JosephM

Today as in most days, i am most pleased at my unlearning that true knowledge itself might be present. Joseph

George, Yes, that would seem to be the way i looked specifically at UP140 even though the publisher would disagree by their own internal claim. But of course, i do not even consider the NT as necessarily historically correct or accurate in story. Of value yes, but with internal geographical and historical conflicts/claims and other claims that i personally can neither confirm nor disprove nor do i any longer consider it important to me to do either. I have in this life found it advantageous in the things of God to place more faith in the personal revelations given me by experience than in those presumedly stated by others without invalidating them. Joseph

George, I ignored the date, places and historical references as distracting also since i, (we) have agreed with Brent as he said " that personal belief in the revelatory origin of any written work has no bearing on the validity of any such claim. " Besides, it is unverifiable to me. In that light, i ignored all superfluous claims, dates , remarks, etc. and paid attention only to what i considered the real meat. I found in that part of it as much or more value as its related part in the NT because of the somewhat more progressive added commentary that was fitted in. I found agreement with much (but not all) of the the same conclusions i have reached without ever reading the UPapers. Of course, that might not be saying much as i find much agreement in many other religious writings also. Overall i was not really impressed as i think any progressive could probably copy and re-write parts of the NT with a more modern and clearer understanding for readers in this day and age. Just my personal opinion, Joseph PS In summation, i found nothing new but many things ( in the meat of things) were expressed more clearly than its related part of the NT by some additional dialog/commentary contained in the UPapers 140.

Hi Brent, Thanks for your response. I did read it and my personal assessment was it basically was Math 5-7 with some additional details and story and includes a more progressive type commentary that is usually found separately. I thought it did a better job than the NT alone in clarity when speaking of the kingdom of God so there would be less confusion of what i believe Jesus meant than is found in Traditional Church teachings of the same. At the same time, there are also other commentaries existing that essentially say the same things of the identical versus from the NT. After this reading of UP140 , i do think this expansion on the Gospel has real value but to me no more-so than the NT itself plus a progressive commentary of the same. While i think you have provided the "beef" i was looking for, most of it is already provided in the NT and the additional i consider commentary which may or may not be an accurate interpretation. Having said that, i am probably 90% in personal agreement with what i call the commentary in the papers versus my own revelations. Therefor, i am not opposed to anyone choosing to read the Upapers, especially UP 140 as their Bible but would suggest they look at it as just another religious writing and personal commentary by a writer. As far as my conclusions from skimming of some of the other portions of the massive and complex writings are concerned, i have no interest in such matters or validity in my own journey though i certainly acknowledge the desire and validity for such information by others according to their own path taken. Joseph

BTW Brent, To clarify my words, by repeating "so where is the beef? i am not looking in the context of a wise crack but rather looking for something said in the Upapers (without having to read it all) that is the heart of the message that perhaps is not included in the Bible. Something that might speak to me or others deeply and be of possible benefit in my spiritual walk. If you asked me that of the Bible, i could probably provide you with a brief summation of the relevant teachings of Jesus that were of great value to me and perhaps possibly to others just by referencing Mathew 5-7. Joseph

Brent, This can certainly be said of any book making such a claim. it seems to me that skepticism is not a not a negative thing. Or as Wiki SAYS..... Skepticism (or scepticism) has many definitions, but generally refers to any questioning attitude of knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere. it seems to me that it is better to question than to believe such a cliam. Believing such a claim without questioning often leads to the conditioning that i think George was speaking of. I concur that it would be counterproductive. So as George said originally and because the papers are so long and complex, i would also ask, " So where is the beef?" In good spirit, Joseph

Here is a thread for those who relate to Progressive Christianity to elaborate on their own perspective of "What is Progressive Christianity to You". Perhaps we will all get a deeper insight by sharing what we see and reading what others have to say? Thanks in Advance, Joseph

I read that and am still laughing. Are you? Derek, That whole reading reminded me of the words attributed to Jesus where he said " My joy i give unto you but not as the world giveth it" or something like that.. Anyway, the world gives us circumstances much like in the writing above which brings sadness and depression but when one watches the mind for some time, it becomes evident that a myriad of habit thinking and random conditioned thoughts are presenting themselves to us. The key here is that regardless of the choice of thoughts we decide to follow which brings about its emotional partner, if we are watching with some focus, we will realize or be aware of another option that is always present but seldom taken. That option is to surrender those thoughts and choose joy and peace above all other options regardless of the circumstances. This joy and peace is innate, always present for the taking because it is that which is freely given to us by Christ. I think this relates to the writing above because seeing thoughts for what they are frees us from their bondage and the lie that they are our only choice. Joseph

Thank you Brent, You have answered my questions to my satisfaction and i am in agreement with your conclusion in your answer and that there may be particular details that may strengthen ones balance of intellectual understanding. Specifically you have indicated to me... " It is entirely voluntary and according to individual disposition whether anyone chooses to be informed of the possible intricacies in God's infinite creation. However, there are some particular details that imo do serve to strengthen a pleasing and comprehensive balance of understanding. One of those deals with our Creator Son, claimed by the authors to have lived his bestowal life in the flesh as Jesus of Nazareth." Peace, Joseph

George, I think you have expressed what i am asking for, very clearly.

Myron. No not really. Just sharing my personal experience and asking a few sincere questions as a result that come to mind..... Perhaps he (Brent) will have an answer that i might not have yet considered. Joseph

Brent, I have been following along in this thread reading posts but haven't commented as i gave up on reading the Upapers on the first page of this thread.. So i am reading your words here and i have to ask myself of what benefit would you think it might be to me to believe of the Central isle of Paradise or that there are over 1 billion perfect worlds, that there are over seven trillion planets inhabited by mortal will creatures, that there is a central superuniverse of Havona, etc etc By accepting these things as true which i can not verify, how will that bring me closer to knowing God, Truth, Love or help me bring more compassion to this world? How will that help me to live a more fruitful and loving life? While i am aware, from my own personal experiences of realms and realities beyond this one and domains of an "astral" nature, it seems to me from my experience, they are all like detours in the road. I find that their are no higher beings to meet or spirit guides to appear, or amulets that need wearing, or sacred places to be, The pathway to God is to me not so complicated that it requires long volumes of study or knowledge of these realms or the intelligence to absorb such matters. Nor does it seem for me to require the acceptance of the words of other than the guide that is found within each of us. To me, God is self-revealing. To me the journey is more concerned with personal surrender, dedication, and devotion. So my sincere question to you in short would be ... what do these Upapers contain that i need to know to experience the presence of God that has not been said in any other book? Sincerely, Joseph

Karen, Thanks for those words that to me seem clear. It does seem clear to me that we are not free as long as we are operating out of the bondage of "our cultural programming that dictates our choices". Wheras acting out of wholeness is our real identity and that is true freedom from the bondage of laws, rules, and conditioning. Perhaps that is what Merton was trying to say in the OP but it was not as clear to me in the words he used? Joseph

Derek, Two things i do not at this time find agreement with. The first it seems to me in freedom it is stated "and the perfect hatred and rejection of what is evil, so that everything you do is good and makes you happy," I would think that in "true" freedom as he defined at the end, making choices as God would, there is neither good nor evil. How could there be room for perfect hatred? Secondly, the statement "when we decide to do something that seems to us to be good when it is not really so, we are doing something that we do not really want to do, and therefore we are not really free." The statement has made the attainment or the goal of the good the measure of freedom while perhaps all we can do for now is act out of our best intentions for good as we perceive them and not be so concerned with the results with our limited knowledge. But of course if we knew the right choice (had all knowledge before the choice) to get what we as Merton says and defines as what we "really want to do", we would make that choice. But then of course to me, choice disappears as choice, so true freedom as he defines to me is void of any concept of choice and also of any concept of evil. If on the other hand if what all this is saying in your OP is that if we had complete knowledge of all things (as God) our "true" free choice would always avoid self deception and grief and lead to our real happiness and perfect love. I would agree. Because you have made the definition of truly free as being as God. So my question is , what is he really trying to get accross except to say true Freedom is to be as God?

Well Paul, that is an interesting position you place yourself in. Everything you experience is subjective in this world. Without the senses to perceive the world, the world would not even exist for you. Do you wonder if this experience of the world is genuine or just psychologically brought on? What does it matter? You are here now and know you exist, that to you is genuine. If you have no aware experience of God then what good is it to wonder if you were to in the future whether it would be genuine or not? It seems to me hypotheticals have no real existence in reality. When it happens, it will be real enough and there will be no wondering if it is genuine unless of course you decide you like to wonder about it. I perceive that all who genuinely seek, find. Joseph

Hi Paul, There is quite a bit of information already written and discussed as Jenell said but to answer your specific in short. I think as you expect, God is not so small as religion seems to make God seem. Conceptualizing God can only point and won;'t to me provide what i think you are looking for. I believe you, as many are and i was after a similar time of perceived separation, looking for experience rather than idea or words. Because, "you'll never know that its true til it happens to you." (lyrics to a song that grabbed me) In short, when the time was ripe, i experienced God without form yet as the very being by which i exist and cannot be separated from. In that experience in which i have no magic button in words for others, i knew that God has been with me always regardless of my acknowledgement or realization. When i have the most primal thought that i can have being, "I" or "I am" but without words i am at the door-less door of God who is All in All. There is nothing more i can really say. Joseph PS To me, to realize God is just a matter of awareness.

Hi Karen and George, Its seems to me there are no shortage of films these days related to social justice. There are a few tear-jerking movies i have recently watched on netflix concerning ethnic cleansing and orphan life and such. Hopefully they heighten our awareness of such things and move us to respond where possible rather than making us numb to them. Joseph

Brent, Thanks for your response.To be fair, i should mention that in spite of my surface findings concerning authority and to me, some strange authoritative statements, which i cannot easily verify, i do agree that a more complete look at the papers might well prove items of value as you say. However, i don't read very much in the way of books anymore but have in the past found value and truth in many if not all of the books i have read. While i appreciate the presence of such writings as you have introduced, i am at the stage of my journey where i am no longer looking for a book with answers to questions or seeking Truth through intellectual study. So in all honesty i will probably not open the Upapers again. Having said that, that is just a personal thing for me. That the Upapers might be very beneficial in value for some or all and perhaps even necessary for some in their journey i would not refute. So thank you for sharing and i will now bow out unless a specific item comes up in this thread that specifically interests me or i have something related to share. Thanks for your kindness and the manner in which you have responded. Joseph

Well after an hour...... here are my questions? Brent , I started reading the foreword and I couldn't get past the first 3 versus without questions of verifiability and then skimmed through some sections. First of all i find authoritative declaration statements such as .... 1:0.3 The enlightened worlds all recognize and worship the Universal Father, the eternal maker and infinite upholder of all creation. 1:0.2The myriads of planetary systems were all made to be eventually inhabited by many different types of intelligent creatures, beings who could know God, receive the divine affection, and love him in return. All of which sound good but none of which i can verify as true. How does one know that all planetary systems were made to be inhabited by different types of intelligent creatures? Could not some be there for other purposes? Is it verifiable or must i just believe it? How do we know the enlightened worlds all recognize and worship the Universal Father? Can we even verify that there are more enlightened worlds (which there may be) or is it just an assumption or authoritative claim of the author or the beings that supposedly passed the information to the author? 　 How then can one verify the authoritative nature of the book except to accept it by its subjective claims on an individual after reading which is no different than any other religious book making claims? It sounds good so far but how is its claims of origin and statements any more authoritative, valid or its claims more believable than the book of Mormons? I'm trying to address George's initial concern that you answered i think very well but after reading a bit i am surprised to find little that my analysis can validate. Must i read the whole papers or practice it as a religion or tradition to prove its authoritative nature to be valid? Remember, with me, at least, you are communicating with an individual who doesn't even believe the Bible is authoritative. Yes i find many of its words inspirational and teachings of personal value and much that rings true and many things that are verifiable along with some that my experience and research indicates is most probably invalid, but am persuaded no more-so than some other religious books . Sincerely with questions that speak to me and no disrespect meant for the papers or your personal beliefs, Joseph

I think that is fair enough. So i take it you believe it is authoritative from your own exhaustive analysis of the content? If so, to me, that seems like a wise approach to any book. or papers. I'll have to read a bit to see if i have any questions or challenges for you. Joseph

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this forum as member posts are those of the authors of the posts and do not necessarily reflect any official policy, direction or position of Progressive Christianity or ProgressiveChristianity.org also known as TCPC , its management or employees or its Discussion Forum. Posts or statements inserted and specifically designated (as Moderator) or (as Admin) are the views and opinions of those entrusted to operate this forum in service to Christianity.org (TCPC) and reflect a best effort to carry out its relevant mission as encompassed in the ProgressiveChristianity.org mission statement and exemplified by the principles stated in the 8 points . While moderators and administration act both as members and in their respective capacities, it is important to note which capacity they are operating in by their signature as indicated above. Any weight given for their views as members because of their assigned position is completely left up to the judgement of the reader. To assign weight or authority to a post, strictly by any assigned member title, while it may be commonly done, is not recommended by Administration here unless the post specifically is stated as done in that capacity such as this one. JosephM (as Administrator)

It seems to me there is no need to be convinced either way in this issue. In my view, all a person can do from a positive point of view is remain agnostic or open concerning the issue unless or until things are revealed personally, While i may see things differently and be persuaded by my own experience, it still only seems that way to me. Life to me is subjective here and perhaps life in this world is more of an illusion (as in an erroneous perception of reality) than it seems to be. Just more musings

Yes George, it would certainly seem that way to me also

It seems to me that happens often. Your question "Would God play favorites like that?" , in my view seems like an unfair question as it assumes that because both were prayed for but one was wiped out and one was saved that fairness is negated by God without actually being aware of all knowledge and understanding of the whole. In my view, God answering or intervening through any method does not mean that you got your request, only that there is an answer. Here is what seems to me from experience. I evangelized for a number of years and ministered to people i had never met before sometimes in other states. Many were looking for healing. I wanted all of them to be healed but it seems there was only an unction within me to pray for certain people. People who were in some way ready were perceived as such and if i was a willing vessel to 'step out on a limb' (which might feel like falling off a log backwards), so to speak, i could invoke the divinity inside me and them as one to intervene and bring about a change. Without that unction if i prayed without first perceiving or feeling an unction to intervene and connected, i could 'see' that bringing about the change would not be of benefit and would not serve the whole. Why? Frankly, i can't say because it was just known without words. I felt as if i were that person i was praying for and at that moment knew them as myself and simply understood why without words. My faith was never put at risk because i was just a willing vessel, not the one doing the work. So is God unfair? Is our concept of fairness of God narrow and limited when viewed in the scheme of the whole? Perhaps these are tough questions to answer to the satisfying of the mind. It seems to me religions do attempt to do so but only within the confines of conceptual theories, limitations of language, cultures and changing of times and science. So again is God unfair? I think not. Does God intervene by prayer? In my life it seems most definitely so. Why do i believe this ? Personal experience and by choice if there is really such a thing, If so, i choose to surrender it in trust to that which i perceive sustains me and at any time can extinguish this personality and continuing story know as Joseph and his life story without violating that trust. Why? Because "I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate me from the love of God that is in Christ" (not a man but the 'smearing together' with God) Just my thoughts to share, Joseph

Yes it would, and i enjoyed reading your experiences above. I have some strange ones myself. Of course after telling some will always ask "yeah, well what about all the other people who prayed and got nothing?" That could be the subject of a whole other topic too. Joseph