L.B.: BBC 3

Left Behind, pp. 239-247

One more brief note on Nicolae Carpathia's dazzling performance at the United Nations.

This was the young Antichrist's coming out party and certain aspects of it seem familiar. He stands before the U.N. where "they were all together in one place," people "from every nation under heaven." And when he spoke, "each one heard him speaking in his own language."

The quotations in that paragraph are not from Left Behind, but rather from St. Luke's account of Pentecost in the second chapter of the book of Acts. So maybe that's how we should read this, as a kind of anti-Pentecost.

But alas, these allusions seem merely accidental and incidental. And Pentecost, in any case, is the wrong event for such a parallel. Pentecost was the day in which the apostle Peter spoke to thousands of God-fearing people "from every nation under heaven" and each of them heard him as though he were speaking in their native language, a miracle enabled by his being filled with the Holy Spirit who appeared as "what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them." (A vivid image, but one that unfortunately inspired some rather silly looking ecclesiastical hats.)

If Nicolae were the Anti-Peter or the Anti-Spirit, then a scene paralleling Pentecost would make sense. As the Anti-Christ what we should be reading, instead, are scenes paralleling Jesus' baptism and annointing by John, his calling of his disciples, and his miraculous healings, feedings and celebrations.

In particular, we ought to see Nicolae's mirror opposite replay of the temptation of Christ (see Matthew 4), with the difference being that Carpathia would be unable to reject the devil's offers of earthly power. At some point Nicolae should have been taken to "a very high mountain" and shown "all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor," at which point he should have said, "Yes, please, give them to me."

The Gospel accounts of the life and ministry of Christ offer a wealth of possibilities. Rather than having him spout endless trivia about the history and organizational structure of the United Nations, the authors could have had him offering an upside-down version of the Sermon on the Mount, complete with anti-Beatitudes.

Replaying the familiar Gospel scenes in an "anti-Gospel" of Nicolae Carpathia would have allowed our authors to explore the character and meaning of both Christ and Antichrist. Such an approach might have proved both entertaining and edifying, which is what LaHaye and Jenkins say they intended these books to be.

The reason we don't see such scenes, I'm afraid, is that our authors are not terribly interested in the character and meaning of either Christ or Antichrist. To L&J, both figures are simply plot devices. And the plot, as they see it, has very little to do with the kingdom of heaven described in the Sermon on the Mount or with the Christ who spoke those words.

Ultimately, for L&J, the only significant difference between Christ and Antichrist is this: Nicolae tries to slaughter all of his enemies and destroy the world, but he fails. Christ succeeds.

Jesus Christ.

Comments

[aunursa]

In particular, we ought to see Nicolae's mirror opposite replay of the temptation of Christ (see Matthew 4), with the difference being that Carpathia would be unable to reject the devil's offers of earthly power. In particular, we ought to see Nicolae's mirror opposite replay of the temptation of Christ (see Matthew 4), with the difference being that Carpathia would be unable to reject the devil's offers of earthly power

This scene is depicted in the prequel The Rising.

And the scene in which "each of them heard him as though he were speaking in their native language" is depicted in the final book, Glorious Appearing, when Jesus speaks to the survivors of the Tribulation and each of them hears the words in his own language. I think the witnesses at the Temple Mount perform the same trick. (However a recording of the witnesses' voices is in Hebrew.)

[A Texan in Bavaria]

The Anti-Beatitudes, version one:

"Blessed are the rich in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
"Blessed are those who rejoice, for they shall be comforted."
"Blessed are the proud, for they shall inherit the earth."
"Blessed are those who are satisfied with the state of justice, for they will be made fuller."
"Blessed are the merciless, for they will receive mercy."
"Blessed are the impure of heart, for they will see God."
"Blessed are the bellicose, for they will be called children of God."
"Blessed are those who persecute the righteous, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

(From Matthew 5:3-10)

Others should have a go at it. It's an interesting exercise

Matthew 5 is also a very interesting chapter. I can't remember Jesus saying anything about same-sex relations, but he very clearly stated, "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the grounds of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matthew 5:31-32)

Matthew 5:38-42 might be the most interesting bits.

Any other ideas

[mds]

The Anti-Beatitudes, version one:

Hmm, sounds like you simply got hold of the Bible translation used by LaHaye, Falwell et al. Kudos anyway.

[the opoponax]

Matthew 5:31-32 is the verse that helped me to realize i wasn't a christian. or at least, if i took the bible straight up, no Cafeteria Christianity, no excuses, no apologies, no revisionism etc. that at the end of the day, no, actually, i don't agree with all the messages of Jesus, or at least i don't think they have any relevance in my modern life.

Christ clearly states here that to marry after divorce is adultury. that's the only rational way one could interpret this passage. and it's something i disagree with pretty vehemently, and not only that but the line of thought expressed here ties in pretty closely with all kinds of other anti-sex Christian mores usually attributed to Paul, with which i also vehemently disagree.

it's not the only thing in the NT i disagree with, but it was the first passage i found where i saw the words of Christ and thought, "no, actually, i do not agree with this." Not the Hebrew Scriptures or Paul, which i felt free to disagree with and still call myself a Christian. it's also not the major reason i decided to move away from Christianity (that would be the whole 'jesus died for our sins' salvation thing). but it was the first step, the moment where i realized that i couldn't just rationalize the Christian mores i didn't like as being not really of Christ.

[Cyrai]

"Blessed are the strong in spirit,
for they will make heaven on earth.
Blessed are those who celebrate,
for all the world is their oyster.
Blessed are those who are brash,
for fortune favors the brave.
Blessed are those who dispense justice,
for their strength will fill the world.
Blessed are the pitiless,
for only they can give mercy.
Blessed are the composite,
for they can draw strength from all.
Blessed are the warriors,
for they will be called the fathers of man.
Blessed are those who are tolerant of all,
for they will make heaven on earth.

[aunursa]

Matthew 5:31-32 is the verse that helped me to realize i wasn't a christian ... i don't agree with all the messages of Jesus, or at least i don't think they have any relevance in my modern life.

So one cannot be a Christian unless one agrees with every single thing Jesus said?

[Chuck]

So one cannot be a Christian unless one agrees with every single thing Jesus said?

Well...being Christian means you believe he's God. And God is all-knowing and infallible. So, umm, no, it would seem like you can't.

[Beth]

The Anti-Beatitudes, version one...

Version Two:

"Cursed are the poor in spirit, for they have no part in the kingdom of heaven."
"Cursed are those who weep, for they shall not be comforted."
"Cursed are the meek, for they shall inherit nothing."

And so on.

I have to admit though, this 'mirror-opposite' Antichrist thing seems pretty confusing. His 'ghostly' father would be Satan, not God, right? So if he's the mirror opposite of Jesus Christ, the faithful, humble son who always put his Father's will above his own, wouldn't he be always in rebellion against Satan? And if not, if he's faithfully doing his father's will, wouldn't that make him a sort of a tragic figure? The Good Son, condemned from birth because of a lousy father?

opoponax: "Matthew 5:31-32 is the verse that helped me to realize i wasn't a christian. or at least, if i took the bible straight up, no Cafeteria Christianity, no excuses, no apologies, no revisionism etc"

FWIW, I've usually heard that verse understood in context with Matthew 19:8-9 (He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”)

In other words, divorce and remarriage is not part of the Divine Plan, but permissable because human sinfulness sometimes made it the Least Worst option. (It is also worth noting that marriage for Jesus's listeners was not a romantic arrangement between two individuals, but an economic/power relationship between two families, and a divorced woman was in a very tenuous state, while the man who divorced her was affected very little.)

You of course might consider all this to be "excuses" or "revisionism", and it still may be incompatible with your understanding of marriage, but it is worth noting. It's certainly how so many Evangelical types (you know, the so-called "literalists") justify their OWN checkered marital histories.

[hapax]

whoops, that was me @2.23

[Raka]

aunursa, I think the opoponax was specifically saying that this was the moment he realized he didn't agree with absolutely everything Christ said, which meant that he couldn't call himself a Christian in the sense of one who holds Christ's word to be the highest form of truth-- which is a pretty common use of the word Christian. I don't think anyone (except Christ, I suppose) really owns the word "Christian", but I don't think it's particularly extreme to feel that one who picks and chooses from his words and takes it simply as very good advice doesn't quite fit the standard definition.

Finding just one thing Christ said that you can't reconcile internally and won't just accept blindly can certainly be a significant identity change for someone who previously took all words attributed to Christ as divine.

[Jos]

Wait, wait...

Jesus destroys the world?

Is this a metaphorical destroying of the world, or does Planet Earth actually blow up? Because, in truth, an ending in which Jesus turns our little blue globe into so much space debris would certainly raise my appreciation for these books.

[the opoponax]

Raka has it pretty much right.

for a long time, i considered myself a Christian, mainly because i'd been raised a liberal mainline one and had no problem with the take on Christianity i'd been raised with. and the things i did have particular issues with often seemed to be justified either by Hebrew Scripture verses (i.e. the "lying with a man as a woman" stuff condemning homosexuality) or by things that came out of the mouth of Paul, not Christ (i.e. women not being allowed to speak in church). so for a long time after i started to have my doubts about certain Christian tenets, i excused the whole thing away by saying that it wasn't Christ that said those things, Paul and later church decisions had corrupted Christ's intended message, etc.

and then at some point 4-5 years ago, i undertook to read the Gospels and Acts. starting with Matthew of course. And i happened upon this verse, as well as the one hapax mentioned in chapter 19. and this was the beginning of me realizing that A) i didn't always consider the words of Christ to be infallible godly truth, and B) everything i'd always thought was wrong with Christianity wasn't attributable to corruption. in other words, this was the beginning of me starting to realize that the problem wasn't my interpretation of scripture or my displeasure with more fundamentalist groups -- i just didn't agree with certain parts of Christianity.

there were, of course, many other parts i found that i didn't agree with, either, many of which were to be found in John, which, while beautiful, is where a lot of the parts about how nonbelivers are condemned come in. and i don't believe that, either. which of course led to the realization that i couldn't simply cut away the parts of this faith i didn't want to believe in and keep the wedding at cana and "turn the other cheek" and the sermon on the mount and "let him cast the first stone", any more than a fundamentalist can ignore that stuff and keep the things that go with his/her worldview.

this was merely the first step.

oh, and hapax, even the rationalization just doesn't gibe with me. i think divorce is fine under any circumstances, and it comes about for far more complex reasons that simply because we are flawed, sinners, etc. and, yes, i'm exceptionally familiar with the meanings of marriage in the roman era, both jewish and gentile.

i also think that interpretation of the passage oh so conveniently excuses away one of the most common "sins" under Christianity, so i do think there's a certain amount of hypocracy there -- especially when one considers that many "sins" that would be companions to this (i'm thinking homosexuality and extramarital sex, especially that resulting in unwanted pregnancy or the use of birth control) are considered so awful as to be virtually unforgivable.

[ako]

I don't think anyone (except Christ, I suppose) really owns the word "Christian", but I don't think it's particularly extreme to feel that one who picks and chooses from his words and takes it simply as very good advice doesn't quite fit the standard definition.

I think it's fairly reasonable for the meaning of the word Christianity to be restricted to people who believe certain things about Jesus. There's a point where overextending the word causes it to lose all meaning, and if Christian means "anyone who can't be persuaded to explicity reject everything that Jesus said," then it's uselessly broad.

I'm not comfortable telling other people where the lines should be, because it's a complicated subject and I know very little theology, but I can comfortably put myself outside them, and I respect opoponax for drawing her(?) own lines.

And my personal attempt at reverse beautitudes. I'm kind of envisioning commands to the followers.

Cursed are the poor in spirit: give them a place in the kingdom of hell.

Cursed are they that mourn: let them die without comfort.

Cursed are the meek: grant them no place on this Earth.

Cursed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: let them.

Cursed are the merciful: show them no mercy.

Cursed are the pure in heart: let them see the face of Satan.

Cursed are the peacemakers: make them infamous as the fathers of hell.

Cursed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: give them a place in the kingdom of hell.

[Jacob Davies]

The anti-beatitudes, with a little massaging, start to sound a lot like modern political rhetoric. Especially Republican, of course, but hardly exclusively. Not that that is the most original observation of all time, but still, what it says is that our buddy Nickie could have given a much more convincing speech by talking about the need for preemptive war, the righteousness of Western civilization, and so on.

Of course, then he'd sound like a hawkish politician, and that would be very confusing, In fact that's probably why they don't bother with a literal attempt to invert the life or teachings of Christ: because when you do that, I think these guys would wind up sympathizing with the anti-Christ figure. Kinda hard to fit that into your narrative structure.

[Raped By A Priest Duane]

Fred, you can't keep up this ungodly posting pace forever. Slow down. Yer wearing me out.

[hapax]

opoponax: I'm not trying to convert you, or convince you to accept a particular understanding of a particular passage. But one person's "excusing away" and "rationalization" is another person's "understanding the deeper meaning in context", and conflating any attempt to go beyond the literal with the personal failings of unconnected religious representatives isn't exactly relative to the distinction.

Raped By A Priest Duane: "Slow down. Yer wearing me out."

Maybe it's time to change your sign-in name? ;-)

[the opoponax]

i agree fully, and this has nothing to do with any so-called "biblical literalism". also, even with your interpretation, it's just not something i agree with. period.

while that may be, it's a tad intellectually dishonest to insist that the book of John does not condemn nonbelievers. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the father except by me." John 14:6. and sure, i'm sure you can put it in context, but i've never heard of a context that didn't still mean that the only way to salvation is through Christ. which i both disagree with and find irrelevant. which is Why I'm Not A Christian Anymore.

not that you were insisting such, but i've known liberal christians who've tried to. and different strokes and all, but it just doesn't jibe with me. which is Why I'm Not A Christian Anymore.

[hapax]

opoponax: " i'm sure you can put it in context, but i've never heard of a context that didn't still mean that the only way to salvation is through Christ"
Nope, I'd agree with you. It does depend a LOT on how you define "Christ" (or, within that particular passage, who and what the "I" refers to, or what it means to "come to the Father," or how the preposition translated as "through" should be understood.) Very very tricksy words these are, even among Christians who agree about practically everything else.

And, of course, I cannot conceive of any way the marriage passage can be understood -- let alone twisted or explained away -- to conform to your beliefs about marriage. Given your understanding of what it means to be a Christian, how can I not deeply respect your intellectual honesty and integrity in deciding that you are no longer one?

[ako]

But one person's "excusing away" and "rationalization" is another person's "understanding the deeper meaning in context", and conflating any attempt to go beyond the literal with the personal failings of unconnected religious representatives isn't exactly relative to the distinction.

I hope you don't mind me adding my personal perspective to the mix.

I'm also not Christian. For me, a lot of the literal Biblical interpretations make the most sense, based off what I see in the text. They also collide with my moral views to the point where I'd have a hard time attributing them to divine authority. I'm perfectly willing to admit the possibility that my understanding is wrong, and that the people who see a different meaning are reading it more accurately. However, whenever I've seen any such argument or explanation offered, it's nearly always made less sense to me than taking it literally. So I'd be intellectually dishonest to embrace the meaning that I wanted to see, instead of the one which best fit my understanding. That is not in of itself any reason to say that one meaning is better than the other, but means that I have a choice between thinking that the Bible says what it appears to say to me or reading into it what I want to see, regardless of my actual understanding.

If I were Christian, this would be quite a conflict, but I'm not religious at all, so it's not really important. But it does leave me in an unusual position whenever Christian values get brought into the discussion, because if I were to venture an opinion on what the Bible actually says, I'd wind up siding with the fundamentalists more often than not, while I'd be more likely to take the side of the liberal Christians in terms of what the right thing to do is.

I kind of lost my point somewhere in there. What I was going for is that it's quite possible for me to conclude that it would be dishonest of me to reject the literal interpretations of the Bible based on what I know without thinking that applies to everyone.

[Richard Hershberger]

Regarding marriage, part of the context is that Jesus, as he often does in Matthew, is comparing the Law with true godliness, the point being that even if you follow the Law to the letter this still isn't enough to be truly godly. The standard for that is much higher, and indeed is unattainable by fallen mankind. A good example is the bit about looking at a woman lustfully being equivalent to adultery: no one can match that standard. By itself this is a dreadful message of despair, but add divine grace to the mix--the sacrifice of Christ on the cross--and you have the Good News of God reaching out to mankind. (I have, by the way, just summarized Martin Luther's early life.)

The problem people run into is when they try to read these passages as more Law, and indeed as extra-special Law since they come directly from Jesus. This completely misses the point. These passages are not about Law; they are about Gospel.

What does this tell us about Christian marriage? Not much, really. I think (and I am now moving into personal rambling, not real theology) there might be more about keeping commitments than about whatever we want to call "marriage". I have a traditional marriage: my wife and I promised monogamy and included no escape clause. (But not too traditional: ask her about "obey" and hear he laugh!) This is a time-tested formula and it works for us, but I see no reason why other persons can't write whatever contracts they want. I have known married couples in open marriages who seemed to make it work. I think that is a tough row to hoe, but if it works for them who am I to criticize? Similarly if some want to include escape clauses in the contract, it is not my business to criticize. The important thing is that everyone go in with their eyes open, ready to fulfill their commitments and mature and honest enough not to make commitments they won't keep.

[Josh G.]

The Gospel accounts of the life and ministry of Christ offer a wealth of possibilities. Rather than having him spout endless trivia about the history and organizational structure of the United Nations, the authors could have had him offering an upside-down version of the Sermon on the Mount, complete with anti-Beatitudes.

You mean he'd read John Galt's speech from Atlas Shrugged?

[Richard Hershberger]

Oh, and the bit from Paul about women sitting down and shutting up in church isn't nearly so straightforward, either.

[Ken]

In particular, we ought to see Nicolae's mirror opposite replay of the temptation of Christ (see Matthew 4), with the difference being that Carpathia would be unable to reject the devil's offers of earthly power. At some point Nicolae should have been taken to "a very high mountain" and shown "all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor," at which point he should have said, "Yes, please, give them to me."

This is exactly one of the Medieval concepts of Antichrist, according to a scholarly book a friend gave me years ago. Antichrist's life and career closely parallel Christ's ("anti-" in the sense of "imitation"), up to the point that he chooses his own will over God. Some elaborations of this make Antichrist a tragic figure who genuinely intends and does good up until the point of "MY Will be Done!"

There was also speculation about Antichrist actually being TWO Antichrists operating as a tag team. The Slick Deceiver (Anti- as Imitation) and the Fanatic Persecuter (Anti- as Opposing). You escape the Fanatic Persecutor by taking the Mark (going under the protection) of the Slick Deceiver. (I believe both the Rapture role-playing game and the Star Wars prequel trilogy used this idea.)

[Ken]

Replaying the familiar Gospel scenes in an "anti-Gospel" of Nicolae Carpathia would have allowed our authors to explore the character and meaning of both Christ and Antichrist.

That is what I would like to see in Christian Apocalyptic Fiction; it would give some depth to what has been a shallow and predictable genre.

The reason we don't see such scenes, I'm afraid, is that our authors are not terribly interested in the character and meaning of either Christ or Antichrist. To L&J, both figures are simply plot devices.

No, they are not even plot devices.

They are simply pieces to move about on the End Time Prophecy game board.

[the opoponax]

"the point being that even if you follow the Law to the letter this still isn't enough to be truly godly. The standard for that is much higher, and indeed is unattainable by fallen mankind. A good example is the bit about looking at a woman lustfully being equivalent to adultery: no one can match that standard. By itself this is a dreadful message of despair, but add divine grace to the mix--the sacrifice of Christ on the cross--and you have the Good News of God reaching out to mankind."

yes, but i don't agree with any of that, either.

which is Why I Am No Longer A Christian.

also, let us keep in mind that this was the BEGINNING of a change, not the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back.

"The problem people run into is when they try to read these passages as more Law, and indeed as extra-special Law since they come directly from Jesus. This completely misses the point. These passages are not about Law; they are about Gospel."

i dunno. i feel like, having grown up in a fairly respectable liberal church, in a family who can all debate scripture till they're blue in the face, and after attending years of religious schools, not to mention plenty of english classes wherein we talked about metaphor and interpretation in and out for years, if i'm not equipped to read the bible, especially fairly straightforward passages of the gospels, what's the point? if even i have to be handed the answer on a platter by someone who's been to divinity school, why bother?

"there might be more about keeping commitments than about whatever we want to call "marriage"

see now this is part of what i mean by "rationalization" and "excusing". i think it's taking the metaphor way too far and there doesn't seem to be anything in the context of the passage to support it at all. it actually reminds me of that interpretation of the camel through the eye of the needle passage where "the eye of the needle" was a very small city gate. i'd like it to be true, but just because i'd like it to be true doesn't mean that's the "real" meaning of this passage. which isn't to say that my opinion is prescriptive upon you (or anyone else who takes this interpretation) -- this is how i feel, not the approach i demand of others.

[JMiller]

"Blessed are the proud, for they will never be content to follow."
"Blessed are the rich in spirit, for they have no want of friends."
"Blessed are those who rejoice, for they shall be invited to parties."
"Blessed are those who are satisfied with their government, for they are not revolting."
"Blessed are the impure of heart, for they shall be able to take any side of an issue."
"Blessed are the warmongers, for their profiteering shall be the foundations of modern economies."
"Blessed are the merciless, for they are the catalysts of change."
"And blessed are those who take up arms against their persecutors, for they are truly men who won't take sh|+ from anybody."

I'm not sure whether that's some anti-beatitudes or what politicians might let slip when they're sufficiently inebriated -- though to that end, it would make an amusing speech to the general assembly at the UN... or maybe NATO or the Pentagon would be a better venue... and that kind of scares me.

[LL]

Sorry if anyone's mentioned before (and I think somebody has mentioned one already in a previous comment thread), but I think 2 of the more compelling fictional portrayals (as opposed to biblical) of the Antichrist were in "The Stand" (yes, from Stephen King) and "Good Omens." Both of them described a person (one a sort-of man, the other a young boy) as people of great personal magnetism, charm, etc. in such a way that you could actually say, "Yeah, I can see that," as opposed to LeJenkins' Antichrist, who sounds like the guy in your office you try to avoid having to talk to because he's so damn boring. King and Neil Gaiman/Terry Pratchett describe people who seem to be natural leaders, the kind of people who inspire worship or at least admiration, LeJenkins seem to be describing Cliff Claven from "Cheers." If the Christian bible had been written by the likes of LeJenkins, I doubt it would have nearly as many fans as it does.

[Bugmaster]

I think you guys are going about it all wrong. The modern Antichrist wouldn't use archaic speech constructs such as "Blessed are the foo, for they will bar to baz". That mode of speech was popular 2000 years ago, but it isn't anymore. No, the Antichrist would use the mode of speech that is most common today: political soundbites.

Something like, "We have a destiny before us, and we must be strong enough to embrace it. We have accomplished much, and people all across the world look up to us for it, but we still have a lot to do. We should hunt down the evildoers without mercy, because they seek to derail our road to progress; they fear the freedom and prosperity that we are spreading through the world".

Hmm... why does that sound familiar ?

[Richard Hershberger]

Responding to the opoponax, I think we are in agreement. The Fall is central to Christianity in anything like an orthodox version. Many people, particularly liberals, are uncomfortable with it, but without it you have at best a rabbi, whose teachings don't seem to really make sense.

As for the bit about marriages and promises, that wasn't intended to derive really from the passage in question. As advertised, it was just me rambling on the subject of marriage. I was free associating. I think one can have a sensible discussion on Christian marriage, but that Matthew text would be only incidental to it. I don't think one can sensibly come to the conclusion that the only possible form is one man and one woman in a monogamous pairing.

[Constantine]

King and Neil Gaiman/Terry Pratchett describe people who seem to be natural leaders, the kind of people who inspire worship or at least admiration, LeJenkins seem to be describing Cliff Claven from "Cheers."

I don't know whether you chose this comparison on purpose, but keep in mind that many people think that the ideal political leader is the "guy you'd like to drink a beer with." So maybe the writers really do think the most compelling possible leader would be Cliff Claven. But blonde and with an expensive suit and bling.

[aunursa]

Well...being Christian means you believe he's God.

According to whom?

[aunursa]

I don't think anyone (except Christ, I suppose) really owns the word "Christian", but I don't think it's particularly extreme to feel that one who picks and chooses from his words and takes it simply as very good advice doesn't quite fit the standard definition.

Okay, so that would be like the Jews for Jesus people, who call themselves Jewish but don't quite fit the standard definition of Judaism because they believe in Christian theology. That makes sense.

What is the standard definition of a Christian?

[LMM]

Bugmaster: I think you've hit it. When I saw Fred's post, I immediately had a vision of someone spouting Reagan-like dogma, but trying to turn that into actual anti-Beatitudes doesn't quite come out as strong as it should.

[Edo]

That nobody has mentioned the Cursitudes thus far is travesty.

[Scott]

At some point Nicolae should have been taken to "a very high mountain" and shown "all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor," at which point he should have said, "Yes, please, give them to me."

But what if Nicolea wanted to use that power for Compassion (tm)?

[Bugmaster]

At some point Nicolae should have been taken to "a very high mountain" and shown "all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor," at which point he should have said, "Yes, please, give them to me."

Actually, what would've been really interesting is if he said, "There's so much suffering in the world, and I think I know how to fix it. Give me the power... Just for a little while, until I fix the world."

It's boring to have a villain who is evil for evil's sake, because he's evil and has a goatee. It's a lot more interesting to have an antagonist that thinks of himself as good. You know, just like real people do.

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

Bugmaster, you just described what I had hoped The Saga Of Anakin Skywalker would have turned out to be.

[hapax]

aunursa: "What is the standard definition of a Christian?"

Y'know, in ten years of graduate study in the history of Christianity, I never ran across two that were exactly the same. The majority consensus, however, was "a Christian is someone that self-describes as a Christian."

[Skyknight]

Scott: If his actions in "The Mark" are anything to go by, I don't think Nicolae is CAPABLE of true compassion (q.v. accept the Mark or be executed).

But really, why do you go on so much about anything beyond the market being chimeraic? When are you going to trust that any given human isn't necessarily primarily motivated by self-interest (never mind that with the way you go on about your wallet, you don't seem unnerved about being primarily motivated by self-interest...how come? I checked a synopsis of Presbyterian ideals, and I'm having trouble finding anything that says it's righteous to prefer individual interest to aggregate interest...Something in Calvinism in general, instead?)?

[Robert]

The anti-Beatitudes are very interesting. Depending on the construction, that is opening blessing v. cursing a quality and negative or positive consequences (which means there are four canonical anti-Beatitudes) they sound to me like;

- Satanism, ranging from the silly "Bad is Good" to the egotistical Anton LaVey version.
- American Fundamentalist/Gospel of Prosperity doctrine.
- Right-wing political thought.

It's obvious at this point that such a scene wasn't included because L&J are terrible writers. But imagine if such a scene had been included, with the specific intent of freaking out the readers.

"Hmmm, yep, yep, yep. This Carpathia guy talks a lot of sense. I'd definitely want to have a beer with him and/or vote him into a leadership position. Wait, he's the WHAT?"

It's a good thing concepts have no mass. If they did the missed opportunities of this book alone would be enough to collapse the universe in on itself.

[Chris]

And let's not forget
The Latest Decalogue

Thou shalt have one God only; who
Would tax himself to worship two?
God's image nowhere shalt thou see,
Save haply in the currency:
Swear not at all; since for thy curse
Thine enemy is not the worse:
At church on Sunday to attend
Will help to keep the world thy friend:
Honor thy parents; that is, all
From whom promotion may befall:
Thou shalt not kill; but needst not strive
Officiously to keep alive:
Adultery it is not fit
Or safe, for women, to commit:
Thou shalt not steal; an empty feat,
When 'tis so lucrative to cheat:
False witness not to bear be strict;
And cautious, ere you contradict.
Thou shalt not covet; but tradition
Sanctions the keenest competition.

The sum of all is, thou shalt love,
If anybody, God above:
At any rate shall never labour
More than thyself to love thy neighbour.

[Angelika]

oppoponax: i also think that interpretation of the passage oh so conveniently excuses away one of the most common "sins" under Christianity, so i do think there's a certain amount of hypocracy there -- especially when one considers that many "sins" that would be companions to this (i'm thinking homosexuality and extramarital sex, especially that resulting in unwanted pregnancy or the use of birth control) are considered so awful as to be virtually unforgivable.

Actually, hypocracy is a very hard word here. I'm not aware of any congregations that favor divorce per se. Although there are many congregations that might enourage a beaten wife to leave her violent husband.

Extramarital sex and divorce are sins on quite different levels. Divorce is usally not something that happens out of the blue to happy functional marriages. There tends to be a history of the partners sinning against each other leading up to the divorce. Divorce often turns out to be the lesser of two evils. - Extramarital sex on the other hand, besides being one of the main reasons for divorces in the first place, usually is not the lesser of two evils. There is no sin done in sleeping alone.

Many people while they go through divorces are in rather fragile psychical condition and need the support of their churches particularly during that time. Personally, I consider it a good trait, when a church does not abandon a member in such a time. I would expect such a church also to take care of a single mother, of course.

The one point, where the churches actually could improve in that context, were not to allow their members to marry that quickly and unpreparedly as it is often done.

On the interpretation of commandments given in the Bible. I would start out with the two Jesus calls the most important one: Love God above all things and your neighbor as yourself. And then I interpret all other commandments from that point of view. And then, sometimes, it is the most loving option to disregard them.

[LL]

RE Cliff Claven: it's all I could think of on short notice. Substitute the crashing bore of your choice.

[sd]

I can only offer lit-crit, not theology, and on that level I like ako's anti-beatitudes very much; they have a compelling narrative voice to them, and I can definitely imagine a competently-written fictional Antichrist delivering them to truly chilling effect.

[Amanda]

Divorce is usally not something that happens out of the blue to happy functional marriages. There tends to be a history of the partners sinning against each other leading up to the divorce.

How do you parse divorces that don't come about as the result of "sin," though? People who just don't communicate well? Folks who have different views on how to manage the money, different enough to render them incompatible and a marriage between them nonfunctional? (Especially given that the church generally prohibits cohabitation before marriage, which is exactly what might sort out that problem ahead of time.) When two people come together with an understanding about having children (or not), but one of them changes their mind years down the road? -- changing one's mind isn't a "sin," is it? Etc.

I just think it's a fairly simple view of marriage to attribute all divorce to "sin," one that misses out on all the intricacies and beauty of human relationships.

[Erick Oppeen]

If this is what those two idjits think is a "dazzling performance," I'd love to see their take on, say, a really GOOD orator on top of his form---Winston Churchill or Clarence Darrow.

In the world of _Left Behind,_ I might end up among the Saved just because I'm too much of a stickler to follow a loser like Carpathia. He strikes me as the apotheosis of a television evangelist. Does he start bawling on cue later on, a la Jim Bakker? *grin*

[Tehanu]

opoponax: That verse of Matthew that you balked at? Yeah, me too. But ... I think there was an early Church father, cast out as a heretic, who taught that Christ would, eventually, save everyone -- up to and including Satan -- and that anyone who behaved justly would be considered his worshiper. This man preached that the verse "no man cometh unto the father except by me" (John 14:6) didn't necessarily mean, "You have to say you believe in me." It meant that, in the end, Christ would open the door for you, irrespective of how you got to it. It wasn't about you choosing to follow God; it was about God choosing to help you. I don't know if I believe any of it, but perhaps there are more ways than one to approach Christianity.

[Jeff]

I'm thinking how the Anti-Christ would handle the miracles of Jesus. Taking the bread and fish from the wedding guests -- easy. Turning wine into water -- piece of cake. Felling that Lazarus guy deader than a doornail -- no prob.

And now, the Lord's Prayer, Stockton Shasta version:

Myself who should rule heaven, hallowed by my name. My kingdom will come, my will be done, in heaven and on earth. I'll take the bread as I find it and forgive none, but all must forgive me. I will lead other not into temptation, but directly to evil. For I am the power and the glory, forever and ever. So let it be.

[Field Marshall Stack]

There is no sin done in sleeping alone.

Sleeping with no one is if not a sin at the very least a damn shame.