From: "Harry Lankford"
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 19:38:55 -0700

>Sir I find your complete outright notion of being the Caligastia persona to  be absurd. You cant quite think that UB readers will actually take you  serious!

A. Harry, we are all entitled to our opinions and you are no exception.I have no expectation that you, or anyone else, will 'believe' me or take me seriously. It is not my task, purpose or goal to get you to believe anything one way or another. I have put before yout he gift of truth and knowledge. Whether you accept it is your call.

> As for your stand in the Luciferian reb'lion cause, it is most BLASPHEMOUS on your part.

A. Blasphemy, by definition, is an offense against God or the Creator Son. Your application of the term to either Lucifer or the Rebellion is inappropriate.

>The universe of Nebadon is dictated by immutable laws. Such laws are recognized and should be enforced by competent,experienced, endowed superhumans. The UB's writting and as you state a
universal one at such clearly states that Lucifer took the position of challenging the universal sovereignty of Michael.

A. Lucifer did not EVER challenge the sovereignty of Michael over his universe. He DID challenge the universe and its bureaucracy. You may wish to 'believe' that challenging the universe was also a challenge to Michael, but this is only a belief not substantiated by any fact. Lucifer clearly stated his position.

>His argument was based on defending of our supposed " UNBRIDDLED " liberty. Do you SIR know what UNBRIDDLED liberty is defined as! that SIR is CHAOS.

A. I do not disagree with you that the implimentation of Luciferian Liberalism as a societal foundation is destructive. However, the point of mortality is not the establishment of perfect social orders but the First Cause and the ascendancy of man. To this point, liberalism works even though the social structures are chaotic. I would also point out to you that there is order within chaos. Your point, however, does establish the reason why the Son and I are within mortality - to keep the timeline from self destructing as a result of the deliberate application of the principles of chaos.

>And the UB teaches that act which is equivalent to SIN/INIQUITY to be contrary to universal

A. One might be reminded of Michael's comment 'judge not lest ye be judged'. Are you or anyone else competent to sit in judgement of me? I say not. Only Father Himself is of sufficient status. Futhermore, I have stood judgement before Him just as all men must stand judgement before the
tribunal of Earth's high ranking angels, Michael of Nebadon, Caligastia and Abaddon. The issue
of sin, in this instance, is a matter of opinion. The universe says I'm sinful - Father says not.
If nothing else, let it be said I keep good company.

>Lucifer's ( whether intentionally or so remains to be seen ) purpose would result in a devolving universe.

A. Consider this. All men must stand judgement before they are competent to have universal citizenship. So too, the universe must one day stand judgement on it's own ascendancy. Lucifer's task was to create that universal awakening. Lucifer is a perfect being. It is not possible for him to indulge in the behaviors you suggest. He is now and always been, a loyal son. That loyality,
however, is not to the universe, but to Father. I submit that what you deem to be deevolution IS IN FACT evolution.

>This SIR is NOT the purpose of the father. Nebadon's TIMELINE was activated by the Paradise son and consort to EVOLVE. Also the quality of personality of a paradise son is MORE apt to reflectivity of the father's will then a more DENSIFIED being of the lannanodek order. So I pose YOU the question SIR, who are we to believe one closer to MATTER origin, or one closer to SPIRIT origin. I think spirit. MIchael hails here, cant speak much for you.

A. I pose you a related question. "Whose words should have the greater weight, A dense Lanonandek or Man?"

Again, we are faced with the issue of perspective. Are you of sufficient evolutionary status that you can presume to pass judgement on not only my spiritual status but that of an entire race of angels?

I take no exception to your notation that Michael's timelime was and is active. I give voice to this fact several times in my web writings. The issue now becomes whether or not your knowledge of time and timelines is sufficient to infer rational and factual material from the knowledge of its existance.

For the record, I am not the Creator Son. I am a lord of the universe but I am not THE LORD of the universe. I acknowledge Michael as my regent and always have. Furthermore, I declare that we are together and cojoined in our purpose.

Finally, you might allow that one who claims to know Father's purpose on these points must
FIRST have stood before Him and had discourse to the point. As a matter of logic, one who has
not is of questionable competence to address the point. In the extreme, an argument could well
be made that said individual suffers from presumptuous arrogance.

As to what you choose to believe, I have no interest to indulge in these matters.

Thank you for your comments - Cal

From: "Harry Lankford"
Subject: Re: Lucifer's manifesto
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:56:47 -0700

> - You say that one is entitled to an opinion. I agree with this. It is our natural right to formulate ideas not apparent in supported data. However... And here's the catch, when such a person as yourself takes the position of posting his/her ideas on the net then you place yourself in a
situation where you fulfill a cosmic law of " Upon much is given much is required " You have the power to influence many. And since you took it upon yourself to excerise that power, much my dear is required of you. One requirement is open criticism. So I being an audience , put you thru the test of truth. And have every right at such. A flock always question their sheperd. " ask and you shall recieve. "

A. Harry,

My variant of your quote is 'Ask and you shall receive, don't and you won't'. The old saying (as long as we are indulging in trite quotations) of 'If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen' applies here as well. I'm a big kid and am well able to fend for myself. As to your idea that I have requirements to meet, I'd agree, but that relationship is between me and Father, not me and you. As previously stated, I've come to offer a gift. I am here and available for discourse. Whether I have an influence over others is not my call but that of the individual. While I disagree with your view of my 'responsibility' I will make this committment. I am amongst you to bring the truth before you and will do so to the best of my abillity.

>- Blashemy by definition is NOT an offense against personality, such as God or Creator son. It is OUTRIGHT severance from cosmic LAW. Universal LAW is applicable in any universe at any given time WITH or WITHOUT the presence of a God , Creator son or any personality. So LUCIFER is a BLASPHEMER. He forsook LAW over self. " UNBRIDDLENESS."

A. In California, they have laws against smoking in buildings. One third of the population (smokers) have been stripped of their citizenship and can not have an indoor job anywhere (unless they conform to the law). Businesses no longer have any say on what occurs on their property. They too
have been stripped of their property and ownership rights. A cartoon character, Joe Camel, is deemed injurious to kids, but the same system hands out condoms.

There are laws and then there are laws. In fact, the parallels between conditions in the United States and the Universe are not far removed. This timeline was structured to provide a microcasim of the universe so we could see the results of A, B, and C and how they would impact upon the universe. Things happen much more quickly within mortality than they do in a universal setting.

As to your comment about Lucifer, I again repeat, it is no less than presumtuous arrogance to make such a declaration. You are not informed of ALL the facts, and operate on the assumption that your opinions, and those of likewise uninformed universal bureaucrats, actually constitute fact. What you do have going here is a belief system not necessarily a reality system. It follows, as a matter of logic and reason, that your conclusions are quite likely in error.

To 'see' the Urantia Book in its correct and reasonable light, one must strip from it all opinion. Consider what it doesn't say. Unlike Satan, Lucifer did not run to the worlds of time and space to hide out and evade the universe. He stood his ground, offered his point of view and did so
unbendingly. As a perfect being, there are few who could incarcerate him. These are: any Creator Son (Michael did not), a few Trinity Sons, and Father. His is a soul that is equipped with great power and ability. Other than these few, you could send and army of angels to attempt incarceration and still not be successful. Yet, Lucifer offered no fight. He submitted to
the indignity of unjust incarceration and was upon Earth for nearly 2000 years within mortality. He was released persuant to Father's command. How can you dictate that he is a blasphemer when Father's actions clearly speak differently?

>- Michael innaugurated what you call the " bureaucracy " which is a system created to interpret, administer, and uphold cosmic law. Caste divinity is part of that " bureaucracy ." So the formula states : Michael = bureaucracy. Therefor... Lucifer challenges bureacracy = Lucifer challenges Michael.

This statement is incorrect. Michael inherited his universe from Immanuel, bureacrasy and all. Your logic is is akin to this. All bald men are thieves. All Bankers are Bald therefore all bankers are thieves. The logic fails because the originating premise is false.

Lucifer always acknowledged Michael as his sovereign. His challenge was to the universe. You choose to see an extention of the challenge to the universe as a personal assault upon Michael, that is your choice. However, MICHAEL IS SEPARATED FROM HIS UNIVERSE AND HAS BEEN SINCE HIS BESTOWAL. He has taken the reins of power and has been here incarnate upon the Earth since 29 A.D. This fact speaks volumes as to his intents and I'm sure it has disturbed the myriad of Michael watchers who speculate endlessly on his actions just as the press does so with celebrity figures here in the U.S.

The universe would be inclined to see things in your light. They have great incentive to do so. When a government worships the ritualisms of protocol over original thought, then they have elevated the law pastthose whom they were originally intended to serve. Such governments, in the extreme, become totalitarian in nature. One of the lessons of Earth that the universe has yet to learn is this equation, "Repression Breeds Violence". In the instant case it gave rise to the Rebellion and the situation is exacerbated by the fact that those who are the most repressive also give greatest voice to the fact their actions are based upon love, tolerance and compassion.

However, it is important to keep this in perspective. There are many within the universal bureacracy who are people of good heart and truly believe that protocol is the best way to operate. It is noteworthy that they also have no perspective as the universe has never allowed
experimentation with other methodologies. This experiment occurred on Earth and it is obvious the extremes I had to employ speak to the reality of the inflexibility of the systems.

>- The point of mortality is the DRIVE to establish perfect social orders which IS the first cause ( perfection ) and ascendancy ( Eventual  perfection of relative capacity .)

A. Perfection within mortality is impossible. Perfection does not exist even within the universe itself. It follows that if this is the First Cause, then your logical argument is for imperfection.

The rules here are simple.

The First Cause is the development of ascendant life who will ultimately be capable of joining with Father in the Seventh Dimension.

The Second Cause is 'Refer back to the First Cause"

This is the purpose of life - ALL LIFE.

> Timeline affords proceeds of the first cause ( perfect existential abode ) to eventuate into perfect abode thru the power of the supreme being; the experiencing God of time and space.
Mortality and time line go HAND in HAND.

A. I agree that the purpose of the First Cause is to strive to be more godly in personality. Time and space do go hand in hand, in as much, as your genetic structure has been deliberately designed to prevent you from physcial incursions into timeless regions you have not yet earned the privilege to enjoy.

>- The order within the CHOAS is the eventual fusion of ALL into ORDER ( Father ) . ALL UNIVERSES within, outside, and aside of timeline/ space continuum spiral towards this. That was the INITIAL purpose of the father, to " DRAW ALL MEN UNTO HIM. " But... Does that mean we condone the CHAOS ??? No we dont, we merely acknowledge , see and condemn it; An
obstacle to be OVERCOME.

A. Your quotation does not define who the 'We' is. I'll assume it is the opinion of one from universe. Let's be clear who I work for. My 'boss' is Father. While I am sorry that my actions have offended many , allegiance is always to Father. When Father's purpose comes into divergence with 'His' universe, my position will always be at Father's side.

Know that Father's Lamp of Truth no longer rests within the universe but is, instead, taken for safekeeping within the House of Caligastia. Here it will remain until the Universal Awakening is complete.

>- Caligastia is NOT in the timeline to sustain it. He is in it as a consequence. The will of the father is to sustain the timeline with LIGHT, and that is MICHAEL the upholder of that light. Caligastia is mere consequence of the ingrediences of the timeline. You see... Michael's purpose is ULTIMATE WILL, the will of GOD, Caligastia's is SELF WILL, the WILL of CHAOS.

A. If you review the opening graphic on the web site you will see a schematic detailing a flow chart of power (timeline). There is only one master timeline for everything - Father's. From the top of the six dimension, the beginning of creation, the Creator Son's timeline comes into being and encompasses all of his universe. Beneath the Son, other timelines are bestowed upon
worthy individual's as it suits the Son and the logic of purpose. He who possesses such a timeline is the ruler of that line. The timeline and the lifeline of the individual are one in the same.

Jesus said that no one can access The Father except through him. While this was a spiritual reality, it also is a physical fact of life. So too it is true that no one may access the universe except through me. This also, is a physical fact of life.

The universal comment that my self will is that of chaosimplies premise here is that chaos is bad. You have not delivered any statement of reason or logic that chaos is not, nor ever could be, Father's Will. If it is true that my will is the product of Father's will, it is also
true that the utilization of the Principles of Chaos are also His will. Again, we have universal opinion serving as a facade for Father. Clearly, as we maintain dimetrically opposite positions, only one of us is closer to Father's side than is the other.

>- Yes Michael did say Judge not lest ye be judge. But I didnt or would even think of JUDGING you. Officers of the court enforce judgment, magistrates precide judgment. I hold neither office. I only gave you a criticism :-)

I'm not so thin skinned that I can not take criticism, I would ask, however, that it be thoughtful criticism.<g>

>- Michael says your sinful,. The father doesnt say it. Yes that is true. However... The father gave " all JUDGMENT unto the son " The father doesnt sit in judgment over personalities. that is the job of timeline principalities. And Michael is the elite , entrusted with this mandate by
the order of days.

A. This statement is not factual. If you wish to pursue it, I suggest you include a detailed bibliography. However, Father may do as He wishes. Judgement and who performs it relates to the status (evolutionary moment) of the individual personality. One thing you might consider is that
before the creation of the universe's there was angelic life. Thus, there is a level of life outside and 'upon' of the universes. Who then rules this aspect of creation? Father does.

Regardless, Michael did not pass judgement where I am concerned, Father did. It was Father's suggestion to Michael that he issue an Order of Redemption so as to satisfy universal protocol. This
instruction was sent to the Archangel Gabriel (who as not particularly amused with its delivery).

>- Lucifer's task wasnt COMMISIONED by any preciding order of jurisdiction to awake any. If any he is the cause of many to slumber. Lucifer is perfect potential. Not PERFECT EXISTENTIAL. there is a difference Only orders from certain parts of the universe are created that way. And most of them are void of will.

A. It is true, Lucifer did not have a universal commission. Nor could he. The Urantia Book correctly cites that the universe is a 'need to know' society. Is it possible that a facilitation designed to create a universal awakening could be done with the knowledge of that universe? Clearly Not.
To this point Lucifer operated exparte from the universe. Your quotation again cites universal opinion. How convenient that the universe can cite itself as the beginning and end of Father's Will. I submit that Father Himself is the best author of his own will, not the universe.

As to Lucifer's state of perfection I say this. Not until you stand before him, Michael, Immanuel or Father can you ever possibly know what a highly elevated state of perfection is. Any attempt to describe it is the same as explaining color to a blind man, no perspective exists.

>- Lucifer is NOT loyal. To WHOM does he pledge loyality ?? Certainly not Michael, who calls him imfamous traitor to the order of brotherhood. So I ask you again , who does Lucifer pledge his allegiance to ????

A. Again, I answer, Father.

Michael was not in the loop at the outset of the rebellion, Immanuel was the defacto Creator Son. Michael  had not completed his bestowal and the authors of the rebellion, Lucifer, Immanuel and Father designed the timeline so that he would not be  advised until His awakening from morality in the event called  'The tempting on the mount'.

I arrived to be present at that moment and found Satan there for  his own poor purposes. Eventually, however, Michael and I met.  Then, and only then, did I provide him with the information that had  been withheld. I answered those questions that I had refused to answer for the universe. I made full disclosure and Michael confirmed these representations via discourse with Father.

A plan had already been mapped. He examined it, queried various  points and ultimately came to agreement. Thus he dove back into  mortality and, for the time being, turned his back upon the universe.

>- Neither man NOR a Lanonandek's word should have weight over the other. " Let God be true and EVERY man a liar " Only God prevails here. Beings  should speak INSPIRED words of God to be JUSTIFIED, and NOT words of self.

Harry, this is pure arrogance. Mankind is blessed with only 10% usage of  his brain versus a Lanonandek Seraphim who has considerably more. In ability  alone, there is no contest. Factor into the equation that this family of  angels was old when mankind first set foot upon this world. A logical being must give recognition to the ability and experience of this esteemed group.  Mankind can not even dream the status of being involved. Thus a representation  that the voice of man is equal to that of a full fledged angel is nothing less than folly.

HOWEVER!, We are cousins. We are both possessed of soul and our points  of existence are the same. Service to Father, To the Creator Son, and to each other. In this light, what we are, and the differences of evolutionary moment are academic for it is in this arena we are the same.

>- Question of competence can be applied to any noted being from the fleshly to the glorified spirit. No being is the PERFECT father, though they can be perfect as the father.

A. No argument here. Allow me this observation. You seem inclined towards
extremes. Competence relates to an individual's experience and thus their own evolutionary moment. Competence grows in direct proportion to the parts.


From: "Rev. Lou Siffer" <>
Organization: Luciferian Liberation Front, People's Temple, Free Urantia

>I have recently been the subject of much discussion on the mail lists that concern the Urantia Book and your web page has come to my attention through one of the correspondences I have received. I am intrigued by your claims to channel Caligastia but am also alerted to your
inaccuracies in the current situation concerning the Lucifer Rebellion.

A. Rev. Siffer, I do not make a claim to channel Caligastia. I AM Caligastia. I make no claim to the point, I state it as a fact.

> Lucifer does not avow the loyalties to Father that you claim. I have a background that parallels your story in many aspects, particularly concerning abductions and "enlightenment" and only desire to prevent your being deceived by the custodians who have been directing you. The
Universal Father is a lie. I can assure you that Lucifer stands for this one truth above any other. Based on this truth the structure of authority in the supergovernment is also a lie. If you would care to expound on what has lead you to feel that Lucifer would remain loyal to this lie, I would be open to dialogue. The lines of communication between circuits are not as disabled as some would believe. Lucifer is indeed awake.

A. Lou, your correspondence well reflects the relationships between soul and anti-soul. You seem to have a bone to pick with the Urantia foundation. I have no ax to grind with them or with you.

Those who protest against a thing, in the manner represented in your writing, are inextricably tied to the object they protest against. In ascendancy terms, those who are of the anti-soul position are
welded to those who take the soul position. As such, the possibility for ascendance exists for the anti-soul as it must, to insure its very existence, stay connected to its opposing counter part.

I'd suggest that you compare the writing style of the Lucifer Manifesto, a document that, while authored by a universal functionary, was actually copied from other writings. You will note the writing style is mine. Furthermore, if you compare it to the writings of Martin Luther, you
will make the same discovery.

Lucifer gave voice to many who had no voice. His words reflected the prevailing beliefs of those who did not possess sufficient evolutionary moment to stand before Father. The writing style of the Urantia is a common universal form. While it may give one impression, what it actually says is a different matter. So too it is with third party translations of Lucifer's actions. Unless you are possessed of an actual transcript of his verbal battles with Gabriel, one is left only the ability to
speculate. I was not on Jerusem for these events and can not speak to them directly. As a matter of logic, it is a poor practice to take the 3rd or 4th hand effort of an individual and elevate it in the manner presented. Of course, if you are only interested in beliefs without benefit of reality, the practice will stand for what it is.

I have stood before Father. He exists. Lucifer is a very dear and beloved friend. I have seen him 'in the skin' in life and I have spoken with him since his repersonalization.

As to the issue of lies. Lucifer himself is incapable to telling one. Thus the issues of transcripts becomes central. Be this as it may, on the subject of Lucifer's loyalty, I would point to the logic
of purpose. You don't create a thing unless there is a reason to do so.

There is a difference between manipulation and facilitation. The former is performed, usually, as an act of self engrandisement while the later is done for purpose. Many have sacrificed and suffered much to bring the the universe to this awakening, not the least of whom has been Lucifer
although you'd never hear him give voice to this reality. Lucifer has no delusions of godhood. He was a great personality before the rebellion and he is so after it. His act of submission to incarceration speaks much to his intent. What good purpose would be served in the destruction
of a universe? None! Lanonandeks are slaves to the logic of purpose. It is what we are. The Urantia Book correctly notates that Lucifer always acknowledged Michael as his regent. How can an individual who is bent on destroying the fabric of a universe give voice to Michael?
Satan hasn't. Nor have the eleven princes who remain in rebellion. Yet, Lucifer did and did so from the beginning. These facts lend weight to the proposition that a facilitation was/is in progress.

Finally, I am not the object of anyone's direction or influence. I stand on my own as I always have. No one has a leash on me nor ever will.

Thank you for your thoughts.


From: "Eric Bedenbaugh" <>
Subject: Eden
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 16:50:26 -0400

>Dear Cal,
I don't require any proof from as being who you say you are. I only have one question that you should be able to easily answer. Where can the wall of the second garden of Eden be found (and please don't say under the sand)? Exact latitude and longitude woul be very helpful. Before you
answer keep be informed I have the ability economically to sponser such a venture (and one day plan to), but I need to know where to dig. I'm not seeking a miracle, just a simple fact.


A. Your simple fact would, for you, be a miracle. The place you seek no longer exists and has not for a long time. Granted, there may be a stone here or there, but nothing that would allow you to prove your proposition. Furthermore, you are hampered seriously by the limitations of carbon dating. Many of the Mayan structures are more than 200,000 years old. In Southern Africa there are stone structures at are from the first timeline, over 500,000 years old. It follows that it serves
no purpose to provide the information requested and I doubt that I would even if the facts were different. It is not my goal or purpose to promote or lend support to money making ventures when the issue is ascendancy.

However, it has been my plan to return to various cultures, artifacts that have meaning to the descendants of those peoples. For the Jews the return of the Ark of the Covenant, for the French, artifacts from Charlemagne, for the Asian continent, personal possessions of  Genghis Khan , for the British - Excaliber and so on. When comes the time for these events, various forms of evidence and proofs will be laid before the world.

I'm sorry to have to decline your request.


 From - Fri Sep 26 11:01:47 1997
From: "Eric Bedenbaugh" <>
Subject: Eden Again
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:18:14 -0400

>Dear Cal,
No, it would not be a miracle to me, but a short cut. I believed this goal to be attainable by completely human means. But you could save me a lot of time and money by providing me with a location to begin searching. I'm not looking for Eden itself but the wall (I believe it was 58 miles long) that ran between the Tigris and Euphrates that was built by Adam. The sand should have perseved it fairly well and carbon dating would be irrelevant. If we find remnants of a fiftyeight mile long wall, then that's it. You providing the location, since you were there, is no different than me providing you directions to Fayetteville, Tennessee. You are making extraordinary claims, I am asking for ordinary information.

Thanks again,

Eric Bedenbaugh

A: Erik

I answered this privately, but will do so again publicly. The question of intent is present. Your comment re: extraordinary claims indicates a challenge to 'prove up' in a manner that would be personally engrandising to you. You also mention the subject of money several times. Ergo, you
are involved in a for profit venture. As previously stated, my position on money issues is one of non involvement.

However, be this as it may, you might wish to contact Nasa and get copies of their DEM imaging and/or ground radar satellite work. Either of these tools would be helpful in locating the area of your interest. These images were successful in identifying ancient trails in Peru. You also should
consider the probability that local tribes scavenged these building materials for other purposes
long ago.

Regardless, my efforts here are on ascendancy issues, not profit making ventures.

Best wishes in your endeavors,


From - Fri Sep 26 11:01:49 1997
Return-Path: <>
Subject: HTML page errors

>:You have an error on your main page:
<IMG SRC="caligast.cgi" >
Plus your mailback does not work - please retest.
You have other minor errors on this page:

A. Thank you, I'll take a look at the web counter.

<<This book is the only of its kind on Earth.>>
There are other *books* of this kind on Earth/Urantia/3rd planet.

A. There are many many books addressing ascendancy and historical issues. However, the Urantia Book is unique in many regards, not the least of which is that it correctly identifys the players, and puts forth the schematic of the universal bureaucracy in considerable detail. The volume of information contained in the UB can not be found in any other single place. I will agree with you, that bits and pieces show up in many other areas, no one has a monopoly on the truth,
yet, the UB is unique in this regard. I stand by my comment.

><<The book is written in three parts.>>
The Urantia Book is divided into four main parts and written by many personalities.

A. You don't state the fourth part. I see three. Book of Life, The Lucifer Rebellion and the life of Christ.

><<The UB states that Machieventa Melchezidek was installed as the Vice Regent Planetary Prince.>>

The Urantia Book states p. 1025
Machiventa continued as a planetary receiver up to the times of the triumphs of Michael on Urantia. Subsequently, he was attached to the Urantia service on Jerusem as one of the four and twenty directors, only just recntly having been elevated to the position of personal ambassador on Jerusem of the Creator Son, bearing the title Vicegerent Planetary Prince of Urantia.

Recent rulings handed down from the Most Highes of Edentia, and later confirmed by the Ancients of Days of Uversa, strongly suggest that this bestowal Melchizedek is destined to take the place of the fallen Planetary Prince, Caligastaia.

If our (the Melchizideks of Nebadon) conjectures are correct, it is altogether possible that Machiventa Melchizedek may again appear in person on Urantia and in some modified manner resume the role of the dethroned Planetary Prince, or else appear on earth to function as vicegerent Planetary Prince representing Christ Michael, who now actually holds the title of
Planetary Prince of Urantia.

A. Here you well highlight my point. The universe may make as many rulings and declarations as it wishes. Mac's 'Vice' position makes him subordinate. The universe had not the power (per protocol) to try me for a non existant crime (secession). You may wish to elevate speculations to the the level of actual fact but I submit that it is a poor logical practice and one that can only result in misunderstandings and delusions. Consider the comment that in the event of a rebellion, the planetary prince can be deposed and is replaced by a Melchezidek. This is true, yet I was not
deposed. Granted it ranked high on the universal wish list. They can offer all of their opinions to the point, but no amount of speculation addresses the point. I have not been deposed nor will I be.

Machiventa has been in contact with me. In an early encounter I made a comment in jest, "You know, I haven't had a pay check in a while". His reply was, "You don't deserve a pay check". Mac was taken aback that I could actually hear his comments without the person who was providing
the channel.

Mac is, what in Earth terms would be, my former father in law. He bore (bears) great affection for me. The declaration of secession caused much personal suffering for him. He has been on my heals from day one of this event. The need to know aspect of this mission was such that the universe could not have knowledge of it. Only those who had an actual need to know and then only to the degree that served purpose. I have conveyed to him my sorrow that this had to be this way and that he was injured as a result of his affection for me. He understands now as the knowledge of the awakening has made itself obvious to the universe.

>There are other errors....
There are errors on this page:
Lanonandek sons are not angels.

A. I would very much like to see your bibliography to this point. The Lanonadek's ARE a race of angels. Clearly one of us is in error. I stand by my original declaration.

>Thoth is/was a Melchizedek.

My comment stands as written. Our base at Memphis and the identity of Thoth is mine. I am not a Melchezidek.

>I AM THAT I AM is the designation from pre-hebrew for YHWH - the first source and center.

*I am what I am*
is not the same as
Yod Hey Vod Hey

A. This reflects common understanding of what the words mean. I am what I am is a very old universal expression. It means many things. What we ARE is vastly more important than what we have or acquire. Thus personal possessions, money and the like are of no importance. Our evolutionary momentum towards ascendancy is the ONLY thing that is relevant.

When Moses asked me, 'who should I say I've been talking to' (paraphase) I said, I am what I am. Translated it means, "What you see is what you get". Moses saw a god. As to your comment of 'I am that I am', I say this. I was there, I know what I said. Given the myriad of mistranslations
and errors that have crept in due to the passage of time, you might allow, as a matter of logic, the the misposition of one letter is quite likely. This is also true due to the quirks of the Hebrew

>There are more errors...
<<six existent universes>>

According to the Universal Censor hailing from Uversa there are seven superuniverses
and 7,000 local universes and the Paradise-Havona spheres There are more errors...
I have run out of time:)) Polara Just another traveler from the polar star

A. There are six universes ruled by six Creator Sons. There are/were six spokes on Father's Eye, the point of power from which creation is formed as represented in the graphical image of the Star of David. The myriad of subdivisions, and the extreme degree of compartmentalization is irrelevant to the basic point. However, this does show one of the basic differences betweeen a Lanonandek and a Melchezidek. Ask me the time and I'll tell you. Ask a Melchezidek and he'll tell you how to
build a clock. The Melchezideks are the universal teachers and the over organization and micromangement of everything reflects well the mind of the average Melchezidek. This is not a criticism of my esteemed brothers, yet it is a factual representation.

The Lanonandek, on the other hand, leans more towards 'how do I get this job done in the quickest and most efficient way possible'. Consequently, I adhere to the KISS rule, Keep it simple stupid. It is a practical and pragmatic approach.

Finally, as to your determination of 'error'. I see none. What I do see is a listing of unsubstantiated opinions and your indiviudal 'judgement' of error without benefit of support. It matters not if the
opinion is passed second hand from a urantia writing or not. I'd suggest a re-reading of the UB wherein you strip opinions from the words and examine the factual material for what it is.


From - Fri Sep 26 11:01:50 1997
From: Christian Eric Wellerding <>
Organization: The Ohio State University

1. The Urantia Book specifically discounts reincarnation, but you have said that each mortal is granted 500, 000 years of mortal time to succeed in their evolutionary career. Am I just misunderstanding something?

A. Actually, the maximum time frame is 500,000 years, but as a practical matter it works out to less. In the beginning of a timeline you do not have huge numbers of people, thus the injunction 'Go Forth and Multiply'. A planet has a finite number of souls allocated to it at the inception of the timeline. As the numbers of physical bodies increase, so does the opportunity for those waiting in the Hall of Souls to find their entry and reentry points into life.

As for an 'evolutionary career'. Earth is an entry level position. This is where it begins. What you have to achieve here is minimal compared to the greater scheme of things.

On the UB I'd like to say that I haven't read much of it. I've mostly ignored the first part as a rehash of material I thought dull before and find no better now. This is a personal preference, others will find it very interesting. I did read all of the Life of Christ and most of the material on the rebellion. In truth, I'd have been content never to have had the book at all except that Daligastia
was on me constantly to 'go buy the book'. Finally, to silence her, I did buy it. Imagine my chagrin when I discovered that she actually wanted me to read some of it too.

2. When did you realize that you were Caligastia?

A. Midway through 1994. Upon attaining awareness, I called the Archangels Raphael, Gabriel, Michael and Uriel. In these meeting, Raph and Uri were as they always are, real sweethearts. Michael was non commital and Gabriel was, as might be expected, GLARING. This became my official 'knock' on the door that was to open. Also, at the same time, I approached by 'alien' times, and the efforts towards alien abductions increase a hundred fold. To say there were few dull moments at my house would be an understatement.

3. The Urantia Book says that the War in Heaven was past, that it happened at the onset of the Lucifer Rebellion. You say that it is to come....

A. The UB correctly calls the war of words between Lucifer and Gabriel the War in Heaven. However, there is a real physical war to come. One that the universe, in abject arrogance, could not imagine much less foresee. Twenty Eight of the rebellion princes have disassociated themselves with the rebellion and reassociated themselves with me. I put before them this question. "Do you kill your Father because your Mother has become a whore?" These princes, while unwilling to return
to the corruption of protocols DO NOT wish to engage their mother in physical warfare. The remaining eleven are not so inclined. Thus a real war comes. Revelation gives it voice, "Michael and his angels fight Satan and his angels and Satan prevails not". Yet, you need to realize that Revelation  is written in the past tense but about events that are yet to come. This reflects the reality that this time is known to at least one, Father and for Him this is a past event. The perspective of time placement here is important.

4. The Urantia Book says that you were offered mercy by Michael. You make it sound like you never rebelled, that you were secretly plotting with Michael towards some universal awakening(?). What really is the story?

A. Michael was out of the original loop on this and was not brought inside until his awakening. I never declared rebellion. I stated secession. The saving grace of the move was that no one had ever just seceded before and there was not law (protocol) against. The universe 'believed' I had rebelled. The rebellion 'believed' I was one of their number. Their beliefs were based upon poor assumptions.

Today the Rebellion 11 are manical in their hatred of me. The consider me a traitor. Yet, one can not betray what one has never give voice to. This presented a real and present danger to the mortality of myself and my son. Thus we left Los Angeles and moved to a rural setting in
Southern Colorado where we live under the protection of the Midwayers and their associates.

The universe also has no easy road where I am concerned. They are wary. They suspect that I will let the universe and the rebellion fight it out and then come in as a wild card to seize control viz a viz conquering the winning party. They have no real idea of our local assets and are concerned.

My position is clearly stated. My first and only allegiance is to Father and those who stand with Him. This will never change.

5. What is the real purpose of the web page? I noticed it was a commercial site.

A. The web is intended as a informational source. The Internet is one of the few areas of communication that is not subject to outside manipulation or interference. It is also global in structure and allows for planetary discourse. My choice of making it a commercial site was
to have access to the virtual domain name of my choosing. This is not a place where merchants can gather to make money.

6. You said that Michael inheritted the universe from Immanuel, but the UB says that he is the creator.

Michael is the Creator Son. One who is empowered with the ability to have creative license. Your comment about Michael creating the universe could be best answered if you provided the exact words from the UB rather than paraphrasing.

7. You said that Michael has been on earth since his incarnation, but the UB says that he returned to heaven and finished the ascension career of a mortal and then returned to his throne.

A. Heaven, defined, the seventh dimension, with Father. Thus not with the universe. Michael's 'throne' is whereever Michael IS. It's not a place, he IS the place. The universe says many engradising things about Michael giving just recognition to Him. He is The Son of God and entitled to diety worship as well. However, it is easy to get misplaced in the verbage.

Michael gave an order of non interference with the rebellion prior to his sojourn here as Jesus. That order has not been recinded. Further, the speculations of the universe, the inaction against me, and many other factors that allude to universal impotence in the matter all say the same thing. Either Michael isn't there to give the order or he is there and doesn't wish to. Were he there, he would be what he is, a ruler. Logic demands examination of the fact that he probably isn't there.

Further, he has had three Messianic incarnations on Earth, Jesus, Mohammed and Quezequadal. All three performed miracles. All three physcially ascended. At least two promised to return in the flesh. The logical support here is obvious and further examination would provide interesting insights.
However, I need no such research for I am with him and he is with me. Such is the daily blessing granted me.

8. You talk about timelines as if they are individual dimensions or something (I'm really not sure, actually), but the Urantia Book says that time is only a result of being confined to space bodies and our perspective from these mortal shells. Timelines are not absolute, but relative.

A. Agreed, no timeline is absolute and it should be known that Murphy's Laws were written on universal stationary. This is why the Son and I are in life, to keep the line stable.

The UB also is correct that the purpose of time is to keep man incarcerated within the skin suit until such time as you earn ascendancy. You have only 10 to 15% usage of your brain. If you had more, you'd be able to employ the power and ability of your soul to leave this place at will. Time is a fiction akin to a virtual reality. My timeline does not become a reality until that moment I interface with Michael and he adopts this line as his own. Then, and only then, is the ascendancy of man assured. Then it becomes a reality.

9. A particularly revealing statement you make is that mankind can only use %10 of their brain. This betrays your mortal perspective and discredits your claim as to your existence as Caligastia. %10 is the only part that our present technologies can detect. God wouldn't have given us a full brain if we couldn't use all of it while we had it.

A. I am man AND I am Caligastia. I exist now with a duality. One that lives in both realities. The greatest ability any of us, angel or man, possess is within the inherant power that rests within the soul. It is not an empty container, it is a piece of Father. With it comes, with awareness and training, the facitility to use aspects of Father for good purpose.

Further, the purpose of showing the genetic alterations and the photo graphs was to imply that I now possess greater access and utility viz a viz my brain. Your brain is being used. Ten percent is given to consciousness, the balance is a storage room for the soul. I'd submit, that as a matter of logic, if you wish to indulge in public comment to Father's intents, it would be best to have discourse with him first.

I have used a simple test to track the increase in mental functions. There is a computerized game called FreeCell. It is an easy game to play but difficult to win with consistency. I have, so far, won 26 straight games on it. The winning numbers have increased over a period of time. I have no idea how other people do with this game, but relative to me, the graph keeps going up. Take it for what its worth.

10. Even more so, you say that Lanonandeks can use sufficently more of their brain. Brain? These are not mortals...

A. Lanonandeks are angels. The amount of one's brain that is accessible relates to their status. Abaddon, for example, has 90% conscious usage of his brain with only 10% allocated as soul storage. It also means that he has greater access to the utility of his soul. The 'skin suits'
we were supplied on our arrival on Earth serves the purpose of allowing easy interdimensional intercourse between 4 and 3. The genetics of these bodies reflect the status of the soul inhabiting it.

11. Do you believe all of the Urantia Book?

The UB is not a book that I would care to indulge into a belief system. I believe in Father. I believe in his Son. Yet, I have the distinct advantage of being able to have personal intercourse with them. For me, it takes no monumental leap of faith to establish a position based upon knowing.

As a source of factual material, IF you make the allowance that it is riddled with unsubstantiated opinion, is a place where a person can learn details about the structure of the universe and perhaps even the mind of God. The later if he is willing to look carefully and think with an ordered
and logical mind.

For me, it is not an object of belief. However, we must also note that others who are possessed of a different evolutionary moment would find it useful as a belief system. If the UB serves to bring one close to God, use it.

12. Do you believe the Book of Revelation? Specifically, the anti-christ.

A. There are many anti-christs. Yet, some poor materials tend to rise to the surface and there will be one who surfaces above the others.The issue here is between soul and anti-soul, Christ and anti-Christ.

I don't feel that Revelation is an object for 'belief'. The God personalities ARE suitable for belief. Revelation is a writing that is properly positioned to bring an understanding. This is why Father placed it here.

13. What's the agenda? (maybe related to #) Are you really involved in a conspiracy to equate UFOs with angels and the Urantia Book, to discredit monotheism, and to glorify yourself? Please answer honestly, so help you God.

A. Wow, what a mouthful. The UB does not support monotheism. We have God the Father and God the Son. Count them (2). Further, the Christ Spirit influence of the Creator Son (The Holy Spirit) registers as (3). Forming the trinity.

As to a conspiracy, I haven't a clue who I'd be conspiring with. If it is true, then I am a co-conspirasist with Father and Michael. However, I hardly see myself in that light. I am set here for good purpose that His will be done upon the Earth and within the universe. If that's
a conspiracy, I can live with it.

As to the relationships of ufos:

I don't get excited when I drive a Toyota. It's a tool, it serves a purpose. That the universe uses these tools is a matter of practicality. I get no 'charge' from the subject any more than I'd get excited by a screwdriver. While the UB does give recognition that we can come and go from the planet at will, it does not say how. The Midwayers, for example, are possessed of the technology, but persuant to my instructions have stayed put on earth.

I run the risk here of getting fouled in poor traps. Since the 40's, when the alien abduction scenerio began, the implanted message has been, "Don't Look, Don't Know, Don't Tell". This produced the results wherein you have people laughing and indulging of programs of ridicule against those who gave voice to their experiences. Further, there are those who are mentally unstable who gravitate to this subject matter. Whether this instability is a product of trauma following abduction or not is irrelevant. Clear and careful perspective needs to be maintained on this subject.

Relative to the UB, Angels are, by definition, ET's.

Am I indulging in self engrandisement or building up a poor ego?

My ego was already massive before these things began. If anything, the transition to Cal has been a humbling experience.

Am I after financial gain?

Jesus 'owned', 2 robes, three loin cloths, one pair of sandles, a cloak, a bowl, a spoon, and a knife. Equipped only with this, He changed the world. The lesson here is that those who come from universe with godly intent will not ask anything from you. We are here to give, not take. We are
not merchants who barter ascendancy.

>Well, not to sound close-minded or anything, but I can't believe that you are Caligastia. For one, I found myself experiencing some of the same delusions just before I stumbled on the Urantia Book. For a while, I toyed with the idea that I was "the devil" incarnate as a mortal. These feelings were due, in part, to feelings of overimportance.

As you wish. I can't speak to your experiences as I was not a participant in them. I am what I am regardless of anyone's belief and I have no intention to attempt to persuade you otherwise. Tolerance demands acceptance that this is your evolutionary moment.

>No offense, but I think you may be experiencing the same thing. I point out the fact that you claim to have been some of the most famous historical personalities. This claim is in direct conflict with the Urantia Book teachings. We are only subject to one mortal lifetime; don't you think that one is enough? Even if reincarnation was a possibility (which is what I thought when I had these feelings of overimportance), the personalities you listed are very different in character and nature. There is no way that I can perceive Ben Franklin, Martin Luther, and Ghengis Kahn hailing from the same soul. It doesn't fit at all.

I take no offense. You need to consider that the sum of the parts can not be greater than the whole. Doing so in light of the logic of purpose you may may be surprised. We have a war coming to the universe. This is a place wherein there has never been a war. Where then can they go
to get their experience. Only upon the Earth has war ever been considered an Art Form. As Khan and Robert E. Lee, I gained much military 'experience'. As Luther, that part of me that gave voice to the spiritual corruptions of the Catholic Church at the time and caused me to secede, is not that
different from the instant situation with the universe. As Franklin, my abilities as a statesman and a scientist came to the forefront. Abilites that MUST be present in one who is to be a planetary prince. If you do a comparison to my writing style against that of Martin Luther, I think you'll be in for a big surprise.

>The internet is a big place, and it is natural to want to seek out a name for one's self to differentiate you from all the other people screaming their opinions. Personally, I don't think it is healthy (claiming to be the devil) and I urge you to reconsider your beliefs. I suppose it is possible that you are Caligastia, but I still find fault and untruth in your words; so I plead with you (as Caligastia) to humble yourself and submit to Michael, the Father, and the laws of the universe.

A. I am not making a claim to being the devil. For starters it is a poorly used word. It's universal intent is to describe one 'they' consider to be lower then whale poop. There is no single individual devil.

As to your judgement and pleadings, I submit that you have not conquered you leanings towards self importance. Your query has been presented in the guise of one seeking factual material but now we come to the point of it all, your beliefs and opinions. Which of us is being dishonest?

I reject your judgement and analysis, but would be well pleased to accept your prayers.

May Father's Blessing Be With You Always.


 From - Fri Sep 26 19:08:53 1997
From: Christian Eric Wellerding <>

I found something else in your papers that confused me:

>1. You say that the Star of David is a graphical representation of the Father's Eye. This seems incorrect or it is just your individual interpretation. The Star of David represents the Quest for Knowledge (the triangle going up) and Divine Revelation (the down-pointing triangle).

A. Christian,

Your style of query is not logical. You SAY The Star of David means this or that - to whom? What is the source of your belief? Is this what it means to the universe, to me, to the Jews - to WHOM? Logic demands that the foundation for your premise be laid before I can address an appropriate and logical answer.

You may read many things into Father's Eye if you wish. At it's very minimum, it is the beginning point, the power field that enables the realities we live within. It sits at the roof of the six dimension.
Currently there are six spokes to the eye reflecting that each empowers one universe. The seventh universe is currently ready for occupancy and as universes are created two at a time, the eye will next have eight spokes. Beyond this your query will need to be structured with more precision.

>The more I read, the more I suspect that you haven't entirely read the Urantia Book and that, although you may sincerely believe your identity, you are not really the fallen Prince of Urantia.

A. Your comment here betrays an existing bias.

First, you are quite correct and I have given admittance to the fact that I have not read all of the Urantia nor do I intend to. When I was much younger and had to sit through the Book of Life chapters that constitute a third of the UB, I longed for the ability to go to sleep and not have to
deal with it. At this late date, I have no desire or intention to endure it again. To this degree you are right.

You are also correct that I am not the fallen Prince of Urantia. I am not fallen, never have been and never will be. Universal opinion is an irrelevancy, in as much, as their words and opinions are based upon ignorance of the facts. Furthermore, the writings in the UB give repeated admittance to the fact they 'THEY DON'T KNOW'. In light of the fact that those you quote say the equivalent of, "Listen Folks, we know we're blowing smoke, that we really don't know what Caligastia is doing BUT WE ARE PRETTY DAMNED CERTAIN, that he's a bad guy up to no good", it serves
no purpose to elevate this admitted ignorance to the level of a reality. The Only Truth present
is the fact that they didn't know and I wouldn't say. Futhermore, if one is to imploy this poor
logical methodology, I'd greatly appreciate the opportunity of also selling you the Brooklyn Bridge or some prime swamp land in Florida. I could have a lot of fun<g>

>I keep finding these inconsistencies and that undeniable mortal perspective. Are you really
sure you're Caligastia, or do you think that your life experiences imply some other destiny? Has anyone really come to you and told you that you are Caligastia or is this your own conclusion?

A. The inconsistencies you quote are the result of poor logical methodology on your part. You accept the words of people who say they don't really know as the founding principles of your premise and then assume that my words should line up and be in sync with their ignorance. If your
premise is false, it follows that your conclusions will be as well.

A. Yes. I have had a number of people come to me. From universe, from the rebellion and from Earth. You see, my demands for proof exceed your own as I choose to work with stable methodologies. Consider that I am one of 3 people who have undergone medically impossible genetic restructuring. That which is the visible portion of this change defies the knowledge of
current medical norms. It doesn't mean that I'm Caligastia, but it does mean that I am different from you. Further, there are a vast number of changes that are not visible.
However, if you are uncertain, I think it wise that you ask. Machieventa Melchezidek is a good starting point. You need to accept one point, I neither gain nor lose anything if you
belief me or not. Ergo, I am not selling.

>I'm only curious; I don't mean to henpeck or attack your beliefs. I seriuosly want the Truth.
I mean, some of what you say resonates with Truth, but other items reveal misinformation and hidden motives. This is only an observation.

A. If you wish the truth, you need first to be open to it. I am not here to confirm or deny any one individual's belief systems or bias'. I do not charge anything for access to this web site, and I won't allow advertising on it. This is not a gathering place for merchants. The most you will ever be able to allege is that I am deluded or mad. Fortunately, I have undergone standard testing to the point of mental stability three times and rate within normal limits. Ergo, I am neither mentally ill or
possessed of personality disorders. The Holmsian logic then applies,

'Once you've eliminated the obvious, that which remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth'.

Whether you're willing to accept it is your call.


 From: VLM
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 12:40:02 -0400 (EDT)

>What I'm wondering about is probably not important at all in the overall scheme of things. I'm just curious as to how things work. I'm curious about the nuts and bolts operations of how you live here, on earth (Urantia), apparently more or less continuously for a period of time (millenia?) which
would be far beyond the capacity of one human body to last. I remember you mentioning Maritn Luther, among others---are you born into a human body and raised from a baby, to discover your identity? Does it become progressively easier to discover your identity each time? What happens to you between bodies? Do you ever get tired of being on this planet? Do you have access
to information other than the usual channels of information the rest of us have? Are you free to engage in "out-of-body" experience or travel of that sort more or less at will? Is all this covered in some of the other subject listings on your web page? (I haven't read all of them.) Are you on the
e-mail mailing list Urantial? (I used to be but am not any more.)

A. I come to life the same way you do. A soul is attached to the brain of a child near the time of birth. In between life times, I return to the Hall of Souls and await the next birth opportunity. I have been engaged in rapid fire incarnations since 29 A.D. What we are, our personality shows through in each life time. However, I have awakened to myself only in the last three lifetimes. This, my current life, is my last upon the Earth.

Yes, I do have access to information not readily available to the mortal soul. The disemination of this information is the purpose of the web site. What you call out of body travel is called bi-location, the ability to separate one's soul from their physical form and to engage in the realities of ultradimensional intercourse. Yes, I possess this ability. I've avoided discussing myself in detail as I am not the point or purpose of the web site. I've allowed that there are those who may have questions that are beyond the limits of the writings and thus the purpose of the question
and answer section. No, I have no formal relationship with the Urantia Foundation.

>You also said,"If one is to understand the Urantia Book, effort must be made to strip opinion from it and then apply logical methods to that which remains. It's a basically good book with a lot
to offer."

I agree. I came as a clean slate to the Urantia Book. I see many influences at work among its individual readers. I agree with some (of those influences) and disagree with others. I'm usually able to remember that everyone has a right to his or her own opinion, and I don't have to take a
difference of opinion as a personal attack. I appreciate the way you respond quietly and matter-of-factly to people who seem to be attacking you because their opinions are different.

Again, thank you for replying. Please let me know if you post answers to my questions to the page, so I can go look for them, although I would enjoy hearing from you directly.

Live Well and Be Happy.

In Love and Service,

A. Free will dictates that all have the liberty to indulge in their own evolutionary moment. One of the points that many Urantia readers miss and the universe, in general ,ignores is that disobedience IS regarded by Father as evolutionary. If Father wanted mind numbed robots to serve as machines,
he would not have blessed us with the ability to say NO! In my dealings with Father, I have never heard him issue an order. He asks for what he wishes of us. Implied is the reality that we always have the ability to say no. For myself, when Father asks, I take it as an order. This, however,
is my choice and a reflection of only my views.

Thank you for your kind words, they are appreciated.


From - Mon Sep 29 12:48:21 1997
Return-Path: <>

>A closed mind is a dying art.

I suggest the *Keys of Enoch* as a Urantia Book Volume Two. In the *Keys* you will find a discussion of the Lucifer *event* from a very different point of view.

Enjoy the read!

With an open heart and an open mind for the highest goodhere, there, and everywhen

A. Polara:
Thanks for your suggestion but I'm afraid I neither can nor wish to indulge in such reading.
The reasons are twofold. First, I spend many hours in front of computer terminals and the last thing
I wish to do with my free time is to do more reading. The Second is practical in nature. At the beginning of the awakening I deemed it judicious not to read the writings of others lest I run the risk of inadvertantly incorporating  their ideas into my own. In my historical researches I've read only portions of a few books, an encylopedia, Butler's Lives of the Saints, portions of the Urantia Book, a smattering of material picked up viz a viz television and a Bible. Beyond these influences, the material I discuss is my own derived from my own resources. I think it best to keep this
methodology in place.

As a matter of trivia, The Keys of Enoch were recommended to me by a Nordic who was attempting to pass himself off as a guru of ascendancy. It must be an interesting book. <g>

 From - Wed Oct 01 13:39:28 1997


>Sorry, but I was actually quoting the UB when I used the phrase "nefarious designs." I didn't mean it as a personal insult or anything.

A. I wasn't insulted. I've long held the belief that its better for me to make up my own mind rather than to accept the opinions of others who may not be sufficiently informed.

>Also, to answer the end of your first response, I am entitled to my opinion in the same way that you feel entitled to yours. I mean, seceding from the universe is a lot bigger than just telling someone that you're not sure if you can believe all of what they say and that you find fault with it. I am seeking knowledge and I did not mean to disguise my opinions. My opinions explain why I'm asking you these questions, and I don't think my comments implied any feelings of over importance. I haven't made any claims to
divinity and I'm not the one broadcasting our dialogue to the internet (-not that I entirely mind, but it would seem a bit more "professional" if you left the questions and answers, and dropped the names, like a FAQ or something.).

A. As stated on index.htm, I will not post public responses if requested. And have removed your identifiers pursuant to your request.

If you've read my comments on the reasons for the secession, you'll note, that man is the prime beneficiary of the action. Were it not for the genetic upgrades you receive pursuant to the freedoms caused by the secession, your IQ would be akin to Neanderthal Man. This is not intended to be insulting, but it is an accurate statement of fact.

>I do not wish to engage in personal attacks, but I do want to question the authenticity of what you are claiming on your web page. I don't ever mean to sound offensive, but I guess when I go about questioning your whole identity...I can see why you'd become defensive.

A. I would be sorely disappointed if you didn't question my representations. However, I do not make claim to anything. I'm neither selling nor have any personal stake in whether your accept or not. I state the fact as it is. What you do with it after that is up to you. As for being defensive, I don't see myself  in that light.

>In a short while, I may be able to get some quotes and information to specifically counter your arguments. Right now, my Urantia Book is on loan to a friend. When my internet access is better (I'm at home now and my work access is better equipped to deal with surfing the web.), I may be able to construct a point-by-point argument against some of your claims using the online version of the UB. I did not wish to engage in book thumping, but if you would prefer me to express my opinion that way I will do my best.

A. Re: Book thumping.

If you say to me, the UB says this, it falls to you (as a matter of logic) to be able to support your representation. As the UB is a universal writing it is ingrained that each 'sees' according to their own ability. If we can't examine the EXACT source that generates your comments, it is impossible to discuss it beyond that point. This is akin to a Jehovah's witness knocking
on your door and misquoting the Bible but giving only their opinion of what they think it means when the words actually say something different. By way of example, at the time of Secession, we filed Letters of Secession on Jerusem. The documents clearly stated the situation. The Universe 'felt' that my act of secession was, in fact, an act of rebellion. The UB says
both, rebellion and secession. The question is, which of the UB's comments are true? There is a distinct difference between a secession and a rebellion. The words mean different things. What is true is that I seceded AND it is also true that the Universe preferred to view it as a rebellion. Yet, the words speak for themselves.

>I know that you may not trust my knowledge of the Urantia Book and that I have no credentials (like being The Former Planetary Prince of Urantia) to lay before you, so I can understand where you're coming from. I will show you these passages and let you see for yourself. Until then...

A. Listen, I seek no self engrandisement in this endeavor. Whilst I am Caligastia, I am also man and would prefer to be treated with the same deference (no more or less) than you treat other men. Those who would opine that I'm on an ego trip would be best advised to read the writings in this Q&A file and then determine just how engrandising the position really is. The truth is that the job of planetary prince is a poor one (but somebody has to do it<g>).


 Reply-To: <>
From: "John Solo" <>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:26:38 -0700

>From what I gather in your writtings, your inspirational ideas are clearly a manifestation of your own conjectures and not on the UB papers. How are you to expect your readers to rely on a source ( yourself ) that no one prior to your premier on the internet has a reference on ? What qualifications , credentials do you have which permits you to input your
thoughts ?


My 'ideas' are the product of my experiences before and after my arrival on Earth. You are correct that I do not worship at the altar of the UB papers or the universal propaganda machine that inspired them. The factual representations in the UB are correct and accurate. However, those inspired from the opinions of people who clearly and accurately state that they 'did not know',
are of questionable import. Opinions are what they are and should be seen in that light.

You are incorrect when you state that 'no one prior to your premier on the internet'. I have for three years been speaking publically on Compuserve. Some made effort to document my writings, actions, predictions and the like. I left Compuserve recently after a 15 year stay due to the fact that AOL has driven their business into the ground nor I do not care for the business practices of AOL and care not to associate with them. The Internet was the logical alternative. Additionally, on Aug 13, 1995 I spoke to these subjects in front of a group of 200 people in Denver and will be doing so again on the 20th of this month. That YOU have not heard
about my efforts is understandable. I viewed this as a period of learning and development and did not seek an audience. By way of example, it was not uncommon on Compuserve for some to deliver vile attacks due to their bias against religion etc. Whatever
accusation you can imagine flew and in the course of this journey I discovered the best ways to traverse the mine fields that lay ahead. I have yet to find one person who has been able to produce as a matter of fact, or as the product of reason, any evidence that I am not, nor could not be who I say I am. Regardless, I am what I am. This remains true whether or not public acceptance arrives. I am not amongst you to gather followers.

Also, I have no expectation that you will or won't believe anything. I am not 'selling'. I ask nothing of you and I take nothing from you either.

Re: Qualifications

You're kidding? Would you like to hear that I graduated from Planetary Prince U summa cum universal pain in the neck<g>?

When the Creator Son comes before you, will you ask him for his degree in divinity?

If you wish 'qualifications', I'm afraid you're going to have to define just what those would be. It is noteworthy, by way of example, that those who are mentally unstable frequently indulge in delusions of grandeur. In many mental hospitals you might find a Virgin Mary, a couple of Jesus', a few Satans and may-be even a Lucifer in residence at any given time. However, you will not hear the pitter patter of little Caligastia's running the halls.

However, for the sake of logical argument, I put you the same question you've asked me.

You accept the words of unseen voices and  words transcribed by people you do not know. How am I to accept you and your
beliefs when they are not founded upon a 'qualified' source?

In the end, it always comes down to the individual's own evolutionary moment. Those who have eyes will see and those who don't won't.

With regards to proofs, I have offered the fact that I have undergone physical changes unknown to medical science.
I have discovered an archeological site heretofore unknown and all of those artifacts point to the characters of the end
times scenario. I've demonstrated an ability to accurately walk in time giving predictions of unlikely events. I did so
for my own edification and to establish logical proofs I found acceptable. If logic and reason are the criteria then
the facts speak for themselves. I am no longer 'of man' even though I am man. Am I qualified and are you competent to judge?


 From - Thu Oct 16 13:20:16 1997
From: "Dave Weber" <>

>YOu state that michaels are designated by their point of origin, e.g. Michael of Nebadon. Nebadon is not His point of origin. It is his Creation. His origin is the Trinity.

A. Dave, I think this is a point of semantics. Were we to take your argument a step further, we can cite that all life comes from Father. The point I was attempting to make is that ALL of the Michaels are named 'Michael' and their place of origin (birth) is used to identify one from another.

>If Lucifer & Immanuel took their plan to the Father for tweaking & the Father gave His go-ahead, the plan would be so, Michael of Nebadon would have known about it and there would have been no Rebellion.

This is an assumption that lacks a logical foundation. For your opinion to be valid, you would first have to demonstrate that you
are possessed of a knowledge of time and timelines and how and why they work. Next you would show that you are possessed of a knowledge of universal protocols with respect to time. Otherwise, we are dealing only with a belief that has no foundation in reality.

Some angels are 'time walkers'. Consider that portions of Revelation are written in the past tense. Events that are yet to come for us on Earth have already been seen by Father in another timeless reality. The Son and I entered mortality for a variety of reasons.
Top on the list was to keep this volatile timeline from self destructing and various points in history. We were positioned so that we could function in the capacity in various lifetimes. This, our last incarnation within mortality is different in as much as we are awakened to our identities and purposes. In this situation, knowing too much is as bad as knowing too little. Here you have the master timeline for the universe side by side with the master timeline for Earth. Were we to sneeze at the wrong place at the wrong time, you'd have monsoons in Thailand. To this point, and others, we have isolated ourselves into a rural wilderness/desert area and restrict our actions lest they bring poor and unintended consequences.

Addressing your point that Michael would have known:

Father is the overriding power in all these matters. He controls, decides and executes what HE thinks we ought to know. Your assumption ignores the reality that there is a power upon the Universe greater even than Michael. Further, our actions are ALWAYS dictated by the logic of purpose. We came to Earth with a plan, Father's plan. For the words of Revelation
to come true, we have to be at certain timeline junctures at particular moments in time. Free will is a constant variable in the equation and no timeline is absolute owing to this fact. Thus, a 'hands on' approach is required in this situation. I would add that many think Father and aloof personality. He IS a hands on God and no detail escapes his attention.


  From - Tue Oct 21 02:25:44 1997
From: "Toby Tapp" <>
Subject: question

>So you say you are Caligastia, in the flesh. You don't sound as wise or intelligent as I would think someone who is as old as you would be.

A> This comment is based upon assumption. The issue arises as to how many angels you have known, in the flesh and otherwise, and how you arrive at a perspective that enables you to make such a judgment. Further, you do not state how wise or intelligent you are. Without such a logical foundation, I see no vehicle that would enable you with the ability to stand in judgment. This is a logical point and not to be taken as a personal affront.

>Anyway here is my question, it's not really about you, but if you are who you say you are you should know the answer. Lucifer openly denied the existents of God, the unseen Father, yet he openly acknowledged that Michael was his creator-father. So if Lucifer thinks that there is no Universal Father, where does he think the Creator Sons came from? Not to mention the innumerable personalities that he, God, created, and reality itself. Is he a little jealous because he will never be able to go to Paradise?

A. Let's deal with these issues in a logical forum. Let's assume we are in a courtroom standing before a judge and offering evidence according to the logical norms of this vehicle. I would object to your offering being entered into evidence and the court would sustain the objection for these reasons.

1. The quote you make is written in the third person. The person proffering gives a rendition that is, at best, hearsay. This
point alone makes the item inadmissible.

2. The 'intent' of Lucifer is at issue here. The UB states that for a period of two years Lucifer and Gabriel went toe to toe with
verbal debates on these subjects. The UB also infers that transcripts of these events were kept. Yet, these records are not provided within the UB. As the records exist and as they have not been provided for our objective examination, one must ask 'why'? Furthermore, given the fact that the UB document is filled with wall to wall universal opinion, frequently contradicted by their own renditions of fact, we must consider the 'intent' of those who wrote the summary but deprived us of the EXACT WORDS that Lucifer actually said. You've accepted the opinion of another AS IF it was an actual fact. Logical Error.
In light of the extensive pattern of injecting opinion as if it were fact and not 'belief', the entire quote offered becomes logically

Having addressed the logical foundations of your question and, hopefully, demonstrated that they are 'non sequitur', I will answer
the substance of the question.

Note that the Melchezideks are a self governing body of angels. The universal bureaucracy granted them this ability as they form
no threat to the bureaucracy and, instead, aid and abet the government in it's programs to enforce an oppressive regime over the many castes of angels within the universe.

Consider that the adams and eves are 16th level angels. They are 'barely' angelic and just a hair away from being human. By virtue of their low status in the universal caste system, they have little voice in their own government. They have no choice or ability to expand their levels of experience beyond the levels of their circumstances of creation. Yet, the universe has long given recognition to the fact that experience is the key to ascension and advancement. Yet, many castes are denied the ability to take the journey to that nirvana called 'experience'.

Furthermore, it is a physical fact that no one can stand before Father unless and until he has attained an evolutionary moment that enables him to do so. Yet, the self evolution of an individual soul is ham-strung by the fact that he is denied access to the journey that provides the experience. As such, it is easy for these billions of souls who have not attained the evolutionary moment necessary to take the journey to the six dimension, to believe that Father is a fiction. They have no perspective to the point and are denied the means to find out. In other words, you can't get there from here - EVER!

The UB cites universal speculation as to Lucifer's motives. They say he had plenty of personal freedom himself and the allude that because he was high born and had his share of perks that he should not have cared about his brothers and sisters who were not so blessed by the circumstances of their creation. This does not speak well for universal attitudes.

Point in fact, Lucifer, as a perfect being had access to Father. It follows that he had personal knowledge of His existence.

Now, the logical point becomes, 'Was he speaking for himself or was he representing the billions who had no voice to speak at all?'
The UB's words clearly show that he had much to lose and little to gain, personally.  It follows that he was not operating for his own glorification. The logic of the situation is clear to my point that he stood for those of the lower castes.

It falls to the universe to provide the exact transcripts so that we can examine for ourselves what he actually said and not a
'presumably' slanted summary. Without the precision of his statements before us, a knowing of his intents, words and motives is not logically possible. Yet, the universe provides us with only the 'spinned' summary.

I submit that Lucifer presented the attitudes and concerns of those to whom Father is 'unseen'. I speak from personal experience when I say that Father CAN be seen and known. That Lucifer is of greater status than myself and that HE HAS SEEN and known Father. Yet the verse you cite clearly specifies that Father is 'unseen'. Thus, the logical inference is that Lucifer's words reflected those who had no ability to reach the sixth dimension.

The most glaring logical paradox of the verse is in the stated belief that Michael could be the recognized Creator Father when
clearly he is a Creator Son and it is not possible for him to assume the roles or abilities of the Creator Father. Lucifer knew this.

Simply stated, the lower castes recognized the need for a 'leader', but felt that the universe had manipulated the truths of Father for their own purposes. As the were not empowered by evolutionary moment to BE with Father, their distrust of the universe
is obvious. Again, the verse speaks not well for the relationship between those who govern and those who are governed when the TRUTH (Father) has been rejected pursuant to the poor behaviors of the government.

Note that prior to Watergate and Nixon, most people believed their government. Yet, when it was shown that the president was a liar and a criminal, the erosion of public belief began. Today, there are few who grant credibility to the government. So too it is with the lower universal castes.

I think the greater question here is, "Why has the universe given you bits and pieces of the story but denied you access to the whole story and enabled a reasonable and logical examination of all the facts?" The logic of purpose demands that there is a reason.

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.

Toby Tapp

From - Tue Oct 21 15:41:46 1997
From: "Toby Tapp" <>
Subject: Re: question
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 16:15:57 -0500

>Although you did a good job beating around the bush on my question about how Lucifer denied the existents of God, and if there is no God, where did the Creator Sons come from.

A. Thank you for your praises on my ability to beat around the bush. I will endeavor to perfect the talent<g>.

The reason you are not satisfied with my response is because you wish me to answer for Lucifer. Not only am I unable to do this and, unlike the universe, mine own arrogance does not extend to usurping the voice of another. You've ignored the logic put before you and are attempting to continue upon the same path of query as if it had never been placed before you.

>You said: " The most glaring logical paradox of the verse is in the stated belief that Michael could be the recognized Creator Father when  clearly he is a Creator Son and it is not possible for him to assume the  roles or abilities of the Creator Father. Lucifer knew this."

>The quote that I had in my first email stated that Lucifer openly excepted Michael as his Creator-Father. Meaning that he was brought into being by the Creator Son. So if he knows that the Creator Son made him, who made the Creator Son?

A. If you take the time to read the papers on the web site, you'll note that I address the realities of creation. In particular, the fact
that creation is the result of life and not the other way around. Also take note of the WAY life is structured and how the timeline of a ruler relates directly to his lifeline and how both become one and the same. This knowledge was not beyond Lucifer. Yet, the logical paradoxes and the IMPOSSIBILITY that the Creator Son COULD BE THE CREATOR FATHER should sound like a warning bell as to the 'intent' of those who put the 'summary' (not the detailed facts) before you.

Again, given the historical perspective supplied by the Urantia Book, AND the extensive use of spin, the questions you ask have their answers in the pages of the UB. The only requirement is that you read the words with the ordered and logical mind that God gave you. The presence of things that 'don't make sense' should serve as ample warning to the fact that 'something ain't right here'. Think about it.


Melchizedeks are the joint offspring of a local universe Creator Son,Creative Spirit, and Father Melchizedek. Both Vorondadeks and  Lanonandeks are brought into being by a Creator Son and his Creative Spirit associate. Vorondadeks are best known as the Most Highs, the Constellation Fathers; Lanonandeks as System Sovereigns and as Planetary Princes. The threefold order of Life Carriers is brought into being by a Creator Son and Creative Spirit associated with one of the three Ancients of Days of the superuniverse of jurisdiction.

A. Only a Son can call a soul into existence. Souls are called into being ONLY when there is need of them to perform service. Using the Melchizedek example you've provided, Machieventa would contact the Creator Son and inform him that his family was ready to expand by x number of angelic souls. The Son would make his own determination to the point and then call, from Father, those souls into creation. This is the license of the Creator Son and, the exception to the rule, Trinity Son Immanuel.

As you can see, there is nothing mystical, magical or mysterious about the process.

>I have a more important question: Why aren't you trying to reestablish a planetary headquaters, a center for cultural development? What are you waiting for? You were created for a purpose, to administor a planet, the spiritaul representative of the Father to the planet. By looking at your web page, I see a lot of negative things being said. You seem to agree with Lucifer to step outside of the boundries of the way it IS. The Universe has been around for a lot longer than you and Lucifer put together, and it will continue to operate with or without you. As they say, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. This planet needs to move forward, not dewell on the past, because that is what it is the PAST.

A. There is a plan Toby. I was not sent here to establish perfect social orders. I WAS SENT to create the circumstances that would serve the First Cause, the development of ascendant life. This has been done. Also, I AM NOT The Messiah. The Son is here and this is not my job, even though I will work with him to this point.

In terms of Revelations, this is where we are at. The child has fled into the desert/wilderness. We stand before the 1260 days, at the end of which the war in heaven will be fought. Those days, however, will be done out of time and it will seem, relative to Earth, that only one night has passed. The Son and I have our functions and duties to perform. Mankind too has his place on our agenda when comes the proper time. At this moment, the purpose of the web site and my public declaration is to lay the foundational bricks for exactly what you ask for.

I would take exception to that which you deem to be negative. I do not share your belief. The things said are accurate and truthful. What you deem to be negative are the actions of a universe out to insure the continuance of their own bureaucracy. They have done many things they should be ashamed of. Giving voice to their poor behaviors does not make me negative. My goal is to present the WHOLE TRUTH and the Urantia Book is an excellent vehicle for this. From the Universe's own words an accurate image can be constructed. It falls to the reader's own evolutionary moment as to whether or not they will see it. The truth is what it is. I see no negative value in speaking the truth.

I agree that "what is' is more important than what was and that what will be is of greater import than what is now. However, what is now has it roots in a far distant pass. Older even than mankind upon the Earth. Efforts to delude and deceive have been proffered with the reverence of scripture. It falls to me to clear the brush so the foundations of what needs to be can be laid.

You should note that I have NEVER restricted or interfered with spiritual or religious instruction coming into the planet. In the beginning, I obliterated the structures of universal methdology as they were inherently destructive to mine own. However, once the foundations were laid, any spiritual representative has been allowed to function without interference. Consider the interactions of Machieventa Melchezidek and Abraham or those of Drunvalo Melchezidek who is currently based out of Sedona. That which serves to elevate the soul of man is always a welcomed endeavor.

>By the way is this who you are or work for?

A. I have been self employed most of my adult life. The last ten years I have been as a private investigator.


From - Tue Nov 18 10:22:05 1997
From: "lev michaelson" <>
Subject: URANTIA etc.
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:07:40 PST

--Dear Cal,
Nor am I interested in castigating your intentions. In the Urantia Bk. is a section you call the Lucifer Rebellion. Is this meant to discount certain other reve lations' in the section referred to as the history of Urantia.

I've stated numerous times that I consider the UB to be a source of absolute truth. The issue is the reader's ability to see that truth. The book is built upon a foundation of factual material. Then it is overlaid with reams of opinions. These opinions, when studied in the context of other stated opinions, are frequently conflicting. One who 'assumes' that opinion rises to the level of fact, makes poor assumptions. The factual material, on the other hand, is right on
the money.

--Some of
the teaching on race and euthansia (implied) are particularly vexatious to the 'evolved' consciousness of this particular civilization. What are your thoughts or 1st hand knowledge (I'd imagine) in regards to these what I'd consider difficult issues for any 'normal' reader of the Urantia Papers.

>I'm not sure what constitutes 'normal'.

With regards to race, I'm not certain that the universe offers 'teachings' on the subject. What's to teach? People have different skin colors. Beginning and end of teaching.

As to euthanasia, and as having spent more time in mortality than most universal types, I'm certain that my perspective on the subject is different than the standard Melchezidek 'teaching'.

Euthanasia is suicide. Let's discuss suicide. Suicide under the normal course of life is forbidden and rightly so.
Killing yourself because your Mercedes won't start, or because you become depressed etc, trivializes the gift of life provided. It also denigrates the purpose of life.

HOWEVER, there are times and situations where it is appropriate. When a person is possessed of a terminal illness AND is in such horrible pain, yes self release is appropriate. The Universe would disagree and dictate that your suffering is irrelevant. This callous view results from the fact that they lack the perspective to actually know what they're talking about as few have ever been mortal.

In the Nazi concentration camps, Jews would commit suicide to deny the Nazis the pleasure of their deaths. For these, it was an act of will and of defiance. They reasoned that they were dead already and better that the decision be theirs instead of the butcher's. In such a case, self release is appropriate.

What IS NOT appropriate are suicides committed pursuant to the idea of reduced 'quality of life'. In the absence of pain that has gone beyond the limits of medical technologies AND a certainty the illness is terminal, suicide is wrong.

--My take was the this revelation was truly a "living truth" i.e. subject to local conditions of time and space or change. The papers
also I believe indicates that relationships for the most part are eternal Do you regard this as being patently true or rather a bit exaggerated as to the concept. In other words to most anyone does it make sense to say "hey, I'm going to know you forever,so hang tight , don't hold tight.(or you may be clinging to efemeral mist)

>The purpose mortality is education. To teach to you elevate your soul and your intellect over your baser instincts. While it is true that certain personalities will meet on more than one occasion, it is not dictum nor should it be. The widest possible collection of experiences is what produces the best educational experience.

--I cna almost guess, but neverthelesss comment on,"Are we to believe that the grand Luciferian experiment as far as your imput is concerned is over?" "Is that what we're led to conclude from tha affability of your personality, or is this justa guise for further manipulation. I'd suppose running into Caligastia on the path is a good sign that we're at least going somewhere. (and the only direction is ultimate ascendency to the Father) So why not cut right to the chase (how rude), and you all will give us some great temptation to deal with. I'm ready (not), go ahead and tempt me! Does that sound familar? 20th Cent. Amer.)

>The Lucifer Awakening is just beginning.

Except for what the Universe has done, there has been no other effect on the Earth. How ironic, that those who deem me to be a poor person are the very ones who implemented plans to victimize the people of the Earth.

I'd point out the difference between manipulation and facilitation. The former is done for poor purpose usually involved in some gain for an individual or group. The later is performed as an act of love and the only beneficiaries are those who are the object of the facilitation.

As for 'going somewhere'.<g> The show IS on the road.

I'm not sure what kind of temptation you'd have from me. If you must have one, I'd suggest a good chocolate milk shake. One of my favorites.

Cal wrote:
> Hello, this is Isaac Neibaur. I was wondering what you thought about the
> Aquarian Concepts Community and their claim that Machiventa Melchizedek
> became Planetary Prince on Decmber 1989.
> Isaac Espi Neibaur


I can not speak to claims as I am not informed as to their particulars. However, generally, those who read the Urantia Book without benefit of logic or reason take statements of universal opinion as if they were factual even when those comments are contradicted by other statements in the book. It is only when the opinion is separated from the fact that the true picture emerges. I've give a long listing of this inconsistancies on my web site.

With regards to Mac, it states he was appointed vice-gerent. This is a deliberate misspelling placed into the book by the woman who channeled it. The correct word is vice-regent, a position subservient to mine own and without any power. Per protocols, it did give him license to function upon the earth in a minor capacity. His attempts to interfere with Abraham is a good example.

'True Believers' of any subject who choose their beliefs without benefit of reason are subject to the errors the lack of examination in their beliefs produce.

Perhaps the greatest obvious statement of the 'fact' available in the UB is the comment that Abaddon, my chief of staff, is still functional in his role. The book further states that those who enter rebellion are subject to arrest and incarceration performing 'custodial duties'. Clearly, my prime functionary could not be operational were Mac the planetary prince. The UB states that under Melchezidek receivership, that family takes charge of the planet. Again, Abaddon could not function were this the case as all Lanonandeks will have been so incarcerated, not just the prince.

Any contention that Mac is the planetary prince flies in face of the material present in the UB.

What you do have is universal wishful thinking. Their edicts and declarations have no meaning or practical effect here. Only Father and Son are of any relevance and both have separated themselves from 'their' universe.


From - Sun Jun 14 17:18:47 1998
 I'm trying to work this out, maybe in a way, but can't you put buffers around the aspects of suffering?

Everyone who is physical, i don't know about other life forms, i hope they are the same, subserviazes their AM or basically their existence to the outside world at birth. Their personality, everything that they are is under the control of the outside world due to their dependence on the outside world for food, clothes, etc. If you can build a system that makes all outside contradictions of this personality structure not contradictions but neutral, perhaps by expanding the personalities of everyone, Pain is when ones relationship with the outside world gets contradicted. If your definite personality gets contradicted in relationship to the outside world, then you will feel pain. Since you are the prince then why don't you expand everyones being so that it doesn't get contradicted beyond their control. they would still expand but they wouldn't get contradicted.
 Your presentation assumes that a person has no control over his environment and is not a participant in his society but, rather, a victim of it. By extention, you adopt the philosophy of the victim, 'it's not my fault because.......' ( fill in the excuse). Further, you seek to put the blame for pain and suffering  upon the environment giving no recognition that the majority of suffering men endure is because of poor choices made by individuals and the extended society.

You feel emotional 'pain' when you suffer the consequences of poor choices you've made.

This is a free will society. It is not my job, goal or practice to intefere with your quest for joy or your choice for individual suffering. The burden of ordering your life is yours. I am not inclined to wave a magic wand and make the consequences for poor exercises of free will disappear thus removing from you the burden of consequence. What then would you have learned?

If you wish not to be pained, correct the errors in your choices and your being. First accept responsibility that the problem is of your own creation. Before a correction can be made, admittance of error is the prerequisite.


 From - Tue Jun 16 11:58:41 1998 X-POP3-

I got more questions. If life is just evolution, then why put earth = through shit to get there.

I'm afraid you've missed my point. I haven't put Earth through anything. YOU have. The miscreance around you is the product of man's endeavors. This is a free will society. You have the right to make it as good or as bad as you wish.

After we attain universal citenzinship we  will just have to go up another level. Evolution is endless, and each  level is just below the next level and we keep going until god figures itself out or whatever it is doing.

Evolution is a long process. The goal is that you make your soul as pure as it was on the day you received it.With each step on the ladder one, hopefully, rises higher and higher to where Father is. At the moment of judgment for the universe, those judged well will rise into the 7th Dimension to be with Father - Heaven. There is a point to it all.

Why make earth so intense and  frankly speaking painful if even after four out of five perople ascend instead of one out of five, we will just do it again on a higher level. Its endless.

Again, Earth is what man has made of it. However, what you describe as intense I say is allowing competition to take place.  What value is a muscle that is never used? So too, what worth has a soul who has never confronted evil and taken a stand against it? Your perception of intensity is the constant battle against evil. Earth's ascendants are the strongest to ever enter a universe. Their strengths are the material that legends come from, so great is their achievement.

Making life here what it is makes no sense if this is just  another level and not some giant leap. Also if life is self realization, then how to rules caste systems, etc. play in. They will hold people back from self realization by putting everyone on the same track.Machiventa was Arthur the warrior, and Reed was Kahn.

If you're speaking of Arthur of Camelot and Genghis Khan, these were not Machiventa. I was both of these individuals.

I dont know if that will contradict your belief system, but something is up Im quite sure about them.

I do not indulge a belief system. Instead I conform to a reality system.

Overall have either you or the universe tried to create  new systems where everyone is included, every aspect of everyone that is.

The universe is content with the status quo of the caste structure. Clearly, I am not. That which you criticize is the product of a 'no caste' system AND, except for the various forms of government, it works.

Some people and some aspects had to be left out to create a rebellion and some individual and individual aspects had to be left out = for people to dislike the rebellion. I know you said the answers are in the Q and A, but i didn't see how you could be Kahn and Arthur when I have proof and you don't, no offence.

Proof? I see no proof, only a few words.

The time for proofs approaches. To the British I will return Camelot and other Arthurian artifacts. Ditto this for the Mongols and the Chinese.

Why doesn't everyone just figure out what aspects of existence are being left out instead of quashing  rebellions. Self realization is contradictory to static, i think. How do  limited govments and limited caste systems rule over a limitless system  of self realization.

Why do Earth's governments always become totalitarian? Corruption of the spirit. So too it is with Universal Governments.

The aspects of your self and the aspects of the  government don't appear to be similiar, from what ive read, i could be wrong if you take that as speaking for you, but they appear to have  different desires, wants, needs, styles, than you do or than the rebellious ones do. Why not just part ways becasue you are different and find new ways to fulfill yourselves instead of war to oppress justified aspects of being.

Your question assumes that you possess the knowledge and perspective to 'know'. This assumption has yet to be proven
as factual.

You are right, I am not of the same mind as governments in general and the universe in particular.
The universe does not allow people to 'jjust part ways'. The attack, subjigate and control. There is an equation that is,
for me, a truism. Repression breeds violence.

You'll say the answers are in the Q and A, but they aren't you only give voice to their existence, you don't explain why  people don't agknowledge the differences between two uniquely different  ones who have to conform to the same rules.

I answered your prior correspondence and addressed the issues of taking responsibility for oneself. As you don't see the material that IS there at the end of the Q&A file, the issue becomes why is your sight limited to what is clearly visible.

From, THIS perspective its  pretty simple, but there is more to it i bet, but why would endless  variations have to conform to the same rules, you don't feed al the  animals on earth fish food, only fish and you don't give humans raw  meat. Did this get overlooked or not considered, or did it fail when  they tried it.

This question makes no sense.

IF i am supposed to be left out of this dialogue then  tell me if you write back. Otherwise i just don't know why  agknowlegdement of individual differences was taken into account when  these things started.

Individual differences are the product of soul evolution. All men were created equal but equality ends when one starts to work to move forward whilst another stagnates and moves not.

I also have the yellow circle rays on my eyes that  you do, but didn't get abducted.

The yellow rings are not abnormal to human beings. What isn't normal is their appearance out of no where.

If its better not to write back then  write that you wont answer these things.

Your emails have been answered AND one of my responses posted on my web site.

If not supposed to do that then = don't write at all. Overall agknowledgement of differences between = things should have been enough to let the rebels part ways with the = universe, but they were kept in and made to be subservient to rules that = contradicted who they were. I speak for noone but that appears to be = what happened. Did you make Harry Lankford up to answer your own  questions.

I don't tell lies.


Krazy Karl wrote:
> Please don't react. Read it and answer/pose questions. I will avoid
> accusations and would expect the same in response.
> ---- Example 1----
> First "you" write:
> "A logical person would propose that there is no purpose in the repeated
> indulgence in behaviors that serve no useful purpose or fail to obtain a
> desired goal. The Denier blames their failures upon others never once
> considering there is a causal relationship
> between their deficiencies and their actions."
> And now we see:
> "I have no expectation that you, or anyone else, will 'believe' me or
> take me seriously."
> These views seem to conflict. If you are not providing the "truth" for
> people to believe it, why are you providing it?

The statements are not in conflict. Ours is a freewill society. You have your 'right' to choose and set your own course. IF you choose to believe, that and the consequences are the product OF your freewill. Should you choose not to believe, so too this is a result of your freewill. Thus I have no expectations of you one way or another. I sell
nothing. I ask nothing. I do give freely. That is the product of 'my' freewill. Whether you accept or not is your call.

> ---- Example 1----
> ---- Example 2----
> Your claims of providing the "gift of truth" are hampered by your
> constant refusal to provide any factual evidence. You merely spew
> circumstantial "truths" and philosophical and oftentimes seemingly made
> up stories.

This comment is myopic and your use of the word 'spew' seems to betray a poor intent.

The physical and obivious proofs are noted under the chapter called 'proofs'. Impossible physical changes.
Medically documented per stand norms. This consitutes proof.

Discovery of ancient Indian artifacts heretofore undiscovered. The 'fact' adds weight to the causal agent.
Twice, I have done and AM that which other men haven't done and aren't. The logic infers a 'difference' between me and that which is considered 'normal'.

Add to these things the fact that the 'Creek' artifacts are also far from normal. They appear and disappear. One day you'll stand in a spot and photograph what you see. On another day, you'll repeat the same act but what you saw and photographed there the first time, are altered or missing.

These are not matters of opinion, but fact.

For your comments to be logically valid, you will have had to ignore the logic of the factual evidence presented.

> ---- Example 2----
> These are the first items that stuck out in my mind. I am still
> reading/digesting what is presented on this site and I _will_ keep in
> touch with others issues.
> On a side note: I would have expected the god of ancient man to have a
> spell checker.

Are your expectations valid? Do your assumptions constitute fact?

However, if you think you can do better. feel free to download the pages and edit them for me. My time is limited.


From - Wed Jul 01 12:50:15 1998
From: "AW"

 greetings! this is my first e-mail to anyone, please forgive any  errors. my daughter bought her computer just recently, and i've taken  the liberty of cruising the net as often as possible. i found your site  the first day and truly enjoyed reading your thoughts. please don't = stop writing......... i need to actually compose some sort of  correspondence on paper, but just wanted you to know that you are = appreciated. my name is val
. thanx-val

Thank you for your kind thoughts


 From - Thu Jul 02 13:44:30 1998
From: Andy Hallock

This is indeed interesting reading and I do applaud your efforts. It is not my place to judge, merely just to be judged when the time comes. We are all eventually responsible for our actions and lives, regardless of our belief system. I do however at this point have a point of confusion. In your " Current Status of the Rebellion" you reference a reunion of sorts, along with an apparent forgiveness based on a symbolic effort on your part.

I'm not certain what you're speaking of here. The earth, by an act of conciliation (on my part), is 'technically' rejoined with the universal government. I wouldn't say it rises to an act of forgiveness. Further, one should define exactly WHAT the universal government is. From my vantage point, it is not the bureaucracy. It is the Creator Son. It is within the sole descretion of the Son to determine whether or not the earth is aligned with the bureaucracy or with Him personally. To date, the later applies.

However, in your "Update" you seem to revert back to the anger status of of the UB. I am at a loss as to the reason. Forgiveness would represent all being well, yet you say they are trying to pull you into an altercation in the update. Anyways, I have yet to finish your information and whether I agrree or disagree, I do respect your thought process as a viable member of the universe. Best of luck

It is not Caligastia's place to issue forgiveness or indictment to the Rebellion. The UB's position is simple. Anything that is a divergence from their opinion constitutes an act of rebellion regardless of the merits of the issue. The anger you site, within the pages of the UB, is not mine. I have a firm and complete understanding of how the rebellion came to be and many of those reasons are just. Regardless, my dedication and service is to Father and Son. Not to the universe and not to the Rebellion. Thus, I have held the earth separate and apart from both. As a result, niether side is pleased with me.

As for altercations. The Rebellion would like to see me fighting the universe as it would increase their numbers. The Universe would like to deal with me as a rebel in that it would give them a place to focus their impotence and anger. The Earth stands as I have positioned it, in service to Father and Son. A decision I can live with.


From - Thu Jul 02 13:44:29 1998
From: "Joe Smith"
Subject: Re: The white race
I refute your assertion :

Nonsense. > > The skin suit is of little importance. The status of the soul is the > only criteria for judgment. .

The skin suit is a crystalization of the soul matrix.

  You seem to place importance on the media. Had a rocking chair the capacity for intelligence then a soul could be attached to it.

I agree the soul is the sole criteria for judgment, however when divine providence sent souls and spirits to the material plane this was the beginning of the many to come mitigating judgments . The flesh grade determined the judgment passed on the soul or spirit. The darker the skin the more royal the life force matrix.

Your comment here implies racial punishment and suggests racist intents. Furthermore, your ideas as to 'divine providence' lack definition. I am the author of the societal conditions which have allowed a free will society to exist not some ambigious 'providence'. I am a mix breed of French and Indian. Daligastia is a mix breed of Black and Indian. Neither of us could care less if the other was Pink with Purple Polka Dots.

Your assumptions to 'life force matrix' seem a matter of individual belief on your part. You offer no evidence that your opinions have any factual basis.

The lighter the skin the more gross the life force matrix. Have you ever heard of the concept 9 ether and 6 ether life forces ( beings )? 9 ether souls are the ageless ones ; those of melanin content. A divine source given to them for the infinite aeons. The UB speaks of them as the father fused beings. 6 ethers spirits are ghost or the agefull ones. These are your pale peoples. They are 9 ethers in death stage. They are earthbound spiraling spirits. The UB speaks of them as the spirit fused entities.

This comment ignores a substantial amount of factual material as listed in the UB.

This is not a universal world. One of my first acts after the Declaration of Secession was to close down the so called nurseries where you were bred like cattle according to Melchezidek principles. You did not have license to procreate. Furthermore, I instituted a full compliment of racial groups each intended to progress at the same time others did. Intermarriage between these groups brought forth hybids.

You may recall that the UB offers words of condemnation for these actions. If Freewill is Father's gift, why then does the UB condemn allowing mankind to possess it?

In any case, the meglmaniacal and miscreant practices of genetic limitations were not permitted upon the earth in the post secession days. IT IS ONLY THE STATUS OF ONE'S SOUL THAT HAS ANY IMPORTANCE.


Walter C. Johnson wrote:

> Cal,
> I know that you have just answered my E-mail, but again, I have a couple
> of questions. Just three and no more. And then a statement.

> In your "Declaration of Caligastia" section, you say that Moses decided
> that you were God because he wanted to see you as God. Pardon me for
> saying that this is sacrilegious, but this seems completely
> contradictory to what I have seen, heard, and felt from my experience of
> Christianity. So here are two questions:


I can't speak to what you've heard or felt, only to the fact. Sacrilege is an offense against Father and Son. Moses'
error was done in innocence. Regardless, my effort was to slide Moses and his nation from attention on me to the precepts and concepts endorsed by Father. Note that a universal world is usually given 4 commandments. The Jews were given 10 and 5 of them dealt only with theft or wanting to indulge theft.

If you examine your Bible carefully, you will find that the God of Noah, Abraham and Moses did not meet the minimum defintion of a God. He was not all knowing nor was he all powerful. I am neither and Father is.
When the son's of God mated with Noah's girls, he didn't know what they were up to and became angry upon discovery. This is not an omniscient 'god'. Further, if the verse is to be believed, he sent the flood to
correct the error that he had belated discovered. By definition, Father is incapable of an error. It follows that, according to Biblical script, the 'god' of the Jews was not omniscient nor infallible.

It has been said, correctly, that any civilization possessed of sufficient technology would seem godlike to a culture of lesser stature. The Old Testment is littered with many examples of out of time technologies. Noah's Ark, way ahead of its time. The Ark of the Covenant, the flying pillar of fire etc.

The point here is that I did not solicit Moses to think me his god. When asked, I said, "I am what I am". In other words, what you see is what you get. It fell to Moses to make his decisions.

>1. If you were God to Moses, then I assume that what happened
> throughout his cycle must be what you did. Therefore, I assume that you
> did every little thing from speaking to the burning bush. Does that
> mean that you were a pillar of fire, a burning bush, and so on? Were
> you the "Voice of God"?

A. Assumptions make for poor logic. I prefer to deal with specifics when confronted with a query that seems as 'all encompassing' as this one does.

B. Those moments attributed to first hand discourse with 'god' were usually with me directly. Mine was the voice Moses heard in his discourse.

However, if you're hung up on the title of 'god', you might wish to continue reading the web site for its correct definition. In the Bible I am described as the god of the earth or the prince of this world. The separation of Earth from the universe allowed this timeline to be ruled only by one. As such, the designation of God is technically
appropriate although it is an aggrandizement I have never personally employed or desired.

I was the voice Moses thought to be god. The pillar of fire was no more than the exhaust stream from my ship which hovered, dimensionally shifted, out of view of the masses.

The burning bush was little more than showmanship to convince a hesistant Moses to go back to an Egypt he very much did not wish to return to.

> 2. The various prophets and angels as well as the Messiah himself said
> that they were not to be mistaken for God. No man was to worship them.
> Instead, they were to worship them above them. When people started to
> worship these beings, the first things that they usually said were "Do
> not worship me, for I am only a messenger." or something to that
> effect.

This is normally true and I have done this many times myself. However, in this instance, it would have served no good purpose. The timeline moment when Moses took the Jews from Egypt was not accomplished in just that moment. It had been developed over a long period of 'time' going back to before Noah. Thus the engineering that allowed that moment to take place was but one of many moments that led to a certain result.

Moses was the ONLY Jew competitant to lead his people and to create a new nation. There were no others. If Moses needed to see a god, I was content to allow him his delusion PROVIDED that he and the people were actually directed to a worship of Father inspite of their misidentification. Further, that he was raised by the royal house of
Egypt,wherein he gained the skills to be a leader, was also no accident or 'good fortune'.

The issue here is one of direction. Moses was given the universal commandments directly their attention and worship to Father. Modification were made to address the problem that there were multitheistic cultures surrounding
them. However, the object for directed worship was not me, only Father.

> Now, when you talked to Moses, why did you not tell him that
> you were not God? And if you are telling the truth, why has God not
> punished you?

Father is neither a jealous God nor an angry God. Those designations were attributable to me as I was disinclined to let the slave mentality of the Jews destroy the opportunity to creat a nation this world would need as a progenator of all western law AND many other aspects as well.

Your question as why have I not been punished presupposes that your prior comments about sacrilege are actually correct. However, for the sake of argument, let's let your question speak for itself. As I have not been
punished, one my allow that punishment is not warranted.

> He is a jealous god, and if he punishes us for
> worshipping other Gods, then his punishment to you should be ten times
> worse. So what's the deal? Why did you not tell Moses that you weren't
> God and that he shouldn't worship you and why have you not been punished
> for this crime?


Actually this later question suggests that you've elevated aspects of your beliefs to the level of actual facts. When came the appropriate time, Moses was advised of his error. Furthermore, Moses is alive and well and with my people and he will, once again, walk the earth as a guide and mentor to his people.

Do you discipline your children for believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy? Moses had good cause for his error for the things he saw and the 'miracles' he witnessed did seem godlike to a man of that generation.

Your question assumes that I embraced his error and indulged in delusions of godhood over a childrace. If this is your idea, you are in serious error.

However, it served no good purpose to attempt to explain things to Moses that he was incapable of understanding. My 'good' purpose was to create a nation. He agreed to be the leader of that proposition. It follows that the logic of purpose was such that he know what he needed to know with the limitation that what he could know was limited to his ability to understand.

> 3. Moving from the religious part, I now stay in the same section and
> ask this question. You say that you were once Genghis Khan,
> Charlemagne, Martin
> Luther, Arthur of Camelot, Benjamin Franklin, Robert E. Lee and so on.
> Most of these people caused chaos in their time and are sometimes still
> looked at as criminals of either the state or the world. I have to
> admit, some of these people were good, but Khan and Lee still aren't the
> typical do-gooders of our time. So why are you helping us out now?
> Khan didn't do much help and neither did Lee. They were involved in the
> death of many people (and sometimes innocents). So what's with the
> sudden urge to be good?


I'd suggest that you actually learn something about Khan. He is the progenator of China.

He built a stable empire (platform) from which to lay the foundations for what became a greater empire, thus providing a stability necessary and long lasting. He was regarded by his people as generous. He never attacked a target without first giving that object the opportunity to surrender. His troops were prohibited from rape and pilaging. The western stereotypical view of the man is lacking in many factual areas.

As Franklin, I joined with the Son, as Jefferson for the creation of the United States. Without the two of us, that moment would not have occurred. As Robert E Lee, I stood across from the Son as U.S. Grant, again to achieve a timeline moment wherein stability that was stripped from the nation needed to be restored. We have always
arrived at key moments wherein the path of the timeline needed to be directed into a course of growth
versus one of destruction. Who we were and what we did always spoke to the logic of purpose and the greater need.

I don't possess a 'sudden' urge to be good. Nor, do I believe it is your function to sit in judgement. Only one who possesses all of the information has this qualification.

I came to perform a mission. That mission, as it relates to you and yours is nearly completed. Yet, in all these things there is only one point that has lasting meaning to me personally, 'Thy Will Be Done', and so it has been.

Am I legit? That's up to you to decide. My mission is not dependent upon your belief. I am not the Son, nor am I your Messiah. He is here and will ,himself, stand before you whilst I stand in service at his right hand. The end of the timeline (rapture) signals the end of my rule over this place. The Son then becomes the Planetary Prince.

> Thank you for your time. Please post this in your Q&A's.
> Walt


 tod d wrote:


> This is more a statement than a question, but i hope you put this in  the q and a for others to see.

> You say that reality as you know it is the only reality. Christians, islams, jews, hindus, taoists, buddhists, and all the other religions
> have said the same things throughout history. They all said that what they believed (knew as they put it) was the only real reality. You say the same that what you say is a reality system. Why should i or anyone  else give up our beliefs, thoughts, desires, purposes and everything else that makes us us when you could just be another one dimentional  prophet? You have proof of your reality, i guess, but you have yet to  disprove all the other realities.


You assume that a 'belief' consitutes a reality and further 'assume' that for my reality to be correct all of the belief systems cited must be wrong. The premise for your question is flawed. A reality is a combination of facts that are true. A belief is a choice that may or may not be true given the perspective of the individual.

All of the major religions came from universal sources and reflect a worship in the Creator. As such, they reflect this aspect of my 'reality'. They call Him different names, but all are essentially agreed to His existance and purpose. There is no need that their belief systems be logically invalidiated for my reality system to stand. Point in fact, I
am here to provide clarity to the concepts and beliefs, not to take away or to add to their substance.

In Chapter One on the web site, I addressed the issues of belief. It is not my goal to 'get' you to believe anything. I serve the truth, I speak the truth and I place that truth before you. What you do with it is up to you persuant to your own free will.

Do I care?


However, your freewill is the sole factor determining the course you set.

As for prophets, I am not nor do I care to indulge in this endeavor.

> In a Seth book, seth made points pointing to the belief that all > beliefs existed simulaneously. He also said that cells have
> consciousness as much as we do.

You have a logical problem in matters related to Seth. You're talking about the invisible man. Should the words of invisible people be elevated to the level of fact? I say not.

> Maer Baba, whatever his name was said that humans began evolution as
> rocks up to humans.

I don't know who this individual is but he is in error.

> Hindus say reincarnation starts with humans.

All soul bearing life has the potential for reincarnation. This includes soul bearing animals.

> Others like Karen in Always Karen said reincarnation didn't exist. With all this variance, why should i or anyone abandon our own feeling when you cannot give any evidence that they are wrong.

No one has suggested that you abandon anything.

>You prove your reality with eye color and faces in the rock and things of the like. The other religions prove with other evidence just as valid as yours.

Your statement is incorrect. Proof of genetic alteration in, not one but, three people all related to a central point is factual evidence, not a belief. Religions exist on foundations of faith that do not require evidence. Reality exists on facts. As it happens, most of the belief systems are consistant with the reality system.

> If the hall of souls is the only place people can go after they die,  then what about the books written by dead people who didn't talk about  a hall of souls but a heaven, a hell, a fork in the road, a doorway, etc. I'm just trying to say that you have never disproven anyone.

You ask me to decry the writings and ideas of others. You assume (again) that these people were speaking with the dead. Again, no proof to the point. You do not allow for the realities of timeline and how information could be extracted from 'time' even though the individual 'believes' its from a dead soul. I could go on and on about the logical
limitations of this last statement. It will suffice (again), that I am not going to indulge in attempts to prove or disprove anyone's belief systems. Nor do I have to in order to establish my 'reality'.

> Neither have Aquarian concepts. You both say that what you say is  truth, that what differentiates is not truth, but you cannot disprove all the beliefs and sayings that you don't understand. Even though they have proof too.

You say 'they' have proof but have offered no evidence to the fact. So far, you've only indicated that possession of a belief constitutes a proving. It does not.

> There is evidence Jesus was never crucified due to the grave in china  and the odd behavior he exibited near cavalry.

Where is this evidence? Again, you offer no proof. However, the body of Jesus was not left on this world.

> There are said to be  many realities. I know this sounds like i'm trying to change your  belief and getting mad when you don't go along, but i am not. I am  trying to protect the integrity of all the other beliefs other than  the urantia belief.

By what license do you assume yourself to be the protector of the freewill of others?

>I don't want myself or anyone to give up our beliefs, purpose, desires, and wants to conform to your reality system just to find out that you are just like all the others in the sense  that you can't see beyond your own reality and beliefs to the validity of others.

Again, no one has asked you to give up anything.

>In conclusion, since you cannot disprove anything, why should anyone give up what they feel and believe to follow what you
> say goes on. In the nature of personal reality by Jane Roberts, Seth  said "do not put the words of gurus, scientists, psychologists,
> rabbis, or my words above your own feelings. Everyone is on an individual path." The fact that you cannot disprove this or anything  else is why i'm writing about the integrity of the other beliefs. all  you do is say what has been said since time began by many prophets and religions, many of which don't corrolate with the system in this one, that they only conform to god's sole reality.

As a final logical point, you can not prove a negative. It is an impossibility. You approach me with the expectation that I do precisely that. Nor is it my way to aggrandize myself or my position via the denigration of others.

As stated on the web site, I trust the axiom of soul.

It is the nature of the soul to always graviate to that which is true. The variable is your own evolutionary moment and what that moment permits you to see. The truth is within you. If you know right from wrong and have the integrity to live within those limitations, you've already 'got it', regardless of   belief system.

Vincent R. Jajalla wrote:

> Some questions again:
> - You say that you incarnated as Alister Crowley, I just want to know youre
> present views on Magick and on Thelema?

>I don't know who you mean by Thelema.

> Is it wrong if I use Magick for
> personal gain (without doing evil to others - ie. material gain,
> relationship and such)

>It depends. You never get something for nothing. Those who seek money and work with gnomes to get it, will find
are a fickle and dangerous bunch. The real question is 'can you afford the price'.

> - How can I communicate to my personal angel? Is it allowed?
> >Allowed yes. Sit down, relax and be comfortable. Close your eyes and 'move' mentally towards the white light.

That light is your own soul. You'll see it coming in waves. If you reach the place where it is a solid wall of
white light
with no fluctuations, you're in the spot you need to be. Then talk to your TA. It won't sound like a voice - but
like a thought
not your own. It's the TA's call as to whether or not they respond.

>  Why am I talking to you? (No pun is intended. I just want your views on
> how circumstances led me to you)

You answered your own question.

> - If I want updates, is your page the only source? Or do you have a mailing
> list? If you have, can I join that list?

I don't have a mailing list.

> Lastly, I dont know if this request is right to ask of you but I just want
> to know. My father just died recently and I just want to know if he is okay.
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From my current location, I'm unable to answer your specific question. The degree of memory my incarnate
> possesses is mission specific, I don't have dossiers on each individual and I avoid performing psychic feats unless it is
mission related.