L.B.: Still unsaved

Left Behind, pp. 426-430

From here on the rest of Left Behind is all building up to the big final scene in which the Antichrist, like Chekhov's gun, finally goes off. The end of Chapter 23 here is part of this build-up, an attempt to create and sustain suspense leading up to Buck's next encounter with Nicolae Carpathia.

Bruce Barnes has just finished providing Buck with a short checklist of things the Antichrist will do during his rise to power: Form one world government based in Babylon, one world currency, one world religion -- pretty much all the things that Nicolae had announced he was instituting earlier that same day.

"Did you see the news today?" Buck asked.

"Not today," Bruce said. "I've been in meetings ..."

This could have been played for laughs (intentional laughs, I mean), or it could have been written as an eerie reveal -- "Everything you just predicted has already happened!" -- but this being Left Behind, we instead get a half-page explanation of the workings of Bruce Barnes' answering machine.

No, really:

Buck told him what had happened at the U.N. Bruce paled. "That's why we've been hearing all those clicking sounds on my answering machine," Bruce said. "I turned the ringer off on the phone, so the only way you can tell when a call comes in is by the clicking on the answering machine. People are calling to let me know. ..."

Sometimes I almost feel sorry for the authors. Here they finally arrive, albeit belatedly, at this Big Reveal, a moment they've been building up to for hundreds of pages. Two major characters finally come to accept the terrifying reality they've both feared for some time but didn't quite dare to believe and then ...

And then the authors just can't help themselves. They immediately steer off into a discussion of the clicking sounds an answering machine makes when the ringer is turned off. Even when they're not actually on the telephone, they wind up talking about the telephone. (I'm starting to wonder if maybe all this telephony has to mean something, that maybe it's some kind of deeper theme the meaning of which, like the recurring bears in John Irving,* simply eludes me.)

This brings us to the "bullets won't stop him" portion of the monster movie. Here Bruce plays the role of the Spooky Old Man in the village who knows all the legends about the local monster, its strengths, weaknesses and super powers.

"The Antichrist is a deceiver. And he has the power to control men's minds. He can make people see lies as truth."

Buck told Bruce of his invitation to the pre-press conference meeting.

"You must not go," Bruce said.

"I can't not go," Buck said. "This is the opportunity of a lifetime."

"I'm sorry," Bruce said. "I have no authority over you, but let me plead with you, warn you, about what happens next. ..."

I can't help but wonder if Bruce were talking to a member of his congregation, would he begin by saying, "I do have authority over you?" I don't think I've ever heard someone use the word "authority" in this context. Usually when taking this line of argument, a person will say something like "I can't tell you what to do," or "I can't make up your mind for you." I can't imagine someone instead saying what Bruce says here unless that person were a military officer or an overbearing CEO or someone else who is accustomed to exercising authority over others.

For some reason, when someone says, "I can't tell you what to do," it never strikes me this way. It never seems as though they're suggesting, "I can tell some people what to do, but you don't happen to be one of those people." Yet that is what Bruce's phrasing seems to imply. It seems as though he's saying, "As a senior pastor, I have authority over my congregation, but since you're not yet part of that congregation, I can't yet give you orders." It's the sort of comment that would make me extremely reluctant to join this man's church.

Bruce is convinced that the Antichrist is Up To Something, yet, despite all his prophecy study, he isn't sure exactly what.

"He undoubtedly has ulterior motives for wanting you there."

"I'm no good to him."

"You would be if he controlled you."

"But he doesn't."

"If he is the evil one the Bible speaks of, there is little he does not have the power to do."

If I'm following this correctly -- and at this point I'm fairly sure I'm not -- it seems that in the LB-verse we humans have free will when it comes to our dealings with God, but not when it comes to our dealings with Satan.

"I warn you not to go there without protection."

(I'll refrain here, but I'll be disappointed if this isn't pounced on in the comment section.)

"I warn you not to go there without protection."

"A bodyguard?"

"At least. But if Carpathia is the Antichrist, do you want to face him without God?"

... "I don't think I'm going to get hypnotized or anything."

"Mr. Williams, you have to do what you have to do, but I'm pleading with you. If you go into that meeting without God in your life, you will be in mortal and spiritual danger."

Ah. Only God can protect you from the Antichrist's mind-control mojo. Here then, neatly laid out, are The Rules for the big final scene unfolding over the next two chapters. Buck will be going to meet the Antichrist who is sure to turn him into the devil's pawn by using his mind-control powers. Unless, that is, Buck instead invokes the counter-spell of divine providence.

I say "counter-spell" because here again LaHaye & Jenkins' notion of spiritual warfare is difficult to distinguish from sorcery. The Antichrist can cast a spell that we are powerless to resist. That would mean we're all doomed except that we can invoke the magic words spell, which God is powerless to resist, and thereby compel God to cast his counter-spell against the Antichrist.

It's kind of like a cosmic game of rock-paper-scissors. Antichrist beats human beats God beats Antichrist.

This is strange theology, to say the least, but if one agrees to go along for the ride without trying to reconcile any of this with conventional or biblical Christianity then these Rules work well enough as a premise for the coming showdown with Nicolae.

In order to maintain the suspense surrounding that showdown, the reader has to be kept in doubt about the state of Buck's soul. This requires something of a departure from the standard tropes of didactic evangelical fiction. This scene cannot end with Buck's conversion, since that would spoil the is-he-or-isn't-he? drama of his encounter with Carpathia.

It's interesting that the authors thought it necessary to up the ante here. They've insisted all along that salvation -- saying "the prayer" and invoking "the transaction" -- is the most important thing in the world. Up until now I'd have thought that, for them, "Without God in your life, you will be in mortal and spiritual danger" could have stood alone as a statement for anyone. Yet here that statement is qualified, "If you go into that meeting without God in your life ..."

This is an odd inversion of the old evangelist's cliche. At some point you've probably heard an evangelist ask some variation of this question: "If you were to stand before God and He were to ask you why He should let you into His heaven, what would you say?" Here, instead, Bruce is in effect asking Buck, "If you were to stand before Satan and he were to ask you why he shouldn't take you to Hell ..."

"If you go into that meeting without God in your life, you will be in mortal and spiritual danger."

He told Buck about his conversation with the Steeles and how they had collectively come up with the idea of a Tribulation Force. "It's a band of serious-minded people who will boldly oppose the Antichrist."

There's no ellipsis there, nothing omitted between those two paragraphs.

So let's recap, according to Bruce: 1. The Antichrist can control the minds of anyone who isn't born again; 2. Buck isn't born again; 3. Buck is about to meet with the Antichrist.

Given all that, Bruce decides the best course of action is to tell Buck all about his super-secret anti-Antichrist guerrilla squad and to provide him a list of the founding members. Genius.

I suspect the idea here has to do with what Bruce and the authors regard as a more compelling sales pitch. A personal relationship with a loving God just doesn't seem as exciting as the idea of being recruited into an army, into God's commando squad.

The Tribulation Force stirred something deep within Buck. It took him back to his earliest days as a writer, when he believed he had the power to change the world. He would stay up all hours of the night, plotting with his colleagues how they would have the courage and the audacity to stand up to oppression, to big government, to bigotry. He had lost that fire and verve over the years ...

If you've ever seen the disturbing documentary Jesus Camp, then you have an idea of how effective this kind of recruiting-proselytization can be. That sort of stirring, heart-pounding call to be a part of some greater cause is what the authors seem to be shooting for here. Note though that Jenkins' clumsy prose again accidentally reveals more than it intends. Staying up late, "plotting ... how they would have the courage and the audacity" is the end point here. Such late-night plotting offers all the thrills and none of the discomfort that comes from actually doing anything that might require courage or audacity.**

But while Bruce has no qualms about telling a reporter all about his top-secret resistance squad and its top-secret plans to undermine the new OWG, he draws the line at letting Buck sit in on their meeting:

"I'm afraid not," Bruce said. "I think you'd find it interesting and I personally believe it would help convince you, but it is limited to our leadership team. Truth is, I'll be going over with them tomorrow what you and I are talking about tonight, so it would be a rerun for you anyway."

So Buck can't come to the meeting because they'll be discussing things that only the leadership team can discuss and which he's already heard anyway. Huh?

Bruce offers a lukewarm invitation to their Sunday church service:

"You're very welcome, but I must say, it's going to be the same theme I use every Sunday. You've heard it from Ray Steele and you've heard it from me. If hearing it one more time would help, then come on out. ..."

Worth noting here that this is, I believe, the only time in the entire book that anyone other than his dead wife calls Captain Steele "Ray."

Buck stood and stretched. He had kept Bruce long past midnight, and he apologized.

"No need," Bruce said. "This is what I do."

"Do you know where I can get a Bible?"

"I've got one you can have," Bruce said.

So Buck departs, still unsaved and thus still uncloaked in godly protection from Nicolae's evil powers. Will he be saved in time? The suspense is killing me. (No, wait, that's the writing. I knew something was killing me.)

The chapter closes with a final two-paragraph vignette inside the exclusive leadership team meeting.

Bruce told the story of Buck Williams, without using his name or mentioning his connection with Rayford and Chloe. Chloe cried silently as the group prayed for his safety and for his soul.

The point of view for this scene is a bit confusing. Thus far the pattern has been for every scene to be from either Buck's or Rayford's perspective. Yet Buck isn't present for this scene, so it can't be from his POV. And the narrator mentions that Chloe is crying, so it can't be from Rayford's POV either since, as a rule, he never notices when his daughter is crying.

Chloe is crying because she knows Bruce is talking about her boyfriend. But I also like to think she's crying because she's smarter than Bruce and she realizes that Pastor Moron has put all their lives in jeopardy by telling her unsaved boyfriend all their secrets before he goes to hang out with Mr. Mind Control. ("The minds behind every military, diplomatic and covert operation in the galaxy, and you put them in a room with a psychic.")

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

* Seriously, what's with the bears already? I finished A Prayer for Owen Meany and I thought, "That was beautiful and, for once, no bears." But then I started wondering what the absence of bears might mean ...

** This is why I find the manipulation of children in Jesus Camp horrifying, but I'm not terribly worried about their "revolution" succeeding. As with most of the theocratic strands of American Christianity, I'm more concerned with what the leaders of such groups are doing to their own followers than I am about what they might actually do to the rest of us. This is true of those leaders as well -- they're far more concerned with manipulating their followers than with changing the rest of the world. That doesn't mean, of course, that we can afford to be completely unconcerned with their external agenda and its effects on their external victims, but in opposing that agenda we have always to keep in mind that such groups internal victims are no less real, and no less victims. That's why, for example, I've tried here to focus my criticism on LaHaye & Jenkins as the peddlers of this dangerous nonsense and to avoid, for the most part, mocking their millions of followers.

Comments

[Chris]

Dr Weiss: "Is he saved? IS HE SAVED?!" *dentist drill*

[SueW]

Does everyone in America have phones that work like that?

I don't know if everyone does, but I think most answering machines that you got for your home in the 90's probably would have done the same thing, if you were to turn off oth the phone ringer and the volume on the machine. But the only reason I can see for someone doing that would be to avoid any contact with the outside world. What the hell kind of pastor would do that in a time of crisis? You would think he would at least listen to a few of the messages, especially before making any judgement as to what they were about. That paragraph has several levels of stupid.

[pointatinfinity]

It depends on whether the order of the anti function is finite or infinite. If it is finite, we will eventually come back to Christ (or pro-Christ). Obviously the order is not 2, because if it were, anti-anti-Christ would cancel and the Tribbles would actually be pro-Christ, which they aren't. I've a hunch that it's anti-anti...(666 times)...anti-Christ gets you back full circle.

Sniffnoy: Why assume it's a bijection? I'm going to suggest that instead perhaps anti-anti-anti-anti-anti-Christ=anti-anti-anti-Christ and it loops from there.

Interesting. I was assuming a cyclic group structure, with Christ as unity, but your proposal would work as well, in which case if anti^5-Christ=anti^3-Christ, then...it's still a cyclic group of order 15=lcm(3,5).

I should have warned you not to wake up the utter and complete abstract-algebra geek.

The Tribulation Force stirred something deep within Buck.

Sticking two fingers up in the time-honoured manner he had learnt while holidaying as a child in Israel with his parents, he hurried off to the bathroom to relieve himself.

I wonder if he got reminded of it while in Israel covering the nuclear-attack-that-wasn't. I would assume most sane people, after facing the threat of nuclear annihilation, and then having it bypassed, would need to raise two fingers a lot.

[Karen]

The FAFers have something illuminating about their view of authority in the linked post. When I read her post, my first thought was, "and how do you figure out where God wants you to apply wisdom and where God just wants unreasoned medulla oblongata response? Even doing that much analysis requires reason, and from the rest of her site I'm pretty sure women at least don't get to reason at all. So, who gives the orders on the use of reason? My guess is the pastor, or, in the case of the FAF'ers, the priest. Once you're an RTC, a clergyman (the masculine is deliberate here) finds you and assigns you a rank and serial number.

[cjmr]

Do you have your The Sharing Knife: Passage yet, or are you following that universe?

Waiting my turn in the library request queue...or for my best friend to finish hers.

[Ursula L]

Karen - I agree that, for the FAFers and others of similar mindset, women aren't supposed to reason, they're supposed to obey.

Who do you obey - your father, the clergyman chosen by your father, and your husband, who was chosen with your father's approval. Spreading out from that, other men in your church, other men in your family, and men in general. In strictly patriarchal ideals, there is no room for a woman to decide who she is to obey.

If she's obeying the proper person when he's wrong, though, she's still to blame for her wrong action (free will, don't you know). And also, because she should have been so good and holy that she inspired the proper man in her life to command her in the right way. It's a catch-22, of course, and one that reinforces prejudices of women being inherently wrong, evil, or stupid. If she does right, it isn't to her credit, it is to the credit of the man who is in control of her. If she's wrong, it's her own fault. This scales up nicely to their ideas about the relationship between humanity and god - if a human does well, it is only because of god's grace, if a human does badly, it is purely human evil. Who gets credit is defined, not by who is acting, but by whether the action is good (and to the credit of the superior) or bad (and the fault of the subordinate.)

[pointatinfinity]

Sniffnoy: Why assume it's a bijection? I'm going to suggest that instead perhaps anti-anti-anti-anti-anti-Christ=anti-anti-anti-Christ and it loops from there.

Interesting. I was assuming a cyclic group structure, with Christ as unity, but your proposal would work as well, in which case if anti^5-Christ=anti^3-Christ, then...it's still a cyclic group of order 15=lcm(3,5).

Oops, my bad. Sniffnoy is right, it does loop from there --- but then it would not be a group in itself, as it has no inverses, although it will have a cyclic subgroup of order 2. So there is no way of getting back to Christ from anti-anti-Christ if so. Your theology as expressed in monoids makes me sad, Sniffnoy.

[damnedyankee]

Spalanzani: For God, maybe that hand sign Jesus is always shown doing, where he holds up his index and middle finger together (sort of like a peace sign only without the fingers spread apart).

You don't need to see our identification. These are not the droids you are looking for. We can go on about our business.

(*) Cue angry feminist barrage in 5..4..3...

Feminists are generally aware of the existence of males and male archetypes in fiction, Bugmaster.

[damnedyankee]

It took him back to his earliest days as a writer, when he believed he had the power to change the world. He would stay up all hours of the night, plotting with his colleagues how they would have the courage and the audacity to stand up to oppression, to big government, to bigotry.

In college we knew this as "bullshitting over beer".

[yank in london]

I just can't believe you're still reading this rubbish. Have you stopped taking your medication?

[Amaryllis]

Does everyone in America have phones that work like that?

And like Wesley Parish misreading "prawn" for "pawn," I first read that as "Does everyone in America have phonies that work like that?"

[Praline]

Amaryllis - cool, cool poem at 6.14 am. 'Nick-of-the-Mountains' sounds positively fairytale.

My first thought was that it might be sort of appropriate, like the myth of the jack-o-lantern that leads you off your path in the marshes.

But then I started thinking about the word 'catamount', meaning cougar, based on 'cat-o-the-mountain.' Now I've got to Nickomount. To my English ears, that's one childish step to Knickermount. And now it's hopeless. I've just regressed to age four.

Knickermount! Knickermount! Kniiiiickermount!

Sorry. More mature comments may come later, when I can get the word 'knickers' out of my head...

[Karen]

Here is an example of what happens when the woman follows the RTC script and the marriage fails anyway. I really feel for the woman in this blog. She's obviously incredibly and reasonably angry, but she hasn't yet made the realization that her entire system was flawed. I wish there were some way to contact her, to give her some hope or comfort or at least some cookies.

For those that don't read the link, it's the defunct as of this week blog by a 20-year-old woman who embraced the quiverfull and submissive wife role. She's pregnant with her third child in three years, and found out this week that her husband mightt be having an affair. I'm actually really sorry for both of 'em. I can see how a kid in his early 20's, with a wife and three kids and in a subculture that rejects birth control might get a little overwhelmed and seek an escape. That doesn't excuse his behavior, but it does explain it. She threw a fit and hit him until he bled, and then left. If they lived around people who had any sense at all, they might be able to work things out, but as they are part of a dangerous subculture, I'm pretty sure they won't. For what it's worth, I'll be praying for them.

One thing I've found interesting in the later novels is how all religions except Christianity and Judaism form the One World Religion; I mean really, how many people expect all those countries ruled by extremist Muslims to join that; or the atheists and agnostics too......The amount of suspension of disbelief in these novels is extremely high.

[Praline]

Incidentally, Jesus Camp is on Google Video; the first part is here: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=jesus+camp&sitesearch=

[pepperjackcandy]

The Tribulation Force stirred something deep within Buck.

And then they took out their tasting spoons to see if it needed more salt.

[Jeff]

I want to play god, human, antichrist. Obviously antichrist would have to be the universal "horns" symbol. Still not sure what to use for the other two. Maybe a thumbs up for God in homage to Kevin Smith's buddy Christ.

Would dynamite (fingers in a fist with the thumb sticking up) still beat everything, the way it does in rock-paper-scissors?

"Human" could be the forefinger and midfinger pointing down to make legs (kind of an upside-down "peace").

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

I've actually asked a few people, including a priest, why Jesus is shown making that hand-sign and none of them knew.

I believe it's a unconscious reference to Buddha (I believe that contact with India had been established by that time), who also makes that sign.

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

More later.

[Raj]

Re: "Pawn" & "prawn"

"How do you know he's the Antichrist?"

"He turned me into a prawn, M'Lord!"

"A prawn?"

"Well, I got better!"

[Eric B.]

Karen---wow, that post was chilling. I think the weirdest part, though, is how upset she is her husband not only cheated on her, but dared to do it with an amputee. In her own words:

"It didn't even take a whole woman to take Justin from me."

[Raj]

"I warn you not to go there without protection."
(I'll refrain here, but I'll be disappointed if this isn't pounced on in the comment section.)

Butthead: Huh, huh! HUH, HUH, HUH! HUH, HUH, HUH, HUH, HUH, HUH!!!

Beavis: Er, yeah, heh, heh, heh! Heh, heh! Heh, heh, heh!

[Raj]

The question of Bruce Barnes' authority could have been resolved if anyone coming to meet with him had to choose between wearing a green button saying, "Yes, you may have authority over me" and a red button saying, "No, you may not have authority over me."

[Technomad]

Count me in as another Bujold fan, and longtime fixture on the Bujold e-mail list. I'm another who just can't get into the Sharing Knife books; I'd like more 5 Gods, and more Vorkosigan.

[Raj]

"Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that isn't impervious to bullets."
- Brigadier Alistair Lethbridge-Stewart

[Keith]

"Do you know where I can get a Bible?"

Jesus H. Christ on a pogostick! The GIRAT doesn't know where to get his hands on a copy of the most widely circulated and easily available book in the history of writing, despite the fact that he lives out of hotel rooms and is currently standing in a Church. The fate of the world rests on the shoulders of Mr. Magoo.

Which would explain his reporting style: He can't properly source anything because he lacks the basic skills required to check the most obvious and routine facts.

I realize the authorial intent here is to have Buck ask for a Bible but that line of dialog should have been, "Do you have a spare Bible I can use?" But that clearly isn't passive aggressive enough for our hero.

Next up, a confrontation with the Antichrist where Buck says, "You probably won't get any information out of me, Mr. Carpathia! I may not talk!"

[jamoche]

What the hell kind of pastor would do that in a time of crisis?

What crisis? It's been a whole week since all the kiddies disappeared; old news, nothing to see here.

[Keith]

The "mortal danger" part is so weird, because exactly how is God supposed to be helpful there? Does prayer give you a +10 Armor Class?--Vermic

Back when I played Magic: The Gathering, I had a deck based entirely around soldiers, priests, angels and holy relics. I called it my Crusader deck (I could play a card called Armageddon that killed all creatures in play and another one that destroyed all lands in play) One of the enchantment cards was Holy Armor, which could give even the lowliest 1/1 foot soldier a + 0/3 against black creatures. Left Behind makes perfect sense if you envision God and Satan as dueling with single color coded decks. The chatter in the book is just the casual conversation the creature sin play have while waiting for upkeep to complete.

And if anyone understood half of that, you're almost as big a geek as me. Almost.

[damnedyankee]

I'm not up on the new edition rules, but doesn't +10 armor class make you incredibly MORE vulnerable?

[Amaryllis]

Praline@12:53: Thanks. *blushes* For various long-story reasons, I couldn't ignore a Gunpowder Plot reference. And as various people have commented, these Tribulation Force conspirators are totally inept-- so inept, they make Guy Fawkes and company look good. At least Fawkes, Catesby, et.al. actually plotted occasionally.

If you're going to be silly about "catamount," I'll give you this piece of Anglo-American silliness.

And then, "catamount" led me to "catamite," and I shut down right there. Because I don't do slash. Even with protection.

[Sniffnoy]

Back when I played Magic: The Gathering, I had a deck based entirely around soldiers, priests, angels and holy relics. I called it my Crusader deck (I could play a card called Armageddon that killed all creatures in play and another one that destroyed all lands in play) One of the enchantment cards was Holy Armor, which could give even the lowliest 1/1 foot soldier a + 0/3 against black creatures. Left Behind makes perfect sense if you envision God and Satan as dueling with single color coded decks. The chatter in the book is just the casual conversation the creature sin play have while waiting for upkeep to complete.

And if anyone understood half of that, you're almost as big a geek as me. Almost.

Magic's not exactly obscure, man. I expect a number of people noticed you mixed up Armageddon with Wrath of God... :P

[Praline]

And if anyone understood half of that...

Er - I have to admit that I didn't understand a flippin word. Can anyone translate for me?

Thanks for the link, Amaryllis. :-) I heard that, when Catesby and the lads were holed up after Fawkes's arrest, they got their gunpowder wet; unfortunately, Fawkes was the only one who had any military experience at all - or even, based on this anecdote, much common sense - so they decided to spread it out in front of the fire to dry. Seriously. One of them lost his eyebrows.

I do love fireworks, but I'm very uncomfortable with November 5 celebrations. I mean, the guy was tortured into a confession, then tortured to death, and everybody celebrated and sang songs about penny loaves choking the Pope, and burned the dude in effigy for centuries. It seems a fairly evil celebration, at root. Frankly, I'd rather save the evil for Halloween ... though by evil, I mean candy and scary movies. Mind you, the kids in my neighbourhood go into the candy bowl like bandits; you can say, 'Okay, guys, one bar each' until you're blue in the face, but I see those little hands burrowing in like sharks in a frenzy, and I swear, I half-expect one of them to kick me in the shins and yell, 'Right, now let's grab her wallet!'

[hapax]

yeltar: Do you have your The Sharing Knife: Passage yet, or are you following that universe?

Of course. LMB is one of the few who compell not only Teh Hardcover, but Teh Pre-Order.

But... surely you aren't that Yeltar? Who kidnapped an entire message board, and abandoned them on planet Bujoldia? (One bows the Bow of Novice to Master)

OH JOHN RINGO NO

Yeah, that review has them about right. Festering cesspools of seething id, yet sickly compelling in their way. I recommend the Posleen books all over the place, but the Paladin books... well, I order 'em, but I don't read 'em, and I feel like scrubbing my hands with lye every time I replace one on the book cart.

[Praline]

Igh, Karen, I just read the FAF post, and it's horrifying. The bit that stood out to me was the argument that Eve assumed God had lied in telling her she'd die if she ate the apple, because she ate it and didn't immediately drop dead: He wasn't a liar, and we know that now. When He said "you will surely die", He didn't specify the time.

Trickster gods, malevolent prophecies and monkey's-paw promises do crop up in legends, but it's pretty creepy to designate the God of Compassion as one of them. The whole point about such gods is that their attitude towards mankind and morality range from the indifferent to the malevolent. The stories' morals seldom go much beyond 'Don't mess with Apollo', or whoever. This does not seem very Christian in spirit; it's a dark faith.

[Tonio]

As with most of the theocratic strands of American Christianity, I'm more concerned with what the leaders of such groups are doing to their own followers than I am about what they might actually do to the rest of us.

That's an excellent point. Since I'm outside Christianity, it would be very difficult for me to express a similar concern without unintentionally insulting the intelligence of the followers. Instead, I usually echo the late Molly Ivins and say that fundamentalists aren't evil, they're worried.

I suspect that any danger of American theocracy would come from a charismatic leader who would successfully manipulate the fears of Americans of all faiths, not just the fundamentalist ones.

"No," contradicted Bruce. "There is another."

I noticed the resemblance as well. Perhaps this was not mere coincidence. Perhaps the original Star Wars series was an unconscious influence on this scene.

[hapax]

Praline, I've always asserted the great dividing line in religions is not between monotheism and polytheism, but between the attitude of "please god(s) go away and don't hurt me" and "hi god(s) sit down next to me and have a beer."

Of course, you often get both approaches in what is ostensibly the same faith. I think we all know which kind of "Christianity" L&J profess.

Except theirs is not only "please go away", but even "if you just go away and don't hurt me, I'll hand over to you everyone else (including all the children in the world) first!"

Snivelling little ratfaced gits.

[Keith]

Magic's not exactly obscure, man. I expect a number of people noticed you mixed up Armageddon with Wrath of God... :P

I did in fact mix up Armageddon with Wrath of God but the deck had both cards. Vindication!

I only got the chance to play both in succession once and it had the desired effect: completely crippling my opponent, who ended up with no creatures in play and no lands, and so no ability to cast spells. I was able to deploy a single land and a shield bearer the next round and peck at him until I had enough land to send out a White Knight.

Ah, good times... Somewhere I think i still have those decks...

[Keith]

Trickster gods, malevolent prophecies and monkey's-paw promises do crop up in legends, but it's pretty creepy to designate the God of Compassion as one of them. The whole point about such gods is that their attitude towards mankind and morality range from the indifferent to the malevolent. The stories' morals seldom go much beyond 'Don't mess with Apollo', or whoever. This does not seem very Christian in spirit; it's a dark faith.

Posted by: Praline

This reminds me of the notion that the default setting for humans is animism: even in the 21st century, we look for human-like agents behind complex events and then decide if they're stronger than us. If so, we have to appease the Angry Hurricane God. Or, if it is weaker than us, like the Minor Spirit of the Gay Agenda, it can be used alternately as a scape goat and rallying cry to unite the tribe agaisnt those other guys over there.

[Spalanzani]

hapax: Praline, I've always asserted the great dividing line in religions is not between monotheism and polytheism, but between the attitude of "please god(s) go away and don't hurt me" and "hi god(s) sit down next to me and have a beer."

I think it's more of a continuum than a dividing line. At one extreme you've got people like Lehaye/Jenkins who view God like the Skull Island natives view King Kong, and then on the other end you've got people who view God as basically a plush toy. Someone who literally acted like your second example would be pretty close to the 'plush toy' end of the spectrum. This probably isn't as harmful as Lehaye/Jenkin's brand of religion, but it still has it's problems, like making the worshiper complacent and self-satisfied. "Aslan is not a tame lion" and all that.

Keith: This reminds me of the notion that the default setting for humans is animism: even in the 21st century, we look for human-like agents behind complex events and then decide if they're stronger than us.

I sometimes wonder if a lot of people in America who identify themselves as Christians mostly because it's the norm wouldn't actually be happier as animists. We've talked a little in previous threads about how a lot of American Christians treat every little thing that happens to them as signs of the direct hand of either God or Satan. You know, if the light goes to green right when they need it to, that was God intervening for them, but if they lose their car keys later, it's Satan's work. That kind of thing. This comes off as pretty arrogant, but I think these people are kind of stuck believing that. It's been pretty common throughout history for humans to ascribe the events of their lives to supernatural agents, so many (most?) cultures end up believing in lots of different spirits for lots of different things. But American Protestantism only leaves you with essentially two such agents, God and Satan. They can't just say "Oh, the spirit of the traffic light did that for me" or "Evil parking lot gnomes have made me misplace my car keys again", they have to resort to saying, in essence "The infinite and eternal source of all life and goodness just intervened in the regular workings of the universe to help me get to work on time" Maybe a form of animism would align better with the world view these people already seem to have.

[jmc]

Spirit - I'm the spirit of cellular phones and other cordless devices!
Ryoko - There's a spirit for everything these days...

[cjmr's husband]

"Evil parking lot gnomes have made me misplace my car keys again"

Car Key Gnomes don't hang out in parking lots -- that's the turf of the Door Ding Gnomes. Car Key Gnomes make house calls. Due to union rules, they never enter the house at the same time as the Underwear Gnomes.

[Tehanu]

Spalanzani: I sometimes wonder if a lot of people in America who identify themselves as Christians mostly because it's the norm wouldn't actually be happier as animists.

Pursuant to that, check out Rachel Pollack's books, Unquenchable Fire and Temporary Agency, which are about a near future in which something very close to that has happened. Everyone believes in magic and spells and spirits because, er, they're real and really work; the gods manifested themselves and everyone got on the bandwagon. She's not as wonderful a writer as Lois McMaster Bujold (yes, I'm another fan, though more of Miles than of the fantasies, except her first fantasy, The Spirit Ring, which I'm very fond of) -- but anyway, both of these books are good. Pollack's also an authority on the Tarot -- in my not-so-humble opinion, the only one who's actually worth anything.

[Karen]

Eric: that struck me too. She doesn't ee. xactly show herself at an advantage, does she?

Praline: Yep, that's pretty much it. God as Fine Print. Read the other link, to the girl who caught her husband misbehaving. It's about as sad as possibl

[Colleen]

Car Key Gnomes don't hang out in parking lots -- that's the turf of the Door Ding Gnomes. Car Key Gnomes make house calls. Due to union rules, they never enter the house at the same time as the Underwear Gnomes.

Step 1: Misplace car keys
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!

[hf]

Trickster gods, malevolent prophecies and monkey's-paw promises do crop up in legends, but it's pretty creepy to designate the God of Compassion as one of them. The whole point about such gods is that their attitude towards mankind and morality range from the indifferent to the malevolent.

I don't think that holds true generally. Often trickster gods seem like the friend of humanity. They do break the rules of the society in some way.

Someone who literally acted like your second example would be pretty close to the 'plush toy' end of the spectrum. This probably isn't as harmful as Lehaye/Jenkin's brand of religion, but it still has it's problems, like making the worshiper complacent and self-satisfied.

Doesn't seem to fit the people who actually give Manannan a beer, nor the one worshiper of Odin I know. (I don't know if it fits atheists, for that matter.) Your mileage may vary.

[Jeff]

The Tribulation Force stirred something deep within Buck.

Which is why he needed "protection"!

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

At least Fawkes, Catesby, et.al. actually plotted occasionally.

At least Fawkes et al actually placed the gunpowder! Fawkes was ready to light the fuse when he was stopped. The plan would have worked (so far as blowing up Parliament at least) had one of the plotters not warned a member of the House of Lords.

So they were miles ahead of the Trib Force.

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

Minor Spirit of the Gay Agenda

Wasn't that played by Charles Nelson Reilly?

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

making the worshiper complacent and self-satisfied

I dunno. The Christ of the Gospels seems like a guy I'd like to have a beer with -- he certainly didn't mistreat the apostles -- but who could stir me to action against injustice. Just because we're friends doesn't mean he can't ask "What did you do today to make the world a better place?"

[yeltar]

Hapax: But... surely you aren't that Yeltar? Who kidnapped an entire message board, and abandoned them on planet Bujoldia? (One bows the Bow of Novice to Master)

Hee! No, but I was there for the original thread, which was huge fun, and have enjoyed several revivals of it. (My List Critter fu is as the originator of TBT.) Time constraints choked me off the list in any active way; I occasionally lurk, but almost never post any more.

So good to see so many fans here-- *waves* --even if I can't tie most of you to your Listee names! Perhaps I'll figure out a few more as time goes on.

I am enjoying Passage; I have liked, if not fallen madly in love with, the Wide Green World. The 5GU, loved two out of three (detested Hallowed Hunt). And miss Miles most of all, though I fear the next book, what with Lois having warned us repeatedly it almost certainly must be about.

Um, perhaps we'd best get back to the other LB now...? ('pologize for the thread-jack, Slackfans!)

[Tonio]

It's been pretty common throughout history for humans to ascribe the events of their lives to supernatural agents...

I must be an oddball, since I've never had that tendency. Even when I read the Bible for the first time, and read Robert Short's books about the alleged religious content of "Peanuts," it never occurred to me that others might connect the text to events in their own lives.

[greygelgoog]

Buck: "Do you know where I can get a Bible?"

Bruce: "Since it is the most widely published book in all of history we make sure it stays locked in my office. Don't want the uninitiated getting their hands on our secrets."

[Barabajagalla]

This brings to mind something I've always wondered about fundie Christians my age who were raised in the church. I had just squeaked out of childhood by the time the millenium came around (Class of '99). I've always been curious about the mindset of parents who truly believed that the rapture was imminent. To them, my generation was never supposed to live a normal adult life. Their children weren't raised to exist in society, but rather to pass God's litmus tests come the rapture. I wonder what the effects of this have on my peers, and on the future of the fundamentalist churches.

[Bruce in South Florida]

So, let's see... we've got Joss Whedon, Monty Python, D&D, John Irving, South Park, Tom Lehrer, Tolkien, George RR Martin... as Julie Andrews would note, these are a few of my favorite things...

As for Mr. Lehrer, L&J are exactly who Lehrer is talking about in "National Brotherhood Week"...

[Praline]

This probably isn't as harmful as Lehaye/Jenkin's brand of religion, but it still has it's problems, like making the worshiper complacent and self-satisfied.

Do you have examples of that? My own experience isn't infinite, but is it always a bad thing to have someone completely secure with their God? Fundamentalists tend to be of the lashing-out and frightened variety; as long as their God is scary, they want to point out people worse than they are, just to make absolutely sure the thunderbolt doesn't land on them when He decides to chuck it - which he will, because they believe He has a bit of a habit of it. Someone who considers their God to be entirely forgiving and benevolent is going to be calmer, and less likely to aggress.

Of course, you may get people who are completely sure that their God can forgive them anything, but will judge other people - but I suspect fear is at the root of that, because it requires a considerable degree of cognitive dissonance, and also talisman beliefs like the Magic Words absolution. Generally, if you think God can be vicious to others, I think you're likely to worry He may revoke your diplomatic immunity some day. If, on the other hand, the God you believe in just doesn't act that way, you're a lot safer. As Heinrich Heine said, "Dieu me pardonnera; c'est son metier." (Usually translated as 'God will forgive me; that's his job.' - but 'metier' also means 'skill' or 'experience', which has less of a he-has-to ring; I'd translate it as 'God will forgive me; that's what he does.')

I have the feeling that love of God makes people less likely to attack others than fear of God. You can be self-satisfied and frightened of God, with enough compartmentalization, but if you're satisfied with God, I don't see how that can be a problem.