So, there was a lot of talk about Harold Camping and his followers the last few days, since they predicted that the rapture would occur yesterday, and spent a whole lotta money publicizing this belief.  Most of the news leading up to the day (at least that I saw) was sort of the "check out what these cooky evangelical americans are up to now!" variety, and today I've seen a few articles lightly poking fun at the group, offering their more silly-sounding quotes (e.g., from the BBC: "I had some scepticism but I was trying to push the scepticism away because I believe in God," said Keith Bauer, who travelled 4,830km (3,000 miles), from Maryland to California, where Mr Camping's Family Radio is based, for the Rapture.).  To be honest, leading up to the event, I was sort of in the same frame of mind--just another group of loonies that happen to be getting a lot of press by making an outrageous claim.

But today I've been thinking about it a bit more, and wondering:  were these people really as crazy as everyone seems to think they are, or are they just more specific than the majority of Christians who believe basically the same thing without a specific date attached to it?  I think I've read before (and someone can correct me if they've got data that says otherwise, since I may be wrong on this) that most christians today believe that the "end times" will occur during their life times.  A simple google search turns up quite a few folks claiming we're in or on the verge of the "end times."  I've even read (though am not sure I believe it) that when George Bush was trying to get France on board for the attack on Iraq, Bush told Chirac to help out because "Gog and Magog" were afoot, a reference to end times writing in revelations.  What Camping's followers doesn't really seem all that far off from what many, many christians around the world seem to believe.  The only real difference seems to be that they put a specific date on it, which meant they could definitively be proven wrong when it didn't pan out like they predicted.

So here's the question I put to you guys:  Were Camping and his followers all that looney, or did they just make a bad guess?  Is it really more crazy to believe the end times are coming on a certain date than it is to believe that they'll occur sometime in the next few decades?  Are Camping and his followers really all that far outside the mainstream of religious belief in the US, or do they just seem so because they've put their beliefs up to a clear test?  If, instead of predicting yesterday as the end of the world, they had said it would happen in 2123, would they have gotten any attention at all, or be consider all that strange?

Strong belief in things that seem impossible to other people is the norm among religious, not the exception.  Where these guys differed from most religious is not in believing in incredible claims, but rather in putting those beliefs to a clear-cut test.

The Bible specifically says that "No man knoweth the Day or the Hour" Of his coming. (The Rapture)

Camping seems to have made money off of setting a date. People lost their livelihoods, belongings and reputation because of date setting.

The Pre-Tribulation Rapture that happens before the 7 year Tribulation is believed in by some Christians, but I doubt that it's believed in by the Majority. I believe in it, however.

at the very least it seems like they should have picked a date that was further out, give it some time to build up the marketing, really rake in the cash...
In some weird way it seems like they were affraid their doomsday prediction might get pre-empted by a 2012 doomsday prediction. Something like "The Aztech predicition of 2012 is getting all the press, we should lead peope back to God by giving a 2011 end date."

True, but that hardly makes them the first christian group to ignore/oddly interpret/whatever part of the bible.


True, but again, that's not all unique to this group.  Plenty of religious leaders, christian and otherwise, make tons of money from their followers donations.  And followers giving up tons of money to their religious leaders is nothing new (in fact, most christians considers it a necessary part of being a christian).  Losing reputation is perhaps less main stream, but that sort of the point.  Should these people be viewed as more kooky than any other christian (at least any other christian who believes that they will see the rapture during their lifetime), or just more specific with their predictions?  Are they only loosing their reputation because they made much more specific, non-open-ended prediction than most?


Okay, then should I view your beliefs as significantly different (ie, more respectable/serious/whatever) than those of Camping and Co.?  Why do most American think of Camping as a punch line, but the other christians such as yourself, who believe more or less the same thing without a date attached, as something very different?

Meh, I think they actually, honestly believed what they were preaching/advertising.  I don't think it was a scam, even Camping's part (though I wouldn't be too surprised to find out otherwise, I suppose).

It's something very different because it's not Biblical. Therefore, it's easy to detach from Biblical Christianity. "No man knoweth the day or the hour" means "No man knoweth the day or the hour." Not "May 21, 2011". And second of all, Christians giving a tithe to the Church for God might not be anything new, but it's perfectly reasonable if given for the right reasons, such as charity or ministerial work.

I"m not saying we should give Benny Hinn money or anything, but hey, what's wrong with, say, Pastor Jack using 90-100 percent of funds towards Charity or missionary work? That's entirely Christian.

I"m not saying that athiests, agnostics or nonChristians really care or will ever find my Biblical faith as credible, and that only concerns me mildly. I'm just pointing out that Biblical Christianity IS credible whether or not it's reputable or not.

Christians have literally been expecting the world to be around the corner since Jesus died (Jesus said “Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power", suggesting the world would end before any of his followers died). I doubt this is unique to Christianity, but I don't know of any other examples. The fact is, people LIKE these sorts of stories. They want to believe them. It's exciting. I don't know of any Mayans, yet people are still talking about 2012. It was a big fuss in 2000, just because that's a big, round number. People are like that. And in a book as complex and big as the bible, especially in Revelations, which may be all metaphor, people will find 'support' for attaching the end of the world to any particular date.

Ultimately, I do believe the world will end. I think everyone here agrees with me on that point. It's generally accepted as scientific fact. I don't know when it will end, and any Christian who knows his bible will know Kathulos's quote above, telling us clearly we won't know either. I also don't know that it will happen precisely as described in Revelations. Revelations was a dream. When we read the dreams in Daniel, we don't assume there will actually be 7 lean sheep and 7 fat sheep, we are told that this represents something much bigger. Similarly, when we read Revelations, I think it would be a mistake to assume the moon will literally shrink. It has a meaning, but I suspect none of us are equipped to say what that meaning is (beyond the broad meaning that God will win, so be good).

Do I believe people like Camping are kooky? Yes. They are picking and choosing, pulling stuff out without any sense of context, applying false scientific techniques, and claiming to have information in direct violation of the book they are quoting as divine truth. Similarly kooky (although harder to separate from genuine) is people claiming divine knowledge from God that no one else can corroborate. I don't think Camping is doing it for profit. I just think he's foolish and prideful. And unfortunately, it's the poor faithful who spent their life savings who are going to suffer.

Well to be fair I don't think that was what they were *conciously* thinking, but I think it was burried somewhere in the thought process.

actually the moon "shrinks" on a regular basis, as it's orbit moves slightly closer and further away from earth, and that's assuming that it isn't a mistranslation of waning. as to teh rest- how many people go missing every year? The coal we have been using for over a century (now mostly in naval engines) has a high sulpher content, so the skies litterally are choked with sulpher (incidentally, there is also decreased sun, moon and starlight reaching earth due to polution as well), we have had global plagues, wars, famines... for all we know the rapture could have happened back at just about any time in the past 30 years and there would still be people trapped here because of teh pride and greed in their hearts saying the rapture is still coming, convinced they will be one of those who is taken into heaven.

The moon doesn't shrink by a third, though. Yes, you can find ways to match the signs in Revelations to current events - but also to current events in 1910, 1880, 1750, 1600, so on and so forth. It is so metaphorical, you can translate it a dozen different ways. Look at the events we're told to watch out for:

Conquest, war, famine, death, martyred souls cry for vengeance, natural disasters, 144,000 people are "sealed", increase in worship of God, hail and fire, third of the oceans destroyed, rivers poisoned, sky darkened, locusts attack, 1/3 of population killed by army, ark of the covenant appears, rise of the harlot, rise of Satan, dragons, leviathan, more followers taken, sores, sea turns to blood, water turns to blood, sun scorches the earth, darkness and pain, earthquake, babylon destroyed, everyone dies.

So, if we fuzz the numbers a bit and spread the events over time, which of these have we NOT seen already? We don't know what the dragon or leviathan are supposed to be precisely. But we have seen everything else except for 'water turns to blood' and 'everyone dies', in one way or another. In fact most of these things are just considered normal aspects of being alive. It gets worse if you have people who can't agree whether the 'great Satan' is America, capitalism, selfishness, Catholics or atheists, and the 'martyred souls' are Christians, Jews, fetuses, civilians, or Palestinians. Finally, we can't even agree on whether we will recognize we're in revelations until that whole 'everyone dies' step at the end. Accepting that Revelations is real, I wonder if it's not referring to the singularity, when people transfer from human bodies to posthuman (and thusly surpass death).

Water turns to blood in about 40% of all horro movies :)
Also Revelations describes a vision, and I have seen water that looks like blood- usually where the ground water has been exposed to a large ammount of iron, and especially iron particulate.
As to teh moon shrinking by 1/3, not if you measure full moon to full mon but if you measure full to new then definitely. At that point 'the moon shrinks by a third' simply designates a recurring astrological sign.
For that matter there is a cirmucpolar constelation that is draco- the dragon. There are also constelations of the serpent, the flying fish, the southern fish, the swordfish, the dolphin, the water serpent and Cetus- the sea monster. any of which (and especiall Cetus) could be described as Leviathan.

If you observe the moon rising over the horizon, especially on a "harvest moon", you'll notice that it appears larger on the horizon than it does in the sky.  This is due to a complex optical effect I don't fully understand, but is easily viewable to anyone who ants to take the time.

It has to do with perception.  When it is low to the ground, our brain uses the land scape to make the moon look bigger as we know what the size of the land is.  When it is high in the sky, there is nothing else to compare it to.  I'm not an expert on it, just what I remember from class <.<

You sure it doesn't have to do with the atmosphere acting as a convex lens and thereby expanding the image, relative to the 'high noon' position where it travels through less air and at a less oblique angle?

I'm sure, during high school I was in the astronomy club, this is one of the things learned during that time.  Any wyas, here is a link to an article that relates to it.

http://www.straightdope.com/co...ger-near-the-horizon

The atmosphere is equally convex in the morning and at noon. Also keep in mind that that convex realisticlly depends on something being relativly convex in the curvature between the two surfaces- a curved piece of glass which is relatively flat comparing on surface to another will not magnify... but then agian this is all information that would not have been available 2000 years ago.

Wow, rude and illogical. His theory that the refraction only holds up for a few minutes is clearly false because the light from the moon is going through progressively less atmosphere from its entire trip from rise to zenith. I'm not saying his original answer is wrong, but his rebuttal clearly is.

On the other hand he offers a repeatable expiriment to verify the results.

*shrugs* was only one of the many links out there.  I just grabbed one.  I live in Arizona, so Lowls observatory is only 50 miles away form me.  They had a large section on the moon that gives basically the same explanation as this guy, just not as "rude"

I don't believe in experimental verification. I'm more like Aristotle in my methods. If it sounds right, it probably is.

Seriously though, yeah, I looked at some other sites which repeated the comment, so I'm willing to accept it on faith (I've never noticed the illusion myself, so I don't especially care regardless).

I've never seen a big moon before;  I do know the angle changes the color, though, since I've seen plenty of orange and blood-red moons.

Continuing a discussion that started in the Israel/Palestine thread:



Jesus also said he'd return within his apostles generation.

But let's make it a bit more specific.  How close do you feel the second coming is?  You seem to be saying it's "Even at the door."  What does that mean to you?  Months?  Years?  Decades?  What would you say is the upper bound on how far off it is?

Yes, yes, probably not. By the time I"m finished, or even before I"m finished typing this message to you, he could be here.

I'd like to see your Bible passage. I have a Bible nearby. Show me the passage that you have that proves Jesus saying he would return in the Apostle's lifetime.

Well clearly that one has been proven wrong ;P

Widespread belief that the end times are near is extremely common in Christian history. In fact the Seventh Day Adventists owe their existence to that (when Millerism rose from calculations in Daniel, then clearly failed to pan out).

There are a few lines which pretty strongly suggest Jesus should be expected back within a generation:

1 John 12:18 "18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour."

Luke 21:32 “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

It's also pretty clear from the historical record that first-century Christians and prophets believed that the world would end with their generation (I think it's pretty clear they've been proven wrong). But these are the people with direct testimony from Jesus or the first apostles, so they probably have more information than we do.

I can't find 1 John 12:18. . . ?
I know it's there somewhere.

I do, however, have Luke right in front of me, and it looks like it's saying something metaphorical, or if not metaphorical, then something prophetic, since it states many things have to happen before they know that their generation was the one to come to pass.

Even if I use the phrase "this generation", it doesn't invalidate Pre-Tribulation Rapture because of the context.

Are you saying Joe living in 35 AD couldn't reasonably interpret the line as saying 'before my kids die, the world will end'? Or are you saying that people like Joe could have, but just never did interpret the line like that?

There were some people in the 1st century AD that possibly thought like that. It didn't mean that they were right though. Even the Apostles, wisest and devout before all others, enough to make Billy Graham look like an amateur, were said to be prophetically ignorant. Which was ok. Jesus was the last Prophet, we didn't and don't need any other Prophet other than him. (Which is why the Apostles should not be faulted for something that wasn't their job.)

So you're comfortable with Tycho's statements?

Apparently not, since people have felt it's very close, again for 2,000 years.



A self-fulfilling prophecy, isn't it?  Do you think the people who refounded Israel were unaware of what Jesus said?  This isn't like predicting a Solar Eclipse; The Moon doesn't decide that it should cover up the Sun because somebody on Earth said it would.  People do.



What a shock, people scoff at something that sounds ludicrous.  That's not a prediction, any more than me saying "I know you're not gonna believe this, but an alien came in and stole those cookies", and then saying "Aha! I knew you weren't going to believe me, hence Aliens exist!"

It's a childish route of thinking, and it's only purpose is to make people who don't know any better feel undeservedly smug.

Have you thought that maybe people aren't scoffing at you because somehow Jesus is pulling their strings?  It could be because you think Jesus is pulling their strings that they scoff at you.

I'm not sure what I should think about you calling someone childish when you are the first to resort to name calling in the first place.

If you really think something is irrational, you should only realize that by mistreating someone in both word and deed will only harden their stance towards you.

I made sure to call the thinking childish, and not you, because I do not think it is truly your thinking, as it's something I've heard countless times.

The only thing that I would direct at you, and not your argument, is that you should critically review your arguments before you present them.

"You just think I'm wrong because I'm right" is not a good argument, and I hope you can understand my venom is aimed at that argument and not you.

You're smarter than that, and you're smarter than whoever came up with it.

Ah, I see.

Well, I'd just like to say that it should not be frowned on, although it will be, for us to believe in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture, because we aren't setting dates. Theoretically, if Mid or Post Tribulation Rapture still occurs, we all still have Heaven waiting for us.

I have no issues with most beliefs, and at the core I probably don't have any real issue with yours.

Nor do I want to dissuade you from those beliefs.  I only wish to destroy bad reasons for believing things.  Because without good reasons, a person can believe anything.

I also have to agree that "people will be expecting it" and "people will scoff" are pretty weak indicators. That's pretty much the case for everything. There are people who, literally, are expecting the lizardmen to rise out of New Mexico and claim the human race (and there are people who scoff at the idea). I don't think prefacing "the lizardmen will rise and claim the Earth" with "and some people will be expecting it and some people will scoff at it" adds any real validity to the prediction.

The State of Israel bit is a bit stronger, but not really. The state of Israel at the time was under Roman Occupation. The idea of it being made whole was a real political movement. A modern equivalent would be "and one day the country will set up universal health care". It doesn't seem like an unreasonable prophecy. It's also ignoring the possibility of a metaphorical reading.

Now, the bit about bees with the heads of lions is a pretty tough prophecy. If I see bees with the heads of lions attacking people around the world, you got me, end times.

Sounds like an Asylum-Studios horror movie :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...&feature=related

That's...er...really something, Kathulos.

"That D N A never gets older than 33, they tell me."