Divine Evacuation

[R. S. Martin]

I didn't grow up with that kind of theology so I'm reading up on it now. Just finished my first book on the origins of dispensationalism. I'm beginning to understand what some of you have been saying for so long--that the Christians think they are so special. There is so much emphasis on knowing for sure whether the church will be rapture BEFORE or AFTER the tribulation. I find that disgusting.

 

They want the world to be so horrible so they can be saved from something. They want to prove that all of us are so evil so they are sure to be better than us. They insist that things will only get worse and worse so that Christ will come and rescue them from this terrible planet. But when it comes to the really terrible stuff, who's the scaredy cats? Why those who claim "I can do all things through Christ who strenghtheneth me" and "God is my refuge and strength, whom shall I fear?"

 

Must be God and Christ's army combined aren't strong enough to protect God's special chosen people in Aragedon so they need this Divine Evacuation or Special Deliverance also known as The Rapture.

 

You gotta scrape the bottom of the scriptural barrel and paste together some imaginary scrapings to come up with a Rapture. But so desperate are these scaredy cats that they will do what it takes to escape this great planet we're living on. I was trying to figure out which direction folks would float from the earth in the Rapture--out from the North Pole? out from India? out from Greenwich, England? Or will everyone have to travel to Antartica or the Himalayas?--might be a good idea to get as close to heaven as possible in case it doesn't work right. And where do they think they will be raptured to?

 

I think I'll just remain an evil atheist and stay for the tribulation. I'd rather be lost on this planet and die here than float till I disintegrate in the universe.

[Deva]

You are right, Christians do think they are special. I will speak from the "rapture before the tribulation" position because that is what I was raised with.

 

When all the Christians are raptured that means that they will literally disappear into thin air. If a Christian is driving their car at the time and the rapture occurs, the car will crash. Where these people actually go is not ever explained, only that they are "with Christ." Their disappearance will be totally unexplainable. Then at the end of the 7 year tribulation period, these raptured Christians return with Christ as part of his army to destroy Satan and his armies at Armageddon. Presumably they have some kind of perfected bodies.

 

As bad as the world is now, the influence of Christians keeps the devil and his angels from having a totally free reign over the world. That is why it is only after the rapture that the antichrist is able to rule the world and the tribulation begins.

[Ouroboros]

The version we were taught was that first it would be 3.5 years when Antichrist and the Beast would take control over the world and there would be peace. Then at the 3.5 year mark, the believers would be raptured and people would become Christians because of the event. The new Christians would be persecuted by the Antichrist for 3.5 years, then Jesus would come down on a cloud and establish a new Jerusalem, floating in the air above the real Jerusalem... oboy, going back it feels like talking about a sci-fi movie...

 

After that it would be 1,000 years of peace, while Satan was bound in Hell (?). After the 1,000 years he would be let out again (why?) and he would decieve people again and there would be a final battle. And then the end of this universe and judgmentday.

 

I'm certain there are different versions, because I've heard a couple other, but this was the official one in our church.

[Thurisaz]

I've been tending to ask raptcha morontheists lately whether they wank off all the time or whether they are content with just getting a huge boner when they think about millions and billions of innocent people dying.

 

Needless to say, I didn't receive any meaningful response

[R. S. Martin]

I've been tending to ask raptcha morontheists lately whether they wank off all the time or whether they are content with just getting a huge boner when they think about millions and billions of innocent people dying.

 

Needless to say, I didn't receive any meaningful response

 

Let me guess what goes on in their skulls. They probably get thoughts about the natural man versus the spiritual man and come to their own conclusions about whom the true moron really is.

[Deva]

Han's post reminded me of some details that I had forgotten. Yes, after the return of Christ and his armies at Armegeddon, Satan is chained and thrown into a pit for 1,000 years. Christ reigns on earth for this peaceful 1,000 years. Then Satan is released for a period of time. Why? I suppose these people need to be tested as to their loyalty to Christ, (after all, they get to see him, and we don't!) but mainly its because the book of Revelaton says its so. Yes, we also had those details. The only difference between what I was taught and what Han describes is the the timing of the rapture event. This was seen as significant and those not going along with this timeline were considered to be in error.

[R. S. Martin]

Thanks for explaining, Hans and Deva. Just now I came across something that makes no sense, to put it bluntly. It regards Eph. 2:6:

 

And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus

My pious mother told me, so I thought, that spiritual meant that something was not literal. I had always understood that when we died it was our spiritual souls that survived and that these spiritual souls went to a spiritual heaven.

 

Now I am reading about what Arno C. Gaebelein, a widely known dispensationalist in the first half of the 20th century, believed about that verse. He believed that this is a literal physical location of Christ in heaven.* So I guess the spiritual can be literal, too. Or is he saying heaven is not spiritual at all?

 

At the very least he seems to insist that despite the literal evidence of the swirling mass of planets out there, there definitely is a literal Christ and a literal heaven out there, too, and good folks will go there at the Divine Evacuation. This does not sound to me like disappearing into thin air. I get a very strong feeling that someone is living in a fantasy world, like the science fiction type of thing that someone mentioned. Why is it that people get to be killed for being unable to take this stuff seriously??? I mean, it's WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

*Michael Stallard. The Early Twentieth-Century Dispensationalism of Arno C. Gaebelein, 2002, p. 130

[Ouroboros]

I guess the correct word would be a new one, which maybe we should call: figurliterally. It's figure of speech and literal at the same time. Every word in the Bible is figurliteral. Practical, isn't it?

 

I wrote another post before, but my ISP had a hickup and it didn't go through. It was a comment about the confusion and doubt Satan would give people after the 1000 years. IMO it's impossible.

 

My reasoning is that if someone came up with the Sun Does Not Exist religion, no one would buy into it, at least it wouldn't cause a mass joining of people. If it's true that Jesus would come back for 1000 years, walk around (or rather hover in the air for everyone to see) and a air floating Jerusalem, etc, and the world is in 1000 year of peace. I do not think anyone would take it seriously if one person suddenly say that all this that they see and experience isn't true. Unless, it's just imaginary and fiction from the beginning. Just like religious belief is in a thing that can't be proven, you can't deny a thing everyone obviously experience every second of their daily life. So my thought is that the author was high on crack when he wrote it, because he was dreaming. People wouldn't behave this way.

 

It's just like Thomas, who doubted after seing Jesus do miracles for 3 years, and saw him killed and resurrected ... and still doubted??? Compare that to people that go to death for belief in some text in a book! I can't believe someone would doubt their experience and own eyes that way, when people won't even doubt hearsay they just read from some unknown author. People are more likely guillable, rather than skeptics. A pure skepticism requires a sharp and awake mind, all the time, it's easy to get fooled. The problem is not to believe, but to keep a clear head.

 

So I think that part of the story is extremely stupid.

[R. S. Martin]

I guess the correct word would be a new one, which maybe we should call: figurliterally. It's figure of speech and literal at the same time. Every word in the Bible is figurliteral. Practical, isn't it?

 

I wrote another post before, but my ISP had a hickup and it didn't go through. It was a comment about the confusion and doubt Satan would give people after the 1000 years. IMO it's impossible.

 

My reasoning is that if someone came up with the Sun Does Not Exist religion, no one would buy into it, at least it wouldn't cause a mass joining of people. If it's true that Jesus would come back for 1000 years, walk around (or rather hover in the air for everyone to see) and a air floating Jerusalem, etc, and the world is in 1000 year of peace. I do not think anyone would take it seriously if one person suddenly say that all this that they see and experience isn't true. Unless, it's just imaginary and fiction from the beginning. Just like religious belief is in a thing that can't be proven, you can't deny a thing everyone obviously experience every second of their daily life. So my thought is that the author was high on crack when he wrote it, because he was dreaming. People wouldn't behave this way.

 

It's just like Thomas, who doubted after seing Jesus do miracles for 3 years, and saw him killed and resurrected ... and still doubted??? Compare that to people that go to death for belief in some text in a book! I can't believe someone would doubt their experience and own eyes that way, when people won't even doubt hearsay they just read from some unknown author. People are more likely guillable, rather than skeptics. A pure skepticism requires a sharp and awake mind, all the time, it's easy to get fooled. The problem is not to believe, but to keep a clear head.

 

So I think that part of the story is extremely stupid.

 

I read your post several times. Are you suggesting that "strong faith" is just being gullible and not thinking, whereas pure skepticism is being sharp and awake all the time so you don't get fooled? That fits reality about as good as anything I have yet seen.

 

Based on what I have seen of my own family--my siblings with whom I grew up and have known all their lives--I conclude that many people who are not sharp and awake all the time will deny their own experiences and sense perceptions before they will deny what the Bible says. They think that is being strong in the faith. I think you are saying it's being gullible and unthinking. Am I correct?

[Ouroboros]

Yes, I think we're saying the same thing.

 

The Bible glorifies stupidity, or ignorance, because Paul say they the followers should avoid endless discussions (like what we do here), and Jesus say that those who are poor in the spirit (mind) are blessed and so on. Basically, ignorance is not only bliss, but it is encouraged. It also say that the "secret" of the Gospel is hidden from the wise. Which can be read as "only stupid people get the Gospel". So if you sum it all up, it basically say, be dumb, be stupid, be ignorance, don't question, don't argue, just accept it and obey even when it all seem crazy. A true Christian have to stupidy himself, that's the instructions from God.

 

The opposite is if course the "wise" people in the world that question, reason, argue and debate.

 

The Bible also teaches that faith comes from the word, and combine that with earlier conclusion, read the Bible, don't question what it says, just believe it. That is the attitude of the intentionally guillable person.

 

Overall, even you and I can easily be manipulated and fooled. We try to be skeptical and rational, but I know from experience that I though some things to be true (after my de-conversion) and suddenly I get a piece more of information and realize I had been had. So if a skeptic to be tricked, how much easier it must be to trick someone that don't even question.

[Deva]

And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus

My pious mother told me, so I thought, that spiritual meant that something was not literal. I had always understood that when we died it was our spiritual souls that survived and that these spiritual souls went to a spiritual heaven.

 

Now I am reading about what Arno C. Gaebelein, a widely known dispensationalist in the first half of the 20th century, believed about that verse. He believed that this is a literal physical location of Christ in heaven.* So I guess the spiritual can be literal, too. Or is he saying heaven is not spiritual at all?

 

At the very least he seems to insist that despite the literal evidence of the swirling mass of planets out there, there definitely is a literal Christ and a literal heaven out there, too, and good folks will go there at the Divine Evacuation. This does not sound to me like disappearing into thin air.

 

The understanding that I had was that Christ literally existed and the raptured people had glorified bodies, of the same type that the resurrected Christ had. All this rapture doctrine mainly was derived from I Thessalonians 4: 17. The raptured are "caught up in the clouds ...to meet the Lord in the air". It isn't that in reality they have disappeared into thin air but it is only from the point of view of those left behind. I think they all go to heaven, which was always presented as being a literal place, just as hell was.

 

I don't know specifically about the verse you quoted and how it would be interpreted. Even the hard core fundamentalists would not always take all verses literally.

[R. S. Martin]

Even the hard core fundamentalists would not always take all verses literally.

 

I know. That's what shocked me about this one. I thought this was one that was NOT literal.

[Piprus]

My church taught that the Rapture was a false belief, unsupported by scriptures. Christians had to be prepared to "endure to the end."

[R. S. Martin]

My church taught that the Rapture was a false belief, unsupported by scriptures. Christians had to be prepared to "endure to the end."

 

That sounds like "real" Christ followers. Jesus said, "He that endureth to the end shall be saved." No matter what religion says, that's the way life works, I find. These iddly-piddly Christians want the easy way out cause they don't like to suffer. Phewy!

[pitchu]

I can't help myself, Hans. When you wrote this:

 

Jesus would come back for 1000 years, walk around (or rather hover in the air for everyone to see)

 

I imagined seeing him televised, high over Giants Stadium, right alongside the Goodyear blimp.

 

 

[Ouroboros]

I imagined seeing him televised, high over Giants Stadium, right alongside the Goodyear blimp.

That sure is funny!

 

They will turn their eyes to blimp Jesus and be saved.

[Robbobrob]

This reminds me of a discussion I had on another site about the "Left Behind" book series about the end of days. The fundies got VERY angry with me when I dared call the book series Fantasy fiction. They honestly believe that those books portrayed an accurate description to exactly how the Rapture and all of that would happen.

 

I remember it saddened me greatly at the time, because of their inability to even separate a fictional story from their Bible's prophesies. I had the same feeling when someone once tried to use the Oliver Stone movie JFK as the base of their arguement that something actually happened...."It was right there on the screen. That was how it happened."

 

It does worry me that so many Christians who believe Revelations actually hope for the world to get worse and worse. If they spent even a 10th of their energy making our world a better, happier place, we could really make strides worldwide. But they would rather pray for the death of billions, just to save their sorry ass lives.

 

These are the same sort of people who will cry for days if they hear a story about a child dying. Yet they fully believe it is right for most of humanity to die horribly if God decides it. Makes me very sad.

[Piprus]

I imagined seeing him televised, high over Giants Stadium, right alongside the Goodyear blimp.

That sure is funny!

 

They will turn their eyes to blimp Jesus and be saved.

No, they'll turn their eyes to Blimp Jesus and say, "Wait 'til the game's over, pleeeeeeeze! The Giants are finally winning one!!"

[Mongo]

Ruby,

 

I'm glad you are getting into rapture theology since minor variations of the same theme seem to dominate fundamentalist xtianity.

 

I don't think one can easily navigate fundamentalist xtianity without having a sense of how xtians view the rapture and all the doctrine that goes with it. There is something uniquely cultural to this issue - I hope I can paint that picture that doctrinal books cannot.

 

I think the first thing to understand is that, few xtians (that I know) have a real working knowledge of their church's rapture doctrine. The indoctrination process would entail:

- Pastor and some others would have learned the church's official position a at bible college where critical thinking is limited and pressure is asserted to ensure conformity. It is doubtful that a full history of the movement is covered as that would highlight how people just like themselves predicted Jesus' coming and failed. By ignoring that, they can believe that people that formerly predicted the 2nd coming were zealots and wing nuts - something they clearly think they are not. Ha ha.

- The next tier would be those who read about rapture theology via Hal Lindsay's book The Late Great Planet Earth (or other books). I cannot over estimate the impact this book has had on popular rapture theology. During the 70s and 80s the book popularized the notion that Jesus was coming back real soon because of political events that took place during the past 40 years. The book was followed by various other books by Hal and other authors and eventually spawned several TV shows (e.g. Jack Van Impe). Several evangelists have made rapture theology their prime evangelical thrust.

- The next tier would be those who learned about it from Sunday sermons and conversations with people more educated than themselves or TV. I shudder to think that the only exposure some have had to rapture theology is form the Left Behind series. Ugh.

 

Essentially, it is a cauldron of ignorance that is fired by the fear of being "left behind".

 

On New Years Eve 1977 I went to see a special showing of a movie about the rapture. It was mesmerizing propaganda for my ignorant 17 yr old mind. I can still remember one of the songs, "Two men going up a hill, one disappears and the other stands still and stares... I wish we'd all been ready". I know where I sat that night, it is all burned into my mind.

 

I might add that this was the age where media was on the cusp of becoming an important tool for social/political propaganda.

 

Rapture theology has turned out to be a very successful tool for evangelization. This is part of the cultural element that cannot be overstated.

 

"Rapture fever" seems to have hit a peak in 2000 and again in 2001 when many xtians sincerely believed Jesus would come back. (I can't explain why anyone thinks bible-god adopted the Gregorian calendar)

 

I believe this failure has struck a minor blow to the movement but they will certainly regroup. I am confident that a revision will soon be accepted that the 2nd millennium will actually occur on the anniversary of Jesus' death and not his birth.

 

I would be remiss if I did not add that the cultural outcome of this theology is the veneration of Israel and Jews. Regardless of Israel's actions, they are always given the benefit of the doubt, and always believed over all others. There are several movements to help Israel and to rebuild the Temple of Solomon.

 

All of my commentary completely ignores the 19th century rapture churches like the Jehovah's Witnesses which have a whole different take on the 2nd coming.

 

From my view, rapture theology is not merely about doctrine. It is a social movement driven by constant reinforcement from the pulpit, the media, books and the Internet.

 

Mongo

[pitchu]

I would be remiss if I did not add that the cultural outcome of this theology is the veneration of Israel and Jews. Regardless of Israel's actions, they are always given the benefit of the doubt, and always believed over all others. There are several movements to help Israel and to rebuild the Temple of Solomon.

Israel isn't a monolith, though, Mongo, and the population of Israel (as opposed to whatever government happens to be in power -- just like in the U. S.) is as divided over the issue of evangelical support as it is divided over just about every issue it faces. I'm sure a great percentage of its Jewish citizens feel about evangelical "love for the Jews" exactly the same as my husband feels: "Yeah, they love us like our dog loves woodchucks."

 

This isn't the first time in history that Christians have offered the "convert or die" ultimatum to Jews... the difference is that in the past the penalty was carried out at the hands of the believers themselves; this time it will be done by a Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade Balloon Jesus.

[Amethyst]

The funny thing is, as a Lutheran, I was never raised with any rapture stuff. You died and went to heaven and that was that. The whole rapture thing sounds like wish-fulfillment fantasy to me. Not that heaven isn't, but the rapture sounds like it even more so.

[mwc]

Yep. My Lutheran upbringing taught me the whole thing from the gospels which was jesus came like lightening and that was that (unless you just died then that was that). Then judgment day and everything was shiny and new. We didn't focus on Revelation at all. That prophecy stuff was just asking for trouble.

 

Now my Baptist schooling, on the other hand, was heavy into the whole Rapture thing which bothered me to no end. I never accepted the teaching but I learned a great deal. They have the pre-, mid- and post- tribulation people. My particular bunch were much like Hans. They managed through 3.5 years and then the AntiChrist (the real one) shows his true colors and then the real followers all take off right when things get really bad. People in graves go first (we saw a movie with people literally blasting out of the ground like Zombie Superman...I was doubled over in laughter but they were dead serious). No matter which of these three ultimately happen the end is always the same (the 1000 years, etc.). Also, as Hans pointed out, jesus never "touched down" during the Rapture so that it never counted as an actual "return" so his 2nd coming would truly be a 2nd coming. It's a stupid theology.

 

This image shows the 3 possible locations of the Rapture on the timeline:

 

mwc

[SWIM]

might be a good idea to get as close to heaven as possible in case it doesn't work right. And where do they think they will be raptured to?

 

Well in the past it was what, a tower or ladder? Don't remember exactly, but it was an earth based structure that *god* thought the people were way out of line to build because they were (damn dem heathens) trying to get closer to heaven or god... SUFFER for that heathens!

 

 

Ok ok.. We should love god, try to bring him into our hearts, but make a structure to get us closer???? HELL NO!!!! Hmmm.... Wonder if churches in this mythical god's mind is kinda the same thing? Build a structure to get closer to god? Make it as elaborate as possible to *please* him? hmmm....

 

One can only wonder....

[R. S. Martin]

The Bible glorifies stupidity, or ignorance, because Paul say they the followers should avoid endless discussions (like what we do here), and Jesus say that those who are poor in the spirit (mind) are blessed and so on. Basically, ignorance is not only bliss, but it is encouraged. It also say that the "secret" of the Gospel is hidden from the wise. Which can be read as "only stupid people get the Gospel". So if you sum it all up, it basically say, be dumb, be stupid, be ignorance, don't question, don't argue, just accept it and obey even when it all seem crazy. A true Christian have to stupidy himself, that's the instructions from God.

 

I never cease to wonder how all of this passed clear over my head.

 

Spirit=mind??? Not where I come from. Might be a difference in languages, and in the vocabularies of those languages. In the languages we used spirit and mind were two distinctly different qualities of the human psyche. And there are different kinds of knowing. There's a spirit (attitude) of priding oneself in knowing everything, which equals worldly wisdom--so I understood the item. I was taught that higher education automatically makes a person proud. And pride keeps you out of heaven.

 

On a sidenote, the very first thing I noticed in my very first university course was the great humility demonstrated by the instructor; he seemed far humbler about his "worldly wisdom" than did any Old Order Mennonite I knew. The OOM all prided themselves on being so ignorant and humble and on being content with not wanting the world's high lifestyle. (Makes me wonder how anyone can pride themselves on those specific items and be truly humble about the issues, all at the same time.)

 

I understood being poor in spirit meant to be humble in attitude, and not seek to be rich, or full of worldly wisdom, or of high station, etc. My parents were forever scolding me and yelling at me and my siblings to think and use my head and ridiculing me for asking stupid questions. I definitely got the message that one should somehow or other remedy one's stupidity. It was clear enough that formal education was not the way to go but the day came when I made my own decisions, cost what it may.

 

So if a skeptic to be tricked, how much easier it must be to trick someone that don't even question.

 

If you're sufficiently stubborn about accepting new ideas about religion, probably not. All you have to do is decide who you are going to trust. Once you have chosen your trusted authority, all you have to do is do what they tell you. You demonstrate your strong faith by stubbornly refusing to listen, or even consider, the ideas presented by anyone else. And if your trusted authority says to go to the death in return for a blisful afterlife you don't question; you just do that.

 

That's basically what I get from this thread so far. I have only read the posts down to yours. Now I want to read the others.

 

EDIT: I see I missed this post earlier. Sorry. It's really good and I'm glad I found it now.

[Ouroboros]

I never cease to wonder how all of this passed clear over my head.

 

Spirit=mind??? Not where I come from. Might be a difference in languages, and in the vocabularies of those languages. In the languages we used spirit and mind were two distinctly different qualities of the human psyche. And there are different kinds of knowing. There's a spirit (attitude) of priding oneself in knowing everything, which equals worldly wisdom--so I understood the item. I was taught that higher education automatically makes a person proud. And pride keeps you out of heaven.

Yeah. I know about the three part human thing, body, mind (soul) and spirit. But in this particular verse, how can you be "poor in spirit", would that equate "having little faith" or "not-fully born again"? But you're probably right. I kind of have new interpretations of the Bible nowadays, since I don't think we have any "spirit". It's a kind of weird verse though, if it does reference the "spirit" of the person, and that is somehow what's connected to God. Wouldn't being poor in spirit be a bad thing?

 

I understood being poor in spirit meant to be humble in attitude, and not seek to be rich, or full of worldly wisdom, or of high station, etc. My parents were forever scolding me and yelling at me and my siblings to think and use my head and ridiculing me for asking stupid questions. I definitely got the message that one should somehow or other remedy one's stupidity. It was clear enough that formal education was not the way to go but the day came when I made my own decisions, cost what it may.

I see. So being humble or haughty was a function in the spirit and not in the soul or the mind? You see, I kind of starting to lose the religious apologetical ability to discern the scriptures according to the faith...

 

If you're sufficiently stubborn about accepting new ideas about religion, probably not. All you have to do is decide who you are going to trust. Once you have chosen your trusted authority, all you have to do is do what they tell you. You demonstrate your strong faith by stubbornly refusing to listen, or even consider, the ideas presented by anyone else. And if your trusted authority says to go to the death in return for a blisful afterlife you don't question; you just do that.

The question of "trust" is something I bring up now and then. It is an importan part of belief. Christians trust their pastor, priest, religious parents, religious friends, the authors of the Bible, the bishops who voted for the canon, and so on, more than their own deductive skills and inquisitive mind. Trust can be good, and it has its strength in numbers, and that's why trust has evolved, but it also is dangerous, because it can be misused to mislead people.