Originally posted by moonbusThe Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times by René Guénon
Rene Guenon, French metaphysical author: "The Reign of Quantity" among other books. Also Frithjof Schuon.
"The Reign of Quantity gives a concise but comprehensive view of the present state of affairs in the world, as it appears from the point of view of the 'ancient wisdom', formerly common both to the East and to the West, but now almost entirely lost sight of. The author indicates with his fabled clarity and directness the precise nature of the modern deviation, and devotes special attention to the development of modern philosophy and science, and to the part played by them, with their accompanying notions of progress and evolution, in the formation of the industrial and democratic society which we now regard as 'normal'. Guénon sees history as a descent from Form (or Quality) toward Matter (or Quantity); but after the Reign of Quantity-modern materialism and the 'rise of the masses'- Guénon predicts a reign of 'inverted quality' just before the end of the age: the triumph of the 'counter-initiation', the kingdom of Antichrist. This text is considered the magnum opus among Guénon's texts of civilizational criticism, as is Symbols of Sacred Science among his studies on symbols and cosmology, and Man and His Becoming according to the Vedanta among his more purely metaphysical works."
Paperback, 284 pages. Published April 1st 2002 by Sophia Perennis et Universalis (first published 1945)
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/560958.The_Reign_of_Quantity_and_the_Signs_of_the_Times
Is this the principal book which formulated your view of the Gog Magog Revolution at the conclusion of the Millennium?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI do not say we should ignore such gifts, however, we obviously can't accept the teaching of every pastor/teacher we hear, else we would be like a reed blowing in the wind.
The Holy Spirit has given the gift of pastor/teacher [requiring preparatory academic training in the exegesis and isagogics of the languages in which the Word of God was written Hebrew, Aramaic, Classical and Koine Greek] to teach us accurately.
"Is this the principal book which formulated your view of the Gog Magog Revolution at the conclusion of the Millennium?"
No. It confirmed (in a different idiom) a view I had already formed independently by my own observation. Materialism is a frame of mind which is very widespread nowadays, even among people who think of themselves as religious (including the Religions of the Book).
For further reference:
"Cutting through spiritual materialism"
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/tib/cutting.htm
Originally posted by moonbusTo be a perfect Christian one must obey and follow Christ. The following is what He said:
Crude interpretations of Christianity are also materialistic.
Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
(Matthew 19:21-22 NKJV)
Nobody is a perfect Christian, that is why we must all rely on the grace of God.
Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
a) If it is wrong (a materialistic snare) for you to have money and possessions, why is it right to give them to someone else? If the important thing is salvation and money cannot buy it for you, then it does no one else any more good than it does you to have the money. Indeed, if money and possessions ensnare you, it does the poor a disservice to ensnare them with such things too.
b) If it is wrong (a materialistic snare) for you to have benefits now, why is it right to have them later, after death?
Diogenes said to one of his disciples: "throw your money into the sea and live as I do." Thereby teaching his disciple two important lessons about the error of materialism:
a) Money and possessions do neither you nor the poor any good. So just get rid of them.
b) The promise of a reward later is a bad reason to live rightly now.
Diogenes was known for possessing only a cloak for warmth and a bowl for eating. One day when he saw a child eating lentils with a hollowed-out crust of bread, he threw away his bowl saying, "a child has taught me to live more simply." Notice that the CHRISTIAN thing to do is to give the bowl to the child, thereby UNteaching him what you just learned!
Originally posted by moonbusI believe the idea is that this young man was very rich. That is, he had much more that he needed to live comfortably, yet he hung on to his material wealth rather than helping those that did not have enough.
Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
a) If it is wrong (a materialistic snare) for you to have money and possessions, why is it right to give them to someone else? If the important thing is salvation and money cannot buy it for you, then it ...[text shortened]... TIAN thing to do is to give the bowl to the child, thereby UNteaching him what you just learned!
Jesus was not telling him to sell his material possessions in order to make the poor rich. The idea was to provide for the poor according to their need only.
In my opinion, Diogenes apparently did not understand this teaching of Christ.
"Diogenes apparently did not understand this teaching of Christ." It was Matthew who did not understand Diogenes, who preceded him by a few hundred years.
"The idea was to provide for the poor according to their need only." To each according to his need--spoken like a devout Marxist!
RE original post, where is Gog Magog? You are looking for danger in all the wrong places. Political or military danger may come from a specific geo-political place, call it Russia or Babylon or wherever. Civic danger may come from some specific group of people (such as Islamo-fascist terrorists). But SPIRITUAL danger does not come from without and any attempt to locate it in the physical world is a crude (materialistic) blunder; there is only one source of spiritual danger and it is one's own ego.
Originally posted by moonbusThat should be:
"Diogenes apparently did not understand this teaching of Christ." It was Matthew who did not understand Diogenes, who preceded him by a few hundred years.
"The idea was to provide for the poor according to their need only." To each according to his need--spoken like a devout Marxist!
RE original post, where is Gog Magog? You are looking for danger in ...[text shortened]... e (materialistic) blunder; there is only one source of spiritual danger and it is one's own ego.
Looking for LOVE in all the wrong places
Originally posted by moonbusThe expression 'antichrist is used only by John on these 4 occasions. Do you think materialism fits his descrition ?
I think the anti-christ is materialism, not any geo-political country or location.
1Jn_2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1Jn_2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jn_4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2Jn_1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Originally posted by Rajk999I understand "materialism" as the denial of spirituality, as infatuation with and ensnarement in the things of this world. It can affect anyone and any number of people anywhere. Obviously "materialism" is not a synonym for "the antichrist" so there is not total overlap between "materialism" and everything John has to say about the antichrist.
Thats partly true. What about the rest of what John said about what is it that is denied? I cannot see how materialism can be inserted into what John said.
The point I was trying to get across in response to several posts to this thread is:
a) "The Antichrist" is not the name of one specific person (e.g., Osama Bin Laden).
b) "Gog Magog" is not the name of any geo-political place, religion, institution, or state (e.g., Iran or Islam or Moscow or ancient Babylon whatever it is called now).
c) The attempt to posit some one person as The Antichrist is itself a materialistic reading of the Scripture, in my opinion, just as the attempt to locate Gog Magog on a map is a materialistic reading of Scripture. The danger which the antichrist represents is of the spirit, not of the material world. Hence, my comment to RJH that he was looking for danger in all the wrong places; the antichrist is within, it's one's own ego in denial of Christ, it's not somebody else's doing.