In last week's class, we discussed the different types of apocalypses portrayed in hollywood films. Now if we were going to face an apocalypse, which one would you prefer?
a) the Evangelical apocalypse (aka the rapture) where your fate is in the hands of a higher being? In this scenario, those who are deemed to be "unrighteous" are left to witness the second coming of Jesus Christ, and the Battle of Armageddon
or
b) the more secular apocalypse where humans determine their fate. Although this usually involves some form of crisis where the world is saved. Usually the result of a heroic sacrifice or some form of technology. But there is a chance you are affected by this looming crisis (e.g. viral outbreak) and will not survive.
I don't really know which one I would choose. The Evangelical apocalypse sounds good, but only if I get raptured. On the other hand, in the more secular apocalyptic movies, there is almost always a good ending. The problem I had with Oswalt's reading this week is that he only discusses secular movies where the crisis facing humanity is resolved. What about crisis that don't end well? For example a zombie outbreak. Although in some movies, the army or some kind of vaccine is discovered and the world is saved; but what about movies like Dawn of the Dead, where the "survivors" get off the mainland only to find out that the entire world is infested with zombies. So given these two choices, do you think you've been "righteous" enough to entrust your fate to a Higher Being? Or would you rather take your chance with the power of humanity?
I think that the easier apocalypse would be the first. If my fate were in the hands of a higher being, then I would not have to really do much. I won’t say I’m righteous, but whether I am or not is the only thing that appears to be important. In the moment of the rapture, I would not suddenly be able to change myself into being a righteous person. The chance that I am not going to be taken is almost equal to the chance that I will be affected by a looming crisis and will not survive in the second option. (This I deduce by probabilistic inductive logic). Therefore the chance that I am going to be stuck in a battle and suffer hardships is pretty much the same.
ReplyDeleteI would like to point out that both options include the probability of a savior who will come to save this world, whether they are already in it or not. Now the first points to Jesus Christ, and the second points to an unknown savior. Another reason I think I’d prefer the first evangelical apocalypse is because of the known saviour. History has indeed shown us a man named Jesus Christ did indeed exist, and it has been proclaimed that he has done many great things. However, the second option could be anyone, or even no one. I’d much rather take my chance with the reality of a saviour than an apocalypse where the end is much more unclear.
Crises facing humanity are not always easily resolved, nor do they always end well. And I definitely agree with what your problem with Oswalt’s reading for the week. You used a great example of the zombies to prove your point.
www.khevna-coursework.blogspot.com
Hi Benny! Here's my response:
ReplyDeletehttp://jesuschristsuperblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/response-to-which-apocalypse-would-you.html
Daniela