Preview: a read-only copy of the forum. To post or reply, use the current forum.

Need clarification on the rebellion papers…

278 posts · 10 participants · started Aug 22, 2014, 2:00 AM

BradlyParticipant
Sep 16, 2014, 9:39 PM
Hi Scott….sorry but hadn’t noticed this was between you and me at all….seems others share my confusion about your point. So then, no being was ever in jeopardy by any other being and none ever have been, but Manotia was afraid? of what? And the rebels believed they could harm her or another even though this is a universal and eternal impossibility that had never occurred before? but never fear for Manotia was protected by some executioner? You see, I remain confused as to your original point and your ongoing defense of that unknown and heretofore misunderstood point. Manotia had no such protection…and needed no such protection. Therefore, her quote has some other meaning than she was “attacked” or an mind/spirit/person “rape” was attempted (as this has never ever happened) and her destruction which the rebels sought must have been, therefore, by means of her understanding the consequences to her from their attempt to get her to join the rebellion by a liaison of influence and persuasion of her peers and superiors. So what’s your point then? Or is there still something we actually disagree about here?

And I hope people do read the topic in time to come and understand this essential truth – we live in and are cosmic citizens of a friendly universe, ruled by love, and no being faces any danger from any quarter except as results from our inviolate free will and even that takes a very long time to reach any limit of mercy credits. To teach anything else or believe anything else is fundamentally contrary to the Revelation. We are each God’s personal children and in His watch care and revered and cherished by all other beings….and those who sin and even rebel are also loved thusly and given so much time and love to turn toward the light of this endless love and mercy.

It is evil at least, if not sin itself, to teach anything at all that promotes fear or delivers doubt of the universal truth of love and mercy to others IMO Scott. There was nothing to fear by any party in the text posted and never has been. The only act or outcome that could possibly be dangerous or destructive to any individual was that individual free will choice thrust upon every celestial in the system which might lead to their own suicide of non-reality existence and the potential of self destruction by that free will choice. Nothing trivial about the issue….

"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
TUBParticipant
Sep 17, 2014, 5:23 PM

Bradly wrote:

Hi Scott….sorry but hadn’t noticed this was between you and me at all….seems others share my confusion about your point.

If you go back to the beginning you will see that I lay out my point quite clearly. It is that the rebels are delusional for thinking that they can destroy another being. (Obviously they can’t).

So then, no being was ever in jeopardy by any other being and none ever have been, but Manotia was afraid? of what?

Where in the text does it say that Manotia was afraid? She didn’t seem afraid to me. Probably because she knew no real harm could come upon her.

And the rebels believed they could harm her or another even though this is a universal and eternal impossibility that had never occurred before? but never fear for Manotia was protected by some executioner?

Every big idea the rebels had was a delusion, so its not surprising that they had this delusion of harming another being. None of their ideas have ever come true. All of their schemes are eternal impossibilities. When did I say an executioner was protecting her?

– we live in and are cosmic citizens of a friendly universe, ruled by love, and no being faces any danger from any quarter except as results from our inviolate free will and even that takes a very long time to reach any limit of mercy credits. To teach anything else or believe anything else is fundamentally contrary to the Revelation. We are each God’s personal children and in His watch care and revered and cherished by all other beings….and those who sin and even rebel are also loved thusly and given so much time and love to turn toward the light of this endless love and mercy. It is evil at least, if not sin itself, to teach anything at all that promotes fear or delivers doubt of the universal truth of love and mercy to others IMO Scott. There was nothing to fear by any party in the text posted and never has been.

Right but what does that have to do with me? Where did I teach fear? Who is teaching fear here? Think about this. I am saying that the rebels are not even allowed to touch another being in any harmful way. You are saying that the rebels are free to enact their “liaison forces” on another being. You are actually promoting a more frightening situation than I am.

The only act or outcome that could possibly be dangerous or destructive to any individual was that individual free will choice thrust upon every celestial in the system which might lead to their own suicide of non-reality existence and the potential of self destruction by that free will choice. Nothing trivial about the issue….

When did I say that Manotia was ever in danger? She rejected their plans to join in the insult against Michael, so obviously she was always safe.
BonitaParticipant
Sep 17, 2014, 6:17 PM

TUB wrote:

Just to touch on one question you had BB. The part about destroying that being with liaison forces is interesting. It would seem that these beings became extremely deluded as a result of joining the rebellion. There is no way for them to destroy a being lol. Only the executioners can do that. Liaison forces are just interfacing energies. Spiritual beings can pro-create through liaison, it’s like spiritual sex. In other words these beings where going to try and rape this being to death.

This is what the BIG STINK is about Scott. Your words, which I have quoted above. You stated that liaison forces are interfacing energies; that spiritual beings use interfacing liaison energies to procreate like spiritual sex. Then you wrote the most objectionable thing I’ve ever seen you write, that the liaison forces were going to try to rape Manotia to death. It’s really an outrageous claim and we all pretty much agree that it doesn’t ring the truth bell. It really does smell bad.

We are all trying to help you understand the error of your thinking with as much patience as we can muster. Instead, you continually dig deeper entrenchments of self-defense. Why you continue to defend this idea I don’t know; it seems insane. Are you defending the idea or are you defending your ego, or Chrisology or what? Either way, just stop it! Why defend something so ludicrous? Just admit you were wrong about the rape thing and let it go. We will still like you if you do. Honest.
BradlyParticipant
Sep 17, 2014, 6:44 PM
TUB wrote:

You are saying that the rebels are free to enact their “liaison forces” on another being. You are actually promoting a more frightening situation than I am.

I’ve never even thought such a thing. Certainly never said it. Liaison forces are ambassadors or propaganda-ists or communicators representing a body of like minded persons or organizational units. I’m the one who insisted you agree that all are safe in God’s universe and in no danger by any other party or group ever. So now you claim I say the opposite? Don’t get it. But done here until sanity returns.

"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
TUBParticipant
Sep 17, 2014, 10:24 PM
Bonita: that spiritual beings use interfacing liaison energies to procreate like spiritual sex.

They do procreate through a liaison with each other!

^(862.6)^77:6.2 Among the children of Adamson there were just sixteen of the peculiar progenitors of the secondary midwayers. These unique children were equally divided as regards sex, and each couple was capable of producing a secondary midwayer every seventy days by a combined technique of sex and nonsex liaison. And such a phenomenon was never possible on earth before that time, nor has it ever occurred since.

^(415.1)^37:9.9The Material Sons of God. When a creative liaison between the Creator Son and the universe representative of the Infinite Spirit, the Universe Mother Spirit, has completed its cycle, when no more offspring of the combined nature are forthcoming, then does the Creator Son personalize in dual form his last concept of being, thus finally confirming his own and original dual origin.

^(385.2)^35:1.3 The Melchizedeks of our universe were all created within one millennial period of standard time by the Creator Son and the Creative Spirit in liaison with the Father Melchizedek.

^(307.1)^28:2.1Omniaphim are created by the Infinite Spirit in liaison with the Seven Supreme Executives,

If the rebel midwayers where trying to have a liaison with Manotia then add 2 and 2 together. That is an attempt to rape. You had no idea that the authors used the word liaison in this manner, that is what led to this big stink. And sorry but this is not the most offensive thing you have seen written, did Manotia offend you when she accused the rebels of attempting to destroy her? I am accusing them of the same thing.

Bonita: Either way, just stop it!

Sorry I missed the memo that said you have the authority to tell others to not talk.
AnonymousInactive
Sep 17, 2014, 10:31 PM

TUB wrote:

Every big idea the rebels had was a delusion, so its not surprising that they had this delusion of harming another being. None of their ideas have ever come true. All of their schemes are eternal impossibilities. When did I say an executioner was protecting her?

Interesting Scott, that you make this type of statements. I’m not sure if you were born in Canada, but you reside there, and when I grow up in Toronto, the education which I got back then was considered to be years above the same level in the USA, but I assume that you were subject to History in school, especially about Canada and the USA, as was I.

Therefore, to say that “None of their ideas have ever come true”, would be incorrect, where the History of the United States followed the same type of revolution or rebellion against Great Britain, which resulted in the Constitution of the United States. Even though Canada considers their-self as an independent country, they are still, in some way, subject to Great Britain, if not by monetary reparation but many consider that the Queen in England is their Queen in Canada. If you don’t believe me look at some of your currency which still presents her picture.

In order to state that “All of their schemes are eternal impossibilities” would indicate that, here again, you are proficient enough on this subject to make this kind of statement. If this is the case, could you enlighten us on the rebel’s schemes.

Now, by saying above, “so its not surprising that they had this delusion of harming another being” would first, indicate that you confirm that the rebels might have the ability “of harming another being”, regardless of whether they were or were not delusional, you make the case or give impression that they can, or at least by your definition, this is what you are saying, still. It is your writing skills which is being misinterpreted here, whether what you are writing is actually what you mean, is in question. It appears that you are writing as you would talk to someone, if you were face to face with them, much like Chris’ radio presentation, where he also responds to an audience which we can not see, but may be picking up their body language, and responding to that atmosphere in the room and to those who may be dialed in on the phone. If you don’t proof read your posts, with a indifferent mind, as the reader might receive or interpret, then your posts may be taken or understood differently, than if you were in the same room.

Also, what was the “big idea”, or ideas that the rebels had that make you think that they were a “delusion”? Being spiritual beings, and having the ability to make note of the actions of the material beings, being affected, by the spiritual administration, and it would seem that on the upper end of this administration, it was an absentee administration, being handed down from many who had no first hand experience, nor seemed to want any. So, what was the “delusion” you speck of, where delusion must be offset by truth or results, so what was it that Lucifer said in the Manifesto, that makes you think that there were no problems which might justify a rebellion? Do you think that England thought that the American revolution was justified, no because they fought to keep the status quo.
TUBParticipant
Sep 17, 2014, 10:37 PM
@midi none of the ideas that they came up with (when they were rebelling) came true. I am talking about all of their sophistries, those sophistries are filled with ideas. What evidence do I have that none of these ideas came true? Well that is why the authors call them sophistries. A sophistry is something that is not inherently real. Its fundamentally false.
TUBParticipant
Sep 17, 2014, 10:42 PM
Often the authors of TUB will consider the etymology of a word when they use it. Its not hard to see why the authors use the word liaison when they talk about procreating spiritual beings. Or when they talk about liaison in relation to energies.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liaison

1640s, from French liaison “a union, a binding together” (13c.), from Late Latin ligationem (nominative ligatio) “a binding,” from past participle stem of Latin ligare “to bind” (seeligament ). Originally a cookery term for a thickening agent for sauces. Sense of “intimate relations” is from 1806. Military sense of “cooperation between branches, allies, etc.” is from 1816. The noun meaning “one who is concerned with liaison of units, etc.” is short for liaison officer.

Chris has unpacked the meaning of many of the words in the Urantia Book. His interpretations of words in TUB is highly regarded in TUB circles. His definitions of words are even posted on Urantia websites.
AnonymousInactive
Sep 17, 2014, 10:49 PM

TUB wrote:

They do procreate through a liaison with each other!

(862.6)77:6.2 Among the children of Adamson there were just sixteen of the peculiar progenitors of the secondary midwayers. These unique children were equally divided as regards sex, and each couple was capable of producing a secondary midwayer every seventy days by a combined technique of sex and nonsex liaison. And such a phenomenon was never possible on earth before that time, nor has it ever occurred since.

(415.1)37:9.9 The Material Sons of God. When a creative liaison between the Creator Son and the universe representative of the Infinite Spirit, the Universe Mother Spirit, has completed its cycle, when no more offspring of the combined nature are forthcoming, then does the Creator Son personalize in dual form his last concept of being, thus finally confirming his own and original dual origin.

(385.2)35:1.3 The Melchizedeks of our universe were all created within one millennial period of standard time by the Creator Son and the Creative Spirit in liaison with the Father Melchizedek.

(307.1)28:2.1 Omniaphim are created by the Infinite Spirit in liaison with the Seven Supreme Executives,

If the rebel midwayers where trying to have a liaison with Manotia then add 2 and 2 together. That is an attempt to rape. You had no idea that the authors used the word liaison in this manner, that is what led to this big stink. And sorry but this is not the most offensive thing you have seen written, did Manotia offend you when she accused the rebels of attempting to destroy her? I am accusing them of the same thing.

So, what’s you point Scott, the quotes that you are using have nothing to do with “rape”, what are you drinking?

Your first quote is in reference to the creation of secondary Midwayers, which was different from the creation of primary Midwayers. Also, if you want to cut and past words and phrases to make that point, I would think that the authors would just say “rape” instead of making statements which are in definition of something altogether different, but the authors can not account for the readers imagination, or reading skills. Nothing you have presented above can be construed as “rape”. So, by your constant repetition, you are acknowledging that you actually believe that this “rape” issue is actually your own idea, therefore those who have stated a negative response are justified in their accusations.
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Sep 17, 2014, 10:55 PM

TUB wrote:

@midi none of the ideas that they came up with (when they were rebelling) came true. I am talking about all of their sophistries, those sophistries are filled with ideas. What evidence do I have that none of these ideas came true? Well that is why the authors call them sophistries. A sophistry is something that is not inherently real. Its fundamentally false.

What do you think about the American revolution? Was it rebellion against established, constellation order? I was reading the following and got to thinking…

5 The Constellation Fathers are little occupied with the individuals of an inhabited planet, but they are closely associated with those legislative and lawmaking functions of the constellations which so greatly concern every mortal race and national group of the inhabited worlds.

BB
AnonymousInactive
Sep 17, 2014, 11:02 PM

TUB wrote:

Chris has unpacked the meaning of many of the words in the Urantia Book. His interpretations of words in TUB is highly regarded in TUB circles. His definitions of words are even posted on Urantia websites.

Yes you are correct they are on the Websites, but just because it is on a Websites, it does not mean it is true. I’ve read Chris’ definitions and can not agree with them. B.B. and I had a private conversation regarding some of those definitions, some time ago and I presented him with some of my definitions, which could just as easily be correct or incorrect as what Chris posted. Nevertheless, you are just being the antagonist as I previously indicated. It would seem that you actually like being the center of attention, regardless if it is negative or positive. You seem to be an expert on Sophistry, I wonder why?
AnonymousInactive
Sep 17, 2014, 11:12 PM

TUB wrote:

Often the authors of TUB will consider the etymology of a word when they use it.

That’s correct Scott but if I may give you an example which could support my previous post.

(603.5) 53:3.4 Most bitterly did he attack the right of the Ancients of Days — “foreign potentates” — to interfere in the affairs of the local systems and universes. These rulers he denounced as tyrants and usurpers. He exhorted his followers to believe that none of these rulers could do aught to interfere with the operation of complete home rule if men and angels only had the courage to assert themselves and boldly claim their rights.

Were the following is found, “foreign … potentates” – an “Oath of allegiance” for citizenship in the (United States of America)”

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
TUBParticipant
Sep 17, 2014, 11:15 PM

Brooklyn_born wrote:

TUB wrote:

@midi none of the ideas that they came up with (when they were rebelling) came true. I am talking about all of their sophistries, those sophistries are filled with ideas. What evidence do I have that none of these ideas came true? Well that is why the authors call them sophistries. A sophistry is something that is not inherently real. Its fundamentally false.

What do you think about the American revolution? Was it rebellion against established, constellation order? I was reading the following and got to thinking…

5 The Constellation Fathers are little occupied with the individuals of an inhabited planet, but they are closely associated with those legislative and lawmaking functions of the constellations which so greatly concern every mortal race and national group of the inhabited worlds.

I don’t think it was rebellion against any Deity.
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Sep 17, 2014, 11:26 PM

TUB wrote:

Brooklyn_born wrote:

TUB wrote:

@midi none of the ideas that they came up with (when they were rebelling) came true. I am talking about all of their sophistries, those sophistries are filled with ideas. What evidence do I have that none of these ideas came true? Well that is why the authors call them sophistries. A sophistry is something that is not inherently real. Its fundamentally false.

What do you think about the American revolution? Was it rebellion against established, constellation order? I was reading the following and got to thinking…

5 The Constellation Fathers are little occupied with the individuals of an inhabited planet, but they are closely associated with those legislative and lawmaking functions of the constellations which so greatly concern every mortal race and national group of the inhabited worlds.

I don’t think it was rebellion against any Deity.

What is your understanding of the most Highs’ governance of the affairs of races and nations? How do you think it manifests is basically what I am asking.

BB
TUBParticipant
Sep 17, 2014, 11:59 PM

Brooklyn_born wrote:

TUB wrote:

Brooklyn_born wrote:

TUB wrote:

@midi none of the ideas that they came up with (when they were rebelling) came true. I am talking about all of their sophistries, those sophistries are filled with ideas. What evidence do I have that none of these ideas came true? Well that is why the authors call them sophistries. A sophistry is something that is not inherently real. Its fundamentally false. What do you think about the American revolution? Was it rebellion against established, constellation order? I was reading the following and got to thinking… 5 The Constellation Fathers are little occupied with the individuals of an inhabited planet, but they are closely associated with those legislative and lawmaking functions of the constellations which so greatly concern every mortal race and national group of the inhabited worlds. I don’t think it was rebellion against any Deity.

What is your understanding of the most Highs’ governance of the affairs of races and nations? How do you think it manifests is basically what I am asking.

Well they have angels, midwayers and reservists that they can use to impact world affairs. I don’t know how exactly this is done though. Some of the descriptions that they give different types of Angels makes me curious about this topic though.
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Sep 18, 2014, 12:08 AM

TUB wrote:

Brooklyn_born wrote:

TUB wrote:

Brooklyn_born wrote:

TUB wrote:

@midi none of the ideas that they came up with (when they were rebelling) came true. I am talking about all of their sophistries, those sophistries are filled with ideas. What evidence do I have that none of these ideas came true? Well that is why the authors call them sophistries. A sophistry is something that is not inherently real. Its fundamentally false. What do you think about the American revolution? Was it rebellion against established, constellation order? I was reading the following and got to thinking… 5 The Constellation Fathers are little occupied with the individuals of an inhabited planet, but they are closely associated with those legislative and lawmaking functions of the constellations which so greatly concern every mortal race and national group of the inhabited worlds. I don’t think it was rebellion against any Deity.

What is your understanding of the most Highs’ governance of the affairs of races and nations? How do you think it manifests is basically what I am asking.

Well they have angels, midwayers and reservists that they can use to impact world affairs. I don’t know how exactly this is done though. Some of the descriptions that they give different types of Angels makes me curious about this topic though.

Scotland will vote tomorrow whether to remain part of the United Kingdom or secede. I am wondering if the most Highs extend their governance to national events like that .

BB
BonitaParticipant
Sep 18, 2014, 1:29 AM

TUB wrote: Chris has unpacked the meaning of many of the words in the Urantia Book.

Has he unpacked the meaning of the word disputatious?
TUBParticipant
Sep 18, 2014, 3:59 AM

Brooklyn_born wrote:

TUB wrote:

Brooklyn_born wrote:

TUB wrote:

Brooklyn_born wrote:

TUB wrote:

@midi none of the ideas that they came up with (when they were rebelling) came true. I am talking about all of their sophistries, those sophistries are filled with ideas. What evidence do I have that none of these ideas came true? Well that is why the authors call them sophistries. A sophistry is something that is not inherently real. Its fundamentally false. What do you think about the American revolution? Was it rebellion against established, constellation order? I was reading the following and got to thinking… 5 The Constellation Fathers are little occupied with the individuals of an inhabited planet, but they are closely associated with those legislative and lawmaking functions of the constellations which so greatly concern every mortal race and national group of the inhabited worlds. I don’t think it was rebellion against any Deity. What is your understanding of the most Highs’ governance of the affairs of races and nations? How do you think it manifests is basically what I am asking. Well they have angels, midwayers and reservists that they can use to impact world affairs. I don’t know how exactly this is done though. Some of the descriptions that they give different types of Angels makes me curious about this topic though.

Scotland will vote tomorrow whether to remain part of the United Kingdom or secede. I am wondering if the most Highs extend their governance to national events like that .

I really have no idea. The Most High do “rule in the kingdom of men”. They can directly affect leadership in nations. But I don’t know how they do this.

Reply on the current forum