Eternal Earth-Bound Pets, USA, owned by confirmed atheists, will take care of your pets “left behind” in case of Rapture — if the Rapture happens in the next 10 years — for a premium of $110.
You’ve committed your life to Jesus. You know you’re saved. But when the Rapture comes what’s to become of your loving pets who are left behind? Eternal Earth-Bound Pets takes that burden off your mind.
We are a group of dedicated animal lovers, and atheists. Each Eternal Earth-Bound Pet representative is a confirmed atheist, and as such will still be here on Earth after you’ve received your reward. Our network of animal activists are committed to step in when you step up to Jesus.
Those crazy atheists! What will they think of next?
Personally I'm a little offended they don't offer services in California…I mean come on we practically invented atheism!!
Pingback: Pets MAX » Atheist Offers Pet Care Insurance in Case of Rapture. No … Really …
I emailed Bart Centre, the owner of this pet rapture service and told him that I was Christian and it was my understanding that it is illegal to sell a service which you believe that you will never have to deliver. He became very angry and emailed me a note with a link for me to connect to. He said the link was his “lawyer” He lied.
It was not a link to a lawyer at all it was link to a picture of a sex toy molded in the shape of Jesus the Christ. Keep in mind this guy Bart Centre does not know who I am nor whether I am 15 or 50 years of age. Shame on him. He does not have Christians best interest at heart and he is a dirty old man, in my opinion. He is mocking Christians and God
If what Susan said is true, it would not reflect well on the character of the operators of the site.
Regarding whether, "It is illegal to sell a service which you believe that you will never have to deliver," I would be interested in Susan providing a link to the specific statute she has in mind. Actual laws, after all, are "on the books" electronically in the United States. If true, I'd be interested in reading the statute. If not, or if anything else Susan said is less than factual, she only brings her own credibility into question.
Personally, I doubt what Susan says. If true, would it extend to an airline selling insurance if they did not believe their planes would crash? If they did believe their planes would crash, of course, it would be less than moral to solicit passengers. What it comes down to, it seems to me, is a question of likelihood and risk. What, really, are the chances? Do I believe strongly enough that the plane will crash, that I will purchase additional insurance "just in case?"
As is the case with the Rapture, it is purely a matter of faith. (Google "Pascal's wager.) Churches, like insurance companies, have taken enormous sums of money over the years from people who are not comfortable with the odds.
If what I say is true? Gosh why would I or anyone make up such a thing. I have the emails. I would be happy to forward them to you regarding his shameful behavior. In the mean time here is a copy posted below.
I did not save the legal link suggesting that the selling of this service is illegal. I have since then done a bit of research and can not find a source that supports what I originally thought to be true in regards to this being an illegal business. So chances are it is not illegal. BUT it is unethical in my opinion.
Re: Ethics
Wed, December 2, 2009 7:44:51 PM
From:
Bart Centre
View Contact
To: susan kimball
oh susan sorry, I forgot:
please feel free to have what ever agency covers "offering a service you don't believe will ever be required" contact our attorney.
here's his website: http://www.divine-interventions.com/jackhammer.ht…
Went to the link, and Susan is absolutely right. The object the link points to is clearly offensive to Christian sensibilities and doesn't exactly encourage reasonable dialog… only very slightly more eloquent than a simply, "F___ ___."
On behalf of athiests of good will everywhere, I apologize for Bart's vulgarity.
Still, I find the whole pet insurance concept quite ingenius and thought-provoking. Pascal's wager turned on its head.
Again, insurance is all about risk. The insurer bets that he will have to pay less in the form of benefits than the insured has paid, which is how profit is made. The insured bets that the cost of having insurance will be more acceptable financially (as in taking care of remaining family after one's departure from this earth) than not having it.
Insurance companies that make wise actuarial decisions make a profit; ones that do not, don't.
BUT, "unethical?" I don't think so, surely not from the perspective of a believer. Who wouldn't want to insure that someone will be there to take care of their pet once they are gone? What about life insurance?
If the contract were to be kept, what would be wrong with an athiest caring for a pet once someone is raptured. If all true believers are raptured, really, who else would be around to do it?
Seems to me that the athiest, if anyone, would be getting the short end of the stick. I mean, it's not bad enough that the athiest doesn't get raptured AND, according to most faiths, will eventually be spending eternity in Hell; he or she also gets stuck taking care of the pets of people who have been taken off to Heaven and is only paid a total of $110 for his/her time and trouble.
I don't know what pet boarding costs are by you, but decent places in my neck of the woods START at something like $35/day.
Or, is that what Susan means? That, knowing all of the above, it would be unethical for a believer to contract with an athiest $110 to take care of a pet. "Unethical," wouldn't be the word in that case. The word in that case would be more like, "cruel."
Perhaps Susan is saying that the odds of the rapture actually happening during a pet's lifetime (something between zero and 18 or so years from now) are so close as to approaching zero that, the athiest would be unethically taking money for something she is ALSO sure will basically never happen?
In which case, Susan would be unwise to purchase such insurance.
Still, I've purchased 20-year term life insurance before, insurance that expires WITH all premiums paid over basically the lifetime of a long-lived pet, and, believe me, a total price tag of $110 won't buy much of that.
Draw your own conclusions, but it seems to me that the Earth-bound Pets concept is exactly an excellent reversal of Pascal's famous wager except that, in Pascal's case, "choosing" to believe is not going to be good enough because real belief is not something we can "choose." True belief goes ever so much deeper than that.
Hmmmmmmmm…
Anyone would be unwise to purchase this insurance. You see the "rapture" is not biblical. This myth was started by an 18th mentally ill woman named Margaret Macdonald who claimed to have had a "vision" regarding this. The "church" got wind of this false doctrine and ran with.
There are absolutely no "odds" of the rapture taking place in one's lifetime, be it person or pet. Bart IS taking money for something that will never happen. He knows it and I know it. This being the case I decided to post here and in a few (hehehehe) others places, my communications with Bart and my thoughts regarding this man and his workings.
…the "rapture" is not biblical? I beg to differ. Although McDonald clearly got the date wrong, her theology was otherwise firmly grounded in scripture and she, like many religious figures before her and since, believed that her visions were gifts from God.
I offer you Mat 24:32-51 (the same account is found in Luke 17), Mat 25:1-13, 1Thessalonians 4:16-17, and several places in Revelations.
The English word "rapture" was not used, neither was the rest of the Bible originally written in English. Rapture alludes to the concept of being literally and bodily "caught up" to heaven.
I don't care what you believe or don't, but to say the rapture isn't biblical at all is simply not truthful. The Churches of Christ may disagree (or not; I really have no idea), but rapture theology is so common among other mainstream denominations (Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Southern Baptist, etc., etc.) as to be considered as "biblical" as any other part of the Bible.
Maybe I should be more specific. The rapture theory is not biblical in the sense that Christ will not be returning until after the tribulation of the Antichrist. After which, upon his return, we will all be changed in a twinkling of an eye into our spiritual bodies. If you prefer to call our gathering back to him a rapture then call it a rapture. The 'rapture theorists" believe that all the good little Christians are going to be removed from the earth prior to the arrival of the Antichrist. This is not biblical. I made a video regarding the end times and the sequence of events. Here it is if you have any interest at all in this subject.
Early in this discussion, you may remember that I said, "On behalf of athiests of good will everywhere, I apologize for Bart’s vulgarity." The reason I phrased it that way is because I, too, am an athiest… and, though I don't believe a word of it myself, have already provided detailed biblical references supporting rapture theology.
Thanks for the stimulating conversation but, having gotten much more involved in this discussion than I had originally intended, I must leave you to your own devices.
Well it has been interesting conversing with you. If my conversation lead you to the word of God then it was worth my time. Even if you do not believe it ……now. You see, once his word is put out, be it in thought or in quotation it does not return vain. Bye!