I think I may be able to send a question to the forum tonight. If I can I will ask Chris to clarify the “liaison” and “energy overlapping. “
BB
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
- Brooklyn_born wrote: Do you think the belief in ‘celestial rape’ puts a person’s soul in jeopardy?
No. Ignorance doesn’t harm the soul but it slows its progress.
Brooklyn_born wrote: Could you expand on ‘error’? Would error include mere beliefs that really don’t have any influence on social behaviort? Thanks.First of all, do you think that a belief in spirit rape might affect your behavior? Of course it would. Do you think that the fear it creates is conducive to soul growth? Of course it isn’t. You do know that we are supposed to model our behavior towards one another based upon what Jesus and other higher spirits would do. If spirits rape one another, is that giving permission for rape? It certainly causes confusion and we know that confusion retards progress. Confusion is exactly what the rebel forces did to humans and we know that was evil. What’s the difference between Caligastia causing confusion and a teacher causing confusion? Caligastia’s error was deliberate. Is Chris’ error deliberate? I doubt it. Deliberate error is sin, inadvertent error is just evil. Is evil something you want? No, I don’t think so.Erroneous thinking is inevitable. Our individual framework of thought is only a temporary structure; these frameworks are not meant to take us into eternity. Frameworks of thought are supposed to help us build. But if the framework is wrong, then the building is weak. Correcting erroneous thinking is important. If it wasn’t important, then why did God send us so many celestial teachers over time? Why did Jesus try to correct erroneous thinking right up to the moment of his death? Erroneous thinking results in confusion and confusion is supposed to be an incentive to look for ways to clarify and rectify it. People look to God and some look to teachers to help them with their confusion. Confusion is not stable.I think it is extremely important that those who claim to be teachers should be particularly careful about what they teach. Those who are learning are no different than little ones and Jesus told us that it would be better to have a millstone around your neck and thrown into the sea than to lead a little one astray. Teachers must adhere to a higher standard because they have a great deal of responsibility in preventing erroneous thinking that could lead to confusion and slow another person’s spiritual progress.158:8.1 If you would be first in the kingdom, seek to minister these good truths to your brethren in the flesh. But whosoever causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea.I see what you mean and it makes sense. Thanks for elaborating.BB
Bonita, lets say you have a friend you know is in error in the belief he has adopted. But you play along and act like you agree to keep the peace and friendship going. Would you be committing sin?
BB
- TUB wrote: Also Your morontia self is your soul……
In another thread you claimed that the self is the same as the ego. In all the quotes from Paper 112 on the morontia self, they are talking about a morontia personality. A morontia self is a morontia personality. A morontia soul is not a self. Does a soul have an ego?
- marigold23 wrote: I agree that this was probably a war of ideas
I agree with you marigold23 and welcome to the forum.
I agree that this was probably a war of ideas. In 53:5.6, Lucifer “held forth continuously in the planetary amphitheater.” So, he persisted to be present in a public place where all who wanted to hear his ideas could possibly be swayed to his side. Meanwhile, Gabriel “conducted an unceasing exposure of the rebel sophistries from his headquarters…” and “The various personalities present on the sphere who were in doubt as to their attitude would journey back and forth between these discussions until they arrived at a final decision.” When you are talking about a battle of ideas between these two great personalities (Lucifer with his backround of being quite a wonderful and loyal being up to this point, and Gabriel, chief executive of Nebadon), the very idea of swaying personalities to one side or the other is a very real and destructive war.
Welcome marigold!! You would of course be welcome even if I didn’t agree with you – hahaha! But this has been my contention from first post. Not a single loyal angel was harmed and they freely moved back and forth from one leader to whom they had always been loyal to another leader to whom they’d always been loyal in a universe that heretofore had been in total balance and harmony. Now for the first time ever in there long, long existence of millions of years (or longer) they are faced with something so new….and dangerous….that great confusions must have been most discomforting. The central administration did not banish nor destroy the rebels but allowed them free reign and full voice to allow these liaison forces to seek to persuade. What a mind bender for all the faithful children. What a choice. I don’t think we can appreciate the drama and the risk presented. Thanks for your voice and perhaps we may come to disagree sometime on some topic….but not this one. Peace.
"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."
In that quote Manotia states that rebels were seeking his/her literal destruction. The rebellion was about ideas but the rebels where not spreading those ideas with the intention to destroy anyone. They were spreading those ideas to “liberate” the celestial beings. You have to think in literal terms when they say they attempted to destroy a being. One way or another the rebels were going to violate the personal space of Monotia (at least if they had it their way). Chris even states that their plan obviously isn’t going to come to fruition. So he isn’t actually saying they raped anyone. He is saying that was their misguided attempt. They were not going to try and kill Monotia through their sophistries, if they knew their sophistries were suicidal they wouldn’t believe in them.
- Brooklyn_born wrote: Bonita, lets say you have a friend you know is in error in the belief he has adopted. But you play along and act like you agree to keep the peace and friendship going. Would you be committing sin?
It depends on the belief, doesn’t it? If your friend believed in murdering his first born and you just played along, then yes, it’s a sin.
But let’s get something clear here. I don’t know if Chris BELIEVES in spirit rape but his thinking created confusion in his teaching and the confusion metastasized so now others do believe it. It’s not necessarily about believes, but wrong thinking that creates wrong beliefs.
- TUB wrote: Also Your morontia self is your soul……
In another thread you claimed that the self is the same as the ego. In all the quotes from Paper 112 on the morontia self, they are talking about a morontia personality. A morontia self is a morontia personality. A morontia soul is not a self. Does a soul have an ego?
The dictionary meaning of Ego is Self. There are a bevy of quotes that speak about the soul in the same context as the morontia self.
In that quote Manotia states that rebels were seeking his/her literal destruction. The rebellion was about ideas but the rebels where not spreading those ideas with the intention to destroy anyone. They were spreading those ideas to “liberate” the celestial beings. You have to think in literal terms when they say they attempted to destroy a being. One way or another the rebels were going to violate the personal space of Monotia (at least if they had it their way). Chris even states that their plan obviously isn’t going to come to fruition. So he isn’t actually saying they raped anyone. He is saying that was their misguided attempt. They were not going to try and kill Monotia through their sophistries, if they knew their sophistries were suicidal they wouldn’t believe in them.
The “destruction” was my sticking point and the reason why I raised the issue, TUB. Why would they seek the destruction of Manotia if they were allegedly trying to win her over to the rebellion. To me they were not trying to win over Manotia. It makes no sense for Manotia to use “destruction” to describe their actions unless she identified them as threatening.
BB
In that quote Manotia states that rebels were seeking his/her literal destruction.
I missed the word literal in the quote I guess – perhaps because it does not exist. And did not the rebels find destruction?…or at least isolation until destruction. The quote by Manotia came long after the affair. Sought my destruction by gaining disloyalty to the Creator Son I would think. Literal enough but more than one way to conceptualize literal destruction.
It makes no sense for Manotia to use “destruction” to describe their actions unless she identified them as threatening.
Me: Their position and argument was threatening her very survival and existence….upon relflection. All faced the same threat by the same source IMO.
"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."
- TUB wrote: You have to think in literal terms when they say they attempted to destroy a being.
Why? Why do I have to think in literal terms?
But okay, let’s be literal. What is the literal destruction mentioned? If I must think literally, as you say, then all it says is that “they sought my destruction”. Since she used the word my, one must assume she meant destruction of her personality. I can’t see where anyone would get a literal reading which indicates destruction by liaison with negative overlapping energies. There’s no mention of that at all, literally speaking.
- Brooklyn_born wrote: Bonita, lets say you have a friend you know is in error in the belief he has adopted. But you play along and act like you agree to keep the peace and friendship going. Would you be committing sin?
It depends on the belief, doesn’t it? If your friend believed in murdering his first born and you just played along, then yes, it’s a sin. But let’s get something clear here. I don’t know if Chris BELIEVES in spirit rape but his thinking created confusion in his teaching and the confusion metastasized so now others do believe it. It’s not necessarily about believes, but wrong thinking that creates wrong beliefs.
Then I am in sin
I have tried to get him to leave this belief but he is stuck in his way. At some point over the years I just gave up and focused on maintaining the friendship. And to keep the friendship I have to pretend I agree with him every time he brings up tenets to the doctrine and try to relate them to current events. So what would you do, if you don’t mind me asking. Would you break the friendship? Bear in mind this is 20+ years friendship.BB
In that quote Manotia states that rebels were seeking his/her literal destruction.
I missed the word literal in the quote I guess – perhaps because it does not exist. And did not the rebels find destruction?…or at least isolation until destruction. The quote by Manotia came long after the affair. Sought my destruction by gaining disloyalty to the Creator Son I would think. Literal enough but more than one way to conceptualize literal destruction.
It makes no sense for Manotia to use “destruction” to describe their actions unless she identified them as threatening.
Me: Their position and argument was threatening her very survival and existence….upon relflection. All faced the same threat by the same source IMO.
How could it be a viable threat when she had resolved to stay true to the original universe order? Think of it this way, if you are a staunch Christian, you would not see Muslims or other religions as a threat to your belief.
BB
- TUB wrote: The dictionary meaning of Ego is Self. There are a bevy of quotes that speak about the soul in the same context as the morontia self.
The morontia soul does not become a morontia self until the personality has shifted its identity to it. The morontia soul, for humans here on earth, is a potential morontia self. The Planetary Prince’s staff had an actual morontia self.
- Brooklyn_born wrote: Why would they seek the destruction of Manotia if they were allegedly trying to win her over to the rebellion.
I know you asked Scott, but I answered this question at the beginning of this thread, and you thought I was full of baloney. I’m going to try again just for fun.
The rebels were trying to win Monatia over to their way of thinking. To do so, Monatia would have to deny Michael, she would have to deny her loyalty to him. To deny loyalty to Michael is to deny loyalty to God. To deny loyalty to God will result in personality destruction.
- Brooklyn_born wrote: Would you break the friendship? Bear in mind this is 20+ years friendship.
I’m confused. Is he murdering his children?
I don’t think you understood my reply. What difference do tenets make unless they’re immoral or hateful?
- Brooklyn_born wrote: Think of it this way, if you are a staunch Christian, you would not see Muslims or other religions as a threat to your belief.
Maybe not a threat to your beliefs, but a threat to your existence. James Foley was a Christian who refused to convert to Islam. Now he’s a martyr. I can’t imagine what those early Christians, (and some Christians today), went through and wonder if I would be willing to do it myself. Christianity isn’t that important to me. But God is very important to me. I would not deny God even if lions were eating me.
- Brooklyn_born wrote: Why would they seek the destruction of Manotia if they were allegedly trying to win her over to the rebellion.
I know you asked Scott, but I answered this question at the beginning of this thread, and you thought I was full of baloney. I’m going to try again just for fun. The rebels were trying to win Monatia over to their way of thinking. To do so, Monatia would have to deny Michael, she would have to deny her loyalty to him. To deny loyalty to Michael is to deny loyalty to God. To deny loyalty to God will result in personality destruction.
The problem I have with your argument, Bonita, is I don’t believe it jibes with the sequence of events. I am of the opinion the rebels sought Manotia’s destruction only after she refused to participate. And then you have these buzz words like: “destruction,” “upheaval” and “harm.” They are not words to describe ideological effects on one’s psyche in my opinion.
3 “Not long since, in describing the experiences associated with the onset of the Lucifer rebellion, Manotia said: “But my most exhilarating moment was the thrilling adventure connected with the Lucifer rebellion when, as second seraphic commander, I refused to participate in the projected insult to Michael; and the powerful rebels sought my destruction by means of the liaison forces they had arranged. There was a tremendous upheaval on Jerusem, but not a single loyal seraphim was harmed.”
Notice Manotia says, “Not a single LOYAL seraphim was harmed.” Bonita, why would a LOYAL seraphim be in danger of harm? It does not make sense that a loyal seraphim could be in the way of harm when they are loyal. Only wavering or undecided beings could be in harm’s way, if this war was strictly fought on the ideological front. Now… one who is steadfast in faith and loyal yet supceptible to harm tells me that an effort is being made to fight this war on multiple fronts, not just one.
Also take a look at this:
“At the outbreak of rebellion on Jerusem the head of the seraphic hosts joined the Lucifer cause. This no doubt explains why such a large number of the fourth order, the system administrator seraphim, went astray.”
Those angels that sided with the rebellion, why aren’t they described as being harmed or destroyed? Why are they merely described as “went astray?”
BB
- Brooklyn_born wrote: Would you break the friendship? Bear in mind this is 20+ years friendship.
I’m confused. Is he murdering his children? I don’t think you understood my reply. What difference do tenets make unless they’re immoral or hateful?
No, he is not breaking any laws. He is Muslim and is full of anger and hate.BB
