-
Posts
-
Currently I am re-reading the rebellion papers and came across two statements I am having trouble reconciling. Would like some input if possible. Thanks.
53:5.6 “There was war in heaven … was not a physical battle as such a conflict might be conceived on Urantia… While displaying none of the barbarities so characteristic of physical warfare on the immature worlds, this conflict was far more deadly; material life is in jeopardy in material combat, but the war in heaven was fought in terms of life eternal.”
and…
53:6.3 “… I refused to participate in the projected insult to Michael; and the powerful rebels sought my destruction by means of the liaison forces they had arranged. There was a tremendous upheaval on Jerusem, but not a single loyal seraphim was harmed.”
What is the nature of this “destruction” and “harm” the second quote refers to if this war in heaven does not exhibit any of the barbarities normally associated with material battle?
BB
Hello BB,
The UB authors do not reveal the details of how non-material, celestial beings are harmed. How does one “do away” with an angel? How do angels have battles? Since they are not material beings, they have no material guns, knives, or other material weapons, the tools of barbarities we know here as mortals. What tools did Caligastia and Satan have in mind when they tempted Jesus on the mountain? Surely they knew if Jesus cooperated the Father would respond with his justice.
Most likely we all are left to guesses and estimates on the deeper details of much of the information in the book including the rebellion details.
Perhaps the harm that results when celestials go into knowing, willful sin, is a judgment of rebellion and the probable finding the individuals are devoid of spiritual value. My understanding is that in such cases life is taken away and such individuals become as though they never existed. All records of their lives are obliterated. This judgement is described also for mortals whose decisions result in cessation of existence.
Is this helpful?
Also, the authors severally and in multiple writings place emphasis on personal progress, a provision for mortals and angels. Those persons who spurn mercy and continue in decisions to rebel and reject the Fatherhood of God, reject relationship with Him and choose in a final way a direction away from Him, will be destroyed. Progress is a big feature of the Father’s vast enterprise. Destruction and harm are real possibilities in this way and for those who choose not to come to the Father’s eternal banquet.
Peace abound to all.
Brooklyn_born wrote: What is the nature of this “destruction” and “harm” the second quote refers to if this war in heaven does not exhibit any of the barbarities normally associated with material battle?The answer to your question is in this quote:
53:5.7 But this war in heaven was very terrible and very real. While displaying none of the barbarities so characteristic of physical warfare on the immature worlds, this conflict was far more deadly; material life is in jeopardy in material combat, but the war in heaven was fought in terms of life eternal.
The harm and destruction spoken of is the loss of eternal life due to identification with sin and iniquity.
The harm and destruction spoken of is the loss of eternal life due to identification with sin and iniquity.In the passage, Manotia is quoted as saying, “I refused to participate in the projected insult to Michael…” and then says, “and the powerful rebels sought my destruction by means of the liaison forces they had arranged.”In the first quote the Revelator seems to tell us that the second in command of the Satania headquarters’ seraphim successfully resisted temptation to sin and and commit iniquity against the Creator Son. In the second quote, the Revelator, as it seems, is telling us that this courageous act enrages the powerful rebels who then decide, by means of the liaison forces they had arranged, to try and destroy him.
How could this “destruction’ be referring to sin and iniquity when Manotia had declared that he stood steadfast against them (sin and iniquity) in the preceding quote. It seems that this ‘destruction’ is retributive on account of his refusal to participate in the projected insult to Michael. I am having difficulty seeing that, at least in this instance, destruction is an internal and personal act of sin and iniquity.
Thanks, Bonita, for sharing your thoughts.
BB
…. Most likely we all are left to guesses and estimates on the deeper details of much of the information in the book including the rebellion details.
I agree. It does appear that we are left to guesses and estimates.
Perhaps the harm that results when celestials go into knowing, willful sin, is a judgment of rebellion and the probable finding the individuals are devoid of spiritual value.
But in this instance Manotia had declared that he successfully withstood sin and iniquity, and still was confronted with the threat of destruction. I am asking myself, what kind of weapons loyal angels faced in the rebellion that could “destroy” and “harm” them? Makes me wonder.
My understanding is that in such cases life is taken away and such individuals become as though they never existed. All records of their lives are obliterated. This judgement is described also for mortals whose decisions result in cessation of existence. Is this helpful? Also, the authors severally and in multiple writings place emphasis on personal progress, a provision for mortals and angels. Those persons who spurn mercy and continue in decisions to rebel and reject the Fatherhood of God, reject relationship with Him and choose in a final way a direction away from Him, will be destroyed. Progress is a big feature of the Father’s vast enterprise. Destruction and harm are real possibilities in this way and for those who choose not to come to the Father’s eternal banquet. Peace abound to all.
Thanks, Mark, for sharing your thoughts.
BB
In the first quote the Revelator seems to tell us that the second in command of the Satania headquarters’ seraphim successfully resisted temptation to sin and and commit iniquity against the Creator Son. In the second quote, the Revelator, as it seems, is telling us that this courageous act enrages the powerful rebels who then decide, by means of the liaison forces they had arranged, to try and destroy him.
The second quote is a reflection on what is described in the first quote. The reflection is describing the event from Manotia’s memory. Both paragraphs are about the same event, one is told from the viewpoint of Manovandet Melchizedek, the author, and the other from the viewpoint of Manotia. There is nothing at all to suggest retaliation. I believe you are reading into it something from your own creative imagination, which we know is substantially resourceful.
The war was a war of ideas. The liaison forces were nothing more than compelling arguments by brilliant minds who were trying to force their ideas on others. It is our thoughts which lead us Godward, and erroneous thinking leads to erroneous behavior. Erroneous behavior, when persistent, leads to destruction of one’s harmony with the cosmos. Loss of harmony with the cosmos results in isolation and isolation is tantamount to destruction.
Urantia mortals could be doing better were it not for the problems resulting from the rebellion virus.
34:7:4 [#2]The Urantia peoples are suffering the consequences of a double deprivation of help in this task of progre. ssive planetary spiritual attainment. The Caligastia upheaval precipitated world-wide confusion and robbed all subsequent generations of the moral assistance which a well-ordered society would have provided. But even more disastrous was the Adamic default in that it deprived the races of that superior type of physical nature which would have been more consonant with spiritual aspirations.On the other hand, we get to be agondonters.53:6.3 “… I refused to participate in the projected insult to Michael; and the powerful rebels sought my destruction by means of the liaison forces they had arranged. There was a tremendous upheaval on Jerusem, but not a single loyal seraphim was harmed.”
Bonita, look at the sequence of events in the sentence…
53:6.3 “… I refused to participate in the projected insult to Michael; and the powerful rebels sought my destruction by means of the liaison forces they had arranged. There was a tremendous upheaval on Jerusem, but not a single loyal seraphim was harmed.”
BB
Mara wrote: Urantia mortals could be doing better were it not for the problems resulting from the rebellion virus.Although this is a fact, it is not necessarily true. Jesus established The Way, the living spirit kingdom of God, which effectively compensates for the rebellion and default. There is no virus. There are only weak people having difficulty with wholehearted devotion to God’s will.p382:6 34:7.6 Notwithstanding this double disaster to man’s nature and his environment, present-day mortals would experience less of this apparent warfare between the flesh and the spirit if they would enter the spirit kingdom, wherein the faith sons of God enjoy comparative deliverance from the slave-bondage of the flesh in the enlightened and liberating service of wholehearted devotion to doing the will of the Father in heaven. Jesus showed mankind the new way of mortal living whereby human beings may very largely escape the dire consequences of the Caligastic rebellion and most effectively compensate for the deprivations resulting from the Adamic default. “The spirit of the life of Christ Jesus has made us free from the law of animal living and the temptations of evil and sin.” “This is the victory that overcomes the flesh, even your faith.”
Bonita, look at the sequence of events in the sentence…
Yes, I have. Manotia is simply describing what happened to her in more detail than Manovandet described previously. They are both describing the same exact event from different viewpoints, one a personal memory, the other an observation. It’s possible that you’re falling into the trap of isolating a few sentences without taking into consideration the totality of the section.
Revenge and retaliation are human emotions. I cannot find anywhere that any of the rebels engaged in such behavior. They were guilty of persuasive argument, rationalization, protestation, criticism and contempt, but nothing to suggest aggressive punitive behavior. The war was about winning over minds and thereby affecting decisions. It took seven years for everyone to decide what to believe. If there was retaliation, revenge and hate (human emotions), then the rebels, being superhuman, could have obliterated everyone who disagreed with them. But that was not their goal. They wanted to win minds, more and more minds. And if the rebels could not coerce or oppress mortal minds then, how could they do so to angels? It wasn’t possible then and it isn’t possible now.
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.
Bonita, look at the sequence of events in the sentence…
Yes, I have. Manotia is simply describing what happened to her in more detail than Manovandet described previously. They are both describing the same exact event from different viewpoints, one a personal memory, the other an observation. It’s possible that you’re falling into the trap of isolating a few sentences without taking into consideration the totality of the section. Revenge and retaliation are human emotions. I cannot find anywhere that any of the rebels engaged in such behavior. They were guilty of persuasive argument, rationalization, protestation, criticism and contempt, but nothing to suggest aggressive punitive behavior. The war was about winning over minds and thereby affecting decisions. It took seven years for everyone to decide what to believe. If there was retaliation, revenge and hate (human emotions), then the rebels, being superhuman, could have obliterated everyone who disagreed with them. But that was not their goal. They wanted to win minds, more and more minds. And if the rebels could not coerce or oppress mortal minds then, how could they do so to angels? It wasn’t possible then and it isn’t possible now.
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.
And this is my problem with the two narrations. They conflict. I appreciate your perspective.
BB
Brooklyn_born wrote: And this is my problem with the two narrations. They conflict.I’m sorry, but I see absolutely no conflict between the two. They seem to be in agreement. There were no barbarities as seen on material worlds where people’s heads are chopped off, children are slaughtered, women raped and blood flows everywhere. The harm and destruction referred to concerns life eternal, which is much, much more serious than material death where there is still a chance for eternal survival.Brooklyn_born wrote: And this is my problem with the two narrations. They conflict.I’m sorry, but I see absolutely no conflict between the two. They seem to be in agreement. There were no barbarities as seen on material worlds where people’s heads are chopped off, children are slaughtered, women raped and blood flows everywhere. The harm and destruction referred to concerns life eternal, which is much, much more serious than material death where there is still a chance for eternal survival.The Seraphim declares that she stands steadfast in the cause of the Creator son. So the threat of sinning or committing iniquity was not an issue. If it was then I’d agree with your position. As I see it we don’t have the threat of developing sin and iniquity internally. But it does appear that the threat is external.BB
53:6.3 “… I refused to participate in the projected insult to Michael; and the powerful rebels sought my destruction by means of the liaison forces they had arranged. There was a tremendous upheaval on Jerusem, but not a single loyal seraphim was harmed.”
Allow me the liberty of rephrasing this quote the way I believe it is meant: Even though the powerful rebels sought my destruction, I refused to participate in the insult to Michael. The original sentence consists of two independent clauses separated by a semicolon. They are two independent but related sentences, and when connected by a semicolon, the second sentence is meant to add emphasis or clarification to the first. So, what she is saying is that she maintained her loyalty AND the rebels had sought her destruction. If the rebels sought her destruction BECAUSE of her loyalty, then after the semicolon she would have used the word therefore, or consequently, or as a result, or accordingly, or something to indicate cause and effect. The word AND does not indicate a cause and effect relationship between the two clauses. Hope that helps.
53:6.3 “… I refused to participate in the projected insult to Michael; and the powerful rebels sought my destruction by means of the liaison forces they had arranged. There was a tremendous upheaval on Jerusem, but not a single loyal seraphim was harmed.”
Allow me the liberty of rephrasing this quote the way I believe it is meant: Even though the powerful rebels sought my destruction, I refused to participate in the insult to Michael. The original sentence consists of two independent clauses separated by a semicolon. They are two independent but related sentences, and when connected by a semicolon, the second sentence is meant to add emphasis or clarification to the first. So, what she is saying is that she maintained her loyalty AND the rebels had sought her destruction. If the rebels sought her destruction BECAUSE of her loyalty, then after the semicolon she would have used the word therefore, or consequently, or as a result, or accordingly, or something to indicate cause and effect. The word AND does not indicate a cause and effect relationship between the two clauses. Hope that helps.
Bonita look at the following phrase:
“I drank a lot of wine at the party; I found myself the night of the party repeatedly going to the restroom.”
Cause and effect relationship is implied in that sentence because it is expected that that particular event will lead to the other event; if you drink lots of fluids eventually you will have to empty your bladder –cause and effect. It is not necessary, always, to use words like consequently, as a result, accordingly, and etc… to indicate that kind of relationship. It depends on the type of events and the relationship between each. I believe this applies to the UB passage in question.
I could rewrite the phrase in the following manner:
“I refused to participate in the projected insult to Michael. And the powerful rebels sought my destruction by means of the liaison forces they had arranged.” Cause and effect relationship is inferred in that construction.
One more item I’d like to focus our attention:
Manotia said, “ … powerful rebels sought my destruction by means of the liaison forces they had arranged.”
My question is, was this arrangement made as a consequence of Manotia’s refusal, or to win over Manotia to the side of the rebellion?
BB
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.