Talk:Left Behind

I was the original author of this page. I don't like where this article has gone, and want to disassociate myself from it as of now. --Nerd42Talk 17:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Good luck. Odd that an Uncyc page based on a crap book series about a particularly unpleasant end of the world myth would end up coming off as bitter. You can pour sugar on crap, but it still tastes crappy, I guess. I considered attempting a rewrite, but my Magic 8 Ball told me, "Outlook Cloudy"... Modusoperandi 18:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What don't you like about it? It's raw portrayal of the inner workings of Christian supremacy, its in-your-face attitude about the soon-or-not-to-be apocalyptic scenario which you so comfortably await? Or maybe the Taahgaarxians. Were the Taahgaarxians a bit much? If so, I apologize. --Señor DiZtheGreat  CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 21:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I took a look comparing the last Nerd42 edit to the most recent version. The old one is more of a stub than a page. It also has no mention of sinner-eating anteaters whatsoever. I guess he skipped "Left Behind book three: the Anteatering". Too bad, that one's my favourite. I'm starting to get the feeling that I haven't read them either. Modusoperandi 22:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So it was brought up from a stub with no mention of soul-sucking insectivorous South-and-Central American mammals at all, to a work of art with that, and the Tribulation Saints! Yeah!!! WTF is Nerd42 so PO'd about? Taahgaarxians rule, even sinners know that...--Señor DiZtheGreat  CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 17:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Since he's abandoned this page, I doubt he "watches" it anymore. I'm guessing it'd be better to ask on Nerd42's user talkpage. Modusoperandi 18:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

.....Nah, I don't really care, I just wanted a quick answer. Besides, no one ever replies to my messages. I feel so unloved!! -- DiZtheUnloved  (Hug me!) (Comfort me!) (Love me!) 20:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I hate to go all Occam's razor on you but it's either everyone else, or it's you. Everyone else except me, for some reason. Of course, I'm probably your Tyler Durden. Modusoperandi 20:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's off my watchlist, (I checked the talk page today anyway to see whether nobody cares) no I'm not mad, yes the original version was a sucky stub and no I don't think the original version should be restored. I'm just saying I am abandoning the article because I don't like what it says anymore, and know I'm not going to win if I try and defend the original (sucky) version. It's all in Sun-Tzu's The Art of War - don't get into battles you can't win. That's the only reason I'm not putting the whole thing on VFD.

I started this article to merely poke fun at the insane "Left Behind" group within Christianity, not to express bitterness or serve any personal vendetta against Christians or in general because I have none. I'm a Christian myself. I respect people who believe some of the stuff that Tim LaHaye puts out - I just think they're somewhat misguided. With this article on the list of articles that I have written, it looks as if I am supporting anti-religious or at least anti-Christian (as opposed to merely anti-"Left Behind") sentiment and I am not. I'm not mad or offended - I just don't want to be associated with the writing of this article anymore. --Nerd42Talk 21:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I'm not anti-christian either. I'm just against those who push it on me, particularly those who are for creationism intelligent design in public schools, the ten commandments on government buildings or, in this case, people that think that the rest of us have to die for them to go to heaven. They suck. Those that behave in a christian manner are the good kind of Christian. "Rapturists" don't fall into the good category. Also, that I found the "Left Behind" series on an internet Christian bookstore in the section "Biblical Study Guides" scares the shit out of me. Modusoperandi

I agree, except on the part that I'm not not anti-Christian. Christianity has its good messages and that's what I like about it, but as a whole, it all seems too disturbing and underlyingly creepy for me, but that's just my opinion. I respect people who practice it though, as long as they don't try to convert me or act all self-righteous and contemptuous against others (I live in the South, and trust me, atheists and outside beliefs are generally not welcome here), since I find that highly hypocritical of the religion. If I'm pissing anybody off, then my work is done, that's all I have to say. Also, it's refreshing to see a Christian who dislikes, or at least doesn't give into the Left Behind books, which I thought were a blatant raping of literature. But that's just my opinion. Also, Taahgaarxians rule-- just saying. Pudgism is the true way to go! --Señor DiZtheGreat  CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 03:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It must be weird living in a place where being religious (or pretending to be religious) is essentially a requirement to get elected. Canada is a bit different, it was asked if the religion of the man that became our Prime Minister would get in the way...My position is that if religion causes you to do good things that you would not ordinarily do, it's good. Otherwise it's just a crutch because you're afraid to die. The rapturists, and by extension, fundamentalists in general, are scary, scary people. Speaking of fundies (Modusoperandi, Master of Segue), after making the "Left Behind" pic I wrote American Fundie Magazine. Sometimes you have to point out that the emperor has no clothes. Good work on the Pudgic Bible, by the way. But if it's all the same, I think I'll stick with my own cult of Sack Religion. Modusoperandi 03:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Pudgism is no cult, in case that's what you were implying. It is an ancient belief system dating back over twelve millenia and encompassing thousands of years of culture and tradition. Thank you for your kind words nonetheless. And yes, if there's one thing worse than Taahgaarxians, it's people who actually pray for the end of the world to happen. Get enough humans souls together, and anything is possible really. Just look at the platypus. There's no way that mess could have been conjured by God or evolution. People wanted something to laugh their asses off about, they prayed, and they got it. Shame that they had to include huge pincer-like spurs of poisonous death and the bloodthirsty jowls of an enraged duck as part of the package. Oh, getting off-topic again. That happens with me, but you probably noticed already since you were present at some other discussions I participated in. There I go again, ranting. --Señor DiZtheGreat  CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 04:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to imply that your cult is a cult. I'd forgotten how sensitive cultists are about stuff like that. We members of Sack Religion aren't so sensitive, as we pretty much just made it up. Also I've got this book that says, if taken literally, that the platypus was made 6,000 years ago by some really powerful fire god. Sadly, the book is missing the cover, so I have no idea who wrote it. Pity. Modusoperandi 05:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

One book?...I have ten thousand witnesses who swore they saw the platypus being born from a narcissus. Or a rhododendron bush. Then again, they could be lying. That's why I don't believe all psychics and nutty conspiracy theories. Except the one about hummingbirds. That one is real. And fnords, those too. And the Illuminati. --Señor DiZtheGreat  CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 14:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, I don't believe it either. The first 2/3rds is about this prick who's constantly blaming his kids for not living up to his expectations and the last 1/3 is about this hippy who occasionally says something really mean. I'm pretty sure it's fiction. Unlike my book...and yours. Our B.S. is all friggin' true, man. Plus my has no begets, although I'm thinking of adding them in as an Easter Egg for the Director's Cut of Sack Religion. Modusoperandi 15:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Plus, in my version of the bible, everyone goes to heaven during the Second Coming of Pudge....Psyche! No really, everyone dies and a fascist government prevails. Fun stuff...Oh, and don't call it BS. Wikipedia did that with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and next thing they knew: three admins dead, choked to death on cold noodles. Does Wikipedia have admins? I'm pretty sure they do, as they're always stealing from and raping Uncyclopedian culture. Yes, just like the first explorers did with the Native Americans. But you're Canadian, aren't you? Do you have Native Canadians over there? I know a guy from Canada, he's--oh wait, I'm ranting again, aren't I? Curse my egomaniacal ways! --Señor DiZtheGreat  CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 16:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

After checking the talk page again, and reading some of the comments here, I put the article back on my watch list so that I can read comments on the talk page.

1. "I'm just against those who push it on me, particularly those who are for creationism intelligent design in public schools," - I assume you are talking about the United States here. Which part of teaching intelligent design in public schools are you against particularly? (i.e. which specific facts would be taught in that case that you think should not be) And why/how do you think that teaching intelligent design, or even Creationism in public schools pushes Christianity on you? I really don't understand this viewpoint.
2. "the ten commandments on government buildings" - I do not understand the basis for objecting to having the Ten Commandments on government buildings in the United States, unless it is fundamentally against the United States itself. Is that the case or are you basing this objection on something else ?
3. "people that think that the rest of us have to die for them to go to heaven. They suck." - Wait a second, are we talking about Christianity or Islam here? The LaHayeites don't think everyone else has to die for them to go to heaven. They just think that the world is going to end. Other people dying is not, under the worldview of the Left Behind series, connected with going to heaven. It is connected with going to heaven under the worldview of Islamo-facism. I would certainly agree that people who think that the rest of us have to die for them to go to heaven suck. --Nerd42Talk 17:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

1) Science is science: Intelligent Design isn't science. "God unnamed designer did it" is not scientific, no matter what it's called and, as such, shouldn't push real science out of the limited time allotted to science class. As part of an elective for, or I don't know, "comparative religion" in university, ok. But it's not science. It's not even ID, it's fundies hiding behind semantics to put their version of god back in the classroom...and it's their creationism in lieu of the hundreds of other creation myths. Again, as part of an elective in university I don't mind, but pushing it as a mandatory part of secular primary and secondary school ends up pushing something important out, like Chaucer, or lunch. Or keep it in homeschooling, where they won't even have to hide genesis under the table.

2) I'm against the ten commandments on government buildings because it violates the establishment clause of the first amendment. The last six of the original ten commandments I wouldn't mind, as they are essentially rules that we all (hopefully) can agree on. The first four, however (I am your god, no idols, no fibbing w/my name, remember the sabbath) have absolutely no place on a government building. It's promoting one god over all others (or lack of them).

3) As this is the Left Behind page, we focused on Pre-mil, not Islamist or Wookian apocalypse. At Dispensational premillennialists they believe at the pious go poof, 7 year tribulation, then Armageddon then JC comes back (with the pious) to check his mail and rule for a thousand years. Unless the meaning of Armageddon and "end of times" has changed recently that means: they leave, we chill for a bit, die (and how!), then they come back and tape over that mix tape I keep in the car (or, rather I have to die before they get their thousand years of heresy-free bliss). To me, end of days is end of days, no matter which holy book talks about it. I think we probably mixed post- and pre- millenialists up a bit in the page...of course if your looking for accuracy, Uncyclopedia probably isn't the best place...

...and that's my two cents. I hope it made sense. Generally, I thrive on incoherency. Modusoperandi 18:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I think that if you knew more about what Intelligent Design actually was, you might not agree with me, but would have a better-informed perspective.
2. The presence of the Ten Commandments do not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Ammendment, because their presence is not an act of Congress nor are they respecting a particular religion.
3. In that case, it might be a good idea to move alot of the commentary on the Left Behind page to Revelations, letting the page on Left Behind focus on parodying the book series. --Nerd42Talk 16:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I think that one of my favourite authors James P. Hogan thinks there's something in it, which intrigues me. Also, Duane Gish is for it. This puts me in a quandry, you see...as one is a smart guy and the other thinks that people hunted dinosaurs... If you can find links to a smart person who's for it, I'll gobble them up (leave out anyone who uses the junkyard 747 argument). My mind is somewhat open.
2. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over nonreligion. (Emphasis mine)...and how does the presence of the ten comms not respect a certain religion (or two)?
3. It's good here. They're both related. Again, if absolute accuracy is what you're looking for, you're in the wrong place. Or you can edit Left Behind if you think a more accurate page would increase the satirical punch. We don't mind. I certainly don't (I might come back to edit, but for now I've moved on).

Again, this is way too serious for Uncyc. I'm considering getting all of us banned. Modusoperandi 16:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Damnit, now you've got me started, again. I've done a bunch of edits and am still unsatisfied. I'm pondering a rewrite...but don't hold your breath, it might take awhile. Modusoperandi 09:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Your emphasis there is not in the Constitution. That may be what you believe the Constitution ought to say, in which case you should tell your Congressman to propose an ammendment, but until such an ammendment passes, that is not what the Constitution says. In fact, the First Ammendment doesn't even prohibit individual states from establishing state religions. (most of the original 13 colonies had "state religions" of one form or another)

Furthermore, if the First Ammendment really does prohibit any expression of religion that is in any way supported by tax dollars, (it does not) then that part of the Constituion has never been actually implemented at any time in the history of our country. If we were to take a time machine back to 1787 and ask the framers whether the Ten Commandments could be displayed in federal courtrooms under the new Constitution, we'd have to wait to ask until after their meeting opened, as it did every morning, with a Christian prayer.

I would certainly agree that the United States government should not force anyone to attend or be a member of any church or to believe in anything (other than perhaps, "Don't break the law" - and by the way, I believe that religion should not be forced on people because of my religion) but neither should the government discontinue or disreguard our national traditions (like having prayer before every session of Congress or having the Ten Commandments on display in courtrooms) merely because it offends some new group or other. --Nerd42Talk 23:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have put "has been interpreted as saying..." or perhaps "has been interpreted as saying by SCOTUS..."

Your point that the separation of church and state has never really been implemented is true, but moot. That something hasn't achieved it's ideal doesn't mean that the pursuit of that ideal should be abandoned. Each generation has it's blind spots (Jefferson penned that "all men equal" thingy while his wife was legally his property and while slaves were making his dinner. That doesn't mean that we should give up on the ideal.) which don't show up on the moral radar until later.

I don't mind celebrating a nation's history and traditions, except when those traditions exclude it's citizens. The USA (indeed, most of the western world) isn't just WASP/Catholic with a pinch of Judaist anymore, the ten commandment specifically exclude a significant minority of the population and, as such should not go on the buildings that all of the populace pays for. Of course, even I have my blind spots. I'm not giving up Christmas or Easter, as Christmas is the one time of the year the whole family gets together, gets drunk and starts fistfights, and Easter is "spring rites" too.

It's probably best that I just point you to Wiki Establishment Clause which probably isn't the best reference (as it's wiki), as my parents' encylopedia won't fit in Outlook, and it states the whole thing far better than I possibly could (as American History was never my strong suit, mostly because we don't have that class in whatever country it is that I am from, instead US history is part of History).--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"That something hasn't achieved it's ideal doesn't mean that the pursuit of that ideal should be abandoned." - My point was that the ideal you are describing might be your ideal, but has never been the American ideal. The whole foundation of our country's right to exist is based on "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God" - take that away and we might as well all still be Englishmen, and slaves at that. --Nerd42Talk 15:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I didn't know that the deist god used the ten commandments...--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Moduso, why change every mention of "atheist" in the plot section to "the unrighteous." You and I both know it's basically the same, and the first one is funnier and more suggestive of LaHaye's deep underlying blood-lust. What gives? --Señor DiZtheGreat  CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 21:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to reduce repetition and shotgun the approach. Too many mentions of the same term struck me as sounding a bit amateur, and "unrighteous" covers everyone else. It's not atheists that fundies hate, it's everyone that isn't them. If you can improve it, go ahead, I was just stirring the pot.

...and thanks to Nerd42 I really am pondering a rewrite, damnit. I'm trying one that focuses on the books, rather than what we think of the books. So far it's long but not funny. Modusoperandi 01:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite?

Before I get too far ahead of myself, does anybody mind if I do a rewrite? It'll focus on the books (mostly) and, so far, contains no giant anteaters (they might appear, I'm sure they are in in the series somewhere).--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a rewrite, if you volunteer to do it; just realize that when I wrote the Plot section, which you later added to, i did actually do some research on the books (Wikipedia, actually, not real research), so lots of the plot points (i.e. Nicholae, Tribulation Saints <giggle>)are fairly accurate parodies. Also, don't completely erase all mention of Taahgaarxians, or else my article will have nothing to stem from (you can make a little footnote of their role off to the side somewhere...). PS: They're in the unreleased 12th book: Left Behind: Bloodlust. --Señor DiZtheGreat  CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 21:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's hiding if you want to check it out. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I do actually like your new version better. At least it has descriptions of every individual book rather than all of them crammed into one, and still keeps the funny. Good job, Moduso, you get a cookie.

--Señor DiZtheGreat  CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 22:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

DiZ has awarded you a cookie! Now go play in traffic.

Hurrah! "C" is for cookies and, it has been said that, cookies are, in fact, for me. I'll give it a week and if there are no complaints I'll move that version here. Or longer, if I forget.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved the rewrite over. It's niche, admittedly. Then again, it was niche before...--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

back when i started the page my idea was to make fun of the specific extra/non-biblical theology in the books - the funniest stuff is usually based at least partly in truth --Nerd42Talk 17:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, as the rapture is pretty much based on one friggin' line in Revelations, most of it is extra biblical.

Rev 6:24-31

"and the man of Steele didst fight the man with the silly name,"

"and he did wrestle with him in a river of blood"

"that didst spread ten hundred handspreadth wide, and ten cubits deep"

"For truly it was the blood of the damned,"

"and it didst floweth from them after the Prince of Peace"

"didst cut them with his sword tongue,"

"and didst prick them with the most righteously pointy crown,"

"that percheth uponst His head and had upon it the Word."

or maybe I made that up. Feel free to improve it if you want; it is a wiki, after all.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 17:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. What the Protestants call "The Rapture" is total insanity that you won't find in the Bible. --Nerd42Talk 17:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, 1 Thes 4-17

"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

That's it. Any other biblical bits in the books are pulled from the, frankly, bat shit crazy Revelations.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Rapture?

Well...I believe in the Rapture. (Yes, I can hear the retorts now. A Christian?! On the Left Behind page?! SHOOT!!!!!!!!!) But consider for a moment -- just a moment, I'm not telling you to fully convert -- what if the pretty overwhelming evidence (that none of you care to hear, and I won't push it on you unless you ask) behind Christianity turns out to be true?

Where would that put all of you guys?

Taking a lot of chances, eh?

Aah! Eternel salvation or hell? Details, details! 70.122.244.36 23:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with that. You know that the whole Rapture thing is a fairly recent invention, right? Invention, as in "made up". Take a dash of Daniel, pretend that He wasn't talking about the near-future in the Olivet discourse et al (Matt 16:28, 23:26 & 24:34, Luk 9:27 & 21:32, Mark 9:1, 1Cor 7:29, James 5:8), and add a pinch of Revelations and Poof!, suddenly True Christians™ don't have to be accountable for their actions anymore. World going to shit? I don't care, He's going to come and take me away! Global warming? Pollution? War? They don't matter...in fact they're a good thing. They mean that He is coming to take me away from the problems that I'm helping to create.

As for the rest: Any God that needs to resort to threats to get worship isn't worth it. Worship, I mean. An infinite punishment of firey burning for the simple sin of not believing is bullshit. Don't even try to twist it into His love, and don't use the "He's infinite, so any sin against Him is infinite" crap. Love doesn't come up with Hell, Wrath does. Fuck wrath. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

By making MO talk serious, maybe you can count a miracle for you. -- herr doktor needsAbolt  [scream!] 04:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah. There's that. Things like this piss me off. It's different for me when they don't push (I don't give a damn what crazy shit you believe, as long as you don't try to push it on someone else, just as you don't care about my own insane beliefs). The rapture is a particularly sensistive spot, as it's essentially abdicating any responsibility we have for the real world in exchange for a despicable revenge fantasty. That, incidentally, is bad. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly on topic, I can stress that religions, cults and superstitions are just the same thing to me. It's just that some can gather more gullible Average Joes than the others. Take the Transubstantiation doctrine for instance. Drinking a man's blood and eating his flesh - this you have to believe you are actually doing if you are Catholic - easily qualifies for an outlaw Satanic cult nowadays. If you are Protestant, I have another pocketful of craziness to unload here. For example, the Bible atests the existence of unicorns, giants, dragons and cockatrices. -- herr doktor needsAbolt  [scream!] 04:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget swapping faith, grace, good deeds with faith, grace. Luther and Calvin had some good ideas (everyone should be able to read the bible in their own language, no man stands between you and god), but they were just as zealous and filled with nuttery as the creators of the doctrine they were trying to obsolete. Sigh. I should've taken this page off my watchlist. Still, I feel better now after replying to his rather mafioso threat ("It'd be a pity if you didn't pay your protection money, something awful might...accidentally...happen to your soul.") Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)