255 posts · 11 participants · started May 9, 2017, 12:04 PM
Just posted a plea for help to stabilize the site features. Let us be patient…and copy our posts prior to hitting the Submit button – or the “I don’t think so button”!
I have thought more than once some angel was silencing my voice….selectively….hahahaha….I should be so important!
"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."
Yes Midi/Cali, I agree….being called a liar shall not pass. Indeed. If you were to ask my advice, I would recommend letting sleeping dogs lie and to not poke the bear. Instead you insult me and call me a liar. Okay dude. Have it your way. A liar I’m not. Let the record show your words and those to speak for themselves, shall we?
I would look forward to to my vindication based on the text. However, I still stand by statement that you have lied.
Some of your more notable declarations, claims, and “debate” propositions regarding the Kingdom of Heaven:
1. You have declared that the Satania rebellion began on Urantia (it did not).
2. You have stated that the rebellion was begun by Life Carriers (it was not) and Adam and Eve were sent purposely to fail by the intent of System/Universe rulers.
3. You have said that the story of the rebellion and its termination proves there is no free will (not true).
4. More lately, you have declared that the Supreme is contaminated by and corrupted with sin and evil by mortals and celestials. (oh dear)
5. And that the TA’s are also so corrupted and may make people do sinful and evil things by such corruption.
6. And that there are “alternative” universes and realities created by either God or by the Michael Sons where darkness, danger, and sin rule.
The lead in to you statement above indicates and implies that, the 6 point which follow refer to “the Kingdom of Heaven:”
#1 – It was inferred that the rebellion started on Urantia, based on what “Van” did, which based on the time line, was prior to the actions applied to Urantia, read it again. You didn’t get it the first time but you retained you own opinion.
#2 – Again not as you state but based on presented UB text and based on theoretical applying the context to the text.
#3 – Don’t really know what you said, but seems to be your interpretation of ???. However the premise behind not having free-will is that if one’s choices are limited to only specific choices that may not apply, and if one must choose, then the choice made cannot be free-will, unless one can create their own choice. At least get it right.
#4 – again your opinion, not what was said, where much of the text was formed as questions, and in this case, later reassessed. It would seem that it is your intent to change the meaning of posts to suit your understanding of them, in order to present defamation. This is what I call “wordsmith-ing” – which actually implies to a reader a falsehood or lie, if you will.
#5 – Again your wording, where you misstate the original intent, in order to defame, not to mention that you have accused others of not answering questions, but in this case, your so-called answer, twists the question to your favor which comes across as an attack against the contributor. And if not an attack, surely not friendly.
#6 – The main subject of what you place in this statement seems to be beyond your capacity to comprehend so, it would seem if you cannot understand something you automatically reject it. In things that relate to some form of science, you rarely inject pertinent information, where what you do interject is of a religious nature, and not always related to the immediate subject. But to add at the end of number 6, “darkness, danger, and sin rule”, is added fluff which changes the entire statement to something else entirely. Although, you did not specify a lead in to that statement, so one could also assume that you left to a readers implication as to who said what, because it was not pre-qualified, otherwise.
It is fascinating that it seems that you do not see words like “if” or “maybe” especially when a sentence is ended with a question-mark “?”. Where the last time I understood it, a question-mark required a response or implied an uncertainty but, based on most of your responses you are blind to these markers, and turn them around to imply a twisted form of you understanding.
and the definition of “lie”:
noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. – Synonyms: prevarication, falsification. – Antonyms: truth.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.
Just posted a plea for help to stabilize the site features. Let us be patient…and copy our posts prior to hitting the Submit button – or the “I don’t think so button”! I have thought more than once some angel was silencing my voice….selectively….hahahaha….I should be so important!
Thanks Bradly. I’m still upset. I’ve complained about this many times and no one seems to be listening? I figured it’s unfixable. If they can’t fix it, can they install a stopwatch to let you know how much more “keep me signed in” time you actually have? Or change the button to read: “keep me signed in for 24 hours” or whatever. How about a warning beneath it saying “this button puts you into another time dimension.” Or how about this warning: We choose to define the word KEEP in whatever way we choose and it’s definition is subject to change without notice. Click this button at your own risk . . . argh.
Out of respect to the discussion and topic I give you the final word Caligastia. I have nothing else to say on the matter.
"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."
Dear Bonita,
I do want to mull over alllll questions, all the more concerning relative reality.
That is why I do not read any answered questions after I red your intro.
Brotherhood.
Comfort, happiness, and well-being of personality is enhanced through the mutual assistance and association of a body of individuals working together for a common cause.
The brotherhood of men is founded on the fatherhood of God. The family of God is derived from the love of God — God is love. God the Father divinely loves his children, all of them.
~ The Urantia Book, (131:4.1)
What do you think they mean by “exclusively spiritual brotherhood” ✘ and why do you think they include only “God-knowing individuals”✘✘ ?
✘ Exclusively because the nature of the Cause is spiritual in essence.
103:6.3 It is therefore true that, viewed exclusively from the insideness of personality experience, all creation appears to be spiritual in nature.
✘✘ God-consciousness – awareness results through faith. Faith is experimented to all personality in seven Universes. From Michaël, Avonals, angels and humans et cetera.
196:3.34 … the assurance of sonship is the experience of faith.
Certainly those folks shouldn’t be ostracized but illuminated in some way . . . right?
➤ Wrong.
[def … to exclude from a group by common consent.]
Satania system ostracization [quarantine and isolation] 46:8.4 … the law of deliberately nourished evil is universally and unerringly executed.
There is wisdom 1.01 resulting in such way to do things.
Ample occasions [illumination] to turn from the wrong self-annihilation direction is offered to the attention of such rebellious individuals. 2:6.9 The goodness of God rests at the bottom of the divine free- willness—the universal tendency to love, show mercy, manifest patience and minister forgiveness.
How does belonging to this family enrich us and renew us?
➤ … The enrichment process from all members of that Family. 111:5.1 Sharing is Godlike — divine as dear Mara often tells us.
The spiritual renewal of each of us specific process from our Father.
143:2.4 … you are first transformed by the Spirit of Truth and thereby strengthened in your inner soul by the constant spiritual renewing of your mind.
We’ve been told that this world has never seriously tried the kingdom of heaven idea . . . where have we gone wrong?
➤ … Which avenue Bonita would you like to take ? We have the embarrassment of choices.
Seriously … gone the “wrong way” is inherent facts belonging to a universe of time and space. Keeping the wrong way, knowing otherwise, here you have pernicious direction. There are numerous unwise, ignorant, immature state originate from our perturbed, beloved planet Urantia. Even Michaël under freewill right observance couldn’t oblige such a correction.
3:5.15 . The only evolutionary world without error (the possibility of unwise judgment) would be a world without free intelligence. … evolving man must be fallible if he is to be free. Free and inexperienced intelligence cannot possibly at first be uniformly wise.
Thanks Bonita.
Brotherly,
André
p.s. … where the avatar beautiful flower is gone ?
Dear Mara,
Efficient answer updating “The kingdom of God”.
Less obsolete.
Thanks
p.s. … where the avatar beautiful flower is gone ?
I was getting bored with it André. Enno’s attack on my old avatar Iris made me think it’s time to abandon the flower motif. I’m thinking of using a frog instead, just can’t find one that’s mean-looking. ????
Ribbit
Well, Bonita, perhaps you would like sound effects too. Try this” https://www.umesc.usgs.gov/terrestrial/amphibians/armi/frog_calls/bullfrog.wav
Maybe this sound replicates the original ones mentioned in the UB.
Poking a bit of fun only!
Thanks Nigel, but that frog is not mean-looking enough. I’m in search of a really curmudgeonly, unpleasant, Scrooge-like critter. You know, the kind of frog that makes you say yuk.
Bonita, I think an image of a wise frog would be more suitable for you.
That’s toadally sweet Keryn. Thanks.
But I’m basically a grizzly, grumpy gorgon . . . well . . . not all the time . . . only on forums it seems. At least that’s what I’m told. Harrumph.
Dear Family,
On the behalf of our love one to the other.
I am sticking my neck out to shared personal point of view.
Few days ago an interesting thread was suggested : The Kingdom of Heaven.
Reading the introduction made by beloved Bonita, enthusiastic reaction made me “on the go” answered such an engaging train of thought, without further reading.
I spent five hours making it up. At the end of the post I put a post-scriptum “p.s” regarding observation the avatar of Bonita no more exist.
My post was disregard. How sad I was to witness the only generating posts was about this insignificant “p.s.” “Insignificant” qualification wasn’t intend to be offensive. What have more significations/values is this interaction one to the other isn’t spiritual substances ?
Would like to put back safely my neck in but it is not the proper time.
Regarding those recurrent fight among us, among this forum for God’ sake. Our Father/brother never take off from an individual’s opinion He wisely add up.
Concerning responsibilities on ours behaviors, Jesus advice firmly Judas to mind his own business … only with God. Each of us have to cease looking after a disruptive mods, brother or a sister. This isn’t what we are expected to do.
Bonita under Spirituals ministries you had been gifted with an Efficient, Lovingly Thought Adjuster. Efficiently, lovingly you minister towards yours brothers and sisters in such a generous outgoing, unreserved ways. Your mind is properly crispy, accurate and clearly dedicated to be perfect as is your Father, thanks to your Creative Mother. What about your Father/brother whom hold your hand and engage Himself with you infallibly in the right direction ?
Regarding your avatar how beautiful was the pinkly flower. Daily refreshed in the morning spiritual dews. Blossoming under the custodian of God.
It is not you, dearest, looking for a vicious, aggressive, curmudgeonly representation.
Exquisite pinkly garments suit you so well.
Continue Bonita as everyone of you, object of Divine affection to solely look to your personal relationship with your Father.
André
Thanks for the lovely post André. I’m so happy you spent time thinking about this topic and reading the posts. I gave up on it because I couldn’t keep the topic focused and organized. It seemed to be a losing battle. Did you want to go back and examine any particular aspect of this topic? I’m certainly willing to do that. I wasn’t disregarding your post. Frankly, I was having a hard time understanding what you were trying to say. Perhaps you could help me understand what you meant by this:
andré wrote:Certainly those folks shouldn’t be ostracized but illuminated in some way . . . right? ➤ Wrong. [def … to exclude from a group by common consent.] Satania system ostracization [quarantine and isolation] 46:8.4 … the law of deliberately nourished evil is universally and unerringly executed. There is wisdom 1.01 resulting in such way to do things. Ample occasions [illumination] to turn from the wrong self-annihilation direction is offered to the attention of such rebellious individuals. 2:6.9 The goodness of God rests at the bottom of the divine free- willness—the universal tendency to love, show mercy, manifest patience and minister forgiveness.
Certainly those folks shouldn’t be ostracized but illuminated in some way . . . right?
My first thoughts reading this question was :
Certainly, here, Bonita is pulling ours legs !
Ostracization as TUB explain is a measure of protection. Like putting apart a crate where contamination have been found. You seems to emphasis “illumination” versus “ostracization”. To be inspired, to be intuited in my sense [logic] proceed from a quest to and for the truth. The longtime search answer at a question.
How could an individual be illuminated if he denied its source ? Pending the illumination, gifted faith is our ticket for those moments.
131:4.4 God is the illuminator of the gloomy and the power of those who are faint.
32:3.6 The farther down the scale of life we go, the more difficult it becomes to locate, with the eye of faith, the invisible Father. The lower creatures — and sometimes even the higher personalities — find it difficult always to envisage the Universal Father in his Creator Sons. And so, pending the time of their spiritual exaltation, when perfection of development will enable them to see God in person, they grow weary in progression, entertain spiritual doubts, stumble into confusion, and thus isolate themselves from the progressive spiritual aims of their time and universe. In this way they lose the ability to see the Father when beholding the Creator Son.
Certainly those folks shouldn’t be ostracized but illuminated in some way . . . right? My first thoughts reading this question was : Certainly, here, Bonita is pulling ours legs ! Ostracization as TUB explain is a measure of protection. Like putting apart a crate where contamination have been found. You seems to emphasis “illumination” versus “ostracization”. To be inspired, to be intuited in my sense [logic] proceed from a quest to and for the truth. The longtime search answer at a question. How could an individual be illuminated if he denied its source ? Pending the illumination, gifted faith is our ticket for those moments.
Ah! I think I’m getting it. Here’s the question I was asking in context:
Bonita wrote: What are our responsibilities to those who are not God-knowing? Certainly those folks shouldn’t be ostracized but illuminated in some way . . . right?
99:3.2 The kingdom of heaven is neither a social nor economic order; it is an exclusively spiritual brotherhood of God-knowing individuals. True, such a brotherhood is in itself a new and amazing social phenomenon attended by astounding political and economic repercussions.
Ahhhhhhhhh !!!
Totally solidarity with your statement.
How do you think it is defined?
Illuminating a mind, spiritually speaking do not originated from André ‘s mind. As an encounter with a personality to another personality get an automatic interact. Trough dedication to do the will of God made possible for God to individualized His love to that specific, unique children and effuse it.
Bonita talking about an example of this pattern of revealing God’s love come this lesson.
Remembering on his journey back from Rome, Jesus came to encounter a man whom mistreating his wife. 133:2.1 TUB tells us it wasn’t much what Jesus said that touched this man’s heart as the kindly look and the sympathetic smile which Jesus bestowed upon him. The non-verbal language.
Bonita talking about an example of this pattern of revealing God’s love come this lesson. Remembering on his journey back from Rome, Jesus came to encounter a man whom mistreating his wife. 133:2.1 TUB tells us it wasn’t much what Jesus said that touched this man’s heart as the kindly look and the sympathetic smile which Jesus bestowed upon him. The non-verbal language.
Yes! Kindly looks and sympathetic smiles. All easy to do. Connect person-to-person in some meaningful way with the intention to bring as much truth, beauty and goodness to the interaction as possible. As in this quote:
p1950:2 180:5.7 In the kingdom of the believing brotherhood of God-knowing truth lovers, this golden rule takes on living qualities of spiritual realization on those higher levels of interpretation which cause the mortal sons of God to view this injunction of the Master as requiring them so to relate themselves to their fellows that they will receive the highest possible good as a result of the believer’s contact with them. This is the essence of true religion: that you love your neighbor as yourself.
As to God-knowing. TUB tells us that a God-knowing person is someone who has experienced the presence of God within. I don’t know that many, to be honest. At least, when asked most people don’t know what I’m talking about. And sadly, even more don’t believe that God lives in their head. I can’t believe that the world has so few God-knowing people, so my guess is that there are more people who sense his presence and don’t know what it is.
Just last week my best friend was telling me that she can sometimes feel her deceased mother near her and maybe even in her head. I know this can’t be the case so I asked her if she ever thought that might be God and not her mother? She looked surprised at that, like “What would God be doing that for?” Anyway, she was willing to accept that it might be an angel, so we left it at that. She just knew there was a loving presence nearby and that’s really good when you think about it. Just because people get it mixed up doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening on some level. I worry about the people who won’t accept the fact that God is a person though, those who think of him as a mathematical formula or cosmic force. I don’t know if they feel a presence or not. That’s why I ask if those folks are God-knowing or just God-thinking. And does it matter?
So, does anyone want to venture into a discussion on how to recognize a person who is not God-knowing, given the definition of the kingdom of heaven in this quote:
99:3.2 The kingdom of heaven is neither a social nor economic order; it is an exclusively spiritual brotherhood of God-knowing individuals. True, such a brotherhood is in itself a new and amazing social phenomenon attended by astounding political and economic repercussions.
Are we supposed to exclude people who are not God-knowing? If we are, we should know how to recognize them. Is it solely the absence of spiritual fruit?
