Do "rapture" believers realize it isn't part of consistent Christian tradition?

[CopticChristian]

I wouldn’t say LB is ‘demonic’.
Badly written? Yes. The books are on the level of science fiction found in pulp fiction magazines in the early part of the last century. But even that is a stretch because some of our greatest sci fi writers got thier start in such magazines.
The difference is nobody claimed what Arther C. Clark, Ray Bradbury, and Isaac Asimov were writing was based on fact.

and the founder of Scientology commenced as a Science Fiction writer…

 

[JustaServant]

and the founder of Scientology commenced as a Science Fiction writer…

True, There is a famous sci fi writer who is Mormon, can’t think of the name now. I know “Battlestar Gallactica” is a Mormon fantasy. The others I mentioned, like Asimov, claimed no religion at all.
But Left Behind isn’t even good science fiction. Turning the book of Revelation into a pulp fiction fantasy ‘B’ movie…is just plain wrong.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I wouldn’t say LB is ‘demonic’.
Badly written? Yes. The books are on the level of science fiction found in pulp fiction magazines in the early part of the last century. But even that is a stretch because some of our greatest sci fi writers got thier start in such magazines.
The difference is nobody claimed what Arther C. Clark, Ray Bradbury, and Isaac Asimov were writing was based on fact.

Well since I have neither read any LB book nor seen any LB movie, I am in no position to comment on their quality or lack thereof. I assume that you have, although it seems odd to me that you being Catholic would do so.

 

[JustaServant]

Well since I have neither read any LB book nor seen any LB movie, I am in no position to comment on their quality or lack thereof. I assume that you have, although it seems odd to me that you being Catholic would do so.

Your bias is showing/
I was not always Catholic.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Your bias is showing/
I was not always Catholic.

Oh…that explains it then. Question withdrawn.

 

[Telstar]

True, There is a famous sci fi writer who is Mormon, can’t think of the name now. I know “Battlestar Gallactica” is a Mormon fantasy. The others I mentioned, like Asimov, claimed no religion at all.
But Left Behind isn’t even good science fiction. Turning the book of Revelation into a pulp fiction fantasy ‘B’ movie…is just plain wrong.

Exactly! I always get Gibbs-smacked when I use “Battlestar Gallactica” as a reference for what LDS believe, but if you look at the concept and the characters, it really does seem to be a fictional adaptation of their whole theology.

L. Ron Hubbard created his ‘religion’ (Scientology) in response to a $5 bet made with another sci-fi writer (I think) while sitting at a bar. They were discussing the variety of new religions that were gaining popularity, even though some of them had very strange beliefs. He claimed that he could create a religion that had very little to do with God, but people would flock to it, just like any other religion. He was right.

 

[JustaServant]

Exactly! I always get Gibbs-smacked when I use “Battlestar Gallactica” as a reference for what LDS believe, but if you look at the concept and the characters, it really does seem to be a fictional adaptation of their whole theology.

L. Ron Hubbard created his ‘religion’ (Scientology) in response to a $5 bet made with another sci-fi writer (I think) while sitting at a bar. They were discussing the variety of new religions that were gaining popularity, even though some of them had very strange beliefs. He claimed that he could create a religion that had very little to do with God, but people would flock to it, just like any other religion. He was right.

And what about the religious undertones in the Star Wars movies?

Getting back to the OP, the Left Behind movies may have had the opposite effect. Instead of showing the world the truth of the rapture and dispensational theology, they showed how ridiculous it actually is.

 

[JHow]

I did read just the first Left-Behind book just to see what the excitement was all about. Honestly, it is not great literature. There are some imaginative elements to it. It does make for drama if you imagine a pilot and co-pilot flying along in a plane, when suddenly, “poof”, the co-pilot vanishes. I was a little annoyed that the anti-christ character has the name “Carpathia”, which I consider a slur against the very beautiful Karpaty mountains (I guess I should be glad he wasn’t “Appalachia”?). I did not see the film versions.

 

[CopticChristian]

Well since I have neither read any LB book nor seen any LB movie, I am in no position to comment on their quality or lack thereof. I assume that you have, although it seems odd to me that you being Catholic would do so.

I believe there is an opportunity for insight. In my experience Protestants tend to read only Protestant literature and speak of the Catholic Church they know little or nothing about from the perspectives that they have read.

Catholics like me read Protestant literature and other writings. Aquinas argued so effectively for his point of view because he knew what the opposing thoughts were better than those that presented those thoughts. I might add that Paul was so effective because he presented his arguments to the Judaizing Christians because he knew Torah and could anticipate their thinking and arguments.

Yes, Catholics read Protestant writings and as you can see have a formed opinion. Try reading some Catholic literature.

 

[po18guy]

Oh I wouldn’t say the “Left Behind” folks are “listening to demons”. I think the devil has better ways of getting to Christians than “Left Behind” books and movies.

It is questionable theology though.

The spirit which motivated the “Left Behind” series is either God’s Holy Spirit, or a spirit of this world. There is no other choice.

 

[JustaServant]

I did read just the first Left-Behind book just to see what the excitement was all about. Honestly, it is not great literature. There are some imaginative elements to it. It does make for drama if you imagine a pilot and co-pilot flying along in a plane, when suddenly, “poof”, the co-pilot vanishes. I was a little annoyed that the anti-christ character has the name “Carpathia”, which I consider a slur against the very beautiful Karpaty mountains (I guess I should be glad he wasn’t “Appalachia”?). I did not see the film versions.

Carpathia was the name of the ship that rescued survivors of the Titanic.
Not sure why he chose that name. Unless it sounded ‘eastern European’ and would conjure images of Dracula.
An anti-christ named Appalachia. All sorts of bizarre possibilities with that one.

 

[Telstar]

And what about the religious undertones in the Star Wars movies?

Getting back to the OP, the Left Behind movies may have had the opposite effect. Instead of showing the world the truth of the rapture and dispensational theology, they showed how ridiculous it actually is.

There are religious undertones in a lot of fiction, even when it’s written with no real intention of the author to do it. I think it’s a manifestation of the human psyche to fall back on the inner need to somehow connect with the Divine, whether they realize it or not.

As far as the ‘rapture’ is concerned, I think the interpretations of some people are due to their misunderstanding of the concept of the just being ‘caught up’ when Jesus appears at the Second Coming. They don’t seem to realize that when He comes back for all to see, it will all be over except the final Judgement that will happen at that point in time. He won’t be calling them up so they can watch it all happen without ever having to suffer anything, at all. That’s not how God works. The suffering of the righteous is always necessary to help pay for the sins of others that are less righteous. That’s why we have martyrs that are willing to die for their faith. Their heroism makes up in some way for what is lacking in the rest of us. There’s no place in the history of the Bible where the punishments that were sent by God ever spared His own people from any kind of suffering.

Noah and his immediate family certainly must have suffered by having to bear the humiliation and taunting of those that refused to believe that the flood was coming, as well as the loss of all of their friends and neighbors when it finally came. I doubt that the cries of the people around them didn’t cause them any pain when they heard them pleading for him to let them in the ark.

When Lot and his family were lead away from Sodom, I doubt they were dancing a jig while they listened to the screams of those people that were being destroyed, even while knowing that they were evil, including Lot’s wife that couldn’t resist looking back to see it. You don’t go through that kind of ordeal without being deeply affected by it.

Even the Israelites that were led out of Egypt by Moses, suffered in the desert for 40 years because so many of them lacked faith, even though God was always, visibly, with them. He still punished them, even though He loved them, and had chosen to save them from slavery because of the faith of their fathers.

Anyone that expects to be spared from all suffering during the Tribulation, is not really thinking about how God usually works. They’re being a little naive to believe anyone that tells them that some of them will escape without any suffering. I know it’s a nice thought, but it’s not typical of the way God has done things in the past. If they think about the fact that God didn’t even spare His Only Son from suffering all that He did, how can they believe that they could be worthy of being spared? It just doesn’t make any theological sense to me.

 

[sallybutler]

There are religious undertones in a lot of fiction, even when it’s written with no real intention of the author to do it. I think it’s a manifestation of the human psyche to fall back on the inner need to somehow connect with the Divine, whether they realize it or not.

As far as the ‘rapture’ is concerned, I think the interpretations of some people are due to their misunderstanding of the concept of the just being ‘caught up’ when Jesus appears at the Second Coming. They don’t seem to realize that when He comes back for all to see, it will all be over except the final Judgement that will happen at that point in time. He won’t be calling them up so they can watch it all happen without ever having to suffer anything, at all. That’s not how God works. The suffering of the righteous is always necessary to help pay for the sins of others that are less righteous. That’s why we have martyrs that are willing to die for their faith. Their heroism makes up in some way for what is lacking in the rest of us. There’s no place in the history of the Bible where the punishments that were sent by God ever spared His own people from any kind of suffering.

Noah and his immediate family certainly must have suffered by having to bear the humiliation and taunting of those that refused to believe that the flood was coming, as well as the loss of all of their friends and neighbors when it finally came. I doubt that the cries of the people around them didn’t cause them any pain when they heard them pleading for him to let them in the ark.

When Lot and his family were lead away from Sodom, I doubt they were dancing a jig while they listened to the screams of those people that were being destroyed, even while knowing that they were evil, including Lot’s wife that couldn’t resist looking back to see it. You don’t go through that kind of ordeal without being deeply affected by it.

Even the Israelites that were led out of Egypt by Moses, suffered in the desert for 40 years because so many of them lacked faith, even though God was always, visibly, with them. He still punished them, even though He loved them, and had chosen to save them from slavery because of the faith of their fathers.

Anyone that expects to be spared from all suffering during the Tribulation, is not really thinking about how God usually works. They’re being a little naive to believe anyone that tells them that some of them will escape without any suffering. I know it’s a nice thought, but it’s not typical of the way God has done things in the past. If they think about the fact that God didn’t even spare His Only Son from suffering all that He did, how can they believe that they could be worthy of being spared? It just doesn’t make any theological sense to me.

but if you believe that Christ dying means you don’t have to do anything, then it makes sense. of course, that whole take up your cross thing that Christ mentioned negates that concept, but I suspect most of them think it doesn’t apply to them.

 

[CopticChristian]

There are religious undertones in a lot of fiction, even when it’s written with no real intention of the author to do it. I think it’s a manifestation of the human psyche to fall back on the inner need to somehow connect with the Divine, whether they realize it or not.

**As far as the ‘rapture’ is concerned, I think the interpretations of some people are due to their misunderstanding of the concept of the just being ‘caught up’ when Jesus appears at the Second Coming. They don’t seem to realize that when He comes back for all to see, it will all be over except the final Judgement that will happen at that point in time. He won’t be calling them up so they can watch it all happen without ever having to suffer anything, at all. That’s not how God works. **The suffering of the righteous is always necessary to help pay for the sins of others that are less righteous. That’s why we have martyrs that are willing to die for their faith. Their heroism makes up in some way for what is lacking in the rest of us. There’s no place in the history of the Bible where the punishments that were sent by God ever spared His own people from any kind of suffering.

Noah and his immediate family certainly must have suffered by having to bear the humiliation and taunting of those that refused to believe that the flood was coming, as well as the loss of all of their friends and neighbors when it finally came. I doubt that the cries of the people around them didn’t cause them any pain when they heard them pleading for him to let them in the ark.

When Lot and his family were lead away from Sodom, I doubt they were dancing a jig while they listened to the screams of those people that were being destroyed, even while knowing that they were evil, including Lot’s wife that couldn’t resist looking back to see it. You don’t go through that kind of ordeal without being deeply affected by it.

Even the Israelites that were led out of Egypt by Moses, suffered in the desert for 40 years because so many of them lacked faith, even though God was always, visibly, with them. He still punished them, even though He loved them, and had chosen to save them from slavery because of the faith of their fathers.

Anyone that expects to be spared from all suffering during the Tribulation, is not really thinking about how God usually works. They’re being a little naive to believe anyone that tells them that some of them will escape without any suffering. I know it’s a nice thought, but it’s not typical of the way God has done things in the past. If they think about the fact that God didn’t even spare His Only Son from suffering all that He did, how can they believe that they could be worthy of being spared? It just doesn’t make any theological sense to me.

Rapture does not exist in the Bible I read. The notion of the Rapture is an invention of Irish Protestant thought based on an insane woman. My concept is different than yours and I understand the concept.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

What amazes me is how much people want to fight about this. I have a coworker who is a Christian and we got to talking about our views on eschatology one day. When I told her that I didn’t see how the pre-millennial Rapture had solid Scriptural grounding, she told me that I needed to go study my Bible and then I would see it. As if I didn’t already study the Bible…

Christians need a knowledge of history as well as the Bible. The test of the truth of a doctrine is whether the Apostles taught it. The Apostles didn’t teach the “Rapture” – John Nelson Darby did, in the 1830’s. So why look for it in the Bible? The “Rapture” comes from the folly of private interpretation, a doctrine that accompanies Sola Scriptura. The “Rapture” is part of modern Dispensationalism, of which Darby was also the “father.” Since the Apostles didn’t teach Dispensationalism with its “Rapture,” neither does the Catholic Church. The true “Rapture” happens only once, at the end of the world. Nobody will be “left behind.”

 

[Little_Mary]

I know of someone who prays daily asking G-d to see to it that he is “raptured” (i.e. that it happens in his lifetime) because he doesn’t want to die “the regular way”.

Really.

 

[JustaServant]

I know of someone who prays daily asking G-d to see to it that he is “raptured” (i.e. that it happens in his lifetime) because he doesn’t want to die “the regular way”.

Really.

In many fundamentalist churches your belief/non-belief in the rapture is a test of orthodoxy. They make it part of their ‘doctrinal statements’ as if it is a fundamental of Christian belief.
To question it is more than they can bear.

 

[CopticChristian]

In many fundamentalist churches your belief/non-belief in the rapture is a test of orthodoxy. They make it part of their ‘doctrinal statements’ as if it is a fundamental of Christian belief.
To question it is more than they can bear.

It is also mental handcuffs. To come to one of these communities and accept the Rapture means that you are being taught that this will occur in your lifetime and the world will end soon as the so called Bible prophecies are coming true.

To speak of this Rapture is to maintain membership and allegiance to the community. It keeps people going to the church and bound by this notion.

To deny the Rapture and question it is to suggest that you deny all the prophecies, the bible teachings and you ain’t part of the saved and will be left behind…who wants to be left behind…reminds me of that movie home alone series.

The reality is that while they teach that the world will come to an end in your lifetime and there is no surety of that, what is sure is that each and every one of us will have our worlds come to an end and there is no denying that.

 

[Telstar]

Rapture does not exist in the Bible I read. The notion of the Rapture is an invention of Irish Protestant thought based on an insane woman. My concept is different than yours and I understand the concept.

It’s not in my Bible, either. At least, it’s not there as the concept that others seem to believe as far as the faithful being removed before the tribulation begins, to keep them from suffering. That’s basically why I put the word in semi-quotes. I was addressing what others refer to as the ‘rapture’ being described as the point where Jesus returns on the clouds of Heaven, and gathers up the faithful from the four corners of the earth. I’m not entirely sure about what that particular passage means, or the other passages that speak about the tribulation and the end times, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t mean what they think it means.

 

[Little_Mary]

In many fundamentalist churches your belief/non-belief in the rapture is a test of orthodoxy. They make it part of their ‘doctrinal statements’ as if it is a fundamental of Christian belief.
To question it is more than they can bear.

I really, REALLY wish you could meet this person I’m talking about. I think he would probably listen to you.