Gene, this is a very good topic and you’ve received superb responses. Many people could benefit from expanded understanding of the Foreword and its introductory purposes . Would you consider editing the title to correct the spelling to Foreword? Perhaps more people would/could recognize this topic a bit quicker while reviewing topics and relate it to the book? It was a bit puzzling to me initially, but others saw your intent, a good one.
Preview: a read-only copy of the forum. To post or reply, use the current forum.
Looking at the Foreword
37 posts · 9 participants · started Nov 17, 2017, 2:24 AM
but have not yet got a clear understanding of exactly what deity is . . .
Maybe I’m just being annoying, but I keep telling you it’s not WHAT, but WHO. Deity are the gods from Paradise, they’re people. What you can be sure of though is that neither you nor I are Deity.
. . . and I don’t think it will happen on this planet.
Deity is not an IT. Deity did happen on this planet. His name is Jesus.
but have not yet got a clear understanding of exactly what deity is . . .
Maybe I’m just being annoying, but I keep telling you it’s not WHAT, but WHO. Deity are the gods from Paradise, they’re people. What you can be sure of though is that neither you nor I are Deity.
. . . and I don’t think it will happen on this planet.
Deity is not an IT. Deity did happen on this planet. His name is Jesus.
ok
ok
You’re such a good sport Gene. Sorry to be a nag about that.
ok
You’re such a good sport Gene. Sorry to be a nag about that.
I learn a lot from you, I need nagging at times and greatful for your effort
Gene, this is a very good topic and you’ve received superb responses. Many people could benefit from expanded understanding of the Foreword and its introductory purposes . Would you consider editing the title to correct the spelling to Foreword? Perhaps more people would/could recognize this topic a bit quicker while reviewing topics and relate it to the book? It was a bit puzzling to me initially, but others saw your intent, a good one.
thx for pointing out my spelling mistake. I can’t figure how to modify the title, need mod assistance.
duplicate deleted, sorry
Just thinking a bit more about forward stuff: the quote below is clipped from part XII of the Forward. “Trinities are truths of relationship and facts of co-ordinate Deity manifestation. Trinity functions encompass Deity realities, and Deity realities always seek realization and manifestation in personalization. “ Then I read this: clipped from part 1:5 “In the contemplation of Deity, the concept of personality must be divested of the idea of corporeality. A material body is not indispensable to personality in either man or God. The corporeality error is shown in both extremes of human philosophy. In materialism, since man loses his body at death, he ceases to exist as a personality; in pantheism, since God has no body, he is not, therefore, a person. The superhuman type of progressing personality functions in a union of mind and spirit.“
I know this is a stretch but I’m going to put it out regardless just to get my thoughts out. Thinking about the bolded part and trinity relationships: can personality, mind and spirit qualify as trinity? What are the limits to trinity manifestations, strictly diety? Think farther about other related realities linked in groups of 3: cosmic realities, mind meanings, spirit values. Truth, beauty, goodness. Love, mercy, ministry. Justice, power, sovereignty and I believe there are more. Not suggesting these are trinities but the relationships certainly suggest the unity of trinity at minimum. as bolded above: truths of relationship and facts of co-ordinate deity manifestation seems to be a three thing.
Have you had a chance to read about triunities and triodities?
Have you had a chance to read about triunities and triodities?
yes
but I need to re-read – headed there soon
Thinking about the bolded part and trinity relationships: can personality, mind and spirit qualify as trinity?
Energy, mind and spirit is the triodity which is acted upon by personality as part of the evolution of the Supreme. Mind intervenes between energy and spirit. This is why the cosmic mind has three reality reflexes and why we are supposed to learn to recognize and reckon with the ” . . . elliptic symmetry of reality and with the essential curvature of all relation concepts.”(103:6.14)
Have not re-read triodity yet but isn’t energy, mind and spirit a manifestation of the cosmic mind?
And those three reflexes – aren’t they causation, duty and worship? Or am I missing it.
I read 103.6 and that elliptical symmetry escapes me. Actually it seems out of place in that paper.
something I need to recon with as I always have had difficulty with the elliptical thing.
I did make a list of the three’s:
cosmic reality, mind meanings, spirit value – starting at the top.
Truth, beauty, goodness – how we comprehend divinity and unity.
Love, mercy, ministry- how our personality correlates TBG.
Justice, power, sovereignty- the non-personal expression of TBG.
Fact, idea, relation – elements of universal reality.
Science, philosophy, truth-
Reason, wisdom, faith-
Thing, meaning, value –
Physical reality, intellectual reality, spiritual realitie –
Energy, mind, spirit – The Triodity??
Causation, duty, worship – self evident responses to Cosmic mind.
Scientific, moral, spiritual – insights.
Have not re-read triodity yet but isn’t energy, mind and spirit a manifestation of the cosmic mind?
No.
And those three reflexes – aren’t they causation, duty and worship?
Yes
Causation is the reality level of physical energy (science,fact,reason,thing,); Duty is the reality level of mind (philosophy,idea,wisdom,meaning,morality); Worship is the reality level of spirit (truth,relation,faith,value,spiritual insight ).
196:3.2 There are just three elements in universal reality: fact, idea, and relation. The religious consciousness identifies these realities as science, philosophy, and truth. Philosophy would be inclined to view these activities as reason, wisdom, and faith — physical reality, intellectual reality, and spiritual reality. We are in the habit of designating these realities as thing, meaning, and value.
Hi Gene,
I took the liberty of correcting the spelling of the title of your thread. I hope you don’t mind.
Moderator 2.
Hi Gene, I took the liberty of correcting the spelling of the title of your thread. I hope you don’t mind. Moderator 2.
Thx
Hi Gene, I took the liberty of correcting the spelling of the title of your thread. I hope you don’t mind. Moderator 2.
Thx
maybe corrected spelling has unintended opposite effect?
I always got a kick out of this:
the first words in the foreword:
“IN THE MINDS of the mortals of Urantia—that being the name of your world—there exists great confusion respecting the meaning of such terms as God, divinity, and deity.”then the last words in the book: “When all is said and done, the Father idea is still the highest human concept of God.”
seems simple enough eh?
