Some Comments on Paper 105, Deity and Reality

   Paragraph Numbers: On | Off
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version

If you go into the paper, "Deity and Reality," you have the best discussion in the Urantia papers.

When I think of static Deity, I think of a fried egg. This is the I AM. Potentials have not yet differentiated from actuals. As the papers describe it, this is the hypothetical static moment of eternity. That's the language used in the cross-reference I gave you.

But the papers do not validate what the philosophers and the metaphysicians call "monism," which is not a fried egg, but a scrambled egg. There's a big difference.

In a scrambled egg, you've got just a oneness, right? But in a fried egg, you've got a nucleus and a cytoplasm. The nucleus is the yellow part; the cytoplasm is the white. Always, even in the hypothetical static moment, in the beginning of beginnings–before the beginning of beginnings–there was always the possibility for self-will.

When you differentiate potentials from actuals–again, I've got to have real, real childlike, simple symbols to get them–you know what happened? The yolk moved out away from the white. How many of you have separated yolks and whites?

Audience: Laughter.

The yolk moved away from the white. This is the creation, eventuation, appearance, of possibility. Something happened. And of course the minute the yolk moved away from the white, you don't have two realities, you have three realities.

You have the white, you have the yolk, then you have the relationship between the white and the yolk. Doesn't the fried egg help? I mean, you just can't be afraid of a concept of a fried egg, can you?

Audience: Laughter.

Audience: That sure– (Break in tape)

The yolk moved away from the static situation. In so moving, the yolk demonstrated volition, and also qualified itself. It took up a new position. The white never moved, did it? And was never qualified. Hence, is unqualified. And since we are dealing with absolute realities, here I think is the genetic derivation of the term, "Unqualified Absolute."

Unqualified because it's never moved. And, at this point, the white became an it, because the personal potentials were in the yolk. When you take the yolk away from the white, you rob it of all deity and personality qualities. Henceforth, the unqualified is "it," not he.

The yolk–what name shall we give the yolk? I like the term Qualified Absolute. It's used in the papers–rarely.

And what do we name the relationship between the white and the yolk? The papers give us the name: Universal Absolute, whose function it is to interrelate the tensions, the relationships, between the Qualified Absolute and the Unqualified Absolute.

And here is the beginning of the separation of Deity and non-Deity. The Unqualified Absolute is static reality minus all that is Deity. The Qualified Absolute contains within itself the seeds of Deity manifestation.

Volition is inherent in the yolk. Response inherent in the white, the cytoplasm, the Unqualified Absolute.

You know, one of the shrewdest criticisms of the book of Genesis was written by an old Zoroastrian theologian. It's in the Pehlevi texts. And this old Persian, Zoroastrian, pre-Mohammedan of course, is saying, "This story of creation is for the birds. God was not alone, because when he commanded something happen, this means that there was also present an obeyer of commands."

How 'bout that? And I think that's a pretty good definition of the Unqualified Absolute. When Deity speaks in an absolute voice, the commands are obeyed by the Unqualified Absolute.

Or, putting it this way, when total Deity takes snuff, the Unqualified Absolute sneezes.

Foundation Info

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version

Urantia Foundation, 533 W. Diversey Parkway, Chicago, IL 60614, USA
Tel: +1-773-525-3319; Fax: +1-773-525-7739
© Urantia Foundation. All rights reserved