the rapture

[Eclecticsaturn]

So my parents have this license plate frame that says, "Warning: In case of rapture this car will be unmanned". Its funny and i mess with them and always tell them, sont worry ill still be here to take over the wheel. They get mad but i find it hilarious. But anyway, that got me thinking and im curious what your answers are.

(Refering to the christian god)
If you were talking to a group of christians and then in a second they all just disappeared leaving nothing but a pile of clothes, along with every other christian and the rapture happened/started (i dont know the order of the rapture so out of ignorance im grouping this hypithetical question together like this) would you at that point, believe in "god" and what do you think your next steps would be?

[Tom62]

Wasn't there somewhere written in Revelations that only 144,000 people will be beamed up to their Master at "rapture time". Since there are millions of christians in the world this means that only a fraction of them will go to heaven (pretty annoying if you are a christian and believe in all that crap). I understood that all 144,000 "lucky ones" must be a jewish christians (yep.., God loves to discriminate) . They will get a special seal or something on their forehead to identify them as a servant of God. Unless your parents are jewish christians, the chances that they leave an unmanned car behind in case of rapture looks very, very  bad.

The idea of the rapture sounds so far fetched and silly to me that I can't image anyone to believe a single word of it. The person who wrote that piece of junk must have smoked a lot of bad magic mushrooms at the time he wote it. Regarding your hypothetical quesion, no I won't believe in "god" when christians start disappearing. I probably believe that they were kidnapped by aliens, since that is far more likely. The question however remains, "What the hell wants god or the aliens do with all these people?, use them as slaves?, eat them?" .

[SteveS]

If you were talking to a group of christians and then in a second they all just disappeared leaving nothing but a pile of clothes, along with every other christian and the rapture happened/started (i dont know the order of the rapture so out of ignorance im grouping this hypithetical question together like this) would you at that point, believe in "god" and what do you think your next steps would be?

While I don't seriously (as in any way) feel that I need to worry about this, I find hypothetical situations fun to contemplate.

If you ever read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Ford takes Arthur to the pub and orders them each 3 pints (before lunch, lol.  Imagine god in a striped shirt with an orange arm band, hand in the air.
Me: What?!?  Penalty?  On me?  What are you calling?
God: That was blatant disbelief, you're going to the sin bin, 2 minutes ain't in it buddy, eternal damnation for you.
Me: Come on, you guys only ever see the retaliation.  Didn't you see those witchtrials?  At least call it offsetting....

[SteveS]

Tom62 - Yeah, I wondered about this too,

Wasn't there somewhere written in Revelations that only 144,000 people will be beamed up to their Master at "rapture time".

So, there were some Jehovah's Witnesses coming to my door for a while.  I hit them up with this question, seeing as how they currently had over 6 million living followers.  I pointed out that converting me might slim down their own chance, but they responded that these 144,000 were really just the extra holy people that would serve with Jesus in heaven as the "new government".  The rest of the flock would live forever not in heaven but on earth after they are resurrected, and god makes the earth last forever.

I asked how he was going to do that, seeing as how the Sun is running out of fuel, the Universe is expanding, I just don't see an eternal earth as an option.  Their answer was basically, "What do you mean how?  He's, like, God, you know?  He can do anything".  Well, okay then.

[Squid]

So my parents have this license plate frame that says, "Warning: In case of rapture this car will be unmanned". Its funny and i mess with them and always tell them, sont worry ill still be here to take over the wheel. They get mad but i find it hilarious. But anyway, that got me thinking and im curious what your answers are.

(Refering to the christian god)
If you were talking to a group of christians and then in a second they all just disappeared leaving nothing but a pile of clothes, along with every other christian and the rapture happened/started (i dont know the order of the rapture so out of ignorance im grouping this hypithetical question together like this) would you at that point, believe in "god" and what do you think your next steps would be?

More important things would be on my mind, like: was my truck note company run by Christians and if so does that mean I don't have to pay them anymore?  Since they're not coming back, can I take all their stuff?

[Whitney]

If you were talking to a group of christians and then in a second they all just disappeared leaving nothing but a pile of clothes, along with every other christian and the rapture happened/started (i dont know the order of the rapture so out of ignorance im grouping this hypithetical question together like this) would you at that point, believe in "god" and what do you think your next steps would be?

Would it be completely out of the question to assume a superior alien race was monortering the earth and had decided the best thing they could do as a welcoming gift to us was vaporize the Christians?

 :borg:  

[Eclecticsaturn]

. these are some good/funny responses.  

[Scrybe]

Since they're not coming back, can I take all their stuff?

Haha!

 

Just to let you all know, the rapture idea, and all the accompanying end-times crap that is so popular among evangelicals today is a relatively new concept.  (First popularized about 150 years ago, then got re-energized in the late 60s.)  Historically these prophecies were viewed as they were actually written: incredibly arcane, Byzantine, poetic, hyperbolic descriptions of things we can not understand in this life.  Numbers are all spiritualized and characters representational.  I have no good explanation why my brothers and sisters have become so enamored with the new wave of literally interpreting as much of the prophecies as possible.  Maybe revenge fantasies?

[Kestrel]

Maybe revenge fantasies?

That's not too far from the truth, the way I see it.
At the very least, certainly ego driven conclusions.

Welcome to the board.  

[MrE2Me]

The literal interpreters actually make more sense to me.  At least they have the courage of their convictions, and if God means what he says, I doubt he approves of the widespread cherry-picking from the Bible that goes on.

[Scrybe]

The literal interpreters actually make more sense to me.  At least they have the courage of their convictions, and if God means what he says, I doubt he approves of the widespread cherry-picking from the Bible that goes on.

I think you are missing an important philosophical distinction that lies at the base of Christianity.  It regards the choice and acceptance of authority.  Obviously, all religions are based on the premise that revelation can and does occur.  And as a religious adherent, we choose which of those revelations we believe and submit to.  The basis of the Christian religion is that revelation comes from the Jewish God who personified as Jesus.  THAT is the basis.  Not "the" Bible.  "The" Bible can be -and often is- placed on an equal or greater revelatory status as Jesus, and your contention that one who does not make that judgment call is "cherry picking".  The problem is that the text of "the" Bible is clearly not systematic theology.  It is a collection of letters, advice, personal accounts, poetry, etc.  "The" Bible does not claim to be an inerrant, infallible book.  The Christian religion has decided it should be and has, at large, treated it as such, but that does not change the fundamental historical reality that "the" Bible is a collection of documents that was compiled by an organization.  

There is a big difference in putting faith in the church and the Bible first, and putting faith in the teachings of Christ first.  There is certainly a lot of interplay between the two since our only written accounts concerning Christ's teachings are in "the" Bible.  But that still does not necessitate regarding the whole collection as equally revelatory or accurate.      


You are creating a straw man by insisting that any real Christian would read poetry and metaphysics as a didactic, literal instruction manual.  I would do violence to the text if I were to interpret it according to a rigid system that insists every word be taken literally.  Just as it would be ridiculous to read Shakespeare as literal directions for life, or a dishwasher instruction manual as poetry.  Just because simple-minded dogmatists do this to "the" Bible does not mean that is what Christianity fundamentally teaches.  I know it's easier to defeat them in debates, so it's natural to paint people like me as "cherry pickers" who don't have the courage of their convictions, or as someone else here put it: "make-shit-up-as-you-go Christians".  But that is simply marginalizing a legitimate viewpoint because we are harder to nail to the floor.

I'm not challenging you to a debate or anything, I would just like to encourage you to deepen your understanding of a very diverse group that tends to get lumped together.  
 

[Scrybe]

Maybe revenge fantasies?

That's not too far from the truth, the way I see it.
At the very least, certainly ego driven conclusions.

Welcome to the board.  

Thanks!  Yeah, it seems like the ultimate "I told you so!"  I see no love or mercy in it, and therefor no God.

[MrE2Me]

I didn't say you were cherry-picking, nor did I say the "real" Christians are the literal interpreters, I just said they made more sense to me.  And even if Jesus is the basis of your beliefs, he himself wholly endorsed Old Testament law (Matt. 5:18) and promised that sinners would be cast into the fire and burned (John 15:6), etc.  I just don't understand how any one part of it can be seen to be more "true" than another.  Just because it sounds nicer?  The all-or-nothing approach just comes across as more "logical" to me, if such a term can be used in this context.  But I'm really not here to debate such things; I'd go to a religion forum for that.  This is (usually) my online bastion of reason and rationality in a world gone nuts.

[Scrybe]

Ok, I won't bug you with my nutso views anymore than this last thought: If there are multiple sources of information on a historical topic, say… the civil war, do you take every account literally, and try to compose a coherent, single story out of all the conflicting information, or do you carefully consider the sources of the information and the potential biases they may have had?

[donkeyhoty]

Taking the civil war analogy into account, the varying viewpoints come from separate books, newspapers, etc. and never purport to be the "final" answer.  A good historian does exactly what your last question asks, and forms their opinion thusly.  A good historian also recognizes that a "true" account of what has taken place, as we get farther from whatever point in time, will never be compiled.  

The bible, on the other hand is not history, it is supposed to be the unerring word of god, and if it's not then why bother with it?.  The bible itself has been cherry-picked, why are some texts excluded or included?  and why is it murder or kill(10 commandments) depending on translation and version?  Could it be that it is NOT the word of god, and is a poorly compiled mishmash of archaic ideas and occasionaly useful, fictional,  parables?