Kristof: Jesus and Jihad (Why aren't Fundie Left Behind books criticized?)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/17/opinion/17KRIS.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

If the latest in the "Left Behind" series of evangelical thrillers is to be believed, Jesus will return to Earth, gather non-Christians to his left and toss them into everlasting fire:

"Jesus merely raised one hand a few inches and a yawning chasm opened in the earth, stretching far and wide enough to swallow all of them. They tumbled in, howling and screeching, but their wailing was soon quashed and all was silent when the earth closed itself again."

These are the best-selling novels for adults in the United States, and they have sold more than 60 million copies worldwide. The latest is "Glorious Appearing," which has Jesus returning to Earth to wipe all non-Christians from the planet. It's disconcerting to find ethnic cleansing celebrated as the height of piety.

If a Muslim were to write an Islamic version of "Glorious Appearing" and publish it in Saudi Arabia, jubilantly describing a massacre of millions of non-Muslims by God, we would have a fit. We have quite properly linked the fundamentalist religious tracts of Islam with the intolerance they nurture, and it's time to remove the motes from our own eyes.

[NMDemDist2]

1. no kidding what a load of crap

and these are the guys that are running the show :(

[xray s]

2. "Jesus will return to Earth, gather non-Christians to his left and toss...

...them into everlasting fire."

Substitute "non-Aryans" for "non-Christians" and you will find the real source of inspiration for the Left Behind books.

Every fascist regime needs its myths to hypnotize its sheep to ignore the horror that surrounds them...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2009488

[gmoney]

3. Agreed.

Thanks for the link...

Here we are in the dark ages, again.

[LoZoccolo]

4. Well, I think people are used to the fact that...

...Islam, like Christianity, makes universal claims and describes punishments for people who don't follow the religion, like hundreds of other religions do. I don't think I'd be surprised if they or the Mormons or the Scientologists or whoever published what amounted to a dramatization or embellishment of one of their texts. Dante's Inferno is another one and you don't see people really concerned that it's still read in literature classes.

[cliss]

5. These ridiculous books are dangerous, and here's why:

At my office, I have a co-worker who spends her lunch hour reading this stuff. I could see very clearly what the title of the book was: one of the "Left Behind" series. I was curious as to what this thrilling novel was about. When I got the scoop, I was pretty disgusted.

This young lady was SO enthralled that when the Day of Armageddon comes, she (as a Christian) will be lifted out of her clothes and be whisked away to heaven. The rest of us (I guess that means me) will be "Left Behind" in a world of evil and chaos.

But they get to come back! I think we get a second chance. But that's it. After that, no more chances. We're stuck.

The reason why these books are so dangerous is because they instill a culture of laziness, and pathos. "The world's coming to an end anyway, so why should I worry about the environment, or even my huge debt load? Sure enough, this young lady has a lot of debts.

And why should I work on myself, when it won't be necessary pretty soon?

This is a culture of laziness, and dangerous avoidance of responsibility.

[glitch]

8. Exactly - an addiction, a perfect substitute for drugs or alcohol

This is why so many former drug and alcohol addicts 'reform' to this type of belief system. They're still safe from ever having to take responsibility for their lives. Or go through the hard work of making a difficult decision based on actually determining facts.

They'll never have to grow up and live in an adult world, just pretend.

And no one can point out they are pretending, because they have the cover of all the genuine religions. IMO A genuine religion is one where people do take responsibility for their lives, do agonize over difficult decisions, do help others and do try to make life better here on earth.

Look how well Bush passes as an adult in America.

[Wilber_Stool]

6. Remember what " * " said when he was asked

"How would history remember his administration?"
He said" What difference does it make. We'll all be dead." That was a paraphrase but it's close enough.

[varun]

7. What crap!

And this is one of the most popular books in Middle Amerikkka?

:puke:

Do they realize that Christians make up less than 25% of the world population?

[shockingelk]

9. Jesus supports President Bush

Maybe some fundies would say the books just illustrate Jesus' support of the Bush Doctrine.

[kindamoderate]

10. As a bit of an aside...

I'm not writing this to antagonize, excuse, or offend any party involved in this debate. The reason for this post is to avoid, or correct, the ridiculous attacks made against religion, specifically Christianity. I have not read the Left Behind books, so this should not be read purely as an apology or explanation for the books, but rather as a plea for the understanding of "fundamentalist" Christianity.
There has been a tradition in some circles of associating religious fundamentalism with violence. For this particular situation, I would like to clarify terms by suggesting that fundamentalism is the exclusive belief in one's own religion, generally supported by a literal reading of the religion's associated scriptures.
This intrinsically requires that the group in question believe that other faiths are false, insofar as they disagree with the believer's religion. This isn't some insane jog through "uber-racist-ville" as some would like to make it, it's simply a logical law (i.e. two conflicting ideas can't both be true, although both could be false.)
Some use a definition that fundamentalism is a violent wish to proselytize one's faith with violence, but I do not, using a different definition.
The true Christian fundamentalist follows Christ's teaching, and thus is inherently non-violent. Christian fundamentalism also requires a belief that all non-believers are, unfortunately, unsaved and going to hell.
However, and this is really the crux of it, this does not motivate an all-out hatred for unbelievers: it instead instills a desire to help those outside of salvation. This has biblical support-many accounts exist of saints laying down their lives for those who do not believe them.
This is different from the Islamic Fundamentalism that we are accustomed to. This brand of fundamentalism is associated with violence, something that I do not support.
In closing, I'd like to apologize for any mistakes in spelling/grammer, and also for typos or anything else that obscures the meaning of this. Sorry if I accidentally said something I did not mean to, as I wrote this in spurts and that sort of thing is prone to all sorts of ills.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[myopic4141]

13. Absolute Truth

It is the tunnel vision aspect of absolute truth that leads to the inadequate analysis of consequences to action. Absolute truths inhibit compromise in negotiations via creating invariant positions. These invariants are formed because absolute truth does not recognize information that would modify the truth due to the definition of "absolute". To do so (recognize deviant information) violates the definition. The paradox "the only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths" is a good illustration of the non-existence of absolute truth. Instead, every truth has a greater truth in order to accommodate any new information that would come to the forefront which may modify the original truth. The best way to describe this phenomenon would be a friends inverse (upside down) pyramid analogy. Under non-absolute truth, when new information is discovered, the analysis begins from a single point to traverse through an ever expanding field of information until it either arrives at an established niche (supports a truth) or creates a new niche (brings to bare a new truth or modifies an existing truth). With absolute truth, the analysis begins from a broad base of niches and traverses through an ever narrowing field of information until it either fits within the defined absolute truth or is to be discarded. Problems arise in the latter due to some information being non-discardable. In these cases, convoluted logic or ill defined descriptions are used to hide any discrepancies.
The important factor which leads to narrowness of vision in an absolute truth analysis is the discarding of information that does not fit the predefined absolute truth. At least with convolution or ill definition, the new information annoyingly works its way in to become a part of an absolute truth (the truth was not as absolute as one previously thought; but, will not admit it). New information brings new implications to ponder which leads to a better understanding of situations which may in turn bring in new information. An ever refining process. The greater understanding leads to greater predictability of consequences from actions. There are times when decisions need to be made with limited understanding; but, the more openness of the mind, the less the periods of limited understanding.
Peaceful coexistence is achieved via non-hostile conflict resolution. It should be noted that conflicts will occur when opposing views and/or needs come together. The alternative to peaceful coexistence is obliteration of the competition from hostile conflict resolution. The answer to non-hostile conflict resolution is compromise (the true art of politics). The question is how to compromise from an absolute truth position given its inherent intransigence. Any individuals entering into negotiations from an absolute truth position cannot compromise because to do so would be tacitly admitting they do not have the absolute truth. As a result, a hostile rather than peaceful environment is created due to the intransigent position. Hostile environments lead to hostile actions which ultimately lead to violence. Religious fundamentalism is an absolute truth position; therefore, its intransigence will usually lead to violence under conflict resolution more often than not. That is just the nature of the beast whether or not supports violence.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

15. So what do fundamentalists make of

Romans 2:12-16, in which Paul says that righteous pagans are saved by the law that is inscribed on their hearts?

[Bridget Burke]

18. Christians Good, Muslims Bad

Yes, I got your message.

[Classical_Liberal]

22. How is criticizing this book an attack on religion

The book makes a hero of a leader who nukes bagdad. I agree a real biblical literalist wouldn't do that, but these are christofascists. They selectively read the bible and give it the most violent interpretations imaginable.

Furthermore Islam has the same urge to convert rather than kill as christianity.

[myopic4141]

11. Plan E

The evolution of the messiah as written by the apocalyptic writers is very interesting of one were to take the time to study it. The very early writers (around had expected God to descend, smite the "Powers of Darkness" (POD), and raise Jerusalem into the Kingdom of Heaven. Over time, the expectation became that a deputy of God (an angel) would descend to wage the war with the POD and then raise Jerusalem into the Kingdom of Heaven. Later, the angel was replaced by the return of Moses. This was followed by an anointed pair (a priest and a king) and finally, (Plan E), the Messiah was settled on around 60 BCE (Before Common Era). One item in common at the time of these writings would be that the war against the POD would be successful and that Jerusalem would be raised into the Kingdom of Heaven. Failure never came up during any part of the evolution. Quite a shock when the Messiah supposedly arrived and neither the war against the POD occurred (let alone won) nor was Jerusalem raised into the Kingdom of Heaven. In short, the prophecy failed if one kept in step with the writers of the time; however, there was a mad scramble to change the nuance of the scriptures so that a failure was predicted. What is in the scriptures of today does not agree with the commentary writings of that era.
Here is another interesting tidbit. There was no organized body of religious doctrine taught in pre-Maccabean Jerusalem. The theological casuistry, such as the distinction between fearing and loving God, came later as an offshoot of Greek dialectics in the second century CE (Common Era) and was more influenced by the Greek than three centuries before.
A good source for this and others is "The Jews in the Greek Age" by Elias J. Bickerman, a scholar of Judaism in Greaco-Roman antiquity. In the book are references to other readings for those of greater interest.

[Th1onein]

14. Have you ever read one of these books? I have......

Really, REALLY bad writing. And what amazes me is that the people who read them think that it is good writing! They "can't put them down."

[RamboLiberal]

16. Agree - the writing is so bad I couldn't read much

I tried to read one in the bookstore to see what all the fuss was about - but the writing is so bad I couldn't stomach just that alone.

[Sugarbleus]

17. I am a reformed Fundie.........I no longer subscribed to that

religious sect. I was in the non stop reading mode at one point and needed another book to devour. I was in costco and saw the first left behind book. I saw that it was written by a fundie but thumbed through it to see "how" it was written. It was written as an allegory so I picked it up. I read the next book too. Yeah, so I'm not a reader of profound literature.

Anyway, I didn't buy any more books and forgot about it. Then Bush got appointed and I started a long research marathon. In my political and religious research I discovered what was/is wrong with the sect I once loved. I learned that I was "supporting", by buying anything associated with this sect/movement, the neocons. I learned what a lunatic Tim LaHaye and his cohort are. (I actually wrote to him and to his wife Beverley to tell them so, in so many words)

When it came time to clean house one day, I took those books outside and threw them into the garbage!(I would have burned them but we have fire regulations). I hate throwing books away, rather passing them along, but not this series. It is in error and it is misleading and it has caused many people to go brain dead to the real everyday facts. The same goes for Hal Lindsey.

On the other hand, I do remember the fellow who wrote about Islam:
"The Satanic Verses". He was chased from his homeland and went into hiding for his book. I don't remember what became of him. I guess I'm saying that people have a right to write whatever they want. But it is interesting that no one brings the subject of the Left Behind series up very often, especially since the neofascists seem to use it like a bible.

[seasat]

19. The premise of the book gets me.

The Left Behind series assumes that a charismatic Eastern European diplomat ends up taking over the UN and imposing a "New World Order". This guy turns out to be the antichrist. However, assuming a similar interpretation of Revelation, why couldn't it be a large multinational corporation that rules the world? With globalization and the consolidation of large corporations, this seems just as likely if not more likely. How about a powerful country that starts wars and bullies other countries and is headed by a leader that followers have a blind devotion to? (Gee, who would fit that bill?) Ask someone these questions when they start talking about the Left Behind series.

[young_at_heart]

20. I saw the authors on Larry King a couple years ago........DISGUSTING!

Larry was very deferential and condescending. I had never heard of them before so I was curious to see what this was all about. When I finally got the gist I was horrified at the legitimacy given these over-the-top men. When the latest book came out there was a line at our bookstore (mostly older women), acting as though these writers have a personal relationship with God!

[UrbScotty]

21. Well, the Jesus I know likely wouldn't do that.

Jesus LOVES all of us. Including, yes, bin Laden, Bush, and you and me.