toldailytopic: Do false predictions of end times affect the cause of Christ?

[alwight]

Sure. If you find unhappiness and less reliable support for the underlying social structure preferable, then by that subjective valuation you'd be right. If your instinct runs contrary to survival, you feel more comfortable without a larger sense of purpose, find relative value a plus...that sort of thing.

That seems to be begging the question a bit or simply only seeing the possible advantages of your particular worldview. You wouldn't be being a bit biased I suppose, no, perish the thought.:think:
Why then don't we all just keep taking happy pills? Why worry, be happy.
A large gin and tonic usually does it for me TH when I want to be happy, but I personally happen to think that rational ideas at least are where some subtle rewards are to be found.

Now by and large people tend to prefer being happy. They value a more charitable and cohesive social compact. They desire to continue to exist, etc. And within that historically less divergent human tendency the theistic model is superior.

A very context specific, personal and subjective conclusion too I suspect, which may indeed suit many people as a way through life perhaps, but not all. I suspect that many devout Muslims will also find a similar thing for them within Islam, again not me btw.

Except that there's only possible truth here, objectively speaking. You aren't choosing truth over speculation, no matter what you tell yourself or how well you phrase it.

No doubt your counterpart in Islam has a very similar and equally valid idea too of course TH.

:chuckle: Or they'd be really, really bad at it...but we both know that wasn't my objection, which was to the inference that something (on principle) is going on with the one group that isn't else or that one group deserves a broader censure for being no more or less demonstrably crazy at the fringe than another.

Again I don't want to be seen here as commenting and generalising about all Christians since I happen to know, from personal experience, that some are not actually kooks at all.

 

[Town Heretic]

That seems to be begging the question a bit

Demonstrate it.

or simply only seeing the possible advantages of your particular worldview.

Not possible, but actual. In the case of happiness, set out in a number of serious studies. On the whole, they're objectively supportable.

You wouldn't be being a bit biased I suppose, no, perish the thought.:think:

In the same sense a nutritionist is biased in favor of healthy eating habits. Sure.

Why then don't we all just keep taking happy pills? Why worry, be happy.

Except that's not remotely what I'm suggesting and you're assuming/inferring a negative you can't sustain rationally. Else, spot on.

A large gin and tonic usually does it for me TH when I want to be happy,

Curious, considering what alcohol actually is and does in amounts sufficient to alter one's mood. But assuming your response is against the grain, it's interesting that you're in favor of deluding yourself knowingly for a debatable benefit, but eschew what you understand might well be real, sustainable and actually beneficial on the chance it might be other. lain:

but I personally happen to think that rational ideas at least are where some subtle rewards are to be found.

Which would be a great counter if it were actually in opposition to my point...but it isn't. You can keep assuming/asserting that your context/supposition is a thing you can't make it, but that's just goofy. What you can't assert, objectively, is its equality in value relative to living a happy and well adjusted life for the larger part of humanity. I'd go further and say it should be so for any reasonable, rational being.

A very context specific, personal and subjective conclusion too I suspect, which may indeed suit many people as a way through life perhaps, but not all. I suspect that many devout Muslims will also find a similar thing for them within Islam, again not me btw.

Of course. The argument is for faith being objectively superior as a context, not for a particular sort of it, though I do think Christendom has the better argument and can be argued successfully against all comers. But whatever the faith a man chooses, if it supplies certain essential and foundational supports, it will be of greater benefit to the adherent than the grim business inextricably bound at the heart of the atheist's model.

No doubt your counterpart in Islam has a very similar and equally valid idea too of course TH.

Again, my objective argument here concerns the distinction between theistic context and atheistic context and the demonstrable superiority of the one over the other. That there are variations within the particulars of faith is no more surprising than the fact there's a Catholic and Baptist church along the main drag of a given town.

Again I don't want to be seen here as commenting and generalising about all Christians since I happen to know, from personal experience, that some are not actually kooks at all.

Excellent. :thumb: And I count many a likable, interesting fellow among the heathen. :chuckle:

 

[Todah]

?

Do scientific models ever fail the test? Do the results predicted from a scientific experiment ever fail the model? Do scientists then reject science and the scientific method, or do they more rationally, reject the model, and-or the theory, and advance new ones which will better explain the results?

Camping advanced a very strange model and theory concerning what the Bible has to say concerning the rapture and the end of the world, as we know it. He put his theory to a complete "experimental test" and his model, and theory, failed its test, completely.

Therefore one can either throw the Bible out because his model and theory were absolutely flawless, just disproving the Bible..............OR......................... one can return to the Bible and study it better to have a better understanding, and prophetic insights regarding what it "actually" says about the rapture and the endtimes.

Very few serious Bible students accepted his esoteric and private interpretations of the scriptures so it was no surprise to us that his theory failed and his calculations were false. The Bible, to us, is still a book of truth upon which to base behaviour, and decisions, regarding our lives and futures.

If some crackpot scientist advances a strange theory regarding evolution and it is falsified, do serious scientists then reject "science" because of it? Of course not!


Even many serious scientists have presented TOE, over the last century, that continue to be reworked as evidence and new discoveries alter their models. Yet they also are not discouraged of the scientific method, nor become unbelievers in it, because their own personal models and predictions proved false through their own experiments. They simply rework their theories and try harder to understand what the data is telling them. Don't they? Or at least shouldn't they?

 

[Lithopaedion]

"Its been shown that people actually have their faith sgrenthened by a false prediction... go figure."

Well, I did see a line about that in the newspaper this morning, but no statistics. There have been studies done, however, that show that if you come out publically and profess a belief, evidence which goes against that belief will actually reinforce the belief. It is the social dimension of knowledge. Publically professing a faith or an ideology immunizes us socially, psychologically against counter-evidence. That is probably why some religions require public affirmation. Going to church, taking part in group prayer, etc. - that is one way. But churches like the Mormon church which have "testimony" sessions where everyone stands up and asserts that "this is the one true church" or rituals like publically telling of your own, personal conversion experience or when you go up to the altar to come to Jesus - those are all things that take advantage of this mechanism. The same thing can be observed in politics.

So all the people who told all their friends, who held up posters, who paid for billboards or put signs on their lawns and cars - they are now psychologically committed to that. The glaring evidence that is was not true will get some of them to wake up. Some, however, will find a way to justify it to themselves and figure out a way to explain how it was not only correct, but in a way we just didn't comprehend before.

- Lith

 

[alwight]

Curious, considering what alcohol actually is and does in amounts sufficient to alter one's mood. But assuming your response is against the grain, it's interesting that you're in favor of deluding yourself knowingly for a debatable benefit, but eschew what you understand might well be real, sustainable and actually beneficial on the chance it might be other. lain:

I'm actually only against full time delusion, there's really nothing wrong with a bit of fantasy providing you can still come down to Earth for a grounding.

Which would be a great counter if it were actually in opposition to my point...but it isn't. You can keep assuming/asserting that your context/supposition is a thing you can't make it, but that's just goofy. What you can't assert, objectively, is its equality in value relative to living a happy and well adjusted life for the larger part of humanity. I'd go further and say it should be so for any reasonable, rational being.

Then I remain unclear as to whether you really do think your faith is happily true just because it really is, or that because to be happy is perhaps more the point then it has to be considered true anyway.:think:

OTOH I think that whatever is true is the more satisfying objective to have, while not knowing is its best alternative, long before supposition. But then again you have apparently been given a greater insight than me, which would be hard to challenge politely so I won't.

Of course. The argument is for faith being objectively superior as a context, not for a particular sort of it, though I do think Christendom has the better argument and can be argued successfully against all comers. But whatever the faith a man chooses, if it supplies certain essential and foundational supports, it will be of greater benefit to the adherent than the grim business inextricably bound at the heart of the atheist's model.

Again, my objective argument here concerns the distinction between theistic context and atheistic context and the demonstrable superiority of the one over the other. That there are variations within the particulars of faith is no more surprising than the fact there's a Catholic and Baptist church along the main drag of a given town.

Excellent. :thumb: And I count many a likable, interesting fellow among the heathen. :chuckle:

Surprisingly I have found very little to take issue with you on here TH despite what I might have thought at first, except for that which we can both agree to disagree on regarding lifestyles, I might have that G&T now.

 

[Lithopaedion]

Therefore one can either throw the Bible out because his model and theory were absolutely flawless, just disproving the Bible..............OR......................... one can return to the Bible and study it better to have a better understanding, and prophetic insights regarding what it "actually" says about the rapture and the endtimes.

Well, if people studied the Bible scientifically, what is here described - the study and testing of "prophetic insights" - would be a step that might come, very late in the process. The first steps would involve deciding whether a collection of letters and stories written by ancient desert peoples has any relevance today other than of historical or perhaps historical-ethical interest. It is clearly a huge leap of faith not justifiable by any scientific reasoning or evidence to think that this collection of texts can tell us anything about what will actually happen later in history. The whole exercize of divining the future based on it is completely pre-modern and has nothing to do with science in the modern (last 4-600 years) sense. It is an historical text that can and should be read with the same tools of respect, critique, contextualization, etc. that we bring to other ancient texts - no more and no less.

- Lith

 

[Lithopaedion]

I have noticed here and in other contexts that a lot of Christians are critical of Camping and his followers. I am wondering, however, if his views are really so strange in the wider context of Christianity. For one thing, these kinds of predictions have been common since biblical times. Camping stands in a long tradition. For another thing, he is only preaching one _more_ thing that is difficult to believe, over and above a whole range of very hard to believe things that are part and parcel of all Christian belief systems. He just made the mistake of going public with a testable belief. That is what makes him stand out.

Millions of mainstream Christians believe...

...in virgin birth
...in raising from the dead
...turning water into wine
...driving demons from men into swine
...killing fig trees by cursing them
...transsubstantiation
...the trinity (which results in believing that God sacrificed Himself to Himself to allow Himself to forgive us and that the sacrifice consisted of dying while knowing that He isn't really dying because He is still alive as the Father and would be revived in a few days anyway)
...the world was created in six days
...a supernatural being covered the entire earth in water
...God has a human interpreter with divine authority
...there is a place of never-ending torment
...some ancient people lived for hundreds of years
...God helps win football games
...God turns people into columns of salt

That is only a partial list, of course. There are lots of other things that are hard to believe. Not all Christians believe all these things, but none of the things on this list are from the "wacko" fringe. Now, Camping had the audacity to add to this list a testable claim. The test failed.

It seems to me that was his error, and if it has a negative effect on "Christ's cause" that was it: Wan't to help Christ? Don't make testable claims.

- Lith

 

[Dr.Watson]

Not possible, but actual. In the case of happiness, set out in a number of serious studies. On the whole, they're objectively supportable.

Of course this is absurdly untrue as there is no objective measurement of happiness. And therefore its not objectively supportable. For example, a woman who is abused less than average in a given week by her spouse could say that she is happier that week since she was only struck several times rather than several times a day. So as for the studies on happiness, I'd have to say: "so what!?"

There are also people who go traveling into 3rd world countries where it is not infrequent for locals to die of malnutrition or thirst and yet, the travelers opinions of the locals is that they seem "happy". However, it would be absurd to the highest order to use this as a reason to why we (western societies) would be better off starving ourselves.

Rather, with a more reasonable analysis of these studies, it would seem far more practical to conclude that atheists are usually more pragmatic with their feelings, emotions and outlook. Which might be why they might be reserved to say that they are very "happy" on average. For theists, on the other hand, it would seem more reasonable to conclude, that they are just better at BS'ing themselves for the sake of their own emotional well being.

 

[Town Heretic]

I have noticed here and in other contexts that a lot of Christians are critical of Camping and his followers. I am wondering, however, if his views are really so strange in the wider context of Christianity.

The attempt isn't one that is endorsed in scripture and is counter to scriptural teaching. So it isn't surprising that most of Protestant Christendom objects.

For one thing, these kinds of predictions have been common since biblical times.

Throw in millennial movements while you're at it.

Camping stands in a long tradition.

So did the guy who thought the world flat, once upon a time.

For another thing, he is only preaching one _more_ thing that is difficult to believe, over and above a whole range of very hard to believe things that are part and parcel of all Christian belief systems.

So we come to your actual point at last. I was hoping you'd have something original to proffer, but by all means, trot that rotting pony around the tent.

He just made the mistake of going public with a testable belief. That is what makes him stand out.

He made the mistake of attempting to accomplish a thing the Bible speaks of as beyond human ability. That's a vain and foolish practice and an errant one. So I can see its attraction for you.

Millions of mainstream Christians believe...

...in virgin birth
...in raising from the dead
...turning water into wine
...driving demons from men into swine
...killing fig trees by cursing them

Not exactly. Rather, we believe that these things were accomplished by God toward a purpose, and not in them as a general practice. That is, they are miraculous, contrary to the laws of nature and evidence of the authority of Christ.

...transsubstantiation

Depends. A little less universal among Christendom.

...the trinity (which results in believing that God sacrificed Himself to Himself to allow Himself to forgive us and that the sacrifice consisted of dying while knowing that He isn't really dying because He is still alive as the Father and would be revived in a few days anyway)

No. Theology isn't your wheelhouse either, I take it.

...the world was created in six days

Depends on how you mean it. Some camps are literal and others point to scripture that speaks to a day to God being something much more encompassing and less literal.

...a supernatural being covered the entire earth in water
...God has a human interpreter with divine authority
...there is a place of never-ending torment
...some ancient people lived for hundreds of years

True enough.

...God helps win football games

Sticking that in there is only really good for setting both the seriousness with which a Christian should address you and to set your underlying, presumptive condescension in clearer relief.

Thanks. :thumb: I wasn't really confused on that point, but some might have mistaken you.

That is only a partial list, of course. There are lots of other things that are hard to believe.

Rather, there are things impossible to accept absent the foundational belief in God and entirely and easily believable when that belief is present.

It seems to me that was his error,

Of course it does. That fits your bias and lets you assert it as something of greater weight than it actually possesses.

and if it has a negative effect on "Christ's cause" that was it: Wan't to help Christ? Don't make testable claims.

Rather, don't make claims set against the thing you mean to promote by them. There's only one testable claim that matters and every man can avail himself of it. Or you can keep on with your objectively inferior context with no more support than any other and delude yourself that the root of it is inescapably rational.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for May 21st, 2011 09:06 AM

toldailytopic: Do false predictions of end times affect the cause of Christ?

No. God's eternal redemptive plan for his chosen cannot be thwarted by his creatures. None of the elect of God are lost to him and all will come to faith at the exact moment God has so determined from eternity.

If anything this sort of misguided behavior simply reinforces the entrenchment of the reprobate. God is not sitting back and watching it happen or letting it happen. God has ordained all that comes to pass, contingently, necessarily, or freely, for his own wise and good purposes, such that his glory will be realized.

WCF
3:1 God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass (Romans 9:15,18; 11:33; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17): yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin (James 1:13,17; 1 John 1:5), nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (Proverbs 16:33; Matthew 17:12; John 19:11; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28).

AMR

 

[Squishes]

I was hoping you'd have something original to proffer, but by all means, trot that rotting pony around the tent.

I'm reminded of the criminal in court in saying "You would bring up the rape and murder, wouldn't you." You may smirk at familiar remarks illustrating major hangups with the implausibility of the Christian story, but sometimes things are familiar for a reason.

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm reminded of the criminal in court in saying "You would bring up the rape and murder, wouldn't you."

I'm reminded of the Muslim familiar, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

It never was the truth. And I answered on the assumptive foundation of his...criticisms. lain:

You may smirk at familiar remarks illustrating major hangups with the implausibility of the Christian story,

Rather, I disdain second tier rationalism applied to third tier theological exposition by way of echo. You're backing the wrong (and half dead) horse here.

but sometimes things are familiar for a reason.

Said everyone who refused to draft a black quarterback, nodding at the well worn understanding...

 

[Squishes]

I'm reminded of the Muslim familiar, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

It never was the truth. And I answered on the assumptive foundation of his...criticisms. lain:

The answer is that the fantastic events of the Bible are one-time miracles (with a direction of fit) rather than something else?

I don't see how this makes the stories less reasonable. Astrologists do the same kind of thing.

Rather, I disdain second tier rationalism applied to third tier theological exposition by way of echo. You're backing the wrong (and half dead) horse here.

Do angels exist?

 

[Town Heretic]

The answer is that the fantastic events of the Bible are one-time miracles (with a direction of fit) rather than something else?

Rather, the miraculous events noted in the New Testament (some events occurred on more than one occasion) were set out to establish authority in the time of Christ and his apostles. In the OT to distinguish among men between disparate claims and to fulfill prophesy toward that end.

I don't see how this makes the stories less reasonable.

That's because you have another context. Either God is or isn't. If He is then the miraculous is no more surprising than its absence.

Astrologists do the same kind of thing.

Well, no. A false prophesy or a generalized bit of nonsensical guesswork isn't remotely miraculous.

Do angels exist?

Yes, but why ask about the window treatments when the issue is the foundation?

:e4e:

 

[Lithopaedion]

My inclusion of the various examples in my list of Christian beliefs was well thought out. I never claimed that all Christians believe all those claims. Are there or are there not millions of Christians who believe in transsubstantiation? Are there or are there not many who believe that God intervenes in tornados, football games, sickness (although never healing amputees for some reason:chuckle, etc.? There are. Implying that some things in this list are silly and not worth discussing simply confirms my point. Most believers are not lulled by moutains of theological concepts which gloss over the rough edges. Any list of common Christian beliefs should include both the "major" stuff at the core of the theology and the mundane beliefs. I didn't over do it. I did not include weeping statues or wonderous icons or papal toast.

Perhaps you could explain how the crucifixion and resurrection are not God sacrificing Himself to Himself so as to forgive us to Himself. Please do so in a way that someone who has not been lulled by endless reading in theological abstractions can follow. After all, in the Protestant tradition we're all supposed to be able to figure this out, right? It can't just be something entirely abstract.

The attempt isn't one that is endorsed in scripture and is counter to scriptural teaching. So it isn't surprising that most of Protestant Christendom objects.

How do you know this?

A major difference in how Christians think of the Bible and how others do is the assumption that behind it all there is a unified, true interpretation. The confidence with which some people purport to know this one true interpretation is astounding. Who says what is or isn't "endorsed" by scripture? These forums and the historical record are full of disagreements that cannot be resolved. Indeed, the major divisions in Christianity aren't even in agreement on what constitutes scripture, much less what it "endorses."

This is a bit like when someone claims, "Science says that..." when they should say, "Scientists have done tests that appear to show that...."

So your reading of this 4th-century collection of stories written in the preceeding centuries differs from Campings. Okay.

Rather, the miraculous events noted in the New Testament (some events occurred on more than one occasion) were set out to establish authority in the time of Christ and his apostles. In the OT to distinguish among men between disparate claims and to fulfill prophesy toward that end.

That is your interpretation. Mine is that they are exaggerations, made-up stories, or allegories.

My interpretation fits in with the observable universe without making any additional assumptions. You have to add an infinitely complicated being, reject all the alternative versions of that being, and probably - I'm guessing here - accept a particular strain of theological argument from a particular Protestant tradition.

Well, no. A false prophesy or a generalized bit of nonsensical guesswork isn't remotely miraculous.

...but the account of a story written with the prophecy of the event it recounts in mind is evidence of a miraculous prophecy? The accounts of magic tricks written decades after they occured by iron age desert peoples are evidence of the miraculous?

That's because you have another context. Either God is or isn't. If He is then the miraculous is no more surprising than its absence. (...) Yes, but why ask about the window treatments when the issue is the foundation?

The "window treatments" are the way in. As a reasonable person, I don't make an astounding leap and make a "foundational" decision in how I pereive the universe and then interpret the evidence based on that. I don't just decide at random which foundation I believe in. "Hmm, there's a God" or "Hmm, there isn't" and then go from there. It works the other way around. I look at the evidence in order to determine whether or not there is a God. Manifestations like angels, the veracity of magic stories told in an ancient book, the claims of prominent followers of a belief system tested against the observable world, etc. - that is the stuff I look at first. If it pans out, then there might be a God. If it doesn't, I determine that the proposed foundation based on a magic being is probably false.

I see the Camping predictions in that context. I accept that most (indeed almost all) Christians rejected his predictions from the beginning, so this particular incident didn't do much to change my view of Christians. But I maintain that Camping's prophecy or calculation or whatever we want to call it wasn't a whole lot stranger than lots of other stuff that millions do believe. Which is weirder - (1) believing that an iron age carpenter could transform water into wine based on a story written 2000 years ago and decades after the purported event - or (2) what Camping claimed? I think what Camping claimed is slightly less plausible. But the difference is not as dramatic as many would like to think.

- Lith

 

[Frank Ernest]

Do false predictions of end times affect the cause of Christ?

Concentrate and ask again.

Fringe - Season 3, Episode 12. Didn't know you were a fan.

 

[chrysostom]

affect the cause of Christ?

I don't think so
but
it does seem to affect the questions that we ask

 

[Frank Ernest]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for May 21st, 2011 09:06 AM

toldailytopic: Do false predictions of end times affect the cause of Christ?

Judging by the comments I've seen on this, other threads, other places even, no. The cause of Christ remains as it has for the last two millennia.

 

[Sealeaf]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for May 21st, 2011 09:06 AM

toldailytopic: Do false predictions of end times affect the cause of Christ?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

Well, it clearly demonstrates that some, who claim to be christians, are noisy fools and that many others who claim to be christians are foolish enough to believe them. But when was that news?
It certainly embrasses me to be grouped with these people because I also claim to be Christian. But humility is good for the soul, and pride is a sin, so my discomfort counts for nothing.

 

[graceandpeace]

I think yes and no [well I am English ]

Jesus gave many warnings of false prophets and I do believe the pre trib doctrine is awful esp the left behind scam [making billions of dollars]

The greatest danger is tht it has a peculiarly hardening affect and so people forget the dire warnings o watch and pray and be prepared....how many people right now are prepared for an end time struggle?

HOPEFULLY...it will make people get their bibles out and study....that woul be good, but alas they happier if Chuck Missler or Hal Lindsay tell them

YEP....