The previous text about sin was biased. As I was a Catholic, I based it on my own experience with the Church; I had previously briefly reviewed the catechism. It was supposed to be exaggerated, so there was no shortage of conscious malice.
I cannot promise that the Catholic Church will not get hurt this time either. I will certainly try to be more serious, because what we learn about sin in The Urantia Book is one of its most important messages, especially in light of the prevailing doctrines today. There will be more definitions close to sin. “Evil” immediately comes to mind, and therefore also “good”. In addition, the papers supplement the definition of sin with the concepts of “error” and “wickedness”. All these terms are intertwined and interrelated.
I have gathered information about sin from the Urantia papers, systematized it, and now I will attempt to relate all this as far as I am able to comprehend and let me fill in the gaps with conjecture. A broader perspective on the subject will be given by discerning how the Book sees morality, conscience, death, free will and, above all, true religion – I have devoted separate materials to these issues.
EVOLUTIONARY man finds it difficult fully to comprehend the significance and to grasp the meanings of evil, error, sin, and iniquity. Man is slow to perceive that contrastive perfection and imperfection produce potential evil; that conflicting truth and falsehood create confusing error; that the divine endowment of freewill choice eventuates in the divergent realms of sin and righteousness; that the persistent pursuit of divinity leads to the kingdom of God as contrasted with its continuous rejection, which leads to the domains of iniquity.
54:0.1 (613.1)
Evil
In order to understand what sin is, we must go back to its origins. There is no great philosophy here — sin is the consequence of evil.
In the Church, evil is the absence of good. In practice, evil is that, what does not harmonize with the teachings. Such a vivid definition gives a wide range of possibilities, which priests eagerly use. Therefore, they often declare evil to be what harms the interests of institution, in reality their interests. This type of egoistic understanding of evil is also common in non-religious circles. I will not say that evil is never there where we point it out, even priests sometimes are getting this right. However, we most often see evil where something happens that we do not like. But is everything we don’t like really evil?
Jesus said, “… good and evil are merely words symbolizing the relative levels of human reasoning of the perceived universe.” On many occasions the Urantia narrative resonates in similar tones: Evil is a relative term; and it has many synonyms.
Our spiritual development is in its infancy. We try to understand the world around us, but many aspects of it – not only evil – will remain incomprehensible and unnamable to us for a long time. And it is precisely evil that is a symptom of misunderstanding of the divine universe, it emerges from weakness of mind and immature self. Evil is the incomplete consciousness of universe realities or mismatch with them. In its original form, it is only potential. I imagine evil as a distance separating what is divine from what is human. This space between perfection and imperfection, between the whole and the part, is the seat of evil, the cause and its source. For anything that is not divine, everything – however imperfect, is potentially evil.
Since potential, evil does not necessarily have to happen. And this is what intuition suggests. But evil is not merely an act, it does not need movement. It reveals itself through deeds, but in its essence it is one of the two theoretical directions in which free will can go. Here another concept introduced by The Urantia Book will be helpful—”error”. Evil is the possibility of an imperfect choice. An imperfect choice, that is, the realization of evil, is precisely a mistake.
Evil by the definition of The Urantia Book resembles the ecclesiastical evil in some details, I do not deny it. However, when we remove from the equation the lens through which we have been verifying evil so far – conscience, it turns out that these are appearances. From the reflections on the concept of conscience it appears that sensitivity to evil (and therefore also to good) is not based on morality at all. Conscience is probably right, more often than not, but an accurate evaluation of evil can only be given by an idea of True religion, which limits (disturbing the spirit) human factor. Thanks to this, evil becomes more intimate and less susceptible to influence.
And what about us? As finite creatures, we have been endowed with a glimpse of infinity — the Thought Adjuster. This divine fragment binds the created with the Creator. Thus perfection meets imperfection, this way imperfection is perfected, and perfection experiences imperfection. It is this duality that builds tension and generates the potential for evil. Here the difference in definitions becomes more glaring. According to The Urantia Book, our deficiencies do indeed make us vulnerable to evil, but this does not mean that we are evil, or that we are in some despicable way offending God by our very being.
Let’s go back to the beginnings. The Universal Father is originally and eternally perfect. In the endless past he created the central universe and the Isle of Paradise, and these are the full expression of his will — they are perfect as he is perfect. The Father has also created evolutionary universes like him — evolutionary creations tending toward perfection. At this point, I naturally invoke another related term: “good”. Unfortunately, when we see “good”, we are wrong as we are when we define “evil”. Because good is not that what we like, also is not what the priest says is good.
If evil is the possibility of the imperfect, then good is perfection. Said Jesus: “Evil is the measure of imperfection in submission to the Father’s will.” In practice, therefore, anything that in any way deviates from his will, anything that deviates from the divinely perfect conception, at that time is wrong. Evil thus becomes a potential (and as a result of mistakes and sins, actual) flaw on an impeccably good plan, because it is carried out according to an infallible will.
Practically bad
Potential gives the opportunity to make it a reality. I assume that evil can appear anywhere, but it will probably be easiest when we stay on our ground. In the case of creatures like us, evil is the result of evolutionary limitations, especially spiritual limitations. This is actually quite logical. Evil is revealed because we are developing; that is why we err. We as individuals, we as humanity, we as a system, we as a local universe… We, as every component of all creation, are not perfect. And we never were. Church fantasies that we had everything, but because of curiosity (and divine provocation) we squandered it, must return among fairy tales. The potential for evil is due to temporary deficiencies and varying degrees of evolutionary immaturity. And on the scale of universe development we are still children. We succumb to ignorance and illusions. How we understand who God is, and what our role is in it, is childish and consequently, it can be bad.
Jesus taught: “The potential evil inherent in the inevitable incomplete revelation of God as the time-space-limited expression of infinity and eternity. […] The incomplete and finite concept of the Infinite possessed by the temporal and finite mind of a creature is itself a potential evil. But the growing error of unwarranted lack of meaningful spiritual improvement of these originally innate intellectual disharmonies and spiritual deficiencies is equivalent to the realization of actual evil“.
Jesus’ words confirm the existence of a thin line between potential evil and actual evil. The Urantia Book, of course, will not explicitly state what is always wrong and I will not dare to do so. Everyone has to judge for themselves. However, the book gives us some clues; and a field for inquiry.
Good and evil do not have to go hand in hand with morality. As it is a set of rules instilled by local and (what religious leaders like to forget) current customs, morality cannot be a universal determinant of good and evil. One’s highest moral ideals are not necessarily the same as God’s will. I am by no means diminishing the value of the moral compass, but it is only a relative position towards evil. It is human—imperfect, so it can be bad. And it is constantly evolving, like everything. That is why Jesus said that “all static, dead concepts are potentially evil. The finite shadow of relative and living truth is in constant motion. Static concepts invariably inhibit science, politics, society, and religion. Static concepts may represent some knowledge, but they lack wisdom and are devoid of truth”. And when we look at our own backyard, we know from history that neither backward science, nor primitive politics, nor childish social rules have ever brought anything good. And only institutional religion, calling all changes evil, firmly and fiercely adheres to the truths established many thousands of years ago…
The border between good and evil is subtle. We will discover God’s will (i.e. goodness) only in our own hearts. That is why I believe that no man or group of people has the right to authoritatively point out circumstances that are unconditionally and always wrong; much less sinful. I would be inclined to say that such audacity may be evil; and certainly is, when it is shoved into the mouth of God himself.
Bad beginnings of good
Since evil is relative, so is good. What we (most often through the prism of morality) accept as good does not have to be so. We may think that we are doing well but in fact we are doing evil. Our actions can be called bad, when in reality they will only be good. And just like with evil, good is a possibility that can be advocated. And just as the possibility of making a wrong choice does not make you bad, so the awareness of the existence of good does not make you good. Intentions are important here, but above all decisions that have their source in free will.
If evil is everything that differs from the divine will, good is identical with his will; good is the will of the Universal Father. And there is no room for shades of gray here. Either you choose well, according to God’s will, or you do evil. Sounds radical? Then redefine good and evil.
You will notice that untainted by error, uninterrupted goodness flows from total union with God, and only from there. In order to do (choose) only well, we would have to know his plans, fully understand them and implement them flawlessly. Just as he suggest to us. For the capacity for the realization of good is directly proportional to sensitivity to the leadings of the Thought Adjuster. But as might be expected, “the infinite goodness of the Father is beyond the comprehension capacity of the finite mind of time”. This cools down the enthusiasm a bit. On the other hand, evolutionary status justifies some of our mistakes. We are sometimes bad because we are just “becoming like” the Universal Father. The soul, if a person sincerely wishes it, is constantly strengthening. We are constantly ascending the scale of creature development, and at our own pace, (if it is our will) we become good; like God. And the more progress we make, the easier it is for us to see the good and the better we understand it, the more we desire good, and therefore we realize it more often. As a result, we reveal less and less evil. It’s so brilliant in its simplicity.
By nature, before the rebirth of the spirit, mortal man is subject to inherent evil tendencies, but such natural imperfections of behavior are neither sin nor iniquity. Mortal man is just beginning his long ascent to the perfection of the Father in Paradise. To be imperfect or partial in natural endowment is not sinful. Man is indeed subject to evil, but he is in no sense the child of the evil one unless he has knowingly and deliberately chosen the paths of sin and the life of iniquity. Evil is inherent in the natural order of this world, but sin is an attitude of conscious rebellion which was brought to this world by those who fell from spiritual light into gross darkness.
148:4.6 (1660.5)
The above words of Jesus perfectly illustrate where we stand in the face of evil. But this is the divine plan for the perfection of evolutionary creatures. However, we are also wrong in other matters. Because doing evil does not have to be a sin at all. This truth will cause a short circuit in the Catholic consciousness. Especially when there; “it is evil to see sin where there is no sin and not to see sin where there is sin”.
A good example of this would be the Adamic default of Eden. Because Eve in her choice, make evil happens, did not sin. Eve wanted to do God’s will; in fact, she knew perfectly well how she was and lived in harmony with it, until actual doing. Although she was heading for a divine goal, she wanted to get there by other methods, in her opinion better and more effective. And here she made a mistake. Even though she believed it would work, even though she was convinced that it was good and had good intentions, she chose evil. Because doing evil (not necessarily a sin!) is every slightest deviation from God’s plan. Even when results only from inappropriate methods of action to implement God’s plan.
To those who plan and commit evil, nothing good will realizes from it; but the real truth is that all things, therefore potential and manifest evil, work together for the good of all. We must not understand it backwards, and therefore justify evil with the good of the public. Rather, it means that no evil can stop goodness, that (as in the case of evolutionary beings) the initial evil will always eventually transform into good; and even that evil will bring greater good. It probably looks a bit different at the moment, but Eve’s evil will certainly bring a lot of good. The bad beginnings of good beginnings are clearly proven by the following message:
At first the Lucifer upheaval appeared to be an unmitigated calamity to the system and to the universe. Gradually benefits began to accrue. With the passing of twenty-five thousand years of system time (twenty thousand years of Urantia time), the Melchizedeks began to teach that the good resulting from Lucifer’s folly had come to equal the evil incurred. The sum of evil had by that time become almost stationary, continuing to increase only on certain isolated worlds, while the beneficial repercussions continued to multiply and extend out through the universe and superuniverse, even to Havona. The Melchizedeks now teach that the good resulting from the Satania rebellion is more than a thousand times the sum of all the evil.
54:6.6 (619.3)
God of evil
Often clouded by interpretations, sometimes also by the real one, but we all see evil. I doubt that anyone would dare to say that evil does not exist. And from such a down-to-earth perspective, it is difficult to resist doubts. So we ask: Where did evil come from? Did God create them? How can an infinitely good Father burden his beloved children with such painful consequences of universal evil? And if he did not create it, why in its omnipotence does it allow it to exist?
I think that at some stage of his investigations, similar questions are asked by every man looking for God. Such doubts are mostly due to a misunderstanding of evil, and one of Jesus’ disciples also had them. He asked him almost identical questions. Jesus answered: “My brother, God is love; He must therefore be good, and his goodness is so great and real that he cannot contain such small and unreal things as evil. God is so positively good that there is absolutely no place for negative evil in Him. Evil is an immature choice, a thoughtless, misguided step by those who resist good, reject beauty, and are not loyal to the truth. Evil is merely the maladjustment of immaturity or the destructive and distorting influence of ignorance. Evil is the inevitable darkness that follows the foolish rejection of light. Evil is that which is dark and untrue, and that which, if deliberately chosen and deliberately approved, becomes sin. Your Father in heaven, by endowing you with the ability to choose between truth and error, has created the negative potential of the positive path of light and life; But such errors of evil do not really exist until the intelligent being, by the wrong choice of the way of life, desires them to occur. And then, as a result of the conscious and deliberate choice of such a stubborn and rebellious creature, such evil is elevated to the level of sin. Therefore our Father in heaven permits good and evil to go hand in hand until the end of life, even as nature permits wheat and vetch to grow side by side until the harvest”.
Okay, but who needs this evil in such a case? Why didn’t God just make us good? It would be easier for everyone. It is almost sadism to look at how we thrash around, how we get lost; how we suffer. After all, God has the power to get rid of evil, just like that.
I really like the following excerpt from The Urantia Book. It talks about necessities. I am happy to return to it, because it helps me to understand that evil defined in this way is even necessary for us; at the same time, it reminds us how unjustly we accuse God of inconsistency or annoyance.
The uncertainties of life and the vicissitudes of existence do not in any manner contradict the concept of the universal sovereignty of God. All evolutionary creature life is beset by certain inevitabilities. Consider the following:
3:5.5 (51.4)
1. Is courage — strength of character — desirable? Then must man be reared in an environment which necessitates grappling with hardships and reacting to disappointments
3:5.6(51.5)
2. Is altruism — service of one’s fellows — desirable? Then must life experience provide for encountering situations of social inequality.
3:5.7 (51.6)
3. Is hope — the grandeur of trust — desirable? Then human existence must constantly be confronted with insecurities and recurrent uncertainties.
(51.7) 3:5.8
4. Is faith — the supreme assertion of human thought — desirable? Then must the mind of man find itself in that troublesome predicament where it ever knows less than it can believe.
3:5.9 (51.8)
5. Is the love of truth and the willingness to go wherever it leads, desirable? Then must man grow up in a world where error is present and falsehood always possible.
3:5.10 (51.9)
6. Is idealism — the approaching concept of the divine — desirable? Then must man struggle in an environment of relative goodness and beauty, surroundings stimulative of the irrepressible reach for better things.
3:5.11 (51.10)
7. Is loyalty — devotion to highest duty — desirable? Then must man carry on amid the possibilities of betrayal and desertion. The valor of devotion to duty consists in the implied danger of default.
3:5.12 (51.11)
8. Is unselfishness — the spirit of self-forgetfulness — desirable? Then must mortal man live face to face with the incessant clamoring of an inescapable self for recognition and honor. Man could not dynamically choose the divine life if there were no self-life to forsake. Man could never lay saving hold on righteousness if there were no potential evil to exalt and differentiate the good by contrast.
3:5.13 (51.12)
9. Is pleasure — the satisfaction of happiness — desirable? Then must man live in a world where the alternative of pain and the likelihood of suffering are ever-present experiential possibilities.
3:5.14 (51.13)
The tension created by the potential of evil gives the momentum of evolution. That is why we need evil. Voluntary development towards perfection would not be possible if we were not given a choice. In order for the will to be free, it must have something to choose from, and see differences in variants. Of course, there are perfect worlds inhabited by only good being — personalities who never make mistakes. Except that, unlike us, they were created this way; simply and immediately. They don’t need evil to always choose well. I don’t know why, that’s how it has to work. I don’t know why we struggle and they don’t (contrary to appearances, we are not harmed at all). This is God’s will. And in accordance with his plan, in the grand universe when it is filled with such complementary entities — those who are perfect but have not experienced evil, and those who, by experiencing evil, are made perfect — there is a cosmic synergy.
We must remember that in order to make a moral choice, only the possibility of evil occurring, not its realization, is necessary. Evil is thus a theoretical by-product of free will. Not God’s doing.
Perfect beings, although they can, do not choose evil. We choose and thus make it happen the realization of true evil in contradiction to God’s will. And although it depends only on our decisions, we still attribute it to God. We also have subjective evils, circumstances that we hold “bad” because we do not like them, because we do not understand them, and which we stubbornly refuse to understand because of our weak faith. We call all discomfort evil, reproaching God for allowing such false evil — evil without which we could not call ourselves human. And this evil also depends solely on us and what’s funny, we attribute them to God in the same way.
Not only do we dare to call God evil and unjust, not only do we hold Him responsible for evil, which is all that He does not want, but also by claiming that He has taken offense at us, we are offended by Him. We make ourselves and each other unhappy, cursing that God brings us misfortunes. We regret that he distances himself from us when we turn our backs on him. And God will never hold this or anything else against us. He never gives up on us. Even if we strayed into the deepest darkness, blaspheme and mock him. All it takes is one good decision.
Error
As long as we keep in mind how The Urantia Book defines evil, it should not be difficult to understand the other related terms.
Error is an evil in practice; but not yet a sin. Error, like sin, brings about evil that up to that time was only potential. While contrasting good and evil create the potential for error, factual error is the unconscious and unintentional choice of evil. “Unconscious” and “unintentional” are the key words. The very possibility of making mistakes is inseparable from the acquisition of wisdom. Seeing mistakes (evil accomplished), we will see how to be good; by making mistakes, we learn how to become better. The saying “man learns from his mistakes” turns out to make more sense than it seemed before.
From the outside you won’t find out, what practically is always a mistake. Not from The Urantia Book either. The implementation of these teachings is always the responsibility of our religion. And although not in the guise of threats, the papers speak about making and not making mistakes. Reading them with the awareness of how this word should be understood, they often gain new meanings.
Sin
Sin, like error, emerges on the foundation of evil. Sin, like evil, potentially exists where beings have been given the opportunity to choose. Because human free will is of paramount importance here. Error and sin have a common denominator – they make evil happen – but they are diametrically opposed. The boundary separating error from sin is the quality of the choice made. It is a mistake to unintentionally choose evil. Sin is an attitude of personality that opposes the will of God completely consciously and deliberately.
This time, the Church’s definition would also be quite accurate, if it were not for its tenuous foundations. Because religious organizations declare sin primarily what threatens them. And when you doubt the Church, you don’t trust God; if you do not obey the Church, you oppose God; if you speak about ecclesiastical attitudes in a way that is not flattering, you blaspheme against God. The Church, or rather its hierarchs-decision-makers, considers themselves to be God. Therefore their will is good, and it is sin to oppose it.
We can practice evil for many reasons. By mistake, out of ignorance, out of laziness, out of fear, but also in good faith and with the best intentions. However, such deeds should be spoken of in the category of error. Sin is the act of intended and deliberate rebellion of the will of an individual creature against the will of the Universal Father. It is a measure of conscious opposition to divine guidance. The possibility of erroneous judgment becoming sin exists only when the human will consciously approves of such judgment and deliberately accepts it. The Urantia Book plainly says: “Sin must be redefined as willful disloyalty to Deity”.
By word, deed and omission
A new definition of sin is needed. Linked to true religion, it liberates, depriving priests of the privilege of authoritarian pointing out sin and stigmatizing sinners. And although clear, it is unfortunately not easy. I think I will not be alone in my doubts.
Evolutionary immaturity pushes us toward errors; a narrow viewpoint blurs them. We wander in the fog, not noticing the truth, and even in good faith we act against the father’s will; like Eve. Hence, as a result of our mistakes, we inadvertently carry out the wickedness. But I ask myself: How can we be sure of God’s will? It seems that only with such knowledge can one deliberately oppose it, and thus sin. Otherwise, it will only be mistakes. Maybe you don’t need to be sure, but some tangible premises would be useful (for example, such as those we received in the times of Eden or Jesus). I also have in mind that we are (may be) agondonters — evolutionary beings endowed with a will who “believe without seeing.” And since there are many indications that agondonters are not a common phenomenon in the universe, I would be inclined to assume that others do see something. In order for atheists to sin by rejecting God as consciously as they declare, they would first have to know about His existence. And it turns out that most often they err deceived by the stupidity of the Church and bewildered by the infallibility of science. And if they rebel, it is rather against religious associations and their egoistic politics, and not against God as such.
The papers say that honest doubts and honest questions are not a sin — such an attitude will at most delay spiritual growth. So we can doubt and it is also easy to err. But how are we to sin? I do not know.
On the other hand, according to what I feel, the explanation of such dilemmas is almost trivial. Because we ourselves know best what God’s will is. Not from tangible evidence, not from listening to someone or from books, but from the very source. God personally, through the Thought Adjusters, sends the appropriate signals to everyone. So that we can realize on our own what is really good and what is not. And when we err we are conscious (not necessarily of remorse) — the divine Adjuster admonishes us every time. He will do this until we realize that our actions are simply wrong, and even long after. Therefore, true religion is the only reliable signpost on the way to God. And everyone has it; regardless of what we can say about ourself. And when a man consciously and persistently denies his religion; when, again and again, he chooses not to notice that he is doing wrong; when, even though he knows how to become better, he still chooses only his own comforts, regardless of the other; when he constantly suppresses that most sincere feeling that he always carries within him… Perhaps this is how sin is born in the heart — a conscious denial of divine reality?
But treat this as just a guess; I will not convince anyone to my theories. But redefined sin can still confuse the sides. On the one hand, there are godless atheists, who unwittingly live the true religion in accordance with their inner guides, and on the other, the holiest ones, who claim to preach the word of God, serving their neighbors, when deep down they are fully aware of their hypocrisy and self-interest.
An echo of sin
Sin is exclusively personal. However, its repercussions can and do concern others. The tangible effects of sin, which distort the social, intellectual, and administrative spheres of human existence, are never local. However, spiritual consequences, and if you believe only such have real meaning, affect only the sinner. No one has ever suffered spiritually because of the sins of others. Everyone is responsible only for themselves.
Brotherhood constitutes a fact of relationship between every personality in universal existence. No person can escape the benefits or the penalties that may come as a result of relationship to other persons. The part profits or suffers in measure with the whole. The good effort of each man benefits all men; the error or evil of each man augments the tribulation of all men. As moves the part, so moves the whole. As the progress of the whole, so the progress of the part. The relative velocities of part and whole determine whether the part is retarded by the inertia of the whole or is carried forward by the momentum of the cosmic brotherhood.
12:7.11(138.6)
Good buds, evil withers. The administrative divisions of the grand universe, from the planets, systems, to the superuniverses, are like living organisms. Also you and your environment create such a living organism. So we have to deal with others and get hit by the ricochets of their antics, but in fact they are only harming themselves. And similarly – it is pleasant to draw from the good of others, but only those who realize this good rise. It is true that sin kills – villains. Eternal life is threatened only by the conscious decision of the mind and the choice of the soul. It is your decision and your choice. Another’s sins will never deprive another being of the divine right to the eternal survival of the personality.
Within the walls of the church
The Catholic Church invariably plays with the sense of guilt of its faithful and not only the Church. Religions, each in the role of God, arbitrarily determine sins and indicate sinners. In his name, they specify the punishments for sins and threaten with sins. They just can’t enforce them… However, they can forgive sins. But as God, they cannot and do not make mistakes themselves. That is why the Church so tirelessly clings to her revealed facts. We are evolving, and the Catholic Church is fading before our eyes. He could attune doctrine to reality, but he prefers to pretend that reality attunes to his doctrine. But people are not as naïve as they used to be.
The Urantia papers once again dispose of the religious fossils. By reading the book, you will learn, for example, that original sin does not exist. And even if Eve had sinned, in the light of what I have said here, the consequences of this disloyalty would not have threatened us. It is impossible to be infected with sin; it cannot be persuaded or forced, and Satan does not control anyone. Sin is not related to matter. Physical accidents do not punish the sins of the family and handicapped children are not born of divine wrath. God is never angry with anyone. We do not inherit sin. Like Adamic, family, racial, or simply human. Therefore, the Son of God did not have to die on the cross for the alleged sins of men, and He did not die for them. Jesus himself taught that “God has already forgiven sins”.
The Forgiveness of Sins
Remorse makes us aware of the violation of customs, but it does not necessarily have to show sin. Therefore, confession, from a purely spiritual point of view, is unnecessary. Getting rid of the burden from conscience is certainly healthy (and a priest can be easily replaced by a friend or a therapist), but it will not alleviate the consequences of a possible sin. Sin is, after all, fully conscious and deliberate. Only genuine repentance can oppose it. An insincere confession has no spiritual value.
Such teaching will help us to realize that we do not need priests or godly procedures to forgive any sins. They can even be harmful when a believer tries to deceive God in a childish way through them. When he feels and knows that he is doing wrong, but he soothes his insecurities with a mundane penance set by the priest. Ten “Hail Mary” and he has a clean slate with the Creator. He can make trouble again and again.
That a person can consciously want to commit evil, and therefore sin proves the existence of free will; living in accordance with the divine plan is also first and foremost a choice of will. However, the will may decide to change its conduct at any time. Therefore, a good person can start sinning. Therefore, the sinner can return to the path of truth. And this gesture of will is enough. There is no need for penance, punishment or sacrifice; there will be no reproaching or stigmatizing. Sincere repentance is all God expects of sinners. This is also the tone of the parable of the prodigal son. It does not matter who and how much they went astray, because if he wants to return, God will surely accept him.
However, let’s not be childish. We will not hide from God in a closet. Feigned repentance, motivated by an empty fear of punishment, or worse still only for show, even if preceded by the distribution of property and supported by a life of asceticism, will never be valuable. God will know about sincere repentance even before we can verbalize it. That is why He forgives sins before we have time to ask Him for it. Jesus taught that it is we ourselves, by forgiving others, who enable God to forgive our sins. By forgiving others, we realize that we can also be forgiven. This creates in the human soul the ability to accept God’s forgiveness.
How much patience does God have with sinners? A lot. There is a period called mercy that allows every wayward creature to change his mind and return. I do not know how long God is merciful to the wicked, the papers say that this time is “sufficient”; However, it ends someday. Said Jesus: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, all your sins shall be forgiven, even all your blasphemies, but whosoever shall deliberately blaspheme against God with wicked intent shall never be forgiven. For such persistently wicked ones will never seek forgiveness, nor will they ever receive it, they are guilty of the sin of everlasting rejection of divine forgiveness”.
The words of Michael the Creator seem to confirm what intuition suggests. The free being, obstinately driven by sin, blinds himself to the truth, or rather pretends not to see how much he is erring. So he despises mercy and, clouded by vanity or pride, may never want to be forgiven. Think of how a person can sometimes persist in his erroneous views, deceptions, or lies; even in the indisputable light of the truth. How he is too proud to admit an obvious mistake. As much as he can, even when he is perfectly aware of all his problems, he continues to wade fiercely into his lies and contemptuously reject offers of consent. Until the very end.
Villainy
And when sin has so many times been chosen and so often been repeated, it may become habitual. Habitual sinners can easily become iniquitous, become wholehearted rebels against the universe and all of its divine realities. While all manner of sins may be forgiven, we doubt whether the established iniquiter would ever sincerely experience sorrow for his misdeeds or accept forgiveness for his sins.
67:1.6 (755.2)
“Wickedness” is, in a sense, an extension of sin. The Urantia Book defines iniquity as the willful, consistent, and persistent resistance to the divine will. Mistakes are the result of error, sin may be a one-time presumptuousness. Iniquity is the persistent and willful pursuit of sin — the highest degree of opposition to the will of the Universe Father. “It consists in open and sustained rebellion against recognized reality and implies a level of personality disintegration that borders on cosmic insanity”. From within, iniquity is a symptom of the disappearance of personality control; outwardly it reveals the temporary (for the time of mercy) reality of all non-God-identifying being.
Wickedness severs the personal connection of the creature with the Creator piece by piece. And it is not that God is offended and separates himself from his sinful children. No. It is the wicked, by the decisions of their own will, moving away from it again and again, who gradually erode the thread connecting them with reality, even when they are fully aware that when it breaks, they will die.
Death
The punishment for wickedness, and in fact it’s inevitable consequence, is death. The ultimate result of persistent sin is annihilation. So atheists may be right. If they sincerely, in accordance with their free will, consistently reject the divine call of perfection, after death only physical components scattered in the cosmos will remain of them, and their consciousness will disappear forever…
Willful sin and unappeased iniquity are naturally and automatically suicidal. Such attitudes of cosmic unreality can persist in the universe only because of temporary mercy, because it is not God who kills. God waits with hope for the sinner’s return to the last moment. The only thing he can do is to watch with sadness as his children, instead of enjoying what he has prepared for them, decide to die. God is reality. Therefore, such persons identified with sin eventually simply become unreal; non-existent. In the final analysis, by a decision of free will, which God himself respects, they destroy themselves.
The consequence of conscious and sincere identification with sin (and therefore with evil) is annihilation (non-existence). It is true, then, that “the wages of sin is death.” The final judgment of such a despicable individual is perfectly just and satisfactory to all concerned universe personalities; so honest that it obtains the approval of the sinner himself.
The only choice
Imagine that one of the manifestations of the presence of the Universal Father is some kind of energy. It doesn’t matter what type of energy it is or how it actually works. Let it be a ubiquitous electromagnetic field, or a specific kind of air or light. You can call it love — it’s just a philosophical symbol right now. Nevertheless, it is from this energy that God constructs the universe. The building material is therefore present in every smallest part of it. Imagine that such energy creates everything, is everything, and sustains everything; that it is the only real reality. Therefore we are real — we live because the Father’s energy creates us, circulates within us, and acts upon us. Where his energy is absent, nothing exists. Where it does not exist, nothing has ever existed, and if it does not appear, it will never exist. Imagine that the universe can only function in this way — under the influence and thanks of the energy-presence of the Creator; thanks to his love.
Along with this divine energy, you also get a choice. You can allow others to flow and spread through you, and thus create reality, or you can deny it, suppress it, and no longer accept it, thereby destroying the potential of what may have emerged from it. By creating reality, you yourself become more and more real, until you are eternal. By denying reality, you become real less and less, until you cease to exist at all.
We are all lost sometimes. This is our reality. That is why we wander and thrash around. But we do have this unnamed energy-presence within us, and I am convinced that everyone feels it in one way or another. We are allowed to forget about it and it happens that we misinterpret it. We are only human. However, we can gradually and subjectively take a stance on it. In each of us now we can consciously decide what we will do with this energy and thus choose our destiny.
P.S. Sinners
Every impulse of every electron, thought, or spirit is an acting unit in the whole universe. Only sin is isolated and evil gravity resisting on the mental and spiritual levels. The universe is a whole; no thing or being exists or lives in isolation. Self-realization is potentially evil if it is antisocial. It is literally true: “No man lives by himself”. Cosmic socialization constitutes the highest form of personality unification. Said Jesus: “He who would be greatest among you, let him become server of all”.
56:10.14 (647.5)
I have said this many times and it is also evident now that The Urantia Book is very subdued in view of its sectarian tendencies. Through the prism of true religion, it is extremely difficult to interpret its provisions as arbitrary. You will not find there guidelines on what you are allowed to do and what is sinful. However, deviating from the level of religious teachings and even pure definitions, it is possible to pick out certain attitudes from the papers that can potentially be dangerous. All of them seem to be centered on the traits that originate in egoism in the broadest sense of the word: pride, egotism, and self-centeredness (often dressed in the garments of freedom and based on materialism). And if we continue the previous comparison; egoism, instead of directing the divine energy to others, stops it, selfishly directing it only towards itself. This is supported by one of God’s most important commandments: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
In the context of this material, we can learn a lot by analyzing the stories of two personalities: Lucifer and Judas. I will mention the former only briefly, for I shall certainly devote more space to it when I turn upon the course of the Satania rebellion. I will take a closer look at the causes and the fall of Judas Iscariot.
Lucifer
No one ever urged Lucifer to stir up rebellion. Until he thought he knew better than God, he never openly displeased the administration of the universe. His transformation was only personal.
Rebelling against the divine order, he was (at least for a time) firmly convinced that his course was indeed good for the system, even for the universe. And he persistently pursued his goal. Although he finally reached the point where he no longer had any doubts about the mistake he had made, he was unable to stop. Lucifer knew what he was doing. In his pride, however, he became dishonest even with himself. It was then that his mistakes turned into a deliberate and willful sin. The Lucifer rebellion was the third, and in many respects the worst and most extensive, of all such occurrences in Nebadon.
For a long time, Lucifer was given a chance to repent. Although he knew that he had been mistaken, even though he understood the evil of which he had become the source, nay, despite being aware of the consequences of his wickedness, he repeatedly rejected the mercy offered to him; and he did it with increasing contempt.
The rebellion has ended on Jerusem. It ends on the fallen worlds as fast as divine Sons arrive. We believe that all rebels who will ever accept mercy have done so. We await the flashing broadcast that will deprive these traitors of personality existence. We anticipate the verdict of Uversa will be announced by the executionary broadcast which will effect the annihilation of these interned rebels. Then will you look for their places, but they shall not be found. “And they who know you among the worlds will be astonished at you; you have been a terror, but never shall you be any more”. And thus shall all of these unworthy traitors “become as though they had not been”. All await the Uversa decree.
53:9.7 (611.6)
Judas Iscariot
The reasons why Judas committed treason were layered and interpenetrated. I analyze his attitudes from the point of view of sin, so it is biased. But Judas wasn’t just evil. He was simply a man who had earned his fate. Importantly, he was by no means after money. Contrary to the common teachings of today, now symbolic, 30 pieces of silver were not the motivation of Judas.
Judas, on the one hand, was a victim of Jewish religious teachings. Like many people of that time, he awaited the coming of the savior, a Messiah who will stand at the head of the most powerful Jewish nation and, as the new ruler of all people, will establish the kingdom of God on Earth with a firm hand. Jesus, however, did not claim to be such even for a moment. Judas – and here I see a certain similarity with Mary’s disposition – under the influence of religion simply imagined such visions. The burden of his ancestors may have deceived him, but Judas was most of all a victim of his own inner lies.
The character of this apostle was seething with dangers. Judas was the type of man who did not know how to lose and from childhood cultivated the principle of settling scores. Even with those who did him harm only in his imagination. He often over interpreted the words or behavior of people around him. In addition, he was overly suspicious and often held grudges. He had a toxic approach to honesty and loyalty, which he changed at will. Judas did not understand himself internally and could not be honest even with himself.
Iscariot, in addition to the religious expectations forced on him, also had an inflated opinion of himself and dreamed of power. He joined Jesus with the hope that he would become a great man in the new world. He saw himself as a close associate of the most powerful king. He had his own vision of the savior’s mission, but Jesus’ everyday attitude contrasted strongly with these images, which only piled up his fears and regrets. He had periods of sobering, of course, but every time he stirred up his hopes that he might be as he expected, Jesus did or said something that shattered these fantasies to smithereens. At that time, the scar of a fierce resentment remained in Judas’s heart. Jesus repeatedly warned Judas that he was wrong. However, he perceived such admonitions as a personal allusion.
The Urantia Book says that although he did not realize it, Judas was also a coward. Therefore he tended to attribute cowardice to Jesus as the reason why he refused to claim power and relinquished recognition when they were at hand. Disappointment suffocated Judas more and more as he became more and more convinced that Jesus would never want to use divine power for his (and therefore his own) glory. He was also sure that Jesus would allow the Jewish rulers to kill him in the end. He could not bear the harassing and humiliating thought that he would be identified with a movement that had failed. He was also shocked by the death of John the Baptist. In his heart, Judas always resented Jesus for not saving John; although in his opinion Jesus could do this easily (Judas, before joining Jesus, was a disciple of John the Baptist).
Judas became increasingly a brooder over personal disappointment, and finally he became a victim of resentment. His feelings had been many times hurt, and he grew abnormally suspicious of his best friends, even of the Master. Presently he became obsessed with the idea of getting even, anything to avenge himself, yes, even betrayal of his associates and his Master.
139:12.9 (1567.2)
The final straw was a completely trivial situation. Jesus simply asks his disciples to pay attention once again. But this was once again when he behaved differently than Judas expected. The reprimand was not even addressed to the apostle directly. But this incident stirred up in him all the hatred, resentment, and jealousy, and revived all the prejudices and desires for revenge that he harbored. So he decided to settle the score. And since he did not even know with whom, he concentrated on Jesus.
When planning his betrayal, Judas had moments of lucidity. However, he calmed himself with the thought that in case of emergency, Jesus had the power to save himself. He also found confirmation of the rightness of his plans among his acquaintances outside Jesus’ entourage. They flatteringly assured him that the Jewish rulers would perceive his euphemistically called “withdrawal” as a great event. They allowed him to believe that this would give him great honors immediately.
Judas also felt unappreciated. Although he had appreciated the importance of his work through the years of his collaboration with Jesus and the other apostles (he had been apostolic treasurer), at some point he also felt hurt by the fact that the Master had not assigned him a more worthy position. He was indignant that it was not he, but Peter, James, and John who had been honored to work closely with Jesus. And as he made his way to the high priest’s house to discuss the details of Jesus’ betrayal, he thought more about settling scores with Peter, James, and John than about the betrayal itself. But then, too, a new, dominant thought came to his mind: He had decided to earn his own recognition, all the better if he could get it by getting even with those who had a hand in the greatest disappointment of his life. Finally, he understood that the kingdom he had expected would not come. However, he was glad that he was smart enough to change the front in time. That he was able to turn past failures in gaining fame in the expected new kingdom into honors and awards in a world that he believed would still last. In a world that would destroy Jesus, his followers, and then everything they were striving for. The last, conscious reason for Judas’ betrayal was therefore a cowardly fear for his own safety.
Judas was tremendously influenced by the ridicule of his Sadducean friends. No other single factor exerted such a powerful influence on him, in his final determination to forsake Jesus and his fellow apostles, as a certain episode which occurred just as Jesus reached the gate of the city: A prominent Sadducee (a friend of Judas’s family) rushed up to him in a spirit of gleeful ridicule and, slapping him on the back, said: “Why so troubled of countenance, my good friend; cheer up and join us all while we acclaim this Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews as he rides through the gates of Jerusalem seated on an ass”. Judas had never shrunk from persecution, but he could not stand this sort of ridicule. With the long nourished emotion of revenge there was now blended this fatal fear of ridicule, that terrible and fearful feeling of being ashamed of his Master and his fellow apostles. At heart, this ordained ambassador of the kingdom was already a deserter; it only remained for him to find some plausible excuse for an open break with the Master.
172:5.13 (1887.1)
Judas was long tormented by persistent, selfish, vindictive, even hateful thoughts. Ambition, when united with selfishness, and stimulated by a long-suppressed desire for revenge, can do much harm. Judas coveted worldly honors, and as time went on, this desire filled him more and more. The other apostles had similar desires, for they were only human, but they loved Jesus and tried to the best of their ability to love the truth which he taught. Judas’ betrayal did not result from a spontaneous decision motivated by easy money; rather, it was the result of the protracted internal processes which Judas was delighted to cultivate.
Too many of us have learned the hard way that love, even if it was once true, can eventually turn into true, blind, and mindless hatred through disappointment, jealousy, or resentment. As The Urantia Book says, the case of Judas illustrates the truth of the saying: “There is a way that seems right to some, but in the end it leads to destruction”.
The last supper hosted the traitor’s last decision. Judas was so arrogant that, while the other apostles, in anticipation of Jesus’ arrival, were debating whether they should seat themselves at table or rather hold off and depend on the Master’s decision, he simply took the most honorable place, on the left side of the host. This host whom he decided to hand over to death. How determined he was, because even when Jesus gave him another chance to withdraw from his intentions, he did not want to take advantage of them.
After the treacherous kiss, Judas was plagued by remorse. He was beginning to feel disappointed with the reward he was about to receive as payment. Sadly, this award was not in any way specifically determined! He imagined that he would be summoned to a full meeting of the Jewish High Council and that there he would hear praise of himself; He hoped that then he too would receive the appropriate honors, in recognition of the great merit (which he flattered himself imagining) that he had rendered to all his people.
When Judas arrived to receive his payment, the priest’s servant presented him with thirty pieces of silver — the price of a good, healthy slave; and then dismissed him. Judas was dumbfounded. He intended to appeal directly to the Council, but they did not even want to let him in. He could not believe that he had been offered only thirty pieces of silver as a reward for betraying his friends. He was humiliated and completely devastated.
Immediately after leaving the temple, he noticed a cross being raised in the distance with Jesus nailed to it… In frenzy, he ran back and this time he forced his way to the still sitting Great Council. Breathless and mad with despair, he stammered out the words: “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood. You have insulted me. You offered me money as a reward for my service — the price of a slave. I regret having done that, here’s your money. I don’t want to be guilty of this act”.
When Judas left the Sanhedrin chamber, he took the thirty pieces of silver from the pouch and threw them on the temple floor. When a traitor left the temple, he was almost out of his mind. Now Judas began to realize the true nature of his sin. All the charm, fascination and intoxication of the evil deed disappeared. Now the villain was alone, face to face with the sentence of his disillusioned and disillusioned soul. When it was committed, sin was charming and bold, but now you have to face the harvest of naked, mundane facts.
As Judas left the Sanhedrin chamber, he removed the thirty pieces of silver from the bag and threw them broadcast over the temple floor. When the betrayer left the temple, he was almost beside himself. Judas was now passing through the experience of the realization of the true nature of sin. All the glamor, fascination, and intoxication of wrongdoing had vanished. Now the evildoer stood alone and face to face with the judgment verdict of his disillusioned and disappointed soul. Sin was bewitching and adventurous in the committing, but now must the harvest of the naked and unromantic facts be faced.
186:1.6 (1998.4)
Soon after, distraught and alone, Judas committed suicide. He went outside the city walls, where he climbed steep rocks. He hanged himself on a tree. However, the careless knot of the noose let go and before Judas suffocated, he fell into the abyss.