Besides Logan’s Run, how about the more recent Contact? Jodie Foster’s character proclaimed herself to be an atheist more than once. It also claimed that her search for aliens (and people’s search for God) may have been nothing more than a search for ideal parents.
I can’t name a single specific person. I’m basing my statements on decades of reading and on just plain observation of our culture. Look all around and the evidence is clear: the mass media has no problem whatsoever ridiculing the beliefs of born-again Christians, yet they would cringe if any other religious group was similarly ridiculed. There is a slow, careful, subtle effort that’s been underway for 30+ years to make it appear that Christians are a little bit nuts. Anytime common sense biblically based ideas are put forth in the public arena, they are scoffed and laughed at (ie, abstinence until marriage, etc).
I was responding more to this line in your ‘review’:
I was merely pointing out that this isn’t what you see in the Left Behind series. In fact, one of the primary reasons I think the series is so popular is that it’s so darn real in it’s portrayal of people, saved and unsaved. Rayford is hardly a ‘manly, steely-eyed, competent conservative’ and those who don’t know the Lord are not all ‘whimpering, venal, cowardly, whiny bleeding-heart liberals’.
I can see how you got that out of the particular scene you are referring to. The character Ernie is probably the wimpiest nonbeliever in the entire series. I don’t recall a single other character in 8 books that compares to him.
My only point: the good guys in the series don’t wear white coats and the bad guys don’t wear black coats (well, with the possible exception of the Antichrist). People are people in this series, which, again, is one reason I think its so popular.
Hmmmmmm … nonetheless, playing around with the most supremely important individual in human history leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But as I said I don’t want to get in a huge LTOC debate.
I assume you’re just funning me and there is no such thing. But suppose there was. Suppose the Muslim’s believed that the first sign of the return of Buddha would be hundreds of cows falling out of the sky or something. Well, if hundreds of cows started falling out of the sky, OF COURSE I’d look into the Muslim religion! I’d be rather foolish not to, don’t you think? Of course, this is not going to happen, but if it did I’d be crazy not to check it out.
So what about you? When the rapture occurs, if it happens in our lifetime, will it make you more open to check out the Bible?
If something is written by Christians, for Christians, do the followers feel obligated to spend money on it or write good reviews even if it was bad?
The movie seems to be very shallow in that good is pure good and evil is pure evil. This is never true. Don’t wanna hijack too much though. I am a buddhist; I have read some really crappy books about Buddhism, and there are some bad movies about it. I don’t feel that I have to give them a glowing review and encourage everyone to expose themselves to it.
If it weren’t for the strong bible theme (read: goody-two-shoes, repent or else) I doubt this would make any money at all. The plot seems really splotchy, with weak characters. Why should Christians feel obligated to see it, even if it might be glurge?
AHHHHH! IT burns my eyes like lemon juice! Muslims don’t believe in Buddha! Buddhists don’t even regard him as a god! Please oh please tell me you were joking and already know what I just said.
FoG. I’ll warn you that further responses from people might be slow until they can stop laughing at you for that quote.
And am I the only one getting Animal House flashbacks? “It wasn’t over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.”
pinqy
the respect you get is equal to the respect you give…
What my brother saw as a sermon at a “Christian” church (and the gall it takes to call yourself Christian as if the members of your sect are the only ones is beyond belief):
“Why Catholics Aren’t Christian.”
So please, you want to talk about media bias? Where? I don’t see anyone asking you guys what something like this means. What I see is a lot of fawning over you guys like you’re the only ones in the country with any morality.
Really, you should take out the mote in your own eye before…you know the rest.
::helpless laughter:: Well, I guess you would know, FoG, given that you’re apparently a indispensible part of the effort to make Christians look nuts… Muslims waiting for the return of Buddha, oh my goodness gracious dearie me. Geez, I can maybe understand not knowing about Odin and suchlike, but screwing up the very basis of a major modern-day religion that was derived from your own?!?
**
You mean like Hare Krishnas? Or Muslims?
**
Noam Chomsky had some interesting things to say about fascism: specifically, that fascists can never be happy with the media coverage they get. Historically, fascist states always complain about how the media is hostile to them, no matter how abjectly the media praises them.
FoG, you’re just going to have to learn to deal with the fact that as long as this is a free society, containing a diversity of opinions, some people will find your ideas worthy of ridicule. I’ve seen plenty of people ridicule my own ideas, and I don’t get choked up about it; I’m just happy when my point of view gets an intelligent airing.
**
Then perhaps I was mistaken about LB being porn. Nontheless, if I might expand upon my earlier point on fundamentalist porn in general:
It seems to me that the Rapture, Hell, and Creationism are the three biggest pornographic fantasies of fundamentalist Christians. How many times have you seen a fundamentalist answer an unbeliever’s argument with, “You think you’re so smart- but all your fancy arguments won’t do you any good in hell!” Or, “Just you wait- one day soon Jesus will come back, and you’ll see how wrong you really are.” Making a real argument for their beliefs is beyond the ability of most fundamentalists, so instead they are forced to fantasise about their opponents being tortured. This is why the scene from LB seemed so pornographic to me: fundamentalists are frustrated with the fact that other people don’t find their religion to be obviously true, so they fantasise about the Second Coming, when it would be really, really obviously true. And, as icing on the cake, they fantasise that even then the unbelievers won’t get it, and they savor the imagined irony of the atheists’ skepticism being their foolish undoing. Of course, even assuming that Jesus is coming back at all, the fact that he hasn’t come back in 2000 years makes it presumptuous in the extreme to think that he will come back at just the time which is most convenient for you when you want to antagonize some atheists, but such obvious considerations are lost on those who can’t tell their vengeful fantasies from reality.
It’s easy to see why the third fantasy, creationism, is so popular. Fundamentalist christians tend to not be very well educated, and that fact embarasses them. So, they boost their self-esteem by fantasising that they are smarter than 99.9% of all the scientists in the world in virtually every field. To be better educated than Gould, Sagan, Asimov, Dawkins, and all the rest would require years of work acquiring multiple PhD’s, and would be beyond the ability of the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians. So instead, they spend an evening reading The Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter or From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo and presto- they can pretend that not only are they smarter than all the scientists, but that real scientists are grade-A fools compared to them. Anyone who has spent any time arguing with creationists knows that what I am saying is true. How many times have we heard a smug creationist parroting the same old idiotic line about the Second Law of Thermodynamics? And do you really think creationism would be so popular if it didn’t, if only in part, appeal to some masturbatory urge? Theologically speaking, creationism is very minor compared to many other issues that fundamentalists could be arguing. Books which attempt to prove the historicity of the Resurrection, while popular, haven’t even remotely inspired the enormous cottage industry that creationism has, despite the fact that proving the Resurrection is a thousand times more important to saving souls than creationism could ever be. After all, you can be a Christian without being a creationist, and a creationist without being a Christian. As is, if an intelligent atheist were brought to religion by reading From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo, he would convert to Judaism, leaving the fundamentalists to fight a second uphill battle to convince him of the historicity of the Resurrection. But believing yourself to be more intelligent than all the paleontologists, geologists, astronomers, physicists, biologists, and chemists in the world is much more fun than believing yourself to be more intelligent than all the historians of Roman-era Palestine. There is a certain irony in the popularity of creation “science” as an ego trip. Of those who complain about liberal, feel-good, self-esteem boosting educational programs, how many do you think are in favor of watering down evolution lessons, or replacing them with creation science?
**
If you ask me, LTOC is trying to save the message of the Gospels from people like yourself. The story of Jesus has accreted so much “party line” that in order to see the story for what it really is, it has become necessary to speak in terms of metaphors. In order to point out the aspects of Jesus which people have forgotten, it is necessary to exaggerate them to the point of inaccuracy. It appears to me that if Scorsese had cranked out another bland retelling of the Gospels that would let you sit comfortably with what you already believe, then you’d be happy. But as soon as they start trying to point out what you’ve missed, you complain that they’re “playing around” and start making straw-man accusations which fly directly in the face of what the film itself tried to make clear.
I asked you a question, FoG. Have you seen LTOC or not? Because right now, your ignorance of the movie indicates to me that you are criticising it without even having seen it.
That’s an unusual assumption for you to make. Why do you make it?
**
There are two points that should be made here. Firstly, your own Scriptures state in black-and-white that false prophets are sent by Satan, and yet you have no qualms about making false prophecies, despite the obviousness of your deity’s commands on that matter. I think that if I were you, I wouldn’t be too smug about people who don’t do the right thing even when the signs become obvious. This is, of course, entirely aside from the fact that you believe in creationism, despite its obvious falsity.
Secondly, how do you know that the “cows falling out of the sky” aren’t sent by Satan? It seems to me that you could have bought yourself a first-class ticket to Hell, and all over a little lack of faith. Time and again you seem to rely on faith when, in the here-and-now, you want to ignore the obvious evidence, but in some hypothetical future scenario that you think will never happen- well, in that case you’d be really stupid to ignore the evidence, right? After all, you’re no fool.
Who says I am not open to checking out the Bible? Contrary to what you might find comforting to believe, plenty of atheists have already read the Bible, and have rejected it for perfectly legitimate reasons.
Have you even read the Koran yet? Or are you putting it off until the last minute?
Good point, I’ve only seen the Theatrical Trailer.
I will only speak for myself: I don’t. I have no problem stating the obvious, that the Omega Code was a horrible film. I genuinely believe Left Behind is a “good” film, not “great” but “good”. Could’ve been better, could’ve been worse. I realize some disagree.
Aahhhhhhhhhhhh!!! Okay, I’m officially embarrassed. You guys, I do know my world religions better than this, really I do. Yes I know Muslims dont believe in Buddha. I think I’m getting Alzheimers (sp?) at 35! Sorry bout that. Don’t worry. I am well aware that Krishna and Joseph Smith are co-founders of the Muslim religion, and Dr. Sun Myung Moon is his prophet … or something like that? And isn’t Noah involved somehow… (this time it’s a joke if you can’t tell…)
That is pretty rude Gaudere, that’s not like you! I’m glad you got a kick out of my error, but you don’t need to be rude.
That’s pretty outright awful. What a terrible witness that church gave that day. They blatantly misrepresented the Bible. I am sorry your brother saw that.
You really think the mass media sees us this way? They seem to be only interested in Christians when they do stupid things like what you just cited, or get their religious leaders wrong or something 
Even so, even Buddhists don’t think Buddha is a God, and are not waiting with bated breath for his Second Coming. Other religions are not simply warped mirror images of your own with the names changed; there are often some fundamental differences. Eh…maybe you want to do a little reseacrh before next time you talk about their beliefs?
FoG, if someone claimed that there was a vast worldwide conspiracy going on to make Americans look nuts and then in his next breath said “it wasn’t over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor,” wouldn’t you find the juxtaposition a little amusing? You did, quite frankly, look either loony-toons or exceedingly ignorant with your statement about the Muslims awaiting the second coming of Buddha. If you want to be a convicing debater, it is helpful if you can build a reputation for reliability by not posting egregious errors, particularly not when they can be used to set up a dig like mine! I mean, if a person makes giggle-inducing errors of fact as you did in that very post, complaining about other people making you look “nuts” doesn’t hold much water; you seem to be doing a fine job of making yourself look nuts all on your lonesome. What, will you blame me because I pointed out that you made your own argument look weaker?
And I can be much ruder if I feel so inclined.
Given that George W. Bush seems to be getting a free pass on this whole “faith-based charity” thing, which is clearly illegal and ridiculously hypocritical, then yes, I think this is a valid observation. Don’t know if you noticed, but we had a rather lengthy discussion on the proposal. Remarkably, not a single person tried to offer even a half-assed defense of it, because, as I said in the thread, the proposed policy is, from any rational viewpoint, indefensible. If we truly had an unbiased media, the idea would have been kicked to the curb minutes after it got floated. It didn’t. What do you make of that?
(Note: I’m offering this as a specific counterexample to the erroneous assertion above. Anyone who wants to debate the merits of faith-based charities, that other thread is waiting. Just trying to avoid a hijack.)
Dare I ask what FoG thinks about “Jesus Christ Superstar?”
Esprix
You’re right, FoG–it was indeed “A Thief in the Night” that I saw. Because of that song (and the host on PAX or whatever channel it was repeating the phrase), it got stuck in my memory as “Left Behind.”
FriendofGod:
Right. Have you even read a single book by Gould, Dawkins or Leaky yet, let alone Darwin, Huxley or Lamarck(later Lamarck, not earlier)? Please don’t make this claim when we know it to be demonstrably untrue.
But remember, folks, don’t make fun of Jesus. It’s rude. Only make fun of the nonChristian or fringe religions. That’s OK, as long as you’re saved.
Let me point something out to you, FoG. Every single week, in every major metropolitan paper in this country, and msot of the smaller ones, you’ll find a section called “Religion.” For example, here it is at the Washington Post. These sections primarily cover news related to the Big 3 (Christianity, Judaism and Islam), with most of the coverage devoted to Christianity. They cover stories of faith. They run advertisements from religious groups and churches. They post what time local churches meet, and where, and what liturgy they follow, and what denomination they belong to.
Even aside from that, there are regular feature stories in the paper about how someone’s faith in God saved them from such-and-such a disaster, or how their faith will see them through this-or-that disease, or how faith-based groups are joining together to do something or another.
Now, when you find a section in your newspaper called “Atheism,” or “Secular Humanism,” you let me know. The last time I saw atheism mentioned at all in the paper was last week, when Texas police found the murdered, mutilated remains of Madelyn Murray O’Hair and her family.
You’re another in the long line of disingenuous thinkers who claim that the poor, put-upon Christians in this country can’t get an even break. I suggest you link at Ben’s earlier link to “Life in Our Anti-Christian America” to see just what a free pass Christians get in America.
David B.: Apparently, you didn’t get the memo. 
Ben, your shrewd and insightful analysis of the apocalyptic fantasies of the Fundamentalist Christians(FCs)
has given me a new perspective on the FC millenarian wing.
You are my hero!
FoG, if you wish to be taken seriously as a debater, it would be helpful for you to lift your head out of the Bible and learn something of the rest of the world. For example, if you don’t know the difference between Islam and Buddhism, how can we trust that your version of Biblical exegesis is not equally flawed?
In addition, if you really believe in the Jesus of the New Testament, then you should watch TLTOC. The film of Kazantzakis’s novel shows Jesus’s humanity. It shows that he hwas a man who wanted to have a family and a long life, but who rejected that to serve His father’s will. That is a lot more consonant with the Bible than the contemporary view of Jesus as a soulless puppet who went to the cross with no choice. The Bible tells us that Jesus was both the Second Person of the Trinity and a human being with the same temptations and weaknesses we all suffer. Remember Hebrews 4:15,
Jesus wept, sweated, felt desire, hunger, and thirst. He even had to take a dump now and then. When you people gloss over His humanity and turn Him into a divine puppet, you take away the meaning of the cross and the empty tomb.
If you are going to condemn a book or a movie, you should
know what you’re talking about. I haven’t seen LB, the movie, but I HAVE read the book. If I can take the time to read that piece of claptrap in order to understand your position, don’t you think you should do the same and read books that contradict your worldview, just to understand the opposition?
I am aware of that Gaudere ;). I was merely jumping on the line that “the Muslim Day of Judgment” was at hand, and then of course got my leaders wrong …
…as for your self-defense of your rudeness, I am genuinely surprised. You had better form last summer when we debated in the infamous “Christianity and Love” thread. Yeah I goofed and sure it’s funny, but I can promise you that if your brain slipped for a moment and you accidently quoted a Biblical fact incredibly wrong I would not be boring into you. The arguments I make don’t depend on trying to make the other person look bad. If you try to take every mistake your opposition makes and hold it up and say, “SEE?? SEE??” it kind of messes up your credibility, not theirs. Having said that, you look unconvinceable, so I’ll drop it.
I won’t offer arguments against this as to not hijack my own thread (which seems to be happening anyway!) But for any example you give like this, I can point to dozens that go the other way. When’s the last time you saw the network news do one of their ‘special report’ type stories that defended the pro-life position, just as one example?
Owned the record and saw the movie back in the early 70s when I was only 6 - 7 years old. Even then, at that age, before I even knew the Lord, it was obviously a skewering of the story of Jesus. The biggest inaccuracy, of course, was Jesus being left on the cross, which kills the whole point of the story. But there were others. The truth is, it was a creative way to re-tell the story of Jesus. The music was great (at least for the time period), I seem to recall decent acting … but if they would only stick to the essential truths instead of trying to make stuff up they’d have a great movie. I’m all for innovative ways to tell the story of Jesus as long as they don’t skewer the message.
Sigh … my only point was that I heard his description of the book. I’ve not heard Tim Lahaye’s evidence one way or the other, and since I don’t know what he’s saying to be true or false, I won’t assume either way until I see what he has to say. No I’ve never read the above authors. So what is your point? Are you saying I’m dismissing their ideas without reading their books? I still stand by my original statement: “I’ll never reject an idea out of hand until I see evidence one way or the other”. You are assuming just because I’ve not read these particualar authors that I’ve not seen evidence one way or another for their beliefs. Truthfully, I don’t know what each of the above individuals believe, so I don’t fully know if I agree or disagree. I’d guess from the way you wrote your post that I’d end up disagreeing with them, but you never know.
Sigh again … not making fun of religions, I was poking fun at myself for goofing on stating a key fact wrong! And you’ll note I included Noah in there, he is a part of my belief system …
It’s in the paper already. It’s called “The Front Page”. They relegate Religion to a little-read section in the faaaarrrrr back corner of the paper.
I have from time to time: I have my own copy of the Humanist Manifesto, and I’ve read the Bhavad-Gita (sp?) and various similar things over the years. I’ll admit it’s been a loooong time since I’ve done that. My profession isn’t expert debator, it’s computer software trainer, so my nose is usually in those types of books.
AHEM … somehow this thread has gotten waaaaaaayyyyyyy off track … not that I ever expected it to be around this long, but anyways … ah, my main point, again, is that I encourage those of you who want to see a picture of what some Christians believe about the end times to see Left Behind. Also, it’s a good movie to see if you are someone who is searching for a relationship with God. It might make you think.
Laugh! Thanks, goboy. You guys are going to make my head swell if you aren’t careful…
-Ben
I wanted to make sure that everyone saw this, to show how fundamentally dishonest FriendofGod is. The front page of the paper is now the “Secular Humanism/Atheism” section, because it actually reports the news and not Fundamentalist bullshit. I guess the news media are just supposed to talk about the Bible and Jesus all the time.
Let’s look at the front page of the Post today, shall we?
Jerusalem is ‘Indivisible,’ Sharon Says (Uh, that’s a religion story right there, among other things.)
Police Shoot Man Near White House
Tax Cut Impetus Building
Md. Judges Are Open to Time Limit on Resentencing
Bush Acts to Quell Flap on AIDS, Race
Va. Nursing Bill Home Sparks Fight
OK, FoG. Show me the secular humanist/atheist topics among those headlines. Keep in mind, bearing false witness is a sin.
To follow up on pldennison’s rather perceptive list of what’s actuall on the front page, I think it’s worth observing that lack of religious content does not in any way imply rejection of religion.
Take, for example, the story about the man shot at the White House. How, in your view, would this be reported in a “non-atheist” way? Something like this:
And how might it be done in an “atheist” paper?
Wasn’t like that, was it? Nope, in that and every other story, it went something like this:
How, pray tell, is that “atheist”?
I know many, many Christians who don’t try to drag Jesus into every single freaking thing in their lives. Jesus would approve of this flavor of ice cream, so I like it too. I need to change lanes, and Jesus wants me to flip the turn signal. Patently ridiculous.
The front page of the newspaper is the same. They report facts and provide analysis. If it is secular, it is openly secular, so that you may put whatever spin you want on it. They do not provide either pro- or anti-religious spin; they give you information so you can make up your own mind.
The only place you might even vaguely be able to make a case where the mass media provides an “atheist” viewpoint is in the areas of social awareness where religious codes stand in the way of what may see as cultural progress – civil rights for gays, for example. The “liberal media” thing is true only with regard to very, very limited social causes. What about the whole “creche in city hall” thing, you ask? The media represents this from the perspective of decades of established legal rulings; only the fringe that disagrees with the overwhelming majority’s interpretation of the Constitution calls this “atheist.” (That’s yet another debate, for another thread.)
Beyond these extremely limited and narrowly drawn examples, to claim the front page of the New York Times is “atheist” is disingenuous at best, and outright dishonest at worst. It is, however, a fairly typical “poor me, martyred Christian” viewpoint, unfortunately. Do you hear the Buddhists complaining that Newsweek is actively opposed to their viewpoint and religion because they never put Zoroaster on the cover?
(Tongue firmly in cheek.)