Many will abandon faith in the end times.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
...an example of someone abandoning faith in the end-times (carefully keeping myself on-topic).

Right.

Back to the subject of this thread which is "abandoning faith in the end times".

This is a GOOD thing.

Just look at what this civilization has put its faith in: The doctrines of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious 'authorities' which have resulted quite directly in the loss of at least tens of millions of lives over the past 2000 years. The doctrines of the political theoreticians that have also resulted in the slaughter of millions of people on this planet over that same period of time.

This civilization has chosen belief in these doctrines rather than belief in the Revelations received by Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, Jesus and Mohammed.

This civilization has chosen to repudiate the Moral Law in the perpetuation of the doctrines of both the religionists and the secularists.

And just look around you at the consequences.

The media will not allow the publication of one word of the Truth; because that Truth would threaten their plan of genocide.

But, let someone merely point this out, let someone attempt to convey Knowledge received through Revelation, and he is attacked by all manner of vile and evil accusations (their number is legion)...

And, not at all surprisingly, the moderators of ATS are, as far as I have been able to tell, asleep at the switch.

(Well, apparently, the moderators are not asleep at the switch after all. Thanks)

Not that I expected anything different; not that it is anything different than what I have encountered for more than 34 years.

Just saying.

Mi cha el

So here's how this is going to go down folks.

You're all going to play nice with each other. You all going to read and understand the T & C as posted in my signature, and you're all going to internalize it. If you do not, and decide to continue down this path, I'll get meaner about it. I'm not in the mood to babysit adults right now. So get with the program.

The implication of the title of this thread is that "abandoning faith" can only be a BAD thing.

But that rests on the assumption that the doctrines taught by the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious 'authorities' are the Truth in the first place.

But what happens if those doctrines are not the Truth?

What happens if the Teaching of Jesus was perverted hundreds upon hundreds of years ago by pagan metaphysical philosophy and the idolatry of the Pharisee Paul?

That is the argument that I am presenting here; and I am willing to listen to any reasonable, plausible, or even logical argument that says that I am in error.

One does not grow figs from thistles.

If the doctrines of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious 'authorities' were the Truth, civilization would NOT be facing the threat of nuclear annihilation over the possession of Jerusalem or Iran's nuclear enrichment program.

SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE.

Given the current situation, it is simply not POSSIBLE that all of these religious 'authorities' are telling the Truth...

The next question being "What is the source of their error?"

And my response to that is the disinterpretation of the Doctrine of "resurrection".


Mi cha el

Refreshen my mind please, which end times? You see, there's been so many of those that I've come to believe those dates and stories are most likely recruitment stories for your local church/mosque/synagoge. Stories designed to scare the listening ear, so that the fearful brain will comply and force the willful body into submission.

Though, of course, you can try and correct me with bible verses, mind you, I will correct you with history.

First of all, I would like to apologize for my earlier comments. When I woke up this morning, I intended to come in here and remove them myself, not for being off topic (which they were) but because they were insensitive and unkind, and I am sorry for any hurt that I might have caused. Thank you, Projectvxn, for beating me to it.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
The implication of the title of this thread is that "abandoning faith" can only be a BAD thing.

.. snip ..

If the doctrines of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious 'authorities' were the Truth, civilization would NOT be facing the threat of nuclear annihilation over the possession of Jerusalem or Iran's nuclear enrichment program.

Your supposition here is that nuclear technology and its use are somehow tied to religious beliefs, which I don't see as a valid connection, and that religious 'authorities' are somehow political 'authorities', or that political 'authorities' make decisions based on religious doctrine, which is a stretch, at best, but more likely complete fallacy.

If you would like to say that if there was no Judaism, Christianity, and Muslim schism, there would be no conflict between the state of Israel and the state of Iran, it's another stretch to say that they wouldn't have something else to argue about. I haven't read much on the state of Jewish-Muslim relations prior to 1948, but I've heard lots of claims that the enmity between the two groups is mostly about the forcible creation of Israel and displacement of the Palestinians than anything else.

Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. -- Jurassic Park, 1993

That, I think is the problem with the abandonment of religion, and why it is a bad thing. People give up, effectively, a code that says "be nice to others" and replace it with a code that says "if there's money in it, do it" or "might makes right, and who wants to be wrong?"

I do fault the teachers of religion who fail to grasp that the key component of ALL religions (even the one you're promoting) is to be nice to others, and the followers, who don't get it, either.

Issues of insanity aside, in a world where nations seem to make immoral or unjust decisions arbitrarily, or out of self interest, how can one be surprised that Iran or North Korea would want to create their own deterrent? I'm not keen on the idea, but I sure don't blame them.

Personally, I'm far more concerned with the nuclear weapons held by Pakistan. Iran, for all their jabbering, needs Israel to exist, and mutually assured destruction will most likely keep them in check. Pakistan, on the other hand, is infested with people who see no downside to personal annihilation and would likely not hesitate to "push the button" if they were to get control of things.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
The implication of the title of this thread is that "abandoning faith" can only be a BAD thing.

.. snip ..

If the doctrines of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious 'authorities' were the Truth, civilization would NOT be facing the threat of nuclear annihilation over the possession of Jerusalem or Iran's nuclear enrichment program.

Your supposition here is that nuclear technology and its use are somehow tied to religious beliefs, which I don't see as a valid connection, and that religious 'authorities' are somehow political 'authorities', or that political 'authorities' make decisions based on religious doctrine, which is a stretch, at best, but more likely complete fallacy.

Well, then, you do not see the problem at all.

Of course, the use of nuclear weapons is very directly tied to religious beliefs; the question being whether the Creator of the universe would consider any use of nuclear weapons to be 'justified'. And, if He did not, then what would be the consequences on the persons who pushed those buttons? In other words, would they ever be punished by God for that genocide? Will they merely go "to hell" after they die? Or will they be punished in THIS world life after life afte life after life when they are 'raised from the dead'? That is a theological issue having to do with the Truth of theological doctrines.

Some religions say that there will be punishment "in hell" for violations of the Moral Law. Then why are they not asserting that belief effectively enough in relation to nuclear weapons? Why does not the Roman church come right out and say that all of those people involved in the manufacture and use of nuclear weapons will go to hell if those weapons are ever used? Why do not the Chief Rabbis of the Israel come right out and say that even the annihilation of the POLITICAL ENTITY known as the Israel is NOT sufficient justification for the slaughter of MILLIONS of Iranians by nuclear weapons? (But the Muslim religious 'authorities' of Iran have, in fact, stated precisely that the use of nuclear weapons would be a violation of the ethics of the Quran.)

Because that would INTERFERE with the politicians' lust for world domination.

That, I think is the problem with the abandonment of religion, and why it is a bad thing.

The religious 'authorities' are teaching CONTRADICTIONS of the Revelations.

Abandoning those contradictions for the Truth is the ONLY way of resolving the conflicts between Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Of course, civilization has never listened, and does not now listen, to the Truth.

We have millions of Jews, and hundreds of millions of Christians and Muslims who have NO doubt whatsoever that they are following Revealed Truths. And they CANNOT be convinced otherwise; first, becaue neither the media nor the religious 'authorities' will ALLOW them to be convinced otherwise.

So what is going to happen is precisely what is going to happen.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Zamini
Refreshen my mind please, which end times?

As I have said before, the term "time of the End" has one meaning with regards to consciousness and another meaning in relation to the space-time reality.

As Freud observed, time is a construction of the "ego" consciousness. In that sense, a destruction of the "ego" consciousness is a destruction of time. And one of the classic symptoms of an emergent psychosis is a very severe distortion in the experience of time.

According to Reverse Speech Analysis, the forward meaning of language conveys the meaning of the "ego", whereas the information conferred by reverse speech is information from the 'unconscious', in which time can go backwards or is completely time independent.

The observations of Krishnamurti also establish an equivalence between the thoughts of the 'thinker' and time.

So, in that sense, the "time of the End" of time has to do with the emergence of a completely different dimension of consciousness which is NOT the consciousness of the 'thinker'.

This is what I have explained on my website.

Revelation is received after the "time of the End" with the Vision of the "Son of man" and the Revelation of the "resurrection", each of which Revelations consist of an absolute REVERSAL of time itself to the origin of human consciousness.

I'll leave it to those who have no Knowledge of such things, to argue amongst themselves as to the meaning of this term in relation to the space-time reality.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Of course, the use of nuclear weapons is very directly tied to religious beliefs; the question being whether the Creator of the universe would consider any use of nuclear weapons to be 'justified'. And, if He did not, then what would be the consequences on the persons who pushed those buttons? In other words, would they ever be punished by God for that genocide? Will they merely go "to hell" after they die? Or will they be punished in THIS world life after life afte life after life when they are 'raised from the dead'? That is a theological issue having to do with the Truth of theological doctrines.

What possible difference would that make? If punishment A doesn't phase someone, why would punishment B? If "merely going to hell" has no impact, why would "you're just going to come back here"? You've no proof that your theory is correct, indeed, a fair amount of proof that it is not correct, how do you suppose that you're going to convince anyone, much less everyone, to abandon their jobs, beliefs and traditions?

Good grief, how do you wrap your head around "merely go to hell"?

As for justification, that's not really your, or my place, but God's to judge. I'm not a pacifist, but I'm pretty close to being one, so telling me that war and killing are bad isn't telling me something I don't already know.

The religious 'authorities' are teaching CONTRADICTIONS of the Revelations.

Abandoning those contradictions for the Truth is the ONLY way of resolving the conflicts between Jews, Christians and Muslims.

What revelations? Yours? Daniel's? John's? What contradictions?

neither the media nor the religious 'authorities' will ALLOW them to be convinced otherwise.

What conspiracists (and I'm not necessarily calling you one,) often ignore is that the media is a business. They function to make money, and the only way that they make money is by attracting eyeballs. If there's something that they can talk about that separates them from everyone else that is trying to attract eyeballs, they'd be on it like a bum on a bologna sandwich.

That said, you once again run into cause and effect flaw of your argument. You say that no one will believe you because the media and religious authorities won't allow this to happen. However, here on ATS, you have neither the media nor religious authorities standing in your way. In this neutral environment, who have you convinced?

You might say (well, you have said,) that someone like me cannot be convinced because I'm too invested in my existing faith, and that's likely true, given the evidence that you've shown thus far, but who isn't invested, to some degree? Is your target audience merely the fickle or "blind faith" types?

reply to post by Michael Cecil


one one hand Christianity doctrines are either Peterist or Pauline

but let's not discard the Apolstolic Tradition of doctrines that is preserved through
Apostle John > Polycarp > Irenaeus > Hippolytus >....

you might gain a better insight just what the meaning of the 'falling away' entails...
it's not just about a 'bad or good' thing... it's about the threashing floor !
seperating the wheat from the chaff !
its about waiting in heaven for a short-time...until the decreed ammount of blood has reached its measure.


parabels & confounding words was the message that Jesus spake, otherwise the unworthy
would get wise to heaven/ the kingdom and the mystery's

Originally posted by adjensenIn this neutral environment, who have you convinced?

Not that it will make any difference, but I would point to the two following quotations:

"But, if there is one who does not believe, he does not have the (capacity to be) persuaded."--this from The Treatise on the Resurrection, which, very clearly, but in cryptic terminology, describes the "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebith'.

Would I suggest you read it?

Of course not. You would not understand what you are reading. Not a criticism. Merely a statement of fact. Just like I am absolutely incapable of understanding a physics book describing the mathematics of Relativity Theory.

And, from the Book of Thomas the Contender:

"The savior replied: 'Listen to what I am going to tell you and believe in the truth. That which sows and that which is sown will dissolve in their fire--within the fire and the water--and they will hide in tombs of darkness. And after a long time they shall show forth the fruit of the evil trees, being punished, being slain in the mouth of beasts and men at the instigation of the rains and wind and air and the light that shines above.'

Thomas replied, 'You have certainly persuaded us, lord...'"

Do I understand what these words mean?

Well, I would not use precisely the same words.

Do you understand what these words mean?

Of course not. Again not a criticism.

But Thomas both understood what the words meant and was persuaded at the same time that they were the Truth.

But there are so many aspects of what is involved here that you simply have no Knowledge of.

In 34 years I have NEVER convinced anyone. I have met people that were already convinced of the Truth about the Doctrine of "resurrection" or who had "sneaking suspicions" about the Doctrine of "resurrection"; and, when they read what I wrote, they recognized that what I had written was the Truth as well, but I did not convince them. They had already questioned this Doctrine by themselves in one way or another; something which, for your own reasons, it appears that you have not done.

Now, to you, that represents a failure.

To me, it represents the reality of the situation.

My only responsibility is to inform not convince:

Jesus was murdered because he taught the "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'.

If you don't want to believe that, don't.

If you want to deny the historical consequences of that in the slaughter of tens of thousands of Albigensians and millions of Jews, go ahead.

It is not my problem.

There is also a statement by Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas (Saying #23): "I shall choose you, one out of a thousand and two out of ten thousand..." which gives a very rough estimate of the numbers of people who are capable of recognizing the Truth when they see it.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by adjensenIn this neutral environment, who have you convinced?

Not that it will make any difference, but I would point to the two following quotations:

"But, if there is one who does not believe, he does not have the (capacity to be) persuaded."--this from The Treatise on the Resurrection, which, very clearly, but in cryptic terminology, describes the "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebith'.

Would I suggest you read it?

Of course not. You would not understand what you are reading. Not a criticism. Merely a statement of fact. Just like I am absolutely incapable of understanding a physics book describing the mathematics of Relativity Theory.

Well, too bad, I went and read it :-)

Now, I'm sure that my take away from it is much different than yours, but I have to question the validity of something that says "These things I have received from the generosity of my Lord, Jesus Christ." when it was written a couple of hundred years after his death.

It's Gnosticism, Michael. He's talking about the Gnostic belief that we are prisoners in our bodies, that death frees us from that prison, and that resurrection does NOT put us back in our bodies, because of the contradiction that would be for a Gnostic. The Christians (the "real" ones) were talking about being resurrected in the body (a core Christian tenet) upon Christ's return, and the Gnostics needed to respond to that.

If you don't understand Gnosticism (and since you've never answered my questions regarding it, that would be my conclusion,) you'd likely come to a different conclusion, but the real stretch is that there is "hidden knowledge" that Gnosticism claims to reveal, and yet you're saying that even they were hiding knowledge from each other.

There is also a statement by Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas (Saying #23): "I shall choose you, one out of a thousand and two out of ten thousand..." which gives a very rough estimate of the numbers of people who are capable of recognizing the Truth when they see it.

Mathematically, those are two different percentages :-)

However, the Gospel of Thomas also includes this...

(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

so you'll forgive me for not believing that that particular book is reliable.

Originally posted by adjensen
Well, too bad, I went and read it :-)

Now, I'm sure that my take away from it is much different than yours,

Wow.

I first read it in 1978. And, even though I have received the Revelation of the "resurrection", it took me several years to understand the bizarre language in which this book places that Knowledge; and, even today, I would not claim to know 100% of what that book attempts to convey. But you, not even having received the Revelation at all, apparently know 100% of what it means in just a few hours.

but I have to question the validity of something that says "These things I have received from the generosity of my Lord, Jesus Christ." when it was written a couple of hundred years after his death.

Then you understand neither the context in which this was said, or its meaning, or the significance of the Revelation itself.

It's Gnosticism, Michael. He's talking about the Gnostic belief that we are prisoners in our bodies, that death frees us from that prison, and that resurrection does NOT put us back in our bodies, because of the contradiction that would be for a Gnostic.

Clear evidence that you have not read The Treatise On the Resurrection at all. And I won't explain why. You can't understand the difference between metaphysical philosophy of "Gnosticism"--which was concocted as a term of opprobrium by the Christians--and the meaning of the word "Gnosis".

The Christians (the "real" ones) were talking about being resurrected in the body (a core Christian tenet) upon Christ's return, and the Gnostics needed to respond to that.....and yet you're saying that even they were hiding knowledge from each other.

(Sigh).

These are written works. Much of the Teaching cannot be put into written words because it might be read by someone who does not deserve to read it. And, secondly, there were Doctrinal conflicts expressed throughout the whole collection. The question comes down to differentiating those particular elements which were based upon Revelation and which others were based upon metaphysical philosophies of one kind or another.

The consciousness of the 'thinker' does not have Knowledge on how to make these differentiations...

Often referred to as "throwing the baby out with the bath water".

There is also a statement by Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas (Saying #23): "I shall choose you, one out of a thousand and two out of ten thousand..." which gives a very rough estimate of the numbers of people who are capable of recognizing the Truth when they see it.

Mathematically, those are two different percentages :-)

The next numbers in the progression being "three out of a hundred thousand, four out of a million, five out of ten million, six out of a hundred million, and seven out of a billion". In other words, the probability that you will understand what I am saying is vanishingly small.

However, the Gospel of Thomas also includes this...

(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

so you'll forgive me for not believing that that particular book is reliable.

Peter was a male chauvinist; confirmed in spades in the Gospel of Mary.

There is even more evidence (see Saying #13) that Thomas understood more of the Teaching of Jesus than did either Peter or Matthew.

So?

These people were humans; each with their own flaws and imperfections.

Mi cha el

I think it might be quite the opposite. People may realize that faith is a good thing, but that it's entirely misconstrued. "Abandoning faith" could mean "accepting the true reality of faith."

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by adjensen
Well, too bad, I went and read it :-)

Now, I'm sure that my take away from it is much different than yours,

Wow.

I first read it in 1978. And, even though I have received the Revelation of the "resurrection", it took me several years to understand the bizarre language in which this book places that Knowledge; and, even today, I would not claim to know 100% of what that book attempts to convey. But you, not even having received the Revelation at all, apparently know 100% of what it means in just a few hours.

Yes, I'm pretty sharp. Thanks for noticing! "That book"? It's about fifteen paragraphs long. Maybe we're talking about two different things -- I'm referring to the document "The Treatise on the Resurrection" found in the Nag Hammadi Library. Sorry if I've confused things.

It's Gnosticism, Michael. He's talking about the Gnostic belief that we are prisoners in our bodies, that death frees us from that prison, and that resurrection does NOT put us back in our bodies, because of the contradiction that would be for a Gnostic.

Clear evidence that you have not read The Treatise On the Resurrection at all. And I won't explain why. You can't understand the difference between metaphysical philosophy of "Gnosticism"--which was concocted as a term of opprobrium by the Christians--and the meaning of the word "Gnosis".

Geez, I said I read it. You agreed that I read it in your first paragraph, now you say I didn't read it?

I suspect that you mean I don't understand it. However, we have two variations of what a fifteen paragraph document is. I say that it's a straightforward treatise on what it says it is -- putting the concept of resurrection, as taught by Christians, into a context that answers the questions of Gnostics, whose beliefs regarding the material body were in direct opposition with what Christianity teaches. You say that it's a secret message, which only makes sense to you, about a revelation that has no evidence of its occurrence until you came along.

To agree with me, one merely needs to read that, and do a little research into the beliefs of the Christian Gnostics. To agree with you, one needs to ignore the beliefs of the Gnostics, assume that the letter means absolutely nothing on face value, and proceed to second guess every word in the belief that it can't possibly mean what it says.

But I presume that you've read it in the original Greek, and the secrets are more evident there.

Much of the Teaching cannot be put into written words because it might be read by someone who does not deserve to read it.

Who doesn't deserve enlightenment? Your beliefs condemn pretty much everyone but yourself, what do you think this says about the God that you worship?

reply to post by Michael Cecil


I would like to apologize for the Michael Cecil Exeter mistake I made. I know that you will probably not accept this apology on the count that I have definately antagonized you in this thread. I have been in contact with several other posters about this and I believe I understand you better. I get how frustrating it must be that the religious authorities have not condoned your beliefs and I understand that you wish to leave behind a legacy before "the lights go out" as you say. I'm considering buying your book to better understand your philosophy and because I respect your need for your ideas to be heard. I still disagree with your claims and I will refute them, because I don't want you to dissillusion impressionable Christians, Muslims, and Jews with baseless accusations against their faith. No more antagonizing from me.

Back to the topic

I beleive that the turning away from Yahweh is more a result of the arogance of humanism and a general shift in thinking. Studies show that people are losing their ability to think outside of the box in this day and age. In the past people held a much more "mind over matter" philosophy which encourages creative thought. The opposing mindset is "matter over mind" which is a much more logistical way of thinking. "Matter over mind" is best suited for a corporate environment which is what schools are teaching so students will have a "future". However this ideology restricts thinking outside the box and scientifically categorizes all things that mankind once held dear. God is a delusion, love is simply chemicle interactions in the brain, dreams serve no purpose other than removal of junk memories; they are only a product of the subconscious.

Originally posted by kallisti36
I beleive that the turning away from Yahweh is more a result of the arogance of humanism and a general shift in thinking. Studies show that people are losing their ability to think outside of the box in this day and age. In the past people held a much more "mind over matter" philosophy which encourages creative thought.

It's not just about the growth of materialism, though.
From the specifically Christian viewpoint of the Timothy passage quoted in the OP, "falling away from faith" also includes the adoption of rival non-materialistic beliefs. What the letter calls "following deceiving spirits and things taught by demons". So the fact that there is so much religious "competition" in the modern, multi-cultural world is also one of the factors in the phenomenon.