"Your mind is the perfect epitome of religious fanaticism"

I admire thoughtful, rational, well-reasoned put-downs of religious fanatics. That's why I'm sharing a marvelous comment on a recent post by "Appreciative Reader" that totally destroys the credibility of another commenter, "D.r."

The whole comment is well worth reading as a great example of how to respond to religious bullshit. But my favorite part of Appreciative Reader's comment begins with the one-sentence paragraph, It occurs to me that you may be wondering why I’m wasting so much time with you.

I really resonate with the last part of the comment. It makes so much sense, I'll repeat it here:

But I come now to the third and most important reason of all, and that is : it is important that fanatics like you are everywhere called out and held to scrutiny and even, when appropriate, to ridicule. A very large portion of the world’s misery is due to fanaticism; and if we don’t immediately step on fanaticism the moment it raises its ugly head, then we are indirectly facilitating the growth of the cancer of fanaticism.

Every time that fanatics like you open your mouth to pour invective and ridicule on other people’s sincerely held faith while at the same time blithely claiming respect for your own pet delusions, every time that fanatics like you pollute rational and courteous discourse with your malicious and discourteous proselytizing, if we can immediately and firmly call out your bullshit (even if we personally are not necessarily being targeted), then we will have contributed in some small way towards making the world a slightly saner and safer place.

Here's the full comment from Appreciative Reader.

Quote D.r : “I contradicted myself there.”

No shit you contradicted yourself there! “There", indeed! You say that as if that is the one single contradiction that you’ve made, and which single instance I now point out to you. Your contradictions, friend D.r, are truly legion! My longish comment to you, addressed to you in that other thread, was a compendium of sorts of a whole host of them. All clearly documented and clearly demonstrated.

I refer to Open Thread 11 : go back and refresh your memory if you wish by re-reading the unbelievable comments you have posted there. After reading that comment of mine (addressed to you, and posted on January 29), what you do is to abjectly, cravenly, throw your hands up in surrender, eschewing even the barest pretense of rationality, eschewing even the appearance of critical thinking ; you retreat entirely from that particular discussion without showing any signs of having even understood what was being said to you ; and you respond there, instead, with some out and out non sequiturs, plucked out of thin air.

What is one to think of someone whose comments appear practically half-witted when the discussion moves to their own faith, their own beliefs and their own irrationalities ; and who, paradoxically, suddenly turns around and writes sharp and intelligent comments, all awhirr with critical thinking, when examining the irrationalities within others’ belief systems? As has happened here again and again and again?

Take these short responses you’ve made to me, right here on this thread:

I tell you clearly in so many words that, basis your repeated protestations, I no longer think you’re trolling, that I do not, repeat DO NOT, think you’re trolling ; to which you respond by complaining that I’m trying to show you up as a troll! God above, man, can you not READ? That’s, like, textbook strawmanning!

Then you go on to say : “I don’t put down other people’s faith or experiences” -- and, amazingly, astonishingly, go on, in that very same sentence, to say “I simply point out that meditation is dangerous and leads to delusions”, by which you mean, as is clear from your other comments, you mean not to highlight dangers (real or imagined) in this endeavor, but to imply that all of those whose experiences are predicated on meditation are deluded.

It is but a short step from there to, for instance, describing Jim Sutherland as mentally deranged, and, to take another instance, to peremptorily dismissing the heart-felt and sincere personal observations of Manjit, which he was kind enough to discuss here specifically on my request.

(And here’s the thing : if some out-and-out atheist were to do this sort of thing, I’d call them plain-spoken to the point of being obnoxious, but nevertheless consistent ; and especially in a “Churchless” blog their plainspeak, although perhaps unkind, may not really be out of place ; but for someone that claims that God “touched” them, for someone who solemnly claims they’ve actually had visions of God, for such an out-and-out apparent nut job to try to so peremptorily and rudely dismiss other people’s experiences, while continuing to gibber on about their own experiences and pet beliefs, that is … well, words fail me as I look on the grotesquely unhinged mentality that can make such comments in all earnestness.)

Here’s another gem from you : ”I do put down atheists though and I don't give a crap what you or anybody else thinks about that. I have zero respect for atheism. I hope you understand.” Well, I’m afraid I myself don’t have an overabundance of respect myself for people who do not treat others with respect. Even when such disrespect is not necessarily directed at me personally. I hope you understand!

And then, finally, you round off your comment here to me with that perfectly absurd gem of a non sequitur, where you say to me “I’m still not convinced that you aren’t an atheist”. That’s breath-taking, the sheer irrelevance and absurdity of that last nonsensical non sequitur.

And in that original sentence I quoted in my first comment addressed to you here (where you say that you can tell the real from the fake, etc), while your premise itself appears to have been mined from some deep dark recess within your own physiology, nevertheless that premise is yours ; and you seem unable to comprehend that single-line premise that you yourself hold, and what that premise, coupled your well-documented past conduct on here, says about the nature of your own experience. (Hint : that word, “fake”! Per YOUR standards and basis YOUR thinking, basis YOUR premise, not mine!)

#FacePalm!# ------ How can someone be so consistently bipolar in their commenting, alternatively apparently half-witted (when talking about their own beliefs, seemingly unable to parse simple sentences) and then, next moment, suddenly all razor-sharp and rational and logical (when talking about others’ belief systems)? I’d mentioned schizophrenia only in jest in my previous comment, but perhaps you do need to go get yourself tested!

Anyway : This discussion with you, across threads, was singularly unprofitable, but at least it was, in retrospect, not without some entertainment value! God knows I’ve tried to reach out to you more than once, including right here on this thread, despite your absurd and often obnoxious commenting on here! I’ll know better henceforth than to risk my sanity by trying to engage with you any further on this subject!

It occurs to me that you may be wondering why I’m wasting so much time with you.

I was just now about to press the “Post” button, when that same question occurred to me : why, I found myself asking, have I wasted so much time thinking about you and talking of you? It’s an interesting question in itself, because I generally like to keep well away from the bickering that is so common in Internet forums. I think the answer is, apart from the entertainment (which after all is only fleeting), I think in a weird sort of way, getting to interact with you was an instructive process.

Your mind is the perfect epitome of religious fanaticism.

What passes for thought with you, where this subject is concerned, is classic : my own religious delusions are gospel truth, to be respected and revered, and anyone who doubts the authenticity of my spiritual experiences and my religious faith is wholly wrong and misguided ; and what is more, others with their own spiritual experiences and religious thoughts and beliefs are also equally misguided ; and both these categories of people are fair game for peremptory dismissal as well as unprovoked rudeness and insults.

Logical rational thought have no place where my pet delusions are concerned; and yet, where others’ cherished beliefs are concerned, logic is a sound tool, as long as it can be used to swat those beliefs down. That’s you in a nutshell, D.r, when it comes to this particular subject : fascinating, isn’t it?

Your tragedy is, you’re born in the wrong time and the wrong place. You’d fit right in, had you been born some four to five hundred years ago (or earlier). I’m sure getting to live during the Inquisition would be your idea of heaven. Had you been born in those times, you’d get to not only insult those who don’t share your delusions, you could even end up physically hurting them by snitching about them to the authorities.

Even in present times, had you been born in, say, Syria, even then you’d probably fit right in with some of the folks there (always provided your delusions were of the Islamic variety, as opposed to the Christian variety). How do you like that idea, incidentally : I may have just now charted out the perfect calling for you : as long as you’re prepared to junk your current delusions and to embrace the One True Faith (Islam) and the One True God (Allah), you can always book a one-way ticket to one of those places that you read about in the papers, and you’ll find yourself in the company of your spiritual brothers, people who think exactly like you do.

Incidentally: I’m usually a stickler about being just as courteous online as I am in real life. But being less than perfectly polite with the likes of you is fine, at least at times. Jesus may have advocated turning the other cheek : but I am personally fine with reciprocating in some measure the rudeness of those who are gratuitously contemptuous of and discourteous to others. It is as good a means as any of keeping people like you in check.

Anyway: I was talking, in the latter half of this comment, about why I’m spending so much time on you. I’ve listed two reasons already. The first was entertainment (albeit of very questionable taste). The second was instruction about how the mind of the religious fanatic works.

But I come now to the third and most important reason of all, and that is : it is important that fanatics like you are everywhere called out and held to scrutiny and even, when appropriate, to ridicule. A very large portion of the world’s misery is due to fanaticism; and if we don’t immediately step on fanaticism the moment it raises its ugly head, then we are indirectly facilitating the growth of the cancer of fanaticism.

Every time that fanatics like you open your mouth to pour invective and ridicule on other people’s sincerely held faith while at the same time blithely claiming respect for your own pet delusions, every time that fanatics like you pollute rational and courteous discourse with your malicious and discourteous proselytizing, if we can immediately and firmly call out your bullshit (even if we personally are not necessarily being targeted), then we will have contributed in some small way towards making the world a slightly saner and safer place.

Comments

[vinny]

What about the fanaticism of atheism disrespecting modern physics converging with Sant-mat on unified field of consciousness ?? Double standards of atheists are condemnable .
How atheists be-fool innocent gullible people by their cunning tricks is doubly condemnable.

[Willie R.]

A lighthearted note to the warriors: the peculiarity betwixt the confrontation of pedagogy (Appreciative Reader) with condescension (D.r) is that each contestant is only arguing with himself in the mirror.

[D.r]

Oh No Brian, you definitely have it wrong here.

You See, the snobbish and posh and pedantic well mannered "Appreciative Reader", doesn't realise how they look in other people's eyes with those characteristics. It doesn't usually take me much time to type and be done with it instead of spending 10 hours to compose my post.

It is obvious that atheism is completely without merit. Most atheists have a mentality where Darwinian evolution presides, even though this is simply a simple theory without basis in reality and fact. There are so many problems with the theory of Darwinian evolution it would be crazy for me to reiterate them all for every reader.

I look forward to the challenge of a toff with eloquent words apparently making me into a fanatic ISIS member that enjoys beheading other people and tearing their heart out of their chest and taking a bite of it, for the simple reason that I can refute absolutely everything he says about me. There's no point in being dishonest on the internet.

[D.r]

Williy R, if people see themselves in me, they can also see themselves in you, and you can see yourself in them at the same time. Meaning, if the mirror argues with itself, what is the point? Yeah, something is definitely amiss with "Appreciative Reader". S/he can't even bring herself to admit that he is an atheist. What we are dealing with here is a case of cognitive schizophrenia or duality. Something Bipolar. Something manic depressive. Something like General Anxiety DIsorder or Manic Affective Disorder - MAD.

When your lights go out, who will take you to hospital, Willy?

[D.r]

vinny, there is no point in trying to get through to Brian's thick skull the idea that it is possible that something, which sane people call "God", even exists. He is so consumed with himself, probably due to pot smoking, that he has no time to even think seriously about life and about any kind of afterlife and judgment. You can fault religious people with concentrating only on an afterlife, and hedonist atheists concentrating too much on the present human life only, but woebetide you to not agree with such fanatical bullshit.

[Jen]

D.r, fascinating reading your posts. You are here to debunk atheists and yet you are attacking mostly everyone. Kinda sad. In a way its like a lesson to see our own projections and what triggers us to respond and condemn in return. Not an easy lesson, but hey! I'm not as over sensitive as I used to be and thats quite a big change.

[Spencer Tepper]

I would challenge Brian to find the grain of truth in D. R.'s personal beliefs....

And challenge D. R. to do the same.

My reason is simple. D. R. Has not put a good face on Christianity, though there is much kindness and compassion in it.

And Brian has tainted Atheism with reactivity, though there is much "spirituality", practical reason, and personal honesty in it.

[D.r]

I don't NEED to put a good face on Christianity because I am not a Christian! I had some experiences of a supernatural character and I shared them on this blog. If that offends you, so be it. You can really just fuck off if you are offended by that. I don't give a shit what you believe to the contrary.

What Brian needs to do is ask Appreciative Reader if he/she is an Atheist. That way, we can find out whether that person disagrees with Brian and take it from there.

[D.r]

Jen, there will probably come a time where you see a post wherein I am not condemning someone for what they believe in. I admit that might be few and far between, for obvious reasons. But still, I'm not a monster in real life.

I really do believe that Atheists are complete wankers though. I spent 15 years talking with them and they are all the same. I think atheism is a cult. A totally closed minded shallow belief system (because that it what it is - a belief system).

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

I think we all have our moments in congruent with this topic, e.g.

Originally posted by Blogger Brian:

I didn't have any grand mysticalexperiences during my trip to India. I just came away impressed with theguru's undeniable warmth,dedication, love, and sense ofhumor.
Found here: http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2017/08/my-current-atheist-view-of-a-previous-religious-revelation.html

Brother Hines, I have learned that Charan Singh himself never claimed more than what you have listed here. Sar Bachan speaks of what we are 'really' trying to gain from this path, whether or not if we believe in a God, or just ourselves. It is not the miracles, inner-transport, nor high regions which are most important. What is most important to the Cosmos is for each individual to learn gradually, to become more "loving, dedicated, and light-hearted" human beings -as you've mention above about your late, but Great Great SatGuru.

Originally posted by Jen:

The practice that works for me isletting go, nothingness, emptiness, which lightens me up in my dailygrind and stops me from overthinking (can't stop that entirely) but it helps me feel peaceful in myquietude.
Found here: http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2018/01/a-justice-system-not-based-on-a-belief-in-free-will-would-be-much-better.html

Sister Jen, with all due respect I must add believe me or not, That a state of 'clearing our thoughts' as you mention above is exactly what Simran aims at. As taught by SatGuru Charan Singh Ji -I can only reiterate this point.

Originally posted by D.r:

Karim,
Eastern gurus go much further than the idea that you or I are part ofGod.
Found here: http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2017/12/open-thread-11-free-speech-for-comments/comments/page/2/#comments

Dear brother D.r, I must confess to you that this information that True Gurus claim to be God is untrue. They claim exactly what you mentioned above that, 'you and I are part of God'.

Originally posted by AppreciativeReader:

Since we seem to be handingapologies around, perhaps I should extend one to D.r here, for thesomewhat strident tone of mycomment I addressed to him (as itappears to me now, when I look at what I'd written). I stand by thecontent of every word I'd written, of course, but perhaps I should havetried to soften the tone in which Iexpressed it. My point made, andthose irrationalities addressed, may we shake hands and put this behindus, D.r?
Found here: http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2017/12/open-thread-11-free-speech-for-comments/comments/page/2/#comments

It takes 'a bigger man' or 'a bigger woman' to extend such an apology as you did above. Becoming bigger human beings is just what SatGuru Charan Singh Ji taught before departing the physical realm in 1990. And all Baba Gurinder Singh Ji does today in his teachings, is continue in his spiritual father's footsteps.

[D.r]

Karim, a lot of gurus claim to actually BE God. They use the word "avatar" as a cover for that. I know you said "true gurus", but can you name any?

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

Originally posted by D.r:

I know you said "true gurus", butcan you name any?

Yes, I said "true gurus".

I also said "Sat Guru" which is same thing.

"Sat" meaning "truth" (absolute truth in sanskrit).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sat_(Sanskrit)#Meaning

Then Guru; "gu" and "ru" having two separate meanings:

गुशब्दस्त्वन्धकारः स्यात्‌ रुशब्दस्तन्निरोधकः।
अन्धकारनिरोधित्वात्‌ गुरुरित्यभिधीयते॥ १६॥

The syllable gu means darkness, the syllable ru, he who dispels them,
Because of the power to dispel darkness, the guru is thus named.
— Advayataraka Upanishad, Verse 16
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru#Darkness_and_light

Thus, now combine all the sanskrit words; "sat", "gu", and "ru". And you now have "Sat Guru" meaning "True Guru" or "true dispeller of darkness" of things spiritual or leading towards God of course:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satguru

So I listed a couple of "sat gurus" in my last post. Now, how to prove if a "guru" is a "sat guru" will be up to the sagacity of the seekers.

[D.r]

Karim,

I'm glad to see you think that Charan Singh was a satguru. (by the way, I know what the word guru means). Because now I have an opportunity to tell you that he totally distorted the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible. I could give specific examples if I had the material before me but I don't, so my memory will not do here. Nevertheless, you must be aware that the teachings of sant mat about inner sounds and lights have absolutely nothing to do with Christian spiritual experience that has lasted 2000 years? It is possible to be a sophist and twist the meanings of Bible passages to make them fit mysticism, but this will not do in a careful analysis of the texts.

One thing I can tell you for sure is that Charan Singh claimed that vegetarianism was Biblically endorsed. No, sorry, this won't do. Jesus Christ ate fish and lamb. That is not a good example of vegetarianism to pass on to other people. John the Baptist ate only wild locusts and honey. He was a brilliant vegetarian. If he couldn't have convinced Jesus of the benefits of not eating meat, nobody else could have.

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

D.r,

From what I've learned, the RSSB Gurus have endorse lacto-vegetarianism. This fact which can be discovered by a simple inquiry of the basics of their philosophy.

In honor of my Sat Guru Baba Ji, also know as Gurinder Singh. I cannot claim to guru-ship nor saintliness. Nor can I claim of knowledge of what saints of old may have ate to survive.

I can though claim that I was not always lacto-vegetarian myself. Before I learned of RSSB I did have my share of hot dogs, tuna, and eggnog. So for me it wasn't easy making the switch to per se, only milk, cheese, and butter.

To reiterate myself, Baba Ji has never taught me to dislike meat eaters, nor stay away from gatherings where meat or fleshy foods were served. So what I've learned that's spiritual to me, is that in these curcumstances I should practice eating more salad dishes and try saving the bacon bits. =)

[Spencer Tepper]

D. r.
Please refer to Genesis to see that a pure vegan diet is the diet God set forth on earth for all creatures including human beings.

Only after the fall did things change, and specifically Noah was told to make burnt offerings. This was to account for sin. Paul in Hebrews taught that the killing of innocent creatures could never eradicate sin.

And Jesus specifically told the disciples to leave off fishing and instead become fishers of men, though that story went through several changes in translation.

As for hearing the sound of spirit, Jesus tells us in John that all those who have been born into Spirit hear the sound as a mighty wind. And those who do can come and go as they please.

In Corinthians Paul teaches us that our transformation is first attended by the sound of the trumpet.

In Acts we read of the sound of the mighty wind heard by the apostles at the start of their missionary work.

Much of the Bible has been re - written and censored. You can read about censorship at the Nicene Council.

Even today's NIV translations have been altered from the KJV, completely altering the meaning of several Bible passages.

Christ teaches that the single eye of devotion leads to the body being flooded with light, in the KJV.

But the NIV only says if your eyes are good you will see light. The single term for eye has been directly corrupted and replaced with the plural term for eyes, which is not in either the Latin Vulgate or the Greek sources.

Your claims to the contrary have much evidence against them.

Your claims are based in dogma, nortfact. Because a fact based argument would acknowledge all the evidence for and against rather than simply ignore the evidence against your dogma in favor of making bound and false accusations against others.

In this way, D. r., your approach is identical to Brian's.

And therein lies the fatal flaw in your approach.

People who believe that the Truth will win out never ignore inconvenient or contrary evidence.

[D.r]

Spencer, I really don't think it is as simple as you make it out to be here. Why do you think millions if not billions of Christians don't seem to "get" what you are saying here if what you are saying is true?

The idea the Bible has been corrupted is a common charge but it is without foundation in fact. The earliest writings are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John aside from the Epistles in manuscript form and they have nothing to do with the council of Nicea. There may have been other manuscripts that were deleted when that council was inaugurated, but most of the manuscripts they deleted were gnostic manuscripts, which date from the 2nd century onwards, possibly apart from the Gospel of Thomas. So I'm sorry, but your claim that the New Testament has been corrupted is completely fallacious.

Again, I believe Cain in the book of Genesis offered a burnt offering. This was way before the flood. Paul taught that burnt offerings couldn't eradicate sin because Jesus came alone and changed everything. Jesus was the new sacrifice for sin so burnt offering were no longer necessary to atone for sin.

Jesus didn't tell his disciples to leave off fishing. He went with them in boats several times, sometimes to preach, one time to catch tons of fish and after his resurrection appeared at the seashore and ate fish with them. Sorry, you are just wrong about this one.

The passage in John's gospel about being born again doesn't mention HEARING the sound of spirit as a wind sound. Jesus simply said that being born again was LIKE the wind - you hear the sound of it but you don't know where it comes from or where it goes - he's speaking about WIND, not OM. I don't recall any passage that says people can come and go as they please due to the wind!

Paul says that the sound of a trumpet will signify the last days, which is known as the rapture.

It's true that at Pentecost the apostles heard the sound of a mighty rushing wind and saw tongues of fire rest on them. It is also true that Jesus talked about the eye being single and full of light.

So I am not so dogmatic as you portray me to be. But let's get the facts straight here. The biggest flaw people bring up is the idea that the Bible has been corrupted. It hasn't.

Something else: the missing years of Jesus' life. It is quite plausible, in my opinion, that he did go to India in that time frame. Otherwise why would there be no information in the Bible about those years?

Most importantly of all, what exactly, is the Holy Spirit? I have a very good idea of what the Holy Spirit is personally, though I don't claim to experience it. The foremost aspect of the Holy Spirit is conviction of sin in the presence of God's holiness, which is the peace that passeth understanding. It involves repentence, justification, sanctification and glorification. All of these qualities and processes accompany the experience of being "born again" and there are millions of Christians that know what this is. On the contrary, millions of Christians do not seem to know anything of any third eye or OM sound, and the ones that do know about those 2 things who are Christians are people that used to be into Hinduism and converted away from Hinduism because they recognised that it is demonic.

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi D.r.
I appreciate your efforts. Where do I begin?
Let's start with one of your statements:
You wrote:

" The idea the Bible has been corrupted is a common charge but it is without foundation in fact. The earliest writings are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John aside from the Epistles in manuscript form and they have nothing to do with the council of Nicea....So I'm sorry, but your claim that the New Testament has been corrupted is completely fallacious. "

Sorry, D.r., the authors of the four synoptic gospels were all unknown initially. Their names were attributed about 200 CE, between 100-150 years after they were circulated, by oral tradition (aka rumor). During that same period there were a few other books in circulation, including the Gospel of Thomas. Those attributions of authorship were by rumor, which is admitted by the early Church Father's: Papias, Eusebius and Origen. And Origen also acknowledges the presence of the Gospel of Thomas, in circulation at the same time. Origen believes this work is heretical. That's the opinion of his version of Christianity. But it was in circulation even before the four synoptic gospels had any official authorships assigned to them.

Your claim that Thomas came later has only a basis of opinion and no evidence.

You wrote:
"Paul taught that burnt offerings couldn't eradicate sin because Jesus came alone and changed everything."

No that's a very modern corruption, D.r. of funadamentalism. Paul actually stated that Jesus was here to return Jews to their original state. Those who fell away provided an opportunity for others to believe.

And he warned early Christians not to get too cocky about their opportunity for salvation, since some of the Jews fell away in unbelief, not that some new religion was being created:

"17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
Romans 11: 17-21

Who were the others?
"If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others ...."

Those are other branches that didn't fall away. Who were they?

Unfortunately, modern Fundamentalism does what Paul warns against. They believe they are the root. But they are not.

You wrote:

"The passage in John's gospel about being born again doesn't mention HEARING the sound of spirit as a wind sound. Jesus simply said that being born again was LIKE the wind - you hear the sound of it but you don't know where it comes from or where it goes - he's speaking about WIND, not OM. "

No, D.r. Read the passage again. Read the Greek. Jesus didn't say they were like the wind. That is a modern corruption. He said they were the wind, the Pneuma. Born into Pneuma. They were born into Spirit. They were now Spirit, and that Spirit is audible to those born into it:

"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."
John 3:8

You wrote:

"I don't recall any passage that says people can come and go as they please due to the wind!"

Please read the above:

Also, Jesus teaches us:

"9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved They will come in and go out, and find pasture. "

Once you enter through the Gate that IS Christ you can Come IN...into the Spirit, and Come OUT, return here at His command.

Paul reiterates this message:

"8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9 So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it."
2 Corinthians 5:8-9

You wrote:

"Paul says that the sound of a trumpet will signify the last days, which is known as the rapture."

Paul is talking about leaving this body of flesh for the body of Spirit. It doesn't happen just after you die ("fall asleep" in Bible euphemism). You can be alive and experience it in this life.

"51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”"
1 Corinthians 15:51-54

You wrote:
"It's true that at Pentecost the apostles heard the sound of a mighty rushing wind and saw tongues of fire rest on them. It is also true that Jesus talked about the eye being single and full of light.

So I am not so dogmatic as you portray me to be. But let's get the facts straight here. The biggest flaw people bring up is the idea that the Bible has been corrupted. It hasn't.

Something else: the missing years of Jesus' life. It is quite plausible, in my opinion, that he did go to India in that time frame. Otherwise why would there be no information in the Bible about those years?

Most importantly of all, what exactly, is the Holy Spirit? I have a very good idea of what the Holy Spirit is personally, though I don't claim to experience it. "

D.r., when you experience the mighty, roaring wind, the trumpet, the exact same experience of the Apostles, with flames of light, and the raising up out of this body in a flash of light up to the third heaven and beyond, attendant with that trumpet, then you can say you had an experience that, at least in ancient writings, is verified as the Holy Spirit. The point is to go into Spirit. That's what the Lord loves: Worship in Spirit.

"21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”"
John 4:21-24

So, follow what Christ taught, take birth again into Spirit, and there, worship our Father.

[Jim Sutherland]

Attn. D.r. and Spencer: you might be interested in the Link on my blog about where the origen of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture came from. I used to preach the Rapture, as an Assemblies of God Minister, in the early 80s,...until I stumbled on to the Rev. John Brey’s research. I quit looking up and discarded the Rapture theory , but do get “ Beamed Up” and hear the Trumpet daily in Meditation.

http://eternaloasisofsouls.blogspot.com/search?q=Rapture

Jim Sutherland

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

"10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?
13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not"
-HBKJV John 4:10-15

I remember Maharaj Charan Singh Ji making many references to the Holy Bible in his books. Like in this chapter when Jesus discribes the Holy Spirit as a well springing up to everlasting life.

Yet even reading such a great verse by a Saint who live decades ago, how could a one except the woman have a chance to experience what Jesus One with the Power of Christ meant if we are only readers and not there to gain the masterful instructions from the Saint himself?

Aye, I can only relay what Baba Ji says, "Go within, see for yourself.."

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Jim and Karim!

Jim, thanks for the link. It's great detail on the modern day corruptions of Biblical interpretation. The book of revelation itself is beautiful, mysterious and horryfing at the same time. Angles covered in eyes with four heads....We read even in Song of Songs of the Angels who are mighty warriors.

But as with many of the Psalms, these are passages to acknowledge and encourage personal progress in our personal experience.

That is an act of both submission and will.

Karim, who could say it any finer than Baba Ji "See for yourself"?