-
Posts
-
Being a living example of sonship is love manifest
Hearts dominated by love are such that your spirit guide will have little trouble in delivering you from the tendency to give vent to those outbursts of animal anger which are inconsistent with the status of divine sonship
Be ever slow of wrath, for therein is the secret of great understanding
“Anger is a material manifestation which represents, in a general way, the measure of the failure of the spiritual nature to gain control of the combined intellectual and physical natures. Anger indicates your lack of tolerant brotherly love plus your lack of self-respect and self-control. Anger depletes the health, debases the mind, and handicaps the spirit teacher of man’s soul. Have you not read in the Scriptures that ‘wrath kills the foolish man,’ and that man ‘tears himself in his anger’? That ‘he who is slow of wrath is of great understanding,’ while ‘he who is hasty of temper exalts folly’? You all know that ‘a soft answer turns away wrath,’ and how ‘grievous words stir up anger.’ ‘Discretion defers anger,’ while ‘he who has no control over his own self is like a defenseless city without walls.’ ‘Wrath is cruel and anger is outrageous.’ ‘Angry men stir up strife, while the furious multiply their transgressions.’ ‘Be not hasty in spirit, for anger rests in the bosom of fools.’” Before Jesus ceased speaking, he said further: “Let your hearts be so dominated by love that your spirit guide will have little trouble in delivering you from the tendency to give vent to those outbursts of animal anger which are inconsistent with the status of divine sonship.” [Paper 149:4.2, page 1673:2]
… by acknowledging that someone is your “enemy” would one not act differently in their presences or think that they may have something against you, what ever that may be? Then, if that is the case, how can one love their enemy, unless one knows what made or makes them, one’s enemy?
Many good questions Midi. If I have offended someone (and no doubt I have done so), and I meet that person again face-to-face, I can tell by their demeanor they do not want to communicate with me. And to tell you the truth, I don’t want to have anything more to do with them either. There are wicked, conniving, and narcissistic people round about and I am not interested in finding out what their motivation is. I’m sorry to say that, dear Jesus.
Many good questions Midi. If I have offended someone (and no doubt I have done so), and I meet that person again face-to-face, I can tell by their demeanor they do not want to communicate with me. And to tell you the truth, I don’t want to have anything more to do with them either. There are wicked, conniving, and narcissistic people round about and I am not interested in finding out what their motivation is. I’m sorry to say that, dear Jesus.
Mara, I understand your feelings regarding such a person but, I once had a similar experience, although not with a person who was such as you describe and, I knew why that person was offended by me, and we did not talk for two years. However, that person was almost deaf and what I said which offended him, which was received as me being disrespectful to him, was a misunderstanding on his part but, at that time, it was in his nature to anger quickly and nothing which I could have said at that time would have changed the following two years of silence. Nevertheless, there was no love lost between the two of us, only time. We never spoke of that period of time, after the hatchet was buried, so to speak, but since I could not change the fact that his hearing was getting worse instead of better, I did make an effort to be more careful in what I said, and made sure that he could read my lips. I guess that what I could have done at that time was to write a letter, explaining the circumstances as I understood them and apologized for his misunderstanding me but, hindsight is 20/20 now. Had I had written the letter, I know that that two years would have only been a few weeks but, I was just as stubborn as he was, so who was wrong in this case? Being able to come face to face, was not possible because the distance between us was about 1500 miles, and verbal communication was, well, the same problem as was the first problem without an intermediary.
So, we may think that a person is a certain way or type but, how do we know that we are not the same way or type, butting heads about something which is so minor that it wasn’t worth it in the first place.
Then again, how do you know that, that other person is not perceiving you with the same demeanor as you perceive of them not wanting to communicate with them? If you know this person that well, can you say that you know yourself just as well?
I am not interested in finding out what their motivation is.
Of course I would run to help them in any crisis as would every good Samaritan.
I am not interested in finding out what their motivation is.
Of course I would run to help them in any crisis as would every good Samaritan.
Okay, then if I may ask, why ask or present the topic and question, “How can I Love my enemies?”
It would appear that once you have made up your mind as to a persons “demeanor”, as I asked in my last post, how do you know that they don’t think the same about you, and that reasoning is misguided as your reasoning may be misguided?
It is one thing to avoid someone because you may have animosities against them for whatever reason, and by avoiding them will keep your fear, dislike or hatred in control because you know yourself but, then under those circumstances, would it not be, that you are that persons enemy, where they may actually not think you as their enemy?
Therefore your response above would indicate that you have closed your mind to loving certain or specific people(s), and that you are not interested in loving your enemy which would also indicate that you feel that the Golden Rule, should not apply?
…why ask or present the topic and question, “How can I Love my enemies?”
A friend in my study group asked the question and prepared a sequence of references on the subject for us to study and discuss. I thought it was a good question to pose here. It should be obvious from my remarks about myself that I am not a shining example of living the golden rule. And I know I should do better. I also know that I am not the only one on this forum who struggles on the inside with the kind of perplexing interpersonal relations I have candidly mentioned here, pertaining to me. On one hand we have the UB presentation of the perfect life of Jesus and how he lived it. On the other-hand each of us is living a unique life wherein each of us is confronted with real life personal situations that are challenging. And some of those situations might be instigated by oneself. God knows, one can always do better.
I found an enemy. Someone who is probably glad you and I have so many shortcomings. Caligastia. How can I learn to love him? I doubt I can. Here are some references about Caligastia and his doings.
50:4:12 It was one of the most profoundly shocking episodes of this rebellion for me to learn of the callous perfidy of one of my own order of sonship,Caligastia, who, in deliberation and with malice aforethought, systematically perverted the instruction and poisoned the teaching provided in all the Urantia planetary schools in operation at that time. The wreck of these schools was speedy and complete..53:1:4 Very little was heard of Lucifer on Urantia owing to the fact that he assigned his first lieutenant, Satan, to advocate his cause on your planet. Satan was a member of the same primary group of Lanonandeks but had never functioned as a System Sovereign; he entered fully into the Lucifer insurrection. The “devil” is none other than Caligastia, the deposed Planetary Prince of Urantia and a Son of the secondary order of Lanonandeks. At the time Michael was on Urantia in the flesh, Lucifer, Satan, and Caligastia were leagued together to effect the miscarriage of his bestowal mission. But they signally failed..53:1:5 Abaddon was the chief of the staff of Caligastia. He followed his master into rebellion and has ever since acted as chief executive of the Urantia rebels. Beelzebub was the leader of the disloyal midway creatures who allied themselves with the forces of the traitorous Caligastia..(Aren’t these Urantia rebels and disloyal midwayers still around?).53:8:5 Caligastia was recognized by the Son of Man as the technical Prince of Urantia up to near the time of his death. Said Jesus: “Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the prince of this world be cast down.” And then still nearer the completion of his lifework he announced, “The prince of this world is judged.” And it is this same dethroned and discredited Prince who was once termed “God of Urantia.”.53:8:6 The last act of Michael before leaving Urantia was to offer mercy to Caligastia and Daligastia, but they spurned his tender proffer. Caligastia, your apostate Planetary Prince, is still free on Urantia to prosecute his nefarious designs, but he has absolutely no power to enter the minds of men, neither can he draw near to their souls to tempt or corrupt them unless they really desire to be cursed with his wicked presence..53:8:7 Before the bestowal of Michael these rulers of darkness sought to maintain their authority on Urantia, and they persistently withstood the minor and subordinate celestial personalities. But since the day of Pentecost this traitorous Caligastia and his equally contemptible associate, Daligastia, are servile before the divine majesty of the Paradise Thought Adjusters and the protective Spirit of Truth, the spirit of Michael, which has been poured out upon all flesh..53:9:4 Satan could come to Urantia because you had no Son of standing in residence — neither Planetary Prince nor Material Son. Machiventa Melchizedek has since been proclaimed vicegerent Planetary Prince of Urantia, and the opening of the case of Gabriel vs. Lucifer has signalized the inauguration of temporary planetary regimes on all the isolated worlds. It is true that Satan did periodically visit Caligastia and others of the fallen princes right up to the time of the presentation of these revelations, when there occurred the first hearing of Gabriel’s plea for the annihilation of the archrebels. Satan is now unqualifiedly detained on the Jerusem prison worlds..66:8:6 The doctrine of a personal devil on Urantia, though it had some foundation in the planetary presence of the traitorous and iniquitous Caligastia, was nevertheless wholly fictitious in its teachings that such a “devil” could influence the normal human mind against its free and natural choosing. Even before Michael’s bestowal on Urantia, neither Caligastia nor Daligastia was ever able to oppress mortals or to coerce any normal individual into doing anything against the human will. The free will of man is supreme in moral affairs; even the indwelling Thought Adjuster refuses to compel man to think a single thought or to perform a single act against the choosing of man’s own will..73:2:5 Although Caligastia and Daligastia had been deprived of much of their power for evil, they did everything possible to frustrate and hamper the work of preparing the Garden. But their evil machinations were largely offset by the faithful activities of the almost ten thousand loyal midway creatures who so tirelessly labored to advance the enterprise..(Do you think Caligastia still tries to hamper and frustrate the dissemination of TB&G on Urantia?).74:2:1 Adam and Eve fell asleep on Jerusem, and when they awakened in the Father’s temple on Urantia in the presence of the mighty throng assembled to welcome them, they were face to face with two beings of whom they had heard much, Van and his faithful associate Amadon. These two heroes of the Caligastia secession were the first to welcome them in their new garden home..74:5:5 Adam made a heroic and determined effort to establish a world government, but he met with stubborn resistance at every turn. Adam had already put in operation a system of group control throughout Eden and had federated all of these companies into the Edenic league. But trouble, serious trouble, ensued when he went outside the Garden and sought to apply these ideas to the outlying tribes. The moment Adam’s associates began to work outside the Garden, they met the direct and well-planned resistance ofCaligastia and Daligastia. The fallen Prince had been deposed as world ruler, but he had not been removed from the planet. He was still present on earth and able, at least to some extent, to resist all of Adam’s plans for the rehabilitation of human society. Adam tried to warn the races against Caligastia, but the task was made very difficult because his archenemy was invisible to the eyes of mortals..75:2:1 Caligastia paid frequent visits to the Garden and held many conferences with Adam and Eve, but they were adamant to all his suggestions of compromise and short-cut adventures. They had before them enough of the results of rebellion to produce effective immunity against all such insinuating proposals. Even the young offspring of Adam were uninfluenced by the overtures of Daligastia. And of course neither Caligastia nor his associate had power to influence any individual against his will, much less to persuade the children of Adam to do wrong..————–Eve bore 63 children, before she defaulted. ( 74:6:2)Serapatatia “. . . was never conscious, even later on, that he was being used as a circumstantial tool of the wily Caligastia.” ( 75:3:3) He had good intentions but played right in to Caligastia plan.
I found an enemy. Someone who is probably glad you and I have so many shortcomings. Caligastia. How can I learn to love him? I doubt I can. Here are some references about Caligastia and his doings.
Of coarse one could consider those who you have mentioned by your presentation of these various UB narrations, and based on these narrations they may be true however, I have researched much of the UB regarding these characters and have found some discrepancies not so much as written but as grammatically presented but, your assumption would be justified as you read these quotes from the Urantia Book. Nevertheless if one takes Jesus’ attitude towards those who he may have identified as an enemy, and as we know that he had the power to make changes to His fate, He choose to abide by the Fathers will in this matter. Therefore, if Jesus forgave them of their doing, whereby saying, “forgive them fore they know not what they do”, I cannot take any other approach. This does not mean that should I have the opportunity to confront any of these characters directly, that I would present them with query as to their actions, whereby depending on their response, would I evaluate those responses against the opinions presented in the UB.
(Aren’t these Urantia rebels and disloyal midwayers still around?)
According to the Urantia Book, there just might be a few still around but, what form would they have taken over this period of time and, would it be possible that their presented cause for rebellion and given that at that time they were the majority on Urantia, where it has been noted that majority should rule, I would be interested in their current standing regarding rebellion?
(Do you think Caligastia still tries to hamper and frustrate the dissemination of TB&G on Urantia?)
I don’t know? but, the only way to be sure is to ask him, should he make himself available to anyone, and if he was not visible back then, to mortal humans, what would make him be approachable now?
Love the sinner hate the sin
How can we do it with consistency and with sincerity?
We say we are willing to follow Jesus. Jesus came to save the sinner who had fallen into the pit of his own making.
Why do we hesitate in love ministry? Who are we to say who is worthy of love? The Father is the final arbiter of a soul’s worth.
Love identifies the volitional will of God. 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.
God loves the sinner and hates the sin: such a statement is true philosophically, but God is a transcendent personality, and persons can only love and hate other persons. Sin is not a person. God loves the sinner because he is a personality reality (potentially eternal), while towards sin God strikes no personal attitude, for sin is not a spiritual reality; it is not personal; therefore does only the justice of God take cognizance of its existence. The love of God saves the sinner; the law of God destroys the sin. This attitude of the divine nature would apparently change if the sinner finally identified himself wholly with sin just as the same mortal mind may also fully identify itself with the indwelling spirit Adjuster. Such a sin-identified mortal would then become wholly unspiritual in nature (and therefore personally unreal) and would experience eventual extinction of being. Unreality, even incompleteness of creature nature, cannot exist forever in a progressingly real and increasingly spiritual universe. [Paper2:6.8, page 41.6]
Saving souls is a reward in itself.
Why do we hesitate in love ministry? Who are we to say who is worthy of love? The Father is the final arbiter of a soul’s worth.
Great question Vern. I am glad to read you. You elevate this conversation. I stuck my neck out. I didn’t start this blog to talk about myself and I apologize to everyone for talking too personally. Thanks so much.
On one hand we have the UB presentation of the perfect life of Jesus and how he lived it. On the other-hand each of us is living a unique life wherein each of us is confronted with real life personal situations that are challenging.
If you read between the lines in regards to the UB’s presentation of Jesus’ life, we also know that Jesus would not have considered his life as being “perfect”, in that when confronted with one calling Him “Good”, did he not admonish that one for his implication? The Urantia Book presents Jesus’ life in such a way as to parallel his life to associate with our living unique lives in present day reality. This narration has been presented in such a way as to show that the difference in time is not so different and this is why this narration of Jesus’ life is so acceptable to many readers. However, do not think that Jesus did not suffer from the same feelings and disappointments as do we today but, being that Jesus did have a more complete insight as to his specific mission while in the flesh, so think not that He would have considered himself as perfect. It has been noted that the narrators where not able to understand why or how Jesus was able to isolate his mind in such a way as to disassociate his conscious mind moving it into his superconscious mind where his thoughts where unknowable to the cosmic mind and was able to commune exclusively with our Father having spiritually fused with his thought adjuster. Therefore, while in this state of worship any record keeping would also be isolated and therefore not available for inclusion in the UB’s narration, however this does not mean that any speculation would not be accurate or close to the mark.
So, if Jesus lead such a perfect life as may be indicated in the UB, it would have been presented only as a form of respect and a teaching tool but, in keeping with Jesus’ mission and his promise to return, one must assume that his life and our life are not that different.
I’ve wondered for many years what is the definition of perfect. It seems to me its difficult because we have bad thoughts and want to judge people, including those who dislike us and make us angry. The “how” in this question thread is the tough part because of the emotional and character obstacles we must surmount. Becoming perfect is possible for us mortals, but we all know “life ain’t that easy!”
It seems perfection must include controlling emotions to achieve balance. Balance seems to be a constantly moving target, but somewhere between emotional or psychological extremes there is mind balance, where mind, with Spirit aid, recognizes and enjoys satisfactory relationships. Jesus achieved this balance by facing challenges, sorting information and then choosing the higher values as he became aware during his maturation. He became perfect by always choosing the Father’s way, by full and irreversible dedication, giving up his will in favor of the Father. He grew into perfection as he matured, even showing high values during his youth.
Perhaps the definition is to never have made a decision to reject the Father’s way. To always have made the right choice seems like achieving perfection. Perhaps perfection is reaching supreme dedication to the Father’s will, at least to the point the Judges are thoroughly convinced of desires of the soul. This person we call Father—–well He is intimately familiar with human nature and He leads us toward divine nature. His invitation to BE perfect, we are told, is continuous, all the way to Paradise. Difficult it may be, but we should give all of our selves in the quest for divine perfection. That surely includes rejecting all bad thoughts and forgive. That is easier said than done.
How can I love my enemies is a great question and it is stated to participants here as a reach from Mara for confiding guidance. It is one we all could apply to ourselves. Being humble on this question is right as we stand at the alter of God. We are told confiding trust is one of the 11 fruits of the Spirit. Jesus listed them during one of his late appearances (18th maybe) after resurrection.
We should sincerely confide in one another if we truly believe the Father’s Fragment actually lives in us. Perhaps someone else’s TA will express through a person just the right comment we need to help us love enemies. Perhaps multiple TAs will more clearly show us the “how”.
Maybe we should sing Michael Hanian and Rebecca Oswald’s “Pray Tell Me How”
Dear Mara,
You trigger many reflections.
The first one is about my absence of participation on this forum. My grudge is dissipating towards participants who differ from ”my” point of view because of yours enhancing thoughts.
As quote in UB:
“Your inability or unwillingness to forgive your fellows is the measure of your immaturity, your failure to attain adult sympathy, understanding, and love. You hold grudges and nurse vengefulness in direct proportion to your ignorance of the inner nature and true longings of your children and your fellow beings. Love is the outworking of the divine and inner urge of life. It is founded on understanding, nurtured by unselfish service, and perfected in wisdom.” 174:1.5
“… that differs with their preconceived conclusions. It’s not the person/s that’s the enemy, but rather the ideas and opinions and conclusions which make it appear they are enemies.
And grudges do not lead one in the positive direction of self-understanding and maturing self-mastery.“ Mara
“But we cannot stop the free will choice others make … When I am personally attacked or confronted with disagreement, that is a lesson from which to consider my response abilities.
To disagree is but the reality of personal and individual perspective…there will be disagreement.” Bradly
… That is easier said than done.
Mark“… that you have closed your mind to loving certain or specific people(s)
… one must assume that his life and our life are not that different.“MidiChlorian
“Why do we hesitate in love ministry? Who are we to say who is worthy of love? The Father is the final arbiter of a soul’s worth.“Vern
It’s been a exhaustive and deep thoughts reflections this insightful thread.
I really feel gear up ”… linked to self mastery and advancing Spirit domination.”
“To handle yourself, use your head; to handle others, use your heart.“
Eleanor Roosevelt“The religion of the spirit means effort, struggle, conflict, faith, determination, love, loyalty, and progress. [Paper 155:5, page 1729:6] We are often inflexible in our beliefs and over-confident in our understanding. To grow in spirit unity we must seek new meanings in our understanding of spiritual development and move beyond our comfort zones.“ Sheila Keene-Lund
http://urantia-association.org/2011/07/15/the-art-of-self-mastery/
“Perhaps someone else’s TA will express through a person just the right comment we need to help us love enemies.“
You all done that. This thought process is teeming with valuables significations and values.
Gratitude towards your involvement Mara and each of you combined with your personal companion T/A.
Dears ones (oneness),
Would like after have done ” a short preliminaries” lol engages thoughts about the thread.
Subsequently taking note on this subject I asked fellows UB readers about it. I present it like that;
“IF” it was possible, giving or trade your life for your “enemies”, your spiritual status life… Would you be interested? (“enemies” implied Adolf Hitler, Caligastia, Lucifer … name it.)
I know what I would do…
Do you?
Dears ones (oneness),
Would like after have done ” a short preliminaries” lol engages thoughts about the thread.
Subsequently taking note on this subject I asked fellows UB readers about it. I present it like that;
“IF” it was possible, giving or trade your life for your “enemies”, your spiritual status life… Would you be interested? (“enemies” implied Adolf Hitler, Caligastia, Lucifer … name it.)
I know what I would do…
Do you?
Andre – I think I understand what you are asking above but, I am not exactly sure of what you are asking, directly?The implication which you imply assuming that you are referring to the Urantia Book notation that various spiritual characters like “Caligastia” who cannot oppress or posses an individual unless they are willing subjects, especially since Pentecost, is how I read your question? Correct me, please if I am wrong..However, you indicated above “your spiritual status life…” which is where my confusion starts, in that you prefix this with “giving or trade your life for your ‘enemies’,”?.Are you specifying that, would a person be willing to give up their physical life in place of their enemies life, like a sacrifice? Or, as I have previous stated, allow your enemy or a specific spiritual personality to join with your “spiritual status life” as a conjoint actor, which could or would affect the subjects consciousness?.The reason for my confusion is when you included “Adolf Hitler” in your implied list, where he once lived in the flesh and who would have past on by now, if historical accounts were inaccurate, and the others “Caligastia, Lucifer …” would not have lived in the flesh other than as indicted in the UB, so if you could be more specific you might get some responses?.According to the Urantia Book, the various forms of life/germ plasm can be passed on from parents to children, or from person to person, over a evolutionary period of time. In this I am indicating that even various personality traits and even memories can be inherent to progeny, be it through natural selection or surgical implantation prior to inception. If Hitler had children or his DNA were cloned or used to augment an individual, similar to the movie “The Boys from Basil (1978)”, there would be no choice involved. But at the same time, if Caligastia and or Lucifer could posses an individual in physical form, would that experience augment that person’s DNA whereby any future offspring might inherit certain spiritual or personality traits but these are speculative scenarios which would not involve a person making a choice.I’m not sure of your implications because of all the various possible scenarios which they may encompass?
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.