Recent Ideas: The Making and Passing of the Personality

Is the creation process fair? Fairness is a common question when people get a glimpse of spiritual burdens they did not ask for. Why has God thrust this upon me? Well, someone is going to hold that burden when they are placed in your shoes, and it is likely such a burden was not God's direct fault. God does not stop personalizing humans because their challenges will be too great. That would limit the experiences of the Supreme after all. But let's get back to the issue of fairness.

What choice could exist in between future survival and death? You either live or you don't. And how do you choose to become alive before you are? It may seem unfair, but that is how reality works. You can't know ahead of time if you want to live before you come into being. And the human personality really can't make these kinds of decisions without any sense of grown identity and knowledge, which requires human experience (a young personality doesn't question existence, it just exists). Personality gets created at conception, so someone's personality is going to be made then and there whether anyone wants that to occur or not. Let's say you end up regretting coming into existence. Well, even if we could turn back time and undo your existence, someone else would take your place gaining your identity and living your life a little differently.

Personalities get created whether they want that or not, because they can't really have an opinion on the matter beforehand. There is no fair or unfair. This judgement can't exist when you aren't around to do the judging. If it were unfair for personalities to be challenged without them desiring it first, and since God doesn't act unfairly, the universe would be devoid of life. It is a challenging experience, and everyone has some problem facing them. People who do not want to exist are not forced to, but they cannot make that decision before they exist in the first place. I know I am repeating this over and over, but I want to be clear about it.
 
For many, it is debatable whether or not humans become individualized at conception or during the growth of the fetus. Those familiar with the Urantia Book will likely understand that the personality is created at conception. If new personalities are created in all such cases, then it is clear that reincarnation simply isn't possible (besides the fact that this fact is directly stated).

Even if you debate this, the personality has to be attached to something else so that it can function, even if that is just an energy system. The personality would then have to be translated from what it controlled before to the growing fetus (or cells). It does not sound impossible since Christ Michael did something similar, but creating the personality within the dividing cells sounds far less complicated. And again, how would a personality know that it wants a human life without experiencing it first? How would it know it wants to live at all without learning?

If becoming human were a choice, you would need to understand that choice, and this would require training. But the evolutionary spheres are the first training worlds. The very point is for this to be a somewhat messy place where people lack experience and can make mistakes. If people did learn enough to know that they wanted to be human, but ended up forgetting everything they learned after becoming little babies again, what is the real value in making that decision? What about the pre-humans who don't want to be human? This example is never mentioned as a type of sonship with God. Does the personality just die? And for the record, how would the first personality even make this decision when there are no other humans with personality or free will to use as examples?

Creating the individual during the beginning growth of the fetus is simply the easiest and most efficient means to mass produce free will creatures of evolutionary origin. If this process were different, I doubt we would be called evolutionary in the first place. The point of this post is to show that not only is there no reincarnation, but we cannot possibly exist outside of God as an individual and pick our human life, and we are still being treated fairly while this fact remains true. 

Subjective fairness can only be established when such a judge is present, so something can only be subjectively fair or unfair to us when we are there to observe such a fact. Objective fairness is God's territory, and is judged based on the values of the Trinity. How can we know God's actions are fair or if these values are correct? Well, they would have to be if God is perfect.

There is no semi-existence in the present. You either exist now or you do not. That is at least how the superuniverses of time operate. There are potentials that may be real to God, but they are not currently around to have any sort of opinion. I can see why some might not like this logic, as it could be used incorrectly to cause more suffering for future humans on this world, but those who would be so negligent are not following the values of God. I think God does operate in a way so that potential beings are benefited. I don't think God ever creates a personality where the state of existing is objectively so unfair that the individual is forced to pursue nonexistence.

But if God deemed it necessary or fair for us to make an informed decision to be mortal, couldn't He make this possible?

The answer really depends on what it means to have an informed decision. Just having all the facts in front of you is one thing, experiencing those facts is another. What is more important when making a decision? Who is better at deciding whether he or she wants to ride a roller coaster, the person who understands every ounce of physics involved or the person who just rode it a minute ago? I believe truly informed decisions require experience, and that is reflected in my answer.

Understanding mortality requires the experience of mortality. You need to be a mortal in order to truly know if you want to be a mortal (never having second thoughts later). Mortality (possibility of death) is more an experiential value, not an existential one. Christ did not fully comprehend the life of a mortal human until after death. The threat of nonexistence is not something the Trinity can experience, but it is an experience that becomes part of the Supreme indirectly. I believe experiential Deity can understand death, but existential Deity cannot.

You start off getting an informed decision to become mortal because you are already mortal when you are capable of making that decision. The exact same thing is experienced by those beings who are immortal. They are created that way, and have no say in the matter until after the fact. Two gray areas also exist. There are two types of immortality: absolute immortality (death is impossible) and circumstantial immortality (what could cause death does not necessarily occur). There are also two types of mortality: absolute mortality (threat of permanent death) and circumstantial mortality (threat of death for the physical body only, or temporary death). A circumstantial state can exist alongside an opposing absolute state. Also, two states of the same type cannot exist together. I should also include that mortality does not automatically make you a human, but being human automatically makes you a mortal.

Another question is whether you could ever make an informed decision about entering a state you are not in yet. Basically, if you have to experience something to make informed decisions, could you ever be truly informed about immortality after fusion with the Adjuster? You would have experience doing the Father's will, but you have not experienced being bound to that will for eternity (though technically, you never will since it goes on forever). Also, moving from mortality to immortality and immortality to mortality are entirely different experiences. Actually, true immortality means you cannot ever choose permanent death, so while those entering the forms of absolute and circumstantial mortality can then experience both absolute and circumstantial immortality, only those who are circumstantially immortal can face both types of mortality. The reason this looks complicated is because the true opposite of immortality is permanent nonexistence, which doesn't show up as an example.

If it is already established that God is always fair, then His decisions or the decisions He gives us should be fair too. It is just simple logic. The actions of God match His traits. If it is not established that God is fair, then that is what you need to first create an argument for, and that relates to the values of the Trinity. If you want to focus on why the choices themselves should be fair, well this I have tried to answer. It would be far better giving humans free will than not, especially if they already exist. They either die like they would have anyway or they are able to make the decision to live longer (and eventually forever).

(1185.2) 108:0.2 Nothing in the entire universe can substitute for the fact of experience on nonexistential levels. The infinite God is, as always, replete and complete, infinitely inclusive of all things except evil and creature experience. God cannot do wrong; he is infallible. God cannot experientially know what he has never personally experienced; God’s preknowledge is existential. Therefore does the spirit of the Father descend from Paradise to participate with finite mortals in every bona fide experience of the ascending career; it is only by such a method that the existential God could become in truth and in fact man’s experiential Father. The infinity of the eternal God encompasses the potential for finite experience, which indeed becomes actual in the ministry of the Adjuster fragments that actually share the life vicissitude experiences of human beings.

Early Ideas: Real Power

Power can mean so many different things, but it usually refers to power over people. Yet you can influence people through positive actions also, so "power" itself isn't really good or evil, it just denotes a level of responsibility. In this sense, neglecting responsibility is a poor use of power. Power is the ability to create change, and with this ability which we all have comes responsibility. Power can also be a measure of results, and greater results will always be obtained from love than from hate or discord. Iniquity does not last long in the universe, but love can last indefinitely. So I view the forces of good to be more powerful than the forces of evil as evil is an illusion made real in the finite realm just as goodness and perfection are realities in eternity. Positive action is usually in accordance with God's will, and with God on your side there is little to be worried about.

As God is the most powerful being in existence, those who do His will have greater power as a result, along with greater forms of responsibility. That power is then used to fill certain universe roles. Let's look at an example. There are millions of Creator Sons who shape their own local universes to rule and manage. After gaining complete sovereignty over these systems, these Sons are allowed to rule how they wish. Yet most continue to do the Father's will to eventually produce a perfect work of living art. They could manage things differently, but they wouldn't have as much to show for it. I doubt a Creator Son would do so poorly, but if they made several bad decisions, the divine plan would take longer than necessary. Basically, there would be fewer surviving souls making up the experiences of God the Supreme. Completion would take a little longer, perhaps billions of years. In this case, there is quite a bit of creative potential and power within the hands of one being (one of several), and there is generally a great amount of responsibility involved.

So in my view, power is always balanced. Humans can gain the power to manipulate others in a negative fashion, but they pay for it by worsening the state of their soul (making future advancement more difficult). I would say these individuals also lack the power of self-control. So I would not say power corrupts absolutely, I would say that those who seek power for bad intentions are already corrupt (seeking power for the sake of power is in itself a bad thing). Those with positive forces of power are free to utilize it correctly; positive results allow for greater abilities and responsibilities, and it is lost when used inappropriately. When looking at the aspects of different forms of power, the kinds of power utilized by different beings across the universe are so varied, it is hard to directly compare them (though it is possible to compare responsibilities. In a sense, a spiritual teacher on one of the mansion worlds has more power than an earthly dictator (especially energy-wise), but in any one particular moment it would be difficult to compare the two as the effects of individual actions are measured over time.

Recent Ideas: The Occult

In my view, the occult is merely an interpretation of the unknown. It involves guesswork and experimentation regarding territory that science has yet to discover or care about. And because of this, it naturally includes what is regarded by most as superstition. But the rejection of the occult is not just a rejection of superstition, but a fear in what the occult involves. Witchcraft, or magic, is a good example. This has been feared by most of those who believed in its "power". But the occult has transformed over the years into a greater form of pseudoscience. 

What was once "witchcraft" is now "using one's consciousness to manifest something". What was once "fortune telling" is now "receiving advice from one's spiritual guides". What was once "divination" is now "receiving information from the higher self". The occult is now being turned into a new flavor of spirituality, which is being rejected because of its roots. It is reaching the point where the religious who reject this emerging spirituality (out of fear) will be seen as the superstitious ones, who still think the planet is plagued by demons and evil spirits. Still, much of what fits in the "new age" category remains unscientific and divorced from higher revelation. It will either keep evolving as it becomes more open (less secretive), or be abandoned completely. 

Early Ideas: The Supernatural

Supernatural is just a label used to define the unknown and unexplainable. Nothing is actually supernatural if you have the proper knowledge and experience to back you up (nothing is supernatural to God for instance). To the average person who does not access the necessary information to understand reality more fully than what is simply in front of them could find quite a bit to be supernatural or unexplainable.  Without any kind of blunt experience, they could shrug off the existence of anything “supernatural” because of a natural limit of what they are willing to believe beyond their own body’s senses.

Early Ideas: The Trinity and Christ

Joshua ben Joseph (Jesus) was the greatest role model for humanity and his divine self is indeed the way to the Father (both metaphorically and literally). But as marvelous as Joshua is, he could never be equal to God and he certainly never mentioned such a thing. God has trillions of Sons that do His divine work in the evolutionary worlds of time and space. They do the work of the Trinity in time while the Trinity forever remains within the realm of eternity. Christ comes to us from God the Father and God the Son, but it may be correct to classify Christ as sub-infinite Deity. On the levels of the infinite and the absolute, the moment of the present contains all of the past as well as all of the future. The Trinity is composed of the three distinct sources of creation, but all remain as the Center.

No member of the Trinity could go from being in a state of timelessness to entering the finite realms of time directly. These three personalities of God could not change in such a way in their totality, but the operation of time-space would. If eternal and absolute Deity enters the finite, then the finite would theoretically become absolute itself, such as where the Trinity resides now. Time as we know it would cease to exist, which would undermine the reason for it in the first place. It exists for the evolution of Deity perfection, the end result of the eternal future already made known in the Trinity. Put differently, it is the bridge between limited consciousness and infinite consciousness on a cosmic scale, the evolution of God the Supreme and God the Ultimate.

The Trinity of eternal Deities facilitates the Father’s escape from personality absolutism. The Trinity perfectly associates the limitless expression of God’s infinite personal will with the absoluteness of Deity. The Eternal Son and the various Sons of divine origin, together with the Infinite Spirit and his universe children, effectively provide for the Father’s liberation from the limitations otherwise inherent in primacy, perfection, changelessness, eternity, universality, absoluteness, and infinity. The Trinity effectively provides for the full expression and perfect revelation of the eternal nature of Deity. The Trinity is Deity unity, and this unity rests eternally upon the absolute foundations of the divine oneness of the three original and co-ordinate and coexistent personalities, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit.

Early Ideas: Transitional Phase

Hell is an evolving concept of man and a remnant of barbaric thinking. The closest thing to "hell" is nonexistence or the state of a malnourished soul, but the choice of continuing with life is up to the individual. If you really don't like what is in store, you can ask to be uncreated. If your life has anything of survival value (creating some form of soul growth), then surviving death is easy. Any atheist can currently survive if they are good at heart and want life everlasting, even those who are more evil can get a second chance after death if conditions are right. But if you do ignore your spiritual self during your life, there will be an uphill battle right after it.

The whole goal that everyone learns to strive for is to attain absolute perfection, to be perfect as God is perfect. It is the greatest starting goal for the evolutionary races of time and space. This takes an enormous amount of education and self-improvement. Those who don't believe in God or prefer acting selfishly on earth will struggle through the process, and will likely need to mature all over again. To the seraphim, a human regretting not listening to the small voice of God is a frequent sight, and I intend to not regret my choices in the flesh.

Analysis of the Self: Anonymous Association

It is often understood that anonymity brings out the worst in people, but I do not think this is really the case. What it truly does is reduce the fear of punishment or the consequences involved. People who primarily do good (or bad) out of fear will be impacted the most. I feel that if a person is selfish enough to only worry about punishment when considering their actions, they are always at their worst. This will continue to be so until the reasons for their actions change. An individual can only become a better person (or be at their best) when their intentions change. No action really signifies what a person is like on the inside, so determining if a person is well-behaved cannot truly be done by an observer. The first aspect of behavior is intention (mental action), the second physical action.

People who do good for the sake of reward may also be affected by anonymity, but not as greatly. It is given that they will do little good on their own, but it is not known if they will act negatively (as they may do nothing at all). However, this negativity is almost guaranteed if it proves to be rewarding experience, at least in the short-run. People who gain temporary joy from doing harm are likely to further this activity when anonymous, but that anonymity is usually unnecessary.

Anonymity does not have much of an effect on those who are normally altruistic, as this behavior is not based on selfish reasoning.

If it is held true that people who normally pursue ideal or less than ideal behavior or always at their best or worse, then these descriptions are based on current intent and the person's future potential. Anonymity then does not change intent or potential, but gives people an incentive to follow through with their current intentions.

Early Ideas: An Evolving Mindset

For those who grow up in religious families, it may not occur to them that they can become capable of figuring out what can be true and what is clearly not. The teachings within religion are not supposed to be mutually exclusive in a way that you can only accept or reject everything. For instance, there are certain things I heard in Sunday school that I never once believed in (such as the story of Samson or Noah), but that didn’t impact my belief in God. One of the big problems is that even when man gained a greater understanding of Deity through revelation, it was restricted by contemporary knowledge of that era. None would have understood how much life exists elsewhere in the universe or how big it really is. When people use the teachings of this period in time, they are also borrowing that mindset as well.

If life only existed on this planet and everything in space was just there for us to look at, then the concept of God or gods would have to be much smaller than what is really the case. Since there has been such a great leap in our knowledge of the universe, there also has to be one in theology. But since God is the source of all matter, energy, mind, spirit and personality endowment in such a huge universe, an expanded view of Deity becomes so much more complex compared to what was understood thousands of years ago. Those who become accustomed to medieval interpretations of Deity will find difficulty in comprehending such an expanded perspective of God, and it does not matter whether they accept these interpretations or reject them. Gaining new insight in such a subject can take considerable time, and this is time many do not feel obligated to give.

Early Ideas: A Vision

I saw a vision, and in it people were receivers and transmitters. Receiving and transmitting then converged and information became fluid. Intellectual osmosis is brought about and data streams flood the circuits of communication. The convergence is immediate and so are the actions. There are points of beginning as there is always a place to start, but time is irrelevant when results are instantaneous. The instant of creation is the instant of perfection. Destruction is nonexistent, the destroyed never existed. Creation is an afterthought from a moment long ago. All possibilities are made known as past ideas and none direct the future. The future is already recognized and realized. And still it continues, linear infinity reduced to a moment in eternity. Eternity reduced to a single concept with unraveling results. The unification is the end and the beginning, for it is absolute in what it is and will be. And at the edge of this fading moment, perfection was realized and new goals were created. A future moment would be consumed as it was created, out of nothing and into something from beyond the clarity of conscious understanding. This blink of reality is everything and nothing, as both take as much time to be realized. Yet the blink has value beyond belief as it is translated into experience and differing perspectives. Beyond it is the realm of absolutes, from which the land of ultimates in potential is derived.

Semantic Misunderstanding: Language of the 1930's

Most Urantia Book readers understand that the language used is from the 1930's
– its meaning different from present usage. It is also true that the Revelators expanded upon the English language by creating words which did not quite exist in the English language. This was absolutely necessary to convey the most correct meaning for the time it was written.

Many of these word meanings from the 1930's are picked up along the way, and may be easy to spot. The book's use of "universe" is one, which comes up frequently in one form or another. Another is "cult", which is used to describe anything related to organized religion, and was technically true in the 1930's as a "cult" did not have the same negative connotations as it does now. But even words we think we know, such as existential or transcendental, can mean incredibly different things in the modern arenas of philosophy.

If quotes are misunderstood or immediately judged, do not first look at the logic of the quote, but the language used to convey that logic. Those who finish reading and still do not see the importance in understanding the differing linguistics between the two centuries will be bound to create misunderstandings for themselves and others. Modern explanations do not usually require such an in-depth look at semantics, but it becomes a very different ballgame when looking back 80-some years. A person who does not appreciate these differences will likely draw strong opinions using their own interpretation of outdated language, failing to comprehend the new revelations which come their way or the opinions of others who understand the struggles the Revelators faced as they interpreted how language would evolve over time.

Semantic Misunderstanding: Reincarnation

Before even approaching this subject, one should understand the meaning of the word being used. The English language has many words which assume different meanings, and when the meaning is not declared, misunderstanding is bound to arise as assumptions become necessary. I would like to go over the different possible meanings of reincarnation to reduce the possibility of error in the understanding of readers. This will allow people to approach the subject correctly.

Reincarnation can mean:

1. Being incarnated once more. This is the most basic definition.
2. Gaining a new body that is of the same composition/type as the old. If you were born of the flesh, then you would have a flesh body once more. If the forms of life are defined as physical (matter), energetic, morontial or spiritual, then this definition has four versions.
3. Gaining a body of a different form after one's life. When including morontia upgrades, the examples of this could be numerous.
4. Gaining a new body before the old body completely deteriorates. This can be of the four types previously mentioned. It could also be a new type of body or the old type. This is basically reincarnation without death.
5. Following a general death and rebirth cycle. This can include life outside of the flesh, so it does not always include one body type.
6. Following a death and rebirth cycle that consists of only one body type. For a human, this means being born as a baby over and over.
7. Following a death and rebirth cycle where one's identity is impacted by karma. This can include being born as other forms of life (such as a different animal).
8. A death and rebirth cycle that is interplanetary. This idea includes souls wishing to incarnate on worlds that produce greater soul growth, due to the challenges that come with the experience.
9. The reuse of certain personality types, or the altering of the personality so that it matches past examples. Behavior and thought is likely to be similar to previous beings of the same order.
10. The possible death and rebirth cycle of another order of being we do not know about.

Note that I am not saying which are possible or likely in the universe. I merely explain the different concepts involved.

New Ideas: Potentials and the Unified Theory

The Unified Theory of Human Experience is complete, or at least the rough draft is, but I was hoping I could get some feedback from friends before putting it out publicly. I will likely share it here shortly. Meanwhile, I came to a realization that the potentiality waves mentioned in the previous post would be impacted by this model of the human experience (or impacted by choices which the model explains). The two-dimensional concept would look like a tire kicking up dust. The movement of the cycle of experience creates movement in the potentiality wave, as potentials are transformed into actuals. The diagram is nice, but it is technically true that it is technically the Theory of Human Interaction (containing all actions) is really what moves the wave. However, it is also true that the other two-thirds of the cycle are needed to reach new examples of interaction, which become new actualities.

As explained in the diagram, the three-dimensional model, which includes all possible cycles instead of one, would look far different. There, as different cycles moved within the torus, the wave (which would be more like a liquid at this point) would get sucked through the middle from the top. In reality, this can be broken up into many different potentiality waves if the waves or potentials are categorized into certain groups of manifestation (relating directly to the goal each cycle is trying to reach).