L.B.: Imperio

Left Behind, pp. 384-387

Buck sat without interrupting as this most lucid and earnest professional calmly propounded a theory that only three weeks before Buck would have found absurd.

We're being given Buck's point of view here, a window into his thoughts, so this choice of words is apparently his: a "most lucid and earnest professional calmly propounding a theory." Indubitably, my good man. Suddenly Buck Williams has turned into Bertie Wooster.

Buck seems unduly impressed with Rayford's after-the-fact prediction of the Rapture. This theory might certainly have sounded absurdly audacious if he'd made the claim three weeks earlier, but a week after the Event it's not terribly impressive. Much of Left Behind is a variation on the self-congratulatory, question-begging Visitor from the Future* schtick. It works even less well here, with Rayford playing the role of an oracular time traveler from the very recent past.

Buck, however, finds this ex post facto prophecy immensely compelling:

It sounded like things he had heard in church and from friends, but this guy had chapter and verse from the Bible to back it up. And this business of the two preachers in Jerusalem representing two witnesses predicted in the book of Revelation? Buck was aghast.

The assumption here is that "chapter and verse from the Bible to back it up" provides an irrefutable, indisputable trump card. The confusion here is not unique to LaHaye and Jenkins -- it's a common notion among American evangelicals.

II Timothy 3:16 sums up what we evangelicals believe about the Bible: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." But evangelicals rarely cite this passage as a mere statement or summary of what they believe. They cite it, rather, as though it were proof and validation of that belief. (See also II Peter 1:21, Psalm 119, etc.) Every word in the Bible is true. How do we know? Because it says so right here in the Bible and every word in the Bible is true.

This circular reasoning can seem to make sense if you've spent most of your life within a subcultural bubble in which everyone else shares your premises and conclusions and your inability to distinguish between the two. The trouble arises when they venture outside of the bubble and encounter others who do not share the same preconceptions about the self-evident authority of this particular holy book. Those others won't be convinced by the self-affirming recitation of II Timothy 3:16, and the evangelical innocents abroad aren't equipped to do much more than repeat the assertion. Second verse, same as the first ...

That's part of what we're seeing here in LB. It's not that the authors don't agree with or understand those who don't share their assumptions about the inherent, undeniable authority of citing "chapter and verse from the Bible." It's more than that. The authors can't even imagine that such people exist. Thus we have the supposedly secular and skeptical Buck Williams shaken to his core by something he has no reason to find impressive, persuasive or even relevant.

Try to imagine what it would mean if the world were like this -- if, as the authors imagine, everyone inherently recognized the teaching of the KJV Bible as an unchallenged and unchallengeable authority. In such a world there would only be atheists or pantheists or Buddhists or Hindus because all of those people simply didn't yet realize that the Bible told them not to be atheists, pantheists, Buddhists or Hindus. It follows that if any such person were to be confronted with "chapter and verse" explaining this to them, they would be forced to concede the point and would convert without hesitation. LaHaye and Jenkins probably wouldn't agree with the idea expressed in such stark terms, but something very much like this seems to infuse the prophecy-evangelism scenes in this book. The same notion also seems to lurk behind much of the mass media "proclamation evangelism" conducted here in America.**

The other idea that seems to be at work here in LB is a variation on the magical/spellcasting spirituality we've seen elsewhere in the book. The incantation of chapter and verse, the authors seem to believe, invokes mystic power. This idea is prevalent in a lot of the "spiritual warfare" talk popular among the charismatic strands of evangelicalism. The spiritual warfare gurus love to cite the story of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness as though it were an introductory course in Defense Against the Dark Arts. The salient point of the story, for them, is not its profound contrast of love and power, but rather its demonstration of mystical defensive techniques. A magic trick. When tempted by Satan, Jesus quoted scripture. Thus, they believe, when confronted by the forces of darkness, Christians should follow suit by raising their wands and chanting "Expecto patronus!" ... er, I mean, by citing chapter and verse from the Bible to invoke divine protection.

This chapter-and-verse invocation of mystical power is implicit in the way Rayford casts a spell over Buck here. It's made much more explicit later in the book, when Buck's newfound holy mojo serves as a literal counter-enchantment to Nicolae's sorcery.

"Enchantment" isn't too strong a word for the head-spinning awe Jenkins describes as Buck's reaction to Rayford's sales pitch:

Buck was desperate to maintain his composure. He wasn't sure what he was hearing, but Steele was impressive. ... What else would give Buck this constant case of the chills?

Buck focused on Captain Steele, his pulse racing, looking neither right nor left. He could not move. He was certain the women could hear his crashing heart. ...

Phew. Is it getting hot in here or is it just Buck? This is all intended as a description of Buck's spiritual anxiety, but if he's about to drop to his knees it doesn't seem like it would be for prayer.

We get a great deal more of Buck's insistence that Steele's spiel is "impressive" and "profound and convincing," yet as usual we hear almost nothing of his actual words. The longest speech here comes from Buck -- just after we're told how he sat "without interrupting" and just before we're told he was "speechless" he rattles off some more exposition from the End Times Checklist:

"Have you heard the latest?" Buck told him what he had seen on CNN during his few brief minutes at his apartment. "Apparently thousands are making some sort of a pilgrimage to the Wailing Wall. They're lined up for miles, trying to get in and hear the preaching. Many are converting and going out themselves to preach. The authorities seem powerless to keep them out, despite the opposition of the Orthodox Jews. Anyone who comes against the preachers is struck dumb or paralyzed, and many of the old orthodox guard are joining forces with the preachers."

"Amazing," the pilot responded. "But even more amazing, it was all predicted in the Bible."

While this is a bit more impressive than the initial story of the trip-and-die guys, it still doesn't qualify as "amazing." (When are the prophets going to breathe fire? We were promised fire-breathing.) "Religious dispute in Jerusalem," isn't front-page news now, let alone something that would knock The Event out of the No. 1 spot in the news cycle a mere eight days later. The Event would have reset the scale for what survivors would consider amazing. Post-Event, video of Elvis and Bigfoot riding the Loch Ness Monster bareback would scarcely qualify as "remarkable." "Amazing" would be reserved for something huge, something earth-shattering -- like, for instance, if CNN had been reporting that they had found a child, a 4 year old, in an abandoned house somewhere in upstate New York. That would be amazing. That would have people gathering around television sets, hanging on the reporter's every word. Post-Event, a lethally successful membership drive by Jews for Jesus might register as "notable," but not amazing.

Despite Buck's palpitations, when we switch back to Rayford's point of view, we find that he's convinced his sales pitch is falling flat:

Rayford was certain he was not getting through. ... It was clear that Williams wasn't buying it personally. If Rayford had to guess, he'd say Williams was trying to hide a smirk ...

It's just like Rashomon. Or at least just like Rashomon if, instead of showing us the different versions of the story, Kurosawa had just told us about how they made the various characters feel.

The point here is a reminder that we may not always be aware of how the Holy Spirit is at work in what we say and do. This is a common point in sermons on the duty of evangelism, so it's not surprising to see the authors emphasizing thispoint here in what they are trying to pretend is a scene about evangelism. The authors follow so many of the conventions of such sermons in all of these pseudo-evangelistic scenes, creating such an air of familiarity for their evangelical readers that it's easy for those readers to miss what's really going on in these scenes with Rayford and Hattie or Rayford and Buck. It's not evangelism.

The authors seem to be trying to obscure this point. They follow all the conventions of evangelism stories and sermons, as though Rayford were setting out to share the gospel. But he never does. He never attempts or intends to. Rayford's message for Hattie and Buck and everyone else is not the Christian gospel. His message is never "God loves you," or "Your sins are forgiven," or even "You're going to Hell unless you pray this magical prayer." His message has nothing to do with sin, forgiveness or eternal life. It has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, whom Rayford never mentions. His message is exclusively this: "My interpretation of prophecy is true."

You've doubtless witnessed the outcry and indignation that ensues when American evangelicals become convinced that someone is threatening to "take the Christ out of Christmas." Yet here LaHaye and Jenkins have completely removed Christ from the gospel of Christ and no one seems to have even noticed.

Of all the dismaying aspects of these books' runaway popularity among evangelicals, this might be the most surprising.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

* The time traveler turned with great sadness. "If only," he said, "if only you had listened to the author of this story and done everything he advised when you had the chance." And then he was gone, returned to that doomed and tragic future from whence he came. ... That sort of thing.

** The expectation seems to be that hearers will respond to such proclamations of the gospel the same way that the Karen people of Burma did when Adoniram Judson arrived. The Karen had a legend that one day their white brother would come from across the sea with the golden book that would teach them the way to salvation. "About time you got here," they said when Judson showed up. "Now let's get on with the mass conversions already." This turns out not to be the typical response when missionaries arrive.

Comments

[Praline]

Thank you, mmack! :-)

Um... Do I get kicked off the board for Net-ignorance if I ask what 'props' means?

[Dylan]

I'm not sure that Buck's amazement about "chapter and verse" is so much a case of being confronted with the authority of the Bible. It sounds much like the meeting at Rayford's church where Bruce Barnes spelled out how The Event fit with the Bible's end-times prophecy. Buck is amazed that everything that just happened was predicted in the Bible with perfect accuracy.

Of course, just like that scene, the dirty little secret is that it isn't in the Bible. Rather, it's in the end-times checklists that have been cobbled together from a particular interpretation of the Bible. Which is probably why the scene describes Rayford's sermon and Buck's reaction, but not so much the "chapter and verse" quotes that so impressed Buck. It's just like when Bruce Barnes tells the congregation to open their Bibles, but never actually reads anything out of them.

[Raka]

In such a world there would only be atheists or pantheists or Buddhists or Hindus because all of those people simply didn't yet realize that the Bible told them not to be atheists, pantheists, Buddhists or Hindus. It follows that if any such person were to be confronted with "chapter and verse" explaining this to them, they would be forced to concede the point and would convert without hesitation.

Dan Latigue said much of what I was thinking already, but I'm going to say it again anyway because I have an utterly unjustifiable affection for the sound of my own voice. Er, typing.

This mindset is not unique to religion, but comes up any time a person takes something completely for granted. My favorite was a classmate who was genuinely puzzled by why foreigners had to go and use different words for things that any toddler knew the right words for. A more common American response is looking at quaint native cultures as something inexplicably tacked on to normal, default human behavior, which is of course however the American in question behaves.

The nasty side-effect of thinking this way is that it erects a very clear and solid delineation between Us and Them. It leads one to the conclusion (even if only subconsciously) that people who don't share this Obvious Belief are flawed; it may be merely a pitiable ignorance, or it may be an almost malicious warping of normality. Either way, it justifies classifying the Others as truly subhuman. And once classified subhuman, there's no reason they need to be given the rights and consideration of real people.

[Newscat]

Fred,

It's an interesting point you made about the magical/spellcasting spirituality in certain sects of Evengelicalism. Because I've mostly seen that kind of behavior coming from secular Hollywood productions. You know the kinds, the type where a Demon possesses someone and it takes holy water or scripture recitation to cleanse them. The cheap use of crosses to keep out vampires, etc. It seems to me that when I've seen that effect it's secular people making the connection.

[Apsalar]

Tonio, I honestly don't know why my father is so excited about biblical prophecy (and sure enough, my parents are both Young Earth Creationists, but they waffle on what dinosaur fossils are all about; I don't think they're prepared to go with the Creation Museum claim they were in the Garden of Eden, but possibly that whole idea of God/Satan planting the fossils there to test our faith/tempt us with atheism.) My father also has some crackpot ideas about Bigfoot, UFOs, European settlements in ancient America, and he's got almost as many books on crackpot diets as he's got on bible crackpottery. My theory on that is that he's a smart guy, and sometimes his subconscious nags him with concerns that the Bible stuff may not all be what he thinks it is, so he has to believe a bunch of other weird things too, to make it seem less crazy.

Kirala: Come to think of it, while I remember Jesus affirming the validity of the Law, I can't remember any affirmations of the verity of Scripture.

"If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?" --John 10:35-36

[Froborr]

I wrote a schtick on the circular argument of Biblical authority last year:

"For purposes of this re-enaction, the part of the Bible will be played by a guy who says he's Batman."

Batman?: I'm Batman.
Skeptic: I dunno... can you prove it?
Batman?: Well, Batman never lies, right? Therefore, when I say I'm Batman, I must be telling the truth.
Former Skeptic: As a Batman fan, the idea of a real Batman appeals to me. Therefore, I will be persuaded by your spurious claims.

Fin.

That doesn't prove Jesus is the Son of God. It just means that Jesus is a zombie. Or possibly a vampire.

Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter is one of the great triumphs of B cinema. I especially like the kung-fu battle with the clown car full of atheists, and the bit in the bar where he blesses a beer and then throws it in a vampire's face.

Oh, so now you're a Latin Grammar Nazi, too?

If it's Latin, shouldn't it be a Fascio?

=======================================

True story - on Christmas Day last week, Jehovah’s Witnesses came canvassing in our neighborhood during the morning.

There are some Christian sects that don't celebrate Christmas because they think it detracts from Easter. I don't recall if the JWs fall into that category. (Confirmed by sophia8)

[Axiomatic]

Apsalar, Apsalar!
Your nick! From WHERE?

[Axiomatic]

Edit: Crap, didn't notice you'd replies.

It was just as I thought. Excelent.

No, they worship Young Earth Creationism and The Rapture. Don't know why those two always seem to go together, but they do.

Because these are the types of people who are intellectually or emotionally not able to handle the concepts of life and death and need them distilled into "because I told you so," statements in this case coming from their interpretation of the bible. With the Rapture they've found a loop-hole to not having to emotionally deal with dying, "I won't really die, God will just snatch me away to eternal life." With creationism they've found a loop-hole to get around being born, "God willed me into existence." Although creationism is mostly about how humanity was created, Creationists are attaching their ego to divine creation and hope if God created the first humans, then maybe he created all humans, i.e me. There might be more to it than that but it's a good starting point.

What else would give Buck this constant case of the chills?

That the world that he once knew has crashed down around his ears, and now after eight days of denying anything has changed by going around and playing reporter the thoughts he is currently having about his new potential life with Chloe are forcing him to recognize the Event as reality. And unfortunately Rayford is right there to take advantage of his crumbling mental state and poisoning him with his ludicrous message of biblical prophecy. Buck is desperately trying to rebuild his view of the world and Rayford is offering the tainted brick and mortar of biblical prophecy because a shell shocked Buck is going to cling to the first thing he finds. Rayford isn't so much a divine prophet, and more a manipulative cult leader, looking for emotionally traumatized people to indoctrinate, and unfortunately the world is currently full of emotionally traumatized people.

[Richard Hershberger]

"I'm shocked to hear a Christian point out that logical flaw, even a liberal Christian like Fred. The only other people I've heard cite that flaw have been atheists or agnostics."

You have been hanging out with the wrong sort of Christian. Or, more likely, the other sort aren't beating you over the head with a Bible. Wander down to your local Episcopal church and ask them their opinion on the subject. Odds are excellent that their reaction to the logical flaw of the circular argument is "Well, duh." They'll be more polite about it, of course.

[Blackadder]

Vampire Jesus gave His blood for you and now He wants it back.

[practicallyevil]

Every other post!

1:16 was me.

[Robb]

Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter is one of the great triumphs of B cinema. I especially like the kung-fu battle with the clown car full of atheists, and the bit in the bar where he blesses a beer and then throws it in a vampire's face.

I'm going to cry if you made that up.

[Richard Hershberger]

"The time traveler turned with great sadness. "If only," he said, "if only you had listened to the author of this story and done everything he advised when you had the chance." And then he was gone, returned to that doomed and tragic future from whence he came."

A variation is the historical novel with the protagonist making improbably insightful observations. An example might be a character reading a newspaper about the Beer Hall Putsch and musing to himself that this Hitler fellow is one to watch: he'll be real trouble in a few years. I have learned to not read this sort of book.

[Robb]

Ah, nevermind.

[Axiomatic]

Personally, I like the ones where people in past times make hilariously incorrect predictions about the future.

You know, stuff like "That internet thing? It'll never catch on."

[Raka]

sophia8 has it right about the Witnesses. Praline, that video is as accurate as most propaganda pieces you'll find about The Gay Agenda. The JWs are not flawless by any stretch, but they're not quite as nutso as people think. Mix equal parts 19th-century Adventist/revivalist theology and a Jesuit-like devotion to service and study, and you have 'em in a nutshell. Most of the squirrellier bits come from that unnatural joining; the analytical habits constantly expose inconsistencies and contradictions in the millenialist theology, but the same havits are then used to find ridiculously circuitous justifications and extensions to existing belief rather than admitting error and issuing corrections. That's not uncommon in religion, but the Witnesses seem to have made it a primary and perennial focus.

I don't claim exhaustive and irrefutable knowledge of their ways, but I was one and lived with several Witness families during a few of the weirder years of my wandering youth. On the whole, I don't think their beliefs and practices are any more bizarre than Catholicism as practiced in Central America. YMMV.

[Blackadder]

The Episcopalians who say "well duh, the Bible is a logically flawed, internally inconsistent book of myths full of debauchery and slaughter, but we have peaceful and valuable spiritual beliefs based on cherry-picked portions of it" don't necessarily strike me as a whole lot smarter than the fundie dimwits. What makes them think there's any kind of baby in all that dirty bathwater?

[Keith]

Audrey Hepburn, not Katharine. 'Cause I'm a movie geek.

Oh, poop! I meant Audrey.

[John]

Blackadder: What makes them think there's any kind of baby in all that dirty bathwater?

Because we just celebrated His birth?

[Blackadder]

Mithras?

[Geds]

Newscat: It's an interesting point you made about the magical/spellcasting spirituality in certain sects of Evengelicalism. Because I've mostly seen that kind of behavior coming from secular Hollywood productions.

Actual, literal "religion as spellcasting" stuff is a Hollywood artifact. The way Fred uses it in LB Fridays is a more roundabout reference to the idea that all you have to do is "say the magic words" and you'll be saved and that an appropriately phrased prayer at the right time will make everything better.

Because we just celebrated His birth?

And your point? We also seem to believe that George Washington actually chopped down a cherry tree and threw a coin across a river...

[Robb]

The Episcopalians who say "well duh, the Bible is a logically flawed, internally inconsistent book of myths full of debauchery and slaughter, but we have peaceful and valuable spiritual beliefs based on cherry-picked portions of it" don't necessarily strike me as a whole lot smarter than the fundie dimwits.

That's not any smarter, yea verily, it's the same thing. But if you change it to "we have peaceful and valuable spiritual beliefs based on our interpretations of the more important parts, keeping in mind all the other mytho-poetic stuff is valuable but shouldn't be taken literally", than you're getting somewhere.

[Jeff]

What makes them think there's any kind of baby in all that dirty bathwater?

Because the baby gurgles and splashes and lets out a fart (and then giggles). The poetry can be breathtaking, as in Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon and the Psalms. And parables are fun, even if you don't agree with the morals of all of them. And then there's the diaper of the bunch (so to speak), The Sermon on the Mount. I'm a confirmed agnostic/atheist and I can see the baby -- it's just not my baby.

[Geds]

Blackadder wins...

[Froborr]

Robb: http://imdb.com/title/tt0311361/

Enjoy!

[Blackadder]

Seriously, just because a belief is popular or long-lived obviously doesn't make it true. There are six or so major religions and - since they are mutually exclusive - clearly they can't all be The Truth. Why accept any of them?

[infernalserpent]

This is all intended as a description of Buck's spiritual anxiety, but if he's about to drop to his knees it doesn't seem like it would be for prayer.

We get a great deal more of Buck's insistence that Steele's spiel is "impressive" and "profound and convincing[...]"

The conjunction of these two sentences had me thinking, "Yeah, I doubt it's his 'spiel' that Buck's finding 'impressive.'"

Sigh. LB Fridays brings out my inner slasher. Or something. Anything to liven up the actual text!

[Axiomatic]

How exactly is Hollywood secular? Hollywood's idea of an atheist is a Christian with a traumatic past that made him or her abandon God, and who needs to go through another traumatic (and coincidentially 90 minutes long) experience to find his or her faith again.

[Mabus]

Ok, so what's the scriptural equivalent of Avada Kedavra?

"You have not lied to man, but to God." Acts 5:4 ;-)

Amazing" would be reserved for something huge, something earth-shattering -- like, for instance, if CNN had been reporting that they had found a child, a 4 year old, in an abandoned house somewhere in upstate New York. That would be amazing.

While it would certainly be amazing, something about this scenario strikes me as creepy all the same. Who is this kid and what is he still doing here? Maybe Hattie isn't the first woman to have Mr. Urals' love child? Or maybe this is the real Antichrist and Nicky "I memorized the phone book" Carpathia is an impostor?

[Geds]

Hollywood's idea of an atheist is a Christian with a traumatic past that made him or her abandon God, and who needs to go through another traumatic (and coincidentially 90 minutes long) experience to find his or her faith again.

Sometimes, though, the faith is in the power of baseball.

Those are the good times.

[Robb]

@ Froborr - Yeah, I found it, was trying to link the imdb earlier, but typepad doesn't like me. Don't know where I'll be able to hunt down a copy, but I've got some pals north of the border that might help. Thanks!

[Blackadder]

Mabus, that would be a much better storyline that what L+J actually wrote (not to damn you with too much faint praise).

[Froborr]

No problem! I love a good opportunity to spread the vampire-hunting gospel!

[Froborr]

Might not be as hard as you think, Robb: Netflix has it.

[John]

Sorry, I thought Blackadder was coming from the other direction, questioning Episcopalian orthodoxy as opposed to the sanity of religious believers. In which case I'll just reference Emily Litella and fall silent again.

[Fraser]

Another example of the Time Traveler story: The parallel world character who guesses just how things would have turned out differently, like the hero of Poul Anderson's Operation Luna reflecting that if the Great War had turned out differently, the losing side might have been subjected to a humiliating peace treaty which would allow some opportunistic politician to exploit people's frustration and blame some minority group, maybe Jews ... One of the neat bits in Philip Dick's Man in the High Castle is that when someone writes an alternate history where Germany lost World War II, it's not at all accurate.

I like the historical films where someone coins a word we take for granted, like the newspaper drama Park Row: "We'll get our papers to the people by selling them in stands on street corners—news stands!"

[spinetingler]

Latin Grammar Nazi

Band Name Alert

[Geds]

One of the neat bits in Philip Dick's Man in the High Castle is that when someone writes an alternate history where Germany lost World War II, it's not at all accurate.

Now, I don't have a university degree in history or nothin', but I'm pretty sure that "alternate history" and "Germany lost World War II" are mutually exclusive in the context of your sentence...

[Geds]

Oh. Wait. I think I get it now.

[mmack]

Is that the same routine where Jesus had to explain to His girlfriend where He'd been all weekend, and she didn't believe Him?

I think we're all looking for this.

[aunursa]

The trouble arises when they venture outside of the bubble and encounter others who do not share the same preconceptions about the self-evident authority of this particular holy book.

Sometimes I argue online with (primarily Evangelical) Christians just to pass the time and for my own personal amusement. When they try the "It's in the Bible" line, I offer my "Which Bible?" response. (I.e. the Jewish Bible, the Catholic Bible, or the Protestant Bible) At this point sometimes my opponent will assert the innerancy of the KJV. Others will fall back on the "Two Billion Christians can't be wrong!" fallacy. In any case, it soon becomes clear that I'm the first person they've encountered outside their bubble.

[mmack]

Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter is one of the great triumphs of B cinema. I especially like the kung-fu battle with the clown car full of atheists, and the bit in the bar where he blesses a beer and then throws it in a vampire's face.

I can see the trailer now: "Jesus is back, and this time It's Biblical! He's not here to save your soul, he's here to Kick Your Ass!"

[aunursa]

Rosina,
It seems to me (as a non-attending Anglican, if anything) that it is possible to believe that Jesus was the Son of God, was born of the Virgin Mary, preached, died on the Cross and rose again, but without accepting that the people who wrote about it were any more reliable narrators than anyone else back then (or now, but we have more outlets, sources etc).

As a Jew, I could believe that Jesus was a son of God, was born of the Virgin Mary, preached, died on the Cross and rose again, but without accepting the validity of Christian theology or the New Testament. Except for the first point -- we are all sons and daughters of God -- I in fact don't believe the rest. But hypothetically I could ... without sacrificing my Jewish theology. (Hint: see Deuteronomy 13:1-5.)

[Geds]

In any case, it soon becomes clear that I'm the first person they've encountered outside their bubble.

Or that they don't bother to listen and learn from previous experience...

I can see the trailer now: "Jesus is back, and this time It's Biblical! He's not here to save your soul, he's here to Kick Your Ass!"

Wasn't that in the Passion of the Christ 2 trailer from that episode of Family Guy?

[Keith]

The Man In the High Castle takes place on an alternate Earth Where the Nazis won. An American author writes a novel which half the characters are reading called The Grasshopper Lies Heavy, which depicts an alternate Earth where the Nazis lost, only it isn't our real world but a wildly different one, involving a Tyrannical Churchill and an America that embraces Socialism.

I'd love to see an LB style dissection of this book, as it would be just as much fun to discuss the alternate history and politics vs. real world history and politics.

[practicallyevil]

Hollywood's idea of an atheist is a Christian with a traumatic past that made him or her abandon God, and who needs to go through another traumatic (and coincidentially 90 minutes long) experience to find his or her faith again.

An extremely puzzling example of this is the recent adaptation of "I Am Legend" with Will Smith. It was a good movie, but several things bugged me about it, first being that it had very little to do with the original besides the fact that the main character was named Robert Neville, their was a dog, and their were some form of Virus based undead. Secondly, (and far more relevantly), was his presto-changeo belief in God simply because a butterfly happened to appear three separate times. Also did we ever see Marta's butterfly tattoo prior to the very end, because traditionally foreshadowing occurs prior to the event it's supposed to foreshadow. (Another side complaints is the fact that they never developed on the subplot of the undead getting progressively smarter).

Unfortunately an evangelical, or some other religious witness, sitting commented very loudly on the fact that it was nice to see an affirmation that God has a plan for us all. He'd been talking through the whole movie, so to get him back I pointed out that the film itself doesn't prove anything about God having a plan because the events portrayed in it were scripted from the beginning, and the only thing the butterflies proved is that the screen writer was able to keep track of his own sub-plot. He wouldn't hear of it, so I slipped out the side fire door rather than argue it out while the audience slowly shambled out of the theatre.

[Reverend Ref]

Praline: 'Let me get this right? You mean Christians believe Jesus was the son of God? Wow, I thought you all worshipped a big green poodle! This changes everything!'

Um . . . We worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster.