Lessons Learned

[firstpusk 10]

Pack, thanks for the link. Religion can be a force for good. It can also be a weapon of hatred and destruction. The hope and yearning for the end of the world is a perversity that is only surpassed by the effort to spur on Armageddon. To think that so many Christians would embrace this monstrosity on the threadbare theology of the "rapture". That so many would selfishly despoil the world that they claim God created for them to care for as stewards is a mockery of faith, hope and charity. Perhaps they should hope that no judgement ever comes for their actions.

[Rooster7 11]

Posted November 15: Liberal ideologues whine whether they win or lose. In fact, they're probably happier when they lose - Because they get to whine even more!

 

The nattering posted to this thread since my last post, makes it appear to be a preamble to a sad and bitter anthem of liberal bellyaching.

 

Perhaps they should hope that no judgement ever comes for their actions.

 

Thats funny the whole basis for liberal theology is that that there is no judgment! In fact, most liberals cant even spell judgment. ;-)

 

What's the extra e for Excused of Evil doing for Eternity? I doubt if God spells judgment the same way you do. Its what we deserve. If you dont believe it, look in a mirror. By the way, God-fearing, God-loving, Bible-believing Christians that embrace the Rapture dont have to worry about judgment. Someone took care of that for them.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Hunt 11]

I have heard it said that God is an Englishman. If He is, He spells "judgement" with an "e."

[packsaddle 753]

If spelling and grammar are the standards, it's clear why all of us were left behind.

[firstpusk 10]

Rooster,

 

You can call it belly-aching if it makes you feel better. You can also dismiss me as bitter. However, that will not make it so. I am disgusted by the immaturity of this particular teaching. The rapture is a teaching that was unheard of before the early 19th century - one cut from whole cloth. It is a proof text lifted from a few phrases snipped completely out of their original context that is being used to avoid acting as responsible adults.

 

Interesting how turn the whole issue on its head. A lover of Scripture should have more respect for the text. It is the apocalypse lovers that want their God to free them from the mess that they have made on this earth. It is the Bushies that destroy and despoil without the least care because they are certain that God will remove them from the responsibility for sins they have committed against the earth He made for us. They are so sure that His coming is nigh, even though Jesus said no one would know the hour. They embrace war and slaughter instead of Christ's message of love and forgiveness. What if the hour is a thousand, no a million years from now? What will our children have? And what of their childrens' children?

 

It is interesting that you, a Scouter, embrace destroying the environment selfishly and thoughtlessly.

 

If I believed the world were to end tomorrow, I would still plant a tree today.

-- Martin Luther

 

[Rooster7 11]

If the rapture is a false teaching, please explain the meaning of these verses. Read Mathew 24:36-44 and Luke 17:20-35.

 

If the coming of end times (Armageddon) is a false teaching, please explain the meaning of these verses. Read Revelation 16.

 

Firstpusk,

 

Your outrage to such teachings infers that you know of an alternative meaning to these verses (and perhaps others not mentioned here). Is your outrage based on an intellectual understanding of the Bible? Or, is it in fact just an emotional outburst against an idea that you find to be unpleasant? There are many other verses that support these teachings. How do you reconcile them with your understanding? Do you even have a clue as to which verses that I might be referring to, or have you simply blotted them out of your mind? As they say, ignorance is bliss. I dont mean to insult you, but Im guessing that your repulsion to these teachings is more inspired out of fear than intellectual or spiritual indignation.

 

Martin Luther may have been an environmentalist, but I doubt it. Rather, I believe he was simply saying - since we do not know the day or hour of the end times, we should conduct our daily lives as if tomorrow is an eventuality. On the other hand, Im sure he didnt indiscriminately destroy any of Gods creations either. Regardless, Im confident that his words were meant to exhort men to not fret or plan for the end times - as opposed to the virtues of planting a tree. Youve put an interesting spin on his words, but lets keep them in context. Martin Luthers life struggle was to reform the churchto rid it of false doctrine. His ideas did not give inspiration to PITA or Green Peace. His ideas gave birth to the Protestant faiths.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Rooster7 11]

On a separate note, your accusations against President Bush and his supporters are absurd. You are audacious, if nothing else. First, you presume that the Bush administrations policies are partially motivated by their view on such teachings (the Rapture and Armageddon). Then, to make matters worse, you present a perverted view of those teachings claiming that the current administration uses them as an excuse to not care about the future. Have you read your own words? Do yourself a favor and keep these ideas confined to the Internet. An anonymous expression of these ideas is the best course. After all, they are unfounded and ludicrous. In your next post, I halfway expect you to blame the Kennedy assassination on the Bush administration. It has as much merit as your other charges.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[packsaddle 753]

Uuuuuhhhh, this IS the internet....isn't it? Besides Rooster7, I hate to tell you but you're doing a pretty good job of whining right now. Or would that be raving and ranting? But what are you bellyaching about anyway? The rapture is OVER. DONE. HISTORY. Now we can just devote our attention to the rest of everything and make the best of it. Cookies and milk anyone?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[firstpusk 10]

Let me put it this way Rooster. For me 'Left Behind' is where you pain me.

[Rooster7 11]

Packsaddle and Firstpusk,

 

Sadly, your retorts are what I expected. No substance. No merit. Just emotion. For your sake, I hope your attempts to discern Gods Word is more earnest than your efforts to debate me.

 

Grace and Peace (if you believe in them) be to you and yours this Christmas season.

 

[packsaddle 753]

And to you and yours as well, Rooster7. As for debate, there's no way to debate something (the rapture in this case) for which there is no evidence and may not exist.

[NWScouter 9]

Most mainline church theologians have orthodox Christian beliefs and reject the theology of the end time proponents. The rapture is such a recent concept and those who preach the end is near tend to read too much into the Bible passages they quote. As for me, Christ will come when he comes and until He does I will trust in His grace and do His work for peace and justice.

 

These are the views on the rapture and The Left Behind books by the two largest Lutheran church bodies:

 

http://www.thelutheran.org/0407/page11b.html

 

http://www.thelutheran.org/0208/page26.html

 

http://www.thelutheran.org/9912/page28a.html

 

http://www.thelutheran.org/9912/page23.html

 

http://www.thelutheran.org/9912/page28b.html

 

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=578

 

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2732

 

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2743

 

The below are from scholarly journals:

 

http://www.elca.org/scriptlib/dcs/jle/article.asp?aid=60

 

http://www.elca.org/dcm/worship/publications/worship/pdf/1999/worship_november_1999.pdf#xml=http://search.elca.org/scripts/texis.exe/webinator/search/xml.txt?query=end+times&pr=elca&prox=line&rorder=500&rprox=750&rdfreq=500&rwfreq=500&rlead=500&sufs=0&order=r&cq=&id=41bead406

 

[Rooster7 11]

Bruce J. Ackerson has the same twisted view of the Rapture as firstpuck. Apparently, theologian that he is, Mr. Ackerson never heard of the parable of the Sheep and the Goats. Furthermore, he describes such teachings like this:

 

The underlying theology of the Rapture is one of fear rather than love. The vengeful Jesus separating the righteous from the unrighteous promotes a theology of glory rather than a theology of the cross.

 

Now, I may not have the credentials that Mr. Ackerson has, but its clear to me that he believes that Jesus will not separate the righteous from the unrighteous and/or that there is no judgment for those who reject Jesus. Has Mr. Ackerson ever picked up a Bible? Clearly those who reject Jesus will be viewed as unrighteous, since their sins will not be covered Jesus blood, and they will be judged. Jesus is not vengeful. He is a righteous king. His mercy, his sacrifice on the cross, is available to whoever seeks it. However, those that reject Him also reject the atonement on the cross and will be subject to His wrath.

 

[packsaddle 753]

In defence of firstpusk, if I interpret him correctly (correct me if I'm wrong, firstpusk), his objection is less theological than with the outcome of the adoption of this belief. I tend to agree that for some people, a fatalistic view of the future provides a rationale, perhaps an incentive, to conspicuously consume and devote their time to selfish endeavors. The link I provided contained evidence that some of our leaders did indeed employ that rationale. If that is the basis for firstpusk's objections I must agree.

 

However, regarding the 'debate', here is another perspective on the topic:

http://www.watchman.org/cults/endworld.htm

http://www.raptureready.com/rr-date-setters.html

The second link is particularly interesting because it demonstrates the plethora of previous theologically-based, failed predictions and beliefs regarding this idea (the "rapture"). If that is representative of the clarity of the theology of this idea, I conclude that everyone is equally (in)valid and my contention that it already happened, also theologically-based, is pragmatic for the following reasons:

1) There is no way to disprove it or to validate another view as superior.

2) Anyone is still free to believe or not.

3) Adoption of the view eliminates the fatalistic element (in essence, it's already too late and we lost.)

4) We are forced to decide for ourselves how to live together, now that the 'question' has been called.

In this manner we can shed all that abracadabra baggage and get on with life. As a solution, it is as good as any I've heard so far but I'm still open to suggestions.

[Rooster7 11]

First - Presenting straw man arguments (i.e., citing the beliefs of those who have strayed from God's Word and/or those folks who concoct their own versions of Bible prophecy), does not invalidate the truth of God's Word. This is a shameful practice which many on the left like to employ. Mix a little truth in with a lie and present it as if it represents the beliefs of those that oppose your views. This is akin to quoting Klansmen as evidence against those people who want to disband quota systems. Go back and read the verses that I noted, and speak to them. If youre a Bible believing Christian, I want to see how one reconciles those words with the idea that there will be no Rapture.

 

Second - Those who take God's Word seriously, have more reason to strive to help others, not less. The claim that folks who embrace the Rapture are selfish is garbage. It's pure slander. And clearly, its a weak rebuttal to the Bible supported teaching of the Rapture.