Do you think armaggeddonites are sane?

Your thread title is ungrammatical and makes no sense. If you are asking whether I think that people who believe the end is at hand are sane, no I do not think they are. But then, I don't think that adults who believe in an imaginary friend in the sky are sane either. And I definitely do not think our country's leaders are sane, but that's the topic of another thread...

 

"Do you think armaggeddonites are sane?"

No. And as such we should not elect or appoint them to any offices, political or not.

You don't hire the inmates to run the assylum.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Oct 30 2007, 01:01 AM) [snapback]532325[/snapback]</div>

I think they are well meaning and terribly misguided... For me, they are among the most challenging aspect of our society. My personal challenge is to understand so I can meet them where they are and try to understand their truth.

We're all human - truth is perception and best told in a way that can be heard. ... It's not that hard to find a connection.

I get very bored with superior attitudes that don't have much substance - only judgement. Politically correct? Maybe, but not very human friendly and certainly not productive.

 

You know my take on this subject as I've made the comparisons with Ronald Reagan.

"People who harbor strong convictions without evidence belong at the margins of our societies, not in our halls of power." ~ Sam Harris

 

It doesn't bother me one bit if they believe that we will all be raptured up to the sky at any time, if it takes that to get them through the day - go for it.

It does bother me greatly when this sort of belief is used to make political decisions that affect large numbers of people. It scares me to think that someone has convinced anyone in power that we needn't worry about the environment - because God's going to rapture us anyway. We also need to help Israel so that we can hurry along the rapture.

Why does THIS particular belief get such respect when it is used as a rationale for decision-making in public office? If I were a Senator and I tried to sell the idea that every state must have a certain number of acres kept lush and trash-free so that when the invisible pink unicorn arrives (as she has promised she will!), people would know I was crazy. But if you say that people will magically disappear into the sky and a 2000+-years dead guy will reappear, and you believe in a talking snake giving people bad advice - everyone respects how faithful you are.

 

Thankyou Daniel I couldn't have said it better so I pinched your words: - If you are asking whether I think that people who believe the end is at hand are sane, no I do not think they are. But then, I don't think that adults who believe in an imaginary friend in the sky are sane either.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patsparks @ Oct 30 2007, 07:29 AM) [snapback]532358[/snapback]</div>

I don't usually respond to burritos' posts where he's forever asking questions that can't be answered. They're usually along the lines of 'if you're between a rock and a hard place, which one is most comfortable, the rock, or the hard place?' But in the matter of sanity, that's a legal definition. If one is a danger to himself and those around him and cannot function within the parameters of behavior determined to be normal as defined by society as a whole, then they would be considered insane. Consistent maladaptive behavior is a sure sign of insanity. I don't believe that people who believe that the world is coming to an end soon, and that they'll ascend to "heaven" because they belong to the right club (church) in a sort of secular lottery, are insane, per se. They exhibit a serious amount of naivete and are possibly delusional but insanity is not a term that would apply to them. They shouldn't be allowed near heavy machinery and need adult supervision but they don't belong in a rubber room. Yet.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pyccku @ Oct 30 2007, 03:59 AM) [snapback]532353[/snapback]</div>

I think its important that we question how a person's stated religious beliefs, or stated lack thereof, may affect his decision making skills. What a person puts out as his "guiding light" is certain subject to examination.

But I am interested in the examples given in this thread, and I'm trying to think of a single elected official who says the "rapture" influenced how he decided on an issue. Where is the God-force-majure for voting on the "Law of the Sea Treaty" or latest military appropriation?

Is there an example of a President using "end times" theology to shape his policy decisions? I can't think of one, for any of our Evangelical Christian Presidents (Carter, Clinton or GW Bush). Or for our non-Evangelicals either (G. Bush, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson ...)

Faith plays a role in American politics, but it isn't in the role of shaping policy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Oct 30 2007, 10:57 PM) [snapback]532746[/snapback]</div>

Im convinced that Bush and his evangelical constituency back Israel in preemptive invasions of both Iraq and Iran, only to bring on the rapture. ( evangelical voters are 40% of Bush's total constituency)
Watch this video.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10052007/profile.html

 

Didn't God supposedly tell Bush to invade Iraq? I remember Pat Robertson stating that God also assured Bush that casualties would not be high. The White House later denied that...so who is lying?

Is it the faithful and upright GWB?
Or the faithful religious leader Pat Robertson?

One of them must be lying, so obviously that is one moral lesson not learned by them.

There are plenty of people who deny global climate change, some of them because they really don't think it matters - God has a plan for the earth, and we needn't worry about CO2 levels.

There are others who hope to hasten Armageddon by helping Israel.

While they aren't necessarily openly speaking about this in press conferences, it's not exactly hidden knowledge either.

 

Ted Haggard claimed to have weekly phone conferences with GWB as well.

 

I can't wait to die so I can have 99 virgins.

Religion belongs in the houses of worship. Politics belongs in the state houses. The two DO NOT MIX.

Politics in the house of worship=fanning fundamentalist reactionaries. Religion in the state house=revolution by those excluded.

Religion in house of worship=strengthening of some peoples morals. Politics in the state house=getting the work of a civilized society done.

Politicians who insist on mixing them=individual too weak to survive the career.
Preachers who insist on mixing them=individual too weak to survive the career.

Wanna mix 'em? That's what your dinner table is for.
Don't wanna acknowledge either/or? Fine. No crime.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Oct 31 2007, 10:11 AM) [snapback]532982[/snapback]</div>

Religion belongs in the booby hatch. Politics belongs in prison. But I agree that religion and politics do not mix.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Oct 30 2007, 11:38 PM) [snapback]532794[/snapback]</div>

That's your proof? That one of Bush's followers believe that, and therefore Bush believes it?

Hagee is a pastor of a super church. He isn't the President of the US, and Bush has never, to my knowledge, expressed any of these same sentiments. I'm waiting for proof not that a pastor believes it, but that the Administration believes it.

I'm actually reading one of Hagee's books right now because my sister-in-law, a secular woman who is married to a reformed Jew, handed it to me and recommended it. I don't like Hagee because he doesn't adhere to the Evangelical financial accountability guidelines, but because I love my sister in law I'll read the book. He makes a theological, not political, argument, and it has nothing to do with the "end times" in his book. He believes that God blesses nations that are good to the Jews, and removes his blessing from nations that don't protect the Jews. He has a valid theological point from a non-dispensationalist viewpoint, as he believes that the Hebrew scriptures are still valid (not an "old testament") and that the Jews remain God's chosen people. Its an interesting book from that standpoint, but only if you already know the bloody history of the dispensationalist views.

His views are not stated as a reason for our current policies regarding Isreal by any political leaders that I know of.

You guys will have to try harder than that.




<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pyccku @ Oct 31 2007, 04:46 AM) [snapback]532836[/snapback]</div>

Are you stating that Bush did say that God told him to invade Iraq? I'd like to see some proof of that, with the statement in context, rather than pulled out of context.

Pat Robertson has said things like that, and much worse, but Pat Robertson is not the President.

So far, the "proof" of this is that there is "no proof" and "you know what that means!"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Oct 31 2007, 11:45 AM) [snapback]533040[/snapback]</div>

So your proof is that there is no proof?

Pretty hard to argue with that!

 

Re: the Bush 'God told me...' quote - I know initially it was unsubstantiated, but supposedly another official at that meeting confirmed that Bush had said God told him to invade Iraq. I wouldn't be surprised if it were true, but I wouldn't throw my weight in behind that statement. He's got too many others that are equally terrifying. His confirmed, "I trust that God speaks through me" is bad enough, but...

What scares me the most: he has absolutely no idea about the doctrinal differences between his last church and his current church. Seriously, if you're going to go on and on about how everyone should be beholden to your God, you ought to be able to at least describe, if not defend, your own beliefs. The fact that he bases national decisions on faulty understanding of reality and a poor understanding of his own faith scares the bejesus out of me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Oct 31 2007, 09:28 PM) [snapback]533217[/snapback]</div>

I dont think that only one of Bushs followers believes in the rapture .I know that 40% of Bushs supporters believe it.



Heres another Hagee link thats more succinct.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell73.html

 

I have no idea whether or not Bush said it. My point is that Bush says he didn't say it; Robertson says he did say it. Both are supposedly good, faithful and moral people. Yet that isn't keeping one of them from lying. And we know that one of them MUST be lying.

I get really tired of hearing that only the Republican party is moral, and only Christians have values. In this case, it is obvious that being a Christian does not keep one from showing a lack of values.