Below is a video where sincere believers describe what they think will happen in the future:
This is absolutely and without a doubt ludicrous for so many reasons I cannot go into them all, nor with much detail here. I'll mention seven reasons why this is madness plain and simple.
1) There is no way to interpret the Bible as having a secret rapture. Bob Price more than adequately demolishes such a view in his book The Paperback Apocalypse. Many other Christians agree. All extant Jewish literature plainly shows they thought of but two eras; one before the Messiah and the other one after the Messiah. There is no room in their expectations for a rapture before the end of times. There is no room for thinking that the Church was a Great Parentheses either, where God's timetable is on hold in a waiting pattern. Such an interpretation is simply the result of the fact that the end of the world and the restoration of Israel did not happen as they had expected in the day of Jesus.
2) Believers who argue this way are complete ignoramuses. They live in a proverbial cave, America if you will, or in some parts of it where there isn't much pain and suffering, or crime, or natural disasters. Are they not deaf to the screams of most people around the globe? Are they not oblivious to the fact that 25,000 children die every single day? Or are their minds just oblivious to the number of wars and world conflicts today, even genocide, which is taking place right now in Dafar, or the witch hunts is Africa at the hands of evangelicals themselves? It's nonsense to think there is a future tribulation. If tribulation involves intense worldwide suffering and pain then it's already here. It's always been here.
3) If they think for one moment that with all of their doomsday preaching that no one on earth after the rapture will believe it happened as a result of prophecy, then they are kidding themselves. I know their predictions. Many many others, if not most people who live in a Christian culture, have heard these predictions too. Hal Lindsey's book, The Late Great Planet Earth, was a NY Times bestseller in the 70's, my generation. And he warned us of that day, although he was dead wrong to suggest it would take place by 1988 (one generation after the rebuilding of the state of Israel). There is no way I would ever believe the lie that if the rapture occurred it was not because of the prophecy. That would be convincing evidence for me and I would tell others.
4) These believers are escapists, plain and simple. If the world they live in is not to their liking (drugs, sex and rock-n-Roll, Oh My!) they hope to escape it and be with Jesus, ASAP. That's escapist theology, certainly not something that looks forward to world improvement. In fact, they have a very hard time mentally with social improvement, for it means Jesus may not come as soon as they hope. It may even lead them to quietism in the face of the world's ills, since if Jesus is coming there is nothing to be done but wait for him to come.
5) As such, these dispensationalist literal millenarian Christians are actually provoking world conflict by supporting Israel no matter what the Jews do. In this area they do get involved. They support Israel. This is a major area of conflict between Muslims and the western world. And while it's true America should help Israel for humanitarian reasons, we cannot support them in everything simply because Christian doomsayers think they are part of God's end-time plan.
6) It's obvious even to a growing number of evangelicals that the Biblical pre-scientific era was a time when most all people though the earth was a circular disk on a flat earth. The whole notion that "every eye will see him" return entails an ancient view of a flat earth which no thinking person can accept. No THINKING person! Most all Jews, Christians, Muslims, and early Roman Catholics thought of Jerusalem as the key city on earth too. This we know from looking at the Biblical evidence and other writings. Why bother with the Crusades if this wasn't true? But the earth is a sphere. There is no city that is more important than others. Even if there is a God there is no place where he reigns from nor does he need to.
7) These dipensationalists believe Jesus will reign on earth from Jerusalem and that the temple will be re-established where animal sacrifices would be re-instituted from the temple in Jerusalem. But even on Christian grounds there is absolutely no reason for there to be any need for animal sacrifices (see Hebrews).
Such tomfoolery. Let's have done with it shall we? It's another mark of the mind of the believer to think in terms of the end of the earth as we know it. So far every prediction has been wrong.
So let me make a prediction. I'll predict these kind of doomsday predictions will always be wrong. Always. So far my prediction has the weight of evidence for it. ;-)
I'd like to begin by establishing that, while a Christian, I don't think scripture presents a rapture scenario, and feel end times discussions are about the least important aspect of the faith. Seriously, the parable about the Wise and Foolish Bridesmaids and the fact that knowledge of when the date the world would end was even kept from Jesus seems to indicate that attempts to figure out when it will be are a fool's errand. That being said, I do have a couple points of contention.
Point 3 asserts that the belief that those left behind after a rapture would believe a lie designed to hide the truth of the event is preposterous, as many who know the prophesies would remain to tell what had happened. Aside from being pure conjecture, I believe it ignores historical examples of similar rejections and simple facts of human nature. Mr. Loftus asserts that he would be amongst those who would immediately recognize what had happened, and be able to tell others. With sincere respect to Mr. Loftus, and great deference to his superior knowledge of his own temperament, I must point out that in this scenario, he would be a committed atheist who had previously argued at great length that what he has just witnessed would not occur. I find it hard to believe that he would not find a way to explain it away to himself. Assuming he, and other learned, but not believing scholars remained and recognized what had happened. Does he believe that simply telling people will convince them? If convincing people of the obvious truth were a simple matter, we would have far fewer debates. Additionally, the theory goes that there will be a cover up to hide the actual reason for the disappearances perpetrated by the world's various governments. Does Mr. Loftus believe that he and those who know what happened will survive long enough to spread the word to a large audience?
Those still in doubt should consider the continued existance of Holocaust Deniers, 911 Truthers, and the shear number of JFK assassination theories.
Point 6 suggests that a lack of scientific understanding lead to the statement that "every eye will see him." My problem with this is it forces God to be bound by our laws of time, space and matter. It's obvious that something conforming to the laws that govern our reality could not be seen by every eye on earth at the same time, however such a being could not perform most of the acts attributed to God. I would say that a belief that every eye will see him return is less about ancient scientific understanding and more about the nature of a God who is not bound by our concepts of time, space and matter.
Lastly, I heard nothing about the animal sacrifices described in point 7 in the video . Please let me know if I simply missed them. If they were not in the video, then I find the concept irrelevant to the current discussion.
It is a shame that atheists would "captitalize" on the Christian"s misconceptions about a so-called coming rapture and other "end time" events. If any given "atheist" would honestly and intelligently seek Bible knowledge in conjunction with history, in particular the history during the period of time of Jesus and that generation, they would see clearly that history actually supports a preterist Biblical view. Any honest seeker of truth will come to the conclusion that the Bible has alot of historical evidence pointing to a past fullfillment of Biblical prophecy, specifically during the years prior to and ending in A.D. 70. Futhermore, they would also become a Christian themselves, asuming that they were not merely looking for an excuse to not have to be accountable to a God. I was once a Christian claiming a soon coming "rapture." How wrong I was! But is is unfortunate that so-called athesists will use the "crazy" beliefs of sincere Christians to further endorse their own "crazy" beliefs that there is no God. None of us have all the answers but hey, let's not "throw the baby out with the bath water" so to speak. In conclusion, both the athesists and the futurist Christians are wrong! Oh, and yes, I don't have all the answers either but I do know that God, yes God, is always right!
Yes, many dispensationalists think the temple will be rebuilt and animal sacrifices will be re-established, the one prophesied in Ezekiel. read up on it to find why.
Cheers.
I can understand your comment mr loftus, and i undertand where you caming from, and who is your god . Jesus came only to the one the will listen to him. not everyone will have the avalibility to came to undertand him and listen and you are one of the millions the are blind. if you want to find the awner you can find it thru JESUS, HE IS THE ONLY ONE THE CAN OPEN YOUR EYES, WOULD YOU ASK HIM TO OPEN YOUR EYES, HUMANITY IS LOSS BECAUSE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND, there are two person living in a human the human flesh is the visible and the espiritual one the one no eyes can't see, the light the enter to your body is in the eyes does why if you see thru you healthy eyes all your body will be in light fill with light. but you only experiense this went you are born again but if your eye is bad all you body will be fill with darkness i wounder how much darkness is in you, i have a messege JESUS IS ALIVE AND IS CAMING BACK. YOU CAN BE SAFE ONLY IF YOU AND ALL THE PEOPLE THE READ THIS WILL ACCEPT HIM. YOU HAVE THE CHOICE DON'T LET THE gods of this world lie to you and confuse you thinking the went you die you are done. is not going to happen the way JESUS is a proof of that he is a live, satan is a LIER. JUST HOW JESUS PROOF TO ME HE CAN HEAR ME, AND YOU. the god of this world can hear you as well and if you ask him to guide you HE WILL DESTROIT YOU BECAUSE HE IS A LOT POWERFULL THEN YOU AND ME HE WILL GIVE YOU ANYTHING YOU WANT EVENTUALLY HE WILL CAME BACK AND GET YOU BACK. DON'T TRUS HIM. where you ask JESUS OR SATAN HE WILL GUIDE YOU, JESUS TO A MUCH BETTER LIFE, THE god of this world to darkness. because i know him. well now i know JESUS. I INVITE YOU TO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS NO THE OTHERONE. THE BLIND PEOPLES AND STEAL THERE INTELLECT. THEY ARE POPIES OF HIM.
I didn't think there could be anything more foolish than christians quoting the bible as proof of something until this moment when I see an atheist quoting the bible as proof of something.
Mr. Loftus is apparently quite confused. His remarks indicate he believes in jesus and the bible. That would make Mr. Loftus a christian not an atheist.
The fact is there never was a jesus. In fact, there wasn't even a nazareth for a jesus to be from at the time. The bible is a work of fantasy created by a group of perverted monks in the 400's. It reads like a poorly written collaboration between Stephen King, JRR Tolken, Rush Limbaugh and Charles Manson.
Mr. Loftus arguments sound a bit like saying, "I'm sorry, Frodo, Bilbo and the elves won't be returning to Middle Earth. Yea, verily, so it is written.".
Geez, gimme a break!
When speaking to Christians we must have common ground, otherwise we cannot communicate. If I didn't do this, and if I didn't think Jesus existed, then every single argument of mine about Jesus would be that he didn't exist. No matter what the issue concerning Jesus would be, that would be my argument. It would get old and stale putting all of my eggs in the same basket every single time.
My goal is to convince. I am not preaching to the choir. It might make us feel good but it doesn't do any good.
BTW: I do think with the overwhelming number of other scholars that there was a historical figure who started the Jesus cult.
You can't teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Personally, I don't understand what it is about human nature that most people find it impossible to believe in anything unless they are able to get someone else to agree with them. I've seen it debated that atheism is a religion , which atheists insist isn't true. As an agnostic, I'd have to side with those who view atheism as a religion. Simply stated, it's the absolute faith in the absence of god, without proof: by definition, a religious belief system.
For those not familiar with the existance of jesus debate, this strikes me as a well referenced and documented source:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com /
As far as the "scholars" you mention, as close as I could ever tell, a "scholar" is someone too lazy to drive a wheelbarrow, and too stupid to do anything else. Much like religionists, they are unsatisfied with life unless they are able to sway someone else to accpet their belief system.
Why worry about it?
Eventually we all die and will have the answers for ourselves, or not. Maybe we just cease to exist, like wiping data from a hard drive. While I personally have trouble imagining a universe without me in it - I'm not built that way and existing gets to be a habit - I don't see how that would be a bad thing or cause me harm. If there's something that comes next, I'll learn what it is when the time comes.
There are many things I don't know, and that happens to be one of them. I've yet to meet anyone who claims to have final answers to the question, that did not impress me as being either dilusional, or a liar and a fraud.
Meaning no disrespect, why should I assume you are not the latter?
You claim expertise on the question of the existance of god.
Where is your proof? What separates you from some six billion others who are possessed of opinion, without a shread of evidence to support their views?
I was with my father thirteen years ago when he died of cancer . He was decidedly NOT a christian, although by most measures of such things, he was a good man. At the moment of his death, his face lit up in an expression I can only describe as pure joy, unmatched by anything I ever saw on his face in life.
Whether or not my experience should be construed as proof of anything, I don't know. To the extent it might be viewed as such, I see it as evidence death is not to be feared, and that religious conviction, i.e. faith, is not a factor.
So, where is your evidence, Mr. Expert? Are you able to offer ANYTHING, even if it is as subjective as the above?
Or does citing mythology, in support of your faith, exhaust the limits of your competence?
Atheism is not 'absolute faith in the lack of a God, without proof' and your poor definition of it (rather conveniently, for you!) creates a straw man which you then attack with great gusto.
In fact, there are two types of atheism . Weak atheism is a lack of belief in god and strong atheism is a belief that there is no God. Neither rely on 'faith' because the burden of proof is on theists, who are the ones making the extravagant supernatural claims, not the atheists , who aren't. 'Faith' really doesn't come into it..
This is analagous to not believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden. I think most of us are afairy-ists, but we don't need to try to 'prove' this position because it is first incumbent on believers in fairies to prove theirs. I would not say that the afairy-ist position is one of 'absolute faith..without proof'. It is, in fact, the reasonable position.
I would also argue further against the 'absolute faith' with which you apparently characterise all atheists. Far from being absolutist, atheists would be easily convinced of the existence of God, if anything remotely resembling a decent proof emerged.
I feel sad that you have such disregard and contempt for scholars. To describe them as 'lazy' and 'stupid' perhaps says more about you than them. Sadly, this seems to be an attitude all too prevalent in the US today.
As to Mr. Loftus's expertise, I am certain that this description has been assigned by OV, not claimed by Mr. Loftus himself, who seems a thoughtful and rather humble man.
Mr. Loftus does not present 'evidence' for the lack of a god because it is not incumbent on him to do so, as explained above. Instead, he demonstrates his opinion (and a well-informed one at that) that belief in god (or, in this case, a Christian version of god) is not well-supported in any sense.
With respect to your father, I am very sorry to hear of his passing. Your description puts me in mind, not of a deathbed revelation (which you seem to be half-implying) but of the well-known and -documented biological phenemenon of endorphin release at the approach of death http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673681917141 .
I don't see this as evidence for another other than the fact that large amounts of nature's morphine makes dying a little less unpleasant.
You seem very exercised by Mr. Loftus' use of the Bible in this context, but frankly it is the Bible (and other holy books) that provide some of the best evidence against these religions. For example, I personally think that the creation myth in Genesis is strong evidence of the fictional nature of the Bible.
Don, most atheists are agnostic atheists. That is, they do not say with 100% certainty that god (s) do not exist. You'd be hard pressed to find many gnostic atheists (those who do believe with 100% certainty that god(s) do exist). Most scientists who are atheists are likely to be agnostic atheists, because it is the most rational point of view.
Contrary to this, most theists are gnostic theists, because they believe with 100% certainty that their god(s) exist. There are quite a lot less agnostic theists.
These explanations are part of why some people argue that agnosticism is not really a belief, it is more of a modifier for a particular belief. For many, It makes more sense to pair agnosticism/gnosticism with theism or atheism .
atheist - n. One who denies or disbelieves the existance of god .
atheism - n. The belief there is no god.
agnosticism - n. The doctrine that god is unknown and unknowable: distinguished from atheism.
Source: Funk & Wagnall's Standard College Dictionary
There is no such thing as "agnostic atheists ". The terms are mutually exclusive. One might be one or the other, but by definition, it is impossible to be both at the same time.