MidiChlorian wrote: Although, I disagree with her interpretation or implication of Michael using the “personality circuit”, to be able to know what was or is in Lucifer’s mind, . . .
The personality circuit is utilized by the Universal Father, not the universe father. Please correct your statement above because it is wrong. Here’s the quote again for your convenience.
My reference to “personality circuit”, above was in your post number #27821, where in your statement and mixing the term God with the Universal Father, and indicating the reference to Lucifer personality, implied that Michael also could utilize this type of circuit, where it is my understanding that you perceive Michael as God. Nevertheless, the full quote which you referenced, in that previously you used a portion only, states “Creator Sons seem to possess a spiritual endowment”, but does not state a finite possession.
MidiChlorian wrote: Then if I’m not mistaken it is in reference to “the Spirit of Truth” which would be after the fact?
But you are mistaken. The spirit-gravity circuit is not the same as the Spirit of Truth. And, since you haven’t corrected your mistake in your previous post, I’ll repeat, the spirit-gravity circuit is also not the same as the personality circuit. If you’re interested in an essay on these matters let me know, otherwise I won’t waste my time.
My reference to “the Spirit of Truth” above was in reference to the quote (33:1.3) also in question because of the inclusion of “spiritual drawing power, spirit gravity,” where it states (20:1.13) “which they can bestow, as did your own Creator Son when he poured out his spirit upon all mortal flesh on Urantia”, which occurred after the fact of resurrection, and return. Where as I mentioned above, the quote stated, “seem to”, not does, therefore it implies likened too.
I cannot make corrections to your opinions or implications as I read them or understand them. Also your indication where I am wrong and or mistaken, is based on your assumption of what I meant, not what I said, where if what I said was confusing then a question should have been in order, rather then a presentation of error? And, I’m not “interested in an essay on these matters” because my time is worth more to me then to waste your time, and my own. I’ve read portions of your essays that you have presented on this forum. Sorry. Also, as a point of order, this response is not intended as harassment, only a response to your preclusion of error.