An interesting claim don’t you think and with significant implications? Midi evidently feels dominated by those who are inferior in critical/creative thinking than he himself claims to be. Hmmmmm…………. Do you know what results when a declared conclusion is based on a faulty premise? ….a false conclusion results.
Yes Bradly, I do find it an interesting claim that you have made, which it would seem by your statement, that you have validated any claim being made, although it would seem to be your claim?
You state: “Midi evidently feels dominated by those who are inferior in critical/creative thinking than he himself claims to be.” Where you are the person making a claim based on your opinion of what I have stated because, you have not phrased it in the form of a question(?), therefore you think that you know what I have written and in what context it was written. This is the underlying premiss to my original post, where you have made a claim that your conclusion is what I have said or the meaning behind the text in question. Based on various psychological definitions your response is an emotional one, and having presented your own “false conclusion”, where you state “a false conclusion” is defined as “faulty premise”, which has not been argued or debated, it can be assumed your direct response indicates that my assessment as posted is not allowed, by your standard.
Not to mansion that you presume to put words in my mouth based on your misinterpretation, or maybe just to present a false conclusion to satisfy your emotional distress?
Many years ago I took a “Reading Comprehension 101” course where one of the exercises was to listen to a short story, specifically written in such a way as to hide specific details and the nature of the first person character narrating the short story. Out of the 33 students in the class, only one was able to present an accurate assessment from the text being that it was written specifically to show how an author can present facts within the narrative without having to present details behind the implied reason for the story. Many speculations were presented but all were incorrect other that those presented by that one person.
I’m sure that if specific sections of the Urantia Book were taken, and actually digested as literally presented, that I could present UB text which the average reader would have no idea of what is being presented without defining or attempting to define the actual words used and the characters being presented. Even when taking the definitions of those characters, it would not be possible to ascertain what the authors are attempting to present to the reader. As in the following:
(7.11) 0:4.13 Paradise is not a creator; it is a unique controller of many universe activities, far more of a controller than a reactor. Throughout the material universes Paradise influences the reactions and conduct of all beings having to do with force, energy, and power, but Paradise itself is unique, exclusive, and isolated in the universes. Paradise represents nothing and nothing represents Paradise. It is neither a force nor a presence; it is just Paradise.
So I ask you, what is paradise?
Here is the UB’s definition of PARADISE:
(7.9) 0:4.11 PARADISE is a term inclusive of the personal and the nonpersonal focal Absolutes of all phases of universe reality. Paradise, properly qualified, may connote any and all forms of reality, Deity, divinity, personality, and energy — spiritual, mindal, or material. All share Paradise as the place of origin, function, and destiny, as regards values, meanings, and factual existence.
Also, take into consideration that there are 56 notations in the UB for the following, “paradise is”, therefore explain to me how any normal reader can actually know what “paradise is”, without using additional analysis where ever it has been presented.