|
|
Post by Pacmanite on May 20, 2011 0:28:20 GMT -5
I think it's shameful how many people this is going to reach. Harold Camping's teaching is based on a seriously warped understanding of the Bible; he interprets it using a mathematical algorithm that only he seems to understand. And yet from the quote I found on the website JDB linked to, it sounds like he barely remembers any mathsy-sounding words beyond his arithmetic, and claims the calculations "would probably crash Google’s computers". This is seriously embarrassing and it gives thousands of people a horrible impression of Christianity.
And it's dangerous, too. But that's a whole 'nother disturbing can of worms.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cow-winkle on May 20, 2011 1:57:46 GMT -5
This post might be a bit controversial, but please believe me when I say that I'm not trying to intentionally be a contrarian jerk. However, there are some statements that I just don't agree with, and I won't be so condescending as to pretend that I do. A lot of people have posted here saying that doomsday "prophets" give people the wrong idea about Christianity. While I'm fairly sure that not many people here are on this guy's side, I'm not convinced that his position is radically outside the realm of mainstream Christianity. According to one survey, a non-trivial number of American Christians believe that the second coming of Jesus will happen in their lifetime (although I guess you have to take the results of any survey with a grain of salt). I suppose some people might dismiss that by saying that most Americans don't understand their own religion or that their interpretation of the Bible is wrong, but as an atheist looking in on intra-religious disagreements from the outside, it's all Greek Orthodox to me. As I understand it, the idea of some kind of Judgement Day is pretty important to Christianity, and Harold Camping didn't just make it up recently. I've read all the comments here, and it seems like a lot of the arguments amount (and I admit I'm caricaturing the position a little bit here) to " My beliefs about Judgement Day is completely rational; his beliefs about Judgement Day are crazy." It has the same sound to me as saying " I'm big boned; he's fat" since you're both trying to use the same source material to back up your point. It's clear that you can find religious scripture to refute his position as a "false teaching" while still preserving Christianity as a whole, but then again, if you cherry-picked enough, I'm sure you could find just as many verses to support him. In the end, I think that, if someone claims without any evidence that the end of the world is near, the rational response should be "You don't have any empirical evidence for your position, so there's no reason for me to go out of my way to believe it," not "You must be wrong because so-and-so religious text says so". |
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on May 20, 2011 4:10:36 GMT -5
But the bold claims Harold Camping are making are not the generalised, "there will be a judgement day", "it will happen soon", "I should be ready for it in my lifetime" statements. He's naming a particularly exact date and time for it, basing a whole campaign on that date. And his methods of interpreting the Bible as if he's hacking into an encripted message are far from the mainstream.
Debating religious principles using the Bible as evidence is not simply a matter of cherry-picking verses that support your stance and ignoring verses that don't. It's about looking at the Bible as a whole, taking verses in their proper context, applying common sense, understanding the particular author's intentions, reading intelligently what is being said and what is meant by it. This is the whole point of the discipline of study called hermeneutics, and its principles are well known and widely used by both Christians and theologians (who can be believers or unbelievers, as this discipline is practically a branch of literature studies) around the world.
Harold Camping, on the other hand, claims to have a "secret formula" which extracts information from the Bible, which is utterly alien to basic principles of understanding what words mean. That makes him not mainstream.
Sorry if I wasn't clear before. It is true that the concept of an impending judgement day in itself can seem radical to people who do not accept the words of the Bible as truth. But to most Bible believers, the arrogance of claiming an exact date when this clearly contradicts multiple Bible verses is radical. Just because some people use highly dubious methods of interpreting the Bible - cherry-picking, if you will - does not necessarily mean that all people use equally dubious methods in reading scripture.
I'm sure there are examples of (psuedo-) scientists who give science a bad name, who go against the mainstream and cherry pick their results from empirical data in order provide false evidence for their premises. That does not mean that scientists who apply appropriate scientific principles are anything like those pseudo-scientists, or that arguing from the grounding of empirical data is a flawed study in itself. By the same token, you can not discredit the Bible solely based on the fact that some people have wildly eccentric and illogical interpretations of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2011 4:23:35 GMT -5
I'd also like to add on to what Pac said by saying that, yes I believe there will be a judgement day and many others believe the same, too, but we're not running around spreading terror like this fellow. The bad rep isn't from the concept of a judgement day at all, it's the way he's acting and, as Pac said, the way he's read his own version of the Bible.
|
|
Saeryena signed out
Guest
|
Post by Saeryena signed out on May 20, 2011 7:34:07 GMT -5
I read almost that whole thing, and it makes me feel really angry. There are so many good people in this world who aren't Christain, and I believe that the force of creation loves them all the same (because I think, again, it appears to a person as whatever god(s) they have chosen, but that's just me). To say that pure-hearted, beautiful loving people will no longer exist does not make me want to believe - it actually makes me want to continuously send magic blasts at whoever made that claim. I, personally, would not go to heaven if it meant deserting my family or my friends or anyone else that I cared about, because honestly, they're more important to me, to be perfectly blunt. |
|
|
|
Post by Fang of the Dead on May 20, 2011 10:23:10 GMT -5
As an agnostic theist (meaning, I don't know if there is a God, but I lean that way), I'll just leave this here.
Plus, Revalations was allegory for the persecution of the early Church under the Roman empire, if you ask me. The Bible as a whole is a good book, but it was ultimately written by man, even if God provided the basis for it. There was a committee that decided what would and what wouldn't go in the Bible, after all. If it was the definitive word of God, then it would be unabridged and contain the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and other apocrypha.
EDIT - I also follow the words of Jesus, as I treat people the way he would. Regardless of whether he was the Messiah or not, he was a very, very good and tolerant - no, he was a welcoming man who was willing to give people a chance, whether they were sinners or not. Even though I believe there's no way to truly know if he was the messiah, I find emulating him to be one of the best ways to go about your life. Helping those who need it most is what he would do; compassion was one of his greatest strengths.
|
|
|
|
Post by PFA on May 20, 2011 10:39:47 GMT -5
*fairly irrelevant point, but glances at the list of dates* "7 BC—The year Jesus Christ was born (11,006 years from creation)." ...um I was under every impression that he was born in year 1, I mean, that's kind of what the whole calendar change was for in the first place, isn't it ?_? I'm also curious as to where he's getting these exact years, since last I checked, that was a little unclear. XD; |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2011 10:49:14 GMT -5
*fairly irrelevant point, but glances at the list of dates* "7 BC—The year Jesus Christ was born (11,006 years from creation)." ...um I was under every impression that he was born in year 1, I mean, that's kind of what the whole calendar change was for in the first place, isn't it ?_? I'm also curious as to where he's getting these exact years, since last I checked, that was a little unclear. XD; I forget the exact details, but the person in charge of calculating it all was off by six years. *Too tired to go look it up at the moment, but* |
|
|
|
Post by Cow-winkle on May 20, 2011 11:47:11 GMT -5
Debating religious principles using the Bible as evidence is not simply a matter of cherry-picking verses that support your stance and ignoring verses that don't. It's about looking at the Bible as a whole, taking verses in their proper context, applying common sense, understanding the particular author's intentions, reading intelligently what is being said and what is meant by it. This is the whole point of the discipline of study called hermeneutics, and its principles are well known and widely used by both Christians and theologians (who can be believers or unbelievers, as this discipline is practically a branch of literature studies) around the world. ... Sorry if I wasn't clear before. It is true that the concept of an impending judgement day in itself can seem radical to people who do not accept the words of the Bible as truth. But to most Bible believers, the arrogance of claiming an exact date when this clearly contradicts multiple Bible verses is radical. Just because some people use highly dubious methods of interpreting the Bible - cherry-picking, if you will - does not necessarily mean that all people use equally dubious methods in reading scripture. Fair enough. There are still some issues I have with that, but this isn't the place for me to discuss them. I'd also like to add on to what Pac said by saying that, yes I believe there will be a judgement day and many others believe the same, too, but we're not running around spreading terror like this fellow. The bad rep isn't from the concept of a judgement day at all, it's the way he's acting and, as Pac said, the way he's read his own version of the Bible. If I genuinely thought that the end of the world was going to happen soon, and that there was a chance that I and everyone I knew was going to be left on Earth while the world decayed, I think it would be pretty sadistic of me not to feel a little terrified about it, and downright cruel not to warn other people. |
|
|
|
Post by Komori on May 20, 2011 13:18:08 GMT -5
If I genuinely thought that the end of the world was going to happen soon, and that there was a chance that I and everyone I knew was going to be left on Earth while the world decayed, I think it would be pretty sadistic of me not to feel a little terrified about it, and downright cruel not to warn other people. Sure, but that could also be the argument for the extremists who stand on the street corners and shout that gay people are going to Hell if they don't change their ways. I'm sure in their minds they're completely justified, but that doesn't make me any less angry at them for spreading what I believe to be an improper way to reach people. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2011 13:28:15 GMT -5
Would anyone object if I move this thread to the Discussions and Debate board? It seems to be taking that direction anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cow-winkle on May 20, 2011 13:49:53 GMT -5
Sure, but that could also be the argument for the extremists who stand on the street corners and shout that gay people are going to Hell if they don't change their ways. I'm sure in their minds they're completely justified, but that doesn't make me any less angry at them for spreading what I believe to be an improper way to reach people. That is kind of my point. If you (the figurative "you", as in "anyone") genuinely believe in Judgement Day or Hell or Sin, as many Christians claim to, it doesn't make sense to not be a little bit scared about it or to refrain from telling other people about it, and if you don't believe in it, then why claim to be a Christian? A lot of people seem to take the middle position: "Sure, I believe that Hell exists and that there's a possibility that people I know will experience an eternity of pain, but I don't believe it strongly enough to let it bother me." That doesn't make sense to me. If you're just going to interpret the moral teachings of the Bible into what you believe to be rational, then why not eliminate the middleman and just believe in your own rationality independently of the Bible? Would anyone object if I move this thread to the Discussions and Debate board? It seems to be taking that direction anyway. I wouldn't object to that. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2011 14:58:50 GMT -5
EDIT - I also follow the words of Jesus, as I treat people the way he would. Regardless of whether he was the Messiah or not, he was a very, very good and tolerant - no, he was a welcoming man who was willing to give people a chance, whether they were sinners or not. Even though I believe there's no way to truly know if he was the messiah, I find emulating him to be one of the best ways to go about your life. Helping those who need it most is what he would do; compassion was one of his greatest strengths. Yeah, that's my way of thinking as well. And I don't think he would approve at all of spreading these end of the world rumors. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoyti on May 20, 2011 16:32:54 GMT -5
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Mostly because I'm an atheist, and find myself perfectly happy. And I don't think any god in any culture is the definition of all things good. You're welcome to disagree, but in my beliefs, God's love shines on everyone on Earth, even if they don't believe in Him. So you don't have to believe Him to be happy. And, actually, God in the Christian culture is the definition of all things good... And when someone starts saying things that "Christians are supposed to..." or that obsessive Christians are contradictory, of course that's going to start a debate, once you start making accusations of people's religion (or calling their God a jerk... >_>). I'm sorry if I offended you in any way, but let me just say that when I called God "Sort of a jerk" I had intended for it to be a joke. Obviously sarcasm does not travel well on the internet. Oh wait. It does. Also, I was only referring to the obsessive Christians which I have met. Again, I'm sorry if I offended you, and I'd like to continue this conversation, but this is probably not the place to do so. So let me just leave with this. If God is the definition of all things good, what is the definition of God? And I don't mean that absolute power is good. Hitler proved that wrong. But then again, Hitler thought what he was doing was good. So what really defines what is good and what is God? Anyway, I guess we'll find out tomorrow about judgement day. |
|
|
|
Post by Komori on May 20, 2011 16:41:58 GMT -5
Sure, but that could also be the argument for the extremists who stand on the street corners and shout that gay people are going to Hell if they don't change their ways. I'm sure in their minds they're completely justified, but that doesn't make me any less angry at them for spreading what I believe to be an improper way to reach people. That is kind of my point. If you (the figurative "you", as in "anyone") genuinely believe in Judgement Day or Hell or Sin, as many Christians claim to, it doesn't make sense to not be a little bit scared about it or to refrain from telling other people about it, and if you don't believe in it, then why claim to be a Christian? A lot of people seem to take the middle position: "Sure, I believe that Hell exists and that there's a possibility that people I know will experience an eternity of pain, but I don't believe it strongly enough to let it bother me." That doesn't make sense to me. If you're just going to interpret the moral teachings of the Bible into what you believe to be rational, then why not eliminate the middleman and just believe in your own rationality independently of the Bible? Well of course, the knowledge of Hell and Judgement Day would be a motivating factor in people trying to spread the Gospel (not to mention it was Jesus's Great Commission to go forth and spread the Word). Personally, I don't believe doomsday-preaching or guilt-mongering is a good way to show anyone the goodness of Christ's salvation, so even if Hell is your own personal motivation to try to spread the Word, it might not be the right message. Still, I don't fault the old guy for trying to warn people; I don't fault his conviction. I just take umbrage at the vanity that he can predict to-the-date the day of the Rapture. Also, there's a difference between trying to understand the Bible as it's written, versus trying to fit the Bible into what you believe to be rational. If something I believe in contradicts what the Bible tells me is true, then I'm the one in the wrong and need to change how I believe. |
|
