Have any of you ever seen this bumper sticker on someones car.
I always thought that just by thinking that you were holy enough to be taken to heaven during the rapture pretty much excluded you. Aren't you supposed to be pious, not overly self-confident? Just always struck me as wierd. That is a little silly. I have seen that bumper sticker also. It's one of the many things that Christians do that is going straight against their beliefs. I should get a bumper sticker that says, "In case of the rapture, I will still be here (along with everyone else) driving this car.
I did not read religion into the bumper sticker. I thought rapture was something different, more earthly and physical in nature? 
| Xanatos wrote: |
| I always thought that just by thinking that you were holy enough to be taken to heaven during the rapture pretty much excluded you. Aren't you supposed to be pious, not overly self-confident? Just always struck me as wierd. |
If you want to go by what the Bible actually says, merely owning the car means you won't be among the raptured.
But then again, if the rapture really does happen, then that means the Christian god really does exist - and the Christian god as described is capricious, egomaniacal and volatile... and has never been particularly inclined to follow its own rules.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| That is a little silly. I have seen that bumper sticker also. It's one of the many things that Christians do that is going straight against their beliefs. I should get a bumper sticker that says, "In case of the rapture, I will still be here (along with everyone else) driving this car. |
Over a pint one night, my friends and i discussed a notion similar to this - guaranteeing perpetual employment opportunities for atheists in a Christian nation. We thought that we would approach an airline company as "rapture-safe pilots". Our sales pitch was that should the rapture occur, planes with Christian pilots would simply fall out of the sky, killing all non-Christian passengers on board and anyone it happened to crash on... and what kind of heartless airline company would risk their passengers like that? If the passengers heard that their pilots might wink out of existence at any moment, they would never fly with that airline. So we would be "rapture-safe pilots"... in the event of the rapture, we could safely land the plane and save all the remaining heathen passengers. We could create similar job markets for "rapture-safe surgeons", "rapture-safe taxi drivers", etc.
It started as a lark, but we realized there are very serious ethical and moral implications for any Christian that sincerely believes in the rapture. That bumper sticker, joke though it may be, is a prime example. If the driver of that car really believes in the rapture - and if they are expecting rapture they should be at least trying to be an ethical person - they should not be driving that car.^^That's an extremely good idea. It leads into a lot of other discussions. Going by that logic, shouldn't Christians do anything that has to do with non-Christians? Hell, I don't want my burger burned. So if I go to McDonald's and the burger-flipper is a Christian, and the rapture comes, who will flip my burger? So should Christians (the ones who are Revelation-Literalists) just separate themselves from the rest of us non-Christians so that when the rapture happens, they don't hinder us?
Hmm.. but what if those people, such as the airline company, believe that they too will be taken in the rapture. Or how about the passengers. There are plenty of people out there who would say that we(non-believers,other religions,etc.) should go down and burn.
On another note, have you guys ever wondered about what is supposed to happen after the rapture occurs. Supposedly billions will follow the anti-christ hellfire will rain down etc. Think about it though, if the rapture occured and a supposed millions or more disappeared wouldn't you then accept the christian god as the one true god. Why would anyone turn to the anti-christ when god would have been so clearly true?
| Xanatos wrote: |
| Why would anyone turn to the anti-christ when god would have been so clearly true? |
Because the obvious strategy for him would be to pretend to be that god. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Xanatos wrote: | | Why would anyone turn to the anti-christ when god would have been so clearly true? |
Because the obvious strategy for him would be to pretend to be that god. |
But according to the bible all the plagues of the apocalypse have to happen before Warrior Jesus comes down and kicks the anti-christ's ass. I mean the christian god doesn't exactly hold true to his word but still... | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| ^^That's an extremely good idea. It leads into a lot of other discussions. Going by that logic, shouldn't Christians do anything that has to do with non-Christians? Hell, I don't want my burger burned. So if I go to McDonald's and the burger-flipper is a Christian, and the rapture comes, who will flip my burger? So should Christians (the ones who are Revelation-Literalists) just separate themselves from the rest of us non-Christians so that when the rapture happens, they don't hinder us? |
Would be nice if life can be as simple and straightforward as that, this dividing line between Christians and non-Christians. I always thought it was quite difficult to define, a number of people who have not figured things out for themselves. Who think they know who they are, but maybe don't really, or change a few times during their life spans. Etc. etc. Life is change. Our thinking of today may change tomorrow. We are not what we were yesterday. We (including our thoughts and processes) are evolving all the time. People have different beliefs and perceptions of the world. Nothing ever really is as it appears to us to be. The only real thing I am sure about is that as a living organism I will die sooner or later, and while I am breathing I am alive. | Quote: |
| On another note, have you guys ever wondered about what is supposed to happen after the rapture occurs. Supposedly billions will follow the anti-christ hellfire will rain down etc. Think about it though, if the rapture occured and a supposed millions or more disappeared wouldn't you then accept the christian god as the one true god. Why would anyone turn to the anti-christ when god would have been so clearly true? |
According to the Bible there is a seven-year period after the Rapture which is usually called the Tribulation. It is during this time that the Antichrist rises to power and becomes Hell-bent on world domination (apologies for the pun). Revelation says that many people will turn to God, but there will also be many who turn to Antichrist (as ocalhoun said, Antichrist will claim to be God). At the end of the seven years, Jesus returns to defeat Antichrist and his armies. Following this there is the 1,000 year reign of Christ on Earth, during which Satan is bound. At the end of the millennium, Satan is released for a short time to try to deceive all those born during the millennium (presumably so that everyone throughout history has the same conditions under which to make their decision for Christ). Satan gathers another army and is defeated once again. Then the Great White Throne Judgement occurs, where everyone is judged by God. Those who have rejected God end up in the Lake of Fire, while those who accepted Him live with Him for eternity in the New Creation.
One particular view of this whole series of events has been dramatised by Tim Lahaye and Jerry B. Jenkins in the Left Behind series (an audio adaptation can be freely listened to on the Net here: http://www.oneplace.com/special/left_behind/).
| Quote: |
| Would be nice if life can be as simple and straightforward as that, this dividing line between Christians and non-Christians. I always thought it was quite difficult to define, a number of people who have not figured things out for themselves. |
Indeed. Given that the only requirement for salvation (Biblically) is to accept Christ and repent of one's sin, there would probably be a lot of people out there who one wouldn't immediately suspect was saved.
Last edited by MeddlingMonk on Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:13 am; edited 1 time in total | MeddlingMonk wrote: |
| According to the Bible there is a seven-year period after the Rapture which is usually called the Tribulation. It is during this time that the Antichrist rises to power and becomes Hell-bent on world domination (apologies for the pun). Revelation says that many people will turn to God, but there will also be many who turn to Antichrist (as ocalhoun said, Antichrist will claim to be God). At the end of the seven years, Jesus returns to defeat Antichrist and his armies. Following this there is the 1,000 year reign of Christ on Earth, during which Satan is bound. At the end of the millennium, Satan is released for a short time to try to deceive all those born during the millennium (presumably so that everyone throughout history has the same conditions under which to make their decision for Christ). Satan gathers another army an is defeated once again. Then the Great White Throne Judgement occurs, where everyone is judged by God. Those who have rejected God end up in the Lake of Fire, while those who accepted Him live with Him for eternity in the New Creation. |
But that seems a little silly. I'm a pretty strong atheist, but I think that if my entire Christian family disappeared, along with the majority of America, I would come to the conclusion that God exists and would follow him. I may not believe in God, but I can still read the bible and know that the person claiming to be God is an anti-Christ. With as widespread as information is today, I think that 99.99% (I'm just choosing a random number to represent the vast majority of the population, of course; that 99.99% isn't a real statistic) of the population would realize what the anti-Christ is and then know not to follow him. | Quote: |
| But that seems a little silly. I'm a pretty strong atheist, but I think that if my entire Christian family disappeared, along with the majority of America, I would come to the conclusion that God exists and would follow him. I may not believe in God, but I can still read the bible and know that the person claiming to be God is an anti-Christ. With as widespread as information is today, I think that 99.99% (I'm just choosing a random number to represent the vast majority of the population, of course; that 99.99% isn't a real statistic) of the population would realize what the anti-Christ is and then know not to follow him. |
It makes sense that the relatives of Christians who disappeared would be the most likely to realise what has happened. I would point out, though, that if the prophecies about the Rapture and the Antichrist are correct, then that would suggest that the prophecies regarding Antichrist's following would also be correct. | MeddlingMonk wrote: |
| It makes sense that the relatives of Christians who disappeared would be the most likely to realise what has happened. I would point out, though, that if the prophecies about the Rapture and the Antichrist are correct, then that would suggest that the prophecies regarding Antichrist's following would also be correct. |
That is a good point. I guess if the first prophecies came true, the following ones would probably come true. But all that does is really show how silly the prophecies are in the first place. The book of Revelation was written many years after the rest of the NT (and many Christians didn't want it included in the Bible). So even if the Abramahic God ends up existing, I doubt that the "apocalypse" would happen. It seems to me that the author (probably John of Patnos) probably just spent a little too much time visiting with "the Green Fairy," then wrote some fantasy book based off of some crazy hallucinations, and then somehow got it published in The Holy Bible. | Quote: |
| That is a good point. I guess if the first prophecies came true, the following ones would probably come true. But all that does is really show how silly the prophecies are in the first place. The book of Revelation was written many years after the rest of the NT (and many Christians didn't want it included in the Bible). So even if the Abramahic God ends up existing, I doubt that the "apocalypse" would happen. It seems to me that the author (probably John of Patnos) probably just spent a little too much time visiting with "the Green Fairy," then wrote some fantasy book based off of some crazy hallucinations, and then somehow got it published in The Holy Bible. |
Actually, not all the prophecies regarding the end times and the Tribulation are found in Revelation. The Book of Daniel is another major source of end-times prophecies. The Antichrist and the length of the Tribulation are some of the details found in Daniel (in Chapter 9, during the description of the "weeks" - a better translation of which is actually "seven", which is why the 70 weeks are considered 70 x 7 years).
Yes, Revelation is currently attributed to John of Patmos. There are two views, though, as to why he wrote it. One is that it was inspired by God, as the Christians believe. The other (which appears in the television documentary Riddles of the Bible: Secrets of Revelation) is that it was a document concerning the fall of Rome (as a lot of the symbolism in Revelation can be attributed to the Roman Empire or Rome itself). | MeddlingMonk wrote: |
| The other (which appears in the television documentary Riddles of the Bible: Secrets of Revelation) is that it was a document concerning the fall of Rome (as a lot of the symbolism in Revelation can be attributed to the Roman Empire or Rome itself). |
Wow, now this is really interesting! Can just picture this. Everyone must have been very depressed at that time, and a real deep thinker managed to capture the desperation of those depressed moments while the enemy were advancing and dancing at the gates? Almost like a Roman Inferno? Funny how something like this as a background for Revelations would completely change the way that I would read Revelations. Instead of feeling guilty and dahmed, I would read it almost like Proverbs, a lesson in history. 
| Xanatos wrote: |
| Hmm.. but what if those people, such as the airline company, believe that they too will be taken in the rapture. Or how about the passengers. There are plenty of people out there who would say that we(non-believers,other religions,etc.) should go down and burn. |
Well, there are two ways to approach that problem, one practical and one ethical. Since this is a philosophy forum, i'll do the latter first.
Ok, assume that you are a Christian and an airline pilot. Assume that, as a Christian, you want to be a moral and ethical person - you want to do what is right as much as possible. And assume that you literally believe in the rapture - that at any day now you might be suddenly spirited away without warning.
How could you, as an ethical pilot, get behind the wheel of an aeroplane carrying hundreds of innocent people, knowing that there is a chance you could suddenly become incapacitated, leaving the plane to simply fall out of the sky? On a moral level, rapture is similar to acute narcolepsy - without warning you could suddenly be unable to fly, putting the entire plane in peril. Airlines won't hire narcoleptic pilots, for obvious reasons, and if you are an ethical person, you wouldn't apply to be an airline pilot if you were a narcoleptic.
So if you are an ethical person, and you believe in the rapture, you would not fly a plane. And it is not just a question of hundreds of passengers - even if you just flew small charter planes with two or three passengers, or even just a single passenger, it is totally unethical to gamble with their lives in that way.
Ah, but what about the objection that the rapture is slightly different from narcolepsy in that when narcolepsy happens the plane is still full of innocent passengers, but when the rapture happens, all the "good" people are gone. And who cares about the schmucks that are left, right?
Well, not so fast. Remember the assumption: you are an ethical Christian. And there are tons of ethical objections to gambling with even unsavoury lives like this. Is it ethical to test medicines on prisoners against their will? No, it's not, and in that case you at least have the justification that you are gambling with the prisoners' lives in order to help "good" people. In this case you are gambling with the passengers' lives for no good reason at all (your only justification for playing with their lives like this is that you want to be a pilot... which is no justification at all).
As an ethical Christian, you should be aware that you are not judge, jury and executioner. Those "left behind" (hur hur) after the rapture may not be Christian, but they are not necessarily bad - according to the theology there will be good people left who will be saved later. You do not have the right to judge them, and you do not have the right to gamble with their lives.
Therefore, no ethical Christian should be a pilot (at least not without a backup pilot that is "rapture-safe"). By extension, no ethical airline company should allow planes to fly with only Christian pilots. And you can extend this logic to many professions.
(Bear in mind, when the rapture theology was written, there really weren't any jobs that, if people suddenly vanished from them, it would endanger innocent people. This is an ethical issue that came up only in the last century or two.)
Now that's the ethical argument.
As for the practical argument - would you fly on an airline that was so callous toward non-Christians that they would gamble with their lives so? If you wanted work as a "rapture-safe" pilot, all you would have to do is "out" the airline company directors' religious belief in the rapture, and point out the reprehensible ethics of letting Christian pilots fly with that belief. If they refuse to hire "rapture-safe" pilots, they are quite literally saying "screw you" to all their non-Christian passengers. Let's see how they weather that kind of publicity. ^_^; | indi wrote: |
| If they refuse to hire "rapture-safe" pilots, they are quite literally saying "screw you" to all their non-Christian passengers. Let's see how they weather that kind of publicity. ^_^; |
This would be hilarious I think.
Reporter:Why did you refuse to make your company rapture safe?
CEO:Well... I think the whole idea is a bit ridiculous.
Reporter:You think that the rapture is ridiculous?
CEO:No.. thats not what I meant.
Reporter:Then what did you mean?
CEO:I meant that the whole idea of rapture-safe pilots is ridiculous?
Reporter:So you hate all non-christians then?
CEO's head explodes. | Xanatos wrote: |
| indi wrote: | | If they refuse to hire "rapture-safe" pilots, they are quite literally saying "screw you" to all their non-Christian passengers. Let's see how they weather that kind of publicity. ^_^; |
This would be hilarious I think.
Reporter:Why did you refuse to make your company rapture safe?
CEO:Well... I think the whole idea is a bit ridiculous.
Reporter:You think that the rapture is ridiculous?
CEO:No.. thats not what I meant.
Reporter:Then what did you mean?
CEO:I meant that the whole idea of rapture-safe pilots is ridiculous?
Reporter:So you hate all non-christians then?
CEO's head explodes. |
Exactly. ^_^;
Being the drunk philosophers that we were, we even took the time to consider all the possible objections the CEO might come up with. For example, claiming that any given flight is safe because the probability of the rapture having during that flight are so extremely small, they are like the odds of a meteor strike - and they don't protect planes against meteor strikes, so.... And then we considered why all those objections didn't hold up.
The net result is that no-one who sincerely believes in the rapture, and that they will be taken up in it, can ethically be responsible for the safety of others. A Christian pilot who believes in the rapture is as ethically abhorrent as a pilot who flies while narcoleptic or drunk.I don't see the point in being a christian, going by their "logic" I'm safe from the rapture too.
God is all forgiving isn't he, all i have to do is repent in the end.
+ FREE Sundays!
| The-Nisk wrote: |
I don't see the point in being a christian, going by their "logic" I'm safe from the rapture too.
God is all forgiving isn't he, all i have to do is repent in the end.
+ FREE Sundays! |
Yes! Free Sundays! I wonder what church attendance is like on Superbowl Sunday. I'm sure that many Christians take the week off anyways to get ready (collect the beer, chips, etc.) for the game. But then again, there's probably many "true Christians" out there that still go to church (an early service) before the game. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| The-Nisk wrote: | I don't see the point in being a christian, going by their "logic" I'm safe from the rapture too.
God is all forgiving isn't he, all i have to do is repent in the end.
+ FREE Sundays! |
Yes! Free Sundays! I wonder what church attendance is like on Superbowl Sunday. I'm sure that many Christians take the week off anyways to get ready (collect the beer, chips, etc.) for the game. But then again, there's probably many "true Christians" out there that still go to church (an early service) before the game. |
Church, what a waste of time. hmm....i feel a new thread on the brink of creation.^^Not only is it a waste of time, it's also a waste of money. I would much rather donate my money to a good charity that actually does something good (like actually help people or the environment) than donate my money to some organization that's just going to cause problems and try to get science taken out of science classes and put us back to the dark ages.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| ^^Not only is it a waste of time, it's also a waste of money. I would much rather donate my money to a good charity that actually does something good (like actually help people or the environment) than donate my money to some organization that's just going to cause problems and try to get science taken out of science classes and put us back to the dark ages. |
Well, if it were simply a case of choosing to donate or not then I would have no issue with Church fundraising. It isn't, however. Churches enjoy tax-free or tax-reduced status in various countries. This means that they are effectively subsidised by the general population - including people like me who do not belong to any Church. I find this immoral. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | ^^Not only is it a waste of time, it's also a waste of money. I would much rather donate my money to a good charity that actually does something good (like actually help people or the environment) than donate my money to some organization that's just going to cause problems and try to get science taken out of science classes and put us back to the dark ages. |
Well, if it were simply a case of choosing to donate or not then I would have no issue with Church fundraising. It isn't, however. Churches enjoy tax-free or tax-reduced status in various countries. This means that they are effectively subsidised by the general population - including people like me who do not belong to any Church. I find this immoral. |
Think I get the general idea. However, can't help but wonder whether there are some people who benefit from it: those who give and some of it does go for good causes. Whether religious or not, people are people. | deanhills wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | ^^Not only is it a waste of time, it's also a waste of money. I would much rather donate my money to a good charity that actually does something good (like actually help people or the environment) than donate my money to some organization that's just going to cause problems and try to get science taken out of science classes and put us back to the dark ages. |
Well, if it were simply a case of choosing to donate or not then I would have no issue with Church fundraising. It isn't, however. Churches enjoy tax-free or tax-reduced status in various countries. This means that they are effectively subsidised by the general population - including people like me who do not belong to any Church. I find this immoral. |
Think I get the general idea. However, can't help but wonder whether there are some people who benefit from it: those who give and some of it does go for good causes. Whether religious or not, people are people. |
But why should I have no choice in the matter? As a matter of record I regularly donate to various charities. That is my choice. I have no choice in the charitable status and tax exemption of religions and, although they may well do some good works, they also do a lot of stuff which I personally regard as unethical. | deanhills wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | ^^Not only is it a waste of time, it's also a waste of money. I would much rather donate my money to a good charity that actually does something good (like actually help people or the environment) than donate my money to some organization that's just going to cause problems and try to get science taken out of science classes and put us back to the dark ages. |
Well, if it were simply a case of choosing to donate or not then I would have no issue with Church fundraising. It isn't, however. Churches enjoy tax-free or tax-reduced status in various countries. This means that they are effectively subsidised by the general population - including people like me who do not belong to any Church. I find this immoral. |
Think I get the general idea. However, can't help but wonder whether there are some people who benefit from it: those who give and some of it does go for good causes. Whether religious or not, people are people. |
"good causes"? what exactly does that mean?
As in "thank you for the money my son, i shall pray for you"??
if that's the main difference between it and some other charity, the fact that they don't pay taxes in some countries is damn right immoral. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | ^^Not only is it a waste of time, it's also a waste of money. I would much rather donate my money to a good charity that actually does something good (like actually help people or the environment) than donate my money to some organization that's just going to cause problems and try to get science taken out of science classes and put us back to the dark ages. |
Well, if it were simply a case of choosing to donate or not then I would have no issue with Church fundraising. It isn't, however. Churches enjoy tax-free or tax-reduced status in various countries. This means that they are effectively subsidised by the general population - including people like me who do not belong to any Church. I find this immoral. |
It is immoral. In the US, anyone ordained by the church doesn't have to pay property taxes. This does help out several members of my family, but I think that churches should have to pay taxes. All churches in the U.S. are ran just like a business, therefore they should be treated like a business. I donate to various charities that I support, but the church will never get my money. | The-Nisk wrote: |
"good causes"? what exactly does that mean?
As in "thank you for the money my son, i shall pray for you"??
if that's the main difference between it and some other charity, the fact that they don't pay taxes in some countries is damn right immoral. |
It means that there are quite a large number of people out there who are religious and like to do things for one another. They may make special collections, perhaps for sending Fanny, an 11-year old with fatal liver problems overseas for a special operation to help her. They may do that as part of a church collection. I am sure you can think of many such good causes without having to ask what they are. We read about those in the newspapers all the time. Perhaps a church may want to make a collection for starting a soup kitchen in a special neighbourhood. The proposal could come from the congregation. I see nothing wrong with that. I believe we have two sides to it. Some people like to do something good for others. They may happen to be religious, and may happen to do it through their church, as of course their church is an avenue to them to do it with. Not a big deal I think, and as long as the child gets her liver implant, that is great. Who cares who collected the money anyway? If the money had been collected outside the church, it would have been just as good, and yes, there should be a system for tax deduction in that case, and I believe there could be in certain countries.
