Preview: a read-only copy of the forum. To post or reply, use the current forum.

Spiritual insight

55 posts · 5 participants · started Aug 8, 2014, 10:43 PM

BonitaParticipant
Aug 9, 2014, 8:44 PM

TUB wrote:

He is talking about mortals in this quote not rabbits. I think the quote is pretty straight forward. He is laying out 2 classifications of mortals.

The first sentence is about mortals. The second sentence is about an inhabited world. The third sentence divides the inhabitants of that world into God knowing and not God knowing Then they say something else entirely different. They mention those who CANNOT know God. That is entirely different from those who know him and those who do not know him. Using the word CANNOT means that there is no capacity at all to ever know God, there is no potential. This could not be referring to a mortal. Mortal means human. Humans have volition and volition is a feature of personality. All personalities CAN know God, it’s an innate feature of personality to quest for him.
TUBParticipant
Aug 9, 2014, 9:03 PM
. Using the word CANNOT means that there is no capacity at all to ever know God, there is no potential.

Actually I think there is 3 classes. Those who are functioning at a animal level and are capable of more, and then there are those who cannot function at a human level and are completely stuck at a animal level.

Intellectually, mankind is divided into three classes: 1. The subnormal minded–those who do not exercise normal will power; those who do not make average decisions. This class embraces those who cannot comprehend God; they lack capacity for the intelligent worship of Deity. The subnormal beings of Urantia have a corps of seraphim, one company, with one battalion of cherubim, assigned to minister to them and to witness that justice and mercy are extended to them in the life struggles of the sphere. [etc.] (Pg. 1241)
BonitaParticipant
Aug 9, 2014, 9:33 PM
It says MANKIND is divided into subnormal, normal and supernormal INTELLECTUAL classes. All of these classes are still equal in the eyes of God because they are HUMANS (not animals) who have the power to make decisions, which means they have personality. Even the subnormal intellects have personality and therefore have potential to know God, if not in this lifetime, perhaps in the next. No personality is ever denied the opportunity to make the ultimate decision for survival regardless of their intellectual class on earth. Deficiencies of intellect are compensated for on the first mansion world. It’s no different than infants who die and are given the same opportunity in the nurseries. I’m not saying that all people with subnormal intellect will survive, I’m saying there is a chance that they might be still attached to their parents. It doesn’t say that, but it makes you wonder. Regardless, they are human beings and given angels. I don’t recall animals getting angels.
TUBParticipant
Aug 9, 2014, 9:40 PM
Well lets just agree on the part that there are people who are functioning at a animal level. I mean there is no point in arguing everything we disagree on if there is some common belief in there lol.

I’m not saying that all people with subnormal intellect will survive, I’m saying there is a chance that they might be still attached to their parents. It doesn’t say that, but it makes you wonder. Regardless, they are human beings and given angels.

Chris brought this up once. He said that they would resurrect on the probationary nursery at whatever mental age left off at here. So lets say someone has down syndrome and is stuck at a 3 year old mentality. They would resurrect on the probationary nursery as a 3 year old.
BonitaParticipant
Aug 9, 2014, 9:57 PM

TUB wrote:

Chris brought this up once. He said that they would resurrect on the probationary nursery at whatever mental age left off at here. So lets say someone has down syndrome and is stuck at a 3 year old mentality. They would resurrect on the probationary nursery as a 3 year old.

Well . . . if Chris says that, it must be true.
TUBParticipant
Aug 9, 2014, 10:04 PM

Bonita wrote:

Well . . . if Chris says that, it must be true.

Hahaha.
BonitaParticipant
Aug 10, 2014, 4:06 PM
Getting back to spiritual insight . . .

Human mind has no survival qualities at all unless it identifies with spirit on some level (36:5.17). Identification with spirit means developing a strong link of association and regarding oneself as sharing the same characteristics, or thinking like the spirit identified with. In order to share characteristics and thoughts there must be a spirit person present to share with.

The average human being attains survivability status, identity in the universe, the moment of the first moral decision and the arrival of the presence of Spirit within the mind (49:6.11; 36:6.5). Lucky Urantians, are blessed with three Spirit presences within their minds as they enter the 7th psychic circle, the Holy Spirit, Spirit of Truth and Thought Adjuster. Recognition of spirit presence is the beginning of spiritual insight. It is a gift, but it must first be recognized then engaged (shared) in order to be considered identified with. Sharing the inner life with spirit presence is God’s will; it is evidence of identity sharing (111:5.1). Spiritual insight is what God gives us when we share our minds and personalities with him. This gift of insight is meant to help us learn his character and his thinking, to help us learn how to become more spiritual and thus more perfect.
ReaderParticipant
Aug 10, 2014, 7:06 PM
Bonita, I have so far ‘recognized’ error in Scott’s misinterpretations of the text in this thread at all of the same points as you. I trust that others have seen the same problems, but have not added on. And I also think some may have ‘seen’ nothing wrong with things of issue for you and I in the thread.

Without meaning to boast, I would suggest that some of this mutual recognition we are experiencing is a fair example of the function of cosmic insight at the most basic level (discernment at level 1). Error-recognition is as useful as truth-recognition, and it usually presents itself in the face of broken rules of syntax or semantics, or when logical rules of mind are busted.

On the other hand, some of our mutual reaction to Scott’s reasoning has popped up because Scott has written with enough carelessness to suggest interpretations of the text which appear (to you and I) not only to misrepresent the text but also to undermine some basic truth vouchsafed to moral insight (discernment at level 2).

I mention this only briefly to help elucidate what my understanding of these insights entails in real life, and their place in discourse and discovery of truth and error.

To Scott: I am not saying that you don’t know what you are talking about – only that your writing has failed to convey your personal view of the facts in terms recognizable to me as free of error in my current mind-set.

-Reader
BonitaParticipant
Aug 10, 2014, 7:28 PM
Reader, I truly appreciate your courage to say what is in your heart and mind. Scott and I have been debating for years and sometimes it does get ugly. Personally, I’m trying very hard not to let my frustration get the best of me, although I’ve eyed the bottle of port more than once in the past few days, thinking it would be easier to deal with my own muddled mind than someone else’s.

I do sincerely wish you and others would join in the discussion. Perhaps they would if it went at a slower pace, if people had more time to think and research their ideas? I don’t know what the solution is but I often think that going back to writing opinion essays and books is a much better use of my time. I am very confident that there are some very fine thinkers on this forum, those utilizing their cosmic mind intuitions to the max, those who could be offering a real service by sharing their minds with us.
TUBParticipant
Aug 10, 2014, 10:05 PM
To Scott: I am not saying that you don’t know what you are talking about – only that your writing has failed to convey your personal view of the facts in terms recognizable to me as free of error in my current mind-set.

I encourage you to freely make a rebuttal to anything I have said. I don’t want to be the only one talking on this forum with Bonita. The main point I was trying to make in this thread was that spiritual insight is innate in the cosmic mind. I would say that my interpretation is pretty rock solid considering that the authors flat out tell us this.

^192.5) ^16:6.9 These scientific, moral, and spiritual insights, these cosmic responses, are innate in the cosmic mind, which endows all will creatures.
ReaderParticipant
Aug 10, 2014, 10:55 PM
I thought it best to approach the problem of understanding the revealed concept of spiritual insight by dealing first with the revealed concepts of material and moral insight.

At level-3 (spiritual insight) we are given the power to discover not just facts but spiritual truth, not just right but goodness, not just utility but beauty and harmony of purpose. The three spiritual values are the ‘stuff’ of spiritual insight as far as it is attainable to finite mortals I think.

From the first two levels of insight we ascertain the meaning of things as forces, of acts as right or wrong. But from this perspective alone our decisions can take an unspiritual direction. How? We can rush off to utilize force in the interest of everything we perceive to be right.

Many would say, of course, why not? bring in the Kingdom, etc.

I suggest that it is only by spiritual insight that we recognize error in such cases, and the truth and spirituality of the proposition “Might does not make right.”

I’m taking a chance here. The extra-ethical and spiritual nature of this truth has only recently dawned on me and I’m still considering. Someone will perhaps argue that I am still at the level of moral consciousness. But in my current view I would argue no, in this case I believe we are talking about an actual spiritual truth.

I would also argue that the spirituality of this principle is evidenced by the fact that it best characterizes the TA’s relations with human personality – Even though the Adjuster stands for all goodness in the universe, it does not coerce. It is silent as a lamb, gently persuading or admonishing, because it is a living representative of the very source of this spiritual truth, that might does not make right. That right need not use might. It fits the life and career of Jesus as well.

Not every wise old saying is a spiritual insight. But there are lots of spiritual truths available to us through the cultivation of this third insight into meaning and value. All such spiritual insights only glimmer briefly at first, they all sound a little odd to human mind at first. We tend to think of dozens of reasons why they can’t always be true, why they must be qualified or conditioned by circumstances.
TUBParticipant
Aug 10, 2014, 11:43 PM
One of the other points I was trying to make in this thread was that morality can be spiritual. Or it can be merely unspiritual. I didn’t really get a chance to give quotes to defend this position.

^(40.6) ^2:6.2 Religion implies that the superworld of spirit nature is cognizant of, and responsive to, the fundamental needs of the human world. Evolutionary religion may become ethical, but only revealed religion becomes truly and spiritually moral. The olden concept that God is a Deity dominated by kingly morality was upstepped by Jesus to that affectionately touching level of intimate family morality of the parent-child relationship, than which there is none more tender and beautiful in mortal experience.

^(2096.3) ^196:3.27 Morality is not necessarily spiritual; it may be wholly and purely human, albeit real religion enhances all moral values, makes them more meaningful. Morality without religion fails to reveal ultimate goodness, and it also fails to provide for the survival of even its own moral values. Religion provides for the enhancement, glorification, and assured survival of everything morality recognizes and approves.
BonitaParticipant
Aug 11, 2014, 12:06 AM
Interesting Reader. I confess that I’m not following exactly, but that’s probably my fault. Isn’t “might does not make right” a statement about human ethics? Are you saying that there is a spiritual meaning in that aphorism that will be recognized by the cosmic mind reality recognition response once it is processed by the soul and given spiritual meaning through experience?

I’m wondering what the spiritual meaning would be. Perhaps it is the recognition that using soul powers instead of physical or mental powers in the pursuit of what is truly right is what God intends. I’ve been under the impression that only the Adjuster knows what is truly right, so the use of soul powers in the pursuit of doing what is truly right would simply mean doing God’s will. Right?

I do believe that there is a full continuum of moral consciousness ranging from human to divine. Jesus gave us six levels to the golden rule, the last being the spiritual level, the level of fatherly love. Spiritual insight is “seeing” God’s nature and choosing to be like him. It involves much more than the cosmic mind and its intuitions, it involves the soul which is morontial. I believe that seeing others as God sees them is what makes it possible to live the spiritual level of the golden rule.

52:6.5 Only moral beings will ever seek for that spiritual insight which is essential to living the golden rule.
TUBParticipant
Aug 11, 2014, 12:19 AM
I think that our moral nature can potentially be augmented by spiritual insight, and that it becomes spiritual because spirit-faith encompasses our entire consciousness. Instead of just looking for value, we can look for moral values. I know I talk a lot about a moral and philosophical consciousness, but I don’t want to make it look like I am suggesting something that negates genuine religion and spirituality. IMO the 2 can become binded together.

^(2096.3) ^196:3.27 Morality is not necessarily spiritual; it may be wholly and purely human, albeit real religion enhances all moral values, makes them more meaningful. Morality without religion fails to reveal ultimate goodness, and it also fails to provide for the survival of even its own moral values. Religion provides for the enhancement, glorification, and assured survival of everything morality recognizes and approves.

The way the authors talk about morality and religion it seems to me that the 2 fit together like peanut butter and jam.
ReaderParticipant
Aug 11, 2014, 4:13 AM
Bonita, you ask: Isn’t “might does not make right” a statement about human ethics?

I think it is one of the principles underlying the best worship-response available to us in most human situations. It implies the kind of higher ethics which cannot manifest without spiritual insight into the Father’s nature (comprehensible to finites only by recognition and appreciation of spirit values – truth, beauty, goodness). I am addressing only the three categories of insight on p.192. It may be that you are ranging further in the text.

These words, might and right represent the first two realms of reality-response. level-1 material insight (which yields increasing personality powers over material reality – force, i.e. “might”) and level-2 moral insight (which discerns only the better choice for identification between any two alternate paths – relative “right” vs. wrong). The statement is in the form of a negation, implying that only a third level of reality (spirit) can provide the ultimate synthesis between the two.

You also ask: Are you saying that there is a spiritual meaning in that aphorism that will be recognized by the cosmic mind reality recognition response once it is processed by the soul and given spiritual meaning through experience?

The structure of this question is hard for me to follow. I am very sure you have a text somewhere in support of each phrase, but I don’t see them hanging together quite rightly. I see the word meaning used twice, but no mention of value. I think spirit values are the sole carrier of reality in this higher realm (for us finites).

Not to discount the importance of meanings, I wouldn’t mind helping you unpack the thesis behind this question in terms of everyday language.

-Reader
ReaderParticipant
Aug 11, 2014, 4:23 AM
Bonita, I think the example of the six levels of the golden rule is excellent in this context. That sixth level is really above what you call ‘human ethics,’ and it is this ‘above ethics’ that I am talking about in this third level of insight.

We need the same higher insight to get the most out of the Sermon on the Mount also.

-Reader.
TUBParticipant
Aug 11, 2014, 5:26 AM
You can bring a moral nature up to the 6th level of meaning, (the level of genuine spiritual love.) You don’t actually leave that behind. A higher form of morality is also a awareness of relativity between persons (112:0.11), at the spiritual level it’s more then just a subjective right and wrong detector. It’s an actual objective insight into right and wrong. It’s also an insight into the relativity between people. That mere unspiritual morality can turn into a spiritually cosmic form of morality.

Jesus came and upstepped morality to a spiritual level (2:6.2). The morality they are talking about in that quote far surpasses that crude sense of moral duty.

When spiritual love takes hold in our minds it will IMO fill our entire moral consciousness. Our entire mindal domain will be bathed in it IMO.
BonitaParticipant
Aug 11, 2014, 12:40 PM

Reader wrote: These words, might and right represent the first two realms of reality-response. level-1 material insight (which yields increasing personality powers over material reality – force, i.e. “might”)

Maybe so, I don’t know. The first level is about causation. My level-1 reality recognition response to “might doesn’t make right” would be the recognition of the reality that I cannot force a 2 inch peg into a 1 inch hole by might; it would never be “right”. That is a fact. Science and math are about facts. The first reality I would recognize would be the difference between this fact/nonfact relationship.

Reader wrote: . . . and level-2 moral insight (which discerns only the better choice for identification between any two alternate paths – relative “right” vs. wrong).

Level-2 is about morality and judgment. My level-2 reality recognition response would be to recognize that although I beat my child in order to get the behavior I desired, I could not bear to see the suffering I inflicted. I would recognize that I love my child more than the desired behavior. This is a moral issue, jeopardizing the welfare of another individual in order to satisfy my own needs and desires. As you say, I would recognize the better choice between two alternate paths.

Reader wrote: The statement is in the form of a negation, implying that only a third level of reality (spirit) can provide the ultimate synthesis between the two.

Yes, and this third level I began to explain in that paragraph you say is confusing. Level-3 is worship. My level-3 reality recognition response to “might does not make right” would occur because of my personal fellowship with God. I would recognize that God loves me and all people, which means I would want to be like him and use the power of my personality free-will choice to bear the fruits of fatherly love. This level of reality recognition can only occur on the soul level because that is where we fellowship with God.

Reader wrote: I see the word meaning used twice, but no mention of value.

The reality recognition response on level-3 is the worship level of the soul. (Worship is the province of the soul.) A reality worth recognizing at the soul level would be value. But value must be given meaning by experience. Recognizing value is step two of discover, recognize, interprate and choose. After recognition, value would have to be interpreted (related) and then chosen by the personality for actualization in real life situations, (decision making).

Have I made myself any clearer?
BonitaParticipant
Aug 11, 2014, 1:07 PM

TUB wrote: That mere unspiritual morality can turn into a spiritually cosmic form of morality.

Isn’t cosmic morality the same as appreciation of cosmic citizenship and awareness of one’s obligation to the Supreme? Cosmic morality comes with increasing circle mastery.

110:3.10 Joyful acceptance of cosmic citizenship — honest recognition of your progressive obligations to the Supreme Being, awareness of the interdependence of evolutionary man and evolving Deity. This is the birth of cosmic morality and the dawning realization of universal duty.

117:4.8 The temporal relation of man to the Supreme is the foundation for cosmic morality, the universal sensitivity to, and acceptance of, duty. This is a morality which transcends the temporal sense of relative right and wrong; it is a morality directly predicated on the self-conscious creature’s appreciation of experiential obligation to experiential Deity.
BradlyParticipant
Aug 11, 2014, 1:31 PM

Bonita wrote:

Interesting Reader. I confess that I’m not following exactly, but that’s probably my fault. Isn’t “might does not make right” a statement about human ethics? Are you saying that there is a spiritual meaning in that aphorism that will be recognized by the cosmic mind reality recognition response once it is processed by the soul and given spiritual meaning through experience?

Me here: I would agree that “might does not make right” has a great moral foundation similar to “the end does not justify the means” is a moral insight as well. Jesus exemplified these universal truths I think. Even cleverness and deceptions are not to be used in God’s “Way”. Many have been “converted” by might and much evil has resulted from believing the end justifies all means.

The first time I read those words in the Arthurian tales, my soul sang and soared in response.

"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."

Reply on the current forum