Jump to content
Urantia Book Forum, conversations with other readers

Recommended Posts

Well there is more than one way to skin a cat. They are expounding on our belief that the Trinity is the 1st triunity. Instead of saying mankind is wrong to confuse the Trinity as the 1st triunity they put it in parenthetical. Catholicism has regarded the 1st triunity as the Trinity for a long time. That's why I said earlier that the authors will often speak like Jesus. Instead of just flat out saying you are wrong they begin with our initial concept of the Trinity (1st triunity) and expand on that.

 

The legend of Marduk is actually a legend about Adam, so instead of telling people they are wrong about their legend I could just write this. Adam (Marduk) was a great man.

 

If you were writing a transcript of a conversation you had with your kid about Santa you may write it like this. "(Santa) was happy to give you a present." I am equating Santa as the 1st triunity. When in fact it's obvious we are talking about the parents/ Trinity.

 

A large chunk of the Trinity section is about divorcing mans concept of the Trinity as a triunity. That is why that sentence sets up the whole paper so well. It's foreshadowing.

Edited by -Scott-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parenthesis are used to enclose supplemental material, minor digressions and afterthoughts. Commas are used for nonrestrictive appositives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first Trinity has always been referred to by humans in the same sense as the Triunity, so they are acknowledging what we think a Trinity is but by putting it in parentheticals they are saying no its not this. If they had left it without parentheticals it would have been a mistake, but they are speaking in a mockingly way about the Trinity being a Triunity the parentheticals help to make that distinction.

 

Jesus spoke like this all the time. He would take our concept and expand on it. Our concept of the Trinity is actually a Triunity. So they bring that up here. The Trinity (What you on Urantia have always referrered to as a triunity) is........

 

The Catholic concept of the Trinity is an association of the 3 Deity persons working together. That is the 1st Triunity. Yet we have always thought that this was the Trinity so they are clearing that up here.

 

Another Ex. Adam (Marduk) was a great man. See what I did just there. I took a human legend of Adam and expanded on it, even though Marduk is a wrong concept of Adam. I also did not specify that Marduk is a wrong concept of Adam but I am implying it by putting it in parentheticals.

 

Ex. Jody is "nice". Jody is (nice). If I speak like this do I really think Jody is nice? Obviously the reader would have to have an adult sense of humor to get it.

 

I think you are correct, boom. The reference does say the two are dissimilar. Perhaps "mocking" is a bit harsh lmao! It might be the parentheses are used for supplemental information as explained by Bonita; that humans equate triunity with trinity, incorrectly though.

Edited by brooklyn_born

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah - that one I really don't see at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea mocking it may be a bit harsh. But a parenthetical can be used in more than one way. If we are thinking of the simplistic use of a parenthetical than we will miss the point. They are using a human concept that has been used for a long time (Triunity as the Trinity) and gently giving us the real definition of the Trinity. Its almost like they are bridging our human concept in this paragraph. Its more like the example I gave with Marduk. If I went to ancient day Babylon and I wanted to expand on their concept of Marduk as Adam I may speak like this. Adam (Marduk) was a great man. That would stop them to think hey maybe this Marduk character is actually Adam....and not this god person we thought he was. There were no laws saying that people couldn't use parentheticals this way especially in the 1920's and early 30's when the book was written.

 

An easier way to understand this is just go through the papers and you will see that this is not the only time they use parentheticals in this way. A parenthesis is commonly used to give supplemental information but it can also be used in other ways though it is not nearly as common.

Parenthesis 2nd definition b. A comment departing from the theme of discourse; a digression. .

A parenthesis can be used to give a message that departs from the main subject. The reason they would make a comment that is a digression from the main theme is because Catholicism still believes the Trinity is a Triunity, its the most common belief of what the Trinity is. Edited by -Scott-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great discussions here. Bonita in my mind nailed it when she said our starting point is segmentation or compartimentalization is needed. And this could or would mean the existential Trinity as our starting point, Trinity which is absolute and existential. I literally take the meaning of existential to mean something(s) that exist(s). Trinity as One unified Qualified Deity of Infinity. And anything preexistential, would to me be no thing comprehensible to me or finite minds. This would be the infinity reality before existentials and after experientials. Fortunately the absolute level of infinity - the seven absolutes of infinity - were put into motion for me to have insights into this absolute and existential level. And as revealed - Deity personalizes - uniquely. Each bestowal is unique and has different functions. Each personality has its own functional power base - even the Isle of Paradise. Yet all stem from the First Source and Center as their primary Source. The Universal Father acts as Deity and acts as God. He eternally distributes, He segmentizes, He compartimentalizes, He distibutes His power. Since this is done from the infinite level of reality - I'd have to be His absolute and co-equal self, the Eternal Son, to comprehend this. But the UB clearly states I can not comprehend this with my finite mind. It does seem reasonable though that he did this to escape from personality absoluteness and all that this implies. I accept the level of infinity as no thing I can comprehend. But from no thing that I can comprehend comes all things both existential and experiential. The UB makes this reasonable to me through all its marvelous revelations. Latent power to mobility. All by volition!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the UB clearly states I can not comprehend this with my finite mind
Yes it does state this, but we shouldn't forget the thought adjuster is from this Infinite God! The thought adjuster knows how all of these relationships work and who this God really is. We can adopt the adjusters concept of god. Maybe not right away but eventually. Edited by -Scott-
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FSC originates the SSC.

The FSC and the SSC originate the TSC.

 

But there such origination stops - by which I specifically mean that such combinations do not continue to produce an infinite number of Sources.

 

The question to which I've been contemplating an answer for the last few days has been: why is it important that the originator of the SSC is the FSC - and the originator of the TSC is both the FSC and the SSC?

 

Since I accept that the three Sources-Centers are eternal - they had neither beginning nor ending - I find myself wondering about the reason for emphasizing that origination sequence.

 

Why go through any of that when one can simply accept that they always have been, and will be, as they are?

 

So far, I consider such origination sequencing to be presented as merely more concession language to make a time event of an eternity fact, as well as put pegs on each for hanging analogical relationship roles.

 

But I don't know why it is really necessary beyond doing that for people who do not accept that the Sources-Centers are eternal.

Edited by Absonite
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most interesting thoughts...But why doesn't this answer it, Absonite?

 

...we must concede human philosophy a point of origin; even personalities far above the human level require a concept of "beginnings...." P.157 - 2 (14:4)

 

 

It seems like a good question in light of that quote is: Why do we require beginnings? Can't we accept the fact of carte blanc eternity as easily as a universe with an origin?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I accept that the three Sources-Centers are eternal - they had neither beginning nor ending - I find myself wondering about the reason for emphasizing that origination sequence.

 

Why go through any of that when one can simply accept that they always have been, and will be, as they are?

 

They are showing us that the Universal Father was and is still the initiator of all these relationships. He is the guy pulling all the strings and still is. He is the being who gave up Unlimited Godness to just be one aspect of God. Its a romantic story :). Also these relationships are happening on functional levels above time, the eternal-ellipse is this conceptual model we can use to try and see how there is not time on the highest functioning level of reality.

Edited by -Scott-
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Absonite - you do have a correct path. I went beyond this correct thinking to get a feel for infinite level of reality before existentials and after experientials. Latency to motion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Rick

 

 

Many of those statements about what mortals ostensibly require along those lines doesn't match my experience at all.

 

It can be useful to know about beginnings.

But requiring beginnings?

 

As long as I accept the definition for what eternal means - and don't keep trying to force a time-based sequence on it for allegorically explaining eternal events - then where's the need-requirement for beginnings?

Edited by Absonite
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No force from me. I just wanted to know what reality could transcend all things material, spiritual, and mindal and bestow personalities.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a Deity that could personalize and is therefore primal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One interesting note in the urantia book is that they give two different meanings of infinity. There is (infinity) with a lower case (i) and than there is (Infinity) with a upper case I. The upper case Infinity shows up in lines that do not began at a sentence. This as well as other parts of the book show that there is a functional level of reality that is Infinity. In the exact same sense that there is a Finite level of functional reality. The Thought Adjuster is our guide to understanding how there can be beings that exist outside of time and space, this being comes from a place outside of time. That is also why they give us these conceptions. They know that "mans highest concept" is such and such...but the adjuster has a perfect concept of Infinity and eternity, so we actually have the perfect teacher to give us some indication of what this reality may be like.

Edited by -Scott-
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all you all need to trust God to look out for the existential foundations of reality. someday we might understand more about such events as "finaliter transcendation" "trinitization""power comprehension" of the Almighty Supreme,etc., but many of these will have to wait for you to achieve the capacity to comprehend. If I am wrong abot this, then teach me about these things---please?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

speculation IS entertaining and does stretch the mind which is good for the soul.

 

A Mighty Messenger (a trinitized being who has been embraced and transformed by the Universal Father)tells us:

 

"To me it seems more fitting, for purposes of explanation to the mortal mind, to conceive of eternity as a cycle and the eternal purpose as an endless circle, a cycle of eternity in some way synchronized with the transient material cycles of time. As regards the sectors of time connected with, and forming a part of,

the cycle of eternity, we are forced to recognize that such temporary epochs are born, live, and die just as the temporary beings of time are born, live, and die...Having survived the trial life of time and material existence, it becomes possible for you to continue on in touch with, even as a part of, eternity, swinging on forever with the worlds of space around the circle of the eternal ages"(32-5)(365-0)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using the simple example of the Supreme Being is a good example IMO. This beings personality already exists, yet in time it does not. Instead of thinking linear about how this being will appear, we can look at this being a distillation of god going directly in a top down fashion. The same could be said about how these eternal beings appear. They didn't appear in a left to right linear time fashion, but the "beginning" is actually at the top and they came down. They arrived down through the Trinity. "One as Three". The One is on top and the three are distilled downwards. There is no horizontal time frame. Its purely vertical. The highest functional reality at the very top is Infinity and God is distilled downwards.

Edited by -Scott-
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't have any issue accepting what eternal means.

That which is eternal simply means that which has neither beginning nor ending.

 

Since I accept that is what eternal means, I don't need to talk about eternal situations as if they are temporal.

i.e. I don't need to talk about eternal situations as if they had beginnings from which sequential progression occurs to possible endings.

 

Accepting eternality doesn't mean that I'm saying that I comprehend eternality.

I cannot ever really comprehend eternality unless I am eternal - which I am not.

 

So this doesn't really seem to me to be an issue where I have to acquire greater capacity for comprehension, Bill - because it's not about comprehension, it's about acceptance. Relevant to the issue at hand - it's accepting that the three Paradise Deities are eternal deific people who never had beginnings and never will have endings. And being so eternal (by definition here: not having beginnings) means that talking about the FSC originating-initiating-instigating-creating-etc... the SSC, and then both of them doing the same together to result with the TSC - seems to me to be trying to temporalize an eternal situation.

 

I'm starting to see that there seem to be two meta-models here regarding the UB universe frame. One is the based upon temporality (explanations with regard to beginnings and sequential progression toward possible endings). And the other is based upon eternality (existential arrangement and interaction with neither beginnings nor endings). The Revelators seem to switch back and forth between the two, using the former to try and explain the latter - in light of their declarations about what mortal minds need-require-must have-etc...

 

 

But if it's an acceptance, rather than a comprehensible, issue - then what is the supposed necessity?

Edited by Absonite
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Sadler Jr. had stated that it makes no difference whence you start - results are the same. Start with either preexistential deity or existential trinity. The Absolute One or the seven absolutes of infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings All,

“But if it's an acceptance, rather than a comprehensible, issue - then what is the supposed necessity?”

 

Admittedly, I haven’t kept up with every post as this thread has evolved, but I find some harmony in the conjecture that:

 

This “supposed necessity” may not refer to “acceptance” of the overarching concept of eternality of Trinity, which we may internalize with graceful simplicity.

 

Yet, a hypothetical, pseudo-temporal/sequential framework for {[(FSC)>SSC]>TSC} was perhaps(?) necessary in the authors’ efforts to facilitate human/finite “comprehension” of eternal intra-Trinity personal and functional differentiations.

 

Anyhow, just my Saturday morning musing…

Fortunately, these kinds of intellectual exercises are not necessary for our discovering the Presence of LOVE within and the consequent expressions…

 

In good spirit,

MM

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott's idea of top down vs. left-right seems to be on the right track -- a shifting and deepening of perspective. Let's not forget that our current time-based arena is purpose-built as a place for birthing baby persons. But even as babies, the perspective enabled by the UB encourages us to try to imagine the sort of realm where, as fully seven dimensional persons, we will feel at home. Having "subinfinitely penetrated the absolute" (1226.13, 112:1.9), are we to imagine that, just because we are no longer embedded in time, we shall be less able to choose and to explore and to enjoy? Surely, having evolved the capacity to interact with Dad in a nontrivial way, we will be able to engage the sort of nontime sequence revealed in (120.3) 11:2.11, " ... the citizens of the central Isle are fully conscious of nontime sequence of events."

 

Now, if finaliters can choose and act and love when unbound from time, what relativities and relationships might be open to the Sources and Centers?

 

While being embedded in a moving manifold makes possible a time-like sequence for our evolution, surely we can allow for the likelihood that nontime sequences will be richer than our sequential minds can dream. Let "eternal" and "absolute" simply refer to the realm in which the master universe is merely a slice. I have diagrams, but they cause more confusion than illumination, so I play them close to my chest. :D

 

"The type of personality bestowed upon Urantia mortals has a potentiality of seven dimensions of self-expression or person-realization. These dimensional phenomena are realizable as three on the finite level, three on the absonite level, and one on the absolute level. On subabsolute levels this seventh or totality dimension is experiencible as the fact of personality. This supreme dimension is an associable absolute and, while not infinite, is dimensionally potential for subinfinite penetration of the absolute."

 

Nigel

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nigel, Thanks for your intervention. I have no interest in debating the incomprehensibles of finite mind. Merely to expose that there is an ifinite reality before existentials and after experientials - explains how i.e. personality transcends all things, material, mindal, and spiritual - hence the ability to function with all three without bias to any. Inclusive of even a new by-product of divine and human nature - the human soul. The difference between qualified and unqualified infinity. Yet, if you and Sadler Jr. and even I will concede one's starting point is insignificant. Just another revealed concept.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merely to expose that there is an ifinite reality before existentials and after experientials - . . .

 

But I thought the whole point is that in infinity there is no before or after. confused-smiley-013.gif

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...