Ship of Fools: MW3000: The Rapture

Thread: MW3000: The Rapture Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030467

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Given the recent occurrence of the Parousia and Campy Harold's first-hand experience of it, perhaps the good denizens would care to offer their thoughts on the worship of Heaven? Does it meet our high standards, or, more probably, does it not?

Link here (for anyone else who has been Left Behind).

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

At least we now know for sure that there really are things that make the Baby Jesus and his Blessed Mother cry.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

I was expecting something a bit more like the London Oratory, or possibly Bourne Street.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I was surprised that only trumpets were used. Have harps gone out of fashion in these modern times (together with sackbuts, viols and lyres)?

Glad to see, though, that no-one was playing a Serpent.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

I was more concerned by the 'pandemonium'. Have the Gates of Hell been opened?

Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
I was more concerned by the 'pandemonium'. Have the Gates of Hell been opened?

Yes. You have only to look at United States politics and the Islamic State, to name a few examples.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Perhaps Campy Harold should learn some basic grammar: around which were seated a variety of folk !!!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Yes ... but the usage of collective nouns does seem to be in a bit of a state of flux just now. "Was", though correct, somehow sounds a bit pretentious.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Perhaps Campy Harold should learn some basic grammar: around which were seated a variety of folk !!!

As the Greek of Revelation clearly shows, imprecise grammar is a hallmark of the Apocalpyse.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes ... but the usage of collective nouns does seem to be in a bit of a state of flux just now. "Was", though correct, somehow sounds a bit pretentious.

Does it? I'd be rather more likely to hear "was" around here than "were".

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

In the Thousand Year Kingdom, all will be one and one will be all. Singular and plural are the same thing.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Wiki says:

quote:

In British English, it is generally accepted that collective nouns can take either singular or plural verb forms depending on the context and the metonymic shift that it implies. For example, "the team is in the dressing room" (formal agreement) refers to the team as an ensemble, while "the team are fighting among themselves" (notional agreement) refers to the team as individuals. This is also British English practice with names of countries and cities in sports contexts; for example, "Germany have won the competition.", "Madrid have lost three consecutive matches.", etc. In American English, collective nouns almost invariably take singular verb forms (formal agreement). In cases where a metonymic shift would be otherwise revealed nearby, the whole sentence may be recast to avoid the metonymy. (For example, "The team are fighting among themselves" may become "the team members are fighting among themselves" or simply "The team is fighting.")

Or is it the past subjunctive being used to convey irealis mood as a subtle double meaning that the event described was imaginary ?

[ 03. April 2016, 09:10: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

UK English usage treats some nouns as collective (eg Government) but AFAIK that is not invariably the case in other English speaking countries. To say "HM Government are proposing..." is perfectly correct as long as you're referring to HM UK govt; it's not correct in referring to any of her Aust govts. You can be very correct and twee at the same time by saying "the parliament of owls in the bush near us are a hoot". In the MW example, correct Aust usage would be to say "varieties of people were" but "variety" is singular.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Gee D: In the MW example, correct Aust usage would be to say "varieties of people were" but "variety" is singular.

This assumes that there are going to be Australians among the raptured.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Let's get back on topic, shall we? If Gee D is offended by MW editing standards, he is free to apply for the job.

Personally I am bothered by many aspects of the notion of resurrection of the body. If we are to have new, incorruptible bodies after we are raptured (assuming that we are among the elect), what will their needs be? Will they have to breathe? If so, heaven must be a place where oxygen is in plenteous supply. Eat? Where will the food come from, and will there be leftover trash to dispose of? Excrete waste? Heaven's sewer system will be truly remarkable. Bathe? That will require hot water, soap and shampoo, plus wastewater disposal.

Of course, if Jesus and his Blessed Mother have been enjoying the benefit of their bodies for the past 2000 years, they will already have found a way to meet these needs. But for 144,000 at the very least, and perhaps billions more? Oy veh!

All of which prompts the question: what's wrong with simply allowing our disembodied souls to continue enjoying heaven after the Rapture, as they will have been doing all along?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Amanda B. Reckondwythe: what will their needs be?

At least, according to this MW report there will be wine. I have few needs beyond that.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Personally I am bothered by many aspects of the notion of resurrection of the body. If we are to have new, incorruptible bodies after we are raptured (assuming that we are among the elect), what will their needs be? Will they have to breathe? If so, heaven must be a place where oxygen is in plenteous supply. Eat? Where will the food come from, and will there be leftover trash to dispose of? Excrete waste? Heaven's sewer system will be truly remarkable. Bathe? That will require hot water, soap and shampoo, plus wastewater disposal.

All of which prompts the question: what's wrong with simply allowing our disembodied souls to continue enjoying heaven after the Rapture, as they will have been doing all along?

Along with another question - why should our resurrected body look any different to that we have had in the created universe? I know all that authority that we should look as we did at age 33, but I've yet to see any half-decent explanation for those who die before that age. Then how can an incorruptible body consume and digest food?

Perhaps all those resurrected medieval theologians are busy working on these and the related problems, as a change from counting angels dancing .

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

In this city, there are two separate cemeteries next door to each other, one for Protestants and the other for Catholics. So will separate heavens be provided for those who prefer collective nouns to take singular verbs and those who prefer that they take plural ones?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

No. (LeRoc has already answered that, 8 posts ago!)

[ 03. April 2016, 14:01: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
In this city, there are two separate cemeteries next door to each other, one for Protestants and the other for Catholics. So will separate heavens be provided for those who prefer collective nouns to take singular verbs and those who prefer that they take plural ones?

The Simpsons - which is my sole source of knowledge about most things [NOT Wikipedia] - clearly shows that there is a separate Protestant heaven and Catholic heaven.

On the other point, no matter what Wikipedia says, I'm from the UK and if I catch anyone using a plural verb with a singular noun my chances of getting to Anglican heaven (a perfectly brewed cup of a tea and a hymn book with no pages missing) will reduce.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

Ho. Reading this thread I have a nasty feeling that I have died and gone to hell.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I know all that authority that we should look as we did at age 33, but I've yet to see any half-decent explanation for those who die before that age. Then how can an incorruptible body consume and digest food?

If the four living creatures covered with eyes mentioned in Revelation are anything to go by, they're not something I would want to meet on a dark path on a cloudy day.

Why should we be saddled with a body at all, then? For what purpose? Not to enjoy food. To enjoy sex? But hasn't the Church always taught that sex exists only for procreation? Surely there will be no new births in post-Rapture times. Perhaps the Church has been wrong on this point all along.

If the only purpose of our being in heaven at all is to find happiness in being in the Divine Presence, it would seem that having to drag a body along, incorruptible or not, would only be a burden.

Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

Why should we be saddled with a body at all, then? For what purpose?

It's almost impossible to imagine not having a body - emotional state is linked to physical state. How can we be "happy" without? Maybe it's just impossible to imagine the place we're all (hopefully) going post this world.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

So those who have died and gone to heaven can't possibly know happiness until their bodies catch up with them? That doesn't seem right.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

(I really like how this MW report describes the logistics of getting a new body.)

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

I'm not sure I like the idea of standing the whole time. I know we'll have new bodies that surely won't get tired, but can't we at least have a little sit down?

Plus, I'm guessing that if heaven is a sermon that goes on for eternity then the 144,000 is solely made up of Baptists and Scottish Presbyterians. Anyone else would find that a punishment.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

Psalm 16 tells us that 'God will show us the path of life; in his presence is the fullness of joy, and at his right hand is pleasure for evermore.' How are we, made as embodied spirits, to know, experience, and give thanks for the joys and pleasures of Heaven without the means of interacting with God or each other - which implies the need for a body of some kind? St Paul says each of us will be raised as a 'spiritual body' - not a disembodied spirit. Whether we will be given the chance to 'exchange' a spiritual body which we find unsatisfactory is another matter entirely.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I'm not sure I like the idea of standing the whole time. I know we'll have new bodies that surely won't get tired, but can't we at least have a little sit down?

Perhaps heavenly legs won't get tired? Or perhaps there will be an abundant supply of misericords, or their modern equivalent: those annoying "standing seats" you get in bus shelters.

Although "bus shelters" and "heaven" don't naturally seem to fit together ...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Although "bus shelters" and "heaven" don't naturally seem to fit together ...

Have you read Lewis' The Great Divorce?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

Although "bus shelters" and "heaven" don't naturally seem to fit together ...

As you know, there are more heavenly forms of transport (cf Isaiah 6.1, AV)

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Yes, indeed. Having said that, I know that there are regular services to (and from) Hell; but I'm not so sure about the other place.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

For a quintessentially Twain look at heaven I recommend Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven. It's online, not tooo long. I didn't link to it in case the hosts would be obligated to read through the whole thing which might be burdensome even as a short novella.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I didn't link to it in case the hosts would be obligated to read through the whole thing which might be burdensome even as a short novella.

Much obliged - a nice novella is not necessarily a bad thing but we don't always have time for it immediately! [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I'm not sure I like the idea of standing the whole time. I know we'll have new bodies that surely won't get tired, but can't we at least have a little sit down?

Plus, I'm guessing that if heaven is a sermon that goes on for eternity then the 144,000 is solely made up of Baptists and Scottish Presbyterians. Anyone else would find that a punishment.

You may be on to something about the denominational aspect. I once asked a Catholic friend what RCC folks think about the rapture. She looked puzzled and then said "oh, that's a Protestant thing."

That might explain the "pandemonium" (Pentecostal style worship?) - the liturgicals are still on earth calmly carrying out their witness until the end of the age.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
the liturgicals are still on earth calmly carrying out their witness until the end of the age.

Nah! When they end of the age comes, they'll be wanting to carry on with their liturgical stuff, asking what's wrong with the 1662 BCP and insisting there's no need for change.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Well, according to the report, they're still arguing about the Filioque. You would think that being able to see it first-hand, they'd be able to agree on it, wouldn't you? Makes the Baby Jesus and his Blessed Mother cry!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0