Are you saying that the dead have been waiting in Limbo all this time and won’t be judged until this future Judgement Day arrives?
This seems to clash with the common Christian belief that you are judged immediately after you die and are sent to Heaven or Hell straightaway.
Not Limbo. Dead. On Judgment Day the dead shall rise and be judged.
Eh, the specific order/duration of events doesn’t really matter, as I’ve pointed out.
It does if the question is whether people actually believe it, as opposed to just whether it’s more nuts than other comparable beliefs.
Better than how it played out in The Omega Code OR OMEN III: The Final Conflict! ICK!
:dubious: In the Omega Code it looked like most or all non-satan people lived happily ever after.
By the way, don’t watch End of Evangelion. 
If it’s equally nuts, then there’s no particular reason to hold skepticism that people would actually believe it.
So Heaven does not yet exist, or if it does it’s empty of human souls for the time being?
Sure there is - it’s not noticeably more sane than the idea that exactly the same stuff will happen with God wearing a propeller beanie, but nobody thinks that God will be wearing a propellor beanie. Thus it’s entirely rational to reject the assumption that silliness level correlates with the number of people who believe a given theory.
Anyway, yes, lots of people in the “conservative Christian” camp believe in the Rapture-Tribulation-Return of Christ-Millenium-Eternity scenario. Then, there are those who see the Rapture as being simultaneous with the Return of Christ, and those who don’t believe in a literal earthly Millenium and believe that Christ’s Return takes us directly into Eternity.
Almost all the Christian Churches profess at least this much- this world will degenerate into a time where evil will mightily fight against the good, Christ will return to judge humanity, end the world, and reign over a perfect Eternal realm.
The Creed common to Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy & most of Protestantism-
“(Christ) is seated at the right hand of the Father Almighty, from thence he shall
come to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom shall have no end…”
I tend to believe (80%) the Bible teaches a future Beast (called in Church Tradition “the AntiChrist”) & Tribulation and an earthly Millenial Kingdom, but I’m open to other views- particularly that the Beast referred to AntiChristian Rome, the Tribulation to the Neronic persecution & the 70 AD Siege of Jerusalem, and the Millenium is this Christian Era.
I was referring to the way the Deus Ex Machina was presented, not the outcome.
If End of Evangelion at least LOOKS good then I wouldn’t mind what it has.
Oh. Well, it’s God - he’s a Deus Ex something no matter when he decides to roll into town and call game over. Personally I thought the whole ‘army of satan’ think in Omega Code 2 was much less interesting, largely due to the ‘you gotta be kidding’ factor.
And End of Evangelion is about six acquired tastes stacked on top of each other, so I wouldn’t make a point of seeking it out if I were you. I mainly mentioned it because in it’s (extremely pseudo-) pseudo-christian apocolypse, everyone on the planet basically turned in to gelatin, and there’s no indication that any more than two of them recovered from that state.
I’ll buy that:) Did you know there are more Mormons than Epicoplian’s in the United States. As I was raised as the latter (as opposed to Latter) I was shpcked to see that.
As I understood, the question was if indeed there were people who believed the events as portrayed in the “Left Behind” series are a literally accurate rendition of what a Christian should believe about how the Eschaton is supposed to go down. First, that there will be a preemptive Rapture, and second, that Revelation is not an extended allegory of how the Church will struggle in times of war and persecution throughout its history until JC comes back, but a concrete prediction, save for minor details, of specific events that will happen over 7 years after said Rapture.
The answer, as given, is yes there are, but for most of the existence of Christianity most scholars and followers of that faith did not think so, and precious little in the actual scripture or in classic theology argued for it.
To elaborate on something I said earlier, as far as most mainstream Christians for nineteen centuries, the Apocalypse referred to something that could be 20 years in the future or 20 centuries in the future (the point being, the Lord cometh like a thief in the night, be ready now just in case). The “seven years of tribulation” could be be the entirety of whatever’s your current historic age. “The Beast” may just be Big Government or Big Corporatism in general (without its mark nobody may trade), as opposed to one specific man (“Anti-Christ” does NOT come from the Revelation and does not originally refer to one powerful man, it comes from the Letters of John and there it just meant whoever led you in the direction opposite of Christ). The Millennium may just be the time when finally everybody decides to live together like good Christians (of your preferred brand, of course 
) And so on.
They took it more seriously than Superman, but it was not mandatory that it literally happen that way word for word.
It’s a mashup of bits and pieces of Gnostic Christian eschatology, Kabbalah, Illuminati CTs and Jungian psychology, as seen by an author under mental stresses, made for a company trying to sell videos and tied-in merchandise in a society for which both those religions are quite alien.
OOPS! Got me there! :(
To you maybe. Perhaps I should have said “The American Revolution was about a tax on tea” to be more accurate. What I’m saying is that your summary of Catholic doctrine was such an oversimplification in order to make it match the Fundy doctrine of “Rapture” that it makes it just plain wrong.
Essentially my objection is that I do not mind people arguing that Catholic doctrines are absurd. I find many of them so, which is why I’m an **ex-**Catholic. I do not mind people arguing that Christian doctrine is absurd. What I mind is someone taking a doctrine that is only accepted by a minority of Christians and saying that since it’s absurd, all Christians are absurd, applying that argument as a Q.E.D. against a sect that does not accept that doctrine. If you insist on arguing that Christianity is absurd, base it on a doctrine that they all agree on. The “Left Behind” trash ain’t it, making your comment on Catholicism entirely inappropriate for this thread.
Completely off topic, but on point (as strange as that sounds), most people believe that it was about taxes, and the tea tax was the last straw, but what it was really about was tea smuggling. The Tea Act of 1773 lowered the price of tea in the colonies, cutting into the founding father’s tea smuggling business (John Hancock and Samual Adams were two of the big smugglers of the day).
On point because the popularization of things like the left behind series have turned the Rapture from a fringe belief to something that most people think is a common belief of Christians. Just like the mythologization of the founding of our country have changed the Tea Party from an effort to protect the profit of tea smugglers into a protest against high taxes.
Which pretty much gets to my point about “…oversimplification in order to make it match the Fundy doctrine of “Rapture” that it makes it just plain wrong.”
As your own cite says, the lowering of tea prices was principally an issue of the British trying to get them to accept taxation without representation. That it may have cut into the smuggling business of a few may have been a cutting point for those few, but as the rallying cry shows, the majority were unaffected by this.
Nor is a catalyst a cause, when talking about motivations.
The point is that the Tea Act lowered taxes because the British were listening to the colonies. It actually undercut one of the pillars of the revolutionary argument. The fact that those who supported independence a) had a moneyed interest in blocking cheap British tea and b) were afraid that the act would decrease their support does not take away from the original point: the Boston Teaparty was not in response to higher taxes just like the Rapture is not commonly accepted theology by most major denominations. However many people often believe those two things.