I disagree. In general American Catholics and mainline Protestants (Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Quarkers, etc.) don’t believe in the Rapture - they are Amillennialists, who believe that events in the book or Revelations have already happened or are to be interpreted figuratively. This isn’t surprising: sects that trace themselves to the pre 1830 era are less likely to believe in a doctrine that was invented near that decade. (Actually, it was rediscovered: early Christians were familiar with some of it and denounced it as heretical.)
Some of this controversy is geographical in nature. I grew up in the Episcopal church in the Northeast. I didn’t even hear of the Rapture until last decade AFAIK. And I just learned of the Scofield Bible over the past couple of days. Fundamentalism has very shallow roots in parts of the country: many Americans share Michael of Lucan’s perceptions of them. (FWIW, I agree that UUs are not necessarily Christian: they are a non-doctrinal faith whose Christian influences have been diluted over time, or so I understand.)
Wrong. I’m not looking to have a fight with a fundie; that would be a waste of time. I strongly object, however, to you (and others) accepting fundies warped, non-biblical, non-theology supported theories as fact-based or mainstream Christian or something of that sort.
You keep moving goalposts and ignoring what doesn’t fit your agenda; again, that’s making you sound like a fundie. Not because I want to fight with one, but because I need to know whether you’re open to facts and arguments, or whether it’s a waste of time because you’ve made up your mind and it’s closed.
Your first statement was that all “proper” Christians believe in the Rapture. This is wrong. So now you start talking about whether Unitarians believe in the divinity of Christ. Many christian churches believe in the divinity of Christ, but not in the Rapture, and don’t pay attention to the apocalypse.
So: are these not Christians for you, according to your definition?
A grand unified theology of protestants is not necessary. The statements of larger groupings of Churches, both RCC, Orthodox, Lutheran Protestants, etc., are well known, both official statements and day-to-day teachings and sermons.
Furthermore, the issue isn’t murky or unclear. There is a whole branch of study called “Bible science” (Bibelwissenschaft) as part of theology. It’s pretty clear and known to experts what the context of revelation is, that the prophecies ripped out of contexts from other books do not support the fundie interpretation etc.
However, since US fundamentalism was a reaction to the emerging of Bible science in Europe, esp. Germany, rejecting objective knowledge on the Bible because it threatened their specific, curious interpretation (and the psychological reasons for holding that opinion), obviously the US fundies won’t abandon their twisted world view just because of evidence.
However, as dopers we need to stop accepting and spreading the idea that their warped ideas are in any way based on the Bible, or authorative.
You sure sound like you’re looking for a fight… and with a Fundamentalist too. Maybe a Fundamentalist cut in front of you in the grocery store line recently?
If you read this thread you might find that many of the answers you seek are right there. I can think of something else you might try reading that might give you the same experience. I’m not a Fundamentalist and I rarely attend church.
I just think that idea that not too many Christians believe in Messianic Apocalypse or that this is a uniquely American notion is just more Anti-Americanism on the part of ill-informed Europeans.
If Harold Camping was trying to make the end of the world happen on 5/21 he failed. If he was looking for a lot of media exposure to increase his visibility and grow his ministry then I suspect he’ll have succeeded in spades.
It’s true that US Fundamentalists won’t abandon their faith just because scientific data seems to dispute it. Your choice of language makes it clear that you harbor a serious hatred for Fundamentalists. I try to have more of a live-and-let-live outlook.
I can’t speak for the origins, but I can say pretty safely that US Fundamentalists couldn’t care less about European Bible Science.
It’s probably true to say that most of Christianity accepts some kind of Messianic Apocalypse (although I bet the details are quite assorted), but this doesn’t necessarily include the event known as the Rapture.
You stated upthread that this was a fundamental necessary component of proper Christianity. It isn’t, unless you’re going to disqualify a large subset of what most other people describe as Christianity.
One can only guess what is in another’s heart. I am sure many of his followers believed in his prediction and he may have to. I must admit not informing myself of him. Did he actually think he was influencing when the end would come or just predicting it?
The sad part is that not only did he make himself look like a fool, he made all Christians look like fools. I doubt it is widely known in the secular world that many Christians reject the concept of the rapture and that there are other positions.
I am inclined to be a little more charitable toward the fundamentalists. I think they are wrong and damaging Christianity, but sincere. As for their leaders, it is quite possible they are cynically exploiting others.
I thought back in post #13samjones HAD acknowledged that he stood corrected on the Rapture not being a fundamental part of all Christian doctrine.
It’s another story that by dint of more assertive publicity, “rapture” teachings gained a whole deal of popularity among Christian fundamentalists over the past generation. They seem to be more numerous than they are because they’re louder.
Absent a Catholic-style centralized doctrinal clearinghouse in many church groups, the democratic/populist nature of American social culture lends itself to congregations aligning themselves with doctrines that the congregation is receptive to at some point in time (be it rapture, “prosperity gospel”, or “moral majority” political activism). Or even splitting off and forming their very own a-la-carte church, if the one they were with does not embrace their new idea. That’s value-neutral by itself, but as the Gospel says, “by their fruits ye shall know them”.
I see this as a distinction with no real difference. Regardless of the details surrounding the Messianic Apocalypse, I would still maintain that it is a core belief of Christianity that this will occur.
I find it to be laughably preposterous to maintain that this already happened but we just didn’t recognize it as the event that was prophesied. If there’s one that that Christians should be able to agree on wrt the Second Coming. It’s going to be one big fucking deal and none of us are going to be unclear on whether the world really ended or not.
You can’t just say “Yes I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but I don’t necessarily believe everything he preached.” Or at least I can’t. At a certain point you’re either on the bus or your off the bus - as Ken Kesey said - and while I am not a “Fundamentalist” - I don’t so casually dispense with the concept of faith. Maybe you just believe it because it’s in the bible.
Like an inveterate gambler, Harold Camping doubled down on his prediction last evening. (For his ilk, it’s not about winning/being right; it’s about the action)
Yippe! We get to go through this all over again in October.
No he didn’t. That’s been his claim all along from what I have read about it. His prediction was that 5/21 would be the rapture of 200 or so million that would usher in 5 months of torment for the unsaved with the end of the world coming on 10/21.
What he has done is changed his tune on what he thinks 5/21 turned out to be. Now he says it has ‘‘dawned on him that instead of the biblical Rapture in which the faithful would be swept up to the heavens, May 21 had instead been a ‘spiritual’ Judgment Day, which places the entire world under Christ’s judgment.’’
That there will be a Second Coming of JC as the Messiah in His full Glory, and a Day of Judgment, **IS ** a core belief of historic Christianity.
BUT: That one of the events involved will be a “rapture” in which the chosen will be taken up by Jesus to spare them the ensuing tribulation, is only a belief of a loud minoritary faction.
That the specific prophetic passages may have both a temporal and a trsnscendent sense, and whether the Tribulation, Armageddon and Millenniun are specific concrete points in time, or just allegories to how things will only get worse until they get better (JC returns) is a long-enduring legit debate within the mainstream belief.
That any man can name the exact day and hour of the event, OTOH, would be contrary to the Gospel itself.
Do you have evidence that this debate existed between, say, 600 and 1800 CE? My impression is that ancient Christians were familiar with the Rapture: their term for it was “Heresy”. It was reintroduced by Darby in the 1830s and became more popular some time after the Great Disappointment. Or do you have evidence to the contrary?
Notice nowhere in that paragraph did I mention the “rapture”. That’s pretty clearly an unorthodox belief whose history you have described well.
(what, am I not being dismissive enough?)
But there has been sometimes more ( most intensely in Early Church and post-Reformation times, as you point out) and sometimes less discussion among theologians about what do the eschatological prophesies specifically refer to - whether the Beast and its persecution of the faithful is referring to one particular ruler or regime, for instance, or does it stand for more generalized persecution or oppresion. That is what I call a legitimate debate – and end-timers have historically been on the losing side (probably because the end times keep failing to happen) but they seem to have caught traction in the last couple of centuries (in spite of even more evident predictive failures). My apologies for failing to inclide an IMO in that statement, that was sloppy writing.
