Divine Evacuation

[Ouroboros]

Thanks MWC,

 

I wasn't sure if I remembered it right, but it seems I got it fairly correct. I forgot about the people in the graves and oceans. And I don't remember what happens to people who die (if even they do that) during the 1000 years.

[R. S. Martin]

After reading Mongo's detailed description of how it is all supposed to happen it was really good to hear from some former Lutherans who were taught the same as me--Jesus would come as lightening and the dead would rise, etc. No fancy dancy stuff with Jesus not touching the ground just to keep it an official non-return.

 

Mongo, as I read what you think people learn in Bible College I was thinking about the Dallas author of the one book I am reading, Michael D. Stallard. I guess Dallas Theological Seminary is not a Bible College. Anyway, this author demonstrates critical thinking skills and he knows how to treat his opponents with respect and how to constructively use the work of people with whom he disagrees. I'm impressed. I've seen the other kind of work, too, from Dallas people. Thus, it is incorrect to write off all fundamentalists as being bad scholars.

 

I met with my prof today and had him look at my books. He was okay with them. He saw benefit in reading the fundies' own books. That made me feel good--maybe I'm a decent judge of books after all. I told him how my colleague got a kick out of the fact that I was reading a Dallas scholar. That had me feeling somewhat less than confident, not to mention that the general consensus is that fundamentalists are inferior scholars. Mark A. Noll, an evangelical prof at Wheaton, wrote a book "Scandal of the Evangelical Mind." Not very complimentary.

 

I suspect I would classify my colleague (student from a neighbouring school) as a fundamentalist but I can't discuss this with him without major risk. He doesn't think he is fundamentalist, having grown up in and left an extreme fundamentalist church. The biggest difference between his native church and mine is that they had cars and we didn't. To outsiders, dress is identical, though we definitely know the difference. There are also important theological differences, with them being much stronger in new birth theology and dispensationalism.

 

The three dispensationalists I am learning about are Darby, Scoffield, and Arno C. Gaebelein.

 

mwc said:

 

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.

 

You know what, I could actually make sense of this--I know what you're talking about! That means my reading has produced results. Two weeks ago that would have been so much mumbo-jumbo. It's good to know--have a landmark--that I'm learning something.

[Ouroboros]

That had me feeling somewhat less than confident, not to mention that the general consensus is that fundamentalists are inferior scholars. Mark A. Noll, an evangelical prof at Wheaton, wrote a book "Scandal of the Evangelical Mind." Not very complimentary.

One (of many reasons) why I saw something was wrong with Christianity. Our church considered all liberal (i.e. non-fundamentalist) churches to be false and misleading the people. Basically they were leading people to hell. Well, then we have all the other denominations considered our church being from the devil. And so on. If all were right, we all were led by Satan... so who was lead by God then? If not all were right, but only one of them, which one? The hard core fundamentalist that tried to read every piece of the bible in a literal fashion, but of course not all of it? Or the non-fundamentalists, who only read the bible a little less literal? It was a dilemma since even the fundamentalist have to read some sections here and there less literal. So in the end, the ratio between literal/figurative it's more a matter the question of if it's 99/1 or 90/10 or 80/20 or 50/50? And the Bible doesn't answer that. (The Book With All The Answers Doesn't Explain How To Read It!)

[mwc]

You know what, I could actually make sense of this--I know what you're talking about! That means my reading has produced results. Two weeks ago that would have been so much mumbo-jumbo. It's good to know--have a landmark--that I'm learning something.

Don't take this the wrong way but you're one of the few people I know of that is actually happy to understand this gibberish.

 

mwc

[R. S. Martin]

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...

 

I would not think that anyone here need apologize for not being up to par on Christian teachings. Aren't we supposed to have lost all we ever knew? I don't know about you, but for me it was supposed to have happened overnight. Yet if I want intelligent discussion on theology or about Christianity, the only place I can find it outside the classroom is on forums like this with former christians.

 

About soul and spirit. I could never, while I was a dedicated Christian or since, figure out that there was a difference between soul and spirit. There is at least one verse in the NT that sounds like there definitely is a difference--the verse about the word of God being a two-edged sword dividing between soul and spirit....but I have never been able to figure out exactly what the two words meant, how they differed from each other. Maybe one day I will know but for now I believe it's just a poetic way of stating it. The two probably mean the same thing....Okay now I found that famous verse. It's in Hebrews 4:12, KJV:

 

For the word of God

is

quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and

is

a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

If God wanted me to know the difference he should have told me. I searched and prayed hard enough to know the difference. I was convinced there was a difference because of that verse and all the songs that use both words. Logic dictates that there HAS to be a difference. But I cannot find it.

 

Human=mind, body, spirit. When you talk about going to heaven, it's the soul.

 

We're discussing spiritual things here, but dogs have soulful eyes. Are these things actual differences or social constructs? I suspect the latter. If the latter, why do the same words follow from the German into the English? Maybe because historically both languages have been spoken by the same people.

 

The English-German tradition, I find, is not just the Mennonites. The Lutherans I am studying with have a very strong German heritage, too. All the old theologians I am learning about either got their education, or taught, at Tubingen or Halle in Germany. Maybe our German members can clarify. Islington? Thurisaz? What's the difference between soul and spirit? Why do both English and German use soul and Soel (don't know spelling) at the same places, and spirit and Geist at the same places if the words are interchangeable? (I'm not sure why I'm asking you...maybe because I mentioned your country.)

 

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.

 

It's only in the last month or two that I got comfortable with the idea that some people put more trust in authority than in their own deductive skills. This had a lot to do with an online book I read called The Authoritarians. Ex-COG referred it on my forums, and we discussed it here; note, these are two different threads.

 

The book is written conversational style but I did some research on the author. He seems to be a real professor in a real university. I always find it important to know what credentials a person brings to a situation. Even though he writes with a very casual tone in this book, he seems to be a real psychologist. Also, he has some books published by university presses, so he must be a real scholar respected by his peers. I think he chose to publish this book for free on the internet to make the information available to the average person. For people interested in more scholarly research and technical information, he provides footnotes with references to his more scholarly works.

 

His explanation just makes sense. It fits the inner workings of the fundamentalist community life as I have seen and lived it from the under-dog perspective. I have also seen and experienced enough of the "top-dog" perspective or "comfortable happy life" to know he's realistic from that perspective, too. I am coming to the conclusion that the masses do feel most comfortable trusting authority, and possibly that works best for social order. I really don't know.

 

I think if everyone was a creative and original thinker like me, we would still have good social order because I stick to the system for stuff that concerns other people. There's the social contract thing where it's just nice to know who's going to be doing what and when and where as in predictability. For this we need social leaders as in government and we need laws and law enforcement. And with this system in place, the mindless masses can easily get away with just doing as they are told.

 

In the Authoritarians he shows that there are enough leaders to keep the masses on track. He has some amazing explanations for the really charismatic leaders, too--the ones whom people serve willingly even when the costs of doing so are significant.

[R. S. Martin]

You know what, I could actually make sense of this--I know what you're talking about! That means my reading has produced results. Two weeks ago that would have been so much mumbo-jumbo. It's good to know--have a landmark--that I'm learning something.

Don't take this the wrong way but you're one of the few people I know of that is actually happy to understand this gibberish.

 

mwc

 

 

I just like to understand things. That's all. And somehow, theology fascinates me. It tells me WHY people do these weird things. Some people study psychology in order to understand why people do weird things. I wanted to study psych, too, but didn't have the brains for it. Now I find that I get the same kick out of theology for the same reasons. Sure I'm weird and odd but at least I like what I'm doing. For a large part of my life I have not been able to say that. And somehow, you happened to put it in the right words so that it made sense to me. That made me happy.

[R. S. Martin]

That had me feeling somewhat less than confident, not to mention that the general consensus is that fundamentalists are inferior scholars. Mark A. Noll, an evangelical prof at Wheaton, wrote a book "Scandal of the Evangelical Mind." Not very complimentary.

One (of many reasons) why I saw something was wrong with Christianity. Our church considered all liberal (i.e. non-fundamentalist) churches to be false and misleading the people. Basically they were leading people to hell. Well, then we have all the other denominations considered our church being from the devil. And so on. If all were right, we all were led by Satan... so who was lead by God then? If not all were right, but only one of them, which one? The hard core fundamentalist that tried to read every piece of the bible in a literal fashion, but of course not all of it? Or the non-fundamentalists, who only read the bible a little less literal? It was a dilemma since even the fundamentalist have to read some sections here and there less literal. So in the end, the ratio between literal/figurative it's more a matter the question of if it's 99/1 or 90/10 or 80/20 or 50/50? And the Bible doesn't answer that. (The Book With All The Answers Doesn't Explain How To Read It!)

 

How very interesting. Coming as I do from the heart of a community with half a dozen different traditions of dress style and standards around suitable farm machinery and means of transportation to mark the boundaries with the world, how to read the Bible was simply too abstract a topic to worry about. (Each Mennonite denomination had its own special standards and rules on all these things and there were about half a dozen of them inside one square mile of farms. It's so that when you meet a stranger from one of these denominations in town, you can tell instantly from their clothing to which denomination they belong.) The question was more like how much and/or how often should one read the Bible?

 

Too much Bible reading can be dangerous, too, you know. It can cause mental illness, my mother said. It can cause church splits (witness the countless denominations in our neighbourhood when I was a child and there have been a number of splits in my lifetime) or cause unbelief (witness my advanced education in religion simultaneous with deconvertion and disregard that my doubts began when I was a child).

 

When I was a child, I was so desperately eager to learn all about this Bible that told us all these things about how we were supposed to live that I could hardly wait till I had my own Gideon's NT so I could read it for myself. Mom didn't let me read the Bible before that. She always told me it was too difficult to understand. Yet I don't remember when she first told me, in response to my many "why" questions, that "the Bible says so."

 

We drove horse and buggy because the Bible said we should. We dressed the way we did because the Bible said we should. Etc.

 

This seemed rather amazing. I still haven't found where it says that. And when I started reading the stories about Jesus she was soon held accountable for her "the Bible says so" answers. She explained that the Bible tells us to be separate from the world and to be humble. She explained how having a car, etc. was disobeying these commands. Then it made sense. I think she really was a pretty good teacher. It just so happened that I was an even better student and most of my questions have no answers. As a mother in her early thirties she didn't know how to handle this kind of "student."

 

As for me, I am still trying to come to terms with the fact that I have been punished so cruelly for being unable to pronounce absolute belief in things for which there is no evidence whatsoever. In other words, accepting that there are no answers after all this is no small matter. It helps a lot being on these forums with others who have suffered just as much for the same reason. Mom went to her grave in the full confidence that there would be an afterlife. I assume she will never know that she was wrong.

 

I am glad she is at rest. She can no longer send me on guilt trips. Nor is she suffering from guilt for not being the kind of Christian witness to me she should be. I went to see her before she died. She seemed to recognize me and she seemed happy to see me. It was just a few seconds. Most of the time that last day she seemed to barely focus on her surroundings. If she still exists in a conscious form anywhere I guess she knows that I made up but I much prefer to think the grave truly is the end. It seems most humane and just plain decent.

 

Life with all its worries is bad enough. Why extend it into an unknown and terrifying afterlife? I was bred and born on this planet. Why not just stay here and rot when it's over? I think the spirit/soul is nothing but a certain part of the human psyche. Maybe some of you never identified anything inside of yourself that you considered the spirit but I did. It was a certain kind of feeling also known in some literature as religious experience.

 

I think this is what keeps a lot of people inside religion. However, I have also met people who identify as spiritual atheists. I believe it's simply a normal part of the human psyche and that some people experience it more strongly than others. I think most people "get in touch with it" via dance or music or sex, or perhaps art or other right-brain activity such as ritual or sermon or prayer or poetry. Note that most of these are integrated into religion in some form or other. There's a reason for that, and it's not because Jesus is coming. Jesus just happens to be part of the religion that we happened to inherit. All religions, no matter what culture, tend to have these things.

[Mongo]

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.

 

Exactly... and the reward for your trust is heaven and the rapture. It is basically the first consumer reward program that fails to deliver.

 

Mongo

[dr_funkenstein]

Damn. I thought this thread was about god taking a crap.

[Mongo]

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.

 

Pichu,

 

Not sure where you are coming from here. Xtianity is not a monolith and as such there are many xtians that don't believe in rapture teaching a la Hal Lindsay.

 

I say there are three main groups.

Non-rapture groups like Anglican, Catholics, Luthern etc.

Old style rapture churches like Jehovah's Witnessess and

post-schoefield (1900) rapture churches that take on pre-millenial repture theology.

 

This third group is fundamentalist meaning specifically that the bible is to be interpreted literally. The rapture theology requires literal interpretation of the bible. These are the Hal Lindsay groups. They have made great progress in the fundamentalist churches and in my opinion are not divided on rapture theology.

 

As to Israel not being a monolith, well, from the fundamentalist perspective, it is. The bible regularly has text where god talks to Israel meaning the body of people and also the nation.

 

Up until the Iraq war and for the next few years, I did not witness any cracks in this foundation. Support for Israel was a given.

 

I'm curious to understand where you are coming from.

 

Mongo

[Mongo]

Mongo, as I read what you think people learn in Bible College....

 

Ruby,

 

Are you and I about to debate what constitutes a Bible College?

 

I know dozens of fundys from Baptist, Wesleyan and Pentecostal backgrounds who believe in the most popular version of rapture teaching that went to "Bible College". They did not get very good bible educations while there.

 

These institutions are primarily designed to provide cursory introduction of other belief systems accompanied by apologetic responses, a wholsome dose of church doctrine and practical evangelical practices.

 

Gaining popularity these days is 1-2 year discipleship programs which are like theological trade schools. They show you how to live your faith more than understand it.

 

Bible Colleges are not to be confused with seminaries which are often associated with credible universities. You attend a highly credible institution. Fundamentalists who take the bible literally and believe they will be raptured before the 7 years tribulation often go to "Bible College" they rarely go to seminaries as you have.

 

Mongo

[Mongo]

As I read through the thread I find some confusing points.

 

Rapture theology is diverse because of its fairly long history.

 

My direct experience is from a fundamentalist (primarily Pentecostal) perspective that I found was synchronized with Baptists and Wesleyans.

 

What Presbyterians and Methodists and such were doing was generally irrelevant because they were not influential and not growing.

 

I'm trying to explain the culture and attitudes behind what is going on in the mainstream today which is predominantly pre-millenial rapture teaching that says that Jesus is coming back real real soon.

 

I'm feeling like a duck out of water; like I'm not connecting with anyone on this thread.

 

Yet, I sat in the pews for years and today when I turn on the TV I get basically the same message on rapture teaching.

 

I don't see much change in the last 20 years except in how the rapture teaching is delivered.

 

Perhaps I don't grasp the essence of this thread. I'm sure current trends are not the only point but surely it is an essential and important one.

 

So what do y'all want to talk about?

 

Mongo

[Ouroboros]

So what do y'all want to talk about?

Do they have beer in heaven?

[L.B.]

The dimwit that runs the church I work for says he knows that America is not mentioned in the bahble. This MUST mean that so many people get 'raptured' from America that it causes her whole financial and governmental infrastructure to collapse and anarchy and evil to have free reign.

 

He says that's what he believes and REALLY HOPES will happen.

 

OH, goody, goody, goody...

 

All the babies and little kids that are 'left behind' get it 'in the behind' because the truuuue bahleeevurrrs are floating away with the Flying Zombie Jew to his palace in Glo-Rah-Land.

[R. S. Martin]

As I read through the thread I find some confusing points.

 

Rapture theology is diverse because of its fairly long history.

 

My direct experience is from a fundamentalist (primarily Pentecostal) perspective that I found was synchronized with Baptists and Wesleyans.

 

What Presbyterians and Methodists and such were doing was generally irrelevant because they were not influential and not growing.

 

I'm trying to explain the culture and attitudes behind what is going on in the mainstream today which is predominantly pre-millenial rapture teaching that says that Jesus is coming back real real soon.

 

I'm feeling like a duck out of water; like I'm not connecting with anyone on this thread.

 

Yet, I sat in the pews for years and today when I turn on the TV I get basically the same message on rapture teaching.

 

I don't see much change in the last 20 years except in how the rapture teaching is delivered.

 

Perhaps I don't grasp the essence of this thread. I'm sure current trends are not the only point but surely it is an essential and important one.

 

So what do y'all want to talk about?

 

Mongo

 

What do we want to talk about? Good question. I sort of wanted to rant and rave about this crazy stuff. But it seems people took it I wanted to learn about it. Whatever, they started explaining what they were taught about the Rapture and I kept wandering side roads and side allies and bunny trails, making connections here and there. It's really no wonder nobody knows for sure where it's supposed to be going. I think some of us are finding it cathartic being able to express some of these teachings with the permission to throw in the ocassional qualification "I think it's impossible but this is what I was taught...."

 

It's not the kind of catharsis where you blast your guts all over the ceiling and walls. It's a more low-key thing where it's all well under control. You get to speak in the solemn dignified voice of the dignitaries who made your life hell with their crazy theology. And you're allowed to repeat their theology with your own solemn and dignified disclaimers embedded with the full confidence and knowledge that no more is needed to be taken seriously. It's perfectly safe to discuss this stuff in serious tones.

 

I think perhaps that, in and of itself, is healing and cathartic. This Rapture theology was never meant to be taken calmly--I don't think. Yet here we are, calmly discussing it unperturbed. I'm not sure, Mongo, if that clarifies anything...

 

Dr. Funkerstein, I'm not totally sure what you're saying but I got the idea to call this thread divine evacuation because it seemed like in the Rapture is god evacuating the earth of its inhabitants. Maybe it's a crazy title but I liked it.

[mwc]

Damn. I thought this thread was about god taking a crap.

It is...in reverse.

 

 

mwc

[R. S. Martin]

Mongo, as I read what you think people learn in Bible College....

 

Ruby,

 

Are you and I about to debate what constitutes a Bible College?

 

For a minute I thought there must be a mistake of some sort and then I realized there was and that it was my mistake--Dallas Theological Seminary is probably not a Bible College. I also realized that not all the work that comes out of Dallas has the same quality or tone. I am not sure what a Bible College is. It sounds like you do. I'm glad you respect the school where I am studying.

 

At one point I had qualms about their grading system. They have one prof that hands out A grades like they grow on trees, so I heard. And most of the other profs give me top grades, too. I wanted to be sure I had a quality education that prepared me for further studies at places like the University of Toronto if I chose that route. So I asked my thesis supervisor one day before he was my supervisor. I was just taking a course with him.

 

He said the grades he gives are earned and that he thinks the school is as rigorous as the top universities of the world.

 

I'd been around academia long enough by that time to recognize some of the tones I was hearing. (One of my undergrad profs had told me that the competition in academia is at least as fierce and cut-throat as it is in General Motors.) That is why, as he was giving me his opinion of his school and his grading system he would speak only for himself and his own opinion. He probably knew about his colleague who handed out cheap grades. By now I've met some of the other kind, too, which sort of balances things out.

 

About a year after I asked him that question I had a classmate who had serious problems in his courses. She could not get the grades she wanted. She had a long meeting with him, trying to figure out what she was doing wrong. A few months after that meeting I asked her how it was going and she had resigned herself to not doing well in his classes. She told me the only prof in the school she really respected was the one who (in my opinion) handed out cheap grades. In her opinion, the grades didn't mean much because "what's it for?" It was a rhetorical question so I didn't answer.

 

All she wanted was a degree in pastoral counseling. Being able to write excellent papers in soteriology and Christology and the likes probably doesn't matter when you're helping a church member cope with the death of a family member or the loss of a job. Having an above average understanding of what the church believes about Jesus and salvation might be helpful when counseling a person on how Jesus helps in times of grief and difficulty. Graduating with a B in theology ensures that. (Not that any of us here believe that's the way to go but we're talking about a school that operates by the philosophy that this really does work. From that perspective it logically follows that pastoral counselors need an above average understanding of theology. Hence the required courses in theology for the counseling students.)

 

I, on the other hand, had entered academia because my brain was atrophying and desperately needed stimulation. I wasn't sure where I was going but of one thing I was sure--I could not afford to earn a degree that would not be honoured in the world's top schools. So it's good to know that it really is a good school. Thank you.

[pitchu]

I'm curious to understand where you are coming from.

 

Mongo

Mongo, forgive me if I misunderstood what you meant by "the cultural outcome of this theology is the veneration of the Jews" and your subsequent explanation of what this meant in real terms.

 

Where I'm coming from is (1) to make sure that Jews aren't blamed for what Christians made up about them, re: the Jewish role in the Rapture (2) to stress that reasonable people exist in Israel, too, and that this Rapture Crap causes much additional wrenching within their community as they try to deal with a rush of "love" and tourism from a bunch of nuts who want to see them convert or suffer horrific death; that many Israeli Jews are advocating refusing money/support from Christian evangelicals (see quote below) (3) to guard against Rapture Theology's becoming yet one more avenue for villifying the very Jews which that theology intends to convert or kill.

 

A separate point is whether Rapture theology is based literally on the bible. My understanding is that some girl in the 1830s (I don't remember her name) was babbling about seeing this crap in a dream, and the content of that dream was picked up by one, then more, ministers/theologians and that cherry-picking the bible for support of the adolescent's nightmare then began.

 

Below is a segment of a Nov/Dec 2005 interview by Amy C. Thoren with Dr. Barbara Rossing, author of "The Rapture Exposed." From here:

http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/archives/rossing.html

 

DOOR: In your book, you speak of Left Behind proponents who support Israel at the expense of the Palestinians. Do they want the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians to get worse?

ROSSING: It's a peculiar kind of support for Israel. They want Israel to take over all the land but in the end only Jews who convert to Christianity will be saved. Two prominent Israeli rabbis recently warned against accepting financial support from Christian fundamentalists. I read that one American fundamentalist Christian group raised $100 million for settlements in the occupied West Bank, so I'm delighted that finally some rabbis are speaking out against this.

Peace is bad, according to these Christians, because only the Antichrist signs peace treaties in the Middle East. They want the Jewish temple to be rebuilt and animal sacrifice to resume on the Temple Mount—only so that the Antichrist can desecrate it three and one-half years into their seven-year period of tribulation. Of course, to rebuild the temple would mean destroying the Dome of the Rock, Islam's third holiest site, which would undoubtedly precipitate a war. Christian Zionism is a theology that could be characterized the way Israeli peace activist Yehezkel Landau ironically says: "God so loved the world that He sent World War III."

[hereticzero]

The rapture is an old twist on the phrase 'the rats are deserting the sinking ship.' Perhaps life would be better for us if there were a rapture and the do-gooders left the planet to us?

[Mongo]

I'm glad you respect the school where I am studying.

 

Yes I do Ruby.

 

However, I was less than clear as I failed to point out the semantic differences of how fundys use the term "Bible College" versus the way most people would use it. I guess that is a hang over from my indoctrination. (Dang communication is tough ain't it?)

 

The PAOC, AOG and other fundamentalist denominations have their own institutions of bible learning and they are commonly refered to as "Bible College". These institutions do not teach academics and their standards are not at the University level.

 

Inquiry and critical thought are discouraged and hence you cannot possibly develop high standards in that kind of environment.

 

The main purpose of these institutions is to indoctrinate young people in doctrine and habit.

 

There is however considerable variation from denomination and institution. Atlantic Baptist University (formerly "College") bucked the low quality trend, raised its standards and became "accredited". The accredidation means that certain courses (now many) are transferable to other very credible universities.

 

I know a number of people who went to the PAOC bible college in Peterborough. That institution is pure indoctrination for the ministry.

 

I also mentioned decipleship programs are growing. I know someone very well who went to Peter Youngren's institution in St. Catharines. There the emphasis is on indoctrination and outreach techniques with field trips.

 

I once visited someone at Christ For the Nations in Dallas for a week and sat in on some classes. It is also a dicipleship program.

 

Fundamentalist parents encourage their kids to take a year at these institutions to "ground" their kids in the faith before going on to other secular colleges or university.

 

America has more bible universities like ORU that have higher standards than the ministry based Bible Colleges I refer to above. However, of the three people I know who went to get their papers in America, two of them are weak academically and the other is average. (The stronger one went to ORU)

 

I also happen to know a couple people who went to a university associated seminary similar to what you describe. Both of them have successful carreer paths.

 

Cheers,

 

Mongo

[Mongo]

I'm curious to understand where you are coming from.

 

Mongo

Mongo, forgive me if I misunderstood what you meant by "the cultural outcome of this theology is the veneration of the Jews" and your subsequent explanation of what this meant in real terms.

 

Where I'm coming from is (1) to make sure that Jews aren't blamed for what Christians made up about them, re: the Jewish role in the Rapture (2) to stress that reasonable people exist in Israel, too, and that this Rapture Crap causes much additional wrenching within their community as they try to deal with a rush of "love" and tourism from a bunch of nuts who want to see them convert or suffer horrific death; that many Israeli Jews are advocating refusing money/support from Christian evangelicals (see quote below) (3) to guard against Rapture Theology's becoming yet one more avenue for villifying the very Jews which that theology intends to convert or kill.

 

A separate point is whether Rapture theology is based literally on the bible. My understanding is that some girl in the 1830s (I don't remember her name) was babbling about seeing this crap in a dream, and the content of that dream was picked up by one, then more, ministers/theologians and that cherry-picking the bible for support of the adolescent's nightmare then began.

 

Pichu,

 

I was not "blessing" that point of view but establishing it as a fact and outcome of rapture theology. I find it quite troublesome like you.

 

I'm in full agreement with you and so the world once again makes sense to me.

 

As to the little girl, I read about story that too and predates Darby.

As I understand, Darby was noted for setting out that the rapture would happen before the tribulation.

 

For anyone interested, I found xtian commentary that reports several other sources of pre-trib writings:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fe...l?msg_id=00Cf9a

 

Regarding literal interpretation of scripture, I waded through one of Lindsay's books where he made the argument. In essence, the prophecy of Revelation is tied to the prophecys in Daniel and he argues they can only make sense if the scriptures are taken literally (unless the scripture is "obviously" allegorical or a parable).

 

It is actually quite a dubious argument and if one cannot embrace the teaching then the whole fundy ball of wax starts to unravel.

 

A memorable sermon for me was when the pastor put Israel on a pedestal and we were all told to stand on Israel's side for fear of god's wrath(he cited scripture). Until then I was there for the worship and prayer and serving god. To have them mess with my politics jarred my mind. I asked someone at the time about it and the division of dispensations and he said, "Who said the bible had to be divided?".

 

Unsatisfied I feigned being mollified but that didn't explain or excuse a pastor telling me how to sort out my politics. I knew intuitively this wasn't right and gained a little more freedom to think for myself.

 

Mongo

[R. S. Martin]

I found Rossing helpful in dealing with the fear of hell and Revelation in general. I found Ernest R. Sandeen' Roots of Fundamentalism really helpful in understanding dispensationalism. Also the other authors I've been reading and the discussion here. It seems dispensation theories started before that girl Pitchu mentioned.

 

And it is not known where Darby got his ideas. I think if anyone is going to make the Bible hang together this it THE way to do it. Basically you have to do away with empirical reality and over-ride your senses and lobotimize yourself but hey! if you do it all for Christ so much the better, right? Yes, Darby, Scofield, Gabelein all wanted the Rapture before the Tribulation. The books I read were all pretrib. They quoted a few postribulation. The two sides seem to be at each other's throats (so what else is new???).

 

The psychology behind it makes a lot of sense. If you're pretrib you can't tolerate having anyone being brave enough to suffer through; it might make you look like a coward so you have to put it in the context of the relationship of the church and christ or some fancy stuff. If you're postrib you need to have everybody else suffer just as much as you, right? Misery loves company. So once again you need to put it on solid scriptural basis.

 

Mongo said:

 

Regarding literal interpretation of scripture, I waded through one of Lindsay's books where he made the argument. In essence, the prophecy of Revelation is tied to the prophecys in Daniel and he argues they can only make sense if the scriptures are taken literally (unless the scripture is "obviously" allegorical or a parable).

 

It's based a lot on Daniel and Revelation, but there is also a key passage in 1 Thes. 4:16-17.

 

Michael D. Stallard (book) decribed the interpretation in detail as to what parts are literal and what parts are allegorical. It's not the same for everyone. He looked primarily at one person.

 

Mongo said:

 

Unsatisfied I feigned being mollified but that didn't explain or excuse a pastor telling me how to sort out my politics. I knew intuitively this wasn't right and gained a little more freedom to think for myself.

 

How I identify! This is one thing in which the horse and buggy people got off easy. Church was so very formal that this kind of activity would NEVER have taken place in church. Thus, one would have heard it only in a sermon and one could then "hide" it in the privacy of one's own mind. So long as one kept all the rules of dress and lifestyle no one else really knew one's position on deeper items.

 

The implied contract or logic was that what showed on the outside reflected what was in the heart. Modest apparel and lifestyle reflected a humble heart and mind. Appropriate content of heart and mind were not exactly spelled out so long as actions, words, and apparel were kept in line as deemed appropriate....

 

As I write about this, I wonder if this is what people hated and distrusted about me, and why they reacted with such extreme violent rage when my life decisions became apparent. The real me had taken refuge behind all this very ordinary safe apparatus--but I was not what I seemed. Hmmm. If anyone had been willing to listen they would have known who I was. However, anytime I dared come anywhere near the surface even as a little child I got blasted. I guess they figured if they raised me right I would turn out right. After all, that is what the Bible says....

 

And the Bible can't be wrong, even if I turned out wrong...No, these people won't ever get it, not even when their ball of wax gets totally unraveled.

[R. S. Martin]

I'm glad you respect the school where I am studying.

 

Yes I do Ruby.

 

However, I was less than clear as I failed to point out the semantic differences of how fundys use the term "Bible College" versus the way most people would use it. I guess that is a hang over from my indoctrination. (Dang communication is tough ain't it?)

 

The PAOC, AOG and other fundamentalist denominations have their own institutions of bible learning and they are commonly refered to as "Bible College". These institutions do not teach academics and their standards are not at the University level.

 

 

Yes, communication gets a bit complicated once in a while. I am unsure what all this alphageti is about. AOG=Assembly of God. PAOC probably has something to do with Pentecostals. I know nothing about either when it comes to lifestyle and education.

 

There is however considerable variation from denomination and institution. Atlantic Baptist University (formerly "College") bucked the low quality trend, raised its standards and became "accredited". The accredidation means that certain courses (now many) are transferable to other very credible universities.

 

Come to think of it, the College where I did my undergrad degree is not accredited, either. However, it is affiliated with a liberal arts university that is and my degree is through that university. They're on adjoining campuses and I took courses on both.

 

I know a number of people who went to the PAOC bible college in Peterborough. That institution is pure indoctrination for the ministry.

 

If you're in Montreal, are you talking about Peterborough, Ontario? Or does every country and province have a town by that name?

 

I also mentioned decipleship programs are growing. I know someone very well who went to Peter Youngren's institution in St. Catharines. There the emphasis is on indoctrination and outreach techniques with field trips.

 

I know about discipling mainly from reading church websites--I really don't know at all what it is. My own people would have seen it as totally worldly. Had they ever chanced to hear about such a thing they would have said something along the lines of: We should all live in such a way that we are disciples of Jesus all the time.

 

I once visited someone at Christ For the Nations in Dallas for a week and sat in on some classes. It is also a dicipleship program.

 

Fundamentalist parents encourage their kids to take a year at these institutions to "ground" their kids in the faith before going on to other secular colleges or university.

 

This sounds like something I read in one of my texts--the author said Bible Institutes were para-church organizations that functioned like community hubs. One would go there as a youth, stay connected throughout life, send kids there to get trained, etc.

 

America has more bible universities like ORU that have higher standards than the ministry based Bible Colleges I refer to above. However, of the three people I know who went to get their papers in America, two of them are weak academically and the other is average. (The stronger one went to ORU)

 

One of my classmates was an ORU graduate. She raised some interesting fundamentalist issues. I would have loved so much to have a real tooth-and-claw with her but I sensed that I would only make enemies. I never felt comfortable with her. Into our second year together I learned she was Ojibwa. Perhaps it was culture. Perhaps it was personality. In 2000 I spent several weeks on an Ojibwa reserve and felt comfortable so I think it was personality more than anything else. It may have been religious postion. Even though I identified as Christian at the time, I was no where near traditional. It was never clear to me what her position was. I'm not sure it was clear to her, either. Raised one thing. Attended ORU. Studying at a Lutheran school. I dunno.

 

I also happen to know a couple people who went to a university associated seminary similar to what you describe. Both of them have successful carreer paths.

 

If I remember correctly you told me you never finished any post-secondary degrees and I think you probably have a successful career. However, I don't know any details and it depends how we measure success. I do know that formal degrees and monetary success do not necessarily go together. And some days I am not even sure if money and success are related.