Right Wing Fundamentalist Christian Apocalypse - The Game

Thane, I thank you for such a even handed reply, unlike this article. I am still waiting for confirmation about where it says these things from the writer. Yes it is interesting they have apparently sold around 63 million of these books, which I think definitely classifies it as an best seller (I think a million for a single book makes something a best seller, but am uncertain). I have not read the book myself, so I have to question things to find out.

Another interesting thing is that the thing the writer accuses the book of doing is exactly what their religious text described as being done to those left behind that become believers. The form of persecution is Islamic in origins (and a number of other religions have done at various times).

However, there are a few things in reply to your reply that I can point out (having studied Islam too and what you are told is Islam is not necessarily Islam, why do you think there is disagreement). There are also a few interesting twists in history that better explain the situation.



Curious. The interpretation about who goes, or not, is upto debate. A reading reveals that people that refuse to accept are not, those that don't know it depends on their faith in God depending on what they do know (faith being the basis of Christianity) but the world is full of corruption so most people are down the wrong track. Now, this means little children do go to heaven because they know no better. The readings on this are somewhat disjointed, but when put together that is the context. So this interpretation, that you have quoted, is somewhat controversially, so is mine, but particularly for some fundamentalists.

Now the people left behind also have the chance to profess faith. But strictly speaking, everybody starts going to war, there is not real mention of Christians forming war factions or such, it is only in the end with the return of the Saviour war is engaged, fairly quickly and complete. The time of the thousand year is peace, until the Devil is released to test mean and many crazily decide to follow the Devil and attack God's camp of returned believers.



Yes, War is normally, by a strict reading, regarded as a matter of divine intervention, with it being the States responsibility in the meantime. So this is curious.



I did, eloquently, but that is why people get me to tune their VCRs all the time, they are unable to read even simple instructions :( . It is just a problem describing new intricate concepts to people that are unfamiliar with it. A careful (slow) reading gives it. Being tactful, it also makes it hard to describe the in and outs of what is going on. Being blunt and crass, like some aspects I was answering, is not hard unfortunately. Like knocking out a foundation of a building, easy to do, but repairing it is quiet hard. Unfortunately some people think doing this proves that a building never was fully built in the first place :( when it is just them going crazy man with a sledge hammer. It is just a matter of purposely reading it to Understand.




The term Infidel, is a Muslim thing, it is a term used in the Koran, and that is it's root of interpretation to the rest of the world, where it came before that, I don't know, but that is the use.

The persecution described is the sort of persecution suffered by Christians from the very beginning, with the latest such persecutions happening in a part of Asia, Africa, Middle east, and South America (with the biggest large death tolls in Africa and South America). In a number of hard line Muslim countries, becoming a Christian, when you were previously a Muslim, means an auto death sentence, you either get it quickly of wait for it. A lot of this stuff, does get filtered out of the official line on these things reported in the news. For foreign Christians though, and for Christian communities, largely they are tolerated, which is pretty much similar to what the Quaran says to do with local Christians that they are not at war with (the position actually changed as the Quaran was written, it looks very disjointed because the sub books/chapters of the Quaran are not in historical order. The position may completely swap around, I don't remember, definitely for Jewish people, where they are friends to be treated nicely but latter to be killed. I don't remember you gets the worst wrap, where ever it was Jewish people or idolaters. This is the broadest mind, because it is the truth of the matter.

I agree with you on the bit about certain people in different groups doing these things. I you read my explanation it explains it. The action you describe is actual a variation, yes an "Anti" such things are State responsibility, with people misusing religion as an excuse to get their way/power base, in the past. States have the responsibility of doing the right thing, what ever the religion of it's leaders. So while a Christian might have certain responsibilities as a Christian, as a leader he has different responsibilities. If you look at said religious leader's reply when asked by (Roman, I think) soldiers what they should do, he basically told them don't be corrupt and do your duty as soldiers. This varies completely from free love explanations that you shouldn't use violence and have peace, and let everything go to ...

A major issue here is that under a strict reading, a Christian is one that believes into salvation (the ancient word for "Believe in" is fundamentally different in intent then the word used for believing about something, it means, basically, "to trust in, cling to, and rely on" which is very much a relationship thing, you can believe that about anything, doesn't mean that you believe to follow, it is merely mental ascent about a fact not a "belief in" it as described. So a lot of people that may believe they are Christian, or were born Christian, are not. It also means that you can believe something and follow, but not believe in it, and even further still, going on the "anti" variances, you can believe in something that is wrong. So, it means that a lot of people out there causing the persecution behaviour you mentioned may not even be Christian, or the people whipping it up, or the leaders, or of most of the groups. Actually, a reading of the text reveals that there is supposed to be a lot of fakes and "wolves" infiltrating Christianity, presumably to cause trouble. So, just because a person professes to be Christian, doesn't mean he, or his actions, are what ever a person professes to be, doesn't mean he is, or that it is, Christian. Actually, in some of Christianity there is a thing about separating the two out, so one is described as a religion "Christianity" or "Christendom", and the other is described as a "Living faith" etc, or a "Christian" or a "follower of Christ", is another way it is described. So not everything is as it seems.


Now, in the Quaran, or was it one of the scholars, hard to remember which the one I studied from had footnotes on the major scholarly interpretations of it (which are said to be regard as valid, or more, then the actual Quaran itself, which explains some of the problems and variance positions to it), it says, basically, that by the end times, just as in Christianity there is seventy versions of it and only one is pure, that Islam will be split into seventy different forms and only one would be true, and I think it might also equates this to only that form you can be saved by). This explains why they disagree with each other and kill each other at times, each believing they are the only pure ones. The problem of variances in Islam, comes from a few sources, but the scholars, religious teachers, are one. You might say your Muslim friends don't believe in the sort of violence of 9/11. You are right, under a strict reading this sort of violence is probably not covered. But, your Muslim friends can also believe in non violence because a religious leader/teacher has reinterpreted things in that way, at the same time another has re-interpreted it to include more violence then in the Quaran. In matter of fact most of Islam is apparently books such as this on the Islamic law, but the Quaran clearly is stated as sent down pre-prepared from Heaven, the complete finale work of divine revelation before the end time, with no more prophets or miracles etc until then, so this overriding of the Quaran through the teachers Islamic law is just unreal, and maybe very alike to what happened in various parts of Christianity, including those in the crusades. But as I said last time, their are two options that leaves people in a religion with, and one is reverting back to a more basic form, which means the Quaran, or in Christianity, the New Testament (the Old testament is written for an institutionalised, run by God, country/people with set geographic boundaries called Israel, and a bit of pre history to that country, while the new testament is written for a new stateless people, that exist on the Earth among countries but are not granted a country, so to speak, who also use the old testament as prehistory and for learning/lessons). And the basic Quaran changes it's position on persecution of non Muslims a few times. During such times there where alliances formed and broken, and people killed off. After the death of it's leader, there were many more mass convert or die policies, by the time of the crusades things had started to settle down, reinterpretations had come in, and, apparently, a more cozy co-existence. See, certain things are convenient, or inconvenient, and people have a tendency to reinterpret things, so Islam has fractured and splintered many times. You notice that versions of things suit certain people in power, and the interpretations and prophecy, that a certain ex-leader of a country, and the other guy, was upto, was quiet worrying. So this would be quiet different from the version of Islam your friends would know, in matter of fact most Muslims are probably unaware/kept in the dark about it (even a good portions of Christians are probably largely unaware of the intricacies I explained about Christianity before, to that depth). It is also why you should not trust what they tell you on TV, some research is better. Also remember, in Christianity a person can be forgiven for lying, but it is still wrong. In Islam, salvation is based on works, so a convenient lie can be compensated for by what you did in the past. Controversially, the Quaran might say one thing on one page, and another on the next. So, I don't think lying leaders are frowned down upon as much as it is in strict Christianity (remembering that most people are not strict Christians). So, there is a lot of lying going on in Muslim and non Muslim sides, and a good portion of it, ironically, are people that are talking of maintaining, or having, peace. It is going to end badly..

Back to variations in Islam, above, and please remember, these are all very very touchy subjects that it is best not to bring up with people, especially not tactfully with the best of people, as they can produce major hassles for yourself. This brings us back to the problem, what happens when a knowledgeable Muslim gets disgruntled and looks around and perceives it is not right, or not working, and somebody presents to him a interpretation of a more basic form of his religion, that he is told is more "correct"? That is why it is important to look at the basic core forms of religions, it is the fall back position people can revert to for easier answers in times of trouble, or once everything settles down (probably depending on which way your religion swings on violence). It is it is also the absolute answers, the fundamentals, that can't be argued away, unless you completely throw the religion out, unlike the reinterpretations that can be argued away by it. So arguing against those fundamentals produces an even greater source of friction. You can say somebody doesn't dress well but is alright, but if you say they look ugly because there mother is ugly, you might be in for a fight.



You're got to understand, there are two different groups being addressed by the different parts of the Bible, one Jewish, who are told in the old testament how to behave as a religion and as a state, and Christians who are told how to behave as a religion. While the Old testament was written to a people and about a people, to establish and maintain a state, the new testament has a different purpose, how to establish a state in the heavens (this is not just the general concept of heaven, but of heaven within, as an foreign ambassador to Earth, and heavens without) not on Earth, which is left upto God's personal intervention to establish here. the interesting things is that new testament purpose is a continuation of the old, and the old a pre basis for the new, but in the need the old and new are established. Meaning, that the old established the conditions that the new arose from, but in the need God comes back and establishes Israel and his reign) through the new religion. There is a lot of historical variance here historically, with some people wishing to establish a new Earthly kingdom, or states, themselves, and to abolish the old Earthly state (Israel) as a rival. Even in Islam, this is why there is not peace, there is stuff written about wiping them off the face of the Earth. For example, even though most of either, the artificial Roman Governet of Palestine, or it's mixture of people, lay in Jordan, the convenient focus point for a state of Palestine is on Israel and it's abolition. With such a nasty situation (and I got to admit, that these areas were won in a war started for the purpose of wiping out Israel, after the inhabitants unprovoked decided to join in the fray) this makes peace there almost impossible, somebody can always stand up and say, look here, what we should do. Something interesting I read, and it is unconfirmed, and I got to admit, some of what I have said in relation to Islam I am not confirmed on, though I have studied it, that there is virtually no incident of a word meaning peace in the Quaran, except for a word they used in the original accords as a focal point for reaching peace, that actually means "Subservience". This means the peace that we can have is to subservient to it, which does in the end mean Islamic state control. The reinterpretation of the word Ji-had, to mean struggle, is probably convenient, though it might be true (I am not certain) but I think it still means war as well. It is also the stated aim to take over the entire world. So this could be interpreted (not reinterpreted) to at least gain dominance through acquisition of state control, or war, progressively over the entire world, this is exactly what has been happening, though now it is more to do with state control. The struggle for state control is the present worry point, but otherwise, I imagine your Muslim friends in the west, probably personally prefer things as they are. If people went to these places, they would probably be shocked at both the sheer humanness (in a good way) of these people, and what they actually believed, compared to what the media portray. With emotional people, they might got off at times, but they can be very kind, nice and sincere otherwise.

Now, the core I have explained, the problem is that those small groups you described are an attempt to revert to an abstraction, or pretty close in some respects, to core values of original Islam. The problem is that this is the fall back basis, as I described. With Opus Dei, and I am not sure what they believe in, so take it with a pinch of slat, they appear to be an abstraction away from Christianity, they might even be trying to revert to some alternative, I don't know. Now, when somebody is getting off point you can argue with them to get them back on point, as with variances, you can argue that which is more original to either change their minds or make people aware that what they are saying is not right, so they decide not to join this si what these small Islamic splinter groups (well the one I know of) do to recruit to their splinter, because it is closer to the regional, they argue that it is more authentic. With Opus Dei, I don't know where they see their basis, so the rest of this is just speculation as to what might (or might not) be the case, in fairness to them. It might be an alternative variation, but they appear to hold their belief tightly, so such arguments even though they are a variation away, might be difficult, they could even be an variation to an ideal they think is more right, but might even be completely off track (meaning that they don't see their basis as original Christianity as written in the Bible, but something else). I don't know. Now, fundamentalists, are the ones, allegedly, trying to revert back to original form of there religion, and probably a better example. Christian fundamentalists are probably the fastest growing religious group in the world, often getting the worse media hype criticism and misunderstanding I have seen in previous years. Also some, apparently, fundamentalists groups miss the mark, or are not Christian, and have alternative interpretations, especially those racist groups that want to masquerade as fundamentalists. Some, in private (even once you get through so many secret levels) or some more openly rejecting the core of Christianity as a basis and putting an alternative in. There are some that come from a completely different basis, and actually these are "heresies" identified in the basic scriptures of Christianity. One such basis was a bunch that believed in secret knowledge, so basically, you could not believe what you read, so they could reinterpret everything to mean what they wanted you to believe. So the basis shared with these people is very very small, even to the point, that the religious centre, the Christ, could theoretically be reinterpreted to be somebody else then described (which is usually what cults do). When ever you hear people like this you got to be careful, but the question comes down to, are they right or not.

Something that helps clears things up, is looking at the opposing religious groups to the Christ of the New Testament, on one hand we have the hardliners, fundamentalist Jews, collecting over strict laws beyond what their Old Testament requires, that came from the basis of making it so difficult, as to be impossible for people to sin but burdening people. On the other hand were the scribes allied to the priest hood and the Royalty, who, apparently, favoured a more loose, lenient, re-interpretation on the other hand, whom the rich and powerful liked. So one was conservative and the other liberal, the truth being relationship instead. Then you had the people in power, and the idolatrous Romans, and these are the alternatives you see.

So, yes I agree, things are very confusing at times.




I'm also not sure what this paragraph means. Could you further explain it please.