more of the revelation in the u.b.

 

The authors seem to speak that the Trinity is not the same as just the 3 persons of diety working together in unison. This Trinity is undivided Deity....

1147.7) 104:3.15 The Paradise Trinity is not a triunity; it is not a functional unanimity; rather is it undivided and indivisible Deity. The Father, Son, and Spirit (as persons) can sustain a relationship to the Paradise Trinity, for the Trinity is their undivided Deity. The Father, Son, and Spirit sustain no such personal relationship to the first triunity, for that is their functional union as three persons. Only as the Trinity — as undivided Deity — do they collectively sustain an external relationship to the triunity of their personal aggregation
Edited by -Scott-
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@EEB

 

That is exactly the cross image (and looking down at it) of what I virtualized in my mind! Although I was contemplatively zooming around and through the image of them as three interconnected spheres - instead of considering the layout as two dimensional circles.

 

And there is indeed that space in the middle where all three overlap (where, with this new perspective, I am considering such overlapping to be a prerogative of deific personality).

 

However, there is something different about what you have explained above and what I am considering here. You have indicated that the First Source-Center is the nucleus, where I have been considering one of the three spheres as the FSC. In light of considering the FSC as one of the spheres, instead of as nucleus, I am currently wondering if that central space would be the pre- and super- personal place from which Fragments (of all kinds) originate.

 

According to this approach, and thanks to the mutual concentric inclusion, each of the spheres (the Deities) has volition, personality, and mind - although each respectively and uniquely emphasizes one of those attributes more than either of the other two . And I'm contemplating if that is therefore enough for them to be considered indeed as three truly different individuals.

 

 

@-Scott-

 

I must admit here, I am impressed by your obviously evolving capability for telling this story. Some of the language you are using internally clashes just a bit due to multiple meanings, but that can be ironed out with continued revision. Keep at it! Very few take the challenge in of telling that narrative!

Edited by Absonite
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...