L.B.: Passionate sincerity

Left Behind, pp. 421-423

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity

We left Buck Williams sitting in his car parked in front of New Hope Village Church, "his head in his hands." And there he sits for the next page, musing about how his carefully planned and ordered life had been knocked off balance by recent events:

But nothing had prepared him for the disappearances or for the violent deaths of his friends. While he should have been prepared for this promotion, that hadn't been part of his plan, either.

Any hint of the lasting emotional or existential effects of The Event are rare and welcome in Left Behind. The near total absence of any such effects is one of the strangest of this awful book's many defects. Two billion people get disintegrated in a flash, instantaneously transforming the planet into a world without children, and those that remain simply go back to work and get on with their week untroubled, their previous routines unaltered. A heavy snowfall would have more effect than The Event seems to have had in this book. Instead of a world in mourning, an endless string of memorial services and funerals for empty caskets (most very small), we get a world without any memorials or remembrances for the departed.

So I'm glad to hear Buck at least mention the disappearances as part of the list of things for which he was unprepared. Maybe it shouldn't have been mentioned in a way that suggests this global trauma wasn't a bigger deal than Buck's unexpected promotion, but at least he mentioned it.

We know the names of the friends Buck mentions who died violently -- Dirk Burton and Alan Tompkins. Calling Tompkins his "friend" seems a bit of an overstatement, since Buck only met the man a few hours before he was blown up by a car bomb intended for Buck. Yet he has thought of Tompkins repeatedly -- often enough that if he said that the loss of this man "tugged at his heart almost constantly" we might actually believe him. We couldn't believe Buck when he said that about the loss of his niece and nephew on the one occasion they seem to have crossed his mind. We don't know the names of those relatives. I doubt Buck does either.

Finally, with a last burst of trepidation ("he felt alone, exposed, vulnerable … he felt a bone weariness as he headed for the church"), Buck goes inside.

It was a pleasant surprise to find that Bruce Barnes was someone near Buck's own age. He seemed bright and earnest, having that same authority and passion Rayford Steele exhibited.

By now readers have to be wondering if these are the only adjectives Jerry Jenkins knows. (Police Officer: "Did you get a good look at the suspect?" Jenkins: "He seemed sincere. And passionate.") The point the authors are trying to pound home through this passionate and sincere refrain, I suspect, is that these are the characteristics that they believe every good Christian man should have: Passion and sincerity. The "authority" mentioned above is the product of those two attributes: Sincerity + Passion = Authority.

That arithmetic only works if you accept, as the authors apparently do, that one cannot be sincerely and passionately wrong. That may be why they assume that everyone they consider to be wrong or in the wrong -- i.e., you, me and every other non-RTC -- must be insincere.

It had been a long time since Buck had been in a church. This one seemed innocuous enough, fairly new and modern, neat and efficient. He and the young pastor met in a modest office.

Scene-setting descriptions of place are rare in this book. We got a similar quick sketch of Irene Steele's country-kitsch bedroom decor and of Stanton Bailey's banker-ish, polished-brass office, but compared to most scenes in this book the above description of New Hope Village Church seems detailed and expansive.

This description tells us little about what the outside or inside of the church actually looks like, but I suspect that's not really the point. The point, rather, is to present a series of opposites to underscore that New Hope isn't like those other churches Buck might have been in years ago. Those weren't Real True churches. Thus where NHVC is "new and modern" those other churches are old and hidebound to tradition. Where the real church is "neat and efficient" and "modest," the false churches of the left behind are cluttered, inefficient (not cranking out the product) and immodest. All of that makes such churches, in the authors' view, anything but "innocuous."

"Your friends, the Steeles, told me you might call," Barnes said.

Buck was struck by his honesty. In the world in which Buck moved, he might have kept that information to himself, that edge. But he realized the pastor had no interest in edge. There was nothing to hide here. In essence, Buck was looking for information and Bruce was interested in providing it.

I don't see how withholding such information might provide any "edge," but I suppose that's just evidence that I wouldn't have what it takes to get by in "the world in which Buck moved" -- a world of cut-throat conversational chess where the stakes are high and the slightest mistake, such as mentioning that "your friends ... told me you might call," could leave you vulnerable to a fatal blow. ("Hello," the stranger said. Buck was about to respond in kind, but then he caught himself. That's just what he'd expect me to say. ...)

"I want to tell you right off," Bruce said, "that I am aware of your work and respect your talent. But to be frank, I no longer have time for the pleasantries and small talk that used to characterize my work. We live in perilous times. ..."

We should note again here that Bruce's earlier work was the role of "visitation pastor" for NHVC. That somewhat euphemistic title refers to ministers who spend their days not at the church, but in nursing homes, hospitals and hospices, by the bedsides of the sick, the suffering and the dying. "Perilous times" shouldn't be anything new for Bruce Barnes. "Perilous times" was his job description. "Pleasantries and small talk" might have their place in such ministry, but they could never be said to "characterize" that work. Further confirmation of something we have already seen: Bruce Barnes was a terrible visitation pastor.

"... We live in perilous times. I have a message and an answer for people genuinely seeking. I tell everyone in advance that I have quit apologizing for what I'm going to say. If that's a ground rule you can live with, I have all the time you need."

Bruce's long apology for why he's speaking unapologetically demonstrates a refreshing urgency. He knows that the world is going to end in less than seven years and that the remaining six years, 355 days are going to be marked by a series of unpleasant events each outdoing the last in mass casualties. He should be speaking urgently -- probably even more urgently than he speaks here. This would be a good time for what Richard Clarke memorably described as "running around town with your hair on fire."

Imagine that you were transported back in time to Christmas Eve of 2004. The stockings hang from the mantel, the pregnant pile of presents sits under the tree, A Christmas Story plays for the umpteenth time on TBS. And, unknown to anyone but you, the visitor from the future, hundreds of thousands of people from Madagascar to Malaysia have less than 24 hours to live. Wouldn't you maybe, I don't know, call someone and try to warn the world of what was about to happen? For that matter if, at that very moment, the executive editor from a prominent national newsmagazine were to walk into your home, wouldn't you consider that an opportunity to get the word out?

But Bruce doesn't really seem interested here in getting the word out. He knows that unrelenting calamity and mass death are about to happen on a global scale, but he's not looking for a way to warn the world of this impending doom. He's looking, instead, for a select few potential new members to initiate into his secret club, some few who have been carefully vetted and found worthy of hearing the full truth of what's coming. "I have a message and an answer," Bruce said, but then immediately qualifies that, "for people genuinely seeking." Seekers who are not "genuine" -- not sufficiently sincere and passionate -- need not apply. Bruce has no message and no answers for them.

A few pages ago, Bruce sat in this same office with the Steeles attempting to reinvent and rebuild the church from scratch. The model they chose didn't come from Pentecost but from the Pentagon -- "a sort of Green Berets." Buck arrives, the authors tell us, "looking for information and Bruce was interested in providing it," but that's not really what's going on here. Bruce is interested in screening Buck as a potential recruit. He's interested in providing just enough information to get him signed up, but much of what Bruce knows about the events of the coming months and years is information that Bruce seems to consider classified, only to be shared on a "need to know" basis.

Contrast Bruce's approach with that of the Jerusalem street preachers, LB's version of the Two Witnesses from the book of Revelation. Their message and answer is a monotonous chanted slogan, which hardly seems likely to persuade, but at least they're taking it public and not warily sizing up their listeners according to whether or not they seem to be "genuinely seeking."

We readers know, of course, that the authors have rigged the game and thus the answer that Bruce and the street preachers have is the right answer. But what about those who have latched onto the wrong answers? Ten days after The Event one would expect to find street preachers everywhere -- crackpot theorists, Max-Fennig-like alleged victims of alien abduction, and unhinged former parents turning every intersection into the Hyde Park Speaker's Corner. People walking around in "The End Is Near" sandwich-board signs would be as common in real life as in New Yorker cartoons. The Event would have revived and reinvigorated doomsday cults, dragging them out into the open where their sincere and passionate devotees would assault passersby, shouting, "I have a message and an answer!"

None of that happens here, of course, because, again: A) it would force the authors to explain how such people could be sincere and passionate, yet still wrong, and B) as we've seen, every character in the story seems to have read the back of the book and to know that they're in a premillennial dispensationalist novel in which the PMD End Times fantasy is true.

B does not result in spontaneous mass conversions, I suppose, because, as A indicates, the unsaved are also insincere -- they know they're wrong, but they choose, deliberately, to reject what they know is true. I don't know that the authors would put it that starkly, but that seems to be the underlying assumption for their characterization of all non-RTCs.

This makes sense when you consider the fate that the authors sincerely and passionately believe awaits all non-RTCs. I'm guessing that all of that mayhem, destruction and torment -- followed by an infinity of even worse mayhem, destruction and torment -- becomes easier to stomach if you convince yourself that its victims have deliberately and knowingly chosen such a fate.

Comments

[Ursula L]

For how to warn about the tsunami, with less than 24 hours notice:

What you'd have to do, probably, is wait until after the earthquake, and contact the national/local news for those nations and cities immediately after, warning that tsunamis are sometimes caused by earthquakes at sea, and that they should warn people to stay off of the beach. Also suggesting they describe the immediate warnings, such as the water receding. That alone gave enough time to successfully evacuate areas where even one person knew the sign.

Use the time before the earthquake to research what the local news outlets are in that area, and who there would need to be contacted. I'd probably also use my university e-mails (since an edu address is less likely to be ignored) to contact any US weather authorities, and also anyone I could find in the US who has done academic work in those areas, hoping they could contact colleagues there that they had worked with, who would then be in a more authoritative position to give warnings on the local news.

Have all the addresses together, phone numbers collected, e-mails written, etc. and ready to be sent as soon as the earthquake has actually happened.

A Cassandra-like warning that a tsunami will happen is likely to get you labeled as insane. But a well-timed warning of the possibly could probably do a lot of good.

It would be doable, I think.

[jeh]

I'm guessing that all of that mayhem, destruction and torment -- followed by an infinity of even worse mayhem, destruction and torment -- becomes easier to stomach if you convince yourself that its victims have deliberately and knowingly chosen such a fate.

Plenty of evidence for this can be found if your read the comments at Ray Comfort's web site--a good example of this type of thinking. The true believers there definitely have a caricature of non-believers or false believers that they fervently believe and defend.

[Eric, Rejector of Memes]

Wait a minute: you'd call in about 9/11, but when 75X that number died in the tsunami you just can't be arsed???

Fucking nice. LaHaye levels of niceness.

[damnedyankee]

Why would God need to ask? Can one lie to God?

"What does God need with a starship?" "Who is this God person anyway?"

And the babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it?

I deeply suspect that all going back in time and trying to give an advance warning of 9/11 will get you is one of the first available rooms at Gitmo, with AG Ashcroft dropping your name as being "one of the inside men of the 9/11 plot". But that's just seven years of easily-rewarded cynicism talking.

[Josh D]

Hooray! I'm passionate and sincere in my passion for LB Friday!

[Dash]

vanya: If I was transported to 9/10/01, that would be different - I would be calling everyone I know to get the word out.

Actually, as things worked out, that would turn out to be about the most dangerous thing you could do. Chances are, no one would believe you until it happened. After that, you'd become the focus of very much the wrong sort of attention.

[Lucia]

People die every minute of every day - I can't seem to get that worked up about large scale natural disasters. If I was transported to 9/10/01, that would be different - I would be calling everyone I know to get the word out.

Why the difference? Because the tsunami was an act of God (so to speak) and 9/11 was an act of human beings? Or because the tsunami didn't kill anyone you knew?

Actually the tsunami did kill a cousin of a classmate of my daughter, so, since I know said classmate, I was one degree of separation from at least one tsunami victim, the same as my closest connection with any 9/11 victim (I know a couple of people who, had the coin fallen just a bit differently, would have been victims, but that's not quite the same thing).

In re acts of God, there are of course religious "leaders" who think 9/11 happened because the country turned its back on God, so he turned his back on us. Turning your back on God of course = joining the ACLU, throwing organized prayer out of public schools, insisting on a literal reading of that pesky Constitution.

[Ursula L]

For 9/11, far more than trying to stop the plot (although that would be nice) I'd focus on trying to affect the US response to 9/11. From the initial jump of calling an as-of-then-yet-unexplained single act "war" rather than "crime", to the "war" on nouns, and the massive willingness to give up decency and basic rights for empty promises of safety, and the willingness to believe everything the current administration said, and do anything they want, for years, if they just mention that date - it's been an absolute disaster. And a predictable disaster, if anyone with power had managed to stop and think.

[damnedyankee]

Today's LB entry got me to thinking about an angle I hadn't considered before about the LB-verse (apologies if it's been covered before): Doomsday cults would be popping up like mushrooms after the Event. Everything from benign get-right-with-God types, to militant reformers looking to avert the coming disaster, to Aum Shinrikyu-style terrorists looking to speed up the Apocalypse timetable. People would be lost, confused, not knowing what to believe. It would be the perfect setup for the Antichrist to step in and offer peace, order, and assurance, and make Bruce Barnes' task that much harder, making himself heard amidst the spiritual turmoil in the Event's wake.

Of course, plot points like that would have made the book marginally more interesting, so of course LaJenkins don't even consider it.

[Dash]

Fred, a terrific post, as always. Welcome back! You HAVE been missed! Hope the move and such unpacking as you have managed so far has gone well. (I had begun to worry that you'd possibly run into foul play or something--uttered the word "ex-marine" in a moment of insanity or some such and found yourself the beneficiary of an on-the-spot demonstration of how marines deal with people who say stuff like that. Was wondering what hospital to send flowers to.)

If you read between the lines of the Official Longest Thread Evah, you may pick up on the odd hint or two that the cjmr team have some interesting news. It's subtle, but it's there. Code word: "seedling."

[Gilmore]

It honestly wouldn't cross my mind to warn anyone about a tsunami 10 thousand miles away.

If I was transported to 9/10/01, that would be different - I would be calling everyone I know to get the word out.

You can't really be serious can you? What's the difference between this and the tsunami? Do you live in Manhattan or something? I'm finding it hard to put a charitable spin on your surprisingly frank admission here...

[Richard]

A Cassandra-like warning that a tsunami will happen is likely to get you labeled as insane. But a well-timed warning of the possibly could probably do a lot of good.

Hmmm, actually a warning of the type "I'd like to tell you that a tsunami will happen, but you likely won't believe me. So, I'm going to tell you that an earthquake will happen and that will cause a tsunami some hours later" is probably your best bet. Because you're providing a specific, testable detail that still provides time to act. And, as you point out, the reminder that earthquakes can cause tsunamis is true regardless of the source.

-Richard

[Robb]

I have passionately & sincerely been anticipating another LB Friday.

When's the housewarming Fred? I'll bring beer. . .

[damnedyankee]

I passionately and sincerely congratulate Mrs. and Mr. cjmr on their impending bout of 2 AM feedings and diaper changes.

[Steven S.]

Eric B. asked "Why would 9/11 be different than a tsunami?"

And we've gotten several outraged posts about "Why would you call about 9/11, but not the tsunami?"

I'm not the original poster, but I can give a couple of answers:

1) I know people who worked at companies that lost people at 9/11. People I'd been out of touch with for years. If I called them, saying I had heard these things from an unimpeachable source, and they should stay home, warn as many of their co-workers and building-mates as they could, and tell *them* to pass it on, it *might* keep a few people at home. Any would be an improvement.

2) IIRC, a large part of the problem with the tsunami was that the warning system wasn't ready -- my ability to communicate with people, and convince them that they needed to take desperate measures to get people off, say, beaches/etc., would be much, much less, and might easily make matters *worse* -- by sending first-responders into the area before the earthquake happened, if they couldn't get the news quickly enough.

I don't think it's heartlessness, it's analysis. I might still *try* with the tsunami, but I wouldn't even know where, really, to start, or have any credibility with the people I'd be trying with. With my ex-boss who worked for Shearson Lehman, I'd at least have somewhere to *start*.

(Heck, in a pinch I could call in a bomb threat at 1:00 AM on 9/11 to the NYPD, in an attempt to force them to close the buildings. Yes, I'd end up getting asked some very unpleasant questions, but I'd rely on my ability to predict Superbowl & World Series & Tour de France winners perfectly to convince them eventually that I was, indeed, a traveler from the future.)

[damnedyankee]

Yes, I'd end up getting asked some very unpleasant questions, but I'd rely on my ability to predict Superbowl & World Series & Tour de France winners perfectly to convince them eventually that I was, indeed, a traveler from the future.

Unless your averting of the worst of 9/11 manages to create a ripple effect that somehow alters the outcomes of those events.

See, this is why people hate time travel stories. ;-)

[Ursula L]

Steven S wrote:

2) IIRC, a large part of the problem with the tsunami was that the warning system wasn't ready -- my ability to communicate with people, and convince them that they needed to take desperate measures to get people off, say, beaches/etc., would be much, much less, and might easily make matters *worse* -- by sending first-responders into the area before the earthquake happened, if they couldn't get the news quickly enough.

You wouldn't need a tsunami-specific warning system, however, once you have the information that a tsunami is likely. The tsunami-warning-systems are mainly technology to let officials know a tsunami is coming. The "warning" is a two tier problem - first, discovering the disaster is likely, and second, letting people know. The "letting people know" systems were well established, and ideally it is generic, to meet any type of emergency in the area. What was missing is the "discover the disaster" aspect for tsunamis. Our time travel has eliminated the need for the first step, in this hypothetical.

Any warning system would do, once the right people know to warn. Local radio stations. TV. Word of mouth. Police on the beaches with megaphones.

From what I remember, in Kenya, they successfully evacuated the beaches by using the warning system intended to warn of oil spills. Once you have a way to quickly spread information, and people responsible for clearing certain areas, it can be used for almost any warning.

[Tonio]

The Event would have revived and reinvigorated doomsday cults, dragging them out into the open where their sincere and passionate devotees would assault passersby, shouting, "I have a message and an answer!"

"There shall in that time be rumors of things going astray, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia-work base, that has an attachment..."

[Tyro]

I admire people like Fred who can get so engaged in the abstraction of people dying whom they've never met, I seem to be missing that. ... If I was transported to 9/10/01, that would be different

Really? Do you live and work in downtown NYC? Because I grew up in NJ and have plenty of friends and family who live in Manhattan, and I none of the people who died in the WTC or Pentagon attacks was anyone I had ever met. So unless your connections to NYC and the Pentagon are a LOT closer to mine, I can't imagine that you'd have ever met any of the people who were going to die on Sept. 11th, either.

[Spalanzani]

I just noticed that April 1st marked the three year anniversary of Left Behind Fridays (but not of Fred's Left Behind critique itself, which used to just be sproadic and on any day of the week; ah, the olden days...). Congratulations Fred! Lesser men would have gone mad by now. And you don't even have any robot friends to help you out. At least, not that I'm aware of...

[Praline]

Hello hello Fred! How nice to hear from you again. Hope the move was relatively stress-free.

Also, I noticed you had my book in your sidebar! For which, many, many thanks. :-)

He seemed bright and earnest, having that same authority and passion Rayford Steele exhibited.

It seems notable, besides the obsession with passion and sincerity, that it's hard for L&J to describe a virtue that doesn't somehow relate to Rayford. I think we've yet to hear of a character that doesn't possess a virtue that Ray lacks, or at least, doesn't acquire once he's heard the Word. Bah.

This one seemed innocuous enough, fairly new and modern, neat and efficient.

Possibly also, Buck, being a dirty secular type, has all sorts of ideas about religion being old-fashioned and out of date. Because, you know, secular types are scared of tradition. We only want new stuff with no nasty wisdom of ages attached to it. We don't respect our elders. Shame upon us.

In essence, Buck was looking for information and Bruce was interested in providing it.

In essence? In essence?

Leaving aside the whole blindin bleedin obviousness of it, in essence? Boy. I write essays. I also write fiction. You use phrases like 'in essence' in the former, not the latter. You do NOT precis your fiction as if it were a thesis. 'Show don't tell' is crying in a corner when you use phrases like that. If I ever use those words in fiction outside of dialogue, please, guys, point it out to me and remind me that I swore here and now that it was not a good phrase to use in fiction. First person to catch me out, I'll send you a present. I'm serious. It's going on my list of phrases I'm never going to use.

"I have a message and an answer," Bruce said, but then immediately qualifies that, "for people genuinely seeking." Seekers who are not "genuine" -- not sufficiently sincere and passionate -- need not apply. Bruce has no message and no answers for them.

This seems, to say the least, poor evangelism. Isn't evangelism supposed to be about getting out there and seeking for people who don't know to seek for you? It sort of reminds me of Buck following Chloe onto a plane and then standing there silently goggling at her until she looks up at him, because 'he wanted to be discovered'. Really, if you're all about getting people's attention, you should not wait for them to come to you. It seems to me that L&J want to enjoy a sense masculine pro-activity and combine it with the whole feeling of tingly specialness you get from being sought out. Running with the hare and hunting with the hounds, in other words.

If they really were interested in this - and as evangelists, they should be - then what I want to know is, where's God in all of this? Is God waiting to be discovered by the true seekers? Is He trying to seek out souls and discover them? Who's trying to get whose attention is a theme running through this novel; as it's an evangelical book, we really ought to consider God the main character. The main character having no clear direction while everyone else is to-ing and fro-ing confusedly is bad blocking.

Instead, the God we get is a kind of cosmic postman*, delivering previously Written messages according to a strict schedule with no apparent interest in the results. God is strangely will-less in this. What exactly He intends to achieve by all this message-sending is not considered an important question; instead, He does what He's going to do because it was predicted, by man, that He's going to do it. In essence, to use an essay-appropriate phrase, God's walking his beat to the prophets' schedule. That's a pretty demoted God.

*Full credit to by boyfriend for this phrase.

[Raj]

ATTENTION! THE FOLLOWING IS AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT!

Brethren and sisters of Slacktivist, you have to check out this site:

www.lolcatbible.com

Blessinz of teh Ceiling Cat be apwn yu, srsly.

[madjoey]

Grrr. LaJenkinds make me so mad. If I had the opportunity I would punch them in the testicle.

(Loved the "Left Behind" booksale joke upthread, btw.)

[Tonio]

I'm guessing that all of that mayhem, destruction and torment -- followed by an infinity of even worse mayhem, destruction and torment -- becomes easier to stomach if you convince yourself that its victims have deliberately and knowingly chosen such a fate.

I picture LaHaye hearing about the tsunami or about Katrina and saying to his wife, "Hey honey, after dinner let's turn on the news and watch the heathens get their just desserts." Plausible?

[damnedyankee]

I think it's the scale of the tsunami disaster that makes the difference here. It's just so freakin' big, that a lot of people - myself included - wouldn't know where to start when engaging in the mental exercise of what to do differently (at least, not until I started reading posts like Ursula's).

And compared to the agents of 9/11, who could have been detained, stalled, killed, or (God forgive me) shot down, water is entirely implacable when seeking its level. So that adds another level of intimidation to the exercise.

[McJulie]

It had been a long time since Buck had been in a church. This one seemed innocuous enough, fairly new and modern, neat and efficient. He and the young pastor met in a modest office.

I find it telling that the character is reassured by a church that, apparently, looks like an office building.

Those are exactly the kinds of churches that fill me with dread -- personally, I'm reassured by stained glass and wooden pews.

That arithmetic only works if you accept, as the authors apparently do, that one cannot be sincerely and passionately wrong.

It was precisely that -- realizing people could be sincere and passionate about beliefs that were frankly nutty -- which destroyed the faith of my childhood. Suddenly all faith, even my own, seemed to be built on shaky and entirely subjective ground.

I propose that this is exactly the issue with L&J. Once you *truly* realize that people can be sincerely and passionately wrong, you realize that you are one of those people.

[Jack Grey]

Re: 9/11 but not the tsunami...

I have to admit that I would find myself in the same position as the poster who sparked all this response. It's not heartlessness; it's that 9/11/2001 is not just a disaster, it's also a *date* - one which has been drilled into my head for several years now. If my callbox landed in early 2001, I would actually remember not only what was coming, but *when*.

With the tsunami, I'd be completely useless. In my head, it's a truly horrible disaster that happened a few years ago.

I would have no idea when to expect it. Hence, no ability to provide warnings - at least, not in any useful fashion.

~Jack

[Praline]

Incidentally, if anybody likes stories about time travel, there's a funny little short story on the subject here: http://www.abyssandapex.com/200710-wikihistory.html

Also incidentally: assuming Fred agrees with us that Typepad's new pagination system sucks sucks sucks and can't be fixed because they've changed their policy, who'd be behind sending them a petition/lots of e-mails complaining and asking for the old kind back? There must be a lot of us who are getting fed up, for the very simple reason that pagination makes it prohibitively difficult to follow a long discussion with numerous participants. Short threads don't need to be paginated, and long, complex ones become incomprehensible. Anyone else think complaining might be worth a try?

[Tonio]

He does what He's going to do because it was predicted, by man, that He's going to do it. In essence, to use an essay-appropriate phrase, God's walking his beat to the prophets' schedule. That's a pretty demoted God.

I would go further and suggest that L&J see themselves as substitute gods. Like the children who are self-appointed surrogates for teachers or parents whenever their peers misbehave - "Aw-w-w, you're gonna ge-e-e-t it..."

[Lee Ratner]

In Jewish theology, God does not really demand much in the way of faith or love from humans, he is more interested in action, from both Jews and gentiles. Nor is God particularly interested in receiving worship, his interest is in preventing idolatry rather the worshiping him. The Jewish position has always been its more important to remember God's law than it is to remember God.

Much about Christianity and Islam is confusing for me and possibly other Jews, is because both religions place seem to insist that God demands faith from humans so much that faith becomes a narcotic that God seems addicted to. God does not need anything from humans but demands ethical actions. Many of the passages in prophets, particularly Amos, demonstrates that God prefers actions over worship and faith.

[Mnemosyne]

If I were sent back in time to prevent 9/11, I would call separate bomb threats in for each of the four planes that morning about 15-30 minutes before the planes are supposed to take off. Why try to only save the people in the Twin Towers but let the people on the planes all die?

[Mnemosyne]

Many of the passages in prophets, particularly Amos, demonstrates that God prefers actions over worship and faith.

Within Christianity, this is a huge schism between those (mostly Catholics) who think that they are required to perform good works to go to heaven, and those (often evangelical) who think that faith alone is all that's needed. It's usually called "works vs. faith" and, of course, both positions are supported by the New Testament.

Then you have the people (Calvinists) who believe that God chooses all of the saved before they're even born and there's nothing you can do to change your fate through either faith or works, but that's a whole other can of worms to open.

[Lucia]

Also incidentally: assuming Fred agrees with us that Typepad's new pagination system sucks sucks sucks and can't be fixed because they've changed their policy, who'd be behind sending them a petition/lots of e-mails complaining and asking for the old kind back?
Count me in.

[Jesurgislac]

With 9/11, the thing is, there are a handful of people who could have stopped it. But, as others have already noted: for most people, no. Knowing about 9/11 24 hours before it happened would be useless - even if you were a flight crew on one of the flights, the most you could accomplish would be to prevent one flight taking off. (Which, actually, if it was the plane due to hit one of the Twin Towers, would be no small potatoes, and definitely worth doing.)

But if you could convince even half a dozen people that you knew, and what you knew?

Nearly 20 years ago (in the winter of 1990/1) six or seven women were sitting round in a wine bar in London, and for some reason, someone mooted the chestnut that in any group of six or more people you are two jumps from an Australian aborigine and the President of the United States. There was general skepticism - and then one woman said that actually, her father was close friends with someone who was a regular dinner guest at the White House and could telephone the President (this would be Bush the Elder) and so, if she had to, she could call her father's friend and convince him that she really needed to talk direct to the President. And as it happened, I was friends with an Australian woman whose partner then was an Aborigine: though it did strike me that it was more than a tad racist to assume a specific President but any random Aborigine would do. ;-)

As it happens, because the President is George W. Bush, I really doubt that being able to say "Those signs and warnings I expect you've been getting? It's because 4 teams of al-Qaeda suicide bombers will board four fights on September 11 and they will crash those planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. The fourth plane will crash in a field in Pennsylvania" would help. Even if I could somehow get through to someone who could let me speak to Bush, all that would get me would be an annoyed Bush and the certainty that I'd be the first of the Disappeared because I could definitely testify that he had been warned and had done nothing. With another President, a different administration, a specific warning into the right ear might save lives, but then another President, a different administration, would already have been looking for something to happen with hijacked planes - would have been primed for taking a warning, though the person who gave it would be in for a really uncomfortable time for the next few months, if not for the rest of her life, until it could be established that she had no link to al-Qaeda.)

(For the tsumani: waiting for the earthquake and then warning about the followup is brilliant. I'll bear that in mind if I timetravel.)

[Jesurgislac]

Mnemosyne: If I were sent back in time to prevent 9/11, I would call separate bomb threats in for each of the four planes that morning about 15-30 minutes before the planes are supposed to take off. Why try to only save the people in the Twin Towers but let the people on the planes all die?

Brilliant. What if they just tried again, though?

[Dash]

mcc: This is particularly fascinating because a major premise of the book is that this classified information is "literally" written in the Bible, the most popular book ever printed. So the information Bruce is willing to give Buck if he makes the cut is information which Bruce simultaneously asserts anyone could have had at any time if they'd just opened the bible and read what it says rather than... however it was people were reading the book for the previous 1600 years or whatever.

Mcc, yes, it makes absolutely no sense. However, I was raised in a group that believes this, so I'll try to explain how our little group got there. First, there are a number of verses that support the idea that God reveals things to the foolish and intentionally conceals them from the wise (sort of a Bill O'Reilly kind of God, it seems--someone who is always going on about how he hates "the elites"). The ability to read with understanding comes from the Holy Spirit, so anyone who reads the Bible, asking God for understanding, is (in theory) supposed to get to the right interpretation because it can only come from revelation--not anything secular like, oh, understanding how to read a text or anything. Words on page. Nothing like that. (Come to think of it, they seem to have anticipated Derrida by a couple of centuries in terms of the fluidity of textual meaning.)

They held, as well, that, while the history of Christendom seems not to contain people who believed what the current RTCs believe, there were in all ages at least a small group of RTCs who had it right. I think the term for this is "remnant theology."

In any case, anyone who read the Bible and didn't get to the right interpretation either wasn't asking the Holy Spirit for guidance or wasn't asking sincerely and passionately enough. So, yeah, it's all their fault for not asking God for the secret code.

[Caravelle]

Yay ! Fred is back ! I'm glad to see you survived the box avalanche, did you have food and water under there or did the neighbours call 911 in time ?

I am also feeling terribly embarrassed that I didn't think of the tsunami, and I think Jack Grey is right : it's the problem of remembering dates.

I don't know about bomb threats, would they really foil the plan or just postpone it ? You'd have to warn some officials about Al-Qaeda plans just in case even if you do stop 9/11, and we all know what they would do with such a warning...
That said, there is a mean-spirited thing you could do 24 hours before 9/11, is send a very detailed letter to GW Bush, Condoleeza Rice and a few such people telling of what is going to happen.
And after disaster strikes, making sure the 9/11 commission finds out about those letters...

[Michael Cule]

I think that preventing 9/11 would be quite straigtforward, provided one went for anonymous tips to just about everyone except the highest ranks of government. The FBI, the airlines, local cops would all act on information received about possible terrorist attacks. Copying the information to the press might also be a good precaution. I'd try imitating a member of the terrorist network who was having second thoughts and send anonymous phone calls and e-mails. Saying "Hi! I'm from the future and..." isn't going to work.

The problem with natural disasters is that there is no way for you know about them that isn't spooky. Which leaves you with trying to spoof the already existing early warning systems a task I have no idea how to carry out.

I've often wondered if it would be possible to prevent via time-travel one of the disasters of my childhood: Aberfan. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster
) I really have no idea how you would go about warning anyone. "Prime Minister, I want you to do something about the waste tip at this particular mine in Wales... No, don't hang up!"

[Daughter]

Vanya, your response seems strange. A lot more people died in the Indian Ocean tsunami than died on 9/11. Does the greater chance of warning about the latter have to do with it being closer to home?

[Praline]

someone who is always going on about how he hates "the elites"

Only the wrong elites, though. If it's an 'inner circle' involving 'unusual intelligence and courage', then pass out the green berets, brethren.

[Eric B.]

I understand that trying to get people to believe that a tsumani is coming is difficult, but do you guys seriously mean that if you had information that might save lives, you wouldn't at least try??

I can't wrap my mind around that.

[Jesurgislac]

There's an excellent website about the Aberfan Disaster here.

With Aberfan, it strikes me as being relatively straightforward, providing you remember clearly the time and date exactly - and that the act of time travel doesn't change anything.

You don't need to save the school or the houses, and by 20 past nine on Friday 21st October 1966 everyone would see you were absolutely right. ALl you actually have to do is clear the school, and the surrounding houses, and hopefully the cottage in the waste tip's path. You don't have to make any major demands and you certainly don't have to go to the Prime Minister: you just have to convince half a dozen people of influence in Aberfan that the tip is dangerous and is going to fall on the school that morning and they need to keep the children out of school and the houses nearby clear.

[Jesurgislac]

Eric: I understand that trying to get people to believe that a tsumani is coming is difficult, but do you guys seriously mean that if you had information that might save lives, you wouldn't at least try??

I would if there was anything useful I could do. With the tsumani, I didn't believe there was, but I've had some good ideas so far.

[Steven S.]

As for the butterfly effect ;) -- if not having 9/11 changed things that much, it still might have been worth going to Guantanamo or its equivalent for. It might have forestalled the Iraq War. It might have kicked Bush out of office 4 years earlier. It's a risk worth taking.

"But the terrorists would have been warned" -- well, it's true. On the other hand, you'd have more time to spread your information -- and one bit of information, conveyed to crews, could have made all the difference -- this is not a normal hijacking, this is a suicide attack" -- and it's still a case of "better to be sure."

And last, but not least, Eric -- I can't figure out *how* to try. 15 minutes after the earthquake, people died in Indonesia. 90 minutes later, with those countries' governments *knowing* about things happening in Indonesia, people died in Sri Lanka and India. One more voice saying "Tsunami!" -- I'm not sure what good it would have done. I might try, but I'd feel much more like King Canute, to overextend the metaphor.

[Eric B.]

Well, the premise of the discussion is that you had 24 hours advance notice. I can't imagine sitting on that info for 24 hours. I would frantically call TV stations or whoever trying to get the word out. I could handle failure. I couldn't handle not trying.

And for the record, I think most of you would try as well.

[Dash]

For 9/11, far more than trying to stop the plot (although that would be nice) I'd focus on trying to affect the US response to 9/11.

Dear God, do you not know we tried?

[Bill S]

Calvinists don't seem to live as if they believe in predestination though, do they?
I mean, if I believed God already made up His mind about where everybody's going and our actions are irrelevant, then there's two things I'd do;
try to get as much pleasure out of life as I can, since it doesn't make a difference one way or another, so why deprive myself of any fun?
Try to make life as pleasant for others as I possibly can, since for all I know, their time on earth might be their only opportunity for happiness.

[practicallyevil]

Buck was struck by his honesty. In the world in which Buck moved, he might have kept that information to himself, that edge. But he realized the pastor had no interest in edge. There was nothing to hide here. In essence, Buck was looking for information and Bruce was interested in providing it.

But Bruce is concealing information, he's giving this big whoop-dee-do over how he's providing answers but I assume he's waiting for Buck to make a commitment first.

Bruce just offered a loss leader, he gave Buck and inconsequential piece of info first to distract him, and held onto the important info for later. Bruce is firmly in the advantage here. I guess Buck isn't as good at verbal chess as he thought he was.

[smgt]

Yay! Slacktivist is back!

[Brett]

This is an interesting reflection on Mr. GIRAT's perception of people as well. If he is supposed to be Mr. Big Shot Investigative Reporter, shouldn't he be better at "reading" people? You'd think he'd pick up on Bruce's reluctance to tell him everything and try to press harder for information, particularly since Buck at this point thinks his life might depend on it.