Left Behind (The Series)by Tim LaHaye & Jerry B. Jenkins.

[Sitaram]

Very few people understand the precise meaning of the term "assault and battery."

If I run up to a stranger in the street, and start yelling and screaming to the top of my lungs, shaking my fist, and saying "I disapprove of you and if you do not mend your ways you shall be very sorry (forgive my strong language here)" then I have assaulted that person, and if a policeman is watching, he or she might arrest me on charges of assault. If, after shouting, I punch this pedestrian in the nose, then a charge of battery shall be added to the charge of assault.

Whenever an evangelical, a stranger, approaches me in the street, and tells me that I shall suffer eternally if I do not do certain things, then that is likewise, technically, an assault and a threat.

Threats do not necessary need to be made in person. Threats can come in the form of letters, or e-mail, or through the media of television and cinema.

It is not unreasonable to view LaHaye's books as a threat to people, of what they shall suffer if they do not conform to certain things.

Suppose a clever writer composed a novel about the overthrow of the U.S. Government, and revealed as part of the plot and dialogue a plausible method to achieve an overthrow, a method unheard of, which needed only the cooperation of a number of readers. Now, it is against the law to plot to overthrow the government. It is not difficult to imagine the agencies of law enforcement taking action against said author and his book, and enthusiastic readers, as constituting a conspiracy.

Is my scenario so very far fetched? Are the circumstances mitigated by the fact that it is only the "he said" "she said" dialogue of characters?

 

[abecedarian]

Now this goes way beyond the scope of the discussion of The Left Behind series. Evangelical Christianity is not on trial here.

 

[Sitaram]

Now this goes way beyond the scope of the discussion of The Left Behind series.

I am illustrating how the "Left Behind" series may be viewed as a conspiracy on the part of the author and his supporters. How does that digress from the topic?

I think all my posts have been right on topic, in that they deal with the broader theological context of the "story."

I don't think it is a matter of me being "off topic" but rather a matter of some people feeling discomfort over what is being discussed.

But I am not out to upset people, and I have said a lot already. So I shall say no more. If someone finds some one of these issues that I have raised interesting, they may PM me.

 

[StillILearn]

I am illustrating how the "Left Behind" series may be viewed as a conspiracy on the part of the author and his supporters. How does that digress from the topic?

I think all my posts have been right on topic, in that they deal with the broader theological context of the "story."

I don't think it is a matter of me being "off topic" but rather a matter of some people feeling discomfort over what is being discussed.

But I am not out to upset people, and I have said a lot already. So I shall say no more. If someone finds some one of these issues that I have raised interesting, they may PM me.

Darn. I don't liked the idea of PM-ing when the converstion is this interesting, and is just getting good. (Truth to tell, I think it was Shade who made the comments that Peder was referring to, and I personally think he should get his self back over here.)

Everybody's behaving in a civilized manner, and this whole conversation is downright illuminating. The workings of some of our best brains are being displayed in this thread. Let's not stop now.

 

[Peder]

I will simply say that your definition of conspiracy is wrong.

 

[Peder]

(Truth to tell, I think it was Shade who made the comments that Peder was referring to, and I personally think he should get his self back over here.)

Still,
It was definitely not shade's remarks I objected to. After all "tendentious," for example, is a justifiable reaction to have to the book and a fair criticism to express about the book. It was the two reviews that he included that I thought were more polemical, and especially the second one which used the content of the (fictional) book as the basis for making factually disparaging remarks about groups of people (i.e Fundies and Americans). To denigrate entire groups of people on the basis of some characteristic or other is, I think, very close to the usual definition of bigotry. And again I repeat, not of shade, but of one if not both of the two reviewers he included.
Please read post #2.
Peder

 

[StillILearn]

Okie-dokie. It was Shade's posted reviews of the books that I was thinking of, but I still think he should get his self back over here. I'm still enjoying this thread immensely. I am learning things about myself from your posts here, Peder, and of course (as always) from Sitaram's, as well as from abc's.

One thing that I have learned is that I guess /I/ need to be wary of becoming the thing I detest most:

big·ot
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
[1590–1600; < MF (OF: derogatory name applied by the French to the Normans), perh. < OE b# God by God]

So if these books and this thread have accomplished that, I'm grateful.

 

[SFG75]

If I could, allow me to state that other than the Nabokov threads, this thread is definitely one of the most in-depth ones around. This is exactly what TBF is about. Being a third party to the discussion thus far, I belive it is fair to say that there is a bit of an entanglement here. I understand the feelings of both sides here, but I would like to point out a few things. For one, some of the terminology used is a bit *loaded* as it means different things to certain people. The use of one of the words in particular, are words that some will take as being attacked, as it can have a negative connotation; while others are using it within the context as a form of religious thought. Two people having these respective views are having some issues, and understandably so, though I don't believe that either party is "guilty" in any way. Likewise, the anti-Americanism and anti-Christian thing is from a review. I think it's great to take on that bias for what it's worth and to move on from there.

I'm struck by Peder's question(and perhaps I don't understand it completely, do forgive me) and it deserves restating. For example, are the theological views presented to be within the text of the characters? Or is it aimed at the public?? I think this is a line that definitely needs more discussion here.

 

[Peder]

I'm struck by Peder's question(and perhaps I don't understand it completely, do forgive me) and it deserves restating. For example, are the theological views presented to be within the text of the characters? Or is it aimed at the public?? I think this is a line that definitely needs more discussion here.

SFG,
You have it correct, despite my obscure way of writing.
I think either (and both) can be the basis for a discussion in this thread, and the discussion would be helped if everyone involved understood which question was being discussed at any given time, which was my other point. I'm not sure how one proves the second assertion, that the theology (or Christian argumentation, if you will) is aimed at the public, but I am far from familiar with the series.

Peder

 

[Peder]

Okie-dokie. It was Shade's posted reviews of the books that I was thinking of, but I still think he should get his self back over here. I'm still enjoying this thread immensely. I am learning things about myself from your posts here, Peder, and of course (as always) from Sitaram's, as well as from abc's.

One thing that I have learned is that I guess /I/ need to be wary of becoming the thing I detest most:



So if these books and this thread have accomplished that, I'm grateful.

StillILearn,
From what I have seen of your participation in discussions, I believe you are being very harsh on yourself. That definition doesn't sound like the Still I know.
Peder

 

[abecedarian]

Perhaps this sounds silly, and if so, please tell me. I think Sitaram's points would be easier to address if he didn't put so many in one post. There are things I might want to address, but I find it hard to separate them out from the context of each post. He's made some very well thought out remarks, and I hate to avoid them just because I feel overwhelmed. Am I the only one with this nit-picky problem? (She slinks back to her corner..)

 

[Peder]

Perhaps this sounds silly, and if so, please tell me. I think Sitaram's points would be easier to address if he didn't put so many in one post. There are things I might want to address, but I find it hard to separate them out from the context of each post. He's made some very well thought out remarks, and I hate to avoid them just because I feel overwhelmed. Am I the only one with this nit-picky problem? (She slinks back to her corner..)

ABC,
It may be that you are right. In general though I thought much more was being said than needed to be said to address some issue with respect to the book. (And I had troubling following exactly what that issue was.) But then again I come from a background of forever having to fit long stories into short spaces, so conciseness and clarity and relevance are what come first with me (although you might never have guessed it ).
Peder

 

[abecedarian]

ABC,
It may be that you are right. In general though I thought much more was being said than needed to be said to address some issue with respect to the book. (And I had troubling following exactly what that issue was.) But then again I come from a background of forever having to fit long stories into short spaces, so conciseness and clarity and relevance are what come first with me (although you might never have guessed it ).
Peder

To be fair, Sitaram doesn't do this just for this thread; it seems to be his writing style. That's why I hesitated to bring it up. I have no trouble with your posts, silly!

 

[Shade]

Sitaram's points would be easier to address if he didn't put so many in one post. ... Am I the only one with this nit-picky problem?

Nope.

 

[pontalba]

Sitaram's points would be easier to address if he didn't put so many in one post. ... Am I the only one with this nit-picky problem?

Nope.

word..........

 

[Peder]

To be fair, Sitaram doesn't do this just for this thread; it seems to be his writing style. That's why I hesitated to bring it up. I have no trouble with your posts, silly!

ABC,
Thank you for that. Although I have to say that I can't always follow my own sentences so easily Truly!
It was more the injection of personal opinions on religious matters (beginning with the early reviews that I mentioned) that irritated me. I had thought that such expressions of opinion were out of scope for this particular thread ...... or maybe they weren't.
Peder

PS sorry that the server not being able to be found for thirty minutes now prevents my editing the previous message, but this one is clearer. Otherwise I would have deleted the duplicate.

 

[StillILearn]

StillILearn,
From what I have seen of your participation in discussions, I believe you are being very harsh on yourself. That definition doesn't sound like the Still I know.
Peder

Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt, Peder, but I have to admit to being completely prejudiced against these books without having opened a single one of them.

Nope.

Shade, you get right back in here and duke it out with the rest of us. You're one of the aforesaid "best brains" and we need you here. (Monosyllabic contributions will not be accepted from you, sir.)

But I am not out to upset people, and I have said a lot already. So I shall say no more. If someone finds some one of these issues that I have raised interesting, they may PM me.

Sitaram, you too. You're a veritable fountain of information. (Well, maybe that's a veritable Niagara Falls of information, but your staggering education and awesome amount of experience are of inestimable value to this venue. Get yourself right back in here.)

abc, there will be absolutely no slinking allowed. You have a superior brain as well as on open mind, and this is an excellent opportunity to help keep us on track so that those of us who don't think of ourselves as having been saved with a capital 'S' can better understand the appeal of these books.

SFG, you are still in trouble with me for your bad behavior elsewhere.

Now, everybody say, "Yes ma'm."

 

[SFG75]

Yeeeeees maaaa'am.

 

[StillILearn]

Still was a woman of peace. A dove. Into peaceful mediation on all fronts. That tickled her fellow posters on forums around the world. She never considered that perhaps her estrogen levels might be in need of adjustment. Usually keeping to a few genial threads wherein smiley faces were welcomed and digressions of every kind not only tolerated but encouraged, she was seldom known to venture far into those threads wherein forum rules were strictly enforced, and certainly never without a bottle of Estradiol in her pocket. Now Still’s hormone levels seemed somehow to trumpet themselves as she read and ignored SFG’s rolleyes plea for self restraint.

Still raved on as the masses wondered, until she nearly passed out from the thrill of it, finally to come crashing down in the middle of a cyber-appearance.

It takes all kinds, they said.

 

[Peder]

Still,
You are incomparable, as ever!
And you can't imagine how sad that past tense makes me.
Please come back into the present. Or better yet, the present perfect.
(And if there is none such, then we'll just have to make one up for you.)
We'll even let you pick the next three books in succession in the Nabokov forum, it that will help.
Most sincerely.
Peder