End Times: Prophecies, Hallucinations, or History?

(This article is adapted from an interview conducted by Valerie Tarico on Moral Politics Television, Seattle, June 12, 2009. Guest Reverend Rich Lang has been preaching his way through the book of Revelation this summer. Sermons on Chapters 1-12 can be found here. Special thanks to Producer Bill Alford.)

Real Christians are going to disappear abruptly someday soon. The world is going to descend into a bloodbath while someone known as the antichrist attempts to seize control of the planet. That is what some of your neighbors think--and some of your politicians. Many of them even relish the thought. Is Revelation, the last book in the Bible, a set of prophecies or a set of hallucinations? Neither, says Rich Lang of Trinity United Methodist in Ballard, Washington.

If the Book of Revelation isn't a blueprint that tells us what is coming in the End Times, what the heck is it?
Like any book in the Bible, Revelation was written from the perspective of faith for the purpose of giving faith. It was written in the early days of the Jesus movement to a persecuted minority that was fearing worse persecution.

As the Jesus movement started in Jerusalem and Jesus was crucified, and there was this experience of resurrection, at the same time, there was a simultaneous political movement within Judaism of rebellion against the Roman Empire. It peaked in the 60's and 70's. It culminated finally --horrifically-- in the Roman legions marching into the country, destroying Jerusalem and burning down the temple. These two factors -- the young Jesus movement and the brutally crushed rebellion -- intersect in the writings we now call Revelation

But Revelation doesn't talk about Jerusalem being destroyed. It talks about a beast with many heads and a dragon and the four horsemen. . .
That poetic language which sounds so strange to us was actually familiar to ancient readers. The author was writing a dramatic script in a form of popular media. Today we all recognize different modes or "genres" of writing -- the detective novel, the love sonnet, manga. Each has its own familiar structure and images. The same was true in the past.

The book of Revelation belongs to a then popular genre of literature called apocalyptic. The term apocalypse means "unveiling." There were lots of apocalypses, each a graphic poetic vision of some radically transformed future in which the good guys win. This genre began around 200 BC and went out of style around 150 AD. The book of Revelation is also called the Apocalypse of John, and it is one of several explicitly Christian apocalypses that still exist today. In each, metaphoric language was used to communicate something that, experientially, felt too big for words. It was a way of trying to speak the unspeakable--and to inspire endurance and hope.

So what was the author of Revelation unveiling?
Revelation was written about twenty years after the fall of Jerusalem. The author, who we know only as John, had lived during the horrors that accompanied fall of the city. Imagine: the Roman Empire is surrounding Jerusalem. At the same time, civil war is raging within the walls. People are literally starving to death. As the siege continues, the Romans capture 20,000 Jews and crucify them on the walls of the city--while the city still is under siege.

20,000! We think of the crucifixion being unique.
No. Crucifixions happened all the time. There were thousands and thousands of crucifixions. The Jews wanted freedom. To them it was a blasphemy to have the Romans in their land. Many of them rebelled, and they lost. Eventually, the city fell, and the people were slaughtered. Many remaining were expelled from the land. This is part of the Diaspora--the scattering of the Jews, who became dispersed around the Mediterranean--Asia Minor, Greece, Northern Africa and Europe.

But the author, John, is a Christian.
Remember, the earliest members of the Jesus movement were Jews, and so early Christians scattered with the rest of the Jewish people. Over time, thanks to this scattering and missionary activity, Christianity began to be adopted more widely by gentiles and at that point it began to grow rapidly throughout the Mediterranean. John is writing to Pauline (gentile) churches, but they are very rooted in Judaism and the Hebrew scriptures.

At the time Revelation is written, about twenty years after the devastating events of The Great Revolt, the young scattered Christian movement is being persecuted. They are treated like Blacks in the South during the '30s and '40s. A Christian carpenter might not be able to get work. Some are lynched. John, himself, is writing from exile, so whatever he was preaching was viewed by the Roman Empire as a threat to law and order.

Why was the message so threatening?
Clearly, part of his message was "Stop participating in the imperial cult. Stop participating in the patriotic way of life of the Roman Empire which requires paying homage to the gods of the Empire and in particular the emperor as an incarnation of God." The Early Christian movement was an alternative to the way of empire. You know, Jesus is called "Lord and Savior". If you ask where did that language came from, that language came from Caesar. Caesar was "Lord and Savior." Christians celebrate the birthday of Jesus on December 25, which was when Roman celebrated the birthday of the Unconquered Sun. The pagans believed that if they didn't take care of the gods, the gods wouldn't take care of them. By forbidding the cult of the gods, the Christians threatened this balance.

One thing confuses me. Is John writing about events in his past or events in his future?
First of all, he is writing from a lived experience of what Empire can do. That is the key to understanding his perspective. He is writing a book that combines familiar political images. The dragons, for example, are much like our political cartoons. When you see an eagle and a bear you know it means the United States and the Soviet Union. For him, he is using images largely out of Hebrew scripture to convey what the Roman Empire is, and what he believes will happen to the early Christian movement. John's primary message comes in Chapter 18: Empire will fall. Rome cannot last. This power structure that seems so big and is so crushing of the people will crumble, and God will re-create out of the ruins a new Jerusalem. John continually counsels the movement to hold fast: Those who endure to the end will be saved. This is a book of hope: The empire is going to fall. God is going to make a way where there is no way.

But had he ... lost it? With all of the bizarre images, I've heard Revelation called "John on Acid."
No. Almost all the imagery in the book of Revelation is rooted in the Hebrew scriptures, and some comes from Greek myths. In Chapter 12, you have the woman clothed in the sun and Satan falls out of the sky and there is this dragon that chases the woman. Well, that is the birth of Apollo. Domitian, who is the emperor at that time, he likens himself to Apollo. He is the sun god. So John is taking this known story and writing a counter-myth. He is saying that Domitian is not so important as he thinks. The birth of the child, Jesus, that's the real big story.

The images of Jesus himself are rooted in Hebrew stories. They simply cannot be understood unless you know that they are coming from the book of Daniel and Ezekiel and Zachariah. The narrative, the story line is rooted in the Exodus story in which God liberates the Jews from Pharaoh's empire - walks them through the Red Sea and the wilderness and sends them to a promised land. Revelation is a recapitulation, a re-telling of the same story. God is the god who frees us from empire, whether Pharaoh or Dominion. We will come out of this into a land flowing with milk and honey. One of the big exhortations of the book is: "Come out of her."--Come out of Roman Empire (as the Jews came out of Egypt).

What you are saying helps me to understand why people who are immersed in this theology are so fearful of empire -- the League of Nations, the Soviet Union, the United Nations--any form of internationalism. Among the "Left Behind" crowd, people who are bridge builders or peacemakers are seen as evil and to be mistrusted. That is what John was talking about, that was his experience, even if people take it out of context.
From the very beginnings, part of the Christian message was the notion of an end time. God is going to clean up the world -which is a messy awful a place with a lot of violence and evil. After all, the central hero of the Christian story is tortured and crucified-- put to death by an empire! How is God going to clean up the world? Jesus is going to come back and rule the world and shepherd the nations.

The Hebrew understanding of history is that it is going somewhere. It is linear, not cyclical, which is a break with the agriculture-based earth religions. Christianity, which is a child of Judaism, picks up the Hebrew storyline: History is linear. But -and this is really important-- in the Bible the end is never the end of the physical world. It is the end of an age. It's the end, for example, of the Roman empire, and then what happens is not that everyone is whisked off to heaven but that on earth there is a renewal , a renewal of the earth itself, of culture, of the nations ,peace and justice, everyone has their own vineyard and fig tree.

So, where did the notion of everyone being lifted out of their clothes and cars and cockpits come from?
That comes from the 19th Century. An Anglo-Irish theologian called John Darby created a new interpretive lens for the Bible. It's called Dispensationalism, because in this system, history is divided into seven "dispensations" or ages within an age. In this system, the Rapture leads to the Millennium when Jesus reigns on Earth for 1000 years but before the Millennium is the reign of the antichrist. At different historical junctures different bad buys are picked as the antichrist. In the 1970's, thanks to Hal Lindsey's book, The Late Great Planet Earth, it was all about Russia. And the ten nations, the European Union would become part of the Beast. Today dire warnings about Barack Obama being the antichrist are scattered about the internet. Or Osama Bin Ladin.

Believe me--I've seen plenty of both--even Chavez and Bono. But come back, for a moment, to the Rapture itself. What about that verse in Thessalonians (1 Thess. 4:16). There's the Lord descending with a trumpet, and the dead in Christ rising and then "we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them to meet the Lord in the air."
That is wonderful graphical mythical language which, when written, had very little to do with the plot of Left Behind.

Thessalonians is Paul talking with an early church in southern Europe, and he faces a specific challenge: Christians have died. We had expected Jesus to come back before that happened. Now what do we do? Paul thought he was living at the end of an age. He thought he would see the day that God would come back, clean up the earth and restore Paradise. But it hasn't happened within the timeframe he expected, so he offers an explanation that integrates the existing facts--instead of Christ returning before any Christians have died, the dead and the living are united with Jesus together.

Flash forward a little bit. When you study very early church history, if you study the art of the early church you don't see a lot of images of the crucifix or scenes of the crucifixion; you see images of paradise. And there was a proclamation of the early church that had an optimistic view - that where we were headed --on earth as in heaven, was a paradise. This was the expectation of many in the early Jesus movement.

There was a historical process, and over time this expectation changed for some. This process, which I don't have time to go into, was wrapped around when Constantine became emperor and absorbed Christianity as the state religion. Rather than being a minority faith it became the dominant faith.. Once it became the dominant faith Christianity radically changed because it became about politics and power and control of the nations.

You have this book that is all about how evil empires can be because he has this horrifying experience and now all of a sudden Christianity is in power; empire is on the side of Christianity. That's a little awkward.
Yes. And, the book of Revelation was dormant for many many years because of this. In our time the book of Revelation has come back with a vengeance because the imagery is made to order for wild interpretation. You've got an entire generation of children being raised in these fundamentalist end-times churches, being told they are the last generation.

You obviously think this is a bad thing.
Well, thankfully these families don't live as if what they say is true is really true. They are still stashing away money to send their kids to college and for their own retirement. If they really believed you would see a hardening of the faith. There is a far right segment of Christian in which you do see this hardening--churches focused on "spiritual warfare" building walls rather than bridges, organizing services to celebrate gun rights, praying public prayers for the death of abortion providers or Barack Obama or judges. This kind of far right hardening comes out of the misuse of apocalyptic literature. Christianity gets translated into a quest for purity and righteousness that will bring these prophesies to fruition.

You said earlier that there were lots of apocalypses. It was a popular medium. How did this particular book get into the Bible?
Well, there was controversy about that. Many Christians didn't want it in the Bible, and even Martin Luther questioned the decision of the Catholic councils to include it. Revelation got into the Bible because the church fathers chose to believe that the same John who knew Jesus in person was the author of this and several other texts. Their primary criterion was "apostolic authority." What we now know - this is just the evolution of our own knowledge--is that the authors who wrote the Gospel of John, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Letters of John, and the Apocalypse of John, were not the same person. The script is very different. The same phrases are not used. One is written by a highly educated Greek author, the other written by a person whose primary language is Semitic.

These books that the counsels thought were written by John, the companion of Jesus, they were written by two or three people?
The people who actually knew Jesus, the twelve, none of them left writings for us. All of these writings are written well after the death of Jesus. The Church was looking for authority, and so they tried to choose writings that fit a hierarchical form of Christianity and that traced their lineage through the apostles back to Jesus. The Bible is the book for the church and it was compiled by the Church for the purpose of helping the Church advance faith. The books didn't become finalized as scripture till 300 years after Jesus lived and died.

I was taught as a child that the Bible was essentially dictated by God to the authors. I was never taught about which books were chosen and how. But I would assume that Catholics believe God gave perfect insight to the councils that made the decisions?
I would assume so. And that is a wonderful mask for authority. When religion becomes a pursuit of power--a system to keep people in control, you are always going to have those games that are being played. Against religion, you have the message of Jesus, which is a spiritual message - a message of freedom.

Part of what this comes down to is: What is the Bible? When you are dealing with an end times fundamentalist Christian, you are dealing with a person who believes that the Bible was written by God- God writes it and there is a secret code and if you are in the know you will know the code and the elect will know the code. The Bible itself becomes a magical book, a secret script. If you just know how to read the script, you'll know where the world is going. And so people begin to live this script as if they live in the end times.

We're so into that secret knowledge thing, aren't we? You see it many places: Gnosticism, the Knights Templar, Freemasonry, the Mormon temple, childhood clubs, Skull and Bones . . . .
Yes, and I think you see it in all religions. I think that part of the religious impulse easily gets perverted into a quest for secret knowledge because it makes me more than you. I am special, I am elect, I am closer to God, I know the truth. The reality is that we are all schmucks trying to muddle through as best we can.

Follow Valerie Tarico on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ValerieTarico

Comments

[elmerfude]

I have been working on my own Bible for some time now. It includes some of the poetry from the Old Testament and some of the parables from the New Testament. But it also includes some scientific equations, some music, some poetry (Oliver, Rilke, Neruda, etc), some modern art (Chagall, Van Gogh, etc), some essays and excerpts from novels like the closing of the Grapes of Wrath and of course photographs of the startling beauty of nature from the microcosmic to the cosmic. It also includes the four creation stories in the Old Testament plus those from other cultures. The whole idea is that the science, art and poetry are bringing us a better understanding of the beauty and terror of the creation as well or better than religion does.

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

very interesting idea :-)

I am assuming that you have already terminated all your memberships in christian organizations. Otherwise you would probably get into some deep trouble sooner or later. They tend to dislike the approach you have chosen...

[elmerfude]

Yes I had myself excommunicated from Mormonism--the religion I grew up in--and sent my baptismal certificate back to the Catholics after I was kicked out of a spirituality group. I tried Catholicism late in life.

[minimalist syntax]

This sounds like a very interesting book. But why do you consider it a Bible?

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

it's remarkable that you write 'a Bible', not 'the Bible'.

Looks like Reverend Rich Lang has made his point very well.

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

Clearly John Steinbeck chose the metaphorical reading of Revelation, without remaining deaf to its message.

Revelation 14, 19-20

'And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.'

And then there's Rose of Sharon.

[CherokeeGirl]

Hi Valerie, sorry to write you here, but I couldn't find an email link for you. I'm blown away by the story about the C Street house and the new book "The Family" that details what they brainwash our senators with, and many are influenced by these nuts! Huff post has missed this or I'm too fast.

The author said last night on Rachel Maddow, that they teach this: "If you are rich and powerful, you can do whatever you want without fear of repercussion or judgement by God, because he has chosen you to rule." He even said the head of the place said, "If you want to rape 3 little girls, that's okay, because you have been chosen."

This is what they are teaching the right. THIS EXPLAINS EVERYTHING! Why they don't want to be fair. I hope you will dig deeper on this for us. This is BIG BIG BIG!

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

Isn't it comforting that confronting fundamentalist christians means confronting people who are taking political cartoons from 2000 years ago as literal interpretations of the world and the imminent future?

Should be dead easy, right?

[minimalist syntax]

Non-fundamentalist Christians might not even take Revelation as a political cartoon. In any case, to this day, Revelation is a highly controversial text within scholarship and even within church history. There are several traditions of interpretation that were not mentioned in this article. One is that it is about what has already happened--at the time of the original writing. Another is that it is entirely symbolic and as such is the story of the battle between good and evil. Another is that it portrays eternal life (the Eschaton) in the here and now as experienced in worship.

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

Yes, in those many years in which I went to catholic church as a child, there was no mention whatsoever of Revelation, and I only came across the imagery and metaphors via Elmer Gantry, Evagelists, Born-agains and movies (like 'the seventh seal')

The interpretation that it is about what already happened at the time of writing is what I meant by political cartoon.

The symbolic interpretation is already quite a stretch, if you ask me - in particular since the metaphors are taken from the frame of reference (or collective unconscious) of the time of writing, as explained by Reverend Rich Lang. To take it literally really tops it all off. I will never comprehend how people even manage to do that, but I know that they do.

[JohnFromCensornati]

So, in other words, nobody knows what it means. That's helpful. Another ringing endorsement for the "good" book.

[HeevenSteven]

Parsimony MS, Parsimony!. Viewed in the context of the time, it makes perfect sense, and it's just reading teal leaves otherwise.

[CherokeeGirl]

Valerie, curious as to your thoughts about reincarnation being edited out of the bible. It is my understanding that many jews, I believe they were Pharasees, who believed in reincarnation. There a couple of references that weren't edited out.

One is when Jesus asks his desciples "Who do men say that I am?" and they answered "Some say you are Isaiah or Jeremiah come again" (not sure if I got the references to their prophets right)

There's another one, but it escapes me right now, and I don't know the exact chapter/verse numbers.

It's a shame that it was edited out and censored by the early editors. The world would be so different.

[Valerie Tarico - Huffpost Blogger]

Hi Cherokee Girl -
You're outside my domain of knowledge now, unfortunately. I do know that early parts of the bible also are polytheistic, (even beyond the trinitarian notion -- some of the early writers appear to have believed in a broader pantheon of gods) though this gets downplayed or reinterpreted by modern believers.

[elmerfude]

There is one slip up the editors missed in the King James Version of Genesis 1:26 where God is referred to in the plural "our." The enforcement of monotheism is not complete. I like Annie Dillard's polytheistic conception in her astonishing book Holy the Firm. She portrays each day as a different god.

[minimalist syntax]

Reincarnation was discussed in the early ecumenical counsels. Origen's defense of reincarnation is one reason he is not considered a patristic writer, even though he made substantial contributions to early Christian thought that are still acknowledged and used. I think you are referring to the verse in Luke where Christ asked his disciples, "Who do the crowds say I am?"They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life." Then he asks them-- well, who do you think I am? and "Peter answered, "The Christ of God."" So that doesn't really seem to advocate reincarnation. Even Elijah was said to be assumed alive into heaven in a chariot, so he is not such a clear case. But John the Baptist and the other prophets were all clearly dead. Since the Bible is a collection of scriptures that a body of believers adopted, it doesn't quite fit to say "censored"-- instead they rejected the belief in reincarnation. There were other groups that did not reject reincarnation. Would you say those groups censored the belief that each individual has only one life?

[CherokeeGirl]

I just think that if the church were to teach reincarnation, it would take their power over the people away by using fear of heaven and hell. It would reduce their sway on the masses if people thought God would be so forgiving as to give us many chances to get it right.

I understand what you are saying, that they rejected the idea that Jesus was John the Baptist reincarnated, but that the masses were rumoring that, means there had been some belief in many lives.

[JohnFromCensornati]

The End is near.

[Dap]

Not of cracking wise... thank God! lol :-)

[JohnFromCensornati]

Did you see the "Looking for God in all the wrong places" thread? You *really* should.
Zanti has described his god in great detail and he probably won't repeat it for you. lol.

[HeevenSteven]

Hey there dapper! Hope you're healthy and happy.

I was just thinkin' bout the crazy frontier days of huffpo, before registration, moderation, profiles, fan lists.. seems like a long time ago for some reason, but only in Huffpo years. In work life, and real life, time went so much faster. 'sup wit dat?

[elmerfude]

Here is my take on the second coming inspired by the Book of Thomas. The Book of Thomas gives a very pantheistic view of Jesus which no doubt explains why it didn't make it into the official Bible.

When you come
mending meadows,
singing parables over the sea

When you come
baptizing salmon and
fish hawks with
holy waters

When you come
translator of bird song,
scribe of star sky,
counselor to flower fields

When you come
metamorphosed
into an eternal
butterfly

When you come
healing the gouges
in the earth, raising
sparrows from the dead

When you come
giving water back
to the well, preaching
to grass fields and assemblies
of trees

When you come
earth
your blue tear
saved for me

[Mriana]

The book of Thomas is a good book and personally, I like it better than anything I've read in the Bible. It is a shame it was not included to begin with.

[tm22]

In this day and age, any and all religious or political movements that place purity and righteousness above all else should be labeled authoritar­ianism-bas­ed fundamentalism personality disorder (IMHO). It is easy for the people within this type of mind set to believe they are "superior", somehow special because they have magical spiritual powers over the non-believers to be the "good" guy because they are more pure, more righteous in their being...and they, in turn, believe they should have to control or eliminated the non-believers because others aren't as pure; it's the "Itchy-Scratchy Show".

This stuff is not a belief system, it's a behavior system...

Repeat after me; "It's not the belief, it's the behavior". Everyone chant this mantra several times a day until you start to "get it"!

[Dap]

Repeat this !

It is both that are the poblem.

[CherokeeGirl]

Hi Valerie, I am devouring your article with enthusiasm. One thing I don't think is right tho:

"The people who actually knew Jesus, the twelve, none of them left writings for us. "

I saw on the History Channel that these writings were written by the various attributed authors, but just not compiled and chosen for the first version of the bible 300 years later.

That would account for how there are many other scrolls from that time that never made it in. Like Mary of Magdala's and Thomas' to name a couple.

I'll continue reading, I have more to say! :)

[Valerie Tarico - Huffpost Blogger]

As New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman explains it, many many writers put the names of apostles or companions of Jesus on their writings -- both those that made it into the canon of the Bible and those that did not. Writing in the name of "John" or "Peter" or "Mark" gave authority to the texts. Conservative theologians think that we have writings in the Bible from two or three people who were actual contemporaries of Jesus (James, Peter, and Matthew?). There are other theologians who believe we have none. Ehrman's lecture series "Lost Christianities" from Great Lectures, is fascinating. I recommend it.

I don't think Reverend Lang was implying that they were written 300 years later -- simply that they weren't given the authoritative stamp till then -- and other competing documents definitively rejected.

[CherokeeGirl]

ahhh, I see now. Thanks Valerie! Which do you believe? I'd like to believe that they found the actual scrolls, but I'm a bit of a romantic. Maybe I don't want to believe that, I dont' know. Curious what you think since you do so much research on the subject.

I'd like to believe that John was really there when he wrote what Jesus said. I'd like to be able to at least believe in the red letter edition, that's all I ever took seriously were his words.

[Mortifyd]

It's a shame that none of the people who need to know this will read it. Excellent post.

[minimalist syntax]

Okay. We are going to have a lot to discuss here! (For me, just as soon as I finish revisions on something, which I hope will go quickly.)

[Dap]

Not to worry... please do not hurry... August works for me. :-)

[kjstjohn]

I believe we liberal Christians should have a convention to recodify the Bible. Revelations is too dangerous to keep. Also too dangerous: pro-slavery passages, references to he// for non-believers, and anti-gay and anti-female passages.

Would this be mutilating the Word of God? No, this would be rehabilitating the Word of God.

[Valerie Tarico - Huffpost Blogger]

You raise such an important question. So many people make a golden calf out of the Bible. (In an age of wide spread literacy and printing presses, what better idol than a book.) Refusing to consider the process by which canonization happened -- and to ask whether we can improve on the decisions made by the Catholic councils, is really a form of bibliolatry. But people are afraid that Christianity stands or falls with an inerrant Bible. They trust those Catholic councils more than they trust their own moral core.

[CherokeeGirl]

making right that which was made wrong :) let's do it.

we also need to add back in the references to reincarnation that were censored out.

[Mriana]

I don't think Bishop Spong would disagree with you (I'm a former Episcopalian turned humanist, who still respects Spong). Revelations almost did not make it into canon. It was very much debated as to whether or not it should be added. In that respect, IF people were to revise the Bible, I would think it OK to delete that book, but Evangelicals would probably be the first to disagree, because it is said that not one iota should be changed. They forget or rather choose to disbelieve that the Bible was written and inspired by humans.

[islanddreamer]

I have an easy solution to this problem which one Christmas Eve me and a group of friends (a council of sorts) participated in. We had a Bible burning. I don't mean to offend anyone by relating this story, but really, why not start over from scratch. There is so much prejudice, superstition and fear mongering in the Bible. Wouldn't it be better to draft a new code of ethical behavior and spiritual inspiration based on something along the lines of Aldous Huxley's "Perennial Philosophy", bringing together the universal core teachings that religions share.

[Mriana]

Why not on Kant, Hume, and others? Of course, this already exists. It's called Humanism. Joyce Carol Oates said something in the Nov/Dec 2007 "The Humanist" that I thought was good, "Why, instead, is humanism not the preeminent belief of humankind? Why don't humans place their faith in reason and in the strategies of skepticism and doubt, and refuse to concede to "traditional" customs, religious convictions, and superstitions?" I thought it was a very interesting thought for I have always thought we don't need to rely on religious texts or superstitions to live our lives. I am not suggesting we destroy the texts though, because they are still valuable as a source to learn where we came from and to see how far we have come- a study of the human condition. They are also literature filled with simile, metaphor, allegory, and so many other literary techniques. We can still glean something from religious texts as long as we don't take them literally or as the inerrant word of God.

We could sort the various books in categories, starting with putting Revelations in the Science Fiction section.

[minimalist syntax]

I have to admit, this does seem violent and offensive. What good have you accomplished to destroy by fire books that some people hold sacred? (and on the eve of an event that they also hold as quite holy)

[elmerfude]

I have been working on my own Bible for some time now. It includes some of the poetry from the Old Testament and some of the parables from the New Testament. But it also includes some scientific equations, some music, some poetry (Oliver, Rilke, Neruda, etc), some modern art (Chagall, Van Gogh, etc), some essays and excerpts from novels like the closing of the Grapes of Wrath and of course photographs of the startling beauty of nature from the microcosmic to the cosmic. It also includes the four creation stories in the Old Testament plus those from other cultures. The whole idea is that the science, art and poetry are bringing us a better understanding of the beauty and terror of the creation as well or better than religion does.

[kwinter]

If it was the "Word of God", it wouldn't need rehabilitating, God would!

People who believe the bible, which includes some very disgusting, immoral stories, is the "Word of God", have to concede that if the book is truly the literal or inspired "Word of God", that god certainly would not be deserving of worship.

[Mriana]

True, but the Quran is worse and has even more violence. All three sets of Abrahamic religious texts are sickeningly vile and violent.

[minimalist syntax]

Why do you equate: literal word of God and inspired by God? They seem to mean very different things.