I think she said – “…..your friend Lucifer….” and was being sarcastic regarding her perception that she thinks you seem “obsessed” with rebellion, but I can understand you feeling offended rather than the butt of witty repoirtee .
I do not think she was being sarcastic. But let’s say she was, that sarcasm was very insulting. And as for my ‘obsession’… I have authored 16 topics on this forum. Of the 16 , two are dedicated to rebellion, which translates to 14 percent. That is a far cry from ‘obsession.’
This forum, and all others, are primarily “self-governing” and rely on the civility and good intentions of participants and try to reduce the role of moderators or food fight referees in order for the posters to learn.
We need moderators because it seems some are not able to self-govern. Imagine new comers witnessing these kinds of hostile exchanges. Perhaps that is why there is lack of participation? I don’t know. But it does make me wonder.
As to multiple forms of interpretation, you offered but one quote that specifically said that in regarding the Son as the representation of the Father to Local Universe creatures, that this is fact and truth ……no matter how you approach it. It is not logical that this statement is to then be inflated to mean thereby that the whole text is somehow figurative.
Then we can agree to disagree on that item.
Language symbols have limits. Human mind has limits. Revelation by word symbols and through mind has limits.
I agree
This does not suggest, even slightly IMO, that the papers on rebellion are metaphorical presentations of some minor evolutionary church’s disputes about what is heresy one century and that which becomes heresy in another.
You could be right that Church history has no bearing on TUB. But I think the topic warrants further research. In my opinion there are enough coincidences to warrant one. Also I don’t think I said that rebellion papers primarily are a metaphorical presentation. I do believe, however, that figurative, spiritual and personal meanings could be gleaned from them.
The topic presented in the UB is universally profound; the interpretation of its meaning proferred is trivial in comparison. So which is it? Did the midwayers narrate church history? Or did they narrate a real event with real characters in real time with real results and implications? Can’t be both ways.
Neither. My theory which is very weak, admittedly, is that Church history is a part of the rebellion history. The rebellion and its effects filtered down onto our world and throughout the ages.
When I say that every reading of the UB brings greater clarity and delivers new meanings to me as student, I am not suggesting that I am learning to decipher codes and symbolisms and hidden allegorical meanings derived by new and enhanced perceptions. I meant it as an illustration that truth is only available to the degree with which the student can discern it and utilize it in experience and that experience opens greater perception of that which is written – not that which is not written or reading between the lines or drawing parallels to other events.
I think that that is a matter of semantics. One can call it deciphering codes, another may call it expanding meanings or learning newer ones. Both lead to revelation in my opinion.
There are many universal patterns and relationships presented which every mind of every experience will appreciate individually and uniquely and with greater perception, perhaps, with more reading and living.
I agree.
And I do not attempt to convince any that they are “wrong” but am willing to offer a contrasting opinion when an issue interests me or feel it important to offer another point of view.
I respect and appreciate that because, actually, I post up some of my innovations to see if they can withstand scrutiny by veteran readers. That is how I gauge the strength of ideas.
You have offered some rather strong opinions of your own on this thread about those of us who have decades in the UB and offered some rather insulting generalizations and stereotyped accusations of your own about “us”, whoever “we” are.
I did not direct that accusation at anyone, per se. But it is an ongoing observation for me in my encounters with seasoned readers/believers. I believe that they, in general, have a very rigid mindset. I also think age plays a role; the older one is the more settled less open one gets. And this isn’t just limited to TUB. You will find this mindset in nearly all religions. I am surprised that you would be insulted when it was not directed at you personally. If you were insulted then I apologize. My intent was not to direct the statement at any one.
Funny that those who read the longest do come to agree on the literal facts of cosmology, process, source, and destiny presented in that which claims to be given precisely to eliminate factual errors and reduce philosophic confusion. But only those of us who come to believe the UB actually is revelation would ever by gullible enough to believe this claim too.
First let me say that I am not against a literal reading of TUB. However, I am against the idea that it is the only approach to take when reading the papers. I have met seasoned readers who do not think TUB is exclusive to a literal reading in the strictest sense of the word.
It is not a point that can be argued. If it is epochal revelation of facts and truths and is as plainly written as the authors could muster, that’s what it is. If not, then not.
I agree! Facts and “Truths.” Truth can be received from a personal, literal, spiritual or figurative point of view.
Those who believe it cannot prove it and those who dispute it cannot either. An impasse. So be it. So this is a difference without resolution. If some believe they need tea leaves or star charts to understand the text or other mortal words or means of illustrative comparison to find meaning within, fine. We believe what we believe and must do so. But when students come together to study the words given, the perspective of the book and its claims often bring disagreement. The challenge and opportunity in these times is how we express that disagreement and overcome it. I’m still working on that BB. I have always appreciated your challenging inquiry into the text….and I still do. Peace.
I will leave you with the following…
” You must cease to seek for the word of God only on the pages of the olden records of theologic authority. Those who are born of the spirit of God shall henceforth discern the word of God regardless of whence it appears to take origin. Divine truth must not be discounted because the channel of its bestowal is apparently human.”
Thank you for participating and I hope we continue to exchange ideas.
