It is difficult to use “POPPYCOCK” to prove that something is “POPPYCOCK”?
The Lucifer Manifesto is a teaching. It is a mission statement instructing all members of the mission on how to think and act. It was written by Lucifer, not a third party. A manifesto is not an opinion. A manifesto is a declaration of policy, a program to be carried out.
First of all the “Lucifer Manifesto” is not “teaching.” As you state latter above, in part, that it is “a public declaration of intentions, opinions, objectives, or motives, as one issued by a government, sovereign, or organization.” Where the UB presents a summary of what this “Manifesto” implies but later on in the UB it presents additional implications as to what this “declaration” proposed, however there are no exact quotations as to specific narration, therefore can only be assume as “opinion” either from the authors or Lucifer. Thereby, in order to bring this so called “Manifesto” to action, it would require as certain amount of authority, which was eventually striped from those who presented the “declaration”. Also, the UB presents another example of a “manifesto” which was declared and put to action in Jesus’ time, which would imply that Jesus’ presentation was similar to what Lucifer presented to be proved through action.
(1718.2) 154:2.1 Sunday, May 8, A.D. 29, at Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin passed a decree closing all the synagogues of Palestine to Jesus and his followers. This was a new and unprecedented usurpation of authority by the Jerusalem Sanhedrin. Theretofore each synagogue had existed and functioned as an independent congregation of worshipers and was under the rule and direction of its own board of governors. Only the synagogues of Jerusalem had been subject to the authority of the Sanhedrin. This summary action of the Sanhedrin was followed by the resignation of five of its members. One hundred messengers were immediately dispatched to convey and enforce this decree. Within the short space of two weeks every synagogue in Palestine had bowed to this manifesto of the Sanhedrin except the synagogue at Hebron. The rulers of the Hebron synagogue refused to acknowledge the right of the Sanhedrin to exercise such jurisdiction over their assembly. This refusal to accede to the Jerusalem decree was based on their contention of congregational autonomy rather than on sympathy with Jesus’ cause. Shortly thereafter the Hebron synagogue was destroyed by fire.
Revelation is not dangerous. Truth is not dangerous. But, there is great danger in “. . . succumbing to the error of the circumscribed viewpoint, to the evil inherent in a segmentalized conception of reality and divinity.” (19:1.4)
I’m glad that you used a portion of the UB, to make your argument here, (19:1.4), which is as I implied to Bradly in the use of certain section of the UB which may not apply to a specific scenario being attempted for an example. Where the following is the a more complete representation:
(215.1) 19:1.4 In this connection, however, it may be noted that Teacher Sons are the supreme co-ordinating personalities of Trinity origin. In such a far-flung universe of universes there is always great danger of succumbing to the error of the circumscribed viewpoint, to the evil inherent in a segmentalized conception of reality and divinity.
(215.2) 19:1.5 For example: The human mind would ordinarily crave to approach the cosmic philosophy portrayed in these revelations by proceeding from the simple and the finite to the complex and the infinite, from human origins to divine destinies. But that path does not lead to spiritual wisdom. Such a procedure is the easiest path to a certain form of genetic knowledge, but at best it can only reveal man’s origin; it reveals little or nothing about his divine destiny.
(215.3) 19:1.6 Even in the study of man’s biologic evolution on Urantia, there are grave objections to the exclusive historic approach to his present-day status and his current problems. The true perspective of any reality problem — human or divine, terrestrial or cosmic — can be had only by the full and unprejudiced study and correlation of three phases of universe reality: origin, history, and destiny. The proper understanding of these three experiential realities affords the basis for a wise estimate of the current status.
(215.4) 19:1.7 When the human mind undertakes to follow the philosophic technique of starting from the lower to approach the higher, whether in biology or theology, it is always in danger of committing four errors of reasoning:
(215.5) 19:1.8 1. It may utterly fail to perceive the final and completed evolutionary goal of either personal attainment or cosmic destiny.
(215.6) 19:1.9 2. It may commit the supreme philosophical blunder by oversimplifying cosmic evolutionary (experiential) reality, thus leading to the distortion of facts, to the perversion of truth, and to the misconception of destinies.
(215.7) 19:1.10 3. The study of causation is the perusal of history. But the knowledge of how a being becomes does not necessarily provide an intelligent understanding of the present status and true character of such a being.
(215.8) 19:1.11 4. History alone fails adequately to reveal future development — destiny. Finite origins are helpful, but only divine causes reveal final effects. Eternal ends are not shown in time beginnings. The present can be truly interpreted only in the light of the correlated past and future.
(215.9) 19:1.12 Therefore, because of these and for still other reasons, do we employ the technique of approaching man and his planetary problems by embarkation on the time-space journey from the infinite, eternal, and divine Paradise Source and Center of all personality reality and all cosmic existence.
A segmented conception of reality is due to the failure to utilize the three cosmic mind reality recognition reflexes, or reality sensitivity responses, which are:
I’m not sure how your explanation refers to your use of “the three reality reflexes” but I can understand where you may have associated this to the presentation you used, which is viable but does not seem to explain your original use of the phrase in question? Where as you indicate is more associated to the “cosmic mind”, which one could only assume that in its reference that you have access too, and if it is not exclusive then all others have the same access, making any exclusivity common.
