theophiles.org - Left Behind?

Written by laika

Sunday, 22 May 2011 06:45

At The Washington Post:

They spent months warning the world of the apocalypse, some giving away earthly belongings or draining their savings accounts. And so they waited, vigilantly, on Saturday for the appointed hour to arrive.
When 6 p.m. came and went across the United States and various spots around the globe, and no extraordinary cataclysm occurred, some believers expressed confusion, while others reassured each of their faith. Still, some others took it in stride.

Comments

PerpetualAgnostic - Like the early church?

|2011-05-22 18:16:31

So I just finished a book that I generally found quite good: "The Reason for God: Beleif in an Age of Skepticism" by Timothy Kellerhttp://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Ske....

One argument he made for the veracity of Christianity is that something made people believe in the resurrection of Jesus, and led to the very rapid spread of Christianity.

I'm curious if cases like this article take any of the punch out of Keller's argument. Because they show that people can believe some crazy stuff and generally can't be talked out of it even when there's strong evidence they were wrong. (For my argument's sake, that Jesus stayed dead?)

emperorbma

|2011-05-23 01:07:25

It depends on how you want to argue it, but one can make an argument either way. Undoubtedly skeptics will have long ago already suggested nothing less than what you have asked. (perhaps using David Koresh or some other nutball as their example) Since history is unkind to documents and evidence, it is probably something that can never be answered conclusively to the satisfaction of all skeptics. Hell, even if such obvious evidence was available, I have one word: "birthers" I'd be more than willing to bet some skeptics would remain diehard even if God Himself was telling them otherwise...

As a Christian, I'd suggest that the early Church has something of a founder effect which keeps the "mass delusion" argument from being as effective. There's really no precursor to Christianity as itself. Even so, some have suggested (in my opinion, spuriously) that Christianity is based off of some kind of pagan sect or other simply to create further polemic even though the connections are tenuous.

We do know that there were other Messianic sects from around that time and this connection is admitted unreservedly by Christians. However, Christianity is a little more than just another First Century Jewish Messianic sect. Consider what Gamaliel (a Jewish leader) says in Acts 5:34-39:

Quote:

Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these [Christians]. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.

Christianity has something of a unique status of being the only First Century Jewish Messianic sect that is still around in some form. It's hardly proof that Christianity is right, but it certainly suggests that early Christianity had a more robust strategy than simply throwing out a spurious claim and hoping it would stick. All this while being persecuted for the first 300 years of its existence and, therefore, lacking any supposed force of arms with which to coerce others to agree and having a strong incentive to abandon a position that they knew was false.

The worst things people would suffer in a modern Western society are (possibly) the loss of some material goods which, according to their beliefs, probably aren't really worthwhile in the long-run anyway and a little ridicule, which Christians have been dealing with since day 1. As such, I think a direct comparison between the early Church and the modern doomsayer is somewhat difficult, at best.

Finally, to wit, Jesus warns that there will be false prophets who deceive and claim to come from Him. It's pretty fair to say that this is an anticipated side-effect that, if certain fine folks were more keen to listen to the Author, would have an easier time spotting and avoiding.

whitemice - Gamaliel +1

|2011-07-17 14:33:50

I've always liked Gamaliel's answer [and, never once heard a "preacher" talk about it]. The pragmatism is beautiful and I find useful for lots of questions. Sometimes one doesn't need to dwell on, or worry about, or fight over, certain issues - even if one believes they are critically important. Because the course of events will inevitably illuminate the correct side [if indeed any side is correct]. If this was the topic of more sermons maybe the screeching-pitch of much of Evangelicalism could be dialed-down some.

Live rightly, speak justly [speak less!], and wait-and-see.

laika

|2011-05-22 22:17:31

PerpetualAgnostic wrote:

I'm curious if cases like this article take any of the punch out of Keller's argument.

For folks not inclined to believe in the resurrection, probably so.

Getting things all wrong started very early with some followers of Christ, but I agree with what you say that Mr. Keller argues anyway, despite that end-of-the-worlders were there from the start. Personally, these self-appointed latter day prophets have no bearing whatsoever on my belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

holmegm

|2011-05-23 09:41:01

Hmm ... well, Peter is an "end of the world-er":

Quote:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.- 2 Peter 3:10-13

Personally I think what I bolded above is the key ... I have no problem with people trying to live as though the end will come tomorrow (and hey, it may) if it spurs us to repent more, believe in Jesus more, love God and each other more, give thanks in all circumstances more, etc.

emperorbma

|2011-05-23 10:51:11

My issue with it is that people may become disillusioned with the Gospel as soon as the prediction expires and, thus, we end up creating yet another generation of Richard Dawkins.

holmegm - re:

|2011-05-23 12:46:20

emperorbma wrote:

My issue with it is that people may become disillusioned with the Gospel as soon as the prediction expires and, thus, we end up creating yet another generation of Richard Dawkins.

Yes, I agree that predictions of the date are unwise. Jesus said that He didn't even know the date or hour, so we sure don't.

My point was that even if we did believe it was tomorrow and that we had to prepare, I'd like to think we'd prepare by living more sober and godly lives, not by running around like idiots :)

The Owner of the vineyard is coming back ... but we should prepare for His coming by actually being prepared, not by flaking out, no? :)

emperorbma

|2011-05-23 17:05:34

This brings me to the interesting story the guy who watched what happened in the neighboring timezone on May 21 so he could know if he needed to totter off to church to get converted. I am of the opinion that perpetual doomsaying like this doesn't lead to a healthy Christian preparedness because the people who are most interested in "End-minus-1" are those who want to goof off until just before then.

For Christians, there is no luxury of a deadline. I agree that we shouldn't run around like decapitated chickens at the cry of doomsayers. (Neither does it, I think, behoove us to condone such doomsaying in light of the sound doctrine of Scripture, but I digress...) We are to be prepared always.

Ironically, the atheist decries the "running around like a chicken" even as some of them were among those "End-minus-1" goof-offs. I suppose their unamused response may be as much an attempt to rein in their own as it is an attempt to criticize believers, if you think about it.

laika

|2011-05-23 17:59:35

emperorbma wrote:

This brings me to the interesting story the guy who watched what happened in the neighboring timezone on May 21 so he could know if he needed to totter off to church to get converted.

Shades of Pascal?

emperorbma wrote:

We are to be prepared always.

Right. My end and your end are always relatively close, rendering The End a non-issue.

laika

|2011-05-23 17:53:15

holmegm wrote:

Hmm ... well, Peter is an "end of the world-er":

Indeed, but Peter went on record sufficiently vaguely, unlike this Camping fellow with his fixed day and hour.

My point is simply that people have been expecting the imminent return of Jesus for 2000 years now. But getting that wrong has no impact on my belief in His physical resurrection.

Only registered users can write comments!

Our valuable member laika has been with us since Thursday, 03 April 2008.

Show Other Articles

On a Wave of Jubilation* (17 May 2013)
Survey: Provo-Orem area most religious in US (07 April 2013)
Shroud of Turin in the news again (29 March 2013)
War on Christmas Heats Up (12 March 2013)
The Next Bible (12 March 2013)

Feeds

Make a Donation

Current Poll

Support Us!

Latest News

Latest Journals

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

Popular

Statistics

Who's Online