More Religious Insanity From The Us Of A

[Vadrosaul]

I will add even more insanity, this time in the form of judgement day beliefs: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/070313/...gion_rapture_dc

[OrbWeaver]

I think the Rapture sounds like a great idea. It would be better if they could be persuaded to kill themselves rather than wait for God to do it though.

 

Memetic warfare, it's the future.

[Maximius]

A little math problem from the adult education teacher. 20% of Christians believe in the Rapture. 20% expressed as a fraction is 1/5. So one in five Christians believes in the Rapture. One in five believe they will be teleported up to heaven by God. One in five. 1 2 3 4 >5<.

 

 

 

 

I must be losing my mind. Please tell me I'm losing my mind. Please.

Edited March 14, 2007 by Maximius

[Maximius]

I think the Rapture sounds like a great idea. It would be better if they could be persuaded to kill themselves rather than wait for God to do it though.

 

Memetic warfare, it's the future.

 

 

You hit your home town, I'll hit Philly. Dress up like God, think Gandalf without the staff or sword or belt, and find a fundamentalist Christian church. Then, standing on a nearby high point if possible, address the congregation as they leave. Try a megaphone for the best effect and some recorded trumpets. Even crude background lighting can add to the impression immensely.

 

Command them that the Rapture is here, but with a twist, its taking place in the bottom of the Mariners Trench. If they want on board the Fathership, it awaits them at the bottom of the briny sea. Call it a last test of faith or something, remind them of Abraham and Isaac if they are skittish.

 

The way I figure it, if 1/5 of all Christians are Rapturists (the ratio may vary in England but you can still do good work!) than some subset of that group has to be gullible enough to believe you. Then, its simply a matter of convincing them the Earth is round and then pointing them towards the nearest shoreline!

[Vadrosaul]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7goqLxPbEQ

[Nyarlathotep]

I think what scares me more is that our fearless leader is actually trying to hasten the rapture.

 

Lol. Well for the record, I was just trying to reconstruct OHB's position based on what (I thought) he said. It didn't sound like textbook Marxism to me.

That's because it isn't. Maximus is quite right; very little of what Marxism is today has much, if at all, to do with Marx himself. Our favorite Hammerite covered a great deal of Marx's Communist Manifesto in his posts, specifically, everything leading up to the proletariat revolution. His main point of disagreement with Marx is whether Communism is indeed that more optimal society. Marx is in fact very similar to Kant, with his "enlightened society." Marx opines that this enlightened society is communism, and that it can only be achieved through revolution ( unlike Kant's "question but obey").

 

I didn't represent my own thinking so much, though, esp since I was kind of caricaturizing the arguments.

That's what I did with our Hammerite friend. With very minimal twisting of his words, I showed that he was following a very similar path to the first part of the Communist Manifesto.

 

I also studied Marxism a bit, just to see if I could understand it, and have always been a little bi-curious with the left and right.

Bi-curious is definitely not the word to use there, buddy, especially given that being "bi-curious" about the political right implies a contradiction in terms.

 

I'll see if I can put together a good response to your post that better reflects my own thinking, Max.

I'd much rather we stick to topic, at least within this thread. There's so much to mock about religion in the U.S.!

[SplaTtzZ]

Heh, I daresay the reason that the other 80% of Christians don't believe in the rapture is so they can stay behind and 'make sure' that everyone else does. Trust me, I've got a completely reliable source regarding this matter, it's all here in these books.

 

Wow, they even made a video game about this crap.

Edited March 15, 2007 by SplaTtzZ

[Nyarlathotep]

What scares me is the fact that most of the people that believe in the Rapture actually believe it would be a good thing that it came within their lifetime. Even minimal logic would suggest otherwise:

 

The Rapture cannot possibly ascend more people than those who are not already saved or would become saved had they been given the time. The latter is arguable, as the Rapture is stated to only ascend those who were already Christian. As many who become saved are not initially Christian, nor do all or even most Christians become saved themselves.

 

While I do not claim to be an expert on Armageddon in theology, I do believe that the Rapture marks the point where no more souls will go to heaven. If I am indeed correct about this, this implies that the Rapture occurring will prevent some hundreds of billions of souls (the thousand or so years of rule) from being given the chance to be saved. This implies that invariably more souls will be saved from the Rapture being postponed indefinitely than there could possibly be by it occurring in our lifetimes (or anyone's, technically).

[SplaTtzZ]

Nyarlathotep, what you say makes perfect sense. However it is my understanding (and is what I was taught) that the Rapture will only ever occur once all living souls on the planet have either heard of or had the chance to seek Jesus Christ as their saviour. Doesn't really make much sense to me now, and it didn't make any sense back when I was told that is what would occur. I think it's more just a convenient excuse to bypass the question 'What about all the innocent souls who don't know who Jesus is? Say natives in the wilds of Papua New Guinea or something.' It also doesn't really help explain what will happen to people before Christ was born, or natives who died pre-colonial America or any number of similar cases; I suppose they all just burn in hell.

 

Anyway my point is that the rapture isn't scary to Christians because everyone will have already had their chance supposedly; and only deserving and worthy christians will enter the kingdom of heaven. Seems like there's alot of holes in the theory, but thats what non-demoninational christians told me; I don't think it's representative of Catholic canon though. I've often found the 2 'sects' to be remarkably different in their views.

[demagogue]

Bi-curious is definitely not the word to use there, buddy, especially given that being "bi-curious" about the political right implies a contradiction in terms.

 

Au contrair, that's the beauty of the term in that context. Anyway, I know more gay republicans than democrats, to be honest ... it may be a contradiction in terms in the South, but in NYC it's quite common (with the wall street crowd). The point is that I have opinions that can be consistent with both the left and right (depending on the issue), and for me it's not a scitzophrenic position at all but quite cohearent in my mind, although I realize that orthodox types from either side might not be comfortable with it or understand what I'm on about. So the analogy made sense to me.

 

As for off-topic, I don't know. Lots of people have considered communism more like a religion -- with its stretched, epic metaphysical claims -- than a political theory ... so it's not so out of place. But I guess I could just start a new thread on it.

 

As for all this jibbing and jabbing at religion in this thread. I was going to post in the "religious debate" thread a reply, and I could here but don't have much time to spend on it now. I think I could sum it up in four words

from a book title I saw recently: Religion isn't about God. More specifically, it isn't about unsupportable metaphysical claims ... heaven, God, the soul, the rapture ... Religious people surely use these terms, but from my perspective they are actually talking about something in their own experience about themselves, the universe, and other people ... not something literally "out there" in the universe (which anyway would *still* have to have access to people's experience or it could never be God or any thing else "spiritual"; the buck will always stop with experience, so why not focus all the attention on that?). The only really necessary metaphysical condition IMO for most religious ideas at their core is that the mind have a transcendental relationship to the world and other people, and that's a pretty easy sell... It just means the mind doesn't have immediate, unfiltered access to information about the world; any information has to be filtered through a system that invariably imposes some meaning or value on it.

 

The fact that the core of religion isn't really about wacky metaphysical claims render most of the whining about religion ITT irrelevant. The real challenge is to focus on the core experiences that religious people are really referring to in religious talk (whether they themselves realize it or not), and on that count I think this and the other thread is getting low marks. But I realize I'll need to give some examples to show what I'm talking about. I'll have to do that in another post.

 

I also realize that there's plenty to say by focusing on the metaphysical claims of religious people confused about what they are actually talking about (IMO), for entertainment or cultural-education purposes or whatever. But from my perspective it's sort of missing the point about what religion is really about, what experiences are really grounding it, which is the interesting question for me.

Edited March 15, 2007 by demagogue

[Crispy]

but from my perspective it's sort of missing the point about what religion is really about.

What it should be about, maybe. But I think (based on what they say) that a lot of religious people do think that religion is about God.

[Domarius]

'What about all the innocent souls who don't know who Jesus is? Say natives in the wilds of Papua New Guinea or something.'

Well if you care about them, then you better get out there and start preaching! Obviously the ultimate goal is to get everyone in the vice grip *cough* I mean loving embrace, of Christianity!

 

 

This cartoon is about the bible story about Sodom and Gamorah (sp)

http://www.superdeluxe.com/sd/contentDetai...B3A52CB005FA7D7

[Maximius]

But from my perspective it's sort of missing the point about what religion is really about, what experiences are really grounding it, which is the interesting question for me.

 

 

These are some interesting points, lets start that discussion thread. But remember too demo, this is a lot of ranting by athiests and our fellow travelers on believers, not a discussion of the topic. It feels good to vent some steam, I work with predominantly Christian people and my students are Muslim and Christian. All day long I have to listen to that crap. Sometimes, you have to scream a little yourself.

[Macsen]

Was I the only one slightly angry when reading the Book of Revelation? They could have used spoiler tags!

 

However, there's a simple way to disprove the rapture. The Bible says the rapture will come to Earth like a thief in the night - but it's only night on half the Earth at any given time! So Rapture = Incorrect!

[Nyarlathotep]

Nyarlathotep, what you say makes perfect sense. However it is my understanding (and is what I was taught) that the Rapture will only ever occur once all living souls on the planet have either heard of or had the chance to seek Jesus Christ as their saviour.

If it's strictly the latter, the Rapture cannot come for at least another thirty or so years. The only way Christianity can achieve the needed penetration is through the penetration of advanced communications technologies, such as satellite phones, wireless internet, and the completion of the project that intends to supply a computer with broadband access to every village, in currently low-tech areas (Sub-Saharan Africa, Indonesia, the majority of India, et al). I suspect that the needed near 100% penetration (compare to the current 1% that the internet represents) of such technologies can theoretically be achieved by the mid 2030's, but I suspect that universal penetration can only be practically achieved through molecular nanotechnology (specifically nanofactories). Given that that technology is minimally ~15 years away from full prototype (by the most optimistic estimate) and more likely 30 to 50 years away, this sets a lower limit for when the Rapture could occur.

 

On the other hand, the former (having heard of Christ) still allows for many, many souls to "go wasted." In fact, it's still just as susceptible to my argument about delaying the Rapture. While I make no claims on the soundness of my argument, what you stated by no means affects it. However, when I asked a couple of my Christian friends about the Rapture, I got conflicting answers: 1. the bible says nothing about whether you can be saved after the Rapture, or 2. everyone (potentially including the Raptured Christians) is judged after Armageddon. Obviously, the latter provides a somewhat acceptable way out--damn.

 

Doesn't really make much sense to me now, and it didn't make any sense back when I was told that is what would occur. I think it's more just a convenient excuse to bypass the question 'What about all the innocent souls who don't know who Jesus is? Say natives in the wilds of Papua New Guinea or something.' It also doesn't really help explain what will happen to people before Christ was born, or natives who died pre-colonial America or any number of similar cases; I suppose they all just burn in hell.

No, that stuff is generally handled separately from the Rapture. Either those "innocents" go to heaven (based strictly on one's deeds, rather than non-existent Christian belief), or they go to hell, but generally a "lesser" hell or punishment, e.g., Dante's first circle of hell.

 

Anyway my point is that the rapture isn't scary to Christians because everyone will have already had their chance supposedly; and only deserving and worthy christians will enter the kingdom of heaven. Seems like there's alot of holes in the theory, but thats what non-demoninational christians told me; I don't think it's representative of Catholic canon though. I've often found the 2 'sects' to be remarkably different in their views.

It's still crazy, either way.

[SneaksieDave]

I did a search to try and find "the" thread for this, but then I realized there are several.

 

Well anyway, I picked this one, and here's the perfect sift for it. I'm only halfway through, and it does seem so far to not alienate either side too much (even though you can kinda see where the writer is going with it), but I think the proportions might be a bit off. I wonder if they're going to do the opposite setup next?

 

http://www.videosift.com/video/An-atheist-...ans-for-30-days

 

Edit: Yikes, I spoke too soon - it starts getting heated (and sided) at the atheist cafe near the halfway point.

[Domarius]

Holy crap! (Excuse the pun)

 

(quote from the video)

"In a recent University of Minnesota study measuring attitudes about minority groups, Americans ranked athiest as the single least trusted group of people in the country. In fact, athiests were listed below Muslims, recent immigrants, and homosexuals, in terms of sharing America's vision of society.

 

Out of anyone their kids could end up with, parents said they dissaproved the most if their children married an athiest. And half of the country won't vote for a politition who doesn't belive in God, even if that polititian is well qualified for office."

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

That IS alarming. They should perhaps be educated on the atheism of the great people who made America and the great scientists and artists of the past.

[Domarius]

And as someone said in the video comments down the page, too bad the Christian father is such a doughnut. Instantly on the offensive, and I quote "If you don't like it here [Christianity in America] then move."

 

His wife seems a bit more sensible.

*edit* haha, she even defends the athiest lady from her husband at one point. He's just a dick.

[Domarius]

More good quotes;

 

"'In God we trust' wasn't actually added to the dollar bills until 1957, a year after the country adopted the phrase as their national motto, in the midst of the communism scare.

 

And 'under God' wasn't always a part of the pledge of alleigance. Congress added that in 1954.

 

In 2005, some Christian groups launched a campaign to install monuments of the 10 commandments in public parks, town halls, and court houses, to promote moral behaviour. And athiests are up in arms over religious symbols on public lands, for what they feel is a direct violation of the 1st ammendment, dictating a seperation of church and state."

 

Not sure I agree with the issue presented in the vid - the particular case of erecting crosses to show where state troopers lost their lives in the line of duty, the trooper says its not religous, its because people instantly recognise that it means someone died there. I think the rounded gravestone look is more generally recognised between cultures.

[oDDity]

I think the scary thing is that a man could no longer be elected president of the US if he had declared himself an atheist, when you consider that some of the famous presidents of the past were atheists.

[Maximius]

Whats truly scary is the degree of mushiness in terms of superstitious beliefs amongst some of the most highly educated technically advanced people over here. I dont know how it is in Europe, but over here we have a significant portion of our scientific community talking about the need to respect faith as a form of knowledge, about how you can have both a scientific model of the world and still believe in hocus pocus shit.

 

I used to work with a guy, degrees in astrophysics and (even more unbelievably) philosophy who was a Christian. We got along pretty well but were careful to avoid *that* particular conversation. He could brow beat our colleagues about his faith but he knew better than to fuck with me.

 

To my thinking, this individual is little more than a technician, not a scientist or even a student of science. If you have any understanding of the scientific method, you can instantly see how it dissolves belief systems based on faith, let alone disintegrating the silly particular beliefs involved. How do these people get so far without these contradictions exploding in their faces?

[sparhawk]

The same way that concentration camp soldiers were killing thousands of innocent people, while maintaining their selfimage being a good guy. By splitting.

[OrbWeaver]

To my thinking, this individual is little more than a technician, not a scientist or even a student of science. If you have any understanding of the scientific method, you can instantly see how it dissolves belief systems based on faith, let alone disintegrating the silly particular beliefs involved. How do these people get so far without these contradictions exploding in their faces?

 

Dawkins was asked that question during an interview I saw about the God Delusion -- basically he said it was a form of "compartmentalisation", although he (Dawkins) wasn't personally able to understand it.

[Nyarlathotep]

I think the scary thing is that a man could no longer be elected president of the US if he had declared himself an atheist, when you consider that some of the famous presidents of the past were atheists.

You don't mean U.S. presidents, do you? I think the closest we've ever had was a couple of Deists. (Indeed, Thomas Payne, a famous Deist, was spurned as an "atheist" by the populace.)