-
Posts
-
Me here: Well let us be consistent and honest at least….this is the first mention of these issues on this topic, page 2 post #9600 – “…destroying…with liaison forces….to try and rape this being to death.” All words repeated from the Halvorsen recording link provided later which was then listened to by myself, Bonita, and BB (at least).
These are the concepts (and terms chosen) in dispute. Still waiting then, for the forms of harm and destruction, if not those you presented here, and now claim no one intended as true….which begs the question – why say it and present it if it never happened or couldn’t happen (and I agree, never could and never did)? It does sound like Scott that you (now) do agree that every being is safe from every other being in person and in mind? So there is no source of harm or danger possible from any beings upon any other beings? Right?
I am still waiting for you to provide a quote where I suggested that any being was actually in danger of being harmed, me saying that these beings where trying to harm Manotia is not the same as me saying that they DID harm Manotia. Also the concept of “liaison forces” being used to “destroy” another being are phrases that are taken directly from TUB . The authors tell us that the rebels sought Manotia’s destruction with liaison forces. So me using those phrases doesn’t equal me copying from Chris.
why say it and present it if it never happened or couldn’t happen?
Well they were trying to destroy Manotia with Laison forces. So I just repeated what they are saying. The only difference is that I believe that “liaison forces” are liason energies. I don’t think its a huge stretch to make that connection, especially considering that the authors talk about energies being used in liaison in other parts of the book.
When I read this, I cannot see how you assume this inference?
I agree with you Midi. Blindness, in this instance, is more like indifference, a part of Lucifer’s attitude of rejection and disregard. Essentially he chose to be unmindful and insensitive to his cosmic responsibilities.
Really so you are saying Lucifer was not ignorant even though he was “blind to cosmic relationships”. If you can’t see cosmic relationships how are you not ignorant? What does not being able to see cosmic relationships have anything to do with indifference? Wow this thread has been entertaining, so many gems in here.
Really so you are saying Lucifer was not ignorant even though he was “blind to cosmic relationships”. If you can’t see cosmic relationships how are you not ignorant? What does not being able to see cosmic relationships have anything to do with indifference? Wow this thread has been entertaining, so many gems in here.
Me here: Scott – no one can sin or rebel from “ignorance”….one can become blind or blinded by willful choices and the consequences of those choices made. Close your eyes….are you now “blind”?; are you also ignorant? The inference is obvious and has nothing to do with ignorance. The mind “sees” and is also “blind” to that which it chooses. Your saying that a System sovereign and Lanonandek was ignorant of his own organization and creator and other entities? He was blind to reality….a reality he certainly was aware of before his insanity went too far. Glad you’re enjoying the discussion. Why don’t you answer the question asked many times….do you agree that every being is “safe” from all others in self, body, and mind? Do you not think Manotia had similar knowledge and much experience to re-enforce this fact? For if those are true, it really changes the context of “harm” and “destroy” don’t you think?
Really so you are saying Lucifer was not ignorant even though he was “blind to cosmic relationships”. If you can’t see cosmic relationships how are you not ignorant? What does not being able to see cosmic relationships have anything to do with indifference? Wow this thread has been entertaining, so many gems in here.
Me here: Scott – no one can sin or rebel from “ignorance”….one can become blind or blinded by willful choices and the consequences of those choices made. Close your eyes….are you now “blind”?; are you also ignorant? The inference is obvious and has nothing to do with ignorance. The mind “sees” and is also “blind” to that which it chooses. Your saying that a System sovereign and Lanonandek was ignorant of his own organization and creator and other entities? He was blind to reality….a reality he certainly was aware of before his insanity went too far. Glad you’re enjoying the discussion. Why don’t you answer the question asked many times….do you agree that every being is “safe” from all others in self, body, and mind? Do you not think Manotia had similar knowledge and much experience to re-enforce this fact? For if those are true, it really changes the context of “harm” and “destroy” don’t you think?
Yes I agree that all beings are safe (self, body, and mind). I think Manotia knew that the rebels couldn’t actually destroy her. She said that this was an “exhilarating” moment for her. So she didn’t seem to afraid. That doesn’t change the intent of the rebels, they can still try and destroy her, that doesn’t mean they will get very far. I don’t think there is any reason to change the words of the authors if they say “destruction” then I can’t think of any way to change that word.
Brad: He was blind to reality…
That is the epitome of ignorance. That personifies ignorance. It doesn’t get any more ignorant than being blind to reality. I agree he was at one time aware of reality. But at some point he lost that awareness of reality. I don’t think he was ignorant of the existence of his organization and of other beings, but I think he was definitely ignorant of those beings as they actually exist. He contended for “equality of mind”. So he actually believed that his mind was equal to Michaels or an Ancient of Days?? Obviously he didn’t have a clue there. He thought that the Executioners could be debarred from functioning, so he was ignorant in thinking he could go up against the Ancient of Days which are God. I don’t think he was always ignorant of these things, but at some point he became ignorant. At some point he lost sight of cosmic relationships. He lost sight of how everything fits together. If your head is so far up your rear end because you are in love with yourself, you are not going to be able to see much at all. Except your own insides. That is how he became ignorant of reality. He started to fall in love with himself, spiritual pride is part of what led him down this road. That is why there is those warnings with Judas and spiritual pride.
It doesn’t get any more ignorant than being blind to reality.
I’d be careful Scott, in making a statement like that, because we may actually be looking in a mirror, when one says that, besides, I suppose that you are not “blind to reality”, you know exactly what reality is, since you are not “ignorant” this must mean that you know without a doubt what it is? Would you like to share this knowledge with us, or are the blind leading the blind here?
Yes I agree that all beings are safe (self, body, and mind). I think Manotia knew that the rebels couldn’t actually destroy her. She said that this was an “exhilarating” moment for her. So she didn’t seem to afraid. That doesn’t change the intent of the rebels, they can still try and destroy her, that doesn’t mean they will get very far. I don’t think there is any reason to change the words of the authors if they say “destruction” then I can’t think of any way to change that word.
I was certain of our agreement on the inviolate self. Good. Actually, the author did not say destruction, Manotia is quoted….they sought my destruction. Now we are agreed there is only one form of any possible destruction and that is “self” destruction by disloyalty and betrayal. So, if Manotia knew this, and you say and I agree she did indeed know this, then logic would indicate that she was referring to they sought her destruction by trying to enlist her in rebellion IMO. If she knew, how could the rebels not know? You are making a conjecture, beyond supposition, that the word liaison which is used many ways many times in text by multiple defintions somehow is limited to a form used to describe a co-creative act. But logic would say if Manotia knew she was safe from others then so too the others would know the same thing – has there EVER EVER been a celestial that has been violated in body, self, or mind by any other? Not that the UB relates. Indeed it says free will is never violated and goes on to say that even the rebels’ will was not and has not been – betrayal, disloyalty, and rebellion are a form of “suicide” according to the quote I posted – and it is allowed if that is the free will choice made (contained, then isolated, then extended time and mercy to come to their senses but not even their free will is violated by any). Why would the rebels suddenly believe in something totally unprecedented in this particular instance?
I think the passage is clear and remains so to me…..the rebels, in liaison (a form of unified persuasion attempt), tempted her to commit suicide (self-destruction) – and here we agree further as I also don’t think the rebels believed they WERE committing suicide or choosing their own self destruction – so thereby, I presume that the quote from Manotia shows her understanding that such a choice was a form of self “destruction” – they sought my destruction by attempting to enlist me in their madness of rebellion – is the way I read it. I don’t believe the rebels sought her “destruction” by any conspiracy or act – I think they sought her participation in the rebellion and Manotia knew THAT would result in her destruction. Fits the context and the reality both.
There is no logic or reason to any other explanation….especially the one I listened to by the link provided – that is an unreasonable, illogical, and fantastical construct of multiple impossibilities that any good student should be able to smell their way past. The fact is Manotia was never in any danger by the hand of any other as we have agreed. But Manotia is the one quoted, therefor that was not her meaning nor do the words chosen make that her meaning….again, IMO. Some minds prefer to invent complexities for various reasons but those constructs must at least stand two tests: the text in its whole context as well as logic. There should not be confusion and contradiction within such a construct if reasonable or true.
Obviously he didn’t have a clue there. He thought that the Executioners could be debarred from functioning, so he was ignorant in thinking he could go up against the Ancient of Days which are God.
Scott, I don’t know how you can use “obviously” above, because you have brought up, about being “debarred”, several time. Where this word is used twice in the UB, first in Paper 53, as you have sited:
(603.6) 53:3.5 He contended that the executioners of the Ancients of Days could be debarred from functioning in the local systems if the native beings would only assert their independence. He maintained that immortality was inherent in the system personalities, that resurrection was natural and automatic, and that all beings would live eternally except for the arbitrary and unjust acts of the executioners of the Ancients of Days.
And second, in the following quote, where I have added the preceding and following quote, for a reason:
(1997.5) 186:1.2 All of these Jews loathed Judas; they looked upon the betrayer with only feelings of utter contempt. Throughout the trial of Jesus before Caiaphas and during his appearance before Pilate, Judas was pricked in his conscience about his traitorous conduct. And he was also beginning to become somewhat disillusioned regarding the reward he was to receive as payment for his services as Jesus’ betrayer. He did not like the coolness and aloofness of the Jewish authorities; nevertheless, he expected to be liberally rewarded for his cowardly conduct. He anticipated being called before the full meeting of the Sanhedrin and there hearing himself eulogized while they conferred upon him suitable honors in token of the great service which he flattered himself he had rendered his nation. Imagine, therefore, the great surprise of this egotistic traitor when a servant of the high priest, tapping him on the shoulder, called him just outside the hall and said: “Judas, I have been appointed to pay you for the betrayal of Jesus. Here is your reward.” And thus speaking, the servant of Caiaphas handed Judas a bag containing thirty pieces of silver — the current price of a good, healthy slave.
(1998.1) 186:1.3 Judas was stunned, dumfounded. He rushed back to enter the hall but was debarred by the doorkeeper. He wanted to appeal to the Sanhedrin, but they would not admit him. Judas could not believe that these rulers of the Jews would allow him to betray his friends and his Master and then offer him as a reward thirty pieces of silver. He was humiliated, disillusioned, and utterly crushed. He walked away from the temple, as it were, in a trance. He automatically dropped the money bag in his deep pocket, that same pocket wherein he had so long carried the bag containing the apostolic funds. And he wandered out through the city after the crowds who were on their way to witness the crucifixions.
(1998.2) 186:1.4 From a distance Judas saw them raise the cross piece with Jesus nailed thereon, and upon sight of this he rushed back to the temple and, forcing his way past the doorkeeper, found himself standing in the presence of the Sanhedrin, which was still in session. The betrayer was well-nigh breathless and highly distraught, but he managed to stammer out these words: “I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood. You have insulted me. You have offered me as a reward for my service, money — the price of a slave. I repent that I have done this; here is your money. I want to escape the guilt of this deed.”
Where in the quote where, “debarred” is used, it is used in a similar manor as described in Paper 53, and in the quote that follows, Judas “forcing his way past the doorkeeper,” which is similar to what Lucifer was referring to, when it is stated in Paper 53. Judas asserted himself to get past the doorkeeper.
Now in the preceding quote, I underlined and highlighted “pricked” where at first I thought it a type-O, and should have been “tricked”, but then realized that the use of the word “pricked” was an indication that Judas realized or somehow was impressed upon his conscious, that he was “tricked” into thinking that what he thought was something that he had conviction to do, and realized that the Sanhedrin used him. So the betrayer was betrayed, himself. Also, all this after thinking that what he was doing was somehow by the direction of Jesus, for when Jesus said to him at the supper, to “go and do what you must do”, would have somehow affirmed in Judas’ mind to be something which he was supposed to do. Later to realize that this was a mind trip, to be sure.
So, do these two uses of the word “debarred” have a similarity, as used in the UB, and was this usage deliberate so that when looking up the word, it associates these two events, with the government of the Universe and the government in Jesus’ day?
I was certain of our agreement on the inviolate self. Good. Actually, the author did not say destruction, Manotia is quoted….they sought my destruction. Now we are agreed there is only one form of any possible destruction and that is “self” destruction by disloyalty and betrayal. So, if Manotia knew this, and you say and I agree she did indeed know this, then logic would indicate that she was referring to they sought her destruction by trying to enlist her in rebellion IMO.
Just because they can’t destroy a being doesn’t mean that they didn’t try to. Also an executioner could actually destroy another being. So there is at least one being capable of destroying another being. Maybe the rebels thought they could wield the same power of an executioner.
I think the passage is clear and remains so to me…..the rebels, in liaison (a form of unified persuasion attempt), tempted her to commit suicide (self-destruction) – and here we agree further as I also don’t think the rebels believed they WERE committing suicide or choosing their own self destruction – so thereby, I presume that the quote from Manotia shows her understanding that such a choice was a form of self “destruction” – they sought my destruction by attempting to enlist me in their madness of rebellion – is the way I read it. I don’t believe the rebels sought her “destruction” by any conspiracy or act – I think they sought her participation in the rebellion and Manotia knew THAT would result in her destruction. Fits the context and the reality both.
How does liaison forces become a “unified persuasion attempt”. That seems like a huge stretch IMO. There are other parts in the book that talk about liaison energies. So the phrase “liaison forces” is likely speaking about some sort of energy. The rebels thought their sophistries were giving people liberty so there is no way they thought that by convincing her to believe in what they believe that it would be suicidal. Why would a being try and kill another being by giving them their most cherished ideas? That makes no sense at all.
How does liaison forces become a “unified persuasion attempt”. That seems like a huge stretch IMO.
Perhaps it is your self created definition that’s the stretch…and the hang up?
liaison – noun, plural liaisons
1. the contact or connection maintained by communications between units of the armed forces or of any other organization in order to ensure concerted action, cooperation, etc.
2. a person who initiates and maintains such a contact or connection.
I think it’s also important to realize that the word “forces” has multiple meanings as well. It means more than just energies, overlapping or otherwise. Forces can also be a group of people with power and influence capable of coercion, not just physically, but mentally, psychologically and spiritually. A lot of damage can be done by psychological coercion and intimidation. Overwhelming guilt can destroy a human, as can overwhelming fear actually kill a human (think voodoo).
I don’t think angels have much guilt nor do they have fear. But spiritual coercion is a threat.
Synonyms for liaison
noun person who acts as go-between
communication
contact
intermediary
connection
fixer
hookup
interchange
interface
link
That seems like a huge stretch IMO. There are other parts in the book that talk about liaison energies. So the phrase “liaison forces” is likely speaking about some sort of energy.
Scott, this is the same method or attitude taken in the translation of many of the Biblical text, where the transcribers did not take the meanings of various words used in the various languages to translate the original texts when they found words that could be used in multiple context, took a mathematics average of their previous usage. Where if it was used 500 time one way and 300 times another way, that they assumed a word should be used as the majority was used and did not take the context of the passage within the text for its use. Therefore, your method of word usage is the same as those taken by the Biblical translators and many times were wrong in their implied selection of a synonym or by definition, for its use, thereby changing the original meaning from what the authors or scribes intended to be used.
@Midi I never wanted to talk about Chris and I wasn’t the person who brought Chris up. BB did, and then everyone jumped on Chris. I didn’t have any intention of going down this road. Bonita asked for a transcript of something Chris said. People listened to the transcript and then some lost their marbles when they heard him. I am just defending him with my own opinions. I am sure he could defend himself much better than I can. It is easy to attack someone who isn’t even here to defend himself. Also some Controllers do have personal traits in the normal sense, and some do not.
Scott you are correct in your actions as listed above, but after you provided what you were asked, you also provided an addendum as to what Chris actually meant to say, or added your two cents worth, thereby you took over the conversation and made Chris’ statement your own and used your opinion, to insight a riot, so to speck. You in essence defined what Chris said in your own words and made them your own. This is what became the issue, not that your intent was to defend what Chris said but what you understood about what Chris said. This is the difference being argued here.
Just because they can’t destroy a being doesn’t mean that they didn’t try to. Also an executioner could actually destroy another being. So there is at least one being capable of destroying another being. Maybe the rebels thought they could wield the same power of an executioner.
Me here: It is unfortunate that you keep inserting both terms and concepts which are not derived from text (I can only guess we’re getting another dose of second hand Halvorson-isms here – and as midi says, to his (Chris”s) detriment – a student speaking for a teacher and mangling the concepts presented is well displayed here I think). There is no such being as an executioner…as demonstrated by a key word search of the term….except for beings that are considered reconcilers who act on behalf of others and do not kill or eliminate ANY other beings. Certainly power controllers are NOT empowered to end life of any being for any reason.
There is a near endless patient and due process prior to any form of life termination:
(37.4) 2:3.6 The rule of the Creator Sons in the local universes is one of creation and spiritualization. These Sons devote themselves to the effective execution of the Paradise plan of progressive mortal ascension, to the rehabilitation of rebels and wrong thinkers, but when all such loving efforts are finally and forever rejected, the final decree of dissolution is executed by forces acting under the jurisdiction of the Ancients of Days.
(610.6) 53:9.1 Early in the days of the Lucifer rebellion, salvation was offered all rebels by Michael. To all who would show proof of sincere repentance, he offered, upon his attainment of complete universe sovereignty, forgiveness and reinstatement in some form of universe service. None of the leaders accepted this merciful proffer. But thousands of the angels and the lower orders of celestial beings, including hundreds of the Material Sons and Daughters, accepted the mercy proclaimed by the Panoptians and were given rehabilitation at the time of Jesus’ resurrection nineteen hundred years ago. These beings have since been transferred to the Father’s world of Jerusem, where they must be held, technically, until the Uversa courts hand down a decision in the matter of Gabriel vs. Lucifer. But no one doubts that, when the annihilation verdict is issued, these repentant and salvaged personalities will be exempted from the decree of extinction. These probationary souls now labor with the Panoptians in the work of caring for the Father’s world.
(619.4) 54:6.7 But such an extraordinary and beneficent harvest of wrongdoing could only be brought about by the wise, divine, and merciful attitude of all of Lucifer’s superiors, extending from the Constellation Fathers on Edentia to the Universal Father on Paradise. The passing of time has enhanced the consequential good to be derived from the Lucifer folly; and since the evil to be penalized was quite fully developed within a comparatively short time, it is apparent that the all-wise and farseeing universe rulers would be certain to extend the time in which to reap increasingly beneficial results. Regardless of the many additional reasons for delaying the apprehension and adjudication of the Satania rebels, this one gain would have been enough to explain why these sinners were not sooner interned, and why they have not been adjudicated and destroyed.
This willingness to substitute terms and meanings is unfortunate…and dangerous, regardless of the mind and mouth from whence it comes forth.
(610.4) 53:8.8 But even so, no fallen spirit ever did have the power to invade the minds or to harass the souls of the children of God. Neither Satan nor Caligastia could ever touch or approach the faith sons of God; faith is an effective armor against sin and iniquity. It is true: “He who is born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one touches him not.”
Further evidence that Manotia…and all universe beings….was and remains totally safe in God’s kingdom. No being is subject to another or to any form of random execution.
Love ya Scott….but I think you were a better student before your more recent discipleship and tutoring. You seem to have lost your own perspective trying to adapt another’s. Just my opinion. Just because someone you admire says something doesn’t make it true or even mean you actually understand their meaning or intent. Peace Bro!!
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.