Your view on Atheists

[Achilles]

Bingo!

 

Thanks for putting it more clearly then I've been able to.

[Nancy Allen``]

People in government are Christian rapturists because someone there claims we don't need to worry about climate change? Right, that's all you're going on?

 

Why would I be right to stop them? Simple, self defense. They seek to harm others, I seek to stop that from happening.

 

If Atheists dictate their own actions then wouldn't those who act violent be worse than theists brainwashed by religion?

[Achilles]

People in government are Christian rapturists because someone there claims we don't need to worry about climate change? Right, that's all you're going on?

Nope, that's not all I'm going on. We've been through this before Nancy.

 

Bush says god told him to go to war in iraq. Bush's administration pushes the Faith Based Initiative initiative. Bush's administration put into place limits on stem cell research and has ignored calls by the medical community to lift those restrictions for religious reasons. Bush advocates "teaching both sides of the controversy" when it comes to allowing creationism in the science classroom. These are a handful of examples off the top of my head.

 

But specifically to your example, Bush has rejected U.S. involvement in Kyoto, citing economic reasons. Ignoring the fact that clean energy means less reliance on fuel, and his family's fortune just happens to have been built on oil and most of his friends are also in the oil business, it seems odd that someone would put money ahead of the potential long-term impact on our environment. Unless of course one also considers that he is a born-again christian, therefore it is highly likely that he is one of those 44% that thinks it doesn't matter anyways because jesus will return in the next 50 years to take over.

 

Why would I be right to stop them? Simple, self defense. They seek to harm others, I seek to stop that from happening.

If you are living in accordance with god's will, what would you need to defend yourself from? They seek to harm those that don't follow god's will. Unless you weren't following god's will, I don't see what you would have to worry about.

 

P.S. It sounds like you're afraid of those that have a radical religious agenda. It seems that you and I may have more in common than I had previous thought.

 

If Atheists dictate their own actions then wouldn't those who act violent be worse than theists brainwashed by religion?

Who said anything about atheists dictating their own actions? We all dictate our own actions, don't we? Some of us defer to ancient religious texts, but that still our conscious choice isn't it? Some of us defer to laws of the land and that is also a decision, right?

 

It seems that the true distinction might be those that abdicate their decision-making by accepting a pre-packaged set of morals and edicts and those that choose to accept only that which makes sense.

 

But again, not to ignore your point: those atheists that would ignore the law and commit acts of violence would be just as wrong as theists that did the same. The only difference is that the theist would claim that they acted violently in accordance with god's will.

[Nancy Allen``]

There are two points to bring up with the rapture. The first is it is unabashed arrogance to act as though it's going to happen. No one can predict when or if it will happen. It could happen tomorrow or a hundred thousand years from now. The other point is a lot of what happens in Revelations (rapture), there's a line of thought that it's metaphorical. For example the opening of the seals that cause earthquakes, natural disasters, famine, war, the dead to rise from the grave, ect, we are the ones opening the seals through our actions. War in Iraq, or to be more accurate war on the Muslim Islamist world, that would be one of the signs. Nuclear weapons, that could be another, a creation to tempt us and we gobble it up. However the thing is with the way you say people in government are acting, I wouldn't say this is religion, rather I would say this is people who think they can control god, if we are to take what you're saying to the ultimate and they are trying to orchastrate the end of the world. Besides which, they have one year left to do it before many of them are gone, the elections are rolling around. You would think if they don't care what happens then they would be taking drastic measures by now.

[Achilles]

There are two points to bring up with the rapture. The first is it is unabashed arrogance to act as though it's going to happen. No one can predict when or if it will happen.

Revelations says it's going to happen. If you would like to contest the validity of the content found in the new testament, you won't get any argument from me. Just keep in mind this is the same new testament that contains the entirety of jesus' message.

 

It could happen tomorrow or a hundred thousand years from now.

My vote is for "never", but as I've repeatedly pointed out, it doesn't matter what I (or you) think, rather what the believers think.

 

The other point is a lot of what happens in Revelations (rapture), there's a line of thought that it's metaphorical. For example the opening of the seals that cause earthquakes, natural disasters, famine, war, the dead to rise from the grave, ect, we are the ones opening the seals through our actions. War in Iraq, or to be more accurate war on the Muslim Islamist world, that would be one of the signs. Nuclear weapons, that could be another, a creation to tempt us and we gobble it up. However the thing is with the way you say people in government are acting, I wouldn't say this is religion, rather I would say this is people who think they can control god, if we are to take what you're saying to the ultimate and they are trying to orchastrate the end of the world.

I think you're making a great deal of my case for me

 

The bible does not say specifically who will put events into place, only which events will signify the coming of the rapture. If the bible said "and then on October 3rd, 2049 Tom Smith will do xyz at which time God will come down and do blah", that would be one thing. We could all gather round and "look stupid, it says right there 'October 3rd, 2049'. Is your name 'Tom Smith'? Then sit down and shut up!". But it doesn't say that.

 

Like so much of the bible, it's wide open to interpretation. Earthquakes? Check. Famine? Check. War? War? Nope, don't have war here. Think we should wait? Well, we could start one. Sure, let's fire this baby up then.

 

The bible doesn't say that mankind will not have a direct impact on any of the events. It's perfectly reasonable to expect that some people think they can then.

 

Besides which, they have one year left to do it before many of them are gone, the elections are rolling around.

Many of bush's "inner circle" have been around for quite some time. They were key members in other president's administrations and they will probably continue on behind the scenes for many years to come. In the mean time, they and their protégés will continue their work inside think tanks, which seem to be the new source for gov't policy. It is my sincere hope that all this will be over when Bush leaves office, but I suspect that it will not be.

 

You would think if they don't care what happens then they would be taking drastic measures by now.

Cause and effect are not always immediate. Who's to say that we won't be discovering new ramifications of the bush administration's actions decades from now? Not I and not you.

[Nancy Allen``]

Okay, let's assume for a moment that everything you say is right, there is some Illuminati in power that seeks to destroy the world for god. Why hasn't Bush's enemies, considering he is something of a figurehead for such a plot, used this angle? That he or the people that support him are mindless religious zombies working towards the world's destruction? For that matter why haven't they come after you for trying to expose this conspiracy?

[Jae Onasi]

Unless of course one also considers that he is a born-again christian, therefore it is highly likely that he is one of those 44% that thinks it doesn't matter anyways because jesus will return in the next 50 years to take over.

 

Your source where Bush actually asserts this? Or actually says he believes he's going to bring about Christ's return? Or has even come close to implying such a thing?

 

So there are 44% (which is a minority, and far from 'highly likely') that allegedly believe that Christ will return in 50 years. So what? If Bush doesn't share that minority view, and you have no proof that he's ever said he believes he's responsible for ushering the rapture, then I don't understand why you and others persist in stating this as if it were fact, or even a strong theory.

 

Just because he's an Evangelical does not mean he believes God's coming back in the next 50 years, and if he knows his Bible as well as he says he does, he knows that the rapture is entirely up to God, not him.

[Achilles]

Okay, let's assume for a moment that everything you say is right, there is some Illuminati in power that seeks to destroy the world for god.

This is your assertion, not mine, therefore it will be up to you to defend it. If you would like to discuss what I actually said, please let me know and we can pick it up from there.

 

Why hasn't Bush's enemies, considering he is something of a figurehead for such a plot, used this angle?

If that 44% does represent the majority of the voting public, how do you think they would respond to direct criticism? Considering that about 83% of americans consider themselves christian, how do you think the public would respond to any criticism directed toward christianity (feel free to use your own behavior in these threads as a benchmark)? Which politicians do you think are eager to do such a thing?

 

That he or the people that support him are mindless religious zombies working towards the world's destruction?

"Mindless religious zombies" is your term, but I'd like to use it sometime if that's alright.

 

For that matter why haven't they come after you for trying to expose this conspiracy?

It's not a conspiracy if a large percentage of americans are aware of/behind it.

 

Your source where Bush actually asserts this?

Did I say that he did? I believe that I acknowledged that it was supposition when I wrote it. Would you care to show how such a conclusion is less likely than likely?

 

Also, I find it odd that out of that paragraph, you choose to question the one sentence that was clearly supposition. I suppose the other examples I provided as support for my argument will go uncontested.

 

Or actually says he believes he's going to bring about Christ's return? Or has even come close to implying such a thing?

He's said more than enough to confirm for me that he is a radical fundamentalist. If he draws the line at trying to bring about the rapture, that's fine. But he's given me no reason to think he does.

 

So there are 44% (which is a minority, and far from 'highly likely')...

44% is a minority if the sample is 100% of the population. If the sample is say 75% of the population, then 44% would represent about 57% - not a minority.

 

In the 2000 election approximately 55% of eligble voters actually participated in the election. If 100% of that 44% turned out, then they represented 80% of the voting public - far from "a minority".

 

Considering that every christian resource I've encountered endorsed Bush (including the christian coalition's very helpful "voting guides"), and that there have been active campaigns to get christians into voting booths, I don't think the claims that Bush had a highly-organized base in the 2000 and 2004 elections are unfounded.

 

...that allegedly believe that Christ will return in 50 years. So what? If Bush doesn't share that minority view, and you have no proof that he's ever said he believes he's responsible for ushering the rapture, then I don't understand why you and others persist in stating this as if it were fact, or even a strong theory.

Bush has espoused his evangelicalism at every turn, yet I'm supposed to believe that he doesn't share the common evangelical belief in the rapture just because he hasn't specifically commented on the subject? I think it's perfectly reasonable to that it is, at the very least, a strong theory.

 

Just because he's an Evangelical does not mean he believes God's coming back in the next 50 years, and if he knows his Bible as well as he says he does, he knows that the rapture is entirely up to God, not him.

I haven't yet had the opportunity to ask Bush when he does think that jesus will return. If 83% of americans are christian and 44% of christians say they think the rapture will occur in the next 50 years, then my odd are just better than 50/50 that Bush is one of the people betting on sooner rather than later.

 

Just out of curiosity Jae, which verse (or verses) are you referring to specifically? I've noticed in this thread that a lot of christians tend to assume that their interpretation of the bible is the one they consider to be "literal", so I'd like to see just how specific god was when he said that it was up to him. The last time I read revelations, it sure seemed pretty up-in-the-air, but that was a long time ago.

 

Thanks!

[Totenkopf]

In the 2000 election approximately 55% of eligble voters actually participated in the election. If 100% of that 44% turned out, then they represented 80% of the voting public - far from "a minority".

 

Seems that if that were the case, there'dve been no need for the USSC to get involved. It's doubtful that if 80% of the elctorate were evangelicals that they'dve voted for Gore in any case. So, your specualtion here seems wildly off course.

[Jae Onasi]

Did I say that he did? I believe that I acknowledged that it was supposition when I wrote it. Would you care to show how such a conclusion is less likely than likely?

You're the one who made the claim.

I haven't seen any indication that Bush has said he is personally going to usher in the rapture. Nor have I seen him claim that he believes the rapture will happen in the next 50 years. Not all evangelicals or fundamentalists believe the rapture will happen in the next 50 years. Therefore, assuming Bush believes that the rapture will occur in the next 50 years is hypothetical at the very best.

 

Could you please also provide the source for your 44% who believe the rapture will occur in the next 50 years? I find it hard to believe that half of the US thinks it, when only about 9% of the population is evangelical.

Also, I find it odd that out of that paragraph, you choose to question the one sentence that was clearly supposition. I suppose the other examples I provided as support for my argument will go uncontested.

It was the only thing I was interested in at the moment, and it's an issue that has been brought up more than once (and I've asked them about it as well), but it hasn't been answered in a satisfactory way.

He's said more than enough to confirm for me that he is a radical fundamentalist. If he draws the line at trying to bring about the rapture, that's fine. But he's given me no reason to think he does.

However, there's no proof whatsoever that he believes this. Belief in fundamentalism is not the same thing. Not all fundamentalists believe the rapture, much less believe it'll happen in our lifetimes.

 

44% is a minority if the sample is 100% of the population. If the sample is say 75% of the population, then 44% would represent about 57% - not a minority.

If you'd provide the stat source, we all could evaluate it for such things.

In the 2000 election approximately 55% of eligble voters actually participated in the election. If 100% of that 44% turned out, then they represented 80% of the voting public - far from "a minority".

 

14% of the electorate declared themselves part of the 'Religious Right' in the 2000 election in exit polls--the 'Religious Right' being the group that would believe in the rapture. That's still a minority. Link.

56% of eligible voters who declared themselves part of the 'Religious Right' voted, about 5% higher than the 51% cited for the entire electorate, but a smaller percentage than a number of other groups (Catholics, Jews, other Protestants, other Non-Christians, etc.)

Considering that every christian resource I've encountered endorsed Bush (including the christian coalition's very helpful "voting guides"), and that there have been active campaigns to get christians into voting booths, I don't think the claims that Bush had a highly-organized base in the 2000 and 2004 elections are unfounded.

You're overlooking the heavily organized voter base among Black Protestant churches--90% of Black Protestants voted for Gore, only 8% for Bush, and they were just as active in getting out the vote and putting out voter guides for Gore. It was also the evangelical groups that put out voting guides--the mainline denominations did not get active like that.

Bush has espoused his evangelicalism at every turn, yet I'm supposed to believe that he doesn't share the common evangelical belief in the rapture just because he hasn't specifically commented on the subject? I think it's perfectly reasonable to that it is, at the very least, a strong theory.

Not every evangelical believes in the rapture. And many evangelicals don't believe it's going to happen imminently.

I haven't yet had the opportunity to ask Bush when he does think that jesus will return. If 83% of americans are christian and 44% of christians say they think the rapture will occur in the next 50 years, then my odd are just better than 50/50 that Bush is one of the people betting on sooner rather than later.

I can't make a decision on that either way without seeing the 44% data. How do you get better than 50/50 out of that? 44% of Christians apparently think the rapture will occur (though I find that hard to believe), which means 56% of Christians don't believe that, which means it's more likely Christians _don't_ believe in the rapture. The 83% of Americans being Christian is irrelevant in this case--it just means 44% of those 83% of Americans allegedly believe that, but still 56% of those 83% don't.

Just out of curiosity Jae, which verse (or verses) are you referring to specifically? I've noticed in this thread that a lot of christians tend to assume that their interpretation of the bible is the one they consider to be "literal", so I'd like to see just how specific god was when he said that it was up to him. The last time I read revelations, it sure seemed pretty up-in-the-air, but that was a long time ago.

Matt 24:36, chiefly, though the rest of the chapter discusses pretty much the same thing. "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." It's the NIV version--most scholars acknowledge that as the most accurate of the translations. I don't read Greek so I don't have the extra nuances from reading it directly.

 

Revelation doesn't discuss when He'll return, true. Anyone who thinks s/h can force a God who created an entire universe into doing something because s/he wants Him to is rather foolish at best.

[John Galt]

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1690 ??

 

good a place to start as any.

[Achilles]

You're the one who made the claim.

Just so that I can make sure that you and I are on the same page, please tell me what claim that is.

 

This one:

Unless of course one also considers that he is a born-again christian, therefore it is highly likely that he is one of those 44% that thinks it doesn't matter anyways because jesus will return in the next 50 years to take over.

Call it 'theory', 'assertion', or whatever, if that makes you feel better instead of 'claim'. I'm not hung up on the semantics of that.

To the best of my knowledge, I've never asserted that Bush said that he was trying to bring about the rapture. I have frequently expressed my misgivings about Bush and the Bush administration and have, when I felt the evidence supported me, stated that he and his administrations have made decisions that are very much consistent with a "rapture ideology".

 

You can't nail me to an argument that I never made, Jae

I simply asked you to provide proof to back up this hypothesis. The only thing you can prove is that he's an evangelical, because he's stated that. You can't even prove that he even believes in the rapture, much less does things to try to bring that about. Until you can, this is nothing but unsupportable supposition, and I expect better from _you_.

 

As I stated in my last post: my odds are better than 50/50.

See below for stat discussion--the odds are not better than 50/50.

Could you please also provide the source for your 44% who believe the rapture will occur in the next 50 years?

The source is a Pew survey which is no longer available on their site. Sam Harris references it in Letter to a Christian Nation (quote from the book can be found here), as well as several of his lectures.

Ah. So we have someone who is clearly biased against religion providing unprovable data pulled out of who-knows-where as fact, possibly something he's just made up out of thin air. I see no link to any Pew surveys on this. When you have a better source, I'll reconsider the credibility. Until then, I don't consider this a worthy source.

This Pew survey that you quoted states only 20% believe Christ will return in their lifetime. 50% of Christians don't believe that any individual's or nation's actions have influence over Christ's return, only 23% did believe this was the case.

I find it hard to believe that half of the US thinks it, when only about 9% of the population is evangelical.

83% christian. Unless I'm mistaken, you don't have to be evangelical to believe in the 2nd coming. I'm sure the Tim Lehaye books don't help much either

Tim LaHaye is an evangelical. Not all Christians are Evangelical or believe in the rapture.

 

However, there's no proof whatsoever that he believes this. Belief in fundamentalism is not the same thing. Not all fundamentalists believe the rapture, much less believe it'll happen in our lifetimes.

Nope, that's why it supposition. In a court of law, you don't have to have video tape evidence to find someone guilty of a crime. You just have to have evidence that would be sufficient to convince a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty.

Which you have yet to provide to a level that a court of law would begin to think satisfactory.

But let's be honest with ourselves for just a moment: Even if I did have a link quoting Bush, would it really sway your opinion of the man or his legacy?

Yes, actually it would. I'm not sure why everyone thinks I'm a huge Bush fan when I'm not--some of the issues he espouses I share, but certainly not all--I differ radically from the GOP on environmentalism and health care for instance. I really don't think he's that great of a President, and I was extremely disappointed in the 2000 elections because I think Gore and Lieberman would have done a far better job.

 

Bush does plenty enough to discredit himself, but I don't want to be unfair by mischaracterizing him as having done or believed something he hasn't. It's not fair to wrongly accuse someone of doing something he hasn't or being something he's not.

14% of the electorate declared themselves part of the 'Religious Right' in the 2000 election in exit polls--the 'Religious Right' being the group that would believe in the rapture. That's still a minority.

Aside from the fact that question is ambiguously worded, your assertion that belief in rapture being specific to the "religious right" is going to be difficult to defend.

It's not a Catholic doctrine so Catholics are out. Since Episcopalians and Lutherans are similar doctrinally, they're out. Other mainline denomniations such as Presbyterians, Methodists, and so on don't profess the rapture either. This leaves only the evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians, who've been lumped together as 'the Religious Right'.

 

We don't know how survey data correlates with your survey data. My point was to show that you don't know what percentage of the voting public is represented within that 44%.

Which is not even a number that can be substantiated in the first place.

You're overlooking the heavily organized voter base among Black Protestant churches

Your own source shows that black protestants were less than 10% of the electorate.

You'll have to help me out Jae. I can't find any examples of partisan voter guides for Al Gore. I'm willing to take your word for it that they exist, I just want to see if they are just as damning as sites like these.

Can't find any at the moment from 2000 (since it's not salient now, they likely aren't kept on websites, and I haven't come close to exhausting keywords), but my sister goes to a black church and knows first hand about voter organization there. Rev. Sharpton and Rev. Jackson are very active in politics and religion both and both support Dems nearly, if not always, exclusively. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference's page on Strategic Priorities and Initiatives read like planks in the Dem platform, and the site has links to no less than _five_ different sites where people can go register to vote. Sen. Clinton and Edwards both have actively attended Black Protestant churches on a regular basis to court the black vote during church services. I don't know of any GOP candidates who've likewise been invited to speak at such services.

 

I wasn't looking at the stat amount of people, I was just pointing out that white evangelicals were not the only ones who were highly organized. Bush's people at the grass-roots level did do a better job at getting voters out, especially in states like Ohio, which is one of the reasons why he won in 2000, but the Black Protestant churches were also highly organized.

Not every evangelical believes in the rapture. And many evangelicals don't believe it's going to happen imminently.

And "imminently" means...? Before dinner?

Next Tuesday at 3:33 UTC -5. Everyone's invited to the send-off party, BYOB.

Seriously, since the criteria for 'soon' is 'within our lifetimes/within 50 years', we'll go with that.

44% of americans (not specifically christians). If 83% of americans are christians and 44% of americans believe that jesus will come back in the next 50 years, then that 44% represents about 53% of christians.

Achilles, assuming for the moment the 44% number is accurate, if 44% of Americans believe Jesus will come back, they by definition also have to be Christian. Non-Christians don't believe in Christ or the rapture. How many of those alleged 44% believe Christ will return but are not Christian? I would be surprised if there were any, and if there are any it would be highly likely to be a statistically insignificant amount. You have to be a Christian to believe Christ will return, so those 44% are all (or very nearly all) Christian.

 

BTW: White evangelicals? 95%. In your lifetime? 33%.

33% of white evangelicals. So Bush theoretically has a 33% chance of believing that Christ will return in this lifetime, which means a 67% chance of not believing it.

 

Matt 24:36, chiefly, though the rest of the chapter discusses pretty much the same thing. "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

But that doesn't specifically address the circumstances. And even if it did, it completely ignores the psychology.

Well, no, because you didn't ask about circumstances. I assumed you were asking about the specific timing as stated in the Bible, since that question followed right after your paragraph talking about the percentage who believed Christ would return in this lifetime. I've read the same wars/rumors of wars/earthquakes/etc. passages that you have. I don't think greater media coverage means we have more of these things at this point in history, it just means we have better media coverage. I don't care if He comes back this lifetime or not. I can't do anything to alter that. All I can do is work to make a difference here on Earth and in the lives of the people around me at this point in time.

 

Who says anything about forcing god to do anything? If a group of christians believe that god is waiting for a certain set of circumstances to be established before he acts, then why does it seem unreasonable for them to work toward creating those circumstances? Especially if the text is vague about how those circumstances are to come about?

The only thing we're supposed to be working for, as Christians, is to be more Christ-like. God's got everything covered. If He can make an entire universe, He certainly doesn't need us to engineer circumstances for Him.

 

It seems that there is a very high expectation when it comes to rational behavior and this expectation is being applied to a group that values faith over reason. I don't understand why anyone thinks this will be a high-percentage exercise.

Could you clarify what you mean for me, please? I'm thinking of multiple different meanings for this because I'm not sure what specifically you're referring to.

 

OMG, I hit the edit button when I meant to hit the reply button, Achilles, and I didn't catch it until it was too late. I am SO sorry I messed up your post!! I'll try to see if there's any way it can be retrieved--it's gone from my tab already but I'll check with one of the admins to see if it's cached anywhere. Again, my deepest apologies! --Jae

[Jae Onasi]

You're the one who made the claim.

Just so that I can make sure that you and I are on the same page, please tell me what claim that is.

 

This one:

Unless of course one also considers that he is a born-again christian, therefore it is highly likely that he is one of those 44% that thinks it doesn't matter anyways because jesus will return in the next 50 years to take over.

Call it 'theory', 'assertion', or whatever, if that makes you feel better instead of 'claim'. I'm not hung up on the semantics of that.

To the best of my knowledge, I've never asserted that Bush said that he was trying to bring about the rapture. I have frequently expressed my misgivings about Bush and the Bush administration and have, when I felt the evidence supported me, stated that he and his administrations have made decisions that are very much consistent with a "rapture ideology".

 

You can't nail me to an argument that I never made, Jae

I simply asked you to provide proof to back up this hypothesis. The only thing you can prove is that he's an evangelical, because he's stated that. You can't even prove that he even believes in the rapture, much less does things to try to bring that about. Until you can, this is nothing but unsupportable supposition, and I expect better from _you_.

 

As I stated in my last post: my odds are better than 50/50.

See below for stat discussion--the odds are not better than 50/50.

Could you please also provide the source for your 44% who believe the rapture will occur in the next 50 years?

The source is a Pew survey which is no longer available on their site. Sam Harris references it in Letter to a Christian Nation (quote from the book can be found here), as well as several of his lectures.

Ah. So we have someone who is clearly biased against religion providing unprovable data pulled out of who-knows-where as fact, possibly something he's just made up out of thin air. I see no link to any Pew surveys on this. When you have a better source, I'll reconsider the credibility. Until then, I don't consider this a worthy source.

This Pew survey that you quoted states only 20% believe Christ will return in their lifetime. 50% of Christians don't believe that any individual's or nation's actions have influence over Christ's return, only 23% did believe this was the case.

I find it hard to believe that half of the US thinks it, when only about 9% of the population is evangelical.

83% christian. Unless I'm mistaken, you don't have to be evangelical to believe in the 2nd coming. I'm sure the Tim Lehaye books don't help much either

Tim LaHaye is an evangelical. Not all Christians are Evangelical or believe in the rapture.

 

However, there's no proof whatsoever that he believes this. Belief in fundamentalism is not the same thing. Not all fundamentalists believe the rapture, much less believe it'll happen in our lifetimes.

Nope, that's why it supposition. In a court of law, you don't have to have video tape evidence to find someone guilty of a crime. You just have to have evidence that would be sufficient to convince a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty.

Which you have yet to provide to a level that a court of law would begin to think satisfactory.

But let's be honest with ourselves for just a moment: Even if I did have a link quoting Bush, would it really sway your opinion of the man or his legacy?

Yes, actually it would. I'm not sure why everyone thinks I'm a huge Bush fan when I'm not--some of the issues he espouses I share, but certainly not all--I differ radically from the GOP on environmentalism and health care for instance. I really don't think he's that great of a President, and I was extremely disappointed in the 2000 elections because I think Gore and Lieberman would have done a far better job.

 

Bush does plenty enough to discredit himself, but I don't want to be unfair by mischaracterizing him as having done or believed something he hasn't. It's not fair to wrongly accuse someone of doing something he hasn't or being something he's not.

14% of the electorate declared themselves part of the 'Religious Right' in the 2000 election in exit polls--the 'Religious Right' being the group that would believe in the rapture. That's still a minority.

Aside from the fact that question is ambiguously worded, your assertion that belief in rapture being specific to the "religious right" is going to be difficult to defend.

It's not a Catholic doctrine so Catholics are out. Since Episcopalians and Lutherans are similar doctrinally, they're out. Other mainline denomniations such as Presbyterians, Methodists, and so on don't profess the rapture either. This leaves only the evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians, who've been lumped together as 'the Religious Right'.

 

We don't know how survey data correlates with your survey data. My point was to show that you don't know what percentage of the voting public is represented within that 44%.

Which is not even a number that can be substantiated in the first place.

You're overlooking the heavily organized voter base among Black Protestant churches

Your own source shows that black protestants were less than 10% of the electorate.

You'll have to help me out Jae. I can't find any examples of partisan voter guides for Al Gore. I'm willing to take your word for it that they exist, I just want to see if they are just as damning as sites like these.

Can't find any at the moment from 2000 (since it's not salient now, they likely aren't kept on websites, and I haven't come close to exhausting keywords), but my sister goes to a black church and knows first hand about voter organization there. Rev. Sharpton and Rev. Jackson are very active in politics and religion both and both support Dems nearly, if not always, exclusively. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference's page on Strategic Priorities and Initiatives read like planks in the Dem platform, and the site has links to no less than _five_ different sites where people can go register to vote. Sen. Clinton and Edwards both have actively attended Black Protestant churches on a regular basis to court the black vote during church services. I don't know of any GOP candidates who've likewise been invited to speak at such services.

 

I wasn't looking at the stat amount of people, I was just pointing out that white evangelicals were not the only ones who were highly organized. Bush's people at the grass-roots level did do a better job at getting voters out, especially in states like Ohio, which is one of the reasons why he won in 2000, but the Black Protestant churches were also highly organized.

Not every evangelical believes in the rapture. And many evangelicals don't believe it's going to happen imminently.

And "imminently" means...? Before dinner?

Next Tuesday at 3:33 UTC -5. Everyone's invited to the send-off party, BYOB.

Seriously, since the criteria for 'soon' is 'within our lifetimes/within 50 years', we'll go with that.

44% of americans (not specifically christians). If 83% of americans are christians and 44% of americans believe that jesus will come back in the next 50 years, then that 44% represents about 53% of christians.

Achilles, assuming for the moment the 44% number is accurate, if 44% of Americans believe Jesus will come back, they by definition also have to be Christian. Non-Christians don't believe in Christ or the rapture. How many of those alleged 44% believe Christ will return but are not Christian? I would be surprised if there were any, and if there are any it would be highly likely to be a statistically insignificant amount. You have to be a Christian to believe Christ will return, so those 44% are all (or very nearly all) Christian.

 

BTW: White evangelicals? 95%. In your lifetime? 33%.

33% of white evangelicals. So Bush theoretically has a 33% chance of believing that Christ will return in this lifetime, which means a 67% chance of not believing it.

 

Matt 24:36, chiefly, though the rest of the chapter discusses pretty much the same thing. "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

But that doesn't specifically address the circumstances. And even if it did, it completely ignores the psychology.

Well, no, because you didn't ask about circumstances. I assumed you were asking about the specific timing as stated in the Bible, since that question followed right after your paragraph talking about the percentage who believed Christ would return in this lifetime. I've read the same wars/rumors of wars/earthquakes/etc. passages that you have. I don't think greater media coverage means we have more of these things at this point in history, it just means we have better media coverage. I don't care if He comes back this lifetime or not. I can't do anything to alter that. All I can do is work to make a difference here on Earth and in the lives of the people around me at this point in time.

 

Who says anything about forcing god to do anything? If a group of christians believe that god is waiting for a certain set of circumstances to be established before he acts, then why does it seem unreasonable for them to work toward creating those circumstances? Especially if the text is vague about how those circumstances are to come about?

The only thing we're supposed to be working for, as Christians, is to be more Christ-like. God's got everything covered. If He can make an entire universe, He certainly doesn't need us to engineer circumstances for Him.

 

It seems that there is a very high expectation when it comes to rational behavior and this expectation is being applied to a group that values faith over reason. I don't understand why anyone thinks this will be a high-percentage exercise.

Could you clarify what you mean for me, please? I'm thinking of multiple different meanings for this because I'm not sure what specifically you're referring to.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Why would I be right to stop them? Simple, self defense. They seek to harm others, I seek to stop that from happening.

Ahem.

[Achilles]

This one: <snip>

Call it 'theory', 'assertion', or whatever, if that makes you feel better instead of 'claim'. I'm not hung up on the semantics of that.

I'm confused Jae. The allegation was that I said Bush said that he was trying to force the rapture. The claim that you referenced here has nothing to do with that. I'm glad I asked for clarification because it seems that we aren't even having the same conversation anymore.

 

If you are able to find where I did state that Bush claimed to be forcing the rapture, please feel free to call me on it and we can pick up where we left off.

 

I simply asked you to provide proof to back up this hypothesis. The only thing you can prove is that he's an evangelical, because he's stated that. You can't even prove that he even believes in the rapture, much less does things to try to bring that about. Until you can, this is nothing but unsupportable supposition, and I expect better from _you_.

Supposition is fine so long as one does not confuse it with fact. Thus far, I don't believe that I have. As for whether or not it's unsupportable: I guess that depends on how objective the two of us are willing to be.

 

Bush opted to label himself as an evangelical. Self-identifying with an ideology permits people to make certain assumptions about others. Telling me that you are a member of the KKK would allow me to make some snap assumptions about how you feel about racial minorities. I suppose it's entirely possible that you could be a member of the KKK and not really feel any kind of prejudice, but since you have identified yourself with that group, I really don't have any good reason to assume that this presumption is incorrect.

 

Now if we were talking about Bush as a man over the age of 40 or someone that writes with his right hand, such presumptions would be foolish and incorrect. However in this scenario we are talking about an ideology that he voluntarily elected to identify himself with.

 

If you feel that I am way out of line for comfortably assuming that Bush is part of the 95% of evangelicals that believe in 2nd coming, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. And I'll find a way to carry on knowing that I've disappointed you

 

See below for stat discussion--the odds are not better than 50/50.

Looking forward to it.

 

Ah. So we have someone who is clearly biased against religion providing unprovable data pulled out of who-knows-where as fact, possibly something he's just made up out of thin air.

I'm sorry that Pew no longer has the survey available on their website, but I think it takes a huge leap to go from that to "made up out of thin air". I think, "Since I can't confirm the source, I'll remain skeptical" would have been sufficient.

 

Regardless, here is another source that talks about the survey and also references a princton survey done about the same time, which the Pew survey results confirmed.

 

This Pew survey that you quoted states only 20% believe Christ will return in their lifetime.

Right. I believe I already pointed out in my previous (now disappeared) post that since the questions were not worded the same way, an apple-to-apples comparison was not possible. It could be that people that answered "likely" in the previous survey wouldn't have been included in this number and doing so would put the comparative number closer to 40%. But of course, that would just be guessing.

 

50% of Christians don't believe that any individual's or nation's actions have influence over Christ's return, only 23% did believe this was the case.

And the other 27%?

 

I don't see how that 50% number is significant in any way, other than the alarming fact that only half of christians believe that they have no impact whatsoever. 1-in-4 thinking they do with another 1-in-4 undecided is scary enough as-is thank you.

 

Tim LaHaye is an evangelical. Not all Christians are Evangelical or believe in the rapture.

Are you telling me that only 9% of americans are buying his books?

 

Also, I never said that all christians are evangelical or believe in the rapture, but I appreciate you stating the obvious, just in case.

 

Which you have yet to provide to a level that a court of law would begin to think satisfactory.

Which is your opinion.

 

Yes, actually it would.

I'll take your word for it, but I will state honestly that based on experience, I find it hard to believe.

 

I'm not sure why everyone thinks I'm a huge Bush fan when I'm not--some of the issues he espouses I share, but certainly not all--I differ radically from the GOP on environmentalism and health care for instance. I really don't think he's that great of a President, and I was extremely disappointed in the 2000 elections because I think Gore and Lieberman would have done a far better job.

Many of the arguments you've made match his administrations rhetoric (in some cases nearly word-for-word). I guess I've just assumed that you were a Bush supporter.

 

And since you admitted that such evidence would change your current opinion, I can only assume that your current opinion is mostly favorable.

 

Bush does plenty enough to discredit himself, but I don't want to be unfair by mischaracterizing him as having done or believed something he hasn't. It's not fair to wrongly accuse someone of doing something he hasn't or being something he's not.

So are you playing devil's advocate or do you truly believe that these aren't his intentions?

 

It's not a Catholic doctrine so Catholics are out. Since Episcopalians and Lutherans are similar doctrinally, they're out. Other mainline denomniations such as Presbyterians, Methodists, and so on don't profess the rapture either. This leaves only the evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians, who've been lumped together as 'the Religious Right'.

Right. So the way to word that question to avoid ambiguity would have been "Do you consider yourself an evangelical or fundamentalist?". Ambiguous wording accusation stands.

 

PS: the alternative question that I provided would be considered double-barreled. Too many marketing classes and to much experience writing surveys for my own good

 

Which is not even a number that can be substantiated in the first place.

Sure it can. You opted not to accept the source, which I can't help. Just because the survey data isn't online, doesn't mean it's not available. It just makes it significantly more difficult for me to provide for you.

 

Can't find any at the moment from 2000 (since it's not salient now, they likely aren't kept on websites, and I haven't come close to exhausting keywords), but my sister goes to a black church and knows first hand about voter organization there. Rev. Sharpton and Rev. Jackson are very active in politics and religion both and both support Dems nearly, if not always, exclusively. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference's page on Strategic Priorities and Initiatives read like planks in the Dem platform, and the site has links to no less than _five_ different sites where people can go register to vote. Sen. Clinton and Edwards both have actively attended Black Protestant churches on a regular basis to court the black vote during church services. I don't know of any GOP candidates who've likewise been invited to speak at such services.

Even if I accepted this all, it still only speaks to a very small percentage of the voting population.

 

Damn them for being ineffective if you want, but it doesn't change my point.

 

Achilles, assuming for the moment the 44% number is accurate, if 44% of Americans believe Jesus will come back, they by definition also have to be Christian. Non-Christians don't believe in Christ or the rapture. How many of those alleged 44% believe Christ will return but are not Christian? I would be surprised if there were any, and if there are any it would be highly likely to be a statistically insignificant amount. You have to be a Christian to believe Christ will return, so those 44% are all (or very nearly all) Christian.

Imagine that 100 people are asked the same two questions. If the responded answers "yes" the first question, a check goes in a box in a column. If they answers "no" then no check is made. Same process for the second question.

 

In this scenario, 83 of those 100 people had checks in the first column and 44 also had checks in the second column. So 44% of the 100 people surveyed said "yes" to the second question. There is no relationship between the first column and the second column. In your model, only 44% of the people that answered yes to the first question also answered yes to the second question, creating a relationship that did not exist in the survey results. Does that help clarify the distinction?

 

If it helps, completely ignore the 83% number, because I think that may be the source of the distraction. 44% of americans said they believed that it was either "certain" or "likely" that jesus would return within the next 50 years. No one will argue that these people were also most likely christians.

 

So Bush theoretically has a 33% chance of believing that Christ will return in this lifetime, which means a 67% chance of not believing it.

And a 95% chance of believing in the second coming in the first place, but that's another point.

 

1-in-3 is still very good odds. I liked 1-in-2.5 better, but hey.

 

Well, no, because you didn't ask about circumstances. I assumed you were asking about the specific timing as stated in the Bible, since that question followed right after your paragraph talking about the percentage who believed Christ would return in this lifetime.

My apologies. I thought my point was obvious. My mistake for not being more specific.

 

I've read the same wars/rumors of wars/earthquakes/etc. passages that you have. I don't think greater media coverage means we have more of these things at this point in history, it just means we have better media coverage. I don't care if He comes back this lifetime or not. I can't do anything to alter that. All I can do is work to make a difference here on Earth and in the lives of the people around me at this point in time.

This speaks to my point about the psychology.

 

The only thing we're supposed to be working for, as Christians, is to be more Christ-like.

I guess that, like so much else in christianity, is open to interpretation.

 

God's got everything covered. If He can make an entire universe, He certainly doesn't need us to engineer circumstances for Him.

But still we make cars with steering wheels, right? Right.

 

You don't leave your commute in god's hands because you believe that even though god could control your vehicle if he wanted to, he chooses not to for his own reasons. I don't judge the fundamentalists too harshly if they apply the same thinking to their ideology on armageddon.

 

Could you clarify what you mean for me, please? I'm thinking of multiple different meanings for this because I'm not sure what specifically you're referring to.

I'm not sure how to put this nicely without simply repeating what I've already said, but I'll do my best.

 

Faith is not rational, yet many of the arguments and counter-arguments presented in this thread presume that the faithful are also rational. Why is it that you expect people that believe that they have a relationship with an invisible man in the sky to behave rationally about that belief?

 

Or as Sam Harris puts it:

 

The President of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. Now, if he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ludicrous or more offensive.

 

OMG, I hit the edit button when I meant to hit the reply button, Achilles, and I didn't catch it until it was too late. I am SO sorry I messed up your post!! I'll try to see if there's any way it can be retrieved--it's gone from my tab already but I'll check with one of the admins to see if it's cached anywhere. Again, my deepest apologies! --Jae

It's no problem. I think I managed to fish most of your response out, but you'll have to carry the arguments from memory until all is squared away. Take care.

[Nancy Allen``]

Ahem.

 

The actual verse is talking about seeking revenge, not acting in self defense. Of course you are entitled to defend yourself and others, in fact the same rules the apply to the police also apply to you in terms of using reasonable force.

 

As for this whole rapture business, Christians are meant to be stewards of god's world, so as far as not worrying about global warming goes for example by rights they should be more worried about it than you are.

[Achilles]

FYI that some christians have taken that whole "dominion" business from Genesis along with selected bits of Revelations and come up with an interpretation that the earth is ours to "rape" (to borrow Ann Coulter's term).

 

I'm sure there are others that support the "good stewardship" philosophy that you've mentioned. The point is that once again the bible supports both interpretations.

[Nancy Allen``]

Source?

[Achilles]

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.' " - Ann Coulter (Fox News; Hannity & Colmes; June 20, 2001).

 

If you want to see it online, you'll have to google it yourself. Many of ann's quotes are rather colorful and I didn't feel that I could link to any of the quote sites without potentially violating the PG-13 rule.

 

EDIT: It just occured to me that you were referring to dominionism and not the ann coulter quote. Sorry. This source is probably a good start.

[Nancy Allen``]

And are you quite sure that Atheists are completely free of blame over enviromental damage?

[ET Warrior]

And are you quite sure that Atheists are completely free of blame over enviromental damage?

Really? We spent how many pages of this thread explaining in every possible way the distinction between an atheist who does something and someone who is religious who is motivated to do something because of their religion.

[Totenkopf]

Right, ET, the economic exploitation of the planet is primarily the fault of religion and not human concerns (greed, power, etc...).

[ET Warrior]

Right, ET, the economic exploitation of the planet is primarily the fault of religion and not human concerns

Shucks, I don't recall ever making that assertion.

[Nancy Allen``]

I seem to remember something being said about how people will pick apart arguements in a debate forum. Now the burdon of evidence on whether religion is to blame for enviromental destruction, and that Atheists are blameless in it, is on you. What has been presented? An interpretation of a quote from the bible by someone who wants to portray religion as some great evil. Now if you want this to be taken seriously you will show us solid evidence.

[Totenkopf]

Never claimed you said that verbatim. Nancy's point didn't seem to be that there was some "church" of atheism" that doctrinally said "go forth and pollute, ravage and rape the earth". The argument here seems to be that many "christians" are ecologically unsound, gambling that God will come down w/in a generation or two to smite the earth and all unbelievers, thus no point in worrying about cleaning up or even about making a mess in the first place. She was merely pointing out that much of the ecological damage to the earth has been perpetrated by people not doing anything in the name of God/gods. Thus, both atheists and theists are to blame for the state of the planet, with no proof of who's more guilty than the other. It would be very hard to prove that the world's major corporations and the global population in general are polluting the planet b/c they got a dispensation from Jesus/Buddha/etc.. that it would be okay.