Left Behind
discussion
its funny how they call this christian fiction...
Just because it is an extremely unreliable form of evidence does not discount it as evidence. Evidence for something also doesn't imply any sort of veracity towards or accuracy of a claim. Just as there is evidence for the Aristotelian view of Physics does not mean that Aristotelian Physics is accurate.In other words, just because a hypothesis is false does not imply it cannot have any evidence for it.
Xox wrote: "Shaun wrote: "There is, in fact, evidence for the Christian god. No proof, but lots of evidence. The many followers are evidence. The bible is evidence. Miracles recorded after the bible was writte..."Think of evidence vs. proof this way: In a trial one side (typically the one bringing charges or a civil suit) has the burden of proof. That burden of proof is met by having enough evidence to convince a jury.
Piltdown Man was a hoax that was uncovered because of science.
Kendra wrote: "Hmm. Have any of you ever read any other Christian fiction books? Just wondering. out of curiosity."Narnia is fine imo despite what Phillip Pullman said about it.
Some of Connie Willis' science fiction and Lyda Morehouse's fantasy/paranormal romance contain Christian elements and have heroic Christian (the liberal, universalist variety) protagonists, but I don't think they're ever marketed as Christian fiction. Connie Willis is self-identified as Lutheran/Congregationalist and Lyda Morehouse as Unitarian/eclectic Wiccan.
I've also heard of but haven't read Gene Woolf's Book of the New Sun and Mary Doria Russell's The Sparrow, both are said to be good science fiction with heavy Catholic influence.
Xdyj wrote: "Mary Doria Russell's The Sparrow, both are said to be good science fiction with heavy Catholic influence. "A very good book as is the sequel, Children of God.
Xox wrote: "No, haven't(sic) people thought someone is real when it is not, is not evidence in itself.Many people who worshiped Aphrodite, and built temple for her, would not be considered evidence that Aphrodite is real.
That's make no sense at all.
You might have confused about what is evidence and what is proof yourself.
Maybe this might help. "
The first line of your own link:
"Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion."
People have used "If he wasn't real, nobody would believe in him." as an argument for the existence of their God.
Ergo, by your own link, ye, it is evidence.
Its unreliable, paltry evidence, not even hearsay, but still evidence. Not proof, not by a million miles, but still evidence.
Xox wrote: "So, according to your logic, Aphrodite is god because there were thousands of worshipers. That's what you called as "evidence". That's nonsense."
Well, you are arguing against your own link, now. One has to wonder why you bothered posting it when you were going to disagree with it so quickly.
But vis Aphrodite, or any other god. I never made any claim that they existed. At no time did I state that. Read carefully. Evidence is NOT proof. My logic states only that there is evidence of a god called Aphrodite (or Thor, or...), not that there *is* a god called Aphrodite. It's an important distinction.
Xox wrote: "I see you are Discworld fan as well. So, is there evidence that the world is flat as there are so many people reading books on it?"
The Discworld books are not evidence of a flat earth, since they are acknowledged as fiction by their creator. And even if their creator insisted they were true, (which might happen one day, sadly) they wouldn't be evidence of a flat Earth, they'd be evidence of a flat Discworld.
There is, evidence for a flat earth, however. Your own eyes tell you that it is flat. That's evidence.
We have much better evidence that it is *not* flat, but that doesn't make the evidence of flatness not evidence. It makes it poor evidence, or false evidence, but not non-evidence.
Just like an eye-witness that placed you at the scene of a robbery would give that sighting as evidence. The fact that you have 50 eyewitnesses that place you 100 miles away at the time doesn't make his evidence non-evidence, it just makes it wrong.
So, even though we are talking about *evidence* not *proof* you believe something has to be true for it to be evidence?So, as soon as police have *evidence* of a crime against you, why bother with a trial? It must be true, or it wouldn't be called evidence, right?
Xox, in your example, if there were 50 people angry at you, that would be evidence that each of them were in an emotional position to want to harm you. You then look at further evidence to whittle down likely suspects. My other half has been pulled in by the police before because he looked like the description given of a perpetrator. So, based on the evidence given by the eyewitness, he was pulled in for questioning. That evidence of a physical description can also apply to other people, so the police use it as a way of narrowing down who to speak to. If no other evidence had come forward, my other half could easily have been arrested for something he didn't do. Luckily, he also had physical evidence that he was 500 miles away at the time the crime was committed. His evidence was a better form of evidence than the eyewitness description.In the case of god, people cite the bible as evidence. Well, it can be used as evidence, but we have a way of assessing the viability and usefulness of evidence. As we know, the two worst forms of evidence are eyewitness testimony and anecdotes. After that, you look at the evidence and decide its veracity. On inspection, the bible is an unreliable form of evidence for anything contained within it: there are no corresponding contemporary accounts of most of the events contained in it, the books are often written anonymously, despite having names attributed to them, and an unknown source is usually an unreliable source, and in its current form, is the result of generations of revision, addition, editing and translations, and none of what is contained was written by people alive at the times that they happened, and so are the altered and embellished oral stories of a people who were superstitious and mostly illiterate. As such, we can shelve it under "poor evidence", and move on to looking at other things. However, despite its poor status as evidence, people can still hold it up as evidence, and will continue to do so as long as people are taught that it contains truth, and put such stock in it, while ignoring the better evidence to the contrary. Also, the bible does provide some insight into some historical happenings, however, some of it being shown to be a fair account was only done so by finding corroborating evidence.
Basically, in any case, whether legal trial, or ideological debate, all sides lay their evidence down on the table, and it is assessed for its reliability. Some evidence is shown to be lacking, some to stand up to scrutiny, but as Shaun says, it all still counts as evidence.
And Shaun, thanks for fuelling my insomnia with this one ;)
basically, even shit evidence is considered to be evidence of a sort, even if we show it to be rubbish. It has to be presented as evidence first before it can be investigated
While I debate some of the extreme violence to the point the books go way too far sometimes. . . you have to realize, commenter, that the bible says the end of the world will be days the earth has never seen before. . . scary ones. And the only reason the "rest" are "left behind" are that people in the story are given a chance to turn to God before it becomes too late.
I love that interpretation. Somehow, in the "end times," there are those that get a second chance. Sucks for the non-believer that died right before the rapture. No second chance for him! Straight to the fiery depths of hell ye go!
Will wrote: "I love that interpretation. Somehow, in the "end times," there are those that get a second chance. Sucks for the non-believer that died right before the rapture. No second chance for him! Straight ..."As far as the religious right goes, it won't even matter for women...we are all sluts and going to hell anyway.
Mary wrote: "As far as the religious right goes, it won't even matter for women...we are all sluts and going to hell anyway."Where else do you think the Muslims get all of those vestal virgins from?
Will wrote: "Mary wrote: "As far as the religious right goes, it won't even matter for women...we are all sluts and going to hell anyway."Where else do you think the Muslims get all of those vestal virgins from?"
I guess it must be the Muslim women going to heaven and not the Christian ones, since 98% of all Christian women use birth control at some point in their lives.
Will wrote: "I love that interpretation. Somehow, in the "end times," there are those that get a second chance. Sucks for the non-believer that died right before the rapture. No second chance for him! Straight ..."
BY THEIR OWN CHOICES. THEY CHOOSE WHAT THEY CHOOSE.
BY THEIR OWN CHOICES. THEY CHOOSE WHAT THEY CHOOSE.
Kendra wrote: "BY THEIR OWN CHOICES. THEY CHOOSE WHAT THEY CHOOSE."You don't have a great concept of what a choice is, do you?
If I pointed a gun to your head, and told you that you had to love me or I'd pull the trigger, could you choose to love me?
Hey Will, do you think Christians could suffer from Stockholm Syndrome? I think it could explain a lot....I'm afraid Kendra doesn't understand choices well, her computer is the prime example it "gets stuck" on Caps lock a lot and she has to keep coming here despite her own repeatedly stated wish not to.
I never understood that free will schtick."It's your choice - you can choose to follow me or not. BUT CHOOSE NOT TO AND YOU WILL BURN IN THE PITS OF HELL FOR ETERNITY! But it's totally your choice, you can make it freely. Free choice."
Kendra wrote: "BY THEIR OWN CHOICES. THEY CHOOSE WHAT THEY CHOOSE. "Tell me one thing.
Did Pharaoh have his own choice, (free will if you will), when he decided to defy God and Moses in spite of the plagues visited on him time and again?
Hi Kendra, nice to see you again. I'm sorry you weren't able to stay away, thats a willpower issue that needs as much work as my weight issue.
You all do know that if you continue making accusations and such, I'm going to keep coming back, right?
Kendra wrote: "You all do know that if you continue making accusations and such, I'm going to keep coming back, right?"
I don't want to keep coming back. Man has free will - as in he can choose if he wants to make eggs for breakfast, or just have a bowl of cereal.
I don't want to keep coming back. Man has free will - as in he can choose if he wants to make eggs for breakfast, or just have a bowl of cereal.
Kendra wrote: "Kendra wrote: "Man has free will - as in he can choose if he wants to make eggs for breakfast, or just have a bowl of cereal. "No, she/he cannot.
You maybe (MAYBE!) have a say in whether you will have eggs or cereal. You cannot possibly will yourself into WANTING to have this or that for breakfast.
Well, maybe you could - using NLP - but how it would make your decision an expression of free will in that case is beside me.
UGH. Ya'll aren't even trying to comprehend. You think that my beliefs are beyond your comprehension, but I just don't see how your beliefs - or lack thereof - are possible. Do you honestly believe that something as complex as the human body came from nothing? That makes no sense to me at all.
You can't make something out of nothing. Explain that to me, please.
You can't make something out of nothing. Explain that to me, please.
of course it didn't come from nothing, it came from something almost as complex, which in itself came from something almost as complex as that, and on and on. Not being able to understand something doesn't make it wrong, I understand your beliefs, but I don't agree with them, I consider them incorrect. However, the vast amounts of evidence for evolution shows me that it is a supported theory, and that evolution is a fact. It also helps me that I understand it. I find physics hard to understand, but I recognise that just because I don't understand it well doesn't make it wrong, it just means that I lack the capacity to grasp all the concepts. If you want to understand, why didn't you watch the videos I put up previously for you?
Kendra: The argument of "its too complex, therefore god did it" is one that students of evolution are only too familiar with. if you don't want to watch videos about it, you could try this simple explanatory presentation created by a teacher for a young class: http://scratch.mit.edu/projects/Mayhe... - in fact, by chance, I used it today (though wish it had some animation/pictures)Hazel: Whilst I can't speak for Kendra, in my experience most people who oppose evolution don't *want* to understand it.
They *fear* being persuaded, because that would lead them either to betray their faith or to have to admit that their particular little sect is wrong.
No matter that the largest single organisation of Christians is quite happy to accept the scientific fact and theory of evolution. No matter that over 11,000 members of the clergy have openly signed a statement opposing the teaching of religious alternatives in science classes. These people are happy in their ignorance.
Meanwhile, today I happily taught my class of 9-11 year olds how to argue against the complexity argument by asking them to order 5 stages in the evolution of the eye and make notes about how the different stages of "proto-eye" would help its owner survive. Great class :D
Shaun wrote: quoted: "Whilst I can't speak for Kendra, in my experience most people who oppose evolution don't *want* to understand it"I don't really get that statement. Pretty much everyone who opposes evolution understands it. . . it is an unbelievable simple theory. What we always get is people who LOVE to attack people in debates over evolution, the fact that if people didn't know the "Scopes Monkey Trial" would have had no idea it was outlawed to talk about evolution in schools, and that it seems you get attacked for what you stand for if you even say you believe in God to a nonbeliever.
Don't get what I mean? I have been harassed ENDLESSLY on FB for talking against evolution. . . people who did not say much besides I needed to think and that I was a basically a really stupid person. . . and fyi. . . this was on a group about CREATIONISM. The guys were so adamant on fighting me while on a site that they didn't believe in anyway (they just wanted to fight. . .)
CJ wrote: "Pretty much everyone who opposes evolution understands it. . . it is an unbelievable simple theory."Really? Then how come every argument against evolution I've come across in my daily life is always rooted in a misunderstanding of the theory? Things like "how come there are still monkeys if evolution is true" and "evolution says we came from nothing" and "Darwin himself rejected it on his deathbed" and so on ad nauseam.
There are 38,000 Christian denominations, self-described, per Wikipedia. An evolutionary process, if I'm not mistaken.....
Xox wrote: "April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "There are 38,000 Christian denominations, self-described, per Wikipedia. An evolutionary process, if I'm not mistaken....."Not an evolutionary process. You're mist..."
Joking, my friend. ; )
message 784:
by
aPriL does feral sometimes
(last edited Mar 07, 2012 08:54PM)
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
I've commented on this series before, but I'm bored tonight, so....Left Behind and the others in this series had me rolling on the floor screaming with laughter-until I saw people BELIEVED it was a real prophesied set of events. Then I felt utter horror. Now, several years later, I'm giggling at remembering reading these books and the utterly bizarre Lsd-style delusions contained within. I know, I know, this thread abounds with intellectual rigorousness and outrage. But I felt like sharing how amazingly ridiculous these books read at first. It was like when I first heard an acquaintence earnestly sincerely warn me that kitties suck out all your breath at night and kill you in your sleep. I had SO many mixed feelings, having owned cats since I was three years old. I've given up mostly, except where I feel I need to put in my vote or stand and be counted, at trying to convince folks with intelligent and fact-based arguments. Still, interesting to read.
Will wrote: "CJ wrote: "Pretty much everyone who opposes evolution understands it. . . it is an unbelievable simple theory."Really? Then how come every argument against evolution I've come across in my daily life is always rooted in a misunderstanding of the theory? Things like "how come there are still monkeys if evolution is true" and "evolution says we came from nothing" and "Darwin himself rejected it on his deathbed" and so on ad nauseam..."
Not to mention "Evolution was invented by atheists" and "How could something as complicated as the eye evolve?" "How about woodpeckers tongues?" " "Life can't come from nothing" "I've never found life spontaneously starting in a jar of peanut butter!" "The banana is too perfect!" And that all time classic "It's only a theory!"
I stand by my statement. With, possibly, the exception of Micheal Behe, I've never heard anyone argue against evolution whilst showing any level of understanding of it.
Xox wrote: "April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "There are 38,000 Christian denominations, self-described, per Wikipedia. An evolutionary process, if I'm not mistaken....."Not an evolutionary process. You're mist..."
Actually, I'd argue that it is.
Evolution begins with variation in a population - there are many varieties of Christian.
Next comes selection. Those variations that have pro-survival traits relative to their local environment survive , others die out. So the Shakers died out, but (sadly) the Evangelicals survived. Evangelicals find survival hard in the UK, but thrive in the US. Varieties of Christian that actively pursue the murder of homosexuals thrive in Africa, but would not do well in most of the western world (except maybe Texas ;) ).
After that, comes speciation. When a population of similar brands of Christianity is physically separated, they may evolve in different directions until they are no longer similar enough to mix. The fact that some american varieties of Christian refuse to admit that Catholics are also Christians contains a strong element of speciation.
Shaun wrote: "Xox wrote: "April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "There are 38,000 Christian denominations, self-described, per Wikipedia. An evolutionary process, if I'm not mistaken....."Not an evolutionary process...."
Ha! What you said, ditto! Thank you! ; P
CJ wrote: "Pretty much everyone who opposes evolution understands it. . . it is an unbelievable simple theory."This statement alone proves you know next to nothing about evolution and the theory that stands behind it.
Xox wrote: "Shaun wrote: "Xox wrote: "April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "There are 38,000 Christian denominations, self-described, per Wikipedia. An evolutionary process, if I'm not mistaken....."Not an evoluti..."
They are just joking around, Xox.
Drawing a correlation between the sociocultural evolution of religions and biological evolution, to poke fun at the non-believers of evolution, the religious.I don't think the humour translated.
OK... clearly not funny to you then...
I sense a breakdown in ARC. What is your e-meter saying?
wally wrote: "Shaun wrote:"Has there been enough time for all these unscheduled changes to have happened?"Ok. Lets imagine that speciation - one species becoming two distinct species, happens only once every million years.
(Now, we know that's nonsense - it has been literally observed to be much faster than that - but lets go with that really cautious estimate.)
So, in 1 million years, that first species of proto-creature, those simple single cell organisms, have become two species.
In two million years, we have four species.
After 3 million years, eight. And so on exponentially.
10 million years - 1000 species.
30 million years - one billion different species.
Now, 30 million years might sound a long time to us, but scientists estimate the origin of life to be 4.4 BILLION years in the past.
At that exponential rate of speciation every 1 million years (which, remember, is a *massively* conservative estimate) then after 4.4 billion years there could potentially be a number of species so large that it would be written as a 1 with 1300 zeroes after it.
Has there been sufficient time for speciation to result in earths current amazing diversity of life?
Damn straight.
Shaun wrote: "Xox wrote: "April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "There are 38,000 Christian denominations, self-described, per Wikipedia. An evolutionary process, if I'm not mistaken....."Not an evolutionary process...."
lol
Xox wrote: "That's not evolution in progress."
ev·o·lu·tion/ˌevəˈlo͞oSHən/
Noun:
1. The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
2.The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.
If you feel the need to argue, take it up with your dictionary.
Saved By Grace wrote: "Tim LaHaye was just taking much of what is written in Revelations and putting it in such a way as to what he thinks it would all look like/be like. It doesn't mean it's right, it is only what he ..."
I don't know. Seems to me that he was into it for the money.
Anthony wrote: "Saved By Grace wrote: "Tim LaHaye was just taking much of what is written in Revelations and putting it in such a way as to what he thinks it would all look like/be like.
It doesn't mean it's rig..."
And why do you say that, Mister Anthony?
It doesn't mean it's rig..."
And why do you say that, Mister Anthony?
Xox wrote: "Shaun wrote: "Xox wrote: "That's not evolution in progress."
ev·o·lu·tion/ˌevəˈlo͞oSHən/
Noun:
1. The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diver..."
Xox, a dictionary does help in understanding, as it defines the meanings of words, the books on evolution would contain a definition of the word too, and it would match that of a dictionary. Oh, and FYI, Shauns a teacher, and has whole lesson plans he's written himself on this stuff, and has read widely around the subject, I know this as he's a good friend of mine.
How did this turn into a debate on evolution? I don't get it. It started off as a discussion on a series of books which springs from a Millenarian movement (also called 'revitalisation movements') which is no different to the many such movements that took place amongst indigenous inhabitants during the colonial period. If you would like me to contribute to this debate I will do so, providing there are enough readers with open minds. I happen to live in a part of Africa where almost an entire tribe collectively committed suicide due to such a belief system. It's a tragic story, and most certainly would not have happened were it not for unholy drive of the White European to subdue and conquer.By the way, I am an atheist but I have no problem with Christianity per se. As one Goodreads member said : "Give me a Christian who cares about social justice over an atheist dog-eat-dog economic rationalist any day."
The only time I begin to have problems with Christianity is when people start believing that they are wealthy and prosperous because god has blessed them, because let's face it: Christianity is strongest in Africa and South America and I don't see it's adherents here rolling in lolly. History, I'm afraid to say, played the biggest role in why America is rich and Africa is poor, and it's not a pretty history.
the conversation changed, Tim, because each page of conversation has 50 posts on it, and there are 18 pages,when this page is complete thats 900 posts. Conversations develop and change, new things get brought in, old things get left behind, and frankly, 900 pages on the books would be bring as hell.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True (other topics)
In His Image (other topics)
Birth of an Age (other topics)
Acts of God (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence, and Power (other topics)The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True (other topics)
In His Image (other topics)
Birth of an Age (other topics)
Acts of God (other topics)
More...
A footprint at a crime scene that matches yours is evidence that you were there, but not *proof*. It might have been somebody else with the same brand of shoes. It might have been somebody *in* your shoes. It might be an astonishing freak collection of dust that just happened to fall in the shape of your footprint.
There is, in fact, evidence for the Christian god. No proof, but lots of evidence. The many followers are evidence. The bible is evidence. Miracles recorded after the bible was written are evidence. People who say that God has spoken to them are evidence.
But none of them are proof.
And every major religion shares has the exact same evidence, too. Every major religion has it's holy text, its multitude of followers, its many years of history, its miraculous events recorded by eyewitnesses and its modern day prophets.
And science, too, has its share of evidence. Testable evidence. Science said "Hey, if the universe was created this way, these things ought to exist, lets look for them" - and then found them. Science said "Hey, if evolution is real, then given this cause there will be this effect" - and then observed it to take place.
None of that is proof either. But it is better than religious evidence because of one simple thing.
Even if it turns out to be wrong, it is useful because the predictions it makes about cause and effect appear to be accurate*
Evolutionary theory has been used to treat diseases. An understanding of radiation (which must be wrong if creationists are right) has been used to cure cancer. Orbital mechanics allowed us to send men to the moon. Plate tectonics (denied by creationsists) gives us an early warning system for Tsunamis.
There are dozens of fields of science that must be wrong if creationism is correct but they all appear to work just fine. And that, to me, is extremely strong evidence that they are correct.
*Yes, it is possible to be wrong and accurate. Just like all the circle-within-circle models of the universe that allowed people to predict the positions of the stars despite being utterly wrong about the earth being the stationary centre of the universe