What will you do after the Rapture?

[senatortombstone]

I know many of you think it is a myth or story.  But for a minute, imagine it being true as described in the Left Behind books.  One day, millions of people are missing.  What will you do?  Switch to Christianity?

The question is to you, Richius?  Where will you be?  Do you believe?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I actually have read Left Behind (only the 1st book), and believe me, it is not quality literature.  The dialogue is humorously bad, and every part of the plot is a very literally deus ex machina.    And I was really rooting for Nicholae Carpathia until their inexplicably turned him into a mass murderer at the end.

I'm generally pretty tolerant of all sorts of religious beliefs, but I simply cannot reconcile the central conceit of the book:  the bodies of true Christians disappear into heaven along with their souls.  Now, how does heaven work exactly when some people have bodies and other people don't?  I'm eager to believe in heaven, but not a heaven as metaphysically garbled as that.  (I know Catholics have a similar problem with the Assumption, but this is recent doctrine that I don't buy one bit either.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

From a sequel of Left Behind:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So basically the only Catholics worthy of salvation are those that are actually Protestants.

    The funny thing about this quote is that one of the heresies of Luther is that he doubted the authenticity of the Revelation of John.  To quote from a translation of Luther’s preface to the book in the German Bible he had produced:
    “My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, ‘You shall be my witnesses.’ Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.”

[senatortombstone]

I actually have read Left Behind (only the 1st book), and believe me, it is not quality literature.  The dialogue is humorously bad, and every part of the plot is a very literally deus ex machina.    And I was really rooting for Nicholae Carpathia until their inexplicably turned him into a mass murderer at the end.

I'm generally pretty tolerant of all sorts of religious beliefs, but I simply cannot reconcile the central conceit of the book:  the bodies of true Christians disappear into heaven along with their souls.  Now, how does heaven work exactly when some people have bodies and other people don't?  I'm eager to believe in heaven, but not a heaven as metaphysically garbled as that.  (I know Catholics have a similar problem with the Assumption, but this is recent doctrine that I don't buy one bit either.)

Well, the books have had very high sales, so some people must have liked them.

Belief in God is a matter of faith.  you're not going to find the "proof" that you're looking for.  While I believe that the proof is out there and in front of us, believing is a matter of faith.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I actually have read Left Behind (only the 1st book), and believe me, it is not quality literature.  The dialogue is humorously bad, and every part of the plot is a very literally deus ex machina.    And I was really rooting for Nicholae Carpathia until their inexplicably turned him into a mass murderer at the end.

I'm generally pretty tolerant of all sorts of religious beliefs, but I simply cannot reconcile the central conceit of the book:  the bodies of true Christians disappear into heaven along with their souls.  Now, how does heaven work exactly when some people have bodies and other people don't?  I'm eager to believe in heaven, but not a heaven as metaphysically garbled as that.  (I know Catholics have a similar problem with the Assumption, but this is recent doctrine that I don't buy one bit either.)

Well, the books have had very high sales, so some people must have liked them.

Belief in God is a matter of faith.  you're not going to find the "proof" that you're looking for.  While I believe that the proof is out there and in front of us, believing is a matter of faith.

I have no doubt that a lot of people like them, but someone here was touting them as quality literature, even for non-Evangelicals.   The fact is, if you don't believe in a letter-for-letter literal biblical interpretation of the end time, you're going to have a tough time reading these books with a straight face.

I know belief in God is a matter of faith...I believe in God, and don't claim to have any proof of it.  I just think there is a difference between an unproveable believe and a absurd belief that isn't even consistant with itself.  Seriously....bodies ascending into heaven?  What exactly to the bodies do there....how do they interact with the disembodied souls of everyone who died before the Rapture?   

[Gabu]

I have a very strong faith and those that commit terrible acts in the name of faith are severely misguided.

I'm not arguing with that - all I'm saying is that it takes more than simply strong faith.  If it's strong faith in something harmful to humanity, that's not good at all.

[J.R. Brown]

But if you have a strong faith and a good grasp of the teachings of Christ, good works should follow.

I think first and foremost you'd need the latter.  The most horrible things of all were done by the people with the strongest faiths of all.

I have a very strong faith and those that commit terrible acts in the name of faith are severely misguided.

Hypothetical situation:

There is one man who sees himself as being strongly faithful to Christ.  He prays, much.  However, he sees little reason to do things, like say, help the poor, be out in community.  Instead, he chooses to focus inward, concentrating on his own salvation.

Then, there is another man.  He believes that Christ was "an okay dude", but he does not believe in Christ as being the Son of God.  In fact.  He thinks that there might be a God, but to him, that doesn't matter much.  He focuses on help out the community in any way possible.  He helps the poor.  Visits people who are shut in.  He is a general philanthopist.

Who is, ultimatly, the better follower of Christ.  The one who believes in him strongly and focuses on his salvation, or the one who does not believe in him as being the Son of God, but does all the things that Christ tells us to do for our fellow man?  Who is more touched by God?

That's an interesting question. I really believe that people who are skeptics of God and really don't know the laws that God handed down, will be judged on a different level than people who do know God. I think people who know the laws that Moses and Christ taught are held to a higher standard than those who are ignorant of the laws, because we knowingly sin. We know the laws. We know the teachings. Yet most of us still sin. So in the end, I believe that we will all be judged differently, according to where we are spiritually.

[Bono]

And if one is going to make an idiotic claim like "only 144,000 will be 'elected'", I like to prove to them that they are morons.

Do you believe in the rapture sir?

No, assuming that that is what Revelations is about (doubtful) it doesn't even happen in the Bible, the same way that Protestants champion.

Ever read 1 Thessalonians? I wodner what is this Cathlics have against Paul.

[Bono]

2:14-26

14
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

He proceeds to commend mercy. And as he had threatened that God would be a severe Judge to us, and at the same time very dreadful, except we be kind and merciful towards our neighbors, and as on the other hand hypocrites objected and said, that faith is sufficient to us, in which the salvation of men consists, he now condemns this vain boasting. The sum, then, of what is said is, that faith without love avails nothing, and that it is therefore wholly dead.

But here a question arises, Can faith be separated from love? It is indeed true that the exposition of this passage has produced that common distinction of the Sophists, between unformed and formed faith; but of such a thing James knew nothing, for it appears from the first words, that he speaks of false profession of faith: for he does not begin thus, "If any one has faith;" but, "If any says that he has faith;" by which he certainly intimates that hypocrites boast of the empty name of faith, which really does not belong to them.

That he calls it then faith, is a concession, ; for when we discuss a point, it does no harm, and it is sometimes expedient, to concede to an adversary what he demands, for as soon as the thing itself is known, what is conceded may be easily taken away from him. James then, as he was satisfied that it was a false pretext by which hypocrites covered themselves, was not disposed to raise a dispute about a word or an expression. Let us, however, remember that he does not speak according to the impression of his own mind when he mentions faith, but that on the contrary he disputes against those who made a false pretense as to faith, of which they were wholly destitute. So we we do not attain salvation by a frigid and bare knowledge of God, which all confess to be most true; for salvation comes to us by faith for this reason, because it joins us to God. And this comes not in any other way than by being united to the body of Christ, so that, living through his Spirit, we are also governed by him. There is no such thing as this in the dead image of faith. There is then no wonder that James denies that salvation is connected with it

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He says that faith is dead, being by itself, that is, when destitute of good works. So ti can be concluded that it is indeed no faith, for when dead, it does not properly retain the name. The Chatolics plead this expression and say, that some sort of faith is found by itself; but this frivolous caviling is easily refuted; for it is sufficiently evident that the Apostle reasons from what is impossible, as Paul calls an angel anathema, if he attempted to subvert the gospel. (Galatians 1:8.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The proper meaning here is "Unless thy faith brings forth fruits, I deny that thou hast any faith."

But it may be asked, whether the outward uprightness of life is a sure evidence of faith? For James says, "I will shew thee my faith by my works." To this I reply, that the unbelieving sometimes excel in specious virtues, and lead an honorable life free from every crime; and hence works apparently excellent may exist apart from faith. Nor does James maintain that every one who seems good possesses faith. This only he means, that faith, without the evidence of good works, is vainly pretended, because fruit ever comes from the living root of a good tree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We must understand the state of the question, for the dispute here is not respecting the cause of justification, but only what avails a profession of faith without works, and what opinion we are to form of it. Absurdly then do they act who strive to prove by this passage that man is justified by works, because James meant no such thing, for the proofs which he subjoins refer to this declaration, that no faith, or only a dead faith, is without works. No one will ever understand what is said, nor make a proper judgment of it, except when keeping in view the design of the writer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cathlic theologicians hold onto the word justified, and then they cry out victory, that justification is partly by works. But we ought to seek out a right interpretation according to the general drift of the whole passage. I have already said that James does not speak here of the cause of justification, or of the manner how men obtain righteousness, and this is plain to every one; but that his object was only to shew that good works are always connected with faith; and, therefore, since he declares that Abraham was justified by works, he is speaking of the proof he gave of his justification.

When, therefore, the Catholics set up James against Paul, they go astray through the ambiguous meaning of a term. When Paul says that we are justified by faith, he means no other thing than that by faith we are counted righteous before God. But James has quite another thing in view, even to shew that he who professes that he has faith, must prove the reality of his faith by his works. Doubtless James did not mean to teach us here the ground on which our hope of salvation ought to rest; and it is this alone that Paul dwells upon.1

That we may not then fall into that false reasoning which has deceived the Catholics, we must take notice of the two fold meaning, of the word justified. Paul means by it the gratuitous imputation of righteousness before the tribunal of God; and James, the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct, and that before men, as we may gather from the preceding words, "Shew to me thy faith," etc. In this sense we fully allow that man is justified by works, as when any one says that a man is enriched by the purchase of a large and valuable chest, because his riches, before hid, shut up in a chest, were thus made known. Plus, there is no other valid interpretation, because if James were writing with  the intent the Catholics atribute him, he would be effectively contradicting Romans 4.

[12th Doctor]

I actually have read Left Behind (only the 1st book), and believe me, it is not quality literature.  The dialogue is humorously bad, and every part of the plot is a very literally deus ex machina.    And I was really rooting for Nicholae Carpathia until their inexplicably turned him into a mass murderer at the end.

I'm generally pretty tolerant of all sorts of religious beliefs, but I simply cannot reconcile the central conceit of the book:  the bodies of true Christians disappear into heaven along with their souls.  Now, how does heaven work exactly when some people have bodies and other people don't?  I'm eager to believe in heaven, but not a heaven as metaphysically garbled as that.  (I know Catholics have a similar problem with the Assumption, but this is recent doctrine that I don't buy one bit either.)

What recent doctrine?  This has been doctrine since the beginings of the Church, it simply has not been dogmatically defined until comparitivly recently.  Also, Elijah was assumed directly into Heaven.  So there is nothing saying that it can't happen.  I simply don't believe in the Protestant version of the "End of Times".  No where in the Bible does it mention any of this "Rapture" crap where people will be assumed directly into Heaven.  In fact, Revelation directly contradicts that view, if that is what you are using as your basis.

[12th Doctor]

2:14-26

14
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

He proceeds to commend mercy. And as he had threatened that God would be a severe Judge to us, and at the same time very dreadful, except we be kind and merciful towards our neighbors, and as on the other hand hypocrites objected and said, that faith is sufficient to us, in which the salvation of men consists, he now condemns this vain boasting. The sum, then, of what is said is, that faith without love avails nothing, and that it is therefore wholly dead.

But here a question arises, Can faith be separated from love? It is indeed true that the exposition of this passage has produced that common distinction of the Sophists, between unformed and formed faith; but of such a thing James knew nothing, for it appears from the first words, that he speaks of false profession of faith: for he does not begin thus, "If any one has faith;" but, "If any says that he has faith;" by which he certainly intimates that hypocrites boast of the empty name of faith, which really does not belong to them.

That he calls it then faith, is a concession, ; for when we discuss a point, it does no harm, and it is sometimes expedient, to concede to an adversary what he demands, for as soon as the thing itself is known, what is conceded may be easily taken away from him. James then, as he was satisfied that it was a false pretext by which hypocrites covered themselves, was not disposed to raise a dispute about a word or an expression. Let us, however, remember that he does not speak according to the impression of his own mind when he mentions faith, but that on the contrary he disputes against those who made a false pretense as to faith, of which they were wholly destitute. So we we do not attain salvation by a frigid and bare knowledge of God, which all confess to be most true; for salvation comes to us by faith for this reason, because it joins us to God. And this comes not in any other way than by being united to the body of Christ, so that, living through his Spirit, we are also governed by him. There is no such thing as this in the dead image of faith. There is then no wonder that James denies that salvation is connected with it

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He says that faith is dead, being by itself, that is, when destitute of good works. So ti can be concluded that it is indeed no faith, for when dead, it does not properly retain the name. The Chatolics plead this expression and say, that some sort of faith is found by itself; but this frivolous caviling is easily refuted; for it is sufficiently evident that the Apostle reasons from what is impossible, as Paul calls an angel anathema, if he attempted to subvert the gospel. (Galatians 1:8.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The proper meaning here is "Unless thy faith brings forth fruits, I deny that thou hast any faith."

But it may be asked, whether the outward uprightness of life is a sure evidence of faith? For James says, "I will shew thee my faith by my works." To this I reply, that the unbelieving sometimes excel in specious virtues, and lead an honorable life free from every crime; and hence works apparently excellent may exist apart from faith. Nor does James maintain that every one who seems good possesses faith. This only he means, that faith, without the evidence of good works, is vainly pretended, because fruit ever comes from the living root of a good tree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We must understand the state of the question, for the dispute here is not respecting the cause of justification, but only what avails a profession of faith without works, and what opinion we are to form of it. Absurdly then do they act who strive to prove by this passage that man is justified by works, because James meant no such thing, for the proofs which he subjoins refer to this declaration, that no faith, or only a dead faith, is without works. No one will ever understand what is said, nor make a proper judgment of it, except when keeping in view the design of the writer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cathlic theologicians hold onto the word justified, and then they cry out victory, that justification is partly by works. But we ought to seek out a right interpretation according to the general drift of the whole passage. I have already said that James does not speak here of the cause of justification, or of the manner how men obtain righteousness, and this is plain to every one; but that his object was only to shew that good works are always connected with faith; and, therefore, since he declares that Abraham was justified by works, he is speaking of the proof he gave of his justification.

When, therefore, the Catholics set up James against Paul, they go astray through the ambiguous meaning of a term. When Paul says that we are justified by faith, he means no other thing than that by faith we are counted righteous before God. But James has quite another thing in view, even to shew that he who professes that he has faith, must prove the reality of his faith by his works. Doubtless James did not mean to teach us here the ground on which our hope of salvation ought to rest; and it is this alone that Paul dwells upon.1

That we may not then fall into that false reasoning which has deceived the Catholics, we must take notice of the two fold meaning, of the word justified. Paul means by it the gratuitous imputation of righteousness before the tribunal of God; and James, the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct, and that before men, as we may gather from the preceding words, "Shew to me thy faith," etc. In this sense we fully allow that man is justified by works, as when any one says that a man is enriched by the purchase of a large and valuable chest, because his riches, before hid, shut up in a chest, were thus made known. Plus, there is no other valid interpretation, because if James were writing with  the intent the Catholics atribute him, he would be effectively contradicting Romans 4.

If he is acctually saying what you say he is saying, then why doesn't he just say it that way?  Why does he not say "Good works always come from faith"?  Why does he continue to separate the two?  Now, one could say that true faith in Christ will comple one to good works in order to be Christ like.  But that is not the Protestant possition.  The Protestant possition is to have every individual concentrate on self salvation.  Good works are a reflection of Christ's love for community, something which is glossed over in Lutheran theology and directly refuted by Calvin, who both vastly down play the important of a faith community.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I simply don't believe in the Protestant version of the "End of Times".

DAMMIT! It's the Evangelical or Fundamentalist version fo the "End Times"! Do you honestly think most mainstream Protestants believe in this garbage? Are you aware that the Missouri Lutheran Synod (which is a FAR more conservative branch of Lutheranism than mine) actually condemned those books?

[12th Doctor]

I simply don't believe in the Protestant version of the "End of Times".

DAMMIT! It's the Evangelical or Fundamentalist version fo the "End Times"! Do you honestly think most mainstream Protestants believe in this garbage? Are you aware that the Missouri Lutheran Synod (which is a FAR more conservative branch of Lutheranism than mine) actually condemned those books?

Yes, I do.  The problem is that you define main stream Protestantism based on what your Church does.  I define mainstream Protestantism by the fact that there Church out-wieghs yours in membership probably about 50-1.

[??????????]

Bono I see you are bringing up more of that Calvinist T.U.L.I.P. garbage again.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I simply don't believe in the Protestant version of the "End of Times".

DAMMIT! It's the Evangelical or Fundamentalist version fo the "End Times"! Do you honestly think most mainstream Protestants believe in this garbage? Are you aware that the Missouri Lutheran Synod (which is a FAR more conservative branch of Lutheranism than mine) actually condemned those books?

Yes, I do.  The problem is that you define main stream Protestantism based on what your Church does.  I define mainstream Protestantism by the fact that there Church out-wieghs yours in membership probably about 50-1.

whose church outweighs mine by that number?

But it's not just the Evangelical Lutheran church that rejects this crap. Do you honestly think every other Protestant denomination except mine believes in this Rapture nonsense? Go look up National Council of Churches. THAT'S mainstream Protestant. And mainstream Protesant is defined as a Protestant denomination that's NOT evangelical or fundamentalist.

You also didn't reply to the point about the Missouri Lutheran Synod.

The fact is, this is something that only Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants believe in, not all Protestants, and thus saying it's a Protestant view is just as innacurrate as saying it's a Christian view implying that all Christians believe this. Quit with your anti-Protestant bigotry.*

*No, I don't think such a thing exists but you whine about anti-Catholic bigotry and about how being Catholic means you're a persecuted minority and far less in the mainstream than me, and of course I think anti-Catholic bigotry is a non-existant load of crap, I'm just making a point.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Bono I see you are bringing up more of that Calvinist T.U.L.I.P. garbage again.

The only modern day "preacher" I can think of who advocates that crap is Fred Phelps.

[12th Doctor]

Bono I see you are bringing up more of that Calvinist T.U.L.I.P. garbage again.

Yeah, basically.  If you want to come to me and arguee from Luther's perspective, I'll talk to you, though Lutherans don't seem to realize that many of the problems that Luther had with the Church were not doctrinal and the Catholic Church fixed those problems about 500 years ago.  If you want to come to me and arguee Calvin, though, I simply feel this over-whealming urge to be a mean and nasty as possible in my attemps to shut you down.

P.S.  I would acctually go so far as to say that Calvinism is anti-Christian.

[12th Doctor]

Bono I see you are bringing up more of that Calvinist T.U.L.I.P. garbage again.

The only modern day "preacher" I can think of who advocates that crap is Fred Phelps.

WOW... you really don't get out much, then do you?

[??????????]

Bono I see you are bringing up more of that Calvinist T.U.L.I.P. garbage again.

The only modern day "preacher" I can think of who advocates that crap is Fred Phelps.

The Calvinist Church advocates it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Bono I see you are bringing up more of that Calvinist T.U.L.I.P. garbage again.

The only modern day "preacher" I can think of who advocates that crap is Fred Phelps.

The Calvinist Church advocates it.

There is no "Calvinist Church". Presbyterianism supposedly contains it, but PCUSA is a very mainline denomination that doesn't talk about it at all.

[12th Doctor]

I simply don't believe in the Protestant version of the "End of Times".

DAMMIT! It's the Evangelical or Fundamentalist version fo the "End Times"! Do you honestly think most mainstream Protestants believe in this garbage? Are you aware that the Missouri Lutheran Synod (which is a FAR more conservative branch of Lutheranism than mine) actually condemned those books?

Yes, I do.  The problem is that you define main stream Protestantism based on what your Church does.  I define mainstream Protestantism by the fact that there Church out-wieghs yours in membership probably about 50-1.

whose church outweighs mine by that number?

But it's not just the Evangelical Lutheran church that rejects this crap. Do you honestly think every other Protestant denomination except mine believes in this Rapture nonsense? Go look up National Council of Churches. THAT'S mainstream Protestant. And mainstream Protesant is defined as a Protestant denomination that's NOT evangelical or fundamentalist.

You also didn't reply to the point about the Missouri Lutheran Synod.

The fact is, this is something that only Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants believe in, not all Protestants, and thus saying it's a Protestant view is just as innacurrate as saying it's a Christian view implying that all Christians believe this. Quit with your anti-Protestant bigotry.*

*No, I don't think such a thing exists but you whine about anti-Catholic bigotry and about how being Catholic means you're a persecuted minority and far less in the mainstream than me, and of course I think anti-Catholic bigotry is a non-existant load of crap, I'm just making a point.

Look at the number of people who attend Lutheran and Episcapal churches vs. the numbers of people who attend Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Christian Missionary Alliance and other Protestant Churches, where these teachings are common.  The number who attend Episcapalian and Lutheran Churches are going way down, mostly because the conservatives are leaving and the liberals aren't going.  Meanwhile, the people who are picking up membership numbers are all the churches a mentioned in the later group.

[12th Doctor]

Bono I see you are bringing up more of that Calvinist T.U.L.I.P. garbage again.

The only modern day "preacher" I can think of who advocates that crap is Fred Phelps.

The Calvinist Church advocates it.

There is no "Calvinist Church". Presbyterianism supposedly contains it, but PCUSA is a very mainline denomination that doesn't talk about it at all.

Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Seven Day Adventists, Christian Missionary Aliance (umm...) People, and other groups are all Calvinists.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I simply don't believe in the Protestant version of the "End of Times".

DAMMIT! It's the Evangelical or Fundamentalist version fo the "End Times"! Do you honestly think most mainstream Protestants believe in this garbage? Are you aware that the Missouri Lutheran Synod (which is a FAR more conservative branch of Lutheranism than mine) actually condemned those books?

Yes, I do.  The problem is that you define main stream Protestantism based on what your Church does.  I define mainstream Protestantism by the fact that there Church out-wieghs yours in membership probably about 50-1.

whose church outweighs mine by that number?

But it's not just the Evangelical Lutheran church that rejects this crap. Do you honestly think every other Protestant denomination except mine believes in this Rapture nonsense? Go look up National Council of Churches. THAT'S mainstream Protestant. And mainstream Protesant is defined as a Protestant denomination that's NOT evangelical or fundamentalist.

You also didn't reply to the point about the Missouri Lutheran Synod.

The fact is, this is something that only Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants believe in, not all Protestants, and thus saying it's a Protestant view is just as innacurrate as saying it's a Christian view implying that all Christians believe this. Quit with your anti-Protestant bigotry.*

*No, I don't think such a thing exists but you whine about anti-Catholic bigotry and about how being Catholic means you're a persecuted minority and far less in the mainstream than me, and of course I think anti-Catholic bigotry is a non-existant load of crap, I'm just making a point.

Look at the number of people who attend Lutheran and Episcapal churches vs. the numbers of people who attend Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Christian Missionary Alliance and other Protestant Churches, where these teachings are common.  The number who attend Episcapalian and Lutheran Churches are going way down, mostly because the conservatives are leaving and the liberals aren't going.  Meanwhile, the people who are picking up membership numbers are all the churches a mentioned in the later group.

except there are mainstream Presbyterian and even Baptist churches as well. Look up all the members of the National Council of Churches.

The point is, most non-Evangelical or Fundamentalists Protestants do NOT believe in this Rapture garbage. You seem unwilling to admit that. Now you appear to be implying the only Protestants that don't are Lutherans and Episcopalians.

[Bono]

I actually have read Left Behind (only the 1st book), and believe me, it is not quality literature.  The dialogue is humorously bad, and every part of the plot is a very literally deus ex machina.    And I was really rooting for Nicholae Carpathia until their inexplicably turned him into a mass murderer at the end.

I'm generally pretty tolerant of all sorts of religious beliefs, but I simply cannot reconcile the central conceit of the book:  the bodies of true Christians disappear into heaven along with their souls.  Now, how does heaven work exactly when some people have bodies and other people don't?  I'm eager to believe in heaven, but not a heaven as metaphysically garbled as that.  (I know Catholics have a similar problem with the Assumption, but this is recent doctrine that I don't buy one bit either.)

What recent doctrine?  This has been doctrine since the beginings of the Church, it simply has not been dogmatically defined until comparitivly recently.  Also, Elijah was assumed directly into Heaven.  So there is nothing saying that it can't happen.  I simply don't believe in the Protestant version of the "End of Times".  No where in the Bible does it mention any of this "Rapture" crap where people will be assumed directly into Heaven.  In fact, Revelation directly contradicts that view, if that is what you are using as your basis.

1 Thessalonians 4

14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

15For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

18Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

[Bono]

Bono I see you are bringing up more of that Calvinist T.U.L.I.P. garbage again.

The only modern day "preacher" I can think of who advocates that crap is Fred Phelps.

The Calvinist Church advocates it.

There is no "Calvinist Church". Presbyterianism supposedly contains it, but PCUSA is a very mainline denomination that doesn't talk about it at all.

Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Seven Day Adventists, Christian Missionary Aliance (umm...) People, and other groups are all Calvinists.

Methodsits are Calvinists?
There has always been a great antagonism between Wesleyans and Calvinists, because Wesley was a great supporter of Arminism.