-
Posts
-
That is truly puzzling. How can God be denied when he does not exist to that person? But we should ask ourselves, did Lucifer always believe God did not exist or did he lose faith? If he lost faith in God then I could see why he is able to be in denial. From my understanding at some point Lucifer started to lose faith in God.
Very true,BB. Let us assume that it was the case that Lucifer lost his faith in God. This would still be a matter of faith and freewill. Would Lucifer’s freewill choice in denying his faith be the same as denying God? Can Gabriel discern Lucifer’s intent or only his deeds? If it only a matter of deeds that concern Gabriel then what were Lucifer’s actual deeds that defiled him? That is the question I have now. Regards, Manny
Perhaps the mechanics behind faith, redemption and damnation in non-fragmented and fragmented entities is different? I think what makes adjuster indwelt beings unique is the redemptive power in faith, especially during detention on the mansion worlds where faith naturally enhances. The personality then can choose to avail itself of the opportunity to redeem its soul (fusion) afforded by this after-life regime. Non-fragmented entities, however, like Lanonandeks, don’t appear to have this luxury (rehabilitation worlds). They are created divinely perfect, with a single volition in their faith, either do the will of the Father or rebel; they either can choose to submit to his glory or disobey and receive damnation. To me, there does not seem to be an intermediary place in their being where repentance and redemption can be found.
To answer your question, I think his denial in faith is a denial in God; Lucifer’s level of faith is commensurate with his capacity to ‘know’ God. Lanonandeks do not possess the capacity Finaliters possess to know God, and their faiths are different, qualitatively, I would presume. Both know him relative to their innate or developed capacities, still. I don’t know how acute is Gabriel’s discerning ability of a personality’s intent, but I do know divine beings have tremendous power of insight. Perhaps they use really sophisticated personality algorithms to ascertain intent —I am guessing. I think Lucifer’s sin centered mainly on the fact he won many souls over to the rebellion. Had he kept his belief to himself and resign from his post, he’d be a free angel today.
BB
emanny3003 wrote: Can Melchizedeks read minds or know intent?We are told the following:
53:2.3 Notwithstanding his silence, for more than one hundred years of standard time the Union of Days on Salvington had been reflectivating to Uversa that all was not at peace in Lucifer’s mind.
We know that the Union of Days are representatives of the Paradise Trinity, pretty high up the chain of command. Seems to me that everyone in Uversa knew that something was wrong in Lucifer’s mind, which presumably includes the Melchizedeks. It was no secret.
Well, that is the question, isn’t it? And that’s why a trial is necessary. Lucifer doesn’t think he sinned and possibly doesn’t even believe in sin at all. However, the majority of the universe does understand that sin exists. It must be determined who is right, therefore the need for a trial.
I agree Bonita. A trial is necessary but we must ask if gabriel is on trial as much as Lucifer is. The Master did say “judge not lest ye be judged”. Was this not also for Gabriel’s ears? It must be determined who is right.
54:4.5 There are many reasons known to us why the Supreme Rulers did not immediately destroy or intern the leaders of the Lucifer rebellion. There are no doubt still other and possibly better reasons unknown to us. The mercy features of this delay in the execution of justice were extended personally by Michael of Nebadon. Except for the affection of this Creator-father for his erring Sons, the supreme justice of the superuniverse would have acted. If such an episode as the Lucifer rebellion had occurred in Nebadon while Michael was incarnated on Urantia, the instigators of such evil might have been instantly and absolutely annihilated.
The last sentence would lead one to think that a trial is not always granted.
53:4.6 Gabriel was personally present throughout all these disloyal proceedings and only announced that he would, in due time, speak for Michael, and that all beings would be left free and unmolested in their choice; that the “government of the Sons for the Father desired only that loyalty and devotion which was voluntary, wholehearted, and sophistry-proof.”
Yes indeed, this quote requires pondering. Again it is paper 54 authored by Manovandet. “Disloyal proceedings” is a judgement call. Are Melchizedeks allowed to judge their bothers?
.
Does Gabriel speak for Michael? This last sentence is irksome. Gabriel desires loyalty and devotion on a voluntary basis but he reserves the right to bring anyone to trial or immediate annihilation (if Michael is away) should anyone show even a hint of disloyalty. Am I reading this correctly?But I agree with you Bonita, we need a trial.
Regards, Manny
I get it tas.
The disloyalty wasn’t toward Gabriel, but to Michael, who is the visible (to a being such as Lucifer) representation of the Father for the local universe: “No one ever suggested rebellion to Lucifer. The idea of self-assertion in opposition to the will of Michael and to the plans of the Universal Father, as they are represented in Michael, had its origin in his own mind.” (53:2.3)
But when you say that Lucifer was disloyal to Michael does that not mean that Michael must be sovereign? At the time of the rebellion Michael was not yet sovereign of Nebadon. Lucifer could not have been disloyal to the sovereign Michael 200,000 years ago.
Yes, Michael did already have sovereignty. His creatorship already implies fullness of sovereignty (21:3.3) “but the Michaels choose to experientially earn it”. He was already far along in the third type of sovereignty manifestation at the time of the Lucifer rebellion, “augmenting vicegerent sovereignty” (21:3.7), and since then has attained the fourth level of it after concluding his experiences on Earth.
“Although the Universal Father is not personally present in a local universe, he is personally represented by its Creator Son, sometime vicegerent of God and subsequently supreme and sovereign ruler in his own right.” 32:3.5
The Michaels take an oath that until they pass through the experiences to become a Master Michael they will act as vicegerent sovereigns rather than as supreme sovereigns until they fully earn it experientially. From the level of a being such as Lucifer, who was a created local universe son of Michael, Michael was father and his local universe sovereign.
Paper 21 section 3 — “Local Universe Sovereignty”
I agree Bonita. A trial is necessary but we must ask if gabriel is on trial as much as Lucifer is. The Master did say “judge not lest ye be judged”. Was this not also for Gabriel’s ears? It must be determined who is right.
If Gabriel was on trial, it would Lucifer vs. Gabriel; but it’s the other way around. Gabriel is not judging, he’s bringing the case to trial so higher judges can judge. He’s simply doing his job as chief executive and administrator of Nebadon.
emanny3003 wrote:Does Gabriel speak for Michael? This last sentence is irksome. Gabriel desires loyalty and devotion on a voluntary basis but he reserves the right to bring anyone to trial or immediate annihilation (if Michael is away) should anyone show even a hint of disloyalty. Am I reading this correctly?No, you’re not. It would have been Immanuel, not Gabriel who had the power to do these things. During Michael’s bestowal mission the government of Nebadon was in the hands of both Gabriel and Immanuel; but, it was Immanuel who was given the power from Ancients of Days to call for the extinction of anyone instigating insurrection. Immanuel said the following to Michael before his incarnation:120:1.5 “And that you may know with assurance that I am empowered to do all that I am now promising (knowing full well that I am the assurance of all Paradise for the faithful performance of my word), I announce to you that there has just been communicated to me a mandate of the Ancients of Days on Uversa which will prevent all spiritual jeopardy in Nebadon throughout the period of your voluntary bestowal. From the moment you surrender consciousness, upon the beginning of the mortal incarnation, until you return to us as supreme and unconditional sovereign of this universe of your own creation and organization, nothing of serious import can happen in all Nebadon. In this interim of your incarnation, I hold the orders of the Ancients of Days which unqualifiedly mandate the instantaneous and automatic extinction of any being guilty of rebellion or presuming to instigate insurrection in the universe of Nebadon while you are absent on this bestowal. My brother, in view of the authority of Paradise inherent in my presence and augmented by the judicial mandate of Uversa, your universe and all its loyal creatures will be secure during your bestowal. You may proceed upon your mission with but a single thought — the enhanced revelation of our Father to the intelligent beings of your universe.”Continuing off Bonita’s quote above, to respond to your impression Manny about concern of a hairtrigger aspect to judgments while Michael would be away, 120:1.6 makes clear that it wasn’t ever the case of any “hint of disloyalty” being the grounds for immediate annihilation but full-tilt rebellion. Quote of Immanual:
“I am the living and supreme pledge whose presence and promise guarantee the safe administration of your universe in accordance with your Father’s will. Rebellion, such as has three times occurred in Nebadon, cannot occur during your absence from Salvington on this bestowal. For the period of the Urantia bestowal the Ancients of Days have decreed that rebellion in Nebadon shall be invested with the automatic seed of its own annihilation.” (120:1.6)
And again mentioned here as well as in the paragraph prior which Bonita posted, it’s by decree of the Ancients of Days that there would be annihilation, not Gabriel.
Yes, Michael did already have sovereignty. His creatorship already implies fullness of sovereignty (21:3.3) “but the Michaels choose to experientially earn it”. He was already far along in the third type of sovereignty manifestation at the time of the Lucifer rebellion, “augmenting vicegerent sovereignty” (21:3.7), and since then has attained the fourth level of it after concluding his experiences on Earth.
Michael did not accept full sovereignty till after his baptism. At the time of the rebellion, Michael said, hands off the rebels, let things ride. Michael did not end the Lucifer rebellion till his bestowal mission as Jesus. Not until his sovereignty was beyond any question.
If Gabriel was on trial, it would Lucifer vs. Gabriel; but it’s the other way around. Gabriel is not judging, he’s bringing the case to trial so higher judges can judge. He’s simply doing his job as chief executive and administrator of Nebadon.
Possible scenario:
“But I was only doing my job”, pleaded Gabriel. “Judgement is our job”, replied the AOD. Judge not lest ye be judged.But it is not Lucifer vs Gabriel because Lucifer did not indict Gabriel. It was the other way around.
No, you’re not. It would have been Immanuel, not Gabriel who had the power to do these things. During Michael’s bestowal mission the government of Nebadon was in the hands of both Gabriel and Immanuel; but, it was Immanuel who was given the power from Ancients of Days to call for the extinction of anyone instigating insurrection. Immanuel said the following to Michael before his incarnation:
120:1.5 “And that you may know with assurance that I am empowered to do all that I am now promising (knowing full well that I am the assurance of all Paradise for the faithful performance of my word), I announce to you that there has just been communicated to me a mandate of the Ancients of Days on Uversa which will prevent all spiritual jeopardy in Nebadon throughout the period of your voluntary bestowal. From the moment you surrender consciousness, upon the beginning of the mortal incarnation, until you return to us as supreme and unconditional sovereign of this universe of your own creation and organization, nothing of serious import can happen in all Nebadon. In this interim of your incarnation, I hold the orders of the Ancients of Days which unqualifiedly mandate the instantaneous and automatic extinction of any being guilty of rebellion or presuming to instigate insurrection in the universe of Nebadon while you are absent on this bestowal. My brother, in view of the authority of Paradise inherent in my presence and augmented by the judicial mandate of Uversa, your universe and all its loyal creatures will be secure during your bestowal. You may proceed upon your mission with but a single thought — the enhanced revelation of our Father to the intelligent beings of your universe.”
The author of paper 120 was sponsored by a commission of twelve Urantia midwayers acting under the supervision of a Melchizedek revelatory director. The basis of this narrative was supplied by a secondary midwayer who was onetime assigned to the superhuman watch care of the Apostle Andrew.
My question now is; How does a midwayer know of a private conversation between Immanuel and Michael? How did this midwayer come into possession of this most private recording in quotes between Paradise brother? I would consider a betrayal of trust if it were not specifically authorized by both Michael and Immanuel. Now this may have occurred but I see no direct evidence that it did occur.
Continuing off Bonita’s quote above, to respond to your impression Manny about concern of a hairtrigger aspect to judgments while Michael would be away, 120:1.6 makes clear that it wasn’t ever the case of any “hint of disloyalty” being the grounds for immediate annihilation but full-tilt rebellion. Quote of Immanual:
“I am the living and supreme pledge whose presence and promise guarantee the safe administration of your universe in accordance with your Father’s will. Rebellion, such as has three times occurred in Nebadon, cannot occur during your absence from Salvington on this bestowal. For the period of the Urantia bestowal the Ancients of Days have decreed that rebellion in Nebadon shall be invested with the automatic seed of its own annihilation.” (120:1.6)
And again mentioned here as well as in the paragraph prior which Bonita posted, it’s by decree of the Ancients of Days that there would be annihilation, not Gabriel.
Again, who is this secondary midwayer that presumes to quote Immanuel? Who is he? He knows of the decrees of the Ancients of Days? Who told him of these things? He was only sponsored and supervised, not dictated to.
I have the right to question this secondary midwayer that is without name because I even have the right to question God. Just now I questioned God as to His will regarding the mentioning these things.
Regards, Manny
emanny3003 wrote: My question now is; How does a midwayer know of a private conversation between Immanuel and Michael? How did this midwayer come into possession of this most private recording in quotes between Paradise brother?Well . . . . it looks to me that the Melchizedek director of the revelatory commission wrote Paper 120, not a midwayer. He was assigned by Gabriel and authorized to narrate the events immediately preceding Michael’s bestowal. That means he had permission to access the information and authority to share it.
120:0.1 Assigned by Gabriel to supervise the restatement of the life of Michael when on Urantia and in the likeness of mortal flesh, I, the Melchizedek director of the revelatory commission intrusted with this task, am authorized to present this narrative of certain events which immediately preceded the Creator Son’s arrival on Urantia to embark upon the terminal phase of his universe bestowal experience. To live such identical lives as he imposes upon the intelligent beings of his own creation, thus to bestow himself in the likeness of his various orders of created beings, is a part of the price which every Creator Son must pay for the full and supreme sovereignty of his self-made universe of things and beings.
My question now is; How does a midwayer know of a private conversation between Immanuel and Michael? How did this midwayer come into possession of this most private recording in quotes between Paradise brother? I would consider a betrayal of trust if it were not specifically authorized by both Michael and Immanuel. Now this may have occurred but I see no direct evidence that it did occur.
Again, who is this secondary midwayer that presumes to quote Immanuel? Who is he? He knows of the decrees of the Ancients of Days? Who told him of these things? He was only sponsored and supervised, not dictated to.
I have the right to question this secondary midwayer that is without name because I even have the right to question God. Just now I questioned God as to His will regarding the mentioning these things.
It’s only from just a little further in the paper that it can be seen this wasn’t “a private conversation” and a “most private recording” like you’ve supposed. Also that the Melchizidek (not midwayer) was relaying it from having been there:
“Then, immediately, in the presence of all Salvington assembled, Michael removed himself from our midst” (120:3.12)
120:0.1 Assigned by Gabriel to supervise the restatement of the life of Michael when on Urantia and in the likeness of mortal flesh, I, the Melchizedek director of the revelatory commission intrusted with this task, am authorized to present this narrative of certain events which immediately preceded the Creator Son’s arrival on Urantia to embark upon the terminal phase of his universe bestowal experience. To live such identical lives as he imposes upon the intelligent beings of his own creation, thus to bestow himself in the likeness of his various orders of created beings, is a part of the price which every Creator Son must pay for the full and supreme sovereignty of his self-made universe of things and beings.
Ok Bonita, I will respond to this but I wish to make it known that a secondary midwayer is responsible for the basis of the narrative of the life and teachings of Jesus. The Melchizedek director of the revelatory commission was entrusted with the task of this paper and probably paper 121. The midwayer begins his work in paper 122 presumably.
The Melchizedek director was “assigned” by Gabriel. Is it possible that Gabriel is the source of the quoted conversation between Michael and Immanuel? Is it possible that Gabriel has an agenda? He has the freewill to have a point of view and act on it thorough an agenda. We have proof of his agenda in the fact of “Gabriel vs Lucifer”. He is, after all, just doing his job. He is prosecuting Lucifer. That is quite an agenda don’t you think. An agenda is proof of bias. Michael and Father did not take sides in this matter. Michael and Father have no agenda or bias.
Jesus admonished Gabriel to, “judge not lest ye be judged”. Of course, he said to every other person in Nebadon as well.
Was Jesus warning Gabriel of the dangers of prosecutorial misconduct?
It’s only from just a little further in the paper that it can be seen this wasn’t “a private conversation” and a “most private recording” like you’ve supposed. Also that the Melchizidek (not midwayer) was relaying it from having been there:
“Then, immediately, in the presence of all Salvington assembled, Michael removed himself from our midst” (120:3.12)
You are assuming that it was not a private conversation. Of what use is this information to the whole of Salvington. Everyone was watching on TV when he took leave but were these instructions to Michael broadcasted to all. IMO, no.
I have been corrected about the midwayer not writing paper 120. Lets start over with the fact that it was a Melchizedek.
120:0.9 And this was the setting of the momentous occasion when Immanuel presented the seventh bestowal commission. And from this prebestowal charge of Immanuel to the universe ruler who subsequently became Jesus of Nazareth (Christ Michael) on Urantia, I am permitted to present the following excerpts:
The Melchizedek was “PERMITTED” to present the instructions from Immanuel. This means that he was not a witness to it. One would not have to gain permission to bear witness to these conversations if one is present and have heard it first hand. And who was it that “GAVE PERMISSION”? I must assume that it was Gabriel because he was “ASSIGNED” by Gabriel. Again, we know of Gabriel’s agenda. Since the Melchizedek did not witness these instructions, what he has presented is what had been recorded by Gabriel or what Gabriel told him. Is that not hearsay? Is not repeating another bearing false witness?
It most certainly is not bearing “direct” witness. Publishing pretrial propaganda to influence the “court” is PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT!
No Untruths have been told in Paper 120. It is as they say, but we just have to decide what has been said and read with discernment.
“There was no secrecy (aside from the incarnation mystery) connected with any step in the Urantia bestowal.” (119:7.2)
“There was no secrecy (aside from the incarnation mystery) connected with any step in the Urantia bestowal.” (119:7.2)
If course there was no secrecy. There is no untruths either. Everything in TUB is presented openly for those with eyes to see.
I think we should get back to the question: What is judgment?
The dictionary tells us that judgment is merely the ability to make decisions, and to form opinions. It is not an accident that the second adjutant mind spirit, the spirit of understanding, provides us with the gift of rapid judgment. It appears to be essential to the coordination and association of ideas. The lower animals make such judgments based upon experience, but with the presence of personality and the indwelling spirit, humans are capable of making rapid judgments concerning morality, meanings and values. It is a fundamental part of our psyche.
36:5.7 2. The spirit of understanding – the impulse of co-ordination, the spontaneous and apparently automatic association of ideas. This is the gift of the co-ordination of acquired knowledge, the phenomenon of quick reasoning, rapid judgment, and prompt decision.
Jesus said, “Judge not.” He did not say, “Judgment not.” The admonition against judging is akin to the golden rule, which instructs us to treat others as Jesus would treat them. He explained that the spirit with which we judge others is the same spirit with which we will be judged; so, we should only judge as we would like to be judged ourselves. Or better yet, as a loving Father, would judge. Likewise, we are told to forgive others as Jesus would forgive them. The UB explains in the following quotes how forgiveness relates to the golden rule.
170:2.23 Regarding sin, he taught that God has forgiven; that we make such forgiveness personally available by the act of forgiving our fellows. When you forgive your brother in the flesh, you thereby create the capacity in your own soul for the reception of the reality of God’s forgiveness of your own misdeeds.
170:3.4 God’s forgiveness is made actually available and is personally experienced by man just in so far as he forgives his fellows.
146:2.4 Even the forgiveness of sin operates in this same unerring fashion. The Father in heaven has forgiven you even before you have thought to ask him, but such forgiveness is not available in your personal religious experience until such a time as you forgive your fellow men. God’s forgiveness in fact is not conditioned upon your forgiving your fellows, but in experience it is exactly so conditioned.
The dictionary tells us that judgment is merely the ability to make decisions, and to form opinions. It is not an accident that the second adjutant mind spirit, the spirit of understanding, provides us with the gift of rapid judgment. It appears to be essential to the coordination and association of ideas. The lower animals make such judgments based upon experience, but with the presence of personality and the indwelling spirit, humans are capable of making rapid judgments concerning morality, meanings and values. It is a fundamental part of our psyche.
Again Bonita, you are on top of things. I failed to define the term as I would use it. Given of redo on the topic I would now ask, WHAT DOES IT MEAN ‘TO JUDGE’? I think that you would agree that this changes the discussion and thank you for the distinction and correction.
Jesus said, “Judge not.” He did not say, “Judgment not.” The admonition against judging is akin to the golden rule, which instructs us to treat others as Jesus would treat them. He explained that the spirit with which we judge others is the same spirit with which we will be judged; so, we should only judge as we would like to be judged ourselves. Or better yet, as a loving Father, would judge. Likewise, we are told to forgive others as Jesus would forgive them. The UB explains in the following quotes how forgiveness relates to the golden rule.
In order to forgive other as Jesus would forgive is to not judge in the first place. Jesus refused to judge. Forgiveness means to ‘look past’ ones verdict of your brother.
147:4.1 On the evening of this same Sabbath day, at Bethany, while Jesus, the twelve, and a group of believers were assembled about the fire in Lazarus’s garden, Nathaniel asked Jesus this question: “Master, although you have taught us the positive version of the old rule of life, instructing us that we should do to others as we wish them to do to us, I do not fully discern how we can always abide by such an injunction. Let me illustrate my contention by citing the example of a lustful man who thus wickedly looks upon his intended consort in sin. How can we teach that this evil-intending man should do to others as he would they should do to him?”
147:4.2 When Jesus heard Nathaniel’s question, he immediately stood upon his feet and, pointing his finger at the apostle, said: “Nathaniel, Nathaniel! What manner of thinking is going on in your heart? Do you not receive my teachings as one who has been born of the spirit? Do you not hear the truth as men of wisdom and spiritual understanding? When I admonished you to do to others as you would have them do to you, I spoke to men of high ideals, not to those who would be tempted to distort my teaching into a license for the encouragement of evildoing.” *
In order to forgive others as Jesus would forgive them requires a refusal to judge in the first place. There is no proper way to judge a brother, therefore the need for forgiveness.
147:4.3 When the Master had spoken, Nathaniel stood up and said: “But, Master, you should not think that I approve of such an interpretation of your teaching. I asked the question because I conjectured that many such men might thus misjudge your admonition, and I hoped you would give us further instruction regarding these matters.” And then when Nathaniel had sat down, Jesus continued speaking: “I well know, Nathaniel, that no such idea of evil is approved in your mind, but I am disappointed in that you all so often fail to put a genuinely spiritual interpretation upon my commonplace teachings, instruction which must be given you in human language and as men must speak. Let me now teach you concerning the differing levels of meaning attached to the interpretation of this rule of living, this admonition to `do to others that which you desire others to do to you’:
“1. The level of the flesh. Such a purely selfish and lustful interpretation would be well exemplified by the supposition of your question.
“2. The level of the feelings. This plane is one level higher than that of the flesh and implies that sympathy and pity would enhance one’s interpretation of this rule of living.
“3. The level of mind. Now come into action the reason of mind and the intelligence of experience. Good judgment dictates that such a rule of living should be interpreted in consonance with the highest idealism embodied in the nobility of profound self-respect.
“4. The level of brotherly love. Still higher is discovered the level of unselfish devotion to the welfare of one’s fellows. On this higher plane of wholehearted social service growing out of the consciousness of the fatherhood of God and the consequent recognition of the brotherhood of man, there is discovered a new and far more beautiful interpretation of this basic rule of life.
“5. The moral level. And then when you attain true philosophic levels of interpretation, when you have real insight into the rightness and wrongness of things, when you perceive the eternal fitness of human relationships, you will begin to view such a problem of interpretation as you would imagine a high-minded, idealistic, wise, and impartial third person would so view and interpret such an injunction as applied to your personal problems of adjustment to your life situations.
“6. The spiritual level. And then last, but greatest of all, we attain the level of spirit insight and spiritual interpretation which impels us to recognize in this rule of life the divine command to treat all men as we conceive God would treat them. That is the universe ideal of human relationships. And this is your attitude toward all such problems when your supreme desire is ever to do the Father’s will. I would, therefore, that you should do to all men that which you know I would do to them in like circumstances.”
At what level does Gabriel of Salvington interpret this admonition concerning the case of Gabriel vs Lucifer?
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.