Judgement

100 posts · 8 participants · started Jan 20, 2015, 1:07 AM

1. E

   emanny3003Blocked
   Jan 20, 2015, 1:07 AM

   What is judgement. Jesus refused to engage in it. He warned a universe of his children right up to Gabriel not to engage in it. “Judge no lest ye be judged” was his admonishment. Who was he admonishing? Was not the entire universe tuned in?

   Did Jesus judge Herod when he referred to him as ‘that old fox’?

   Did he judge the temple authorities when he referred to them as hypocrites?

   Did Jesus judge the money changers at the temple for the practice of idolatry?

   Did Jesus judge the Pharisees for there idolatry of scripture and refusing to abide by the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law?

   Regards, Manny

2. T

   tasParticipant
   Jan 20, 2015, 2:58 AM

   What Jesus admonished against more specifically was judging another person’s inner life, and their standing and status before God. He also taught, understandably so, that people do and even “must” judge others according to their acts and deeds. It’s just a part of life that judgments are going to be made, whether they are made rightly or wrongly, for lesser topics than a person’s standing before God, and about these, Jesus says in the UB:

   “You must judge your fellows by their deeds; the Father in heaven judges by the intent.” (140:6.4)

   “Your fellows must judge you by what you did, but there is a Judge to whom you may appeal for forgiveness, and who will judge you by your real motives and better intentions. You need not fear to meet the judgment of God if your repentance is genuine and your faith sincere.” (133:4.12)

   “You can only judge men by their acts, but my Father looks into the hearts if his children and in mercy ajudges them in accordance with their intents and real desires.” (140:6.4)

   “While you cannot pretend to sit in judgment on the souls of your fellows, and while you may not forgive sins or otherwise presume to usurp the prerogatives of the supervisors of the heavenly hosts, at the same time, it has been committed to your hands that you should maintain temporal order in the kingdom on earth. While you may not meddle with the divine decrees concerning eternal life, you shall determine the issues of conduct as they concern the temporal welfare of the brotherhood on earth.” (159:1.3)

   “Judge justly, even mercifully… judge as you would be judged” (133:4.7).

3. B

   BonitaParticipant
   Jan 20, 2015, 4:30 AM

   It might be useful to remember that Creators never sit in judgment on their creatures.

   33:7.1 Creators never sit in judgment on their creatures; that is the exclusive function of creatures of high training and actual creature experience.

   Also, the judicial system of our universe is supervised by Gabriel except for matters of life and death.

   33:7.2 The entire judicial mechanism of Nebadon is under the supervision of Gabriel.

    

4. E

   emanny3003Blocked
   Jan 20, 2015, 1:38 PM

   My next question is in the matter of Gabriel vs Lucifer, does Gabriel play the part of prosecutor?

   In the indictments against Lucifer et al., are the judgements those of deeds? If so, what were the actual deeds?

   54:2.3 Lucifer’s folly was the attempt to do the nondoable, to short-circuit time in an experiential universe. Lucifer’s crime was the attempted creative disenfranchisement of every personality in Satania, the unrecognized abridgment of the creature’s personal participation—freewill participation—in the long evolutionary struggle to attain the status of light and life both individually and collectively. In so doing, this onetime Sovereign of your system set the temporal purpose of his own will directly athwart the eternal purpose of God’s will as it is revealed in the bestowal of free will upon all personal creatures. The Lucifer rebellion thus threatened the maximum possible infringement of the freewill choice of the ascenders and servers of the system of Satania—a threat forevermore to deprive every one of these beings of the thrilling experience of contributing something personal and unique to the slowly erecting monument to experiential wisdom which will sometime exist as the perfected system of Satania. Thus does the Lucifer manifesto, masquerading in the habiliments of liberty, stand forth in the clear light of reason as a monumental threat to consummate the theft of personal liberty and to do it on a scale that has been approached only twice in all the history of Nebadon.

   Seems to me that the key words in the quote above by a Mighty Messenger is “attempt” and “attempted”. Does an attempt constitute a deed or an intent?

   Regards, Manny

5. B

   BonitaParticipant
   Jan 20, 2015, 2:09 PM

   It all comes down to disloyalty, failure to carry out God’s will.   What Gabriel contested was Lucifer’s right of secession (53:4.7).  Lucifer’s disloyalty put his ability to govern according to God’s will into question.  All matters like this are brought up through the proper judicial systems which begin at the local universe level and are then carried up to the superuniverse courts (33:7.5).  Gabriel supervises the local universe judicial mechanism (33:7.2) and would have to bring this case to Uversa for adjudication.

   33:7.5  The default or defection of any of the Local Universe Sons of God which jeopardizes their status and authority as Sons is never adjudicated in the tribunals of a Son; such a misunderstanding would be immediately carried to the superuniverse courts.

    

6. E

   emanny3003Blocked
   Jan 20, 2015, 2:22 PM

   Thanks Bonita and this I understand.

   Bonita wrote:

   It all comes down to disloyalty, failure to carry out God’s will. What Gabriel contested was Lucifer’s right of secession (53:4.7). Lucifer’s disloyalty put his ability to govern according to God’s will into question. All matters like this are brought up through the proper judicial systems which begin at the local universe level and are then carried up to the superuniverse courts (33:7.5). Gabriel supervises the local universe judicial mechanism (33:7.2) and would have to bring this case to Uversa for adjudication.

   33:7.5 The default or defection of any of the Local Universe Sons of God which jeopardizes their status and authority as Sons is never adjudicated in the tribunals of a Son; such a misunderstanding would be immediately carried to the superuniverse courts.

   My next question is, does Lucifer have the right of secession? Is that the case of Gabriel vs Lucifer? Are Gabriel and Lucifer debating what is God’s will? Is this a dispute as to what is God’s will? So, it stands to reason that the The Ancients of Days will decide who is actually following God’s will. Could Gabriel lose this argument and if so, then what happens next? Are both sides at the same risk of judgement? Are the AOD debate judges on the Will of God?

   Regards, Manny

7. B

   BonitaParticipant
   Jan 20, 2015, 2:37 PM

   It is my opinion that the case concerns Lucifer’s right to govern as a Son of God if he denies the existence of God.  Lucifer, a primary Lanonandek Son, was the System Sovereign of Satania.  Recall that the System Sovereign is a representative of the Father to the inhabited planets, being one level below the Most Highs.

8. E

   emanny3003Blocked
   Jan 20, 2015, 3:17 PM

   Thanks Bonita.

   Does secession imply a denial of the existence of God? Or does secession imply a denial of Gabriel’s authority?

   Was Lucifer attempting to be disloyal to God or just to Gabriel?

   Regards, Manny

9. B

   BonitaParticipant
   Jan 20, 2015, 3:30 PM

   Gabriel doesn’t demand loyalty.  Loyalty belongs to God the Father.  Lucifer denied the existence of God the Father, and believed that reality could be explained by inherent facts alone.

   53:3.2  The reality of the Universal Father. Lucifer charged that the Universal Father did not really exist, that physical gravity and space-energy were inherent in the universe, and that the Father was a myth invented by the Paradise Sons to enable them to maintain the rule of the universes in the Father’s name. He

   53:4.1 Satan proclaimed that worship could be accorded the universal forces — physical, intellectual, and spiritual — but that allegiance could be acknowledged only to the actual and present ruler, Lucifer, the “friend of men and angels” and the “God of liberty.”

   This is where we need our encyclopedia of UB terms.  Loyalty is devotion to the highest duty, and the highest duty of any personality is to do the will of God.

10. E

    emanny3003Blocked
    Jan 20, 2015, 4:28 PM

    Interesting Bonita. This part of the book is not as studied by me as much as the sciences. Thank you.

    If Lucifer charged that the Universal Father did not exist then how can he be disloyal to Father? I know of many atheists that deny the existence of God. Is this the essence of Lucifer’s sin? If sin is willful disloyalty to Deity then how can Lucifer be guilty of sin?

    How can one reconcile the fact that it is God’s will that his children have freewill?

    In order to be disloyal to God one must first acknowledge the existence of God. If lucifer denied the existence of God then to whom did he deny this to? Was it Gabriel? If it was Gabriel, then Lucifer was denying the authority of Gabriel and not God’s authority. No? There is certainly freewill at play here and that is God’s will.

    Regards, Manny

11. B

    Brooklyn_bornParticipant
    Jan 20, 2015, 5:10 PM

    emanny3003 wrote:

    If Lucifer charged that the Universal Father did not exist then how can he be disloyal to Father?

    That is truly puzzling. How can God be denied when he does not exist to that person? But we should ask ourselves, did Lucifer always believe God did not exist or did he lose faith? If he lost faith in God then I could see why he is able to be in denial.  From my understanding at some point Lucifer started to lose faith in  God.

    BB

12. E

    emanny3003Blocked
    Jan 20, 2015, 5:39 PM

    Brooklyn_born wrote:

    That is truly puzzling. How can God be denied when he does not exist to that person? But we should ask ourselves, did Lucifer always believe God did not exist or did he lose faith? If he lost faith in God then I could see why he is able to be in denial.  From my understanding at some point Lucifer started to lose faith in  God.

    Very true,BB. Let us assume that it was the case that Lucifer lost his faith in God. This would still be a matter of faith and freewill. Would Lucifer’s freewill choice in denying his faith be the same as denying God? Can Gabriel discern Lucifer’s intent or only his deeds? If it only a matter of deeds that concern Gabriel then what were Lucifer’s actual deeds that defiled him? That is the question I have now.

    Regards, Manny

13. T

    tasParticipant
    Jan 20, 2015, 6:25 PM

    emanny3003 wrote:

    Interesting Bonita. This part of the book is not as studied by me as much as the sciences. Thank you. If Lucifer charged that the Universal Father did not exist then how can he be disloyal to Father? I know of many atheists that deny the existence of God. Is this the essence of Lucifer’s sin? If sin is willful disloyalty to Deity then how can Lucifer be guilty of sin? How can one reconcile the fact that it is God’s will that his children have freewill? In order to be disloyal to God one must first acknowledge the existence of God. If lucifer denied the existence of God then to whom did he deny this to? Was it Gabriel? If it was Gabriel, then Lucifer was denying the authority of Gabriel and not God’s authority. No? There is certainly freewill at play here and that is God’s will. Regards, Manny

    The disloyalty wasn’t toward Gabriel, but to Michael, who is the visible (to a being such as Lucifer) representation of  the Father for the local universe:

    “No one ever suggested rebellion to Lucifer. The idea of self-assertion in opposition to the will of Michael and to the plans of the Universal Father, as they are represented in Michael, had its origin in his own mind.” (53:2.3)

14. B

    BonitaParticipant
    Jan 20, 2015, 6:32 PM

    emanny3003 wrote:  If Lucifer charged that the Universal Father did not exist then how can he be disloyal to Father? I know of many atheists that deny the existence of God. Is this the essence of Lucifer’s sin? If sin is willful disloyalty to Deity then how can Lucifer be guilty of sin?

    Well, that is the question, isn’t it?  And that’s why a trial is necessary.  Lucifer doesn’t think he sinned and possibly doesn’t even believe in sin at all.  However, the majority of the universe does understand that sin exists. It must be determined who is right, therefore the need for a trial.

    emanny3003 wrote: How can one reconcile the fact that it is God’s will that his children have freewill?

    May I suggest a new topic for that question? Answering it here will result in a tangential discussion.  But in the meantime, I’ll offer this quote to ponder:

    53:4.6 Gabriel was personally present throughout all these disloyal proceedings and only announced that he would, in due time, speak for Michael, and that all beings would be left free and unmolested in their choice; that the “government of the Sons for the Father desired only that loyalty and devotion which was voluntary, wholehearted, and sophistry-proof.”

    emanny3003 wrote:  In order to be disloyal to God one must first acknowledge the existence of God.

    I believe it safe to say that Lucifer does not consider his actions disloyal at all.  It seems to me that he sees them as quite logical and sane.  Others disagree . . . hence the need for a trial.

15. E

    emanny3003Blocked
    Jan 20, 2015, 6:45 PM

    I get it tas.

    tas wrote:

    The disloyalty wasn’t toward Gabriel, but to Michael, who is the visible (to a being such as Lucifer) representation of  the Father for the local universe:

    “No one ever suggested rebellion to Lucifer. The idea of self-assertion in opposition to the will of Michael and to the plans of the Universal Father, as they are represented in Michael, had its origin in his own mind.” (53:2.3)

    But when you say that Lucifer was disloyal to Michael does that not mean that Michael must be sovereign? At the time of the rebellion Michael was not yet sovereign of Nebadon. Lucifer could not have been disloyal to the sovereign Michael 200,000 years ago.

    The author of paper 53 is Manovandet Melchizedek. My question to Manovandet would be; how do you know that rebellion originated in the “mind” of Lucifer? How do you know that no one ever suggested it to Lucifer?

    Can Melchizedeks read minds or know intent?

    We do not have a paper authored by Lucifer so we have only one side presented. We do not have a paper authored by Michael so we do not know of his will either nor to the plans of the Universal Father.

    Let us think this through a little more. Hmm.

    Regards, Manny

16. B

    Brooklyn_bornParticipant
    Jan 20, 2015, 6:54 PM

    emanny3003 wrote:

    Brooklyn_born wrote:

    That is truly puzzling. How can God be denied when he does not exist to that person? But we should ask ourselves, did Lucifer always believe God did not exist or did he lose faith? If he lost faith in God then I could see why he is able to be in denial. From my understanding at some point Lucifer started to lose faith in God.

    Very true,BB. Let us assume that it was the case that Lucifer lost his faith in God. This would still be a matter of faith and freewill. Would Lucifer’s freewill choice in denying his faith be the same as denying God? Can Gabriel discern Lucifer’s intent or only his deeds? If it only a matter of deeds that concern Gabriel then what were Lucifer’s actual deeds that defiled him? That is the question I have now. Regards, Manny

    Perhaps the mechanics behind faith, redemption and damnation in non-fragmented and fragmented entities is different? I think what makes adjuster indwelt beings unique is the redemptive power in faith, especially during detention on the mansion worlds where faith naturally enhances. The personality then  can choose to avail itself of the opportunity to redeem its soul (fusion) afforded by this after-life regime. Non-fragmented entities, however, like Lanonandeks, don’t appear to have this luxury (rehabilitation worlds). They are created divinely perfect, with a single volition  in their faith, either do the will of the Father or rebel; they either can choose to submit to his glory or disobey and receive damnation. To me, there  does not seem to be an intermediary place in their being where repentance and redemption can be found.

    To answer your question, I think his denial in faith is a denial in God; Lucifer’s level of faith is commensurate with his capacity to ‘know’ God.  Lanonandeks do not possess the capacity Finaliters possess to know God, and their faiths are different, qualitatively, I would presume. Both know him relative to their innate or developed capacities, still. I don’t know how acute is Gabriel’s discerning ability of a personality’s intent, but I do know divine beings have tremendous power of insight. Perhaps they use really sophisticated personality algorithms to ascertain intent —I am guessing.  I think Lucifer’s sin centered mainly on the fact he won many souls over to the rebellion.  Had he kept his belief to himself and resign from his post, he’d be a free angel today.

     

     

    BB

17. B

    BonitaParticipant
    Jan 20, 2015, 7:07 PM

    emanny3003 wrote:  Can Melchizedeks read minds or know intent?

    We are told the following:

    53:2.3 Notwithstanding his silence, for more than one hundred years of standard time the Union of Days on Salvington had been reflectivating to Uversa that all was not at peace in Lucifer’s mind.

    We know that the Union of Days are representatives of the Paradise Trinity, pretty high up the chain of command.  Seems to me that everyone in Uversa knew that something was wrong in Lucifer’s mind, which presumably includes the Melchizedeks.  It was no secret.

18. E

    emanny3003Blocked
    Jan 20, 2015, 7:08 PM

    Bonita wrote:

    Well, that is the question, isn’t it?  And that’s why a trial is necessary.  Lucifer doesn’t think he sinned and possibly doesn’t even believe in sin at all.  However, the majority of the universe does understand that sin exists. It must be determined who is right, therefore the need for a trial.

    I agree Bonita. A trial is necessary but we must ask if gabriel is on trial as much as Lucifer is. The Master did say “judge not lest ye be judged”. Was this not also for Gabriel’s ears? It must be determined who is right.

    54:4.5 There are many reasons known to us why the Supreme Rulers did not immediately destroy or intern the leaders of the Lucifer rebellion. There are no doubt still other and possibly better reasons unknown to us. The mercy features of this delay in the execution of justice were extended personally by Michael of Nebadon. Except for the affection of this Creator-father for his erring Sons, the supreme justice of the superuniverse would have acted. If such an episode as the Lucifer rebellion had occurred in Nebadon while Michael was incarnated on Urantia, the instigators of such evil might have been instantly and absolutely annihilated.

    The last sentence would lead one to think that a trial is not always granted.

    Bonita wrote:

    53:4.6 Gabriel was personally present throughout all these disloyal proceedings and only announced that he would, in due time, speak for Michael, and that all beings would be left free and unmolested in their choice; that the “government of the Sons for the Father desired only that loyalty and devotion which was voluntary, wholehearted, and sophistry-proof.”

    Yes indeed, this quote requires pondering. Again it is paper 54 authored by Manovandet. “Disloyal proceedings” is a judgement call. Are Melchizedeks allowed to judge their bothers?
    .
    Does Gabriel speak for Michael? This last sentence is irksome. Gabriel desires loyalty and devotion on a voluntary basis but he reserves the right to bring anyone to trial or immediate annihilation (if Michael is away) should anyone show even a hint of disloyalty. Am I reading this correctly?

    But I agree with you Bonita, we need a trial.

    Regards, Manny

19. T

    tasParticipant
    Jan 20, 2015, 7:44 PM

    emanny3003 wrote:

    I get it tas.

    tas wrote:

    The disloyalty wasn’t toward Gabriel, but to Michael, who is the visible (to a being such as Lucifer) representation of the Father for the local universe: “No one ever suggested rebellion to Lucifer. The idea of self-assertion in opposition to the will of Michael and to the plans of the Universal Father, as they are represented in Michael, had its origin in his own mind.” (53:2.3)

    But when you say that Lucifer was disloyal to Michael does that not mean that Michael must be sovereign? At the time of the rebellion Michael was not yet sovereign of Nebadon. Lucifer could not have been disloyal to the sovereign Michael 200,000 years ago.

    Yes, Michael did already have sovereignty.  His creatorship already implies fullness of sovereignty (21:3.3) “but the Michaels choose to experientially earn it”.  He was already far along in the third type of sovereignty manifestation at the time of the Lucifer rebellion, “augmenting vicegerent sovereignty” (21:3.7), and since then has attained the fourth level of it after concluding his experiences on Earth.

    “Although the Universal Father is not personally present in a local universe, he is personally represented by its Creator Son, sometime vicegerent of God and subsequently supreme and sovereign ruler in his own right.” 32:3.5

    The Michaels take an oath that until they pass through the experiences to become a Master Michael they will act as vicegerent sovereigns rather than as supreme sovereigns until they fully earn it experientially.  From the level of a being such as Lucifer, who was a created local universe son of Michael, Michael was father and his local universe sovereign.

    Paper 21 section 3 — “Local Universe Sovereignty”

20. B

    BonitaParticipant
    Jan 20, 2015, 7:49 PM

    emanny3003 wrote:

    I agree Bonita. A trial is necessary but we must ask if gabriel is on trial as much as Lucifer is. The Master did say “judge not lest ye be judged”. Was this not also for Gabriel’s ears? It must be determined who is right.

    If Gabriel was on trial, it would Lucifer vs. Gabriel; but it’s the other way around.  Gabriel is not judging, he’s bringing the case to trial so higher judges can judge.  He’s simply doing his job as chief executive and administrator of Nebadon.

    emanny3003 wrote:Does Gabriel speak for Michael? This last sentence is irksome. Gabriel desires loyalty and devotion on a voluntary basis but he reserves the right to bring anyone to trial or immediate annihilation (if Michael is away) should anyone show even a hint of disloyalty. Am I reading this correctly?

    No, you’re not.  It would have been Immanuel, not Gabriel who had the power to do these things.  During Michael’s bestowal mission the government of Nebadon was in the hands of both Gabriel and Immanuel; but, it was Immanuel who was given the power from Ancients of Days to call for the extinction of anyone instigating insurrection.  Immanuel said the following to Michael before his incarnation:

    120:1.5 “And that you may know with assurance that I am empowered to do all that I am now promising (knowing full well that I am the assurance of all Paradise for the faithful performance of my word), I announce to you that there has just been communicated to me a mandate of the Ancients of Days on Uversa which will prevent all spiritual jeopardy in Nebadon throughout the period of your voluntary bestowal. From the moment you surrender consciousness, upon the beginning of the mortal incarnation, until you return to us as supreme and unconditional sovereign of this universe of your own creation and organization, nothing of serious import can happen in all Nebadon. In this interim of your incarnation, I hold the orders of the Ancients of Days which unqualifiedly mandate the instantaneous and automatic extinction of any being guilty of rebellion or presuming to instigate insurrection in the universe of Nebadon while you are absent on this bestowal. My brother, in view of the authority of Paradise inherent in my presence and augmented by the judicial mandate of Uversa, your universe and all its loyal creatures will be secure during your bestowal. You may proceed upon your mission with but a single thought — the enhanced revelation of our Father to the intelligent beings of your universe.”

Reply on the current forum