At Patheos: TF: Private study sessions

Fred Clark has posted a new Left Behind post, TF: Private study sessions, at Patheos

This week Fred writes about pp. 404-406 of Tribulation Force.

Excerpt:

Self-proclaimed prophets like LaHaye don’t have an impressive track record in predicting what the future holds. For all of the difficulty illustrated in the links above, science fiction writers and satirists have proven much more reliable prognosticators than people like LaHaye. Those writers look at what is and extrapolate what may be by following the trajectory as far as they can imagine. In doing so, both science fiction writers and satirists portray plausible futures that can teach us a great deal about the world we live in now.

So-called prophets like LaHaye, on the other hand, aren’t at all interested in the world we live in now. They’re not extrapolating from what is known, but rather asserting What Shall Be based on claims of special revelation.

That revelation turns out, in retrospect, not to be so special. When the words of such seers clash with the words of the satirists, you’re better off betting on the satirists.

[Fred Clark, TF: Private study sessions, August 29 2011, posted at Patheos.com]


Commentators who would like to share their responses to the new post with all of Fred's fans (old and new) can cross-post to both boards.

 

Comments

[Firedrake]

I don't think it's valid to say that "For Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, tyranny is unambiguously evil" - they seem quite happy with an absolute authority when it's LBGod or TurboJesus in charge.

I rather suspect that they assume that the Evul Libruls will be just as hypocritical as they would be in the same situation, and take everyone else's guns before giving up their own.

I think it would probably be easier to build a new city from scratch than to construct one over people who resent it (and are armed). Is the actual site of New Babylon ever revealed, or is it just "in the desert"? (The actual city-state was some 55 miles south of Baghdad; the site is open to tourism, though the US base that smashed some of it means it's not a popular place.)

I'd just like to do some abusive quote-trimming: "Buck had been thrilled at how Rayford and Amanda White had taken to each other. That took pressure off Buck"...

[Froborr]

Well, not to speak for Fred, but I imagine he'd say God already *has* absolute authority, and it doesn't count as tyranny because... something. God is not corruptible and can be trusted with such power, I guess is the thinking? I don't really know how that bit works.

[Ruby]

Firedrake: I don't think it's valid to say that "For Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, tyranny is unambiguously evil" - they seem quite happy with an absolute authority when it's LBGod or TurboJesus in charge.

Very true. For evidence, just read Kingdom Come:

The Millenium will be all about Jesus, worshiping the Lamb who was slain and now lives forevermore.

...

Jesus will be ever present, physically in the city of Jerusalem, soon occupying the temple and retaking the throne of David. The nations will have been granted to Him as an inheritance, and He is to rule the world with an iron rod.

-Kingdom Come, xliii-xliv

I rather suspect that they assume that the Evul Libruls will be just as hypocritical as they would be in the same situation, and take everyone else's guns before giving up their own.

And for evidence of that, just read Soon. ;)

[MaryKaye]

Whatever Fred may think of his God, the authors of Left Behind pretty clearly imagine a God who is a tyrant. They seem to be just fine with that. I don't think they're down on tyranny at all as long as it's the tyranny of their side. Otherwise they would feel squeamish about the people being tormented while begging for mercy; even more, about the overall plan of the End Times, which involves a huge amount of human suffering for no discernible reason other than sadism.

I would say that they are indistinguishable from Satanists except that this is an insult to some of the Satanists I know. I am frankly croggled as to why anyone would choose to worship something with the described characteristics of LB God--it doesn't even seem like a reliable way to keep him from hurting you. LB God does not keep his word (Moshe in the Promised Land) so the fact he *says* he won't torture believers means little or nothing. Maybe next year he'll change his mind--need some new screamers in Hell, this set has gotten stale.

Um, I just wondered--how do Darbyites reconcile the promise to Noah "I will not destroy the world by floods again" with the events in Revelations? It doesn't count somehow? The other stuff means it's not really "by floods"? He's God so he doesn't have to keep his word? I"m betting on the last.

[Froborr]

Well, not to reopen a very old debate, but... the Abrahamic conception of the divine *is* of a tyrant--a person who rules all, who defines the law and is therefore above the law. (In this case its the laws of physics, but still--rule of a person rather than rule of law.) The only difference is that most adherents of these religions imagine a benevolent tyrant, while L&J imagine a fascistic one.

[Ross]

It's useful to note that the earliest sense of "tyrant" meant only "one who rules by virtue of having deliberately taken charge, rather than the old-fashioned way (ie. "by inheriting the throne")". The negative connotations it has now only evolved because (a) "deliberately taking charge" usually meant "because he showed up with an army", and (b) The growth of athenian democracy led to there being such a thing as a _legal_ means to take control of a polity other than by inheriting it.

[Leum]

Um, I just wondered--how do Darbyites reconcile the promise to Noah "I will not destroy the world by floods again" with the events in Revelations? It doesn't count somehow? The other stuff means it's not really "by floods"? He's God so he doesn't have to keep his word? I"m betting on the last.

Normal readers read it as "I will not destroy the world by floods again." LaJenkins and co read it as, "I will not destroy the world by floods again." It's quite explicit. Chick tracts often say something along the line of, "God will not destroy the world by floods but by fire."

[MercuryBlue]

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire,
I hold with those who favor fire.
But I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction, ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

I think that's Robert Frost.

[Froborr]

It is indeed Frost.

[Lonespark]

So, Buck is heartbroken that Rayford is being sent overseas.

[Firedrake]

The RTC approach to human affairs does very often seem to be absolute rule too - witness the way a husband is supposed to be in control of his wife and children, and church members are supposed to do what the leader says, with no argument or appeal to the next layer up. I wonder whether perhaps this is part of the appeal to RTCs of the idea that someone they don't like isn't "really" the President - because if he were, they'd have to do what he said!

[chris the cynic]

Fred has actually talked about how L&J and thus Buck (it was in a Buck is childish towards Nicolae scene as I recall) don't really oppose absolute power unless it is had by the wrong people. Buck couldn't make any argument against Nicolae's plan for world domination via buying the media by means of his inheritance (now I have a headache) because Buck was only opposed to it because Nicolae IS EVIL! and since Buck wasn't about to say, "Excuse me sir, you happen to be evil and that makes me wary of your plans," he had nothing to say.

-

Cross posty part:

When I try to think of how I would do Buck's website thing it sort of breaks down because if I were doing this Carolyn Miller would have already started the most trusted source in anti regime news.

It would have worked like this:

When Miller tried to get Buck to look into the story her husband had been working on when he was murdered, Buck would have hung his head and confessed that he swore never to report on that story to save himself. Carolyn would have decided to pursue the story herself in spite of the risks. Buck would have helped her get started by connecting her with relevant sources, mostly out of guilt and shame. (She would have proven herself a braver person and a better reporter than Buck without, you know, being a reporter.)

Anyway, at this point Buck wouldn't be trying to figure out how to set up an anti-GC web site, that would have been around for quite a while now. Instead he'd be trying to figure out how much sensitive information he could funnel to Carolyn without having GC realize he was the one doing it, he'd be trying to let the truth bleed through and intentionally doing any cover ups or PR spin less than well. Not so badly it was clear he was doing it on purpose, but bad enough that those who were paying attention would be able to tell there was more to the story. He'd be trying to seed his articles with specific words or phrases that, when put into a search engine, would steer people to Carolyn's website. He'd be trying to say as much of the truth as he could without getting caught.

And all the while he'd be constantly unsure whether he was doing too much, to the point Nicolae would execute him (Nicolae has dealt with reporters he doesn't like before) or not enough. He'd have the decency to agonize over the possibility he wasn't doing enough. Being a spy shouldn't be easy. (Every time Cameron heard and ambulance he wondered whether another soul was being sent to Hell because he had lacked the courage to openly proclaim the truth. Was it true that he did more good undercover in the Antichrist's employ, or was that just what he told himself because it was more comfortable than the alternative?)

-

New Babylon is difficult to work with. The various Antichrists I imagine deal with it in different ways.

Nick Andes sees it as bothersome chore. He has to build his capital there because if he doesn't keep up his end then God might start improvising and it's hard enough to prepare when he knows what's coming. (Do you have any idea how hard it is to build underground shelters enough to protect all humans and livestock from a sun that would scorch them to death in seconds? Well, do you? What about preparing for a global earthquake?) He'd rather be using the resources to help people or prepare for what is to come, but if he has to build a city in the desert then he will.

New Babylon will be built well (Nick doesn't believe in shoddy work) but it will be built to the minimum acceptable specifications because he has more important things to do than building a lavish a city in the desert. It will be solidly built, but as spartan as he can get away with because he doesn't have time for frills.

The Antichrist from A World Without God would have built the city himself, because he's magic. He would have pulled building materials from the bedrock and shaped them to his whim. (I picture them bursting through the desert sand while he makes motions like a conductor.) And he'd probably melt the sand, just because. New Babylon would be an imposing city marked by twisting jet black stone spires. It would be disturbing to behold and follow no recognizable pattern. Any human being viewing it would find it deeply unsettling.

The unmapped labyrinth beneath the city would have a different structure, as if the various passages were created by being gnawed out by some unknown creature. But that's not that strange considering the setting

It wouldn't fit with his PR, but entrance into New Babylon is by invitation only.

You wonder why there's never any video or still photos of what the city looks like? Well I'm sure the secret police would be interested to know that. Remember, they know exactly where you are, they know when you are sleeping, they know when you're awake, they know when you've been bad or good. No, there's nothing sinister about that at all. This is what you wanted. You remember the lawless times. You remember what it was like before the secret police. Isn't life so much better now?

The Antichrist from the story where that involves air conditioners who orders his entire army to walk away from the last battle because they never wanted to fight in the first place wouldn't know he was the Antichrist yet and would be confused why his former boss (one of the disappeared) had built an entire city in the Iraqi desert. (The whole temple thing he gets, boss was a Christian and thus the temple was for his God as well, but don't Jews and Christians dislike Babylon? He does not suspect that his boss' life's work was to lay the groundwork for the rapture.) But if that location works well for directing recovery efforts (being, as it is, closer to the center of the world's population) he's got no problem working from there.

There are probably others, but those are the ones that come to mind.

-

Something else does occur to me, New Jerusalem is supposed to drop from Heaven preassembled. Perhaps the forces of Hell have preassembled their favorite city and it will burst fully formed from the sands. Possibly looking like a Hellish Borg Cube (New Jerusalem was to be a cube) though I'd actually prefer something with a pyramid or two in it.

[Froborr]

Well I'm sure the secret police would be interested to know that. Remember, they know exactly where you are, they know when you are sleeping, they know when you're awake, they know when you've been bad or good.

You know, that got me thinking, Santa Claus would make an *awesome* head of secret police.

Then I remembered Sluggy Freelance already did that with the "Black Ops Elves" side plot.

[Will Wildman]

You know, that got me thinking, Santa Claus would make an *awesome* head of secret police.

And that got me thinking 'in a totalitarian society where everyone is always being monitored, Santa Claus is the one fantastical myth they still allow, because they weave it into indoctrination with the idea that it's good for everyone to be watched all the time'.

Heck, maybe that would explicitly be the lies-to-children parents use. "Mom, why are there cameras everywhere?" "That's how Santa keeps an eye on everyone to make sure they go on the right list."

(I realise that various omniscient gods could do the same thing, but said gods also tend to offer things like eternal fulfillment, perfect justice, or other complicated notions. Santa brings you stuff, which is far more mundane and practical. And yes, he [more accurately, they; the Santa Duty recruitment quota is however many people it will take to deliver to every house within a 90-minute timeframe] really does come down the chimney. Why else do the mandatory regulation-spec chimneys have rungs on the inside?)

[JohnK]

Normal readers read it as "I will not destroy the world by floods again." LaJenkins and co read it as, "I will not destroy the world by floods again." It's quite explicit. Chick tracts often say something along the line of, "God will not destroy the world by floods but by fire."

"So God gave Noah the rainbow sign
No more water -- the fire next time"
(from the old Negro spiritual, 'Mary Don't You Weep')

I do doubt that LaHaye and Jenkins would like the rest of this song; after all, it's all about liberation from oppression and the downfall of tyrants. Not that much love there for LaHaye and Jenkins, who believe that the only problem with the Antichrist is that he only wanted to rule the world, not annihilate it.

[wendy, last of the Eisenhower republicans]

So if God promised his next destruction would be not from a flood... is that why RTC's are so resistant to the notion of global warming/melting ice caps/rising sea level?

(p.s. -- not to be all pedantic but, when God said he wouldn't do it, did he happen to mention anything about whether or not he'd let *us* destroy it by flood? That seems like a pretty big loophole for anthropogenic effects to slip through...)

[Froborr]

Oh, pish posh. Global warming has no chance of destroying the world. Civilization? Probably. The human species? Possibly. The world? Nah, not even close. Won't even come close to wiping out life on earth; coupled with all our other abuses of the environment, we do seem to have triggered a mass extinction event, but it's far from the biggest one life on earth's weathered.

[MaryKaye]

Compared to the oxygen-releasing algae we are still minor league players in the destroying-the-world game.

I mean, imagine it. Earth started with a nitrogen/ carbon dioxide atmosphere and had an entire biosphere well adapted to this orderly and well-behaved mix of gases. Then the blue-green algae invented photosynthesis and started to release oxygen. Free oxygen is reactive and highly toxic. Even today, after billions of years of exposure, our bodies spend untold efforts neutralizing the damage done by oxygen; it kills us quickly if we stop, and kills many of us slowly, through accumulated DNA damage, despite our best efforts.

And there was no balance initially, no creatures to use up the deadly free oxygen, so the levels climbed and climbed. Species were wiped out wholesale.

The amazing thing is that some survived. Some came to terms with the oxygen plague, even became dependent on it. But many others--we are only slowly realizing how many--carved out fortresses for themselves, walling away the lethal gas. If you break open a particle of debris in the ocean, the intrusion of oxygen will kill a whole microbial system tucked away in the interior, anaerobic, self-sustaining, living off the waste products of the outer, aerobic layer. A similar system exists in your own hindgut. (We never knew this until recently because we killed whatever we tried to look at. But you can DNA-type the dead where you could not previously culture them, and worlds are revealed.)

Isn't science infinitely cool? I couldn't write a better myth than that, and it helps me put anthropogenic destruction, terrible as it is, in context. There is some human hubris involved in "we're destroying the world."

(We did a Pagan ritual with animal masks once, and my husband arrived as Algae. His ritual speech was...disturbing.)