I just followed this link from The New Atheist: The Troubling Worldview of the ‘Rapture-Ready’ Christian. If it doesn’t scare you at least a little, I don’t see what could.
The article is written by a Christian pastor, by the way. And even he is disturbed by the “Rapture-Ready” Christians.
I have never met any in person (it seems to be a mostly US-based phenomenon, and I live in Portugal), but I’ve read their writings, web pages and forums. And they’re a crazy bunch indeed - not really different from a “death cult” like Jim Jones’. The problem is that, unlike those cults, they’re not seen as obvious lunatics by other Christians; they see them as more devout, with different priorities, but, since they say the words “Jesus Christ” so often, people are reticent to say that they’re actually a problem.
And another problem is that, like the article above says, they have the ear of the White House, and influence foreign policy.
According to those people, the world is supposed to get worse and worse, until all Christians are “raptured”; then the real End Times will follow, according to Revelations; it will be pretty bad for those still on Earth, but eventually Jesus will come back.
So, if it’s supposed to get worse before it gets better, then trying to prevent things from getting worse is… going against God’s plan! After all, by trying to have any semblance of peace in the Middle East, or by fighting disease, pollution and global warming, you are simply delaying the Rapture.
Let me say it in another way: according to that kind of Christians, there is no reason to try and make the world a better place. Either for them, or for their children (actually, they tend to expect the Rapture during their lives, so there’s really no need to think of the future, since, to them, there isn’t one). There’s no point in peace talks, medicine, “green” power, and all that. The world is supposed to “go to hell”, but Christians are “raptured” to a safe place, and the ones who remain on Earth are mostly damned anyway.
And, if you disagree with them, you’re not a “real Christian”, of course.
Now, I don’t want to (re)start any conspiracy theories here, but just think about how conservatives have, for decades, denied the reality of global warming, for instance. Or how they’ve started a war in the Middle East, and are already talking about the next one (Iran). How they ban many promising avenues of medical research, due to their religious beliefs.
See what I mean?
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
Great… thanks for giving me more fuel for my nightmares.
How can we counter these people? I do not think there is any way. They explain away, deny, or simply ignore any evidence that runs contrary to their faith.
Given the way things are going in the US… particularly with GWB giving himself more and more power (have you read some of his executive orders? they are truly frightening!)… my wife and I actually had our first semi-serious conversation about leaving. She has dual citizenship with another country that we might try to use.
At any rate, the sadness of the US is that in our effort to say that everyone has freedom of speech (unless you are in the military apparently) it is implied that all viewpoints carry equal weight. That is why, I think, people are reluctant to criticize these Christians.
We live in a scary world.
Here’s the problem: this stuff is all in the Bible, so, technically, ANY Christian who accepts the Bible as the infallible World of God by definition accepts the Rapture, at least in concept. It’s only a few, in theory, who make it the central tenet of their faith, but Christianity is, in the end, a messianic cult. So, by the way, is Judaism (the Jews are still awaiting the Messiah, which is for all practical purposes the same thing, since he will defeat their enemies and set up his kingdom upon the earth). So is Islam. The upshot is that, basically, all religions are fucked, because all religions are by nature exclusive: you either one of us or one of them.
You can count me in the “Not a Real Christian” group then.
These people haven’t even began to understand what they are reading (or, more likely, having “read” to them). They are a danger.
Jim, countering them? Well, first you talk to them. Then, if that doesn’t work… You kill them (not murder) and, at least if your me, you ask for forgiveness. Yes, I’m still attached to my life.
The point I take from the rapture is this…. Nothing lasts forever, not us and not the planet. Hope I’m wrong but I don’t think so.
Daryl…
‘Kill them’ seems a bit extreme, don’t you think? And what is your definition of murder? Or do you think killing them is more of a mercy killing?
Personally I would be happy if they left me alone… but then that is the rub. There ‘faith’ requires them to get in my face.
Jim,
That is why step one is to talk to them. To offer them alternatives. When I am attacked I believe the first step, if time allows, is to simply say “hey, let’s not do this…..”.
Not a dictionary definition but… Murder is basically killing without due cause. I consider threatening my right to live, or that of another, due cause.
Daryl,
If you could reason with them, they would not be “faithful.” Religion and reason are of course always at odds since reason tells us of reality and religion tells us only of illusion.
Sure you could talk to them anyway, but it would be infinitely more effective and productive to talk to a stone at the bottom of the ocean. The stone has a greater degree of willingness to listen to reason and ability to learn.
Good post Pedro,
To be honest I am not surprised at all. This has been going on for awhile, and in fact was just as active as when I was in church. I find it funny, that the “Left Behind” series is just now getting public attention even though it’s been around for at least 15 years, and boy was that some bad acting LOL.
TXStorm,
I would only going to talk to them so I could say “I tried to reason with them”. It’s not so much for them ;>. I don’t think I could consider them faithful from any reasonable understanding of their belief system, no matter how poorly they understand it.
I understand that you, and many others on this site, feel that religion only deals with illusion. However, I think a statement like that can not be supported with logic. Mainly because you say “only” not, sometimes, usually, or even most of the time.
There is a lot of very good information about reality contained in the world’s religions. It just isn’t written in a way scientists find conducive to their belief systems.
You see, I believe if you look God will show “Himself” to you. He just won’t look like anything anyone has been describing to you. For example, He might not be the completely seperate entity most perceive It to be. But, when you teach the masses about anything complex, you always, always have to make it simple enough to be understood at some level.
Yes, these people are over the top. There are a few congregations of them around here who have memberships in the thousands (not common in Connecticut). There seem to be a lot of people who need to feel they are completely right and that their Guy in the Sky god will rescue them from all the wrong people. It’s sad and very scary because it is a brand of fanaticism. Is it an American phenomenon? I wouldn’t be surprised. With an “I call the shots” president as their on-earth leader who won’t hear criticism or debate, they’re in the right place right now.
No Daryl this has nothing to do with “Feeling” one way or the other about religion, it is about clear demonstrable facts. That you try to salvage religion by trying to redefine the word “reality” to include that which cannot exist, that which is self-contradictory, and that which is at best wishful thinking for which there is no evidence whatsoever, or worse yet that for which there is direct counter-evidence, speaks only to the lengths that you will go to try to salvage the long dead notion. Neither cpr nor your equivocation can save it.
TXStorm,
I think you missed the point, perhaps intentionally. I said before, the use of the word only is a bit big. For example, there is at least some supporting evidence that Jesus existed as a person or, if you prefer, that Buddha existed as a person. But, that is not the total extent of the point that religions don’t “only” deal with fantasy, etc.
Also, once again your tone is condescending and childish. I will not let you pull me into that again. However, I will say that nothing you said even comes close to being an actual rational argument at all. You say I am trying to redefine reality. Well, my understanding of it is pretty simple. It IS what IS in actuality. What is being, what is happening, what exists, etc…
If you have another definition for it, good for you. But you definition cannot change what IS - regardless of what that is or whether we can understand it.
Buddhism is not itself a religion, and certainly not the cult of personality sort of belief system that xnty is. So the existence of Buddha in no way supports your conclusion. As for jebus, well so far no evidence has been found. There have been appeals to the some vague records of a rabbi who seemed to be a bit of a rabble rouser around the same century, but this is far from evidence of the existence of jebus himself. Furthermore the existence of the same sorts of stories in other revealed religions as well as extremely similar revealed religions preceeding xnty, lends a great deal of weight to the skepticism concerning the existence of any such entity.
As for how you choose to read my tone, this is naught but another ad hominem intended to distract from the complete absence of basis for your claims. As for your assertion that none of the sound refutations offered are rational, could you perhaps back up these baseless accusations with evidence? Can you employ agumentum ad absurdum? Can you clearly cite specific logical errors? CAn you point to even one false premise? These are the minimum necessary to demonstrate your claim that these arguments are not rational COULD be true. The same question applies here as to all of your other claims: Where is the evidence?
TXStorm,
Jesus is mentioned in records from both Jewish and Roman historians but that is not why I am writing.
I will accept responsibility for how I choose to read your tone however, you should take some responsibility for how you sound. To make some suggestion that it was intended to distract is simply a distraction you are employing. However, you seem to know everything and are completely unable to except an obvious mistatement on your part.
From dust you came and to dust you shall return. Ring of truth to you?
God Bless You
I am under no delussion of omniscience. If you will look back to the exchanges you are alone in your assumptions of knowing my life, my knowledge, my experiences, my mental states, and my choices infinitely better than I could. This is an example of the presumptions of omniscience which are behind your arguments. I can only comment on reality, those aspects of which I am knowledgable. We differ in that if I make a claim the truth of it is determined by reality, not strength of belief. You have thus far been completely unwilling to allow that reality cannot be in error, but instead place your belief into that position.
I have exactly no problem with having a mistatement of mine brought into the light. However you seem to be under the gross misunderstanding that your personal dislike for reality constitutes evidence of some mistatement on my part. As I asked previously, I ask again: Can you offer ANY evidence whatsoever for any of your claims? Or will you continue these ad hominem attacks in hopes of distracting from the issues and the complete absence of basis for your claims?
[quote post="213"]this is naught but another ad hominem intended to distract from the complete absence of basis for your claims[/quote]
Point of evidence one - you have made an assumption as to my motives - thereby declaring your omniscience of my intentions.
Point of evidence two
Sorry, hit the wrong button.
Point of evidence two:
[quote post="213"]If you could reason with them, they would not be “faithful.” Religion and reason are of course always at odds since reason tells us of reality and religion tells us only of illusion. [/quote]
The single word “only” makes the second sentence of this statement false. That is a misstatement on your part - period. If you don’t wish to conceed this we can go through the world’s major religions one at a time. Of course, you’ve already pulled Buddhism out of the mix because you say it is not, in itself a religion. Here is an exerpt from the definition of Buddhism at dictionary.reference.com
“a religion, originated in India by Buddha (Gautama) and later spreading to China, Burma, Japan, Tibet, and parts of southeast Asia,…”
So, From dust you came and to dust you shall return. Do you want to argue the basic validity of that statement?
[quote post="213"]That you try to salvage religion by trying to redefine the word “reality” to include that which cannot exist, that which is self-contradictory, and that which is at best wishful thinking for which there is no evidence whatsoever, or worse yet that for which there is direct counter-evidence, speaks only to the lengths that you will go to try to salvage the long dead notion. Neither cpr nor your equivocation can save it.[/quote]
That, my friend, is a big assumption and a very definite personal attack. Just another fine example of “attitude” I keep talking about.
I think you will be hard pressed to find me defining reality here at all. So, why don’t you show me what your talking about.
What is this thing that you think I believe in (in a word, I presume, God) and exactly what do you think my definition of it is?
Are you really so unfamiliar with the named errors of reasoning so as to not be aware that ad hominems are a subcategory of red herring? That is to say that you are denying or unaware that they are not addressing the issue, but rather drawing attention away from the issue?
[quote] Point of evidence two [quote]
It is customary to start with an instance before jumping to claiming a second, as well as being customary to have a single instance whenever claiming a new instance.
[quote] The single word “only” makes the second sentence of this statement false. [/quote]
You keep asserting this but seem unwilling or unable to support it. Without any evidence there remains no reason to accept it. Remember we are not your property or subjects who are forced to accept your decrees as law. We can apply reason and compare your claims to reality to determine the truth of them.
There is no personal attack present in the refutation of your argument presented. That you would assume otherwise necessitates that you believe that any refutation of your claims is a personal attack rather than what it actually is, a simple and sound refutation of your claims.
As for your definition, if there is a single one, so far I have relied upon your own statements and nothing more. I am not inclined to walk again down your garden paths or play the game that you are trying to play. I will stick to honest and civil intellectual discussion instead.
So still you have avoided offering any evidence for any of the claims. Care to address this? Also, I have suggested previously that since you have chosen to engage in distraction tactics. and personal attacks (as well as other red herrings) that we move this to the forum so as to not waste (or allow you to continue the effort to harm) the blog, care to follow up on that suggestion?
TXStorm,
I was about to try and educate you again but then I realized something. You are the only one that thinks what you say is actually true!
Good Day
Maybe a more formal approach.
I assert that the statement “from dust you came and to dust you will return” is true. I further assert that said statement, or a close proximity to said statement, can be found in the Bible. Therefore proving that the word “only” made your earlier sentence false.
Now, prove the statement “from dust you came and to dust you will return” false or acknowledge that you have an inconsistency in your earlier statement.
By the way, until you address this there really isn’t any point in me playing games with you. So, have at it.
Pots and kettles.. There is a grand irony that you take what is at best a tangential and poetic, but not factual, exerpt absolutly not crucial or in any fashion necessary to the religion and put it up as the entirety of the religion.
To make matters worse for your claims, even the religion contradicts this exerpt in asserting different origins in different parts of the “holy” texts.
So you see yet again that your claims have been fully addressed, despite the fact that you are not willing to show similar respect.
As for your choice to try to play games, we are in agreement that there is no point in your introducing more games or in continuing the games you have been playing. I am not fooled by them, and they serve no other purpose. I welcome your decision to quit playing games. On that note, would you care to offer evidence for your claims, and address the issues raised that you have thus far wholly ignored?
Allow me to suggest this again, it appears to me that the forum is far more suited to this exchange than is Pedro’s blog.
Sorry, There was nothing put up as the entirety of the religion. Your statement that it is not factual is not evidence of its lack of fact. If it holds up as representative of truth then, it cannot be logically said that the whole of religion has nothing to do with reality.
It is insulting for you to claim that I am playing games. That said, I do think (but don’t know) that you honestly believe that just as I honestly believe you to be playing games.
please direct me to the are on the forum where this conversation is better held.
I may point out once more that it appears you have decided to avoid the actual question. My “game” can be easily ended - prove it to be false.
http://forum.wayofthemind.org/
There are sub-topics where you could also introduce it, including but not limited to the “christianity” section.
As for your game playing, whether you are insulted by this objective fact or not is not of my concern and is wholly of your choice. You might as well be insulted by the fact that the earth is not flat (for all I know you ARE in fact insulted by this fact). I was specifically referring to your oft cited use of equivocation, strawman tactics, and other red herrings. These are game tactics, not a part of honest civil discussion therefore the apt observation concerning your use of games in response to your seeming acknowledgement that your choice to play games was pointless.
As for the proof, it has been offered repeatedly but you seem to be unwilling to allow the reality and reason can serve as proof that your claims are false. This takes us back to the already cited core problem that you assume your conclusions/claims/positions to be axiomatically true without even the logical possibility of falsification.
If you will recall several specific questions were asked in an effort to offer clarification as to why your claims are not merely false but in fact absurdly false, but thus far you have not shown the common courtesy which has been granted to you in spades, of answering any of these questions.
No, I don’t recall. However, if you could ask them again, in one post, in a numbered fashion so that I could not miss them, I will gladly address them.
However, if you mean, for example: “CAn you point to even one false premise?”
Well, I have repeatedly offered one statement which has yet to be addressed. “from dust you came and to dust you shall return”
Here yet again is one of the instances of addressing your failed “example.”
[quote] Pots and kettles.. There is a grand irony that you take what is at best a tangential and poetic, but not factual, exerpt absolutly not crucial or in any fashion necessary to the religion and put it up as the entirety of the religion.
To make matters worse for your claims, even the religion contradicts this exerpt in asserting different origins in different parts of the “holy” texts.
So you see yet again that your claims have been fully addressed, despite the fact that you are not willing to show similar respect.
[/quote]
Will you now consider honesty? Will you consider actually answering the questions for once? I am perfectly willing to grant to you the basic respect of recognizing that you have the ability to recognize the use of a question mark indicates a question has been asked and thus will not bother to insult you by repeating them yet again here. At that, I will leave off expecting your answers to the questions asked and the issues raised, if you choose to address either, to appear in the forum as clearly I am now as guilty as you in perpetuating, though equally clearly not initiating, this distraction from the blog topic.
TXStorm,
I won’t even bother. I don’t see the point in it. If anyone feels you are right, or that I am right, I’m happy for them.
As for my comments about your tone or motivations, you are completely correct. I can in no way know your motivations and should have kept my interpretations to myself. That doesn’t mean that my interpretations, incorrect or not, cannot have value.