This is not a religious discussion. I know about the exclusion. But when 25% of the American public believes that Jesus is returning in 2007 and many of them are applying these thoughts to present politics - think about the 60 + million copies of the 'Left Behind' series that have been sold and that 'The Late Great Planet Earth' is one of the all time best sellers in American history - then there is no way we can exclude these matters from a discussion of the political and psychological health of our nation.

Here is a column from the HuffingtonPost.

Are a large number of Americans certifiable?



Questions for discussion.

1. What are the social and personal forces that give rise to this kind of thinking?

2. Do you think these kind of beliefs have political implications and if so how do they play out?

3. To what degree do you think either party is propped up by people who think this way?

1 - Might I boldly suggest that anyone here who wants to discuss articles at the Huffington Post, does so at the Huffington Post. They do have comments.

Are a large number of Americans certifiable?



Well, since Jesus was a real guy, who came back from the dead once before, I'd say that the 25% are just optimistic, not crazy. The same poll showed that 19% of Americans thought we would find extraterrestrial life in 2007. HuffPo, where only the religious and republicans can safely be called psychotic, had no comment on this. The AP didn't ask about a mythical monster named Fred.

The telephone poll of 1,000 adults was conducted Dec. 12-14 by Ipsos, an international polling firm. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

This idiotic poll hardly represents 25% of the US. Cenk Uygur is a Ted Rall wannabe who is an Ann Coulter wannabe. Cenk usually is able to write two or three compelling sentences and then has nothing to back up anything he says.

So far (for me) this is 0 for 2.

1) People are allowed to believe in God, Gods, Money, FSM
2) I do not. Clearly you do.
3) I think the massive mistake the Left will continue to make is that there are no God fearing Americans who vote Democratically/Liberally and so it's OK for the Left to mock them. There's a lot of Left skewed demographics that go to church on Sunday, and Saturday too.

So you acknowledge that this would apply to at least 22% of the public


How does representing 25% of the public as believing in the return of Jesus in 2007 come off as idiotic?


So are you saying the poll is a misrepresentation?


Please explain. 0 for 2 of what?


Allowed isn't the question. What gives rise to this belief is.


We agree on that.


This is not about belief in God or being a Christian or going to church. This question is about whether a particular expression of a belief aligns itself with a set of political ideas or a party.


A rather odd statement I must say. No doubt many links offered on this forum come from sites that have their own places to comment. Should they also not be offered on AD because of that?


Perhaps. Acknowledging your opinion that he came back from the dead, wouldn't the fact that he hadn't come back for 2006 years despite repeated predictions have some bearing on a sane person's guess that he was going to break his unbroken record on the 2007th year? Psychotic would seem to be overstating it but a propensity for the mindlessly irrational would seem to be a fair characterization.

1. What are the social and personal forces that give rise to this kind of thinking?

Nature/nurture question basically to me. You have untold amounts of religion and variance of it not only today but in history of the human race. Basically I think if you live in a culture or some social complex its going to have a impact on a persons perception, feelings, etc...

2. Do you think these kind of beliefs have political implications and if so how do they play out?

This question makes me think of the middle east really, and really its all rather terrible scary if you ask me. I remember reading a post about angry conservative Christians who feel the world is scared of them being in control of nukes and armies and politics, will really this is why.

3. To what degree do you think either party is propped up by people who think this way?

Both parties will do what it takes to win, its the politics of corruption and of course is nothing new. I don’t and wont ever favor religion in general being active in government, but of course overall I feel this 25% statistic falls short of how many conservative religious folks are really out there, it looks as if humanity will have to endure subjectivity and ignorance for a very long time to come.

That's crazy, 25% believe that Jesus Christ will return in 2007! What are they thinking?

It's clear that Jesus Christ will return in 2020, not 2007.


Not sure, perhaps their Sunday School teachers? Or Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins?


If they truly believed it, then they will have no political impact. Why be involved in the political process if you know for sure you'll be gone by the end of the year?


I don't think peoples' eschatology will affect either party.

I have nothing much to say about this except it reminded me of this...

Link.

...it would seem the Americans and their eager opponents in Iran have more in common than they know.


Questions for discussion.

1. What are the social and personal forces that give rise to this kind of thinking?

Fear that life is just a coincidence and nothing we do matters at all. Such a fear strikes at the very centre of human perception and, given the propensity to beard wagging prophets, clerics and priests seems to be especially insulting to the male ego.


2. Do you think these kind of beliefs have political implications and if so how do they play out?

If enough people rebel against 'globalisation' with its ready assumptions of moral superiority, then I would say yes. There is a very real political implication in that these people may (already have?) gather enough power to be a threat to those whom they disagree with.


3. To what degree do you think either party is propped up by people who think this way?

No idea.

1. What are the social and personal forces that give rise to this kind of thinking?

Early brainwashing- same as in the Islamic countries- as Moif so kindly pointed out. Baptism at an early age, sunday school etc etc- about 25% it sounds like remain devout IMHO- I do not think the poll is off, unless it is too small a number- I would have guess it closer to 50% considering that over 80% of American's state that they are "Christian"- I would have guessed a larger number of the devout and zealous about it.

It is, once again, no different in any "devout" society- there is no real difference between a mosque in Pakistan and a Baptist in the south. The formula remains the same throughout human history- indoctrinate early and often- you don't get them young, you don't get them.

2. Do you think these kind of beliefs have political implications and if so how do they play out?

It is the number one conflict in the world today- in every strata of society, everywhere in the world- it is impossible to ignore. Nearly every single "wedge" issue in America today is based on beliefs- not logic, not impact to society- but what the church (whatever that church happens to be) tells them is right and wrong.

3. To what degree do you think either party is propped up by people who think this way?

The Republicans sold thier soul to the largest block in 1980, and it has been the driving force behind nearly every issue and election since. Look to the ignorant in the south, they actually bought the Rovian idea that the dems were going to "take thier bibles away"- that alone shows the delusional group think of the religious. I don't think the dems are AS beholden- but they are, unfortunately learning how to sell thier souls too - I was just reading in the paper, I think, about a woman that is advising the Dem party how to be more religious. Well, that sucks. Means that, in a couple years, the Dems will sell out to the Bob Jones of the world.

It is a sad fact, that a more advanced, enlightened, with a high standard of living- tend to be athiests. Religion NEEDS the ignorant and downtrodden- without it, religion whithers and dies, except for those disaffected wierdos like those that castrated and killed themselves in Cali- there will always be those on the margins searching for anything- but to get a real following, call itself mainstream- you have to have a pretty large population of "breeders" to keep it going and growing. Islam, Catholicism, Baptists- whatever- you have to have a very large number of poeple willing to ignore reality and science in order to believe the direct contradictions with the dogma.

CW- Can you prove- as in science prove- that Jesus ever existed? You have direct proof he existed- direct proof that he rose again? No? That is because it is a belief- not a fact. You stated it as if it were a fact.

So yes, I would say that most of the world is pretty psychotic and delusional to some degree

How far down that path you go- well, you dont think we have that type of person in large numbers in the US? Well, once again- I direct you to Bob Jones U and all other kinds of 2k plus poeple attending these hard core right wing religious churches every weekend- meaning, they regularly have 2K or more folks in on a sunday, every sunday.

Religion very well may be the reason mankind destroys the earth- fighting over who's dogma is superior.

You, carlitoswhey, have taken this thread into the realm of faith. The statement about rising from the dead is opinion, to which you are entitled, but far from demonstrable fact. I'm sure you know the difference.



I have a hunch that many people have bought the various volumes of the Left Behind series, and have not even bothered to read them. To some, it's probably a "chick" (in my opinion cheap) display of false piety for others to observe on the bookshelf.

Please pardon my rank cynicism.

Ok, I Love this subject.

First let me respond to some of the stuff that's been said:

FIRST CONTESTANT!!

Carlitos Whey (great movie).



Betting on a Barack Obama presidency circa 2008 is optimistic. Now I'm not trying to say belief in the second coming is crazy, just that it usually is. Jesus died somewhere in the 0030's. (AD). Now there have been just thirty years short of ------TWO THOUSAND YEARS--- in which Jesus did NOT return!!! SO WHY IS THINKING THAT NEXT YEAR, OF ALL YEARS, is the one that Jesus is going to return in, Not Crazy!

I'm not trying to say that the idea that Jesus will come again is insane. I think a belief in the seemingly improbable is a very important part of all religions. A crucial part. Christianity has value, the second coming has value. For example I love the song "People Get Ready" by Curtis Mayfeild, or the Bob Marley cover of it, "One Love." So the second coming is crucial and Christians need to contemplate its meaning. But this idea that we are going to willfully dillude ourselves into believing that Jesus is going to return this year is, I think, a misreading of the second coming. And it hints that maybe, something is wrong with us as a population and a culture. maybe we WANT this world around us to be destroyed, judged, and reborn.

As a resident of Atlanta, may I say we call that William Tecumseh Sherman, not Jesus.

SECOND CONTESTANT:

BaphometsAdvocate.



Yes lots of God Fearing Americans vote Dem. But Christianity is far from monolithic and many Christians within Christianity mock this apparantly huge minority of christians who adamantly believe in this kind of revelations gospel. So, by mocking this 25%, the Left might actually be entering into the religious debate and attracting a large population of more moderate christians . In other words, they may not be just going for the Jews and Atheists. They might actually appeal to Christians who identify as similarly religious to these more secular, less apocalyptic Dems.

Now Answers:

1. What are the social and personal forces that give rise to this kind of thinking?

I believe that perhaps the United States is becoming something of a neocolonial society in which the residents increasngly feel that they are oppressed by invisble forces they cannot pinpoint to decry. We were raised on dreams of opportunity, and maybe that dream is not there for a lot of people. If I sound too much like John Edwards, then let me make a graph:

Divide these traits into two types of societies:

First World:
(Europe, for example, or South Africa)

Low Birthrate, older parents, shrinking population
Rampant Immigration
Secular or Moderate Religions prevail
Homosexuality, at least in ideology, accepted
High Rate of Education, high rate of carreer change, 'opportunity'


Third, or Neocolonial World:
(Africa, Latin America, Carribean)

Skyrocketing Birthrate, younger parents
Homogenous population
Prosperity Gospel, Homophobia, Revelations Preaching prevail
Low Rate of Education, early entry into the work place


In someways, I can see how different communities in the United States are divided between those two catagories.

The fact that the right-wing sect of the divided Episcopal church is considering aligning itself with the Anglican church of Nigeria says something about that. Cosmopolitan South Africa has legalized Gay Marriage-- it will be a very long epoch before the same happens in, say, Jamaica or Catholic-dominated Latin America. You can see how were the world divided up into states, with two parties to choose from, Jamaica and Alabama might be caucusing together, Sweeden, New York and South Africa might be as well.

I think the United States is in the curious position of being the most powerful cultural force in the world-- but a place where many Americans feel disconnected with the very culture they export. The heap of blame slapped onto the Mainstream Media (they deserve it), the outrage the followed Janet Jackson's Nipple , the kind of ongoing anti-Hollywood culture wars all suggest that the Church has become a kind of lifeboat from the onslaught of what is identified as 'American culture' from, into, of all places, 'American homes.


2. Do you think these kind of beliefs have political implications and if so how do they play out?


Absolutely I think that the growing rift in churches like the Episcopal church is going to play out in the religious rhetoric of our politicians. In the end, I think its going to actually help the Democratic party.

Waves of dread come and go in and out of a society, and should this War on Terror ever fizzle out to being little more than a silly monicker for wars past, then I think the Dems will be left clutching the sensible cards. I'm not crediting the entire rise of the religious right to the War on Terror, that would be ghastly eronious. But I do think the Religious Right feeds off dread, and its not hard to miss the connection between Hawkish conservatives, quick to identify a foriegn threat, and the pastors who rally behind them.

For example, remember when Pat Robertson prayed for God to assassinate Hugo Chavez? It came after a diatribe of his on Chavez's militarization. (Which, in terms of real threat posed to us, is a joke).

So I say there is absolutely a connection between the Religious Right and America's addiction to Foriegn Militant Threats, and in that sense, the end of the Cold War helped Clinton, I think, in a very similar way to how the end of the War on Terror will help the lucky Democratic Presidential Candidate who coincides with it.

3. To what degree do you think either party is propped up by people who think this way?


Maybe I just answered that. HAVE A WONDERFUL 2007!!!

I highly doubt that. I don't think anyone really considers placing a Left Behind book on the living room shelf in order to impress others of their piety. A giant Bible would probably serve better.

I will admit though that I haven't read all the volumes that I bought. After the 4th book, I kinda lost interest in it. But, no great loss, I was able to pick up the first 6 books for only $1 each.

Maybe not. I would suggest that the volumes in the Left Behind series have a cult following of sorts. Having them impresses the other cult members, even if they aren't read.

Your own experience sort of bolsters my point.

What percentage of people who bought these books do you estimate have actually read them?

Edited to add:

I don't think people are idiots or psychotics, but superficial is another matter.

The superficiality of much of this country is evident when so much is invested in Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins instead of theological heavyhweights like Paul Tillich, the Neibuhu brothers - Reinhold and Richard, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and even Thomas Aquinas.

No I'm saying that Cenk Uygur is a reactionary writer who isn't good at his craft - upthread I made it clear that the poll is a misrepresentation.


I think the poll is a *bad pair of consonants* and I think Cenk is a *bad pair of consonants* therefore the poll and the writer don't count making the points in question 0 for 2.

Well actually it's the correct answer. People believe in stuff. And in America that's a right.


I disagree. And I never mentioned Christians, you did. Do you suspect that all people who believe in Gay Rights are aligned with Democrats? Or all people in Priuses vote Green?

Now let's get to the heart of the matter. You don't like religion. You think religious people are mostly insipid and now you've got a sub-hack writer using a throw-away poll on a blog validating your beliefs. Cut to this thread.

What I am saying is... in case it isn't clear yet.

The poll is useless.
The writer of the blog entry is useless. (Cenk, not you.)
Your questions are leading and I don't believe you care about the answers. However, I, like others have taken the time to answer them anyway. At the end of the day the real question by you is:

Aren't people who believe in Jesus coming back idiots?

The real answer is:

Some of them are, some of them aren't in about the same spread as you might get if you asked "Aren't people who drink tea idiots?"

I'm not sure what you mean. What experience of mine are you referring to? What point did it bolster? That I'm a cult member?


I would have no idea.


I would generally agree with this, but I would not limit it to those who read Left Behind, or those who believe in Jesus coming again this year, or even to religious people as a whole.

No osteng, I am not suggesting you are a cult member. Your words below bolster my point that because people buy books by LaHaye and Jenkins doesn't necessarily mean they actually read them.



Just out of curiosity, how many books will there be in this series? My guess is they'll clutter up bookstores as long as they sell. "Christian" books and "supplies" are a big business. Profit is probably a bigger factor than prophets in contemporary Christendom.

BTW: I don't own and haven't read any of them.

One of the things Frederich Nietzsche was most critical of (and this is big being he was critical of a lot) was religion and namely Christianity. He critiqued religion using the Master-Slave Morality thesis. To make a basic example, the Jews are one of the most oppressed peoples in the history of civilization. In a history that was defined by power and force, what did the Jews do? Create a way of thinking by which being weak and oppressedwas "cool." They rationalized their poor situation and made their way of life the correct way to live. This is the basis of Judeo-Christian philosophy (i mean read the Beatitudes).

Organized religion is an outlet for people throughout history to explain the unexplainable. Critics argue that there is usually a lack of facts when it comes to religion and how right they are since faith, the basis of religion, implies a lack of fact. Atheists like to use this as a way to reject religion believing that science is the only verifiable thing to adhere to. But such thought is arrogant imo. Science can prove a lot...but not everything.



I point to a recent South Park episode Go God Go XII where young Cartman is in the future because he just cannot wait to play the Nintendo Wii. He finds himself in a future where religion no longer exists and science is the guiding force. Yet there are three atheist groups, The United Atheist Alliance, The United Atheist League, and The Allied Atheist Alliance who are fighting a war over "The Great Question" which is what to call themselves. Each group finds the other group's answer illogical and thus they go to war.

This may be for entertainment, but this bit of pop culture makes an important point. Blaming religion in and of itself for conflict and problems is incorrect. Furthermore, believing only in science and logic is no different than faith in a religion.


I am interested in the correllation that you are attempting to make. Are you saying that more educated people are atheist because they know better than to believe in religion? Do you attribute this correllation to just education or could their be other factors to it...say arrogance? People think they know everything there is to know. They refuse to accept that things are unexplainable or affected by some supreme being. I mean what do they need with a god right?



Can you prove that Plato ever existed? Or how about Alexander the Great? I mean yes there are thousands of volumes of literature about them and there is a lot of evidence passed into history, but that doesn't automatically equal proof. The truth is that we can never actually prove their existence because we weren't there to see them...we just have a very good idea about it. If you want to get down to the philosophical nitty-gritty it depends on one's perception of concepts such as facts, existence, and truth.



This is a fallacy because as I said earlier, its not religion in and of itself that is the culprit. People have beliefs and they will always fight to protect their perception of reality whether you call it religion or ideology or whatever.

Listen, not to pick on you really I am not trying to do that, but I like southpark too, I also don’t use it to justify aspects of reality.

Why don’t Buddhists have such a religious history as say Islam, or Christianity, or anything close to them? Maybe the idea is that some religions have a manifesto to save the human race by imposing beliefs on everyone.

Last time I checked, I think its still religion causing most the ills in the world, like in its past. I mean if you took religion out of the equation, I simply don’t think our history would be nearly as brutal is it has been. We have all kinds of variance, but none of it causes as much havoc as religion, or playing Nintendo. I mean all through history, the thing that has caused more violence then any other aspect of variance in regards to human perception is religion in general, and its still doing it to this very day, not Nintendo, or atheists, or republicans, no sir, religion.

The problem to me, which I think is being covered by this topic is faith is purely subjective and requires no fact. Previous to science, all of our knowledge was basically just a form of that, of course we don’t know everything yet, but because ignorance still exists I think is what allows religion to flourish, religions leg to stand on is ignorance.

I mean think of it, what would the world be like without out science, or some factual based perception really. I mean people would still be killing off black cats and bringing on the plague, cutting there children when they are sick to bleed Satan out of them, I mean the entire history of it is some horror story.

So yes, I think its not far fetched when you hear terms like insane getting tossed at religious people, I don’t see much difference from the nuts that flew plans into buildings on 9-11 and those that follow Jerry Farwell. The whole deal requires nothing factual, like some person having a psychotic episode, it makes no sense, and can be any issue of a comic book at anytime.

Last I check it was people causing most of the ills in the world. People who use religion among other things as justification for their deeds. You take religion out of the equation and it will be replaced with something else that serves a similar function.



Well thats one way to look at it. But you only say that religion flourishes under ignorance because it cannot be proven...which is a logical fallacy because it assumes that it is wrong when it could very well be right for all we know. I mean sure the evidence may be weak relative to scientific experiments, but absence of proof is not proof of absence.



For some reason there is the belief here that science and religion are diametrically opposed. I do not believe this to be the case. Why cannot it be that the two compliment each other?


Once again, perception of "fact' can be different from person to person. Different perspectives could yield different truths. If everyone on here looked at the same painting, we would all see different things in it. Some would emphasize the colors used, others the style, others what the painting is actually depicting and so on and so forth. Throwing around words like 'facts' and 'truth' are all well and good only if a person agrees with your perspective. If they have a different view, who are you to say that your facts or your truth is the right one?

Yes, you can prove to a much greater degree the existance of Plato, Thucidydes (sp), Aristotle, John Locke, Aexander the great- they left books of thier own, or conquered a major part of the world- hard evidence of them everywhere. None of that exists for the life of Jesus- in fact, it could be completely a fabricated tale by 10-12 dudes- and Paul.

There is no real hard evidence of Jesus- nothing outside his own followers inside thier own inner circle- there is no Roman mention of him directly, his impact or anything- all we have is some Jews starting a new cult- otherwise- there is NO hard, indepedent of his followers- evidence- of any kind- just like- no world wide flood.

Muhammad- Medieval prince

Buhda- prince

We can prove thier existance because there is a plethora of evidence, including the kingdoms they ruled in and lived in- we have nothing of the sort from Jesus.

As far as better education and faith- you only can have so many major elements of your faith be totally discredited before you start to chip away at it- unless you are not so connected to your dogma. How many scentists can believe in a world wide flood? Okay- how many poeple educated just a bit in global natural history- it is obviously a myth. Or in Mormonism- not one person of Jewish blood DNA wise found on the North American continent related to pre-European poeples- no Indian Jews-

your faith has to overcome your knowledge- there are lots of folks that can do this- don't get me wrong- but there are lots and lots of folks out there- when reality directly contradicts thier canons- that will choose reason instead.

So yeah, there is a reason why an educated, affluent society that values individuality and self expression leaves religion- because the Judeao-Christo-Islamic religions, and also the Hindus with thier caste system- and all the other players with the notable exception of Buhdism - are fundamentaly NOT freedom loving, or want you to think individually- you are expected to conform to the strictures of that religion.

So yeah, it is very, very hard for a rational person with a science based outlook on the world to accept that a person, with the facts of natural history so cleary contradicting the dogma, could even consider to be a fundamentalist christian, Jew or muslim, and still be rational. The contridiction is too profound.

Ah but again I ask...how can you prove that Plato wrote The Republic or that John Locke wrote the Second Treatise on Civil Government? It has been said that they wrote it and we believe it. My point is that you cannot with absolute certainty say that John Locke and Plato existed any more than you could Jesus. For that matter, you can't really prove that you yourself exist. We have a very good idea that you and they did for all the reasons that you listed. Its a question about the very nature of existence.



Its only a myth if one believes it to be literally correct. The large majority of Christians (well I can only speak from my knowledge of Catholicism) believe that most of the Old Testament is full of allegory and metaphor. Even the Vatican concedes this to an extent. But just for fun, perhaps a world wide flood was impossible...but lets analyze some context. How big was the 'world' when the writers discussed the story? How many people were actually alive? Its possible that the very area that many people settled flooded from some natural disaster and that was the extent of their known world. Its a stretch for sure, but entirely possible.



Sort of. What you are overlooking in Judeo-Christian philosophy is the concept of free will. People choose what morals and values that they adhere to and there are consequences for those actions i.e. heaven v hell. How can it get more individualistic than that?



Interesting. So if you are not a fundamentalist but still believe strongly in your respective religion you can be rational? Again I wonder why science and religion are so often used to combat each other. I am by no stretch an ardent Catholic but I do hold some spiritual beliefs such as the belief in a supreme being. To me, science and the ability of the human mind to attain more knowledge is proof of existence rather than proof of non-existance. Again its all about different perspectives.

Um, the definition you gave is of a diest- NOT a catholic- it is like many Jews I know that do all the ceremonies- but are athiest- they, however, mark "jewish" when asked a religion-

you DON"T believe in your dogma- and you are saying, I am gathering- you aren't of that 25%- and that is what this entire conversation is about- not about the casual diest- or, like on "Futurama" you believe in worshiping the A bomb- but it is really a "easter-christmas thing"- they just don't fit into that 25% the question is about- and that is how I frame the debate here- NOT on the casual diest- which, like me, apparently- you are too- I don't believe in any dogma- but I think it a bit arrogant to think that it is impossible to think there is some higher power or purpose- but I don't believe Jeebus is coming in 2007 at this point- do you?

Yes, Baptists and "bible fundamentalists"- and, in those circles- the mainstream of the devout christian in America- believe in the emminence of the rapture- it could happen right now- hurry up and get saved- might get left behind- oh yeah- isn't that the name of a movie or something?....

If you are a scientist- and you believe that the bible is the literal translation of gods words for man, that it is literally true- then, well, you have a bit of a problem - everyday, you will be confronted with natural science that will completely destroy any holding of the bible as fact, natural fact.

And Leder- you get me as much evidence on Jesus as we have on Plato- well then, I will go christian or something.

Heck, we don't even have one single first person representation of what he looked like- unlike Plato, or Aristotle, or Alexander the Great. Kings tend to leave monuments to themselves and such. Plato had a school- and a great deal many poeple went to that school- and it was mentioned by outside city states NOT just his followers


The only words we have from Jesus is from his followers- otherwise- nothing.

As to the political influence these kinds of folks have- Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, Bob Jones, Former REp Delay- etc- they have profound effect on our policy making- Reagan could have never been elected without them.

The topic is about whether or not people who believe Jesus will come back in 2007 are 'psychotic.' The premise that they are psychotic is that they believe in dogma higher than that of science. My argument is that both are wrong and both are right. A lot of things about religion cannot be proven which as i said is implied by the necessity of faith. But a lot about religion also cannot be disproven and thus leaves open the realm of possibility. What makes fundamentalists 'psychotic'? Because they believe that God will come again? Well for all we know it will happen. I for sure cannot say with 100% certainty that it will never happen ever because I just don't know and neither does anyone else.


And it could happen. Doesnt mean it will or that it will happen exactly at it is told in the scriptures.


As i said, a majority of Catholics (the largest Christian denomination) do not take the Bible literally.


You are misunderstanding. There is evidence that Plato and Aristotle and Alexander the Great existed yes, but that in no way means that they DID exist. I mean you have never seen Abraham Lincoln deliver a speech or fell under the sword of Julius Caesar...but you accept that they existed. The truth (and i use that term lightly) is that you cannot be absolutely certain that they did exist, again we just have a good idea that they did due to the evidence. I mean there are statues of Zeus and other Greek gods but we do not see that as proof of existence. A point I put to you thats even more difficult is to prove your own existence. How does one prove they exist?

Okay- I get you now- a scientist can't usually prove something up to 100%, whereas in religion- you are 100% sure when you have faith. Yes, all I am saying- I will give the same burden of proof for Plato as Jesus- you will have a new convert- but, Jesus' existance can't hold up to just about any historical figure as Alexander the great, or Plato, or Muhamed- as far as if you gave each one of them the same burden of proof or faith or whatever.

No you aren't understanding me. Science cannot prove everything 100% yes. But in religion, you cannot be 100% sure...because then there would be no faith. Faith implies an absense of concrete fact or knowledge.

And i think that you should place the same burden of existence on Jesus as you do with other figures and you are right when you say that the evidence is greater for others than it is for Jesus. But again i iterate that you cannot prove the existence of Plato any better than you could Jesus. You just have a better idea that he did in fact exist due to more evidence. Its just like I cannot prove the existence of gravity. I mean i could drop my pencil a million times in a row and it will always fall to the ground, but i cannot predict with absolute certainty that on the millionth and first time i drop the pencil that it will fall to the ground.

The reason for this thread is not to debate whether Jesus Christ existed or not. With my personal religious beliefs, I should by rights be considered a Republican by every pollster out there, but guess what? It's just not that simple; many, many other factors (for me) enter in.

Let's get back to the basic questions, shall we?

1. What are the social and personal forces that give rise to this kind of thinking?

People who believe this way see, as one member's signature reads, that there is this handbasket and the country is on its way to hell in it. There is widespread selfishness, lawlessness and violence, greed, and generally a what's-in-it-for-me attitude. This is not the way many in this country were raised to believe is the right way to behave because they believe in a God who has been trying to teach humankind otherwise.

There is a hardening of attitude seen among those who do not subscribe to Christianity and the current interpretation of future events as read in Revelation and alluded to in the writings of various other contributors in that compilation of religious writings.

When the perception is that the people of this country and the world are no longer willing to listen to a salvation message and things are going so horribly wrong, many believe that it is time for Jesus to pull those who evangelize out of the world and let the times of tribulation begin.

2. Do you think these kind of beliefs have political implications and if so how do they play out?

They have certainly had implications in Republican Land. Let a politician make Biblical-sounding pronouncements with moral overtones and all of a sudden, by comparison, (usually) his opponent looks non-religious. Priests and preachers of Christianity continually tell their congregations that in order to please God they must vote for candidates who speak of one God, are pro-life, oppose stem cell research and homosexual marriage, etc. These religious leaders tread a very thin line in dictating the way their followers should vote with their much-vaunted "litmus test".

Some of us see other issues in play (like not voting for a warmonger since one of God's commandments is "Thou shalt not kill") and therefore do not view voting for the "God-talk" candidates as something automatic and expected.

3. To what degree do you think either party is propped up by people who think this way?

The Republicans have benefitted, and to a large degree, been hampered by the presence of folk who believe that a vote against the Democrats is a vote against Satan. EDIT: Jerry Falwell once jokingly said that members of his group would more likely vote for Lucifer than for Hillary Clinton. I don't think what he said was actually far from the truth.

Bear in mind, however, that not all voters who believe in Jesus Christ belong to or support the Republican party.

EDIT: There are many in the ranks of the Democratic Party who believe in the "social gospel" of improving the lives of those who are less fortunate, and trying to eradicate discrimination based on race, gender and living circumstances. These are the ones who want to see public education improved rather than scrapped or replaced by parochial schools and schools run by private corporations. Unfortunately, these people are also called "socialistic" because many (including me) believe that the function of government is to serve its people and improve their lot in life if possible, that a healthier, better educated, working populace makes for a stronger country than Draconian cuts of public services and an extremely bloated defense budget.

But speaking of those who are looking toward a rapture this year, these people are not necessarily nuts because they happen to believe in things that many of you don't. Most of them have very good intentions, but some of them think that by trying to bring in public policy that is friendly to their religion, more people will be converted to see "the Way" and walk therein.

As far as thinking that this year is the end of the world as we know it, I would say "no" with the possible exception of a large meteor hitting it or nuclear war being waged on a grand scale, or perhaps the volcanoes on the Pacific Rim all becoming active.

Christians have been warned for centuries now not to try to predict the time of Christ's return. And for centuries there have been people who have not heeded that warning.

Using their incredibly accurate calendar, the ancient Mayans predicted that the end of the world would fall on December 21, 2012. Considering the fact that their other predictions coincided with a lot of bad things that have happened in history, perhaps we should pay attention if not get white knuckles and sleepless about that particular date.

Believers in Jesus Christ were told in the gospels to go into the world and teach (or preach) the gospel. They are meeting with a lot of resistance these days and take it as another sign that this task on earth might be drawing to a close.

I don't think that thinking 2007 is "it" is psychosis as much as wishful thinking.

Sorry, but I will have to disagree with the notion science cannot reach empirical fact. If science could not derive fact it would not exist period, it would just be another animism for people to muse on or whatever.

Science does not know everything yet, and as such I already have proclaimed that I am an agnostic, or I don’t know because nothing factual exists yet to go one way or the other.

I know people have different perceptions, well, my perception or yours does not change the fact helium is helium, or that gravity exists, or any of that stuff. The natural world has fact to it that can be understood, science has come to a point, and in my opinion I do think overall its primitive, but of course how long has science been around really, and look at the magnitude overall of the subject at hand. The bottom line to me is science for what its worth is a methodology to reach factual ends or factual understanding of the reality around you or I.

If I were to say walk outside right now and jump off my deck onto the ground, this is something that is going to occur, naturally after I jump, and guess what, my perception of it matters not, the reality of the issue is going to occur, I will get muddy and prolly have some minor tissue damage.

The whole idea of perception is great, but really what you point at is the ability for people to create fallacy about reality, or the natural world, thus why I follow science, because again what it works for is truth, or fact, some form of an anti faith really, because faith again does not require fact, and they exclude each other because modern forms of faith do not click with this fact really at all in any regard.

I am all for freedom again, but really, giving all the human variance that has or does exist, the major one leading to human misery in some form is religion.

This is why there is such a push to block or destroy science by moral crusaders, because its hard to sell such against fact. This is why we have ideas like intelligent design, that takes everything science does, calls it ID and fills in the blanks with Christian dogma, you can fill in the blanks with anything, does not mean its true.

Yes, there is fact about the reality around us, and personally I would choose to live in a factual reality, this is all, and yes I am made insecure by religious types, simply because I don’t understand really how anyone can truly think that and not suffer from some form of an mental illness really, the opposite of fact is fiction, what should you think about someone that wants to live a life of fiction??? Personally more power to them, but what about when they want you to live that fiction with them, even enforce it down your throat and deny anything outside of it? I am also scared when I think about such people getting positions of power, say like government, which the Christian right in America is constantly been attempting to do, and you can see easily via bush of course, constitution, what constitution, this is gods country, I can just fear it now, I mean hear it now, book burnings, crusades… I don’t put anything past people like that. Plus like difference is perception, morality is pretty relative, and I don’t find much in many religions moral, I mean I would last a whole ten seconds in a theocracy before I was being burned to death for saying the world is not flat.

Thanks for interpreting what I'm asking and what I'm thinking. Clearly you haven't got a clue. But maybe you'd like to take the chip off your shoulder and offer some real responses to my enquiries. Other posters don't seem to have that problem and I find some of their comments interesting and provocative.

To be fair other sources present the Ipson poll somewhat differently - By the way Cenk is not the polling outfit so I'm not sure why your opinion of him should cause you to prejudge the poll. Anyway here is how they present it in the Chicago Tribune.



Yes Cenk slightly skewed the matter. He left out the word "likely." It is additionally reassuring to see that 67% of the public believe it is unlikely that Jesus will return in 2007. I would have appreciated knowing how many of those 67% thought it was completely nutso.

On the AP-AOL poll it is not clear to me if 46% of white evangelical Christians think it at least somewhat likely or 66% believe it is at least somewhat likely that Jesus will return in 2007. One way or another this is definitely a high percentage Republican constituency so I can't blame Bush and the Republicans for trying to keep Robertson and Falwell and James Dobson and that crowd happy and incidentally not doing anything to make Israel, the necessary catalyst for the end times, seriously unhappy.

1. What are the social and personal forces that give rise to this kind of thinking?

The simple proposition is that if one does not believe a certain way, one will suffer spiritual death. We're all going to go through physical death, and denial of this might be a psychological problem, but I wouldn't call it psychotic. Demonstrating against fallen soldiers, that's psychotic. Preaching against gays while being one, that's just plain pathetic, but suddenly the statement that homosexuality is a choice becomes clear. The real choice was to act heterosexual, wasn't it.

The idea that God would care about having physical bodies brought up to heaven is simply illogical. Just imagine the problems that would introduce, and I'll leave it at that. I personally think that the older one gets, the less important the body becomes, spiritually speaking. Why would I want to drag this thing along? The Rapture story is an appeal to people who are still stuck in the material illusion, where body equates to existence, the young. But that's where the money is, isn't it.

2. Do you think these kind of beliefs have political implications and if so how do they play out?

James Watt (Reagan's administration) was a horrible Sec. of the Interior. Why take care of the environment if it's all going to be blown away soon anyway? I call that denial too, of responsibility. More religious leaders in this country are coming around to the idea of being stewards of this planet, so that's a huge plus for them.

You don't have to worship the Earth to realize it is our physical home and should be kept clean. You don't have to believe in anything spiritual to realize how unique the Earth is in creation. This seems to be getting through to the somewhat dogmatic dense, and it's only taken a few millennia. One might even say that the spirit of Jesus has indeed returned after a long period of being systematically ignored. Well, the debate isn't about interpreting metaphors, so enough of that.

3. To what degree do you think either party is propped up by people who think this way?

Republicans seem to have the monopoly on this, but unregulated (irresponsible, short-term profits over everything else) business, the desire for such, is the major propping force. I'm pretty sure the Rapture types are a small minority, if they vote at all. What's the point? This life doesn't matter to them, and often I think this is due to pain, a desire for release, hope for a better deal. Pie in the sky always sells when real pie isn't available.

As far as booksales go, outrageous stories and thinking sell. Looks like one cannot serve two masters at once, a fool and money are soon parted, nonfiction fantasy's the way to the penthouse.

I'll stay on the ground floor, thank you very much. It helps to hold down lunch.

I'll summarize my thoughts on this in one paragraph:

The poll was conduct via telephone calls. Who in this forum would respond to such a phone call? Anyone? Not I. I submit that most people would hang up, or say they don't have time to answer a phone survey. The majority of respondents were likely either lonely, or some personality type that would be willing to sit on the phone and tell a stranger their answers to pointed predictions on the telephone. I'm thinking of two types of people: 1)Pyramid schemers. Someone who peddles Amway to friends and passersby would sit for this. Always a chance to offer them a "business opportunity" at the end of the phone call. 2)Evangelist types who come to your door soliciting. Always an opportunity to convert someone at the end of the phone call.

With the above in mind, these results aren't really surprising.

Here's one. Jerry Falwell's followers have never killed 3,000 people in a day. Here's another. Jerry Falwell's followers haven't cut off anyone's head on video. And another big difference. Jerry Falwell's idiotic beliefs don't dictate law. There's many more. Jerry Falwell's odd version of Christianity isn't a death cult that straps bombs on people to blow up others, there's no honor killings, there's no... well OK. You see where this is going.

While it would be wildly convenient to be able to find a moral equivalence between Fundamental Christians and Fundamental Muslims - you can't.

***

As for the can you prove Jesus or Plato existed - some very smart people, some of whom may even believe in a God have been debating for years over the existence of William Shakespeare.

Ok, I will leave it to you then to point out one single theocratic regime in history that has not been violent or brutal regardless of who was running it, or I will make it easier. Name one theocratic regime, or movement in history that has not become something violent or basically spawned death and violence. Count the ones that are not violent and then count the ones that are, criteria being religion equating into death. I mean the separation of church and state, I guess writing of all things by religious folks was nothing more then finally waking up to that dark stagnant reality of it.

We look at jerry as his spew as harmless, but its not. The Christian right is not harmless. For people that would like to see what an oppressive theocratic regime is, all one has to do is look into the past of religion and of course modern day versions of the same. I don’t care to let fallweel turn America into Iran anytime soon, and believe me, from the current actions of the religious right, which is not much different from those of the past, it would be just about the same. I mean for the most part morality is only moral if its Christian, and then you have those people saying science is arrogant. Civilization only lasts as long as people are civil, I don’t find telling people they are going to hell for not conducting a certain pattern of behavior along with ritualized perception as all to civil, in fact I don’t see how civilization could last under religious rule, and for the most part I don’t think it does for to long, not without horrible and routine acts. I mean the whole ideal basically calls for a suffocation and surrender of the mind and will, and utter lack to know anything about reality that could possibly be called factually honest, objective, real, or simply truth.

Moral crusaders, which is the religious right for the most part in America, are a constant when trying to get power in government, and why would they want this, because its simple, government is power, its law. The fundies want to gain power in the government to use it as a vehicle to manipulate and control society at large for how they deem fit, which is typically nothing more then there agreed upon subjective and overall fact less view or take on reality.

They are not harmless in any regard, and yes, even in modern times Christianity prompts some of its more unstable followers into committing horrible acts of violence against a broad range of people that did not fit the mold, you would have to be living in a cave to think that religion has turned into some friendly we accept difference mode of operation, the only change of anthropology for the church is based around being able to propagate, nothing more then that, and against of course issues like the evil Darwin dude, they cant seem to do this so easily anymore, and I am sure it has them up at arms, thus more pressure in government and acts by bush. Its scary to think the grand canyon does not fit into genesis, thus black label it so you can be secure in your beliefs, and then we have people flying planes into people, I mean buildings, big difference, I don’t know. To me its in the trenches domino effect on the eastern front against the commies, that’s how I take it.

Then I think you should be much more concerned with Islam than Christianity. They are actually doing the things you fear the Falwell's et al will do. Mullahs are doing those things RIGHT NOW and they're looking to export it to Western Civilizations.

I think I will start another topic n this- but the Mullahs and Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Bob Jones preach nearly the same thing, almost identcal in fact, I know, I have been to those very churches and heard them talk about revolution against "liberals" (meaning liberal goverment, prior to Clinton) , the possible need someday for violent overthrow of the same- oh, and BTW- Reverend Phelps is a graduate of BJU as well, the difference is- we have a heterogenous society that doesn't allow these folks all the power they want- but we are getting there, slowly, but it is happening-

If the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwell's get into power for real- then you will have your bloodbath.

Perhaps. Let's start by all vowing not to vote for Sen Sam "I wash feet like Jesus" Brownback.

I'd also like to add that the title of this thread makes me wince. Is should be Are.

Is 25% of the American public psychotic?

Are 25% of the American public psychotic?

Well, it may be crazy, but looking at the debate topic, would you call it 'psychotic' then? Again, in this same study, 19% of people also thought that we will encounter evidence of extraterrestrial life in 2007. SO WHY IS THINKING THAT THIS YEAR, OF ALL YEARS, is the one where we are going to find ET phoning home, not Crazy? In research, that is known as a baseline or control. 20% of people will evidently believe anything at all. Im pretty sure that the number who believe "9/11 was an inside job" is up to 30% as well...

So, given all that, why in the world are we focusing on religion here? Oh that's right, because religious people are crazy, psychotic, and the cause of all the world's ills. Never mind Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao. Give me a break.



As a resident of Chicago (home of the late great Curtis Mayfield, I will pop in my DVD of Gone With the Wind again, just to watch Atlanta burn. Super Fry Fly, baby.

On a similarly music-related note, a relevant comment from a certain beknighted pop star:





Josephus and Tacitus, who were both Roman historians who lived in the first Century, wrote of Jesus at the time in their accounts of the Jews. Additionally, they and others mentioned his "impact" in that he performed miracles and such, appearing after his death even. You are just dead wrong here.

Dude- Josephus was born 37 years after Jesus supposedly walked on this earth, and Tacticus- 56 years after his supposed death and resurection- you are kinda proving my point here.

1 - You are about 30 years off on Josephus
2 - Are you saying that historians can't write about what they themselves did not witness?

As for Tacitus, here is the report in latin of Jesus' (Christos) execution, when Pilate was prefect. Tacitus must have had a source for this, probably an official record. We know that Pilate was governor, from various artifacts found from the period. How is Tacitus citing an official record less accurate than other historical sources?

The point is that "Tacitus citing an official record" is speculation. The year zero is supposedly the year of death, although we also see this put into other terms. We could also speculate alternatively that scribes inserted their own interpretations of the past into the old hand-copied texts, or that Tacitus was going by a story someone told him.



That quote is from:

How to Read a Book

By Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren

© 1940, 1967 by Mortimer J. Adler
© 1972 by Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren

MJF Books, New York

It's probably a wise thing not to argue too much about history. Shoot, history from just a few years ago gets warped beyond recognition, depending on who's doing the writing or talking. It's pretty funny when video recordings contradict subsequent untrue statements. Imagine what this was like when most of the history consisted of word-of-mouth or subjective scriblings.

1. What are the social and personal forces that give rise to this kind of thinking?

Many generations of conditioning. Fundamentalist parents instilling the fear of God in their children during their most formative years, happy to see their little ones immersed in grisly Biblical stories of violence, war, pestilence, hellfire and eternal damnation while decrying the wretchedness of TV and movies on their sweet little persons. Being raised in that kind of environment corrodes the soul. Even after a person grows up, if they are intelligent enough to analyze the dogma they’ve been force fed for years, and realize it for what it is, it still has a profound effect on their psyche.

The kind of fundamentalist thinking that all you have to live for is the Rapture relieves you of all life responsibilities other than being a “devout Christian”. It gives people an excuse to be a perpetual victim. It gives people an excuse to condemn others who don’t believe as they do. Nothing is off limits if you believe you are one of the “saved”.

2. Do you think these kind of beliefs have political implications and if so how do they play out?

Sure they do. People with that kind of thinking do not analyze things realistically. Everything is seen through the prism of religious beliefs (primary example: Bush). One doesn’t have to look far to see the effect. To someone who holds these beliefs, “love thy neighbor as thyself” means love only those who have the same narrow beliefs as you do.

3. To what degree do you think either party is propped up by people who think this way?

Obviously, Christian religious groups are huge supporters of the Republican party. The religious right has tremendous power to influence Republican politicians. The Christian Coalition, the Moral Majority, Focus on the Family - all these groups wield a very big stick. They don't just want influence; they want a takeover. They want their religious viewpoint to be law for everyone.


edited to fix grammatical error

- How many sons has America lost in our "campaigns in the Holy Land?"
- How big a stick does The Moral Majority wield these days? With whom?
- What Christian has ever said that 'love thy neighbor' only extends to those with similar "narrow" belie