-
Posts
-
Bradly wrote: . . .spiritual courage to stand up. . .. . .against the deceptions of false liberty in guise of self-assertion, self-pride and the exploitation of others to the goal of having unjust power over them – false religious teachers who would drag hungry souls back into the dim and distant past and there leave them! (155:6:6) False teachers who would deny the importance of knowing about all religions as a means of expanding one’s religious insight into the religious and cultural affairs of men. False teachers who say words are not important. False teachers who say books are not important but who say hear me, see me, read me, and follow me!Jesus always affirmed the positive. He was free from religious prejudice, free from intolerance and free from social antagonisms. He didn’t have any gripes or axes to grind.149:2:10 As Jesus mingled with the people, they found him entirely free from the superstitions of that day. He was free from religious prejudices; he was never intolerant. He had nothing in his heart resembling social antagonism. While he complied with the good in the religion of his fathers, he did not hesitate to disregard man-made traditions of superstition and bondage. He dared to teach that catastrophes of nature, accidents of time, and other calamitous happenings are not visitations of divine judgments or mysterious dispensations of Providence. He denounced slavish devotion to meaningless ceremonials and exposed the fallacy of materialistic worship. He boldly proclaimed man’s spiritual freedom and dared to teach that mortals of the flesh are indeed and in truth sons of the living God.He was patient – never in a hurry. He was a truth-teller.
Sure Jesus didn’t have any axes to grind, and yes he was patient and tolerant,“. . . but he did not teach passive tolerance of wrongdoing.” (140:8.4) Jesus also abhorred the “. . . idea of becoming just a passive sufferer or victim of injustice.” (159:5.11)
133:2.1 As was his custom, Jesus intervened in behalf of the person subjected to attack.
I don’t think Jesus was sitting on his duff when he stopped a husband from beating up his wife (133:2.1); nor do I think it was just guff when he bitterly denounced the Pharisees’ shameful flouting of marriage, pointing out their injustice to women and children (167:5.4); and he wasn’t being a powder puff when he stopped the drunken degenerate from attacking a slave girl (130:5.4). Jesus was strong, assertive and courageous when it came to injustice. He always stepped up to the challenge.
Bonita wrote: He always stepped up to the challenge.Yes he did, as he passed by. And he answered sincere questions that were asked of him, such as this one on good and evil, and in this reference he defines sin.130:1:5 Jesus‘ last visit with Gadiah had to do with a discussion of good and evil. This young Philistine was much troubled by a feeling of injustice because of the presence of evil in the world alongside the good. He said: “How can God, if he is infinitely good, permit us to suffer the sorrows of evil; after all, who creates evil?” It was still believed by many in those days that God creates both good and evil, but Jesus never taught such error. In answering this question, Jesus said: “My brother, God is love; therefore he must be good, and his goodness is so great and real that it cannot contain the small and unreal things of evil. God is so positively good that there is absolutely no place in him for negative evil. Evil is the immature choosing and the unthinking misstep of those who are resistant to goodness, rejectful of beauty, and disloyal to truth. Evil is only the misadaptation of immaturity or the disruptive and distorting influence of ignorance. Evil is the inevitable darkness which follows upon the heels of the unwise rejection of light. Evil is that which is dark and untrue, and which, when consciously embraced and willfully endorsed, becomes sin.False liberty is that which is dark and untrue (evil) and when such ideas are consciously embraced and willfully endorsed, become sin – the wholehearted identification with evil. “[F]rom the universe philosophic viewpoint sin is the attitude of a personality who is knowingly resisting cosmic reality.”67:1:4 There are many ways of looking at sin, but from the universe philosophic viewpoint sin is the attitude of a personality who is knowingly resisting cosmic reality. Error might be regarded as a misconception or distortion of reality. Evil is a partial realization of, or maladjustment to, universe realities. But sin is a purposeful resistance to divine reality — a conscious choosing to oppose spiritual progress — while iniquity consists in an open and persistent defiance of recognized reality and signifies such a degree of personality disintegration as to border on cosmic insanity.“. . . while iniquity consists in an open and persistent defiance of recognized reality. . .”67:1:4
We know that false liberty is the consort of self-admiration, but what is the theft of liberty? What is the big bad someone does to steal another’s liberty? I can see the theft of liberty playing out in nation-states with dictatorial rulers, but surly the UB discussion of the theft of liberty is more about something personal than systems of governing and the qualities of rulers.
We know that false liberty is the consort of self-admiration, but what is the theft of liberty? What is the big bad someone does to steal another’s liberty? I can see the theft of liberty playing out in nation-states with dictatorial rulers, but surly the UB discussion of the theft of liberty is more about something personal than systems of governing and the qualities of rulers.
Mara, it should not be that difficult to understand what “false liberty” would be to an individual, where it is about personal choice, regardless of possible outcome to the individual. This would parallel a persons “free will” to choose, even if that choice may be seen by others as error or sin. If the “systems of governing” presents itself with rules or laws which would benefit some and not all individuals, then if those rules and laws are supported by a majority or, in some cases a minority, they would be a liberty to those who believe in those rules or laws, which apply to them only but, “false liberty” to those who would oppose the enforcement of those rules or laws against those individuals who wish not to be subject to what may be considered as “true liberty” by others. Even if the rules or laws would not be detrimental to either party, it is a fact that to give liberty to someone through a rule or law, and if it is not freely chosen by all who are subject to this liberty only making or forcing the enforcement to all because some consider it as “true liberty.”
An example of this can be found in Galatians 2 KJV, where verse 4 stands out:
(1) Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. (2) And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. (3) But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: (4) And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: (5) To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. (6) But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: (7) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (8) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) (9) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. (10) Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
In the case above, the issue is over whether believers in “Christ Jesus” should be subject to “circumcision” as with the rules or laws of the Jews, and that those Christian Jews versus Gentile Christians would not be excepted by both groups, depending on an act of submitting to circumcision, just because there may have been an argument that since Jesus was a circumcised Jew then in order to be a Christian by some, who were probably circumcised as Jews prior to becoming Christians, believed that this would be a “true liberty” of showing allegiance to Jesus as “true” Christian, where on the other hand those who refrained from being subjected to circumcision would be considered as “false” Christians. However, as it turned out, they decided to separate their ministries and go their different ways. In actuality it would not have really been a major thing to be circumcised, where there might have been a health reason for doing so, but it was the fact that one group would be subject over the choices of others by taking away their right to their free will choice to choose, placing the others into “bondage” because of a rule or law subjected to all.
This should not be misinterpreted for all rules or laws in that there are many that have become necessary to be enforced for the benefit of all.
There are other rules and laws which may not be rules and laws but mandates which are being subjected to or against people, like mandates in the medical industry, where Doctor’s and or governmental authorities subject individuals to rules which restrict their choices because it is deemed appropriate by either statistics or profit. Why do Doctors almost mandate patients to take high blood pressure or cholesterol lowering medication, in order to be treated? Or, why would local government attempt to restrict the sale of sugary drinks to a specific size? Is this not taking away an individuals right to choose? Therefore, by enforcing these types of rules or laws, they have created a sense of “false liberty” because one has no other choice, but then there are those who support these rules or laws because they believe that these are “true liberty” for all.
However, would not “self-admiration” also be subjected to “true liberty” also, where those who have mandated rules or laws over others, believing that what they are doing is right or just, just because, do they not have a sense of “self-admiration” for thinking themselves as be right and just, taking away someone’s right to choose?
I just wrote a response Midi, but something happened and it disappeared. [. . .] I’ll try later.
Not to worry since I really didn’t have a chance to fully reply to your statement, specifically regarding “The Theft of Liberty” where the Urantia Book lists a section on this subject but does not actually use the phrase “theft of liberty” in its text but does refer to “theft of personal liberty” in “(614.8) 54:2.3”. Therefore, the section on “The Theft of Liberty” should be replaced as “The Theft of Personal Liberty” where “personal liberty” is found 17 times and “personal-liberty” once. In searching these phrases it is not difficult to determine that there may be a slight variation as to what “liberty” might be in the viewpoint of the authors because I found some very interesting grammatical narrations which used interesting wordage which just might have been selected to have variations of meanings depending on how one actually looks at the phraseology being used. I also found some interesting inferences which might even be somewhat contradictory, as I will attempt to present some here.
(615.1) 54:2.4 In short, what God had given men and angels Lucifer would have taken away from them, that is, the divine privilege of participating in the creation of their own destinies and of the destiny of this local system of inhabited worlds.
(615.2) 54:2.5 No being in all the universe has the rightful liberty to deprive any other being of true liberty, the right to love and be loved, the privilege of worshiping God and of serving his fellows.
Now in the narration above, there is somewhat of a contradiction, in that “God had given men and angels” “the divine privilege of participating in the creation of their own destinies” where first, if we have free will, would we not be creating our own destinies and actually “participating” in doing so, unless when one reads, “had given men and angels”, as being put on equal terms or even possibly as combined persona in one personality, as dual manifested beings, then there might be an issue with free will and liberty. But, as can be read in the second narration, above the “no being” “has the rightful liberty to deprive any other being of true liberty” where “true” is arbitrary and should just read as “liberty” because it would imply that “false liberty” would not be inclusive in “the rightful liberty” and would be allowed as a rightful discretion. Then there is “the privilege of” “serving his fellows”, which would be a selfless ambition for altruism.
(615.3) 54:3.1 The moral will creatures of the evolutionary worlds are always bothered with the unthinking question as to why the all-wise Creators permit evil and sin. They fail to comprehend that both are inevitable if the creature is to be truly free. The free will of evolving man or exquisite angel is not a mere philosophic concept, a symbolic ideal. Man’s ability to choose good or evil is a universe reality. This liberty to choose for oneself is an endowment of the Supreme Rulers, and they will not permit any being or group of beings to deprive a single personality in the wide universe of this divinely bestowed liberty — not even to satisfy such misguided and ignorant beings in the enjoyment of this misnamed personal liberty.
Now to work backwards in where the last phrase in the narration above is “misnamed personal liberty” it is therefore evident that “personal liberty” is actually “free will” which has been endowed or bestowed unto “evolving man or exquisite angel” where again “man” and “angel” are held equally. But, it is interesting that in the last sentence above it refers to the experiencing of “free will” as “enjoyment” which would “satisfy” these “men” and “angels”, who are presented as “misguided and ignorant beings” and who would be permitted to partake of “evil and sin”, in order “to be truly free.” Where it is “Man’s ability to choose good or evil” but it would seem that “angels” either are not able or unwilling to choose, between “good and evil” either because they are “exquisite” or have no real control over free will? So, if angels have “personal liberty” or “free will” and they would not be included in choosing between “good and evil”, could this “personal liberty” taken away as in a “theft of liberty”?
(798.5) 70:12.6 If men would maintain their freedom, they must, after having chosen their charter of liberty, provide for its wise, intelligent, and fearless interpretation to the end that there may be prevented:
(798.6) 70:12.7 1. Usurpation of unwarranted power by either the executive or legislative branches.
(798.7) 70:12.8 2. Machinations of ignorant and superstitious agitators.
(798.8) 70:12.9 3. Retardation of scientific progress.
(798.9) 70:12.10 4. Stalemate of the dominance of mediocrity.
(798.10) 70:12.11 5. Domination by vicious minorities.
(798.11) 70:12.12 6. Control by ambitious and clever would-be dictators.
(798.12) 70:12.13 7. Disastrous disruption of panics.
(798.13) 70:12.14 8. Exploitation by the unscrupulous.
(798.14) 70:12.15 9. Taxation enslavement of the citizenry by the state.
(798.15) 70:12.16 10. Failure of social and economic fairness.
(798.16) 70:12.17 11. Union of church and state.
(798.17) 70:12.18 12. Loss of personal liberty.(798.18) 70:12.19 These are the purposes and aims of constitutional tribunals acting as governors upon the engines of representative government on an evolutionary world.
In the previous narrations the list of twelve thinks to avoid or prevent from occurring as established in a “charter of liberty” in order to pursue and maintain freedoms would include “12. Loss of personal liberty.” which would include “free will” to choose but does this mean that by avoiding these twelve group liberties or allowing them not to be guarded against, would be a “theft of liberty”? where unbridled “personal liberty” would also be considered as “anarchy”? So, is imposing and enforcing rules and laws which would defend and restrict “personal liberty” not also be “the theft of liberty”? It is one thing to allow individuals the ability to choose between good and evil but how far does one go before “true liberty” infringes on someone else’s idea of “true liberty”?
(906.2) 81:5.4 Social association is a form of survival insurance which human beings have learned is profitable; therefore are most individuals willing to pay those premiums of self-sacrifice and personal-liberty curtailment which society exacts from its members in return for this enhanced group protection. In short, the present-day social mechanism is a trial-and-error insurance plan designed to afford some degree of assurance and protection against a return to the terrible and antisocial conditions which characterized the early experiences of the human race.
How “early” was being referenced above when stating “the terrible and antisocial conditions” “of the human race”? Are they indicating recent history or more so about 200,000+ years ago?
MidiChlorian wrote:.. . if angels have “personal liberty” or “free will” . . .Sorry I couldn’t get back to the topic earlier. Beings endowed with personality, angels included, have free will. Personality provides the potential to go wrong and some do go wrong in the scheme of the local universes. Decisions are made for or against true liberty, as elucidated for us in the narratives about the Lucifer rebellion where a “war in heaven” occurred at the headquarters of Satania, and it spread to every planet in the local system but where only thirty-seven Planetary Princes swung their world administrations largely to the side of the archrebel. The good news is no other worlds have been lost since that time.The volitional choice is to identify with reality or not.118:7:7 Subpersonal living things [animals for example] indicate mind activating energy-matter, first as physical controllers, and then as adjutant mind-spirits. Personality endowment comes from the Father and imparts unique prerogatives of choice to the living system. But if personality has the prerogative of exercising volitional choice of reality identification, and if this is a true and free choice, then must evolving personality also have the possible choice of becoming self-confusing, self-disrupting, and self-destroying. The possibility of cosmic self-destruction cannot be avoided if the evolving personality is to be truly free in the exercise of finite will.And personality volition ranges from the lowest to the highest beings. “Personality is bestowed by the Universal Father upon his creatures as a potentially eternal endowment. Such a divine gift is designed to function on numerous levels and in successive universe situations ranging from the lowly finite to the highest absonite, even to the borders of the absolute.” 112:1:1 Even Jesus was aware of his God-given decision-choices to be grappled with during the forty days of isolation he spent in the Perean hills after his baptism. He thought out what he would and would not do for the rest of his bestowal time on earth. He used his human mind to ask the questions as he worked through the divine solutions to the problems confronting his way forward. For example:136:9:5 Even his human mind is saying good-bye to the throne of David. Step by step this human mind follows in the path of the divine. The human mind still asks questions but unfailingly accepts the divine answers as final rulings in this combined life of living as a man in the world while all the time submitting unqualifiedly to the doing of the Father’s eternal and divine will.False liberty is when a person of authority tells you that worship can be accorded the universal forces — physical, intellectual, and spiritual — but that allegiance can be acknowledged only to the actual and present ruler, [name-your-ruler] or Lucifer – the “friend of men and angels” and the “God of liberty”— false liberty. 3:4:1 When worship of the universal forces or something else is mandated of people, taking away their free will choice as regards worship, real big problems ensue.MidiChlorian wrote: (798.5) 70:12.6 “If men would maintain their freedom, they must, after having chosen their charter of liberty, provide for its wise, intelligent, and fearless interpretation to the end that there may be prevented. . . .”Thanks for providing the references to civil authorities need to prevent so that people can maintain their freedom. The rub comes when the authority demands to be worshiped. Such a teaching is a usurpation of true liberty — the theft of true liberty.178:1:3 There is nothing incompatible between sonship in the spiritual kingdom and citizenship in the secular or civil government. It is the believer’s duty to render to Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and to God the things which are God’s. There cannot be any disagreement between these two requirements, the one being material and the other spiritual, unless it should develop that a Caesar presumes to usurp the prerogatives of God and demand that spiritual homage and supreme worship be rendered to him. In such a case you shall worship only God while you seek to enlighten such misguided earthly rulers and in this way lead them also to the recognition of the Father in heaven. You shall not render spiritual worship to earthly rulers; neither should you employ the physical forces of earthly governments, whose rulers may sometime become believers, in the work of furthering the mission of the spiritual kingdom.
I’ll try later.Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.