150 posts · 9 participants · started Jul 26, 2014, 4:33 PM
But, how do you achieve “philosophic attainment”?
I think its just a matter of going UP, in our minds. I think there is a philosophic/moral domain there by grace because of the 3 cosmic intuitions of the Holy Spirit. I think there is enough there to get us started. But I think revelation helps tremendously in reforming our mind so that it takes on a more reflective philosophic character.
So continuing on with the theme of this thread. I found this to be very interesting. According to this quote TUB is providing for the “authoritative elimination of error”. So that means there cannot be errors in the book if it is authoritatively eliminating them.
(1109.6) 101:4.5 Truth may be but relatively inspired, even though revelation is invariably a spiritual phenomenon. While statements with reference to cosmology are never inspired, such revelations are of immense value in that they at least transiently clarify knowledge by:
(1109.7) 101:4.6 1. The reduction of confusion by the authoritative elimination of error.
Yet this quote below says that there are “errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented”. And that the cosmology presented is going to be outgrown in a very short time. So how can there be “errors on the face” and yet an “authoritative elimination of error”? That is a blatant contradiction. Not to mention the part about the cosmologies being outgrown in a short period of time.
(1109.2)101:4.1 Because your world is generally ignorant of origins, even of physical origins, it has appeared to be wise from time to time to provide instruction in cosmology. And always has this made trouble for the future. The laws of revelation hamper us greatly by their proscription of the impartation of unearned or premature knowledge. Any cosmology presented as a part of revealed religion is destined to be outgrown in a very short time. Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented.
They key to all of this is that the authors are not talking about the 5th epochal revelation in this paragraph above. Look at this line “Any cosmology presented as a part of revealed religion is destined to be outgrown in a very short time”. The cosmology of TUB is not being presented as part of a religious revelation. If it was there would be “errors on the face of the associated cosmologies”. But there isn’t any errors in TUB, not even on the face of it.
330.2) 30:0.2 It is not possible to formulate comprehensive and entirely consistent classifications of the personalities of the grand universe because all of the groups are not revealed. It would require numerous additional papers to cover the further revelation required to systematically classify all groups. Such conceptual expansion would hardly be desirable as it would deprive the thinking mortals of the next thousand years of that stimulus to creative speculation which these partially revealed concepts supply. It is best that man not have an overrevelation; it stifles imagination.
This book is meant to be used for the next thousand years. Its not meant to be outgrown in a short period. If there is a religious revelation, the cosmology can be looser with errors in it. But with a philosophical revelation you can’t have errors in the cosmology or else it would be discarded in a short period of time.
Bradly wrote: Truth filled or truthful perspective . . .
TUB wrote: I think its just a matter of going UP, in our minds.
I’m curious Scott, what’s the difference between going upward and going inward?
I think that “inward” is upward. :) The word ascend literally means going up, but we could say that the ascension upward is also inward IMO.
So how can there be “errors on the face” and yet an “authoritative elimination of error”? That is a blatant contradiction.
I believe you might be misinterpreting the meaning of the sentence: “The reduction of confusion by the authoritative elimination of error”.
Revelation points out errors of philosophy, or logic. The sentence has nothing to do with the actual errors of science or even the errors of religion. It’s talking about errors in thinking about science and religion. So in that way, it is concerned about philosophy since philosophy is a function of thought. Revelation is the technique of sorting the errors of evolutionary thought by exposing them to a spiritual light (truth). Revelation takes erroneous philosophy and illuminates it with spirit, which is why the revelation of truth is a spiritual experience at the soul level, the only place spirit can be perceived.
Revelation points out errors of philosophy, or logic. The sentence has nothing to do with the actual errors of science or even the errors of religion. It’s talking about errors in thinking about science and religion. So in that way, it is concerned about philosophy since philosophy is a function of thought. Revelation is the technique of sorting the errors of evolutionary thought by exposing them to a spiritual light (truth). Revelation takes erroneous philosophy and illuminates it with spirit, which is why the revelation of truth is a spiritual experience at the soul level, the only place spirit can be perceived.
But there can’t be an “authoritative elimination of error” in the field of science or cosmology, if the science and cosmology in TUB has errors. That is a contradiction. Its eliminating error by giving us a cosmology and true science that is not errored. That is how it is eliminating error. Religious revelations have errors in their cosmology, if there are errors in the cosmology it is not authoritatively eliminating error. If the cosmology and science presented is destined to be outdated in a few short years, there is no authoritative elimination of error in science or cosmology.
I think that “inward” is upward. :) The word ascend literally means going up, but we could say that the ascension upward is also inward IMO.
Yeah, I agree.
18:2.4 It is natural, on your world, to speak of Paradise as upward, but it would be more correct to refer to the divine goal of ascension as inward.
32:3.8 Excepting perfect beings of Deity origin, all will creatures in the superuniverses are of evolutionary nature, beginning in lowly estate and climbing ever upward, in reality inward.
But there can’t be an “authoritative elimination of error” in the field of science or cosmology, if the science and cosmology in TUB has errors.
I didn’t say, nor does the book say, that there could be an authoritative eliminate of error in the field of science or cosmology. What it says is that there can be an authoritative elimination of error in the way that people think about science or cosmology. That’s a different animal altogether. It’s about eliminating the error of thinking, not about eliminating erroneous facts.
For example, recall Paper 19:1 where it tells us the problems of erroneous thinking in regards to science and religion. It warns us against making the error of starting with the lower in order to approach the higher. That is what they mean by the authoritative elimination of error; they are revealing how to build a framework of thought the proper way. They are not concerned about the facts of science or cosmology; they are only concerned with the way facts are thought about. They authoritatively reveal the fallacies of erroneous thought frameworks, rather than the facts that make up the framework. Hope that makes sense – another fine point that I’m probably doing a poor job of explaining.
Any cosmology presented as a part of revealed religion is destined to be outgrown in a very short time. Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented.
They are talking about cosmologies presented as part of revealed religion. Paper 42 is not being presented as part of revealed religion. They are not even talking about TUB here. They are talking about religious revelations where someone added on an errored cosmology. There are no errors in TUB. You can’t provide the “authoritative elimination of error” with an errored revelation. The word error doesn’t mean erroneous, it means mistaken. There are no mistakes made by the authors.
Scott, the errors of cosmology presented are due to the limitations of revelation. It’s like the Prime Directive on STNG. That’s not what they are referring to when they say “authoritative elimination of error”.
First, what is error? It is a mistake in thinking. The facts of science and cosmology presented in the UB are limited by the revelation mandate, so they cannot reveal facts that will become known to us in the near or distant future. They know that and admit it. What they can do is eliminate the error of thinking that give rise to the mistaken facts of science and cosmology in the first place. They do the same thing with religion. Here’s an example:
We’ve all heard the story about the great flood and how Noah built an ark and filled it with two of every kind of animal, etc.. The ark landed on Mt. Ararat and then the members of the ark went on to repopulate the world. This story doesn’t jive with science at all and most of us know it. It’s completely erroneous, yet some deeply religious people still hold it dear as fact. So how do the revelators go about authoritatively eliminating the error? They don’t go step by step through the actual story and debunk it as nonsense. They chip away at it bit by bit, slowly revealing the truth and allowing the reader to arrive at their own conclusions. They lay the foundation for a different way of thinking about it. Here’s how they did it:
77:4.12 Mount Ararat was the sacred mountain of northern Mesopotamia, and since much of your tradition of these ancient times was acquired in connection with the Babylonian story of the flood, it is not surprising that Mount Ararat and its region were woven into the later Jewish story of Noah and the universal flood.
Here you learn that back in the day Mt. Ararat was a sacred mountain, implying that worshipping mountains is primitive. Then they tell us that the great flood is a story, implying that it is not a fact. Next, they say that this information was woven into another story, making you wonder even more about the facts.
78:7.3 Almost five thousand years later, as the Hebrew priests in Babylonian captivity sought to trace the Jewish people back to Adam, they found great difficulty in piecing the story together; and it occurred to one of them to abandon the effort, to let the whole world drown in its wickedness at the time of Noah’s flood, and thus to be in a better position to trace Abraham right back to one of the three surviving sons of Noah.
Now, after they got you thinking that maybe there’s something wrong with the story, in the next Paper they reveal some really crazy thinking by the Hebrew priests which makes you even more skeptical.
78:7.4 The traditions of a time when water covered the whole of the earth’s surface are universal. Many races harbor the story of a world-wide flood some time during past ages. The Biblical story of Noah, the ark, and the flood is an invention of the Hebrew priesthood during the Babylonian captivity. There has never been a universal flood since life was established on Urantia. The only time the surface of the earth was completely covered by water was during those Archeozoic ages before the land had begun to appear.
Here they finally hit you with the whammy. The flood was invented. Swoosh . . . error eliminated in your mind authoritatively.
78:7.5 But Noah really lived; he was a wine maker of Aram, a river settlement near Erech. He kept a written record of the days of the river’s rise from year to year. He brought much ridicule upon himself by going up and down the river valley advocating that all houses be built of wood, boat fashion, and that the family animals be put on board each night as the flood season approached. He would go to the neighboring river settlements every year and warn them that in so many days the floods would come. Finally a year came in which the annual floods were greatly augmented by unusually heavy rainfall so that the sudden rise of the waters wiped out the entire village; only Noah and his immediate family were saved in their houseboat.
But wait! So there really was a Noah . . . what the hell? . . . a double whammy! Then you find out that Noah was a scientist and a pragmatist, that he really did have an ark full of animals. Then all of sudden the origin of the myth (erroneous thinking) becomes crystal clear. Your thinking about the whole thing has completely changed and now you can approach other stories that don’t pass the smell test with the same type of thinking. Capisca?
First, what is error? It is a mistake in thinking. The facts of science and cosmology presented in the UB are limited by the revelation mandate, so they cannot reveal facts that will become known to us in the near or distant future. They know that and admit it. What they can do is eliminate the error of thinking that give rise to the mistaken facts of science and cosmology in the first place. They do the same thing with religion. Here’s an example:
Right they are limited in revealing to much, but what they do reveal is not errored. In this quote the authors are talking about something with errors in it.
Any cosmology presented as a part of revealed religion is destined to be outgrown in a very short time. Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented.
There are not any errors in TUB, because the authors are not presenting a cosmology as part of a revealed religion. They are presenting cosmology as part of a philosophical revelation. This quote is not even talking about TUB. Its talking about religious revelations. There is no place in TUB where the authors made a mistake in thinking, or had a mistake in judgment.
The 2nd paragraph is definitely talking about TUB. But not the last two sentences of the first paragraph.
1109.2) 101:4.1 Because your world is generally ignorant of origins, even of physical origins, it has appeared to be wise from time to time to provide instruction in cosmology. And always has this made trouble for the future. The laws of revelation hamper us greatly by their proscription of the impartation of unearned or premature knowledge. Any cosmology presented as a part of revealed religion is destined to be outgrown in a very short time. Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented.
(1109.3) 101:4.2 Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve.
here is no place in TUB where the authors made a mistake in thinking, or had a mistake in judgment.
I never said anything about the UB authors making mistakes in thinking. I’m talking about you, SCOTT, making mistakes in thinking (actually, me too). The revelation authoritatively eliminates error in SCOTT’s thinking (and mine), not in theirs. Jeeesh.
here is no place in TUB where the authors made a mistake in thinking, or had a mistake in judgment.
I never said anything about the UB authors making mistakes in thinking. I’m talking about you, SCOTT, making mistakes in thinking (actually, me too). The revelation authoritatively eliminates error in SCOTT’s thinking (and mine), not in theirs. Jeeesh.
Right but there is mistakes in cosmologies that are presented as part of revealed religion. So they can’t be talking about TUB here.
Any cosmology presented as a part of revealed religion is destined to be outgrown in a very short time. Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented.
Right but there is mistakes in cosmologies that are presented as part of revealed religion. So they can’t be talking about TUB here.
Oy vey. I think I just wasted an hour explaining this for nothing. We’re right back where we started. Yes, they are talking about the UB which is a religious revelation clearly stated on page 1007. And yes, there are cosmological, historical and scientific errors in the UB and they freely admit it due to the limitations of the revelation mandate. The quote you claim cannot be about the UB says that the laws of revelation (revelation mandate) hamper the revelators greatly in that they are not allowed to prematurely impart unearned knowledge. They go on to say that the cosmology presented within the pages of this book of revealed religion is going to become outgrown shortly, which would tempt people not to take it seriously when these in congruencies become evident. It’s all about the UB.
101:4.2 Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve.
And yes, there are cosmological, historical and scientific errors in the TUB
The word error means mistaken judgment. So you think that one of these divine beings is guilty of mistaken judgment??
101:4.2 Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve.
Nothing about making an error in there.
The word error means mistaken judgment.
And the revelators did not make errors, they simply failed to reveal unearned information which makes it look as though they were in error. They are only permitted to use information that is already known regardless of its complete accuracy. When viewed in the light of future earned knowledge, what was written 100 years in the past will be outdated and seem to be in error, when in fact it was the best information for the time of the revelation permitted under the mandate.
And error doesn’t only refer to judgment. It’s a mistake in thinking. For instance, you go about thinking that you’re standing straight up on the planet when in reality you’re dangling upside down when viewed from space. That has nothing to do with judgment. It’s about a new perspective in thinking about something.
TUB wrote: Nothing about making an error in there.
. . . within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries.
The need for revision means that their current statements are incomplete, thus not completely accurate. New scientific developments and discoveries will make it seem as though the original information in the revelation is irrelevant, inaccurate, miscalculated, incorrect . . . all synonyms for error. Circumscribed viewpoints are erroneous.
130:4.11 Error is the shadow of relative incompleteness which must of necessity fall across man’s ascending universe path to Paradise perfection.
Incomplete does not mean they are errored though. Error in the English language has always meant mistaken judgment. Or just quite simply, mistake.
The universes are incomplete, but they are not errored. They are perfecting. The notion that something needs to be perfect to not be errored is insanity. To adopt that view is to adopt complete insanity.
