57 posts · 5 participants · started Sep 24, 2014, 1:54 AM
Cant find it but the scenario painted in TUB where the face of the cave man gives unpleasant impressions until the real motivation is uncovered which is his willingness to lay down his life to protect his family – the impression then becomes understandable and even admirable.
This is at least one face of war. Does it automatically become ugly when the situation grows beyond immediate family?
I call it “stuck being human”
Here it is Nelson:
(1098.2) 100:4.5 In the mind’s eye conjure up a picture of one of your primitive ancestors of cave-dwelling times — a short, misshapen, filthy, snarling hulk of a man standing, legs spread, club upraised, breathing hate and animosity as he looks fiercely just ahead. Such a picture hardly depicts the divine dignity of man. But allow us to enlarge the picture. In front of this animated human crouches a saber-toothed tiger. Behind him, a woman and two children. Immediately you recognize that such a picture stands for the beginnings of much that is fine and noble in the human race, but the man is the same in both pictures. Only, in the second sketch you are favored with a widened horizon. You therein discern the motivation of this evolving mortal. His attitude becomes praiseworthy because you understand him. If you could only fathom the motives of your associates, how much better you would understand them. If you could only know your fellows, you would eventually fall in love with them.*
"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
Thank you Bradly
Mara wrote: It goes without saying I have not experienced laying down my life for my friends, as Jesus did. Can I? Will I be required to do this? Don’t know. Maybe I will have a long horrible illness in which to demonstrate my faith to those who care for me.
Sounds morose. Do you really think that you have to sacrifice yourself on some level in order to prove your loyalty to God? God doesn’t ask anyone to sacrifice themselves, even for their friends. He asks them to sacrifice their sense of self-importance, to put aside the self in the interest of others . . . self-forgetfulness.
180:5.12 The old religion taught self-sacrifice; the new religion teaches only self-forgetfulness, enhanced self-realization in conjoined social service and universe comprehension.
You will not find yourself unless you forget yourself. Trying to save yourself will never succeed until you forget yourself, lose yourself in service to God. “Whosoever will save his life shall lose it, but whosoever will lose his life shall find it”
It would seem that the term “self-forgetfulness” might be, being associated with, something different than what the UB seems to have initially given as to its implied meaning:
(51.12) 3:5.13 8. Is unselfishness — the spirit of self-forgetfulness — desirable? Then must mortal man live face to face with the incessant clamoring of an inescapable self for recognition and honor. Man could not dynamically choose the divine life if there were no self-life to forsake. Man could never lay saving hold on righteousness if there were no potential evil to exalt and differentiate the good by contrast.
Where by “unselfishness” or “not selfish” would not necessarily coincide with “self-forgetfulness” if it is assumed that it might imply that one should be forgetful of oneself, or as it might be assumed forgetful of one’s own past discretions between good and evil, which everyone has the potential of. Where the UB’s definition is correct even as the definition of “self-forgetful” follows along the same line:
“self-forgetful” – adjective – 1. forgetful or not thinking of one’s own advantage, interest, etc.
“unselfish” – adjective – 1. not selfish; disinterested; generous; altruistic.
Therefore, to apply “self-forgetfulness” of oneself, would also imply to “sacrifice yourself on some level in order to prove your loyalty to God”, where what you would do for the least of God’s creatures, just might be a sacrifice for some, who might be considered as more than the least of God’s creatures. “There but for the grace of God, go I”, where as Mara’s quote above is synonymous to my own condition, and can relate.
Bradly wrote: Greetings all…sorry to be so absent…
Bonita wrote: Sounds morose. Do you really think that you have to sacrifice yourself on some level in order to prove your loyalty to God?
MidiChlorian wrote: Actually Mara, we have been told, even though as a Biblical story. . . .
Therefore, to apply “self-forgetfulness” of oneself, would also imply to “sacrifice yourself on some level in order to prove your loyalty to God”,..
Me here: I think to be self forgetful is to be fully focused…like a musician, painter, athlete, or writer who is “in the groove” of expression or performance. It seems to be most creative and productive with “me” somehow “out of the way” while the music flows unencumbered. Many artists claim they are not the source of their expressions but only the instrument through which the art is delivered. Yet the expression/performance is personalized and unique to the instrument/artist/athlete too. To be so absorbed in something as to “lose” oneself is not so uncommon an experience and this form is not sacrificial…but beneficial to all concerned.
Just another way to think of it.
"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
MidiChlorian wrote: Therefore, to apply “self-forgetfulness” of oneself, would also imply to “sacrifice yourself on some level in order to prove your loyalty to God”,..
I think the proof of loyalty to God is in the bearing of much and many fruits of the divine spirit. On the subject of self-forgetfulness, I learned something the other day from a friend. She and I were talking about how needful some people are as regards having someone to confide in. These needful people are talkers. They talk and talk and talk mostly about themselves, if not entirely about themselves. I had lunch with just such a person last week.
My friend (not the one I had lunch with) shared her insight with me about it. She envisioned such needful persons as “vessels” which are unfilled, or perhaps unfulfilled. They need much to fill their vessel. I captured her picture of this kind of needful person, and I know many who are like this. She said people like us, referring to her and to me, among others, are “vessels” that are overflowing in the sense that “my cup runneth over.” Needful people want to hang out with those whose vessels runneth over! That which runneth over by my interpretation is the divine spirit of love and compassion. To be self-forgetful is to be full of the spirit of the Lord. It is as natural an breathing.
Where by “unselfishness” or “not selfish” would not necessarily coincide with “self-forgetfulness” if it is assumed that it might imply that one should be forgetful of oneself, or as it might be assumed forgetful of one’s own past discretions between good and evil, which everyone has the potential of. Where the UB’s definition is correct even as the definition of “self-forgetful” follows along the same line:
“self-forgetful” – adjective – 1. forgetful or not thinking of one’s own advantage, interest, etc.
“unselfish” – adjective – 1. not selfish; disinterested; generous; altruistic.
Me here: Well said Midi. The two terms are related but not the same. And why, I think, that “sacrifice” does not impinge upon either self forgetful or unselfish. For at the core of sacrifice is one who must give up something of their own that is missed. There seems to be some element of lamentation in sacrifice. The motive is key – love does not sacrifice but duty requires it. Loyalty, duty, AND sacrifice are higher forms of the golden rule than pure self interest to be sure…but I think we are being told that true love in service to others and our creator parent is a blessing in and of itself that, in its higher form, does not, indeed cannot, be considered any form of sacrifice.
(1945.3) 180:1.6 Keep in mind: It is loyalty, not sacrifice, that Jesus demands. The consciousness of sacrifice implies the absence of that wholehearted affection which would have made such a loving service a supreme joy. The idea of duty signifies that you are servant-minded and hence are missing the mighty thrill of doing your service as a friend and for a friend. The impulse of friendship transcends all convictions of duty, and the service of a friend for a friend can never be called a sacrifice.
"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
My cave man scenario likely did not include much reasoning on the part of the caveman. He was in fight or flight mode and had obviously made the choice to fight for something he flet was more valuable than himself.
His choice likely had little to do with higher reasonings – he was forced to respond as any animal would.
Its sad but humans still get put into these situations.
nelsong wrote: My cave man scenario . . . .
Jesus said to the apostles they should be on watch against fear and doubts. He said gird up the loins of your mind. Let you lamps be kept burning.
165:5:5 “But in the work which is just ahead of us, and in that which remains for you after I go to the Father, you will be grievously tried. You must all be on your watch against fear and doubts. Every one of you, gird up the loins of your minds and let your lamps be kept burning. Keep yourselves like men who are watching for their master to return from the marriage feast so that, when he comes and knocks, you may quickly open to him. Such watchful servants are blessed by the master who finds them faithful at such a great moment. Then will the master make his servants sit down while he himself serves them. Verily, verily, I say to you that a crisis is just ahead in your lives, and it behooves you to watch and be ready.”
48:7:4 2. Few persons live up to the faith which they really have. Unreasoned fear is a master intellectual fraud practiced upon the evolving mortal soul.
I think intellectual is the key word here.
the implication being someone has time to think.
nelsong wrote: I think intellectual is the key word here. the implication being someone has time to think.
Frame of mind might be another way to think of it.
139:8:12 Thomas is the great example of a human being who has doubts, faces them, and wins. He had a great mind; he was no carping critic. He was a logical thinker; he was the acid test of Jesus and his fellow apostles. If Jesus and his work had not been genuine, it could not have held a man like Thomas from the start to the finish. He had a keen and sure sense of fact. At the first appearance of fraud or deception Thomas would have forsaken them all. Scientists may not fully understand all about Jesus and his work on earth, but there lived and worked with the Master and his human associates a man whose mind was that of a true scientist — Thomas Didymus — and he believed in Jesus of Nazareth.
177:4:10 But it was ever just that way. Judas had long been engaged in this deliberate, persistent, selfish, and vengeful consciousness of progressively building up in his mind, and entertaining in his heart, these hateful and evil desires of revenge and disloyalty. Jesus loved and trusted Judas even as he loved and trusted the other apostles, but Judas failed to develop loyal trust and to experience wholehearted love in return. And how dangerous ambition can become when it is once wholly wedded to self-seeking and supremely motivated by sullen and long-suppressed vengeance! What a crushing thing is disappointment in the lives of those foolish persons who, in fastening their gaze on the shadowy and evanescent allurements of time, become blinded to the higher and more real achievements of the everlasting attainments of the eternal worlds of divine values and true spiritual realities. Judas craved worldly honor in his mind and grew to love this desire with his whole heart; the other apostles likewise craved this same worldly honor in their minds, but with their hearts they loved Jesus and were doing their best to learn to love the truths which he taught them.
139:8:4 Thomas’s great strength was his superb analytical mind coupled with his unflinching courage — when he had once made up his mind. His great weakness was his suspicious doubting, which he never fully overcame throughout his whole lifetime in the flesh.
Do you think people do not have time to think?
Me here: No, I think they simply and mostly do not TAKE the time to think…the time is available to think I think!! It is not a high priority for many. However, any lack of thinking does not diminish our ability to have opinions – hahaha!! I am hopeful that we will learn better how to prioritize and manage the free time which technology and industrialization has delivered to the masses. We must remember though that this is pretty new, even in the West, only 2-4 generations have enjoyed a work week shorter than 6 days x 12 hours for a poverty level income here, and much of the world still requires every person in the family to work all day every day for subsistence food, water, and shelter.
I have labeled this paradox in the West as the decadence of prosperity….wasted leisure time in pursuit of pleasures, entertainment, and distraction. It is a dangerous cycle. What will deliver us from decadence into thoughtfulness?? Interesting. Some related text:
(901.5) 81:2.2 You who now live amid latter-day scenes of budding culture and beginning progress in social affairs, who actually have some little spare time in which to think about society and civilization, must not overlook the fact that your early ancestors had little or no leisure which could be devoted to thoughtful reflection and social thinking.
(909.6) 81:6.25 The greatest twentieth-century influences contributing to the furtherance of civilization and the advancement of culture are the marked increase in world travel and the unparalleled improvements in methods of communication. But the improvement in education has not kept pace with the expanding social structure; neither has the modern appreciation of ethics developed in correspondence with growth along more purely intellectual and scientific lines. And modern civilization is at a standstill in spiritual development and the safeguarding of the home institution.
(910.1) 81:6.28 At first life was a struggle for existence; now, for a standard of living; next it will be for quality of thinking, the coming earthly goal of human existence.
"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
Do you think people do not have time to think?
____________________________________________________
I know this for a fact. Its called fight or flight mode. Im a vet – been there, done that.
You can argue that choosing between fight or flight is thinking but this sort of thinking is the time limited range of thought under extraordinary circumstances.
We usually do not choose to be put into fight or flight mode and when it happens the response is lightning fast. Higher reasoning just does not happen because there is no time. However, a value judgement is happening within this split second.
Mara wrote: Do you think people do not have time to think?
People have plenty of time to think, most just misapply their energies.
195:6.7 One of the great troubles with modern life is that man thinks he is too busy to find time for spiritual meditation and religious devotion.
Time is the one talent we are given. It should not be squandered or neglected.
28:6.9 3. The Import of Time. Time is the one universal endowment of all will creatures; it is the “one talent” intrusted to all intelligent beings. You all have time in which to insure your survival; and time is fatally squandered only when it is buried in neglect, when you fail so to utilize it as to make certain the survival of your soul. Failure to improve one’s time to the fullest extent possible does not impose fatal penalties; it merely retards the pilgrim of time in his journey of ascent. If survival is gained, all other losses can be retrieved.
this isn’t a normal world.
52:6.1 (597.2) The bestowal Son is the Prince of Peace. He arrives with the message, “Peace on earth and good will among men.” On normal worlds this is a dispensation of world-wide peace; the nations no more learn war. But such salutary influences did not attend the coming of your bestowal Son, Christ Michael. Urantia is not proceeding in the normal order. Your world is out of step in the planetary procession. Your Master, when on earth, warned his disciples that his advent would not bring the usual reign of peace on Urantia. He distinctly told them that there would be “wars and rumors of wars,” and that nation would rise against nation. At another time he said, “Think not that I have come to bring peace upon earth.”
I’ve been thinking about peace and war lately, and wanted to broach the subject of war more particularly from a broad-range view of it, horrible as war is, rather than from the short-range view of our current problems in the world. You may have strong opinions about who is at fault and or who to be praised in these times. If I could, I would like to lead us away from praising and blaming nations and persons. . History is but one phase of universe reality. The revelators charge that to comprehend any universe problem – human or divine – we must fully study and correlate without prejudice its origin, history and destiny to obtain the true perspective on the status of any reality problem. How are we going to learn to war no more? I’m going to present Paper 70 over the course of this discussion topic as an introduction to it. Join in if you have comments or questions.
PAPER 70 – THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN GOVERNMENT
(783.1)70:0.1 No sooner had man partially solved the problem of making a living than he was confronted with the task of regulating human contacts. The development of industry demanded law, order, and social adjustment; private property necessitated government.
(783.2)70:0.2 On an evolutionary world, antagonisms are natural; peace is secured only by some sort of social regulative system. Social regulation is inseparable from social organization; association implies some controlling authority. Government compels the co-ordination of the antagonisms of the tribes, clans, families, and individuals.
(783.3)70:0.3 Government is an unconscious development; it evolves by trial and error. It does have survival value; therefore it becomes traditional. Anarchy augmented misery; therefore government, comparative law and order, slowly emerged or is emerging. The coercive demands of the struggle for existence literally drove the human race along the progressive road to civilization.
1. THE GENESIS OF WAR
(783.4)70:1.1 War is the natural state and heritage of evolving man; peace is the social yardstick measuring civilization’s advancement. Before the partial socialization of the advancing races man was exceedingly individualistic, extremely suspicious, and unbelievably quarrelsome. Violence is the law of nature, hostility the automatic reaction of the children of nature, while war is but these same activities carried on collectively. And wherever and whenever the fabric of civilization becomes stressed by the complications of society’s advancement, there is always an immediate and ruinous reversion to these early methods of violent adjustment of the irritations of human interassociations.
(783.5)70:1.2 War is an animalistic reaction to misunderstandings and irritations; peace attends upon the civilized solution of all such problems and difficulties. The Sangik races, together with the later deteriorated Adamites and Nodites, were all belligerent. The Andonites were early taught the golden rule, and, even today, their Eskimo descendants live very much by that code; custom is strong among them, and they are fairly free from violent antagonisms.
(783.6)70:1.3 Andon taught his children to settle disputes by each beating a tree with a stick, meanwhile cursing the tree; the one whose stick broke first was the victor. The later Andonites used to settle disputes by holding a public show at which the disputants made fun of and ridiculed each other, while the audience decided the winner by its applause.
(783.7)70:1.4 But there could be no such phenomenon as war until society had evolved sufficiently far to actually experience periods of peace and to sanction warlike practices. The very concept of war implies some degree of organization.
(784.1)70:1.5 With the emergence of social groupings, individual irritations began to be submerged in the group feelings, and this promoted intratribal tranquillity but at the expense of intertribal peace. Peace was thus first enjoyed by the in-group, or tribe, who always disliked and hated the out-group, foreigners. Early man regarded it a virtue to shed alien blood.
(784.2)70:1.6 But even this did not work at first. When the early chiefs would try to iron out misunderstandings, they often found it necessary, at least once a year, to permit the tribal stone fights. The clan would divide up into two groups and engage in an all-day battle. And this for no other reason than just the fun of it; they really enjoyed fighting.
More later. . . .
