Jump to content
Urantia Book Forum, conversations with other readers

Recommended Posts

snapback.pngRaymond, on 26 January 2013 - 01:02 PM, said: We are of qualified infinity ocurring within the unqualified.

 

Well, I certainly don't think of it that way, but that doesn't mean anything. As personality, unqualified infinity is meaningless to me. Even so, isn't the tension between qualified and unqualified infinity supposed to be resolved by the Universal Absolute?

 

0:3.21 As a time-space creature would view the origin and differentiation of Reality, the eternal and infinite I AM achieved Deity liberation from the fetters of unqualified infinity through the exercise of inherent and eternal free will, and this divorcement from unqualified infinity produced the first absolute divinity-tension. This tension of infinity differential is resolved by the Universal Absolute, which functions to unify and co-ordinate the dynamic infinity of Total Deity and the static infinity of the Unqualified Absolute.

 

0:4.5 This is the primal concept of original reality: The Father initiates and maintains Reality. The primaldifferentials of reality are the deified and the undeified — the Deity Absolute and the Unqualified Absolute. The primal relationship is the tension between them. This Father-initiated divinity-tension is perfectly resolved by, and eternalizes as, the Universal Absolute.

 

0:11.10 3. The Universal Absolute, we logically deduce, was inevitable in the Universe Father’s absolute freewill act of differentiating universerealities into deified and undeified — personalizable and nonpersonalizable — values. The Universal Absolute is the Deity phenomenon indicative of the resolution of the tension created by the freewill act of thus differentiating universereality, and functions as the associative co-ordinator of these sum totals of existential potentialities.

 

0:11.11 The tension-presence of the Universal Absolute signifies the adjustment of differential between deity reality and undeified reality inherent in the separation of the dynamics of freewill divinity from the statics of unqualified infinity.

 

0:11.13 The finite can coexist in the cosmos along with the Infinite only because the associative presence of the Universal Absolute so perfectly equalizes the tensions between time and eternity, finity and infinity, reality potential and reality actuality, Paradise and space, man and God. Associatively the Universal Absolute constitutes the identification of the zone of progressing evolutional reality existent in the time-space, and in the transcended time-space, universes of subinfinite Deity manifestation.

 

0:11.14 The Universal Absolute is the potential of the static-dynamic Deity functionally realizable on time-eternity levels as finite-absolute values and as possible of experiential-existential approach. This incomprehensible aspect of Deity may be static, potential, and associative but is not experientially creative or evolutional as concerns the intelligent personalities now functioning in the master universe.

 

And isn't the Universal Absolute supposed to be the final function of the Trinity?

 

56:9.3 Is the Unqualified Absolute a force presence independent of the Trinity? Does the presence of the Deity Absolute connote the unlimited function of the Trinity? and is the Universal Absolute the final function of the Trinity, even a Trinity of Trinities?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

MB Melody - I suspect that's it.

 

When considering the Sources-Centers strictly as eternal existentials, then numbering them only is referential. The "First Source" merely means "Source #1" in terms of making a simple numerical list, not in terms of indicating any sort of time-based primacy - since the FS did not somehow exist before the Second Source, and both FS and SS did not somehow exist before the Third Source - because all three Sources-Centers are eternal. Although accepting that sets the eternal stage, affirming that does not provide any insight about how they eternally relate together as deific people.

 

Others students here have quoted the UB in the past, pointing out that the FS cannot be the Father if the SS is not the Son. Or, more positively put: the FS is the Father because the SS is the Son. That Parent/Child relationship suggests, even requires, that one (the Parent) existed prior to the other (the Child) in order for their respective positions relative to each other, using that analogy, to make sense. However, as repeatedly stated, since their existence is eternal - since the Paradise Deities are co-eternal - then none of them ever existed prior to each other.

 

A Revelator did admit in the UB to having received instruction to portray the FSC as the Father - which occurs in relationship with the SSC-Son. But then the gender analogy is completely convoluted by going on making the SSC the Mother-Son who ostensibly conjugated with the Father to produce another Child (the TSC) - then convoluted even further to talk of the TSC as a Mother in relationship with the SSC - all the while flip-flopping back and forth with pronouns from he to she.

 

 

So, I am starting to see a few points with increasing clarity.

 

 

I'm increasingly seeing that no analogy made using human roles can adequately clarify the relationships of the Paradise Deities that does not result with some sort of severe short-coming. eg. If the FSC was presented as The Father, and the SSC was presented as The Mother, and the TSC was presented as The Child - with utterly no crazyily inconsistent and convoluted shifting use of genders, roles, and/or pronouns when referencing them - even that familial analogy still runs into issues, because making sense of it requires once again ignoring the eternality of all three, by assuming #1 and #2 existed prior to #3, and we're back in much the same sort of mess, albeit using this different approach.

 

And I'm increasingly seeing exactly why portraying the respective personalities of the Paradise Deities is such a huge challenge. I'm less and less surprised at the Revelator's frustration from having to use such analogies (which they even flat out call crude, as I recall) for portraying the personal relationships and roles of the Paradise Deities with each other. And I'm at a loss at the moment about how else the interpersonal dynamics ever could be presented to personalities having human experiences on Urantia without crashing the ship into the shoals instead of running into the reef (so to speak).

Edited by Absonite
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beautiful! Both yea - beautiful. None of this discussusion is possible without the qualified existence we now enjoy. Thanks be the Universal Absolute! To be the Universal Absolute is but the arena we live-in. He is the result of the Seven Absolutes of Total Unqualified Infinity. Which is to say He is the result of Infinite Reality which is both Infinite and Eternal. He is of Absolute Eternal Reality, He is existential Reality. Not Unqualified Reality. He is Qualified Infinity. Qualified Reality allows us the opportunity to grasp a Qualified Infinity not unqualified Infinity. Yea, Qualified is of the Unqualified Infiniity. Yet, it is differentiated. How so? Consider motion. It implies power! Power to move! The immutable moves. We are not yet part of the Immutable One.The One source of all power. Yet, Qualification this self-distribution of Power, this self-limitation to Qualified Reality - the Seven Absolutes of Infinity - allows us this sharing experience of Love. Never would I have thought that such a viewpoint would receive so much attention. To me it is obvious. The One Source of all imagineable Power sets into motion the 'big-bang' - where all else follows. Perhaps even the self-segregation is in fact the big-bang. Yea, there is only one Deity who personalizes threefold - the big bang? The Uncaused Cause moves. Power is realized. The One Source of Power is recognized. Being material beings we tend to focus on the powers of the material universe. I state all this without UB references. Yet, I can with at least 40 pages of notation. That;s me. Never did I for see the challenges you are all presenting. Never did I ever want to match wits with Bonita, whom I truly respect for her knowledge of the UB - more than mine. But never could I back water at this point for human insights in deference to personality insights. Hopefully you,ll show mercy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that there may have been a conceptual big bang when God The Infinite decided to be a Father and segregate all reality and much of himself as Deity.

Edited by -Scott-
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I neither missed that, nor this:

 

 

106:9.2 Without time sensitivity, no evolutionary creature could possibly perceive the relations of sequence.

 

 

Relationships occur according to sequence. The three Paradise Deities relate with each other. Since the Deities are eternal, their relationships, in general, with each other are eternal - which simply means that they always are relating together. So the Paradise Deities are timeless (nontime) people who engage relationships (sequence) with each other. They always have been relating with each other. They always will be relating with each other. And that is how I consider "nontime sequence" relevantly to apply to them.

 

However:

 

Considering the relationships of the Paradise Deities as that sort of "nontime sequence" does not grant license to go against the meaning of eternal - with specific regard to the issue of beginnings-origins-initiations-etc... for the three Sources-Centers.

 

i.e. Just because the Paradise Deities eternally engage various relationships together does not mean that it's ok to turn around and say that one originated another, then say that those two originated the third - because that sort of sequentializing explanation tries to force beginnings-origins on two of the Deities, who never had any such beginnings simply because all three are eternal.

Edited by Absonite
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But did you miss the bit about nontime sequence?

Nigel

 

Since nontime sequence occcurs in eternity then voilitional self-segregation and self-distribution poses no problem for me. There is a moment in time that is used for our benefit in linear thinking. The fact this occurs in eternity - infinity has not changed.

 

 

0:3.1 Total, infinite reality is existential in seven phases and as seven co-ordinate Absolutes:

 

0:3.9 God, as the First Source and Center, is primal in relation to total reality — unqualifiedly. The First Source and Center is infinite as well as eternal and is therefore limited or conditioned only by volition.

The fact that He changeth not does not preclude that He is also immobile.

 

If I recall correctly, infinity level of reality is a hypothetical reality. We as finites must posit this hypothetical. Yet, it states it is a reality even though we must posit it. Otherwise inconceiveable.

 

By the same token, the infinite One is capable of self-volitional motion. Again He that changeth not is capable of redistribution of self - occurs in nontime. A sequence of eternal events we would not comprehend unless revealed.

 

To me, not a scientist, motion entails the concept of power/energy.

 

By the way - side note: How do you all quote something in the boxed-in format. I have tried but end up gathering the totality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Absonite,

 

For me, the concept of nontime sequence came to life after reading what this Melchizedek wrote:

 

"At the inconceivably distant future eternity moment of the final completion of the entire master universe, no doubt we will all look back upon its entire history as only the beginning, simply the creation of certain finite and transcendental foundations for even greater and more enthralling metamorphoses in uncharted infinity. At such a future eternity moment the master universe will still seem youthful; indeed, it will be always young in the face of the limitless possibilities of never-ending eternity." (1170.1) 106:7.8

 

Enthralling metamorphoses? Surely these 'metamorphoses' are to be non-finite, and imply deep change?

 

Enthralling metamorphoses may also be a great way to describe the way the I AM qualified reality! :D

 

But before struggling with such "absolute" adjustments, maybe absonite realities are a better place for us to exercise our speculations about nontime things? Reflect for a moment on absonite collaborations that affect what they pre-echo... have you considered how absonite choices relate to time?

 

Maybe we should allow for techniques other than time for actualizing potentials. Let's also make room for the possibility that old-fashioned concepts of eternal may have been adjusted by the UB authors.

 

thanks for such a great discussion!

Nigel

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i.e. Just because the Paradise Deities eternally engage various relationships together does not mean that it's ok to turn around and say that one originated another, then say that those two originated the third - because that sort of sequentializing explanation tries to force beginnings-origins on two of the Deities, who never had any such beginnings simply because all three are eternal.

 

Doesn't this bring us back to the Trinity/triunity concept?

 

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.

 

P.S. Raymond, if you click the quote button the entire post appears with a bracketed title at the beginning and /quote in brackets at the end. Once you get the quote in your reply box you can go between those brackets and delete any portion of the quote you like before posting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't miss it, Nigel. What I wrote above there regarding it was attempting to make "nontime sequence" relevant to the issue of beginnings-origins for the eternal Paradise Deities.

 

Basically put: if you start off telling me that someone never had a beginning, then turn around and tell me that same someone had a beginning - I have a problem with what you're telling me.

Edited by Absonite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the concept of nontime sequence came to life after reading what this Melchizedek wrote:

 

Enthralling metamorphoses? Surely these 'metamorphoses' are to be non-finite, and imply deep change?

 

Enthralling metamorphoses may also be a great way to describe the way the I AM qualified reality! :D

 

But before struggling with such "absolute" adjustments, maybe absonite realities are a better place for us to exercise our speculations about nontime things? Reflect for a moment on absonite collaborations that affect what they pre-echo... have you considered how absonite choices relate to time?

 

Maybe we should allow for techniques other than time for actualizing potentials. Let's also make room for the possibility that old-fashioned concepts of eternal may have been adjusted by the UB authors.

 

thanks for such a great discussion!

Nigel

 

Nigel - as before - I've only completed 4 chapters on the videos you submitted previously. But are you inferring i.e. the reality of a fourth dimension by three demensional finites may be somewhat distorted by our dimensional perspective? We now know that this 4th dimension exists but to view it by our standards will not be the true 4th dimension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding time. They speak of the God the Father as the only uncaused cause. So in theory he may have had a solitary existence but even if he did that could be described as pre-existent reality. Meaning eternity would not even be in play in this hypothetical situation. All there would have been is this one fact of God and absolutely nothing else in Infinity. Reality would have began the moment he decided to be a Father. Time or eternity would have been non-sequiturs at this conceptual point. So when they say these 3 Deity have always existed that can still be true in reality. Yet these Deity are all literal fragments of this uncaused god so in their essence they have always been. It's like the thought adjuster. The second and third person are God so their being is literally from this pre-existent God that has always been. So technically they are one with this unknowable aspect of God. There is only one God. All these Deity are one.

Edited by -Scott-
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott you have a better way with words. One thing that I believe correlates is this hypothetical reality: " I AM that I AM" Self-existent Deity, a Hypothetical Reality - yet a Reality revealed as truth.

 

Nigel, I've finished watching the videos and yea, must admit a very reasonable protrayal. My creative imagination leaves much more to be desired! What stuck mainly with me is that they added time to 3 dimension theory of relativity which seemingly invites infinite viewpoints. I can now visualize what you mean when using the word 'slice', Is this 4th dimension another hypothetical reality - or a proven factual existence. I believe the latter. If so, how will this effect our modern day science - any practical examples??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the 2nd and 3rd person are personalizations of the I AM. Than in essence they have always existed. I guess is what I was saying. Their literal "being" is the same "being" as the I AM. One as three- the three were not really created by God they are God, so when the revelators say these being did not have a beginning that is literally true.

 

A crude picture of this would be if we were to picture the one and only Infinite God in the beginning of beginnings taking a chunk of himself and seperating it from himself. Would we say that this chunk of god had a beginning? Or would we say it always has existed. This chunk is God.

 

This is what God the Father did, he didn't just sit there and make the 2nd and 3rd persons (which would mean they did have a beginning), he literally took a chunk of himself and separated it from himself. He literally sacrificed himself for others to exist. The 2nd and 3rd persons were not created they were massive chunks broken off from the undiluted God the Infinite (I AM). So now the Father retains that unlimited volition which allows him still to be the great initiator but he gave up other aspects of himself.

 

Yet God is still One. "There is only one God" and this is the great challenge of presenting the Trinity to evolving mortals. For us to remain with that unity concept of one god and yet see there are many personalizations of God.

 

92:6.19.Islam is the religio-cultural connective of North Africa, the Levant, and southeastern Asia. It was Jewish theology in connection with the later Christian teachings that made Islam monotheistic. The followers of Mohammed stumbled at the advanced teachings of the Trinity; they could not comprehend the doctrine of three divine personalities and one Deity. It is always difficult to induce evolutionary minds suddenly to accept advanced revealed truth. Man is an evolutionary creature and in the main must get his religion by evolutionary techniques.

Edited by -Scott-
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See - I have very little trouble with the one/many paradox.

Instead - I have trouble with any time based insistence of origins that violates the timeless status of an eternal situation.

 

So -Scott- ... I'm not hung up on needing to accept that the self differentiations are still God.

 

What I'm hung up on here is how the process of such self-differentiation does not essentially force a beginning-origin on such self differentiations - when they are proclaimed to be eternal people. Saying that God took a chunk of himself and separated it from himself is a process that has a beginning. Prior to doing that process, the chunk doesn't exist. And if one acknowledges that the chunk always existed, then there never could have been a time when God did that process of taking that chunk and separating from himself.

 

 

1. I accept that the FSC, the SSC, and the TSC are eternal: none of them had a beginning; and, none of them will have an ending.

 

2. I accept that the FSC, the SSC, and the TSC are persons due to their mutually inclusive interconnectivity together.

 

3. I don't accpet that the FSC is the source of the SSC, or that the FSC and the SSC are the source of the TSC - because if the FSC is the source of the SSC, and if the FSC and the SSC are the combined source of the TSC, then what is being really said is that the SSC and the TSC had a beginning. But neither the SSC nor the TSC ever had a beginning at all, because both the SSC and the TSC are eternal.

Edited by Absonite
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a raindow that manifests as seven colors? Its still one rainbow. These manifestation changed nothing as Scott has said these arcs are substantive parts of the rainbow. Yet, a primal causation made these arcs manifest. Yea they were always there but not existentially manifested? I don't know if that helps/ It not a beginning but a manifesting of what is already there. It's an action in nontime?! No time unit applicable here. All arcs are the One.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet we're not really talking about manifestation here. We're talking about beginning-origin-initiation ... all of which means that, before such happens, whatever it was that began, was originated, was initiated, etc... did not already exist in some other state merely waiting to be manifested.

 

 

 

For the record: just as my perspective regarding the respective personhoods of the three Sources-Centers could change - it's very possible that my perspective here about "deific progeneration" could change. In fact, just as with the previous personhood issue before, I'm seriously considering if there is some approach to make it work that doesn't require shifting gears in a wild way which blows the transmission out the bottom of the truck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm hung up on here is how the process of such self-differentiation does not essentially force a beginning-origin on such self differentiations - when they are proclaimed to be eternal people. Saying that God took a chunk of himself and separated it from himself is a process that has a beginning. Prior to doing that process, the chunk doesn't exist. And if one acknowledges that the chunk always existed, then there never could have been a time when God did that process of taking that chunk and separating from himself.

 

Prior to doing that process, the chunk doesn't exist.

 

But the chunk was not created, it is God and it did exist as this one God and yet it still remains one with this One Infinite God.

 

There is a common thread in the urantia book and that is they will give two perspectives. One is looking from the bottom and going up. Time into eternity-infinity. And the other is from Infinity and Eternity and looking down. Both viewpoints are correct. The adjuster can see the top viewpoint. The trick is to see both viewpoints at the same time.

 

Looking from the bottom-up. We see 3 as one. But from the top down it is One as two and acting for two. Both viewpoints are correct.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah - but again, my issue is not about the paradox of quantity.

Instead, it's the issue of beginning-origin contradicting eternal status.

 

There's a big difference to me saying that manifold differentiations are of one - and saying that which never had a beginning somehow had a beginning (saying that one came from another, which violates eternal status).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well God had never had a beginning, and these 3 beings are God. Its not difficult for you or anyone to invision that God never had a beginning. So these 3 deity are just arm extensions of that same God reaching down into the Absolute. From our vantage point they look like they had a beginning. Just like an island from a plane looks like it is seperate from other islands. But if we were to arrive on the sea floor we would see all of these islands are just one massive body. Its the same thing with these 3 deity. These chunks are seperate from our vantage point but as we go up higher they are all one. That unity of the I AM is conserved at the very top.

Edited by -Scott-
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example I could use is human beings. We think of ourselves as moving through time. But from God The Fathers perspective all potentials are actuals. Meaning he does not make a distinction between who we are now and who we are becoming. To him he can see us as we are in a our finaliter state. That doesn't make any sense from a time creatures perspective but that is his perspective. That doesn't mean that our perspective is wrong it just means that there are always two perspectives. Gods perspective is the one that the Adjuster has, and we have a time creature perspective. These 2 perspectives combined gives us a viewpoint of reality.

 

From our perspective these Deity had a beginning. But from Gods perspective they did not. From our perspective we see 3 as One. But from the highest perspective they are and always have been one as two and acting for two plus (one as 3).

 

Time is a non sequitor at the highest functional level, and from our perspective a reality without time is a non sequitor. Both perspectives are right.

Edited by -Scott-
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get how it looks like they have beginnings from our side - because I really don't see them as having beginnings at all, because none of them can have a beginning and still be eternal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The u.b also states that its only a hypothetical concept that the Father had this solitary existence. So if he did have this solitary existence it would have been before reality began. There would not have been eternity. There would have just been the all encompassing Infinite God.

 

The u.b also says that our highest human concept god would just be the Supreme Being. So in order for us to really have a relationship to any of these incredibly high concepts we are going to have to adopt the adjusters concept of god.

Edited by -Scott-
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The seven absolutes are eternal manifestations of the Infinite One. Originations due to the Infinite One? Does not necessary make them Infinite - the Infinity of the Infinite One. Timelessness and beginninglessness applies to Infinity , eternity or both? Does origination of absolute infinity changeth the Infinite One? Does the word eternity detract from the eternal creation? Does nontime sequential events exist or not? If so, then absolute infinity or Trinity is logical starting point. I quess Lucifer is an eternal being yet not infinite. The Father Infinite is truly infinite - if not mistaken then even in question is the Eternal Son's Infinity but not his eternity status. For it is this absolute co-equal self that can understand the Father's infinity. Is it that the Father shares His eternity attributes but unable to share His infinity other than being associative with the seven absolutes?

 

Just further musings. Coeternal equals are infinite by association with the infinite One?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...