Mr. Wellerding approached in private email asking for a discourse on the Urantia Book. It was his feeling that certain of my statements were in conflict with that book and he sought clarification of these perceived discrepancies. He presented himself as a person capable of logical thought who also open minded. This, I would have assumed had he not attempted to be so ingratiating and solicitous in his initial contacts. In private discourse I asked him to accept the rules of logic as the governing parameters of this discourse and suggested that the rules of admissibility, common to our courts, be used. He refused.
I asked him then to give admittance to the fact that he is unable to produce the authors of the Urantia Book to give direct voice to their writings. He did admit that he was unable to do this. I countered that he would then have to give admittance to the fact that they entire book is hearsay and the product of unseen voices and unseen faces. He countered that as I have acknowledged the book as a source of information that fact establishes its admissibility. I disagreed and pointed out that this would only be true IF I were in fact Caligastia. I didn't think that he would want to give admittance to identity. Regardless, as he can not establish the identity of the Urantia Book authors, he is equally disadvantaged in proofing or disproving my identity.
I came to the opinion that Mr. Wellerding, if he is capable
of using logical processes, was not going to and in spite of his assertions
that he was objective to the subject matter, I deemed him to be biased
and possessed of an unstated agenda. Regardless, I agreed to his
request for a confrontation on these issues knowing full well that I'd
be holding my logic against his opinions and beliefs. In such a contest,
rational thought always will prevail. Likewise, I saw potential value in
the dialogue in as much as for every person who raises voice against me
with poor intents, there are thirty silent readers who give the material
reasonable consideration. Reflecting this reality, I granted
Mr. Wellerding's request for an interview.
I would add that he has stated privately that he is in no way affiliated with the Urantia Foundation or is a spokesman on their behalf.
The various Univeral Personalities who have contributed their opinions
to the work that became known as The Urantia Book have said many
unflattering things regarding their beliefs and speculations at to my intents
and motives. So it had to be. They were kept 'out of the loop' for good
reasons and good purposes. It is noteworthy that at no point have they
ever contended that I was a liar. I submit that if one accepts the contentions
of the UB, that same person must also accept as a matter of logic, that
the persona of Caligastia is one given to truthfulness.
Caligastia, Lanonandek Son #9344, Second Order
Subject: Dialogue w/ Caligastia
My Dialogue with Caligastia
A Presentation of Conflicting Interpretation
I beg you to read this whole thing before responding to individual points. In this manner, you will not overlook points which support each other andtidbits that may have been included later in the document. Thank you.
For the sake of organization, here is a "table of contents" of the different topics I've addressed. Many of these topics relate to and support other topics (I really tried to get them into a nice order), so, again, I hope you can read this as a whole before sitting down to refute each of my points of view. I have done the same with your page, which is why I have put so much time into this presentation; I have noticed many many things that I felt I needed to address.
On Adam and Eve
On sections of the Urantia Book
On the Bestowals of Christ Michael
On Universal Impotence
On the 7 Superuniverses
On Local Universe Creation
On Thought Adjusters
On Your Conclusions
On Logical Inadequacies
Closing and Anecdotes
THE Conclusion of the Presentation
I apologize for the length of this email, but I hope that you find enough
time to read it entirely. I faced several difficulties when composing this
message, one of which was the fact that were so many subtle inconsistencies
and errors on your page (absolutely no offense intended) that I had to
limit my responses to what I considered were "the important stuff." I am
an English major and I notice many of the details in writing that shouldn't
be a concern during intellectual debate. A detailed look at how your grammar
and spelling mistakes, for instance, effect your credentials as a "perfect"
Lanonandek Son would be, I think, pointless and petty in relation to the
theological issues. Likewise, you should know that I am aware that, as
one of my professors put it, "[my] use of semicolons is very unique;" so
please ignore them if they become confusing. I tried to keep everything
as concise and meaningful as I could, but I am nothing close to perfect.
I think you need to clarify your source and your conclusion that I am a perfect being. I've given no voice to this point and do not consider myself perfect either preincarnate or postincarnate. I will reserve the issues of spelling errors (as they exist in the UB) and mine own for a later moment. However, I accept this as an issue and am not willing to let it go by the way.
First, I am man. As man, perfection is not possible. There are degrees of perfection. Your assumption is that I would be of a higher order of perfection than you is correct but within limits. It is possible for me to commit minor error. In fact, my deliberate methodology encourages it in as much as I do not make a practice of qualifying my remarks before I speak them. As for spelling mistakes, chalk it up to the same reasons you make typographical errors.
On the subject of perfection, I would add that those who are least
perfect frequently demand perfection from those they 'think' should be
perfect. The issue becomes are you qualified to judge perfection, or relative
degrees of it, from your current perspective? Further, are you qualified
, as a mortal, to sit in judgment upon the personal quirks of one who comes
from outside of mortality. For instance, were I to tell you that I have,
on occasion, seen Gabriel tongue tied would you deem him imperfect?
Right off the bat, I'd like to point something out; and not to set a particular tone for this email, either. You keep talking about tolerance and open-mindedness, but you say "At the beginning of the awakening I deemed it judicious not to read the writings of others lest I run the risk of inadvertently incorporating their ideas into my own." This looks very much like an act of closing your mind to other ideas, regardless of whatever "awakening" process you may have undergone. What if I wrote to you, having not read your web site, and told you that you were wrong and gave the above statement as my reason for disbelieving without checking the material out? You'd probably call me close-minded, if I can make a fairly logical prediction. Whatever this "awakening" precisely was, if it lets you recognize truth then you should have no problem filtering out the writings of others' from your own beliefs. I sincerely hope that you do not apply this principle to my writings.
Your conclusion here is your opinion and not necessarily the product of logical process. I did not wish to plagiarize the works of others. IF I am Caligastia, It seemed reasonable to me that matters of knowledge would surface in the form of 'memory' and not be extracted from books written by non universal personalities. I did, at one point, and on the instance of Daligastia, purchase the UB. However, I restricted my reading only to that which would serve to confirm or deny the 'memory' I possessed. Incidentally, those thoughts had been committed to writing and posted before the eyes of many witnesses prior to the acquisition of the book. Thus there is an evidentiary trail to the point.
As to being closed minded. Hardly. It has been my insistence that
my writings be my own and that they reflect my own perspective and not
that of others. This I believe, is honesty.)
I didn't mean to sound challenging, but I am a little frustrated. On one hand, you tell me that I have these biases which prevent me from perceiving the "truth" of your existence as Caligastia, but on the other hand you freely admit that when you were young, "and had to sit through the Book of Life chapters that constitute a third of the UB," you "longed for the ability to go to sleep and not have to deal with it." Everyone's perspective is subjective, and you should be careful not to come across as one who thinks his perspective is entirely objective and free from bias. You are as one-sided as the rest of us, in an ontological sense; even if you are a Lanonandek.
CEW, if we are to have this conversation then I think that abject honesty is mandatory. Have you not stated publicly that it is your intent and purpose to prove me a fraud and a liar? Your comment "I didn't mean to sound challenging", is a facade and false. Further, have you not distributed this query to those who would have it even prior to sending it to me? You do mean to challenge me and I accept the challenge.
Furthermore, I do not 'play to the audience'. I am not going to accept your suggestion that I should endeavor to present myself in a manner that meets peoples expectations. I disagree with your presentation that I am as biased as you (people in general) are. I am capable of giving rational voice to all sides of an issue without bias. That I have staked out my own position, via the universe, is the product of that ability. I would add that I have stayed clear of BOTH the universe AND The rebellion speaks to that ability.
I will state this fact, and it is presented without arrogance, I am the planetary prince. I am the ruler of this planet. I am the once and future king. This is reality. What you make of it is up to you. Regardless, it is a reality that you live with.
While you have obviously finalized your decision of whether or not you are truly Caligastia, Former Prince of Urantia, others do not share your opinions and wish to find the Truth; whether it means admitting their error or reaching the decision that you are a deluded mortal.
My declaration of identity is final. As to what other's make of it,
what relevancy does it have? A stone is a stone even if you wish to believe
it is a cheese sandwich. Your point assumes that I wish to gather about
me followers. I do not. It is not my mission. I am not the Messiah. He
is here and can function well without me. Furthermore, your continued bias,
as evidenced in the use of the words 'Former Planetary Prince' speaks again
to your intents in this dialogue. You are not conducting an objective examination
but, I suspect, seek to validate your own opinions to the point of serving
your bias and not necessarily the truth. If one serves the truth, then
the truth must be the objective of one's service.
To be quite honest; and, again, not to make any offense; I am biased towards the latter. I have not reached a definite conclusion yet, but, as you'd know if you were familiar at all with my postings on Urantial, I do keep myself open to all kinds of possibilities; including the allegation that you are Caligastia. Still, I can not help but have opinions and this email does express some of them. I don't want you to misinterpret my arguments as a "guise" for my opinion and I want you to be immediately aware of my bias so that you are not misled in any way.
I will attempt not to take your words as a declarative template even
though they appear as such. I can not help but think that you are making
an attempt to beard the lion or, at the very least, confront the devil
himself for purposes only you and your ego know for certain.
I have collected passages from the UB that specifically counter some
of your statements. I worked pretty hard at this, so I hope
you do take the time to consider everything I say.
- But first, I need to illustrate a line of reasoning that may help
you understand where some observers are coming from. The
name Caligastia is not found anywhere else but the Urantia Book. Quoting from "Urantia Book Etymology: Similation Over
Inspiration" at http://www.ubook.org/articles/etymJGreer.html, ""Caligastia" means immediately "the stockinged one" or "he of
the show", or foot, a caliga being originally a Roman legionnaire's military sandal and later, a bishop's legging." To even think of believing that you are Caligastia, one would have to accept the existence of this Planetary Prince. Without prior exposure to the Urantia Book, it seems unlikely that a person would consider your statements at all, notwithstanding the possible effect of the Spirit of Truth in the event that you are indeed The Former Planetary Prince.
Again, you raise the subject of public perception. I again say, 'So what'.
You are correct that the name Caligastia is not well know. I'd submit
that the Catholic Church does know but providing objective proof will be
difficult. However, Revelation does give comment to my existence as does
the Creator Son. In fact, I have been known by many names over extended
periods of your history. Which is of
more import, what I am or what I'm called? I'm not sure how I feel about being identified as foot apparel but am content that its not a loin cloth.
In 1935, the Fifth Epochal Revelation was delivered to Urantia. It has
been over 60 years and the work, which was, as it admits,
far ahead of its time, is just now starting to show signs of possibly being accepted by the mainstream of society. The Revelators admit to the reader of the Urantia Book that, in time, the concepts presented will need clarification and will no longer be entirely accurate. This is so because of the nature of divine revelation. As even the Master was instructed by Immanuel:
This comment is both accurate and masterful. It allows that the words
of the UB will be rendered inaccurate over the passage of time. I submit
those 'inaccuracies' that the universe allowed for are the product of events
which they did not have control over just as they have had no control over
my awakening from life (contra their expectations). They chose to think
me imprisoned here never considering that Father had a greater purpose.
120:3.5 "4. Under no circumstances and not even in the least detail, should you interfere with the normal and orderly progressive evolution of the Urantia races.
If Immanuel and Michael both "reflect Father's attitude in how they
go about doing what they do and being what they are," then
it would behoove anyone to listen carefully to what the Master has to say and to carefully observe how he painstakingly adhered
to universe protocol, even though he had the authority to do otherwise. I would also like to point out that the Logic of Purpose applies also to universe protocol, as the bureaucracy would not have been created if there was no purpose behind it. The fact that Michael subjected himself to the laws of his own creation reflects this reality.
1. You assume to know Father's mind.
2. The foundation for your premise is poorly laid and contrived in that you neglect to quote the rest of the verse
that Michael can leave enduring consequences behind him. You've cleverly edited the phrase to support your
bias and not the whole truth.
3. I do not disagree that SOME universal protocols have value. However, when the universe divested itself of its
right to engage in original thought in return for mindless adherence to bureaucratic ritual - I refused to worship at
the altar of such mindlessness. Michael has a number of unique problems to contend with. As the ruler of that
universe he has to function, for the sake of order, within the parameters of.
I also agree that the bureaucracy, at one time, served Father's Will and was agreeable to the logic of HIS purpose. The unhappiness that inspired the rebellion is proof positive that there are many who do not agree with your analysis or seemingly thoughtless acceptance of the universe's propaganda. (not to be construed as a personal insult).
4. Again you selectively choose your words. You neglect to mention
Michael's comments that the 'old order' will fall or that the 'first will
be last and the least first'. In high school civics you were taught the
'ideal' of what the American
government should be. As an adult you will have noticed that the ideal and the reality are quite diverse. So too it is with the universal reality. What should be and what IS are realms apart.
To reveal too much knowledge would be disastrous, and so revelation is always integrated into pre-existing beliefs. By completely discounting all other beliefs and offering an unprecedented account of "how things really are," you further complicate matters.
It is much harder to teach mortals theological concepts when they have
no similar belief to clarify or on which to expand; with
your approach those you wish to reach are immediately required to believe that you are Caligastia (implying that they believe at
least some of the UB), lest they dismiss your entire site as "just more weird on the web." (pardon my language) Also, you
conflict with more of the Urantia Book than you affirm. Herein lies my own personal difficulty and I ask you to forgive
me for this theological dilemma.
CEW, again you make use of assumption. You are no longer children. Mankind has come to term and his infancy is past. I accept the fact that there are things that can not be said to you for the very reasons you cite. Yet, at this point these are few in number.
The issue of whether I conflict with the factual portions of the
Urantia OR just the opinion of the universal propaganda effort remains
at issue. You've yet to deliver anything other than your opinion of what
you think IS because some faceless voice told you that you should. Here
is one of the biggest differences between me and the universe. I AM HERE.
I am not nameless, I am not faceless and I do not hide behind the voices
of morality. Nor do I make pretense at being a glorified being that you
should fall down and worship. I am what I am and you are what you are.
The point is that we are related by virtue of intent and soul and, as such,
we share many points of commonality. Your worship,
voice, or following and one dollar would get me a cup of coffee at a Denny's
Furthermore, I have recently taken the liberty of attributing each quote
with the author of the paper (as seen above), so that
the alleged bias of each may be discussed in the future. I figured this would save us both some time and energy.
I will put aside my disbelief and speak to you as if you were Caligastia.
Here, we have passages that say that you were, in fact, involved in
the rebellion. It says that Jesus knew of your approval of his
crucifixion and that he "met and defeated" you on Mt. Hermon. Now, these "speculations" that you were helping Lucifer and Satan undermine Jesus's bestowal mission may be dismissed by you as inaccurate to say that you were counted in the rebellion, but at least consider, as I will mention later, your possible default:
53:1.4 At the time Michael was on Urantia in the flesh, Lucifer, Satan, and Caligastia were leagued together to effect the
miscarriage of his bestowal mission.
Your quote offers no substance of fact. It does not speak to how
we were leagued, why we were leagued and what we did. It offers no logical
foundation whatsoever. It is a comment of opinion and belief. Further,
I counter that the Universe by it's own words admits that Lucifer had already
been incarcerated and that I had become the 'prince of (the incarnative)
darkness prior Michael's murder in Jerusalem. Thus Two of the three alleged
were within morality and not even available to perform the miscreance alleged. If you read my paper on the web site
as to the logical inadequacies of the UB, you will find quoted chapter and verse of the texts that detail the degree of the universe's knowledge.
Also, you again edit your comment only to make your point. While I've given voice that I can work both sides of an issue, you seem dedicated only to one. Where comes the truth from such a narrow minded examination? Recall, you first accused me of closed mindedness.
183:0.4 Though Jesus knew that the plan for his death had its origin in the councils of the rulers of the Jews, he was also
aware that all such nefarious schemes had the full approval of Lucifer, Satan, and Caligastia.
This verse assumes a knowledge of the mind of Michael! How did the universe come by this knowledge? Michael has neglected to tell them much, not the least of which has been his whereabouts for the last 1,960+ years. How then can they presume to know this? Where is their factual trail? Did he say it to them? The truth of the comment is found in the EXACT WORDS WRITTEN.
Jesus knew the rulers of the Jews would seek his death. TRUE!
Jesus was aware of the schemes (opinionated word) of Lucifer, Satan, and Caligastia. Also True.
Lucifer stood upon on Jerusem and spoke his mind. None were left
with any doubt as to his thoughts.
Caligastia spoke with Michael following the tempting on the mount. Ergo, Michael knew my mind.
Satan spoke with Michael ON the mount. Michael knew what was in his mind.
Individually the comments are all true. Yet, clever positioning allows
you to trip onto their opinion when none of the facts presented actually
say what they conclude. This is propaganda.
You've responded to the above passage with "This verse suggests that
the universe knows the mind of Lucifer and Caligastia." It
also suggests that the universe knows the mind of Jesus ("Though Jesus knew..."). Your response would make a legitimate point if
the Revelators were human, but they're not. Humans judge by actions, "the Father in heaven judges by the intent.
Again and again you fall prey to poor logical methods or none at all. Forty five times the phrase 'we don't know' appears in the UB.
Does this not give you pause to consider that the authors of the UB have limitations?
I agree that while Father judges by His own methods, I see nothing here but assumption that allows a universe that is NOT omniscient, BY ADMITTANCE, to give the appearance that they are possessed of Father's ability.
As you quote my chapter "Logical Inadequacies of the Urantia Book", as it is posted on the web, I am left with the clear fact that you have read the work and have posed issues that have already been answered publicly. Further that you have, in your own presentation, decided not to accept those public comments into your presentation for this discourse. I say shame on a universe that perpetrated this deceit upon you and shame on you for accepting it
(140:6.4 [Midwayer Commission])" "Father looks into the hearts
of his children and in mercy adjudges them in accordance with
their intents and real desires. (140:6.5 [Midwayer Commission])" Your personality, as viewed from higher spiritual realities,
increasingly betrays your true motives and desires:
As stated in the previous passage, the universe is not in a position
to judge my heart or anyone else's. I have stood my judgment before Father
and was not found wanting. I see nothing in this verse that says that the
universe is possessed of Father's Eyes.
112:6.2 In the physical life, mortals may be outwardly beautiful though inwardly unlovely; in the morontia life, and increasingly
on its higher levels, the personality form will vary directly in accordance with the nature of the inner person. On the spiritual
level, outward form and inner nature begin to approximate complete identification, which grows more and more perfect on
higher and higher spirit levels.
Again, here we have indication that "[Jesus] fully realized" what was going on and it "pleased" you, Lucifer, and Satan:
Nothing in this verse remotely alludes to your point. You've laid no foundation for your opinion, nor do I see any factual material offered .
179:2.3 He fully realized that this traitorous betrayal was the work of Judas, but that it also pleased Lucifer, Satan, and Caligastia the prince of darkness.
Same old tripe. Opinion substituted as if it were fact. Do they ever quote Lucifer or Me? No. They can't. No voice was ever given to these subjects. As for Satan, that is an entirely different matter. It is interesting to note the use of the 'prince of darkness' imagery. This is the universal admission that I had entered the 'incarnative darkness'.
I can't speak to Satan's intents. However, it is a matter of opinion for me that he was busy attempting to manipulate the mortal functionaries involved in the decision to murder Jesus. That he succeeded is a matter of record. I suspect that he thought that the brutality and torture of crucifixion might cause Michael to cry out against Father in his anguish. Had he, Satan would have been empowered to claim that the Creator Son was not only a coward but one who, in times of personal conflict, would turn against the Creator Father. If this was his goal, he failed miserably.
The Midwayer Commission is little more than a collection of yes men.
I created the Midwayer population of Earth. Those who left with the Melchezideks
were installed into these perfunctory positions for no purpose other than
to agree with the universe and give them the semblance of legitimacy with
regards to this race. The MAJORITY of them remained here and will be well
honored by Father for their service, sacrifice and suffering. Some of them
are reported in Revelation has the twelve tribes of Israel who will hear
a song 'no man' can hear. As they are not 'of man'
their abilities exceed those 'of man'.
136:3.1 Jesus had endured the great temptation of his mortal bestowal before his baptism when he had been wet with the dews of
Mount Hermon for six weeks. There on Mount Hermon, as an unaided mortal of the realm, he had met and defeated the Urantia
pretender, Caligastia, the prince of this world.
Here, it tells you exactly what your sin was. The second talks of your iniquity.
Nonsense. Note the comment is a paraphrase and not a rendition
of events. No more than the opinion of the bureaucrat who wrote it. THE
ONLY THING THE URANTIA BOOK SAYS of me, factually, relating to the day
on the mount was that I was there. No More.
Consider this. We could not even have this conversation were
it not for the fact that I've stipulated to the validity of the Urantia
book. Now, I put it to you. PROVE TO ME THAT THE UB IS A SOURCE OF TRUTH
with some piece of evidence or fact OTHER THAN YOUR OPINION OR THE OPINIONS
OF OTHERS! You can't because such
evidence was not given you. Why do you think that is?
If you had to produce evidence in a court room and you dropped the
UB on the table in front of the Judge, he would require of you, Produce
the Author and have him testify as to his writings, otherwise the book
is inadmissible and irrelevant as no chain of custody to the facts can
be demonstrated. Your poor attempt to indict and judge me fails miserably
in the light of logic and reason and the effort speaks to arrogance, ignorance
or both in the attempt.
136:6.9 In this decision Jesus of Nazareth portrayed to an onlooking universe the folly and sin of prostituting divine talents and God-given abilities for personal aggrandizement or for purely selfish gain and glorification. That was the sin of Lucifer and Caligastia.
(REDUNDANT AND ALREADY ANSWERED)
118:8.7 The iniquity of Caligastia was the by-passing of the time governor of progressive human liberation -- the gratuitous
destruction of restraining barriers, barriers which the mortal minds of those times had not experientially overridden.
Here (and directly above), it addresses your ideas of accelerated mortal ascension.
136:8.5 And [Jesus] knew the futility of the Caligastia method of trying to get ahead of the natural, slow, and sure way of
accomplishing the divine purpose.
These comments do not offer the evidence you attempt to portray.
Again the author presumes to state what is in the mind of Jesus. If he
truly does, why not just quote him? They can't.
Are you sure Michael is cool with your ideas? You specifically say that
"Michael and I were in contact and agreement on the
actions I had taken, was taking and will take." Here it says otherwise.
136:9.2 He would not compromise with the revolutionary techniques of Caligastia.
At this point I am tired of these puerile efforts to quote verses out of context for the purpose of giving false impressions. I am including the whole quote to this point.
"The Jews envisaged a deliverer who would come in miraculous power to
cast down Israel's enemies and establish the Jews as world rulers, free
from want and oppression. Jesus knew that this hope would never be realized.
He knew that the kingdom
of heaven had to do with the overthrow of evil in the hearts of men, and that it was purely a matter of spiritual concern. He
thought out the advisability of inaugurating the spiritual kingdom with a brilliant and dazzling display of power--and such
a course would have been permissible and wholly within the jurisdiction of Michael--but he fully decided against such a
plan. He would not compromise with the revolutionary techniques of Caligastia. He had won the world in potential by submission
to the Father's will, and he proposed to finish his work as he had begun it, and as the Son of Man."
The appearance you attempt to give is that Jesus took exception to my methods. Jesus didn't say this. The bureaucrat who assumes to know his mind said it. I rather think that Michael is more than capable of speaking for himself and does not need the voice of a poorly intended bureaucrat to do it for him.
In fact, Jesus comes right out and says to his apostles:
158:6.4 "How long will it take you to learn that you cannot time-shorten the course of established natural phenomena except
when such things are in accordance with the Father's will?
Again you have this quote out of context. Here is the whole verse:
"No sooner does your faith grasp the identity of the Son of Man than
your selfish desire for worldly preferment creeps back
upon you, and you fall to discussing among yourselves as to who should be greatest in the kingdom of heaven, a kingdom which, as
you persist in conceiving it, does not exist, nor ever shall. Have not I told you that he who would be greatest in the kingdom
of my Father's spiritual brotherhood must become little in his own eyes and thus become the server of his brethren? Spiritual
greatness consists in an understanding love that is Godlike and not in an enjoyment of the exercise of material power for the
exaltation of self. In what you attempted, in which you so completely failed, your purpose was not pure. Your motive was
not divine. Your ideal was not spiritual. Your ambition was not altruistic. Your procedure was not based on love, and your goal
of attainment was not the will of the Father in heaven.
"How long will it take you to learn that you cannot time-shorten the course of established natural phenomena except when such things are in accordance with the Father's will? nor can you do spiritual work in the absence of spiritual power. And you can do neither of these, even when their potential is present, without the existence of that third and essential human factor, the personal experience of the possession of living faith. Must you always have. material manifestations as an attraction for the spiritual realities of the kingdom? Can you not grasp the spirit significance of my mission without the visible exhibition of unusual works? When can you be depended upon to adhere to the higher and spiritual realities of the kingdom regardless of the outward appearance of all material manifestations?"
For the sake of argument, let's assume your reading is accurate. Do you not ignore the words 'except when such things are in accordance with Father's will?"
Let's examine some of my representations to the point. I accelerated
your physical development. There is no missing link because it doesn't
exist except in my mind. I accelerated your spiritual development as well.
EVEN SO, this took 200,000 years. Does this constitute unwarranted acceleration?
Well, in ten thousand years alone you've created a global civilization
that is on the verge of bonding into one unit. I'll leave the bureaucrats
to their conspiracies, your existence and state of being serve the truth
of the matter much better.
You said "The event on the mount was Jesus' moment of awakening. Once completed, I was free to approach him." Yet, this passage says the conference was Michael's idea, that he petitioned the Father for your presence.
134:8.6 Near the end of the mountain sojourn Jesus asked his Father if he might be permitted to hold conference with his
Satania enemies as the Son of Man, as Joshua ben Joseph. This request was granted. During the last week on Mount Hermon the
great temptation, the universe trial, occurred. Satan (representing Lucifer) and the rebellious Planetary Prince,
Caligastia, were present with Jesus and were made fully visible to him.
Ah the infamous verse. Which way do you want to read this. Was Satan their representing me? Why wasn't Lucifer there representing Himself. He couldn't - he was in mortality! That Michael's mortality was granted the ability of sight does not speak to the fact of my intents. I was there of my own free will and for my own purpose. Up to that point, Michael possessed only the knowledge that was common to the universe. I had not answered universal queries as to my intents and they give admittance to this fact. It follows they were not in possession of my thoughts and are not able to give any accurate rendition to the same. Further, it is academic whether Michael wanted the meeting or not, I did and it speaks to my intents.
If you take your impression that I was there because Michael had
me summoned, why then isn't Lucifer there? Michael was sufficiently awakened
that he could access timeline just as I could. He wanted a meeting and
I wanted a meeting. I came freely of my own accord and I came alone.
Here it illustrates that your secession effected the entire planet;
that, regardless of whatever loophole you managed to find, unwitting Urantians
had no choice but to be counted in the secession with you. Your act of
secession, while technically
differing from rebellion, infringed upon our free will. If I may be sarcastic without sounding vindictive, "Thanks for the
If you're given to an offering of gratitude, thank me for your ascendancy
for at no other time in the history of the universe have so many
souls been judged ascendant as now on Earth. Or if you wish, thank Father
for sending me and empowering to do His will in the fashion I have. Perhaps
you might well thank Michael for holding the universal dogs at bay allowing
me the time to complete my mission. Perhaps you might offer gratitude
to Immanuel and Lucifer for their originating thoughts on these subjects
and the enormous amount of energy that went into the temporal engineering.
[Chief of Archangels]
35:9.9 Rebellion by a Planetary Prince instantly isolates his planet; the local spiritual circuits are immediately severed.
Only a bestowal Son can re-establish interplanetary lines of communication on such a spiritually isolated world.
Right or wrong in your opinion; you knew the universal methods for dealing with these things.
Yes, indeed I did. In fact, I was counting on it. The universe is
predictable to the nth degree.
120:2.3 "3. When you have succeeded in terminating the Urantia secession, as you undoubtedly will, I counsel you to accept from
Gabriel the conference of the title of Planetary Prince of Urantia' as the eternal recognition by your universe of your final bestowal experience; and that you further do any and all things, consistent with the purport of your bestowal, to atone
for the sorrow and confusion brought upon Urantia by the Caligastia betrayal and the subsequent Adamic default.
It seems Michael DID replace you.
Immanuel's words speak to future events. Those events are within your knowledge. At the terminus of my tenure as planetary prince, the end of the timeline, a new one thousand year timeline is established for dealing with the rebellion. At that time, Michael will become the planetary prince and will minister to those poor souls. I'd point out the difference in methodology here. While the universe locks them up and abandons them, Michael will be there first hand to deal with his flock. I will be the prince until the end of the timeline.
93:10.7 We well understand how, by his triumph on Urantia, Michael became the successor of both Caligastia and Adam; how he
became the planetary Prince of Peace and the second Adam.
You see, I never mean anything personal by referring to you as "Former
Planetary Prince." It's just that everyone else in the
universe, except yourself, thinks that you have been dethroned:
Every bureaucrat in the universe HOPES I'm dethroned. Only Michael
himself is capable of this deed. WHERE ARE HIS WORDS TO THE POINT! They
don't exist. The universe can offer all the edicts and declarations they
wish. They've been impotent to deal with the situation, Michael has rendered
them thus and thus it has remained.
53:8.5 Caligastia was recognized by the Son of Man as the technical Prince of Urantia up to near the time of his death. Said Jesus: "Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the prince of this world be cast down." And then still nearer the completion of his lifework he announced, "The prince of this world is judged." And it is this same dethroned and discredited Prince who was once termed "God of Urantia."
You do say that "They do not, however, provide the reader a definition
of what 'cast down' actually means." I offer this
interpretation, which would fully explain how Michael's mercy brought you to incarnate on this planet:
It is true, I came into mortality. It is true I have stood judgment.
No voice is given to what that judgment was although many ASSUME it was
a poor one and that I've been incarcerated within mortality. The words
DON'T SAY THAT. It is only your willingness to assume that which
was put before you to delude is factual that empowers your opinion. The
words, on the other hand, speak for themselves.
[Chief of Archangels]
35:9.10 There exists a plan for saving these wayward and unwise Sons, and many have availed themselves of this merciful
provision; but never again may they function in those positions wherein they defaulted. After rehabilitation they are assigned to
custodial duties and to departments of physical administration.
It is possible that your "physical administration" involves mortal
incarnation, particularly with reference to the interpretation you
give for the UB statement that you and Dal are "servile before the
divine majesty of the Paradise Thought Adjusters. ([Manovandet Melchizedek
] 53:8.7)" I know that rehabilitation of defaulting Lanonandek Sons
does have something
to do with administrative duties and ascendant mortal training, "but never again may they function in those positions wherein
they defaulted. [35:9.10]" Thus, you are the FORMER Planetary Prince of Urantia, regardless of whether or not you actually
rebelled, and simply because of default.
Michael has never declared himself the Planetary Prince. The Universe SAYS he is, but makes no comment or quote to any personal declaration that HE HIMSELF has said so. Given the massive evidence of presumptive arrogance present in the exploitation of universal OPINION and the ASSUMPTION that their opinion constitutes fact, your conclusion is is as incorrect as the imagery they attempt to foist upon you. The universe may pass all the edicts and resolutions it wishes. As long as Michael's order of non interference stands, they are powerless to pursue anything except the lip service you quote.
I'd add that the 'custodial duties of physical administration' means exactly what it says. The equivalent of a janitor. Further, that anyone who enters mortality is 'servile before the thought adjusters'. Using your logic are we to propose that you were imprisoned in morality because you were Satan's clothier?
Furthermore, while you, in this instance, choose to quote one of my web writings addressing this point, you also have done so selectively. Abaddon, my chief of staff, 'the keeper of the bottomless pit" - Earth, is still in command of his functions. Given the protocols, were I given the boot, he too would have had to have gone with me.
Also, your expectation that anyone who disagrees with the universe is to be relegated to an eternity of latrine duty belies the reality of WHY none of the other princes have accepted so called universal 'mercy'. Mercy includes an eternity of pay backs and they know it.
It is also noteworthy that the UB makes no mention of judgment being
rendered with regards to the other princes. Only I have stood judgment.
Only I was willing to. Not before the Universe, but before the only two
people who are relevant, Father and Michael. I refused to stand and answer
before the universe That I have chosen to make my peace with them services
the logic of purpose AND that peace was made in Michael's name, not in
Default is defined as "failure to do something required by duty or law."
We could argue all day about whether or not you actually
rebelled against Father, but it is quite clear that you neglected the duties that were assigned to you by the universe administration.
It is quite clear? Are you as a mortal man who believes the
order of 'food chain' described in the UB even remotely qualified to have
such an opinion? How many worlds have you ruled. How many souls have you
brought into mortality. How many ascendants have your efforts generated
for Father? How many new races of beings have you conceived?
Regardless of the means (secession), you reached the same ends as the rebels (deviation from standard mortal ascension plans). It would not even matter that your methods might have been "better" in regards to the task you were trying to accomplish, because the repercussions of such methods may have impacts on other aspects of planetary administration.
If your representations are correct and given the universal hatchet job that was done upon the genetics of this planet, you would now have and IQ not exceeding 70 and you'd be fortunate if you didn't drool most of the time.
I agree, separation from the universe had the same practical effect as rebellion - freedom from their tyranny. However, unlike the rebellion, I kept my perspective of our universal 'mother' and allowed for the possibility of reunion at a later date. That possibility is now a reality.
As you your ideas of planetary administration, I submit you lack
the perspective to know or even have an opinion.
This is particularly true of Urantia, which is an experimental or decimal
planet. In any experiment, the "controls" must be
maintained in order that the effects of the "variables" can be accurately observed. What if the life modifications made by the
Life Carriers were incompatible with your accelerated ascendancy scheme, and that your techniques may have even worked on another planet but not here? Note: Adam and Eve defaulted, but they were not found guilty of rebellion, so it is possible that Michael forgave you and stuck you in a rehabilitative function as an incarnate mortal. Even so, this entails you losing your title as
Planetary Prince and it also signifies that you'd be on probation, so to speak.
1. The modifications of the life carriers were insufficient and irrelevant.
2. The injection of angelic dna viz a viz the Adamic default was a major boon to mankind.
3. The injection of angelic dna via me and my staff brought up the overall ration of angelic dna to roughly 50%.
As to my 'scheme', again you have no perspective to judge but can only take the poorly intended ranting of an impotent universe as a crutch to justify a biased and unobjective examination.
IF Michael had forgiven me, do you not think the universal propaganda machine would have exploited that fact to the nth degree? To the contrary the book says I rejected the offer. I did so because it was not yet time to make peace. It was made prior to Michael's briefing and it served no good purpose to accept. Following the meeting at the mount, I still made no request for 'forgiveness' and made no effort to make peace with the universe until 1995. Your speculation is not supported by the words of the book and you've endeavored to write that which isn't written.
This applies to your expectation that I've been incarcerated. Michael's
order was for non interference. This applies also to Earth. The Universe
states the belief that anything that is corrupt will eventually self destruct
and that Michael's order followed this philosophical mindset. Now you propose
that Michael violated his own order.
Even you have admitted that "we [angels] have to shovel the same manure
you [mortals] do and the awakening process is no
exception. Dal has had to scratch and claw her way out of the incarnative darkness..." Is it possible that you both need to
"scratch and claw" a bit more to not just accurately realize cosmic Truth, but also to recognize your default?
Really? By what collection of celestial experiences have you arrived at this determination? I am over 2 billion years old with a long history in Father's service. Please appraise me of the experiences that allow you this judgment. On which bodies dedicated to the judgment of angels have you served? How many rulings have you made? How many were overturned? For your judgment to have logical value a detailed listing of your qualifications to the fact is needed. I look forward to your self accounting.
You say that "Lucifer is a perfect being" and that it is "not possible for him to indulge in [sin]."The UB says:
53:1.1 Lucifer was not an ascendant being; he was a created Son of the local universe, and of him it was said: "You were perfect
in all your ways from the day you were created till unrighteousness was found in you."
It seems unlikely for the rest of the universe to even "conjecture"
that Lucifer was in possession of "unrighteousness" unless it was a possibility.
If you are saying that Lucifer was perfect because he was Lucifer, then
perhaps I can not argue with you since I am not acquainted with this Lanonandek.
However, if you are implying that Lucifer's Lanonandek nature is responsible
for his perfection, then you contradict yourself through your statements
about Satan, also a primary Lanonandek.
I will stand judgment on what I say, not what I don't say or what you assume I've implied. You state, logically, that you can't argue with me since you're not acquainted with Lucifer. Please provide a detailed listing of exactly how many Lanonandeks you do know.
Lucifer is a perfect being, created in his perfection by Father.
His status has nothing to do with his being a Lanonandek. It does
relate to Father's will. He is incapable of a lie. He is incapable of the
sin the universe would have us believe of him. IF the parameters I've stated
are true, then logic demands that my rendition of his successful efforts
to create a universal awakening is accurate and the universal opinion as
to his alleged 'sin' is just that - unfounded opinion. It takes no great
genius to know that one who is perfect is incapable of the evil the bureaucrats
perceive. He's rocked their boat and they didn't like it. Before the awakening
is completed, their boat is going
to rock more - and they aren't going to like it.
[Chief of Archangels]
35:8.2 Being a later and lower -- as concerns divinity levels -- order of sonship creation, these beings were required to pass
through certain courses of training on the Melchizedek worlds in preparation for subsequent service. They were the first students
in the Melchizedek University and were classified and certified by their Melchizedek teachers and examiners according to ability,
personality, and attainment.
Lanonandeks must be trained "in preparation for subsequent service" and also "certified" according to their personal quality. This means that no Lanonandek is created absolutely perfect, they must advance, so to speak, until they have reached a sufficient level where they are capable of performing certain duties.
Really? . Examine your own quotation. "You were perfect in all your ways from the day you were created". The rest is universal opinion. Now you tell me, do you believe the words of the universe even when they conflict with your opinions of their opinions. I'm afraid you miss the point. I am not offering an 'opinion' I offer the truth. The universe offers its own self serving opinion 'as if it were truth.'
You can't have it both ways. They acknowledge his perfection. Your comment that 'NO' lanonandek can be perfect is false by your own presentation as Lucifer is perfect. Lucifer aside, I agree that there are few perfect beings within creation, Lanonandek or otherwise. Yes, we have to endure the Melchezidek's educational system. As children, we are born with basically empty heads that must be filled with knowledge and experience, just as you are born. EVEN THE CREATOR SON had to go through the process of growing up. Your expectation somehow expects that we are delivered into creation with a socket in our heads that we acquire instant education is erroneous. Even Melchezideks have to grow up and be educate.
Chief of Archangels] 35:8.9 Since Lanonandeks are a somewhat lower order of sonship than the Melchizedeks and the Vorondadeks, they are of even greater service in the subordinate units of the universe, for they are capable of drawing nearer the lower creatures of the intelligent races. They also stand in greater danger of going astray, of departing from the acceptable technique of universe government. Here it is, in black and white; Lanonandeks are capable of imperfection. Lanonandeks are perhaps innately and potentially perfect, but they are nevertheless created to relate to imperfect beings and are also prone to experiential imperfections of their own. They serve as Planetary Princes and System Sovereigns because "they are capable of drawing nearer the lower creatures of the intelligent races." The UB says: [Chief of Archangels] 35:9.7 The large number of these Sons who have lapsed from integrity does not indicate any fault in creatorship. They could have been made divinely perfect, but they were so created that they might better understand, and draw near to, the evolutionary creatures dwelling on the worlds of time and space.
This presentation is redundant. I admit I am not perfect. Personally, I feel sorry for Lucifer in his perfection. Imagine what a test of tolerance it must be for him to patiently endure our imperfections.
Here, we see that Satan and Lucifer are of the same order: [Manovandet Melchizedek] 53:1.4 Very little was heard of Lucifer on Urantia owing to the fact that he assigned his first lieutenant, Satan, to advocate his cause on your planet. Satan was a member of the same primary group of Lanonandeks but had never functioned as a System Sovereign; he entered fully into the Lucifer insurrection. The "devil" is none other than Caligastia, the deposed Planetary Prince of Urantia and a Son of the secondary order of Lanonandeks. At the time Michael was on Urantia in the flesh, Lucifer, Satan, and Caligastia were leagued together to effect the miscarriage of his bestowal mission. But they signally failed.
Here you are repeating the same argument that has previously been addressed and answered. I'll refer the reader back to the impossibility of such a conspiracy as both Lucifer and myself were already within mortality. Satan is another issue.
If "Satan was a member of the same primary group of Lanonandeks," and you acknowledge that he ran "to the worlds of time and space to hide out and evade the universe," it follows that Lucifer is entirely capable of the same actions. Nothing seems to separate them except for personality, the quality of which would be your own observation and judgement. Lanonandeks, on the whole, are capable of "going astray," but especially in our own local universe:
This is an excellent point. Lucifer could have ran and placed himself out of reach of the universe and their 'justice'. HE DIDN'T (unless you wish to disbelieve the words of the UB). He stood his ground on Jerusem. Was taken into custody ON JERUSEM, and was imprisoned within mortality ON EARTH. He stood tall, possessed of his own integrity that was not going to bend before universal miscreance.
As to your contention that nothing separated them, I submit the UB says differently. Lucifer was a perfect being, no comment was made that Satan enjoyed this status. Lucifer was a ruler of worlds, Satan had never ruled anything. Lucifer was possessed of a vast collection of experiences. Satan was not. Satan's greatest claim to fame was that he was Luci's gopher. It also serves to give truth to the adage that 'you can pick your friends but not your relatives'.
It is noteworthy that the only people who have been incarcerated and placed into forced labor concentration camps and then abandoned there by the universe were those who were within their physical reach. The UB gives admittance to its 'merciful' handling of these souls. Lucifer's integrity goes without question. He was right. He knew he was right and he was not going to bow before the corruption of the universe he sought to change. How is it, that in this discourse you've not mentioned the concentration camps or the universe's handling of those who did not go into physical rebellion but were guilty of exercising their right to free will via free speech. Do you agree with the universal policy that free will is a gift from Father (only if you agree with them)? This is what you argue for. Fascism.
[Chief of Archangels] 35:9.8 On Uversa it is the consensus that we have had so much administrative trouble in Nebadon because our Sons of the Lanonandek order have been created with such a large degree of personal liberty in choosing and planning.
I think this is an understatement. We serve long tours of duty under primitive conditions. The so called 'personal liberties' we supposedly 'enjoy' suits the universe's purpose because they don't want to come down here and get their hands dirty.
[Chief of Archangels] 35:10.5 They are a noble, faithful, and loyal group, notwithstanding their tendency to fall into error through fallacies of personal liberty and fictions of self-determination.
Translation - They're a great bunch of people as long as they behave as mind numbed robots for the universe.
The Urantia Book describes the Lucifer Manifesto as having three major points:
[Manovandet Melchizedek] 53:3.2 1. The reality of the Universal Father. Lucifer charged that the Universal Father did not really exist, that physical gravity and space-energy were inherent in the universe, and that the Father was a myth invented by the Paradise Sons to enable them to maintain the rule of the universes in the Father's name.
How is it then possible that Lucifer has "now and always been, a loyal son?" You say that his loyalty "is not to the universe, but to Father" but the UB specifically credits Lucifer with having denied the existence of Father.
You answer your own question. The UB, your sole source of information says......
The issue before you now is, are the opinions they've expressed consistent or are there many many unanswered inadequacies in their presentation? The entire text of the Lucifer manifesto is paraphrased. They give THEIR OPINION of what he said but do not supply you with the actual transcripts even though they admit that the taking of transcripts is a common part of their record keeping. Given this admission, the presumption is that such a transcript exists. Why then is only their 'spin' presented to you and not his actual words? Given the obvious agenda of propaganda present, should credibility to their opinion be given when it can be pointed out correctly that the opinions conflict with the very same facts they've presented.
I admit that I can imagine some personal opinions and speculations creeping into the UB. Nevertheless, the Melchizedeks are the teachers of the universe, instructing even you Lanonandeks!
I'm reminded of the expression, "Those who can't do teach". Something to think about.
I can also see that this is third-person information, but with the nature of the Melchizedeks called into question and since none of us Urantians were able to make it for the Gabriel vs. Lucifer debate, the "War in Heaven," it is fully acceptable to have this information passed down by beings qualified to do so. In addition, while you say that "Lucifer did not EVER challenge the sovereignty of Michael over his universe," the second point the UB lists goes against this:
Consider what you've just said, "Yes, I understand the book is not direct information. Yes, I understand that it has 'opinion' substituted as factual material BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT"
Further, you give credit to the Melchezideks. How many do you know and on what REAL BASIS can you even hope to have a factual opinion. The difference between them and me is a simple one. I'm down here with you while they keep their hands clean. Which of us provides the greater service to mankind, the talker or the doer? Incidentally, you are not called Urantians. You are called The Urs.
[Manovandet Melchizedek] 53:3.3 2. The universe government of the Creator Son -- Michael. Lucifer contended that the local systems should be autonomous. He protested against the right of Michael, the Creator Son, to assume sovereignty of Nebadon in the name of a hypothetical Paradise Father and require all personalities to acknowledge allegiance to this unseen Father. He asserted that the whole plan of worship was a clever scheme to aggrandize the Paradise Sons. He was willing to acknowledge Michael as his Creator-father but not as his God and rightful ruler.
Are we just looking at gross misinterpretations by Melchizedeks, or am I starting to make sense? You said that "Lucifer clearly stated his position" and also that "The Urantia Book correctly notate s that Lucifer always acknowledged Michael as his regent." Can you please quote where the UB says Lucifer acknowledged that Michael was his regent? Things are just not lining up anywhere here. The third point is not as critical to the debate:
Were this a trial, and it is, part of your point is that I should BE on trial. I would demand that you establish the credibility of the universal representations found in the UB. That you put the authors on the witness stand and allow cross examination and the introduction of the first hand evidence they deny you in the book. This question becomes, why have they denied you the actual evidence and supplied you only with their opinion?
Quote: 2. The universe government of the Creator Son--Michael. Lucifer contended that the local systems should be autonomous. He protested against the right of Michael, the Creator Son, to assume sovereignty of Nebadon in the name of a hypothetical Paradise Father and require all personalities to acknowledge allegiance to this unseen Father. He asserted that the wholeÔ Sons. He was willing to acknowledge Michael as his Creator-father but not as his God and rightful ruler.
You are quite right when you say things are just not lining up here. This verse represents the paradoxes of impossibility as they make no sense whatsoever. As the representation is 3rd or maybe even 50th generation we have no idea where they came up with this, but it bears examination and I will put before you the logic.
When I seceded Earth, Lucifer declared me the God of Urantia.
What exactly does this mean?
It meant that I was the absolute ruler of the timeline for this world. Creation is the result and consequence of life. Life does not exist because of creation. The lifeline of the ruler of the timeline he rules become intertwined and form a double helix. Thus the lifeline of the ruler and the timeline for that which he rules is one and the same. The UB recognizes this reality when it comments that the planet ruled by a prince takes on aspects of his unique personality traits.
Assume that I did not secede and that Michael had been installed as the Creator Son. My timeline would be attached to his as a dew drop is attached to branch of a great tree. His greater timeline encompasses all of the universe and like my world, his universe reflects the aspects of his personality. Yet, he is not the Creator Father.
At the top of the sixth dimension is an energy field we call Father's Eye. It is the point from which all creation emanates. Think of it as a universal soul and that wrapped around the universe is the same soul material that Father has granted us as immortal containers for our personalities. Father's constant attention to this universal container enables the continuation of the universe on a moment by moment basis. At the installation of The Creator Son into his position, he merges with Father and control is passed from Father to Son thus allowing the intermingling of Michael's lifeline and the timeline boundaries.
He who is at the top of a timeline is called GOD. Yet, until the rebellion all timelines were hooked to the universal tree and if you follow it back up to its source, you run into the Son and Father beyond him. Thus both Father and Son are God as they are One in the joining that enables the universe's existence. Now we arrive at the pure nonsense the universe attempts to pass off as Lucifer's statements.
1. The ability to BE with Father, to stand before him as he were a physical person, is an issue of evolutionary status. To most, he is an unseen God. When the people began to distrust their government, they also began to question the matters of faith they had been taught.
2. The logic followed that if Father was a fiction created by universal bureaucrats to keep their population subservient to a theocratic government, that the position of the Creator Son's was, by extension, also a contrivance.
This is an accurate statement of the logic employed by many people who could not physically be with Father and who could also no longer trust their government. The issue before us, were these a statement of Lucifer's beliefs or a recitation of those he spoke for? We have no way of knowing based upon the Urantia Book and universal opinion still can not rise to the status of actual fact no matter how many ways you want to twist it. However, the real paradox comes in the solution.
The words say that Lucifer was willing to recognize Michael as the Creator Father but not as his ruler. The schematic of power I've just laid before you was echoed by Michael when he said, "No one can get to the Father except through him". Michael is not positioned at the top of the tree and thus can not ever BE the Creator Father. He is second. Even so, his granting from Father is that he is the God of the universal timeline and thus, it's ruler. If we take the universal representation at face value and say that Father no longer exists and Michael alone is the sole Creator force, he is STILL the top of the timeline and thus its God and ruler. Thus he can not accept Michael as his Creator Father without also accepting him as his ruler. It follows that my representation that Lucifer has always accepted Michael has his ruler is accurate and the opinion to the contrary is not.
The representation made in the UB as to their understanding of Lucifer's comments (if in fact this is what he said), is 'at best', moronic, simple and plainly stupid. I can't speak to the mentality that went behind the construction of this verse, but I do know that Lucifer is not capable of an indulgence in this degree of stupidity.
Another logical possibility exists and it has a high degree of likelihood. That those who wrote this verse do not have an understanding of the physical relationships and interrelationships involved within the construction of the universe beyond the flowery and theologically based representations of Melchezidek teachings.
Within the words of the UB, one may construct and define the substance of the universal creation but must hunt for the words in various places and with an ordered and logical mind. That which seems to elude the authors of the book is right there in front of your face. The only issue is whether or not you have the eyes to see it.
[Manovandet Melchizedek] 53:3.6 3. The attack upon the universal plan of ascendant mortal training. Lucifer maintained that far too much time and energy were expended upon the scheme of so thoroughly training ascending mortals in the principles of universe administration, principles which he alleged were unethical and unsound.
What about the First Cause? Even if Lucifer, as you might argue, did not entirely want to dismiss the process of training mortals, he may have, if his ideas were anything like those of your own, wanted to accelerate the ascension scheme. It is quite ironic that, even though Lucifer criticized ascendant mortal training, not one ascendant citizen joined in the rebellion:
Your comment is factually flawed. Not one POST Ascendant being joined the rebellion. Earth's ascendants are within mortality and do not have such a choice. To your point I say, 'So what'. It proves only that people who have endured a timeline have a point of perspective not possessed by most angels and they greatly prefer not to be thrown back into mortality for any reason. Also, the ascended soul is at the low rung of status on the universal food chain. They have no voice in the matter but greatly fear of going up against the status quo. Given the practice of incarceration in concentration camps, and the risks they might have to go back into mortality, their concerns are quite real.
One thing that I find disappointing in this discourse is your assumption that personal integrity, right and wrong, good and bad is to be judged based on assumptions of who the winning party will be. I submit that your biased presentation of this material supposes an underlying need to fall in with the perceived 'winners' and that the integrity issues are of minor, if any, importance.
Lucifer did not argue for the extermination of the First Cause. He did propose that it would be better served via the use of acceleration. I raptured the Mayan civilization right before the declaration of secession. They had met all the universal requirements and their was no point in forcing them to endure another 200,000 years. The universe, on the other hand, subscribes to a mindless and pedantic methodology with little consideration for the harsh circumstances one must endure within mortality.
[Manovandet Melchizedek] 53:7.10 The ascending mortals were vulnerable, but they withstood the sophistries of rebellion better than the lower spirits. While many on the lower mansion worlds, those who had not attained final fusion with their Adjusters, fell, it is recorded to the glory of the wisdom of the ascension scheme that not a single member of the Satania ascendant citizenship resident on Jerusem participated in the Lucifer rebellion.
Again, I say 'so what'. Some chose confrontation and others didn't. However, I would add, there are many within the universe who made no comment one way or another, preferring instead to keep their thoughts to themselves. There is a vast hidden column of sympathizers for the rebellion hidden within universal ranks. Even in Gabriel's elite one hundred one traitor has already surfaced, Alginon. The universe's problems will not stem from what they can see and do know, but from those who have been biding their time and waiting the moment.
As far as the argument you give that points out the fact that we are not given a transcript of the debate between Gabriel and Lucifer, I can only point to obvious reasoning: You would not involve a three-year old in a debate over abortion and hand them a transcript of Roe vs. Wade.
Christian, I'm sorry that you think you are an ignorant and innocent child. I think better of you than that. Or if you prefer to propose that the universe withheld data from you based upon your assumed stupidity, I can allow that some are so handicapped but not all . You present opposing arguments at various points. On this point you're an ignorant child. Yet, this very same child presumes to judge me, Lucifer, the entire Lanonandek Family of Angels and the Melchezideks. Your arrogance extends to comments that you know the mind of Father and Michael in various matters as well. Is this also the product of childish ignorance?
For now,mortals may only enter into the cosmic citizenship through faith and such lofty concepts as were likely presented in the "War in Heaven" would probably not do much to strengthen our infant understandings of Father. We're talking about a heated debate between angels, most definitely involving concepts far beyond the evolutionary reach of mortal comprehension. If it took a debate for angels to settle things, how much more would it require in understanding from us mortals? The universe did the next best thing by having a Melchizedek relate the basic concepts of Lucifer's argument to this "backward and confused world ([Mighty Messenger] 52:6.8)" that we now know as Urantia.
I'll take this verse as an admission of incompetence to discuss or even consider these subjects as they are beyond your intellectual capacity.
I'm going to tell you what your lofty universe would do to you. They FEAR YOU!. You've been weaned on the concepts of competition. You've been allowed to elevate yourselves (each to their own ability) in the crucible of a competitive society. They would deem you an evil and self aggrandizing being on just these points alone. They view you as a potential cancer to their system. As such, they would isolate you from the universal brotherhood and treat you as lepers. What you are and what you've achieved in the short amount of time that was available to you is because I allowed you to run as far as you could as fast as you could. And you have done well. You are a magnificent people. You lack only the perspective to know this.
Instecross with the Dalmatians.
I submit that his point was addressed by the inclusion of multiple races
Likewise, Eve could only get pregnant once at a time. While Adam could impregnate as many women as he wished, he is still providing a one-sided genetic contribution. By allowing their offspring to accumulate, they would have offered a greater possible amount of genetic variety than had they each produced only one hybrid offspring. Adam did make up for the deficiency by impregnating 1682 women ([Solonia] 76:4.8) after the default. Nevertheless, had we reached the number of 500,000 direct offspring from Adam and Eve, that would have meant over a million hybrids!
Their strain would have offered a lower quality of genetic material than what I had in mind.
A million hybrids as opposed to your 1683; not counting deaths! Can you now see that the "logic of purpose" also applies to these rules, mandates, and restrictions that you insist do nothing but serve the bureaucracy?
Asked and answered
Are you sure your plan of "accelerated mortal ascension" is sound? This passage says your plans didn't work out as well as you have implied on our web page. -----
[Solonia] 74:3.3 They learned all the facts regarding the utter collapse of the Caligastia scheme for accelerating the process of social evolution. They also arrived at a full realization of the folly of attempting to achieve planetary advancement independently of the divine plan of progression. And thus ended a sad but enlightening day -- their second on Urantia.
Again you've indulged in cleverly edited quotes. I submit the complete one
Adam's second day on earth was spent in session with the planetary receivers and the advisory council. From the Melchizedeks, and their associates, Adam and Eve learned more about the details of the Caligastia rebellion and the result of that upheaval upon the world's progress. And it was, on the whole, a disheartening story, this long recital of the mismanagement of world affairs. They learned all the facts regarding the utter collapse of the Caligastia scheme for accelerating the process of social evolution. They also arrived at a full realization of the folly of attempting to achieve planetary advancement independently of the divine plan of progression. And thus ended a sad but enlightening day-- their second on Urantia.
Again you quote a bureaucrat's opinion and elevate it to the level of fact. One of the major differences between me and the voice you quote is that I am here. I have been here from the beginning and I will remain here until the task is complete. As for whether my methods are sound or not is not your call and while I have knowledge of the end result, the perspective of this knowing is not within your grasp.
In fact, whatever good you thought you were doing, our planet lost its Material Sons and Daughters and most of their descendants. Whether it really was your fault or whether you want to blame the overreactive universal bureaucracy, I think I can speak for most of the planet when I say that we wish you'd have left everything as it was. Even if we were not reaping the benefits of the Adamic life plasm as immediately as you wished, we'd at least have the benfit of having a greater amount today. Instead, we lost most of it all to the impatience of yourself, Eve, and Serapatatia. Granted, things were tough:
So what? You lost nothing and you gained eternity. The genus I provided for you was from the Lanonandek clan. It was of higher status than anything the universe would have given you. The only thing you lost was a lower capacity for intelligence and spiritual growth. If you wish to recover this lost prize, you can. Park an automobile on top of you're head. If you survive, the level of intelligence left you after the brain damage will closely approximate the 'gift' you feel you lost.
[Solonia] 75:1.6 Probably no Material Sons of Nebadon were ever faced with such a difficult and seemingly hopeless task as confronted Adam and Eve in the sorry plight of Urantia. But they would have sometime met with success had they been more farseeing and patient. Both of them, especially Eve, were altogether too impatient; they were not willing to settle down to the long, long endurance test. They wanted to see some immediate results, and they did, but the results thus secured proved most disastrous both to themselves and to their world.
The world can not entirely blame you for the Adamic default, but we can look unfavorably on your "frequent visits to the Garden" and your "suggestions of compromise." ([Solonia] 75:2.1) In light of Urantia's loss of violet blood, it really does not matter who was right or wrong. You should have left Adam and Eve to their task.
This is perhaps one of the most reprehensible passages of the UB. 1. The Universe KNEW they were sending Adam and Eve into a no win situation. 2. The KNEW I was not going to sit idly by and let the universe attempt to continue. You can not have two simultaneous programs of ascendancy. I had destroyed theirs and implemented mine. 3. Neither Adam nor Eve were any match for me. In any contest of wit or intelligence, they had to lose. Yet the universe set them loose without a real clue as to who they were up against. Neither found me to be the evil creature or the boogey man the bureaucratic rantings expected them to find. 4. THE REAL SIN lays with the universe who sent these two well intended souls in to do a job they knew couldn't be done! AND THEN blamed THEM instead of accepting responsibility for their own miscreance!
Again - you are not qualified to have an opinion as to what I should or should not have done. At the time, the sum total of your existence was dedicated to finding where your next meal was coming from. Seconding guessing me wasn't a possibility then or now.
Furthermore, you say that "The sons of Eve were eventually decimated at the hands of the sons of Adam. This gives rise to the story of Cain and Abel." Cain was the son of Cano, remember? Abel was Eve's second son, born two years after Cain. Cain really did kill Abel:
The story of Cain and Able is ization that alluded to competitive tribal conflicts that eventually ensued.
[Solonia] 76:2.5 The boys were respectively eighteen and twenty years of age when the tension between them was finally resolved, one day, when Abel's taunts so infuriated his bellicose brother that Cain turned upon him in wrath and slew him.
What you might be referring to when you say "[t]he sons of Eve were eventually decimated at the hands of the sons of Adam," might be found in this passage:
[Solonia] 75:5.9 The news of the annihilation of the Nodite settlement near Eden was not slow in reaching the home tribes of Serapatatia to the north, and presently a great host was assembling to march on the Garden. And this was the beginning of a long and bitter warfare between the Adamites and the Nodites, for these hostilities kept up long after Adam and his followers emigrated to the second garden in the Euphrates valley. There was intense and lasting "enmity between that man and the woman, between his seed and her seed."
However, if you refer to the Nodites as being the "Sons of Eve," then you seem wrong on two points: 1. The Nodites were not descended from Eve, though one of them (Cano) was lucky enough to have fathered one of Eve's sons (Cain, who stayed with the Adamites). [Solonia] 73:1.3 The Nodites were the descendants of the rebel members of the Prince's staff, their name deriving from their first leader, Nod, onetime chairman of the Dalamatia commission on industry and trade. 2. The Nodites were never decimated.
I feel really bad for Cain, who was the product of your accelerated methods and eventually ventured into the land of Nod to live among the Elamites. He grew up with the resentment of his fellows and served as a living reminder to everyone of the failure of the Adamic mission. Cain was a hybrid, but the environment he was placed in (experimental planet, spiritual quarantine, rebellion) did nothing to help him, as was even more was the case with Abel:
Get back with me and let me know how things go after you use my parked car methodology then tell me how badly you feel for Cain. You'll have to pardon me if I find you sincerity on this point dubious.
As for my comments on Cain and Abel, they stand regardless of your speculations. The difference here is that I was there and none of my would be critics today were.
[Solonia] 76:2.6 The observation of Abel's conduct establishes the value of environment and education as factors in character development. Abel had an ideal inheritance, and heredity lies at the bottom of all character; but the influence of an inferior environment virtually neutralized this magnificent inheritance. This same observation can be made in everyone from Adam and Eve to, perhaps, yourself. Having been on Urantia for so long, I'm sure you've been negatively effected. I know I have.
Heredity is the foundation for character. This is an interesting idea. You are no more than the sum of your genetics. IF this universal representation is correct, you are preordained to be a great race due to the genetic enhancements I provided you. The flip side of the equation is that the inferior genetics they would have given you, thus establishing their own dominance, would have left you with less 'character'. In my equation, you are now possessed with sufficient intellect and experience to make a rational choice as to your own ascendancy. With their's, less so.
On reincarnation: You have referred to reincarnation and such, but the UB has this to say:
[Midwayer Commission] 164:3.4 There was, throughout all these regions, a lingering belief in reincarnation. The older Jewish teachers, together with Plato, Philo, and many of the Essenes, tolerated the theory that men may reap in one incarnation what they have sown in a previous existence; thus in one life they were believed to be expiating the sins committed in preceding lives. The Master found it difficult to make men believe that their souls had not had previous existences.
While reincarnation is not entirely a myth, there is only one being in the entire local universe that experiences such a phenomena: [Archangel] 46:7.5 S agia are the only creatures in all the universe of Nebadon who experience this or any other sort of reincarnation.
Okay. 'in all the universe of Nebadon' is the operative phrase. The Earth, in secession was NOT a part of the universe.
The UB speaks so much to the idea of evolution, is it possible that you can learn the myriad of lessons that life has to offer in only one lifetime?
Is it a good representation of Father's love, kindness and mercy that you only get one hit or miss chance?
The UB admits that Michael incarnated upon the planet. It does not say that this is a privilege reserved only for the elite. Point in fact, the logic clearly indicates that it is a process that can be repeated at will.
The universe downplay s the idea of reincarnation because (it is their opinion) that if you had a full recognition of the process you would be inhibited by the Scarlet Ohara retort - "I'll do it tomorrow" and not take advantage of today's opportunities. Also, in their scenario, you get only one bite of the apple. You are not afforded the opportunity to have personality evolution as is the arrangement on Earth. Get it right on the first attempt or Die!
What you perceive as a discrepancy between our tales is, in fact, a difference in our methodologies. One reflects Father's love, tolerance, and patience in that he is willing to let his children make mistakes and learn from their errors without an instant death penalty hanging over their heads. The other system, does not reflect these loving aspects of our Creator.
Finally, the universe at large does not have a working knowledge of exactly how these functions are performed. Only that it can be done. As such their 'opinions' to the subject are limited in some regards.
The "reality" is that we start on this planet and advance onwards to the mansion worlds, where our morontia career begins:
The idea of reincarnation originated in the observance of hereditary and trait resemblance of offspring to ancestors. The custom of naming children after grandparents and other ancestors was due to belief in reincarnation. Some later-day races believed that man died from three to seven times. This belief (residual from the teachings of Adam about the mansion worlds), and many other remnants of revealed religion, can be found among the otherwise absurd doctrines of twentieth-century barbarians.
You talk about souls "waiting in the Hall of Souls to find their entry and reentry points into life," but the UB says:
[Solitary Messenger] 112:5.13 This [soul] is wholly unconscious during the period from death to repersonalization and is in the keeping of the seraphic destiny guardian throughout this season of waiting. You will not function as a conscious being, following death, until you attain the new consciousness of morontia on the mansion worlds of Satania.
So, even if we were to return to this planet, we certainly couldn't choose our "entry and reentry points," having been stripped of consciousness until we wake up "on the mansion worlds of Satania." I couldn't find anything concerning the 500,000 year period of mortal incarnations that you've talked about, but I did find out that you've been here as long:
I didn't say YOU chose your reentry point. However, the line you quote ,while technicall,y correct is not exactly so. Prior to re-entry into life the circumstances of that life to be are shown and discussed with you. Yours is the choice to accept the temporal engineering that placed you there or not. To this degree you are allowed consciousness. The rest of the time is spent in sleep although I do recall awaking to find myself in peaceful circumstances. I can't speak to the experiences of others on this issue.
melchezidek] 66:0.2 About five hundred thousand years ago and concurrent with the appearance of the six colored or Sangik races, Caligastia, the Planetary Prince, arrived on Urantia. There were almost one-half billion primitive human beings on earth at the time of the Prince's arrival, and they were well scattered over Europe, Asia, and Africa. The Prince's headquarters, established in Mesopotamia, was at about the center of world population.
I think the real meaning of the 500,000 year figure lies here:
[Mighty Messenger] 52:2.2 The average length of this dispensation is around five hundred thousand years, some longer, some shorter.
Now, each dispensation ends with the ressurrection of Sleeping Survivors:
[Mighty Messenger] 30:4.4 2. Sleeping Survivors. All mortals of survival status, in the custody of personal guardians of destiny, pass through the portals of natural death and, on the third period, personalize on the mansion worlds. Those accredited beings who have, for any reason, been unable to attain that level of intelligence mastery and endowment of spirituality which would entitle them to personal guardians, cannot thus immediately and directly go to the mansion worlds. Such surviving souls must rest in unconscious sleep until the judgment day of a new epoch, a new dispensation, the coming of a Son of God to call the rolls of the age and adjudicate the realm, and this is the general practice throughout all Nebadon.
Note that Sleeping Survivors are "wholly unconscious and oblivious to the length of their rest" and that "those who have slept five thousand years will react no differently than those who have rested five days." ([Mighty Messenger] 30:4.5). Also, pay attention to where it says that souls otherwise "immediately and directly go to the mansion worlds."
You need to define the words sleeping and unconscious. The bible describes those within mortality as the dead. The UB calls it the incarnative darkness. Sleep and unconscious well fit within these extremes. My personal favorite is 'the bottomless pit', a place of no escape. I have lived many lives within mortality. I am also well versed in the use of double edged words.
Answer your own question. Why does it take 500,000 years to live only one life? It doesn't.
I suggest you carefully reread the material and give great logical thought to the precise use of the words. Sleeping survivors are those who passed judgment. The rest were thrown on creation's trash heap and discarded.
The above passages and the sections from where I pulled them directly contradict your claims about reincarnation. I can vaguely imagine certain "unsubstantiated opinions" creeping into a planetary revelation, but outright falsehoods are a little harder to excuse coming from these various orders of celestial beings.
As previously stated. There is no contradiction only DIFFERENCE. I leave it to the reader to gauge which of the two methods reflects Father's mind.
There is the possibility that this phenomena has occurred and that you have witnessed its occurrence. It could be that you were allowed to finish the term of dispensation as a re-incarnative mortal,gels])."
I'd appreciate it if you'd allow me to speak for myself. I take no comfort in another's desire to make excuses for me or to construct scenarios. I am quite capable of speaking for myself. Also, the universe has had no say in my circumstances here although they have indulged in poor behaviors affecting my life. They've allowed nothing. Had they had a say, my head would have been happily displayed on the gates of Jerusem as a prize. That I am alive, aware and here speaks for itself.
On Local Universe Creation: You stated: "Michael inherited his universe from Immanuel, bureaucracy and all." It was most time-consuming to directly confirm or contradict this statement. I'll show you what I've got:
[Mighty Messenger] 32:0.1 A local universe is the handiwork of a Creator Son of the Paradise order of Michael.
This is the first line to Section II of the UB. Right away, I see "Michael," leading me to initially think: Michael made Nebadon. When I went to check out Immanuel, I find:
[Chief of Archangels] 33:5.2 Immanuel of Salvington, number 611,121 of the sixth order of Supreme Trinity Personalities, is a being of sublime dignity and of such superb condescension that he refuses the worship and adoration of all living creatures. He bears the distinction of being the only personality in all Nebadon who has never acknowledged subordination to his brother Michael.
While it does say that Immanuel has never acknowledged subordination to Michael, I can't find anywhere that refers to Immanuel as a "Michael," nor as a "Creator Son." Perhaps you can find a passage, but so far I can see nothing.
You can't find the reference because it isn't so. As previously stated, he FUNCTIONS in a role that is unique unto himself. Each of the universes were FIRST offered by Father to Immanuel. As he refuses to accept diety worship, he has also declined Father's offer of appointment as a Creator Son. At this point it's become a matter of protocol and I imagine something of a jest between himself and Father. Regardless, the offer is always made. Immanuel is a Trinity Son who is described as 'Father's Ambassador to the court of the Creator Son'. In practice, he is regarded as a glorified Creator Son even though he is not. I'd add that Immanuel has never acknowledged a subordinate position to ANY of the Michael's because he isn't under their rule. He answers only to Father and is of greater status than the Creator Son's.
[Chief of Archangels] 33:5.1 The administration of Trinity-origin personalities ends with the government of the superuniverses. The local universes are characterized by dual supervision, the beginning of the father-mother concept. The universe father is the Creator Son; the universe mother is the Divine Minister, the local universe Creative Spirit. Every local universe is, however, blessed with the presence of certain personalities from the central universe and Paradise. At the head of this Paradise group in Nebadon is the ambassador of the Paradise Trinity -- Immanuel of Salvington -- the Union of Days assigned to the local universe of Nebadon. In a certain sense this high Trinity Son is also the personal representative of the Universal Father to the court of the Creator Son; hence his name, Immanuel.
Sounds like this verse pretty much echoes what I've already said to the point
In the above paragraph, we find two types of Sons: the Creator Son who is the universe father, and Immanuel, a Trinity Son, who is an ambassador from Paradise to our local universe. I think it is reasonable to conclude that the "Creator Son of the Paradise order of Michael" refers to, in our instance, Michael of Nebadon, while Immanuel is still Michael's elder brother and counselor.
[Mighty Messenger] 32:0.3 Urantia belongs to a local universe whose sovereign is the God-man of Nebadon, Jesus of Nazareth and Michael of Salvington. And all of Michael's plans for this local universe were fully approved by the Paradise Trinity before he ever embarked upon the supreme adventure of space.
[Mighty Messenger] 32:0.4 The Sons of God may choose the realms of their creator activities, but these material creations were originally projected and planned by the Paradise Architects of the Master Universe.
The above passages confirm your assertion that Michael is authorized with "creative license," that there are certain "regulations" that must be adhered to. However as the following verifies, Michael actually did bring everything into being:
You should note the difference between being the Creator Father and the Universal Father. The universe is regarded as our mother, and the Creator Son as a Father spirit. This does not mean that Michael created his universe. Father creates creation. The Creator Son populates it with souls.
[Mighty Messenger] 32:2.1 The Creator Sons are preceded in universe organization by the power directors and other beings originating in the Third Source and Center. From the energies of space, thus previously organized, Michael, your Creator Son, established the inhabited realms of the universe of Nebadon and ever since has been painstakingly devoted to their administration. From pre-existent energy these divine Sons materialize visible matter, project living creatures, and with the co-operation of the universe presence of the Infinite Spirit, create a diverse retinue of spirit personalities.
I suggest that you not look at this statement with linear eyes. 1. Michael did not become the Creator Son until his bestowal two thousand years past. 2. The universe is older than two thousand years.
That fact seems to place this paragraph in disarray IF YOU LOOK AT IT WITH A LINEAR MIND. Even so, you have engineers who went in ahead of him to set things up. Thus the physical aspects were handled by others. Now, factor into the equation the issues of time, timeless states and creation. This subject is beyond the understanding of most so I will keep it simple by saying that Michael's great soul is a special granting from Father as is ours (but to a lesser degree in status). Michael IS NOW, ALWAYS WAS AND ALWAYS WILL BE. Thus his statement that he is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, speaks to his unique relationship with creation. You won't find much on it in the Urantia as it is beyond their ken to know.
Michael created matter, organisms, and spirits to form Nebadon. I still can not find references to Immanuel, other than those pertaining to his function as an ambassador from Paradise to Nebadon and as a counselor to his "younger" sibling. Nowhere have I yet seen information which would suggest that Immanuel passed down Nebadon to little brother Michael. Could you point out this information, if it exists?
Scan out every occurrence of the word Immanuel THEN THINK ABOUT IT. Its there but it has to be reasoned. You see Christian, the book wasn't designed for you to learn a great deal about the universe. It was sent to give you enough information to impress and overlaid with propaganda as the price you had to pay for the tidbits of mostly useless information. As for the sources of my knowledge I cite two. Father and personal experience. If you have doubts, take it up with Father.
On races: Now, when you said that the six evolutionary races were your own idea, that you "created multiple races knowing that the obvious differences in skin color and culture would lead to conflict": [Life Carrier] 64:6.1 On an average evolutionary planet the six evolutionary races of color appear one by one; the red man is the first to evolve, and for ages he roams the world before the succeeding colored races make their appearance. The simultaneous emergence of all six races on Urantia, and in one family, was most unusual.
Pay particular attention to that note - MOST UNUSUAL. Races don't appear out of thin air. In this case, I was waving the wand.
The appearance of six races on any mortal planet is universal. The only thing I can find that you did differently was introduce them all at once as you also showed up 500,000 years late. I also note that you say you created these races to create competition, and that "[o]n a universal world, competition is disallowed." The UB gives the following reasons for multiple races and it also conflicts with your statement about disallowing competition (reason #3):
[Life Carrier] 64:6.31 1. Variety is indispensable to opportunity for the wide functioning of natural selection, differential survival of superior strains.
[Life Carrier] 64:6.32 2. Stronger and better races are to be had from the interbreeding of diverse peoples when these different races are carriers of superior inheritance factors. And the Urantia races would have benefited by such an early amalgamation provided such a conjoint people could have been subsequently effectively upstepped by a thoroughgoing admixture with the superior Adamic stock. The attempt to execute such an experiment on Urantia under present racial conditions would be highly disastrous.
I don't think you get this. One race at a time except for periods of time when they wish to breed you like cattle for a better gene line. As a rule, the first race goes extinct in favor of the new hybrid. On EArth the first timeline's surviving race was black. I do agree that you need a sufficiently sized gene pool for anything to work. Again, the universe offered you genetic Alpo and I provided Filet Mignon.
[Life Carrier] 64:6.33 3. Competition is healthfully stimulated by diversification of races.
[Life Carrier] 64:6.34 4. Differences in status of the races and of groups within each race are essential to the development of human tolerance and altruism.
[Life Carrier] 64:6.35 5. Homogeneity of the human race is not desirable until the peoples of an evolving world attain comparatively high levels of spiritual development.
Here, we have the issue of degree. Competition between breeding stock and warring armies are quite different issues. You'd see a Melchezidek jumping over the Moon before you'd see approval of the degree of 'competition' I allowed loose upon Earth.
Quote Competition is essential to social progress, but competition, unregulated, breeds violence.
This quote defines the limits. You may compete only to the degree that the Melchezidek in charge arbitrarily dictates. Thus you run into that problem of being self aggrandizing and evil if you achieve more (via competition) than the Melchezidek thinks you should.
On Thought Adjusters: I find it odd that you assign a gender and name to your TA when Thought Adjusters are impersonal entities that, by themselves, lack personality. While identity, and perhaps the justification for giving a name to your TA, remains, the lack of TA personality makes it difficult to understand how you arrived at the conclusion that your Mystery Monitor is a female.
I have assigned gender and name because: 1. She is female 2. It's her name. My first conscious contact with her came as she initiated 'harmonics'. She took my hand and placed it over her heart. This made me very uncomfortable as I also was holding her breast. At this point, I wa by a surge of energy that caused my whole body to vibrate at the same rate from the neck down. Try it, you can't do it. I'm not talking about shaking or flopping around, but a vibration at the molecular level. She deemed the time right for me to relearn this ability and with all things involving her, it served the logic of purpose. Also consider the impersonal is not a .
[Solitary Messenger] 112:3.7 Upon death the Thought Adjuster temporarily loses personality, but not identity; the human subject temporarily loses identity, but not personality; on the mansion worlds both reunite in eternal manifestation.
This is further clarified by the statement that "never is personality manifested without the human will." ([Solitary Messenger] 112:3.7) Celeste's "personality," therefore, would merely be a anthropomorphic projection of your own superconsciousness.
This is another example of universal mumbo jumbo that does not well serve to enlighten. The TA has a personality. I have a personality. That they sublimate their personality in the joining does not mean that they are not without will. Likewise, I can choose to listen or not as I will. Upon the death of the individual, they temporarily lose YOUR PERSONALITY, not theirs. The same TA does not spend all eternity with one person (talk about a dull prospect.) The reunification is the reacquisition of memory that is within your soul. With that comes the full knowledge of the TA and their efforts on your behalf. YOU are the representation of the 'eternal manifestation'. If Celeste were merely an extension of myself, I would have found her more agreeable most of the time. Instead, as I am possessed of a demanding nature, I found her to be stubborn and possessed of a cast iron will to my pushiness. Patience has never been one of my strong points and she placed it upon me whether I liked it or not.
While others have, I have not yet directly accused you of self-aggrandizement. I did point out the passage in the UB where it said that was your sin and I have questioned the commercial status of your web page. However, I now have to call attention to some of what you've said so that, even if it is not your primary motive, you may begin to see how the very nature of your claims is, in actuality, a form of aggrandizement.
You said "Whose words should have the greater weight, A dense Lanonandek or Man?" and the implication of this was "Hey, I'm Caligastia and I know more than you."
It's a valid question. When you, a self described 'mere mortal' challenges one who is not, and has the arrogance to assume a perspective and knowledge you are in no way positioned to have - the issue of status is relevant. You began that particular query by telling me that Lanonandek's were't angels and that we were lower level beings of a 'dense' order. I didn't find the comments particularly offensive but I did deem them to be ignorant. It was your pride and arrogant presentation of your ignorance that I found unacceptable.
However, and for the record, I am Caligastia, the planetary prince. This fact alone assumes skill and knowledge greater than is possessed by man. Were it the other way around, you would be the prince. The fact speaks for itself as it does also my knowledge.
You are claiming to be a Lanonandek and this claim, in and of itself, is, by definition, aggrandizement.
I've made no such 'claim'. I state it as a fact. What you make of it is up to you. I am what I am.
You have elevated your spiritual status.
I've elevated nothing. God made me what I am and I've worked at it from there.
You've made claim that the universe is a caste system and you also maintain that you happen to be several levels up in status from the rest of us.
The lowest of all angels is of greater status than mortal man. That's a fact.
Aggrandize is defined as "to make great or greater," and I believe that this applies to your statements that you are more than human.
This only applies IF I am not who and what I say I am. Otherwise it is a plain statement of truth.
You have made yourself greater by claiming angelic heritage, and also by the fact that every personality you claim to have been in past incarnations have been very famous and have played significant parts in human history.
That is territory that goes with the job. I came here to provide stability within a very unstable timeline. It would have served little or no purpose for me to be positioned in a place where I had no opportunity to provide what I came to do. Again, I make no claim to angelic heritage. I state it as a fact.
As a Lanonandek, is it possible for you to go about your work of informing others without betraying your identity as Caligastia?
I have done precisely that since 29 A.D. At this point in time, It serves no purpose. I am not the Messiah. I am not here to save your soul. The Creator Son is upon the planet and this is his function. My task is, as it always has been, social structure and stability for the purpose of creating and maintaining the circumstances that have permit your spiritual and physical evolution. That I have awakened in life speaks to the need of that purpose.
Is it absolutely necessary that the world be informed of your superiority in relation to them?
The world is going to be informed whether I say one word or no words. It is better that foundations for normalcy be laid. As Abaddon has frequently reminded me, "It's not nice to scare the children". I do not intend to suddenly appear in full array and let half the planet go into cardiac arrest. Given the myriad of alien invasion movies etc. It is judicious to take the time to lay the proper brick work.
Couldn't you pass the information on without calling attention to your spiritual elevation?
I've not called attention to my so called spiritual elevation, you have. I am what I am and you are what you are. Giving voice to the truth is exactly that - speaking the truth. How you wish to see it is entirely another matter and totally your call. If you expect that I should come before you with false humility, I do not. I come in truth., If you think that giving the appearance of being what I am not serves that truth, I will stay with my definitions. You will find that I am not Michael nor do I attempt to clone him. We are different people with different personalities.
You must forgive us mortals for doubting you and what you say
I wasn't aware that you speak for all mortals. Other than your characteristic arrogance, did I miss something?
, but it isn't everyday that our onetime Planetary Prince shows up on the web and claims that the Fifth Epochal Revelation is a universal commentary on his actions and contains no hard evidence that his controversial plans of accelerated mortal ascension were in defiance of God's will.
Your statement here is neither factual or truthful. In fact, evidence that I am substantially different from you is available. You choose not to give it credence. Nor can you duplicate that evidence in any way shape or form. Your own arrogance and dedication to serving your own opinion brings to mind the differences between a skeptic and a cynic.
The former seeks the truth with a logical and ordered mind. The later seeks only to validate his own opinion and views and will ignore anything that does not agree with his expectations. You give lip service to being a seeker of truth but your persistent use of sarcasm, your not too cleverly edited quotes that tend to take words out of context and your persistent elevation of your opinion to the level of reality without virtue of having a factual foundation speaks to a poor agenda.
The sheer unlikelihood is overwhelming itself, and when you couple that with the fact that your claims conflict with accepted theologies...well, you can hopefully understand why we're all not so willing to believe you.
I am not here to validate your theology, your belief system or any other preconception you possess. I am here to tell you what is true. As I've made no claim (except in your mind), no conflict with theology exists.
Again, I don't want to make any personal attacks or character judgements;
Nonsense. You've been on the attack from the very first verse of this discourse. Are we now to add hypocrisy to your other established points?
I am analyzing to the best of my ability and I apologize if anything sounds personally offensive. I can not help but admit my subjective viewpoint and my bias towards disbelief. Nevertheless, I have to go back and point out some of what you've said so that the personality image that you've presented to others can hopefully be discerned and recognized.
Ah, so you attack for the benefit of mankind. How perfectly generous of you to be so self sacrificing. A self appointed Messiah who is going beard the devil and all for the benefit of his fellows. What a guy!
Because you have based most of your reasoning on the premise that you are Caligastia, analysts are more inclined to focus their scrutiny on you and not your beliefs. As I've said before, it may be a little wiser to offer your "truths" to the world without emphasizing your own divinity.
I've made no statement of divinity. That other's have called me The God of Urantia, is something you'd have to take up with them. I've made no declaration to the point. For the record, I don't indulge in belief systems. I do adhere to reality systems. As I seek not your belief, I have no vested interest, one way or another in your personal outcome. You, on the other hand, do. You seem to accept the idea that I wish your recognition. I don't. I want nothing from you. I ask nothing from you. I take nothing from you. I have granted a gift. If you take it or not is up to you. My tolerance to the point is such that I can accept your decision either way.
You mention that Lucifer, being a Lanonandek Son, was perfect and incapable of sin. By claiming that you are Caligastia (also a Lanonandek), you imply the same thing for yourself.
I've made no such statement and that you deem to imply this is your choice. In fact, I have clearly stated that I am not a perfect being.
You claim to "know Father's purpose" and also to "have stood before Him and had discourse" with him, while also alleging that others "are not informed of ALL the facts." This you say while simultaneously admitting to having not read many other religious texts and stating "I am not here to confirm or deny any one individual's belief systems or bias."
Again, you are making claims on my behalf. If you don't mind, I can speak for myself. Your logic works like this. All bald men are thieves. All Bankers are bald Therefore, all Bankers are thieves. I do not allege that the UB is without all the facts. THEY ADMIT IT! And you are correct. I am here to speak what is true. In fact, much of it will fit into many people's theologies. Yet, if it doesn't that's okay too. I'm not here to promote a religion, just the truth. I fail to see how reading Earth's religious texts establishes your point. However, I'd point out that you've made no query into whether or not I possess a theological background or not and are, thus, unqualified to the comment you make. Furthemore, the idea that one would read religious texts would have value only to one who can not have personal discourse with him. For me, Father is a reality system, not a belief system.
Yet, pointing out that someone is not informed is confirming a bias.
Pointing out ignorance and a lack of information is not a bias, it's a statement of fact. Your comment, taken to its logical extreme, is that anyone who offers factual material that is true is indulging in an expression of bias. Extended, it means that all who serve the truth are bigots serving their bias towards the truth. I find this a poor argument.
I don't think it's wrong because pointing out bias, if it is done effectively, is an important part of debate, but it looks bad to hear you contradict yourself like that.
Christian, I think you've just called the kettle black. I leave it to the reader to discern which of us is possessed of the bias and which of us uses consistent and logical methodologies. I agree that he who indulges in the behavior you've just described 'looks bad'.
On one hand, you are quoted as "If you wish the truth, you need first to be open to it," but, on the other, you, again, openly admit that you "have not read all of the Urantia [Book] nor do [you] intend to."
True. Nor do I have any intentions of indulging in the book beyond what has been necessary to answer queries about it. I'm of the opinion that when the Creator Son makes his appearance before you that you will demand a degree in Theology or perhaps a few 'little' miracles. You yourself are unable to establish that the UB is a source of truth. Were it not for my admittance to the fact, this conversation would not be possible. It might be argued then, within the context of this conversation, that I am the center piece for the truth in that I am the validating center of the document you cite as a source of truth and I speak the truths relating to it. Without me, this conversation has no logical basis.
I do realize, however, that:
[Midwayer Commission] 189:2.6 Truth having to do with spiritual realities and eternal values cannot always be built up by a combination of apparent facts. Although individual facts may be materially true, it does not follow that the association of a group of facts must necessarily lead to truthful spiritual conclusions.
This paradox applies to both sides of this debate.
I see no paradox. Truth is what it is. A pure substance. It doesn't change from minute to minute or even eon to eon. It is always stable. The only thing that does change is our own evolutionary moments and our ability to see the truth pursuant to that moment.
You say "a representation that the voice of man is equal to that of a full fledged angel is nothing less than folly," demonstrating your own "presumptuous arrogance" by operating "on the assumption that your opinions," as a alleged Lanonandek Son, "actually constitute fact."
I think this is the lowest point of this conversation. You've taken a comment made to you and taken it out of context. I will retype it accurately for the benefit of the reader.
"A representation that the voice of man is equal to that of a full fledged angel is nothing less than folly. It is presumptuous arrogance on your part to assume that your opinions actually constitute fact".
I made this comment to you based upon your representation that you are possessed of more knowledge than the angels.
Your hypocrisy in the matter is also apparent, as you both admit to having not indulged in much religious study and also that you recognize "the nature of the soul to gravitate towards that which is true" but simulataneously rejecting the analysis and judgement of others, accusing them of arrogance and logical errors, and bringing the Father into the argument when it gets rough (i:e "between me and Father," "Father says not," "Only Father Himself," "my will is the product of Father's will").
I take it by the use of the word 'other's' you mean YOU. Christian, you did not come to me to learn what I had to say. You have not, since day one expressed any interest in a discussion of the things you've outlined in this work. Instead, you've been assaultive, offensive, and lacking in even the minimum level of social good graces. Further, you've made no effort to engage me in ANY exchange of your ideas. What you have done is looked for bullets to put into your gun to shoot towards me. I recognized this early on and it comes as no surprise to see the full expression of it now. I will agree with you on one point. One of us indulges in hypocrisy.
I'd also point out that you've made no effort to ascertain my degree of religious knowledge. Your representation is false. In truth, I was at one time in a seminary and decided against a religious vocation.
Very rarely do you actually use logic; ironic, considering how many times you claim logical errors in the arguments of others ("poor logical methodology on your part," "as a matter of logic and reason, that your conclusions are quite likely in error," etc.); but rather you use anecdotes, circular reasoning, and statements which are not found in any other belief system but your own. Your authority in debate revolves around the allegation that you are an angel, which can neither be proven nor disproven. What little "proof" you do offer is ambiguous and subject to diverse interpretations of meaning.
Is possible for one who does not use logical methods to judge another's application of logical methods? You're right, I do tell stories to make a point. Jesus used parables. It's still a valid form of discourse. As you've made no comment to what these proofs are, I think the reader is at a disadvantage to judge them one way or another. However, they're free to log onto my website at www.planetaryhq.com and judge for themselves. As to the proofs that I am not as you, this has already been addressed in my responses although I have yet to see query from you on the point. It seems you wish not to confront the medical realities that can not be rationalized away. As I'm not inclined to repeat that discourse here, I direct the reader to my web site and the chapter labeled 'Proofs'.
As a matter of example, you use "Holmsian Logic" to reinforce at least two of your arguments. The problem is that Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character and, unfortuneately, this particular logical device only functions consistently in the convenience of fiction.
As a professional private investigator who happens to be very good at what he does, I can tell you that while Sherlock Holmes was fictional, the logical methods depicted in the writings are sound investigative logic used by EVERY professional investigator. You do not provide the quote so I will:
'Once you have eliminated the obvious, that which remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth'.
Where it fails, I think, is where you limit your choices to the "obvious" and then the "improbable." There are dozens of other possibilties that you don't even address, much less discount, so it is impossible to conclude anything objective from such a limited selection of choices.
I'm disappointed that you've failed to list all these other logical possibilities.
The phenomena that you call "the axiom of the soul," is described in the Urantia Book as the role of the Thought Adjuster; that indwelling fragment of the Universal Father that allows even us lowly mortals to have "discourse with Him." What concerns me, though, is your rejection of your TAs advice; "However, I chose that moment not to listen."
I'm afraid you have little understanding of what the soul is. It is an multidimensional and codimensional energy field. An actual piece of Father's being. Within in it is placed your personality. It is this reality that enables your immortality and the ability to reincarnate. It is attached to that portion of the brain you call the subconscious.
As it is a piece of Father's being, it is also a piece of the truth. This befits that Father is the source of all truth. It is His nature, and by extension that of your soul, that the truth will always attempt to join with itself. This is what you call a phenomena. I call it life.
I don't think you're in a position to judge my relationship with my TA. I'd be very surprised if you have a conscious discourse going with yours. However, I am my own person. I make up my own mind. While I will take the counsel of others, I, and I alone, make my choices. I give my voice to no one and I speak for myself.
No matter how conscious you are of Celeste's pleadings, it still remains that you have ignored your indwelling Father fragment whose sole purpose is to influence mortal decisions towards the Father's will. As far as humans are concerned, TAs are "[t]he one truly divine and objective reality." ([Midwayer Commission] 196:3.18)
How presumptuous that you should not only attempt to speak for me, but my TA and God as well. If you had any real experience with a TA, you'd know they don't make pleadings. Nor does Father for that matter.
I do not wish to pass judgement on you because of one rejection of divine advice, but you have been quoted as saying "I am not the object of anyone's direction or influence," and one can't help but wonder if this includes the Father. If even Father does not have a "leash" on you, why should any God-seeking mortal trust you?
Your trust in me is as much an irrelevancy as would be a belief in me. Father does not put people on 'a leash'. He has no control over me whatsoever. This is what a Melchezidek might wish to do but not Father. I have never heard Father issue an order. He asks for what he wishes from us. It falls to our free will whether we comply with His will or not. For me, when Father asks, I take his wish as it were an order. That I serve, is my choice and not the result of an imposition on my free will.
As for your contention that you don't wish to pass judgment on me: Does that come with a shovel or do I have to supply my own?
The Master said " If you could understand the downfall of Lucifer,the iniquitous one, you would solemnly shun all forms of spiritual pride." ([Midwayer Commission] 163:6.6) Seraphic identity and its implied spiritual perfection constitute an obvious form of spiritual pride coming so loudly from an apparent mortal.
In fact, points such as the preceding one move me closer and closer to actually believeing in you as Caligastia. Consider the following analysis offered by the Urantia Book:
[Melchizedek] 66:8.1 In looking back over the long career of Caligastia, we find only one outstanding feature of his conduct that might have challenged attention; he was ultraindividualistic. He was inclined to take sides with almost every party of protest, and he was usually sympathetic with those who gave mild expression to implied criticism. We detect the early appearance of this tendency to be restless under authority, to mildly resent all forms of supervision. While slightly resentful of senior counsel and somewhat restive under superior authority, nonetheless, whenever a test had come, he had always proved loyal to the universe rulers and obedient to the mandates of the Constellation Fathers. No real fault was ever found in him up to the time of his shameful betrayal of Urantia.
Even more revealing is how you respond to criticism comparative to Caligastia's method for handling advice:
[Melchizedek] 66:8.2 It should be noted that both Lucifer and Caligastia had been patiently instructed and lovingly warned respecting their critical tendencies and the subtle development of their pride of self and its associated exaggeration of the feeling of self-importance. But all of these attempts to help had been misconstrued as unwarranted criticism and as unjustified interference with personal liberties. Both Caligastia and Lucifer judged their friendly advisers as being actuated by the very reprehensible motives which were beginning to dominate their own distorted thinking and misguided planning. They judged their unselfish advisers by their own evolving selfishness.
So speaks the loving universe who cares so much for her son's and daughters that they are abandoned upon prison worlds to forced labor while none from the universe come to tend to their needs.
I made my stand. I'll live with it too.
I can't speak for all of it, but your accusations of logical errors in the wake of your own occasional lack of logic speaks very loudly to me. I know the essential reason for my own onetime "spiritual pride:"
Which is it. You've accused me of having no logic to occasionally lacking logic. This strikes me as being a 'little' bit pregnant. Your opinions change from verse to verse. Their is no founding principle to your side of the equation. The one consistent thread is that you are the one indulgent in pride.
You have presumed to judge me and all Lanonandeks.
You presume to know Father's mind even though you have no direct intercourse with Him.
You presume to know Michael's mind even though you've had no meeting with Him.
You have selectively edited quotes to give false impressions. Those quotes when expanded to their entirety speak for themselves.
You have stated factual material you have not placed into evidence, my theological qualifications being but one, and propose your comments are true when they can't be.
You have elevated yourself to the position of speaking for all mankind in your discourse.
Now, you tell me. Which of us seems most given to the sin of pride?
I just did a quick scan on the rest of the text and find that there are of 1000 lines left. I find that it is more of the same and I'm not going to grant more time or effort than has already been committed.
The words speak for themselves and I leave it to the readers to decide for themselves what they make of it.
Peace Be With You
Caligastia, Lanonandek Son #9344, Second Order.