Left Behind - River of Blood

bmillsap · 14th September 2006, 08:21 AM

Does Randi's choice of the first thing to criticize about the Left Behind book bother anyone else? It strikes me as bad strategy to make, as your first point, a relatively picky issue regarding the feasbility of a river of blood of certain dimensions when the WHOLE THING IS RIDICULOUS. It's like writing a critical review of the Titanic's voyage and saying that the lunch served on the second day wasn't quite hot enough.

I just worry that taking this kind of approach gives believers (and fence sitters, more importantly) something to walk away with and say "Hmmm, if that's an example of a key criticism, maybe there's something to this thing after all." This kind of picky "the-science-wasn't-quite-right" point probably isn't going to hit home with your average person as a reason to think the whole thing is silly, and in fact may have the opposite effect in a case like this.

bjb · 14th September 2006, 09:48 AM

I think Randi chose the river of blood because the authors took it straight from Revelation 14:20:

blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses' bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia

(1600 stadia is equivalent to about 180 miles)

The authors are using the book of Revelations as the basis for their 'fiction', including their ideas about a rapture. Randi is showing mathematically how silly the idea is, and by extension, he is showing that people who believe in a literal interpretation of the book of Revelations are silly.

JamesDillon · 14th September 2006, 10:30 AM

I think the illutration was well-chosen. Randi could have written a general criticism along the lines of "the whole thing is ridiculous," which of course it is, but what resonance would that have had with the people who actually believe in this sort of thing, or more importantly, reasonable people who are sitting on the fence about it? I think that Randi's point of criticism was a useful one, showing a single, specific claim made in the books (and the Bible) to be patently absurd, and moreover highlighting the violent fantasies that underlie Christian apocalyptic imagery.

I'll_buy_that · 18th September 2006, 11:41 AM

my first reaction was to think how nitpickey it was, but after thinking about it for a few seconds, i changed my mind. The reason is that it was they who gave such specific details about the river of blood. Had they said "there was a river of blood" one could just dismiss it as taking poetic license, but the fact that they detailed dimensions of the river with specifics, pointing out the rediculousness of the statement was appropriate. Most, if not all of the choir, would gloss over such a claim and not examine it.

Randi's choice to examine it, just opens up one specific hole in the claims which were made by the believers, not the doubters.

Kopji · 18th September 2006, 12:12 PM

Literalists can have a lot of creative ideas around these topics though. Water turning to blood during the plagues of Egypt has been explained by Fundyvision as volcanic activity. A river looking like blood to the person having the vision, but actually being bacterial or chemical activity is within the scope of how they see things.

JamesDillon · 18th September 2006, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by Kopji

Literalists can have a lot of creative ideas around these topics though. Water turning to blood during the plagues of Egypt has been explained by Fundyvision as volcanic activity. A river looking like blood to the person having the vision, but actually being bacterial or chemical activity is within the scope of how they see things.

You're giving the fundies too much credit-- those are the more liberal literalist apologists you're talking about. The true fundies would say that water damn well did turn into blood in Egypt, because the Bible says so, and anyone who doesn't believe it can (and will) go straight to hell. The truest of the true believers object to efforts to offer plausible explanations for biblical "miracles."

Kopji · 18th September 2006, 06:21 PM

You're giving the fundies too much credit

Well I don't get accused of that very often.

Kopji · 18th September 2006, 09:53 PM

"with God all things are possible" - Matt 19:26

It does seem somewhat futile to argue that a miracle cannot occur because people can't walk on water or raise the dead. Doing the impossible after all, is the essence of the miracle.

Arguing about the limitations of a river of blood seems similar.

valis · 19th September 2006, 01:54 AM

The whole subject seems like a poor choice for the newsletter of an educational foundation. I don't know anyone who reads these books but perhaps they are just escapist reading for christians? For that matter I was entertained by the Omen series I guess we can do an article poking fun at me next week.

I know people that read all sort of nonsense for entertainment. I am sure most readers of romance novels don't take them at face value. And what about people that find some deep meaning in Star Trek? It is okay to watch or read crap for entertainment value.

Unless of course the goal is to laugh at and feel superior to those people, in which case, well done!

Marc L · 19th September 2006, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by valis

The whole subject seems like a poor choice for the newsletter of an educational foundation. I don't know anyone who reads these books but perhaps they are just escapist reading for christians?

Given the level of seriousness LaHaye and Jenkins(?) treat the matter (including a Left Behind video like the one mentioned in the book), I'd say it's more than just escapist reading. While the characters are obviously fictional, the authors certainly believe that the events will happen, even if not exactly as described.

I read some of the series back when I was a fundamentalist, and, based on discussions with other fundies at the time, I don't think it was treated as escapist. It wasn't treated as non-fiction, but the concepts were taken as serious.

Marc

bmillsap · 19th September 2006, 05:37 AM

Originally Posted by Marc L

Given the level of seriousness LaHaye and Jenkins(?) treat the matter (including a Left Behind video like the one mentioned in the book), I'd say it's more than just escapist reading. While the characters are obviously fictional, the authors certainly believe that the events will happen, even if not exactly as described.

I read some of the series back when I was a fundamentalist, and, based on discussions with other fundies at the time, I don't think it was treated as escapist. It wasn't treated as non-fiction, but the concepts were taken as serious.

Marc

I agree, the fact that there is a significant and relatively powerful minority of people that actually believe events the same as or similiar to these will happen makes it a fair topic. I still think, though, that for an audience that's not already the "choir", so to speak, a different approach than focusing what's more or less a technical criticism compared to everything else would have been better.

Meri · 21st September 2006, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Kopji

Literalists can have a lot of creative ideas around these topics though. Water turning to blood during the plagues of Egypt has been explained by Fundyvision as volcanic activity. A river looking like blood to the person having the vision, but actually being bacterial or chemical activity is within the scope of how they see things.

I really never saw the point of this kind of thing. If the "miracle" didn't break any rules of nature, why bother calling it a miracle, and invoking god at all?

Originally Posted by valis

The whole subject seems like a poor choice for the newsletter of an educational foundation. I don't know anyone who reads these books but perhaps they are just escapist reading for christians?

I think it's a bit more than that for a lot of them. Remember, the people reading these books generally believe two things: 1. The events in the books will happen and 2. These events will not happen to the readers, who are generally fundies who believe they will be raptured. For a lot more on the Left Behind books, I'd suggest the blog slacktivist, and especially the Left Behind Archives (start at the bottom of the page). The blog is written by a liberal christian who disagrees with the theology of the books, and I find it really interesting.

14th September 2006, 08:21 AM	#1
bmillsap Scholar Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 79	Left Behind - River of Blood Does Randi's choice of the first thing to criticize about the Left Behind book bother anyone else? It strikes me as bad strategy to make, as your first point, a relatively picky issue regarding the feasbility of a river of blood of certain dimensions when the WHOLE THING IS RIDICULOUS. It's like writing a critical review of the Titanic's voyage and saying that the lunch served on the second day wasn't quite hot enough. I just worry that taking this kind of approach gives believers (and fence sitters, more importantly) something to walk away with and say "Hmmm, if that's an example of a key criticism, maybe there's something to this thing after all." This kind of picky "the-science-wasn't-quite-right" point probably isn't going to hit home with your average person as a reason to think the whole thing is silly, and in fact may have the opposite effect in a case like this.
bmillsap Scholar Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 79

14th September 2006, 09:48 AM	#2
bjb Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,079	I think Randi chose the river of blood because the authors took it straight from Revelation 14:20: blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses' bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia (1600 stadia is equivalent to about 180 miles) The authors are using the book of Revelations as the basis for their 'fiction', including their ideas about a rapture. Randi is showing mathematically how silly the idea is, and by extension, he is showing that people who believe in a literal interpretation of the book of Revelations are silly.
bjb Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,079

14th September 2006, 10:30 AM	#3
JamesDillon Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Berkeley, CA Posts: 2,631	I think the illutration was well-chosen. Randi could have written a general criticism along the lines of "the whole thing is ridiculous," which of course it is, but what resonance would that have had with the people who actually believe in this sort of thing, or more importantly, reasonable people who are sitting on the fence about it? I think that Randi's point of criticism was a useful one, showing a single, specific claim made in the books (and the Bible) to be patently absurd, and moreover highlighting the violent fantasies that underlie Christian apocalyptic imagery.
	__________________ "To read the bible without horror, we must undo every thing that is tender, sympathising, and benevolent in the heart of man." --Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

18th September 2006, 11:41 AM	#4
I'll_buy_that Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 384	my first reaction was to think how nitpickey it was, but after thinking about it for a few seconds, i changed my mind. The reason is that it was they who gave such specific details about the river of blood. Had they said "there was a river of blood" one could just dismiss it as taking poetic license, but the fact that they detailed dimensions of the river with specifics, pointing out the rediculousness of the statement was appropriate. Most, if not all of the choir, would gloss over such a claim and not examine it. Randi's choice to examine it, just opens up one specific hole in the claims which were made by the believers, not the doubters.
	__________________ "Religion has convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll to to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you! ...he loves you and he needs money! He's all powerful, all knowing, and all capable but he just can't handle money!" -George Carlin

18th September 2006, 02:06 PM	#6
JamesDillon Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Berkeley, CA Posts: 2,631	Originally Posted by Kopji Literalists can have a lot of creative ideas around these topics though. Water turning to blood during the plagues of Egypt has been explained by Fundyvision as volcanic activity. A river looking like blood to the person having the vision, but actually being bacterial or chemical activity is within the scope of how they see things. You're giving the fundies too much credit-- those are the more liberal literalist apologists you're talking about. The true fundies would say that water damn well did turn into blood in Egypt, because the Bible says so, and anyone who doesn't believe it can (and will) go straight to hell. The truest of the true believers object to efforts to offer plausible explanations for biblical "miracles."
	__________________ "To read the bible without horror, we must undo every thing that is tender, sympathising, and benevolent in the heart of man." --Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

18th September 2006, 12:12 PM	#5
Kopji Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Mogollon Rim Posts: 7,697	Literalists can have a lot of creative ideas around these topics though. Water turning to blood during the plagues of Egypt has been explained by Fundyvision as volcanic activity. A river looking like blood to the person having the vision, but actually being bacterial or chemical activity is within the scope of how they see things.

18th September 2006, 06:21 PM	#7
Kopji Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Mogollon Rim Posts: 7,697	You're giving the fundies too much credit Well I don't get accused of that very often.

18th September 2006, 09:53 PM	#8
Kopji Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Mogollon Rim Posts: 7,697	"with God all things are possible" - Matt 19:26 It does seem somewhat futile to argue that a miracle cannot occur because people can't walk on water or raise the dead. Doing the impossible after all, is the essence of the miracle. Arguing about the limitations of a river of blood seems similar.

19th September 2006, 01:54 AM	#9
valis Muse Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: sebastian. fl Posts: 649	The whole subject seems like a poor choice for the newsletter of an educational foundation. I don't know anyone who reads these books but perhaps they are just escapist reading for christians? For that matter I was entertained by the Omen series I guess we can do an article poking fun at me next week. I know people that read all sort of nonsense for entertainment. I am sure most readers of romance novels don't take them at face value. And what about people that find some deep meaning in Star Trek? It is okay to watch or read crap for entertainment value. Unless of course the goal is to laugh at and feel superior to those people, in which case, well done!
	__________________ Everybody knows freedom, it's living inside your head. Everybody knows Jesus, you'll meet him when you are dead. A song, by those guys...

19th September 2006, 04:07 AM	#10
Marc L Thread Killer Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,743	Originally Posted by valis The whole subject seems like a poor choice for the newsletter of an educational foundation. I don't know anyone who reads these books but perhaps they are just escapist reading for christians? Given the level of seriousness LaHaye and Jenkins(?) treat the matter (including a Left Behind video like the one mentioned in the book), I'd say it's more than just escapist reading. While the characters are obviously fictional, the authors certainly believe that the events will happen, even if not exactly as described. I read some of the series back when I was a fundamentalist, and, based on discussions with other fundies at the time, I don't think it was treated as escapist. It wasn't treated as non-fiction, but the concepts were taken as serious. Marc
Marc L Thread Killer Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,743	__________________ Yes I am out of my mind, and it'll be so much more fun once you join me---Mrs. L

19th September 2006, 05:37 AM	#11
bmillsap Scholar Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 79	Originally Posted by Marc L Given the level of seriousness LaHaye and Jenkins(?) treat the matter (including a Left Behind video like the one mentioned in the book), I'd say it's more than just escapist reading. While the characters are obviously fictional, the authors certainly believe that the events will happen, even if not exactly as described. I read some of the series back when I was a fundamentalist, and, based on discussions with other fundies at the time, I don't think it was treated as escapist. It wasn't treated as non-fiction, but the concepts were taken as serious. Marc I agree, the fact that there is a significant and relatively powerful minority of people that actually believe events the same as or similiar to these will happen makes it a fair topic. I still think, though, that for an audience that's not already the "choir", so to speak, a different approach than focusing what's more or less a technical criticism compared to everything else would have been better.
bmillsap Scholar Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 79

21st September 2006, 02:34 PM	#12
Meri Muse Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Boston Posts: 692	Originally Posted by Kopji Literalists can have a lot of creative ideas around these topics though. Water turning to blood during the plagues of Egypt has been explained by Fundyvision as volcanic activity. A river looking like blood to the person having the vision, but actually being bacterial or chemical activity is within the scope of how they see things. I really never saw the point of this kind of thing. If the "miracle" didn't break any rules of nature, why bother calling it a miracle, and invoking god at all? Originally Posted by valis The whole subject seems like a poor choice for the newsletter of an educational foundation. I don't know anyone who reads these books but perhaps they are just escapist reading for christians? I think it's a bit more than that for a lot of them. Remember, the people reading these books generally believe two things: 1. The events in the books will happen and 2. These events will not happen to the readers, who are generally fundies who believe they will be raptured. For a lot more on the Left Behind books, I'd suggest the blog slacktivist, and especially the Left Behind Archives (start at the bottom of the page). The blog is written by a liberal christian who disagrees with the theology of the books, and I find it really interesting.
	__________________ It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people. --Good Omens