The ‘Rapture’ Took the Good and Left the Protestants

[Leo Volont]

The ‘Rapture’ Took the Good and Left the Protestants

It is a favorite doctrine of the Protestants that there will one day come the ‘Rapture’ in which the Good, or the Elect, depending upon whom you ask, will be taken up to Heaven and the Evil, or the reprobate, depending upon whom you ask, will be left behind. Yes, according to a few lines in the Gospels, Christ is reputed to have said some would be instantly taken and some left behind. A great deal of Metaphysics has been read into that sparse and unspecific statement.

But let’s consider that it was True and Real. Well, then, might we not conclude that the Rapture had already taken place?

What could be the arguments for this view? Well, for one, we have a certain knowledge that we had started with 11 True Apostles, and traitorous and suicidal Judas was replaced by Honest Mathias. And then there was Paul who quarreled with everybody… well everybody whom he did not kill first.

But, then, by not later than 71 A.D. we no longer here of ANY of the True Apostles – it is as though they all just ‘disappeared’. But what we do have are the Followers of Paul, and they have sway over what is left of the Christian Church. Is this some huge coincidence that suddenly there is absolutely NOTHING and NO ONE left remaining of the Messianic Christian Jews. We just have a horde of drunken bugger Greek Gentiles who teach Free Sin (Salvation they call it) and insult the Law and take inordinate pride in Original Sin.

Well, what happened?

Of course! The Rapture had come and had taken up to Heaven everything and everyone Decent and Good, and had left behind the beastly, the satanic, the evil, and the followers of Paul – what today we would call the Protestant Church… and the worst part of the Catholic Bishops.

 

[Light Travelling]

There is also plently in the bible to suggest that this happens only on a personal and individual level.

It is a common theme of most of the worlds mystical religious traditions that true religion is internal; that all external references are analogous; and that those who only look for external attributes of religion are the ignorant and misguided.

 

[Leo Volont]

There is also plently in the bible to suggest that this happens only on a personal and individual level.

It is a common theme of most of the worlds mystical religious traditions that true religion is internal; that all external references are analogous; and that those who only look for external attributes of religion are the ignorant and misguided.

So, how long have you been an Atheist?

It is a common Atheist-Materialist Argument to dismiss every sense of Spiritual Objectivity and to dismiss all Spiritual Experience as imaginary, arbitrary, and essentially meaningless.

And your Solipsistic Reduction quite agrees with them.

I, on the otherhand, would insist that there is a certain Objectivity in Subjective Experience, that ties into a very real Collective Consciousness, Cosmic Christ Consciousness, communication with Angels that exist on some very Real Spiritual Plane, ecsetera.

But with you claiming that every individual is isolated, alone, unique, different, ... well, then what we have is a Universe with no Unity. No God holding us all together.

You would give us a Chaos where Hitler, Genghis Khan, and the KKK Grand Dragon would be quite at home.

 

[baumgarten]

Maybe Hitler, Genghis Khan, and the KKK Grand Dragon were able to take advantage of some of the properties of this Collective Consciousness. Maybe a greater degree of individuality among their peoples would have prevented their respective rises to power.

From what I understand of shamanic and mystic traditions (admittedly not much), the spiritual realm is very objective and very external, but not visible in an ordinary, everyday state of mind. We supposedly have some kind of unconscious awareness (is that an oxymoron?) of it that needs to be awakened. If it isn't, one might argue, then Hitler, Genghis Khan, and the KKK Grand Dragon can have a field day manipulating it without our knowing. Yes? No?

 

[Light Travelling]

So, how long have you been an Atheist?

It is a common Atheist-Materialist Argument to dismiss every sense of Spiritual Objectivity and to dismiss all Spiritual Experience as imaginary, arbitrary, and essentially meaningless.
.

I did not say spiritual experience is imaginary, just that it is an internal experience.

And this comes from Buddhist, Gnostic christian and Hindu writings.

I, on the otherhand, would insist that there is a certain objectivity in Subjective Experience,
.

"objectivity in Subjective Experience"....Now that is an oxymoron


But I know what you mean - there is consistency to the individual subjective experiences.

But with you claiming that every individual is isolated, alone, unique, different, ... well, then what we have is a Universe with no Unity. No God holding us all together.
.

I did not say that either, in fact I would say the opposite. That we are all one; the expeirience of that oneness being part of the spiritual experience. That divinity is also part of that oneness is the other part. Identification and experience of that divinity within oneself; being the same as the divinity within others; which is the same as any externally percieved divinity is the goal of the mystic path.

 

[nova900]

I did not say spiritual experience is imaginary, just that it is an internal experience.

And this comes from Buddhist, Gnostic christian and Hindu writings.



"objectivity in Subjective Experience"....Now that is an oxymoron


But I know what you mean - there is consistency to the individual subjective experiences.



I did not say that either, in fact I would say the opposite. That we are all one; the expeirience of that oneness being part of the spiritual experience. That divinity is also part of that oneness is the other part. Identification and experience of that divinity within oneself; being the same as the divinity within others; which is the same as any externally percieved divinity is the goal of the mystic path.

Sounds very much in line with the beliefs of the Ancient Egyptians, Neterianism, which is the spiritual path I follow.
I left behind the religous dogma and man written nonsense of "what god wants" or "what god wills" as I came to realise this was essentially just a lot of crap used by unscrupulous men to control the masses.
As you said , it is a internal process of detecting the divine on an intuitional level.

 

[Light Travelling]

Sounds very much in line with the beliefs of the Ancient Egyptians, Neterianism, which is the spiritual path I follow.
.

As it should, all the mystic traditions of the west come form the same root (that is sufism in islam, gnosticism in christianity and kabbalah in judaism), that root is sufism, which most people believe is an offshoot of islam, but in fact sufism outdates islam, christianity and judaism and traces its roots back to the esoteric schools and temples of ancient egypt.

It is these other three that are off shoots of sufism not the other way round.

Buddhism springs from upanshadic Hinduism - I cannot yet link Hinduism with egypt but maybe some one can? It is indoaryan in origin anyway!! and the vedas are about the same date as ancient egypt (or probably older)

 

[spidergoat]

So, how long have you been an Atheist?

It is a common Atheist-Materialist Argument to dismiss every sense of Spiritual Objectivity and to dismiss all Spiritual Experience as imaginary, arbitrary, and essentially meaningless.

And your Solipsistic Reduction quite agrees with them.

I, on the otherhand, would insist that there is a certain Objectivity in Subjective Experience, that ties into a very real Collective Consciousness, Cosmic Christ Consciousness, communication with Angels that exist on some very Real Spiritual Plane, ecsetera.

But with you claiming that every individual is isolated, alone, unique, different, ... well, then what we have is a Universe with no Unity. No God holding us all together.

You would give us a Chaos where Hitler, Genghis Khan, and the KKK Grand Dragon would be quite at home.

All sorts of unfounded assumptions here. If it is internal, does that automatically make it meaningless and imaginary? I don't think that's certain. I don't think that makes us alone or separate. I'm an atheist, and I think the Universe is a Unity, (isn't that what UNI-verse means?).

The Universe is what it is, it WAS the home of evil people, and God didn't seem to mind.

 

[Leo Volont]

Maybe Hitler, Genghis Khan, and the KKK Grand Dragon were able to take advantage of some of the properties of this Collective Consciousness. Maybe a greater degree of individuality among their peoples would have prevented their respective rises to power.

Actually the Barbarian appeal is TO individuality.

Hitler was going to push back the Slavs to the East and redistribute millions of acres of Land to German Settlers.

Genghis Khan recruited soldiers who would be allowed to keep a percentage of the Pillage and Tribute.

We can see the same today, with Republicans and Tories and Such. They form these huge collective Organizations of Thieves who agree that they could all benefit from a suspension of all Laws of Decency, and they establish a Partnership based upon the premise that they can share the Pillage of ransacking Civilization.

Of course, its shortsighted, that Barbarians typically couldn't care less. As long as profits are growning now, they leave it for others to worry that Global Warming and Distributive Downsizing will soon make Higher Economic Organizations of Society impossible.

so, no, the problem is not with not enough Individualism, but too much.

 

[Leo Volont]

I came to realise this was essentially just a lot of crap used by unscrupulous men to control the masses.

So... leaving the Masses uncontrolled....

Has that been working out for you?

 

[Leo Volont]

As it should, all the mystic traditions of the west come form the same root (that is sufism in islam, gnosticism in christianity and kabbalah in judaism), that root is sufism, which most people believe is an offshoot of islam, but in fact sufism outdates islam, christianity and judaism and traces its roots back to the esoteric schools and temples of ancient egypt.

It is these other three that are off shoots of sufism not the other way round.

Buddhism springs from upanshadic Hinduism - I cannot yet link Hinduism with egypt but maybe some one can? It is indoaryan in origin anyway!! and the vedas are about the same date as ancient egypt (or probably older)

No.

Sufism traces to Zarathustra's Zoroastrianism.

A great deal of New Age claptrap resonates around Egypt... but it is all imaginative romance.

But we have linguistic continuities between Zoroastrianism and Sufism.

 

[Leo Volont]

The Universe is what it is, it WAS the home of evil people, and God didn't seem to mind.

Doesn't seem to mind?

What about the Plagues and Famines. the Pestilences and Wars?

Moral Civilizations enjoy a span of Prosperity and Well Being. Barbarisms bring about depopulated Dark Ages.

One is the Favor of God -- the Reward for Moral Behavior. The other is the Curse of God to punish selfishness.

 

[S.A.M.]

No.

Sufism traces to Zarathustra's Zoroastrianism.

A great deal of New Age claptrap resonates around Egypt... but it is all imaginative romance.

But we have linguistic continuities between Zoroastrianism and Sufism.

I know both Sufis and Zoroastrians and I have no clue what you mean.

Could you elaborate?

 

[Jaster Mereel]

Doesn't seem to mind?

What about the Plagues and Famines. the Pestilences and Wars?

Moral Civilizations enjoy a span of Prosperity and Well Being. Barbarisms bring about depopulated Dark Ages.

One is the Favor of God -- the Reward for Moral Behavior. The other is the Curse of God to punish selfishness.

Can you tell me what one of these Moral Civilizations has been?

 

[Leo Volont]

I know both Sufis and Zoroastrians and I have no clue what you mean.

Could you elaborate?

At one time Zoroastrianism was a very influential Religion. Zarathustra, its Founder, was an important innovator in both Philosophy and Religion. He 'invented' morality... the first person to go into depth concerning moral distinctions moral distinctions -- Good and Evil, Spirits of Light, demons of darkness... all of these distinctions source from Zoroastrianism. Simply look at some of the other Ancient Philosophies and Religions -- they may speak of Karma, Duty, even Love, but you will notice upon close examination that they apply no Moral Distinctions. Even Judaism... Jacob, the Patriarch of Israel cheats his brother out of his birthright and lies to his father. When we review Hinduism, the Bhagavad Gita is instructive on the Duty a Soldier has to kill his own family in order to properly follow orders. Now, of course there were certain Moral Intuitions among the People, but they found no Institutionalized Support until Zarathustra insisted upon their recognition as Civilized Values.

Now, during the Golden Age of Zoroastrianism the Members of the various Zoroastrian Religious Orders were called "Sufi" -- the word meant "Brown Robe" or something like that. The Center of the Zoroastrian World was old Persia (modern Iran).

In the 7th Century the military forces of Islam invaded old Persia and put the adherents of the Zoroastrianism to the sword. But many, to save their lives, claimed to have converted to Islam. And so it is that Sufis since the 7th Century have been insisting that they are Islamic, but, really, what choice do they have? Christians and Jews are treated with some degree of tolerance by the Muslims, as they are people of the Book... they are related through Abraham. But Zoroastrians were not tolerated.

Indeed, even confessing that they are now Islamic offers them only marginal protections, as it has been very common over the Centuries for various Islamic Fundamentalist Reactions to lash out and persecute the remaining Sufi Orders.

Then the Mongol and Turkish genocides in the Persian Territories in the 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th Centuries killed off many of the Old Sufi Orders, as well as burning out much of their recorded Histories. Paradoxically, much of what we know about Sufism and even much of Classical Islam can come to us because of the Crusades. The Crusaders had put up an effective defense against the onslaughts of the Mongolian and Turkish Hordes that put an end to both Classical Islam and much of what remained of Zoroastrian Cultural Influences.

 

[Leo Volont]

Can you tell me what one of these Moral Civilizations has been?

Buy a history book.

I recommend Arnold Toynbees "Study of History"... it comes abridged.

I think one can still buy Will and Ariel Durant's multi-volume set of "History of Civilization"

But, if you want it in short... EVERY Civilization has been 'moral' in proportion as it has been a viable Civilization. Inversely, every Civilization has collapsed at the rate in which it admitted amoral barbaric influences.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

Buy a history book.
I recommend Arnold Toynbees "Study of History"... it comes abridged.
I think one can still buy Will and Ariel Durant's multi-volume set of "History of Civilization"

Yes, I've read quite a few. In fact I have a very large shelf filled with them. It's what I spend most of my time doing, actually.

But, if you want it in short... EVERY Civilization has been 'moral' in proportion as it has been a viable Civilization. Inversely, every Civilization has collapsed at the rate in which it admitted amoral barbaric influences.

I suppose that you have some kind of way in which one might measure "morality" in terms of an entire civilization, and also some kind of measurement of the rate at which a civilization "admits amoral barbaric influences"? Or are you just throwing it out there? Be honest.

 

[Light Travelling]

Sufism traces to Zarathustra's Zoroastrianism.

But we have linguistic continuities between Zoroastrianism and Sufism.

I agree about the link between sufism and Zoroastrianism but would say a link could be traced further back to egypt and between Zoroastrianism and egypt.

A great deal of New Age claptrap resonates around Egypt... but it is all imaginative romance.
.

I take my information from the wrtings of a 19th century sufi, Hazrat Inayat Khan. I dont believe this counts as 'new age'!


The information I quote is from a book I have at home, not from the website below, but I post the link just for general information about him and a little on sufism.

http://www.om-guru.com/html/saints/khan.html

I know both Sufis and Zoroastrians and I have no clue what you mean.

We are talking about a shared historical root, not saying they are currently the same.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

Yes, I've read quite a few. In fact I have a very large shelf filled with them. It's what I spend most of my time doing, actually.


I suppose that you have some kind of way in which one might measure "morality" in terms of an entire civilization, and also some kind of measurement of the rate at which a civilization "admits amoral barbaric influences"? Or are you just throwing it out there? Be honest.

I would say, as an aside, that I enjoy Leo Volont's theological analysis whenever he presents one of his essay-like threads. They are very nice.

I just have a problem with moralist interpretations of history. Maybe it's because I'm a history major, and since it's my subject I refuse all kinds of narrow perspectives in regards to events.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

I take my information from the wrtings of a 19th century sufi, Hazrat Inayat Khan. I dont believe this counts as 'new age'!

Most of the "New Age" originated in the 19th century.