Unfortunately the very noisy minority of a few specific derivative ideologies have worked very hard to claim the word “christian”. You're in the unfortunate positon of having to win your word back from an extremist connotation and years of political pandering.
Doubtless there are some few for which everything does, but typically and paradoxically things that are in fact substantially threatening do not. US nuclear stockpiles or preemptive aggression or plain old drilling for oil are godly and protective, while AGW and swine flu are hoaxes.
"I'll never really understand how some people can be so enthusiastic about the end of the world."
Well if you believe that the end of the world is when you will be part of a small elite chosen by the Guy In The Sky to be immortals free from all disease and suffering in a newly created perfect world, you might want to end of the world to get here soon!
Why go to the office and fill in that TPS report when you can be an immortal in a perfect world? ;-)
With carefully chosen premises almost anything can be "logical". This doesn't have anything to do with Christianity per se. All religions and "belief systems" exhibit this phenomenon.
As a former Evangelical, I can tell you we really did think this way. Every generation is told that they will live to see the rapture. And according to Pew, there are like 60m of these people in varying phases of commitment to this philosophy.
While your beliefs may not coincide with this particularly toxic brand of christianity, they are a significant portion of the American population and their actions can have huge impact.
If you are christian and you are offended by this article, what would you rather they have said? Would you prefer the word "evangelical christian"?
Come on dude, this is the worse writing ever. The best quote she could find was from a COMMENTER on a random internet forum?! She tries to associate the belief of a random guy on an internet forum with 60m evangelicals. Comical.
If you don't know many fundamentalist Christians, it's easy to assume that this kind of thinking is very rare. I assure you, there are an eerily large number of people who interpret oil spills, wars in the Middle East, hurricane, and so on, as signs that the apocalypse is coming, as foretold in the book of Revelations. I realize, this is still not statistics. This, however, is:
I'll just quote from the article: "A TIME/CNN poll finds that more than one-third of Americans say they are paying more attention now to how the news might relate to the end of the world, and have talked about what the Bible has to say on the subject. Fully 59% say they believe the events in Revelation are going to come true, and nearly one-quarter think the Bible predicted the Sept. 11 attack."
So, yes, I would say that there's something statistically significant going on here.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
This kind of reporting does not take place because the reporter is malicious. It takes place because the reporter thinks his public will consider it interesting and because he thinks his public should be informed about it. Which can be considered stupid, because it is really not that interesting, because it may have adverse effects by strenghtening or causing prejudices through overly broad generalizations and because it may simply be spreading falsehoods.
(In which I do not intend to take a stance on the veracity of the claim.)
Jesus said, referring to the end of time, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." [Mark 13:32]
2000 years ago people were trying to predict The End. Nothing has changed. They will continue to do so and continue to be wrong.
Right after the part you quoted, Jesus exhorted people to "Be on guard! Be alert!" He goes on to repeat that people should watch vigilantly for the apocalypse, so they wouldn't be caught off guard. Isn't that exactly what you're scolding people for?
(I mean, sure, obviously they continue to be wrong, and it's silly. But the Bible verse you quote is a perfect example of a quote's meaning changing when you take it out of context.)
Hacker News is not the place to discuss theology, which is why I did not quote a lot.
Personally, to me, it does not change the meaning. Telling someone to make sure that their fire extinguisher is always in working condition does not imply that their house will burn down shortly.
To some Atheists, the oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico heralds the end of days.
To some Atheists, the world is flat.
To some "Insert Religion Here", the oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico heralds the "Insert End of World Scenario Here".
Overhyped garbage news from newsweek.
Seriously though, I do agree that the oil is turning the sea into blood and with tensions in NK/SK and the Middle East ratcheting up a notch, there is a good claim that this year has the major potential to suck... hard.
19 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 81.4 ms ] threadAlso, I hope the Christian == Republican mindset goes away in my lifetime.
I'll never really understand how some people can be so enthusiastic about the end of the world.
Well if you believe that the end of the world is when you will be part of a small elite chosen by the Guy In The Sky to be immortals free from all disease and suffering in a newly created perfect world, you might want to end of the world to get here soon!
Why go to the office and fill in that TPS report when you can be an immortal in a perfect world? ;-)
With carefully chosen premises almost anything can be "logical". This doesn't have anything to do with Christianity per se. All religions and "belief systems" exhibit this phenomenon.
Is this "some" you speak of statistically significant? Hmm? Here's how the media works, if you don't know:
1. Identify the group you detest. (Christians, liberals, whatever.)
2. Find the stupidest member of said group.
3. Pretend said member is statistically significant.
4. Spew bullshit. Repeat.
As a former Evangelical, I can tell you we really did think this way. Every generation is told that they will live to see the rapture. And according to Pew, there are like 60m of these people in varying phases of commitment to this philosophy.
While your beliefs may not coincide with this particularly toxic brand of christianity, they are a significant portion of the American population and their actions can have huge impact.
If you are christian and you are offended by this article, what would you rather they have said? Would you prefer the word "evangelical christian"?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1002759-2,0...
I'll just quote from the article: "A TIME/CNN poll finds that more than one-third of Americans say they are paying more attention now to how the news might relate to the end of the world, and have talked about what the Bible has to say on the subject. Fully 59% say they believe the events in Revelation are going to come true, and nearly one-quarter think the Bible predicted the Sept. 11 attack."
So, yes, I would say that there's something statistically significant going on here.
(In which I do not intend to take a stance on the veracity of the claim.)
2000 years ago people were trying to predict The End. Nothing has changed. They will continue to do so and continue to be wrong.
(I mean, sure, obviously they continue to be wrong, and it's silly. But the Bible verse you quote is a perfect example of a quote's meaning changing when you take it out of context.)
Personally, to me, it does not change the meaning. Telling someone to make sure that their fire extinguisher is always in working condition does not imply that their house will burn down shortly.
To some Atheists, the world is flat.
To some "Insert Religion Here", the oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico heralds the "Insert End of World Scenario Here".
Overhyped garbage news from newsweek.
Seriously though, I do agree that the oil is turning the sea into blood and with tensions in NK/SK and the Middle East ratcheting up a notch, there is a good claim that this year has the major potential to suck... hard.