Tim LaHaye: Put on your hip waders - this is deep...

Danny

Jedi
...and I don't mean deep in intellect either.Read on.

By Brian Braiker
Newsweek
Updated: 10:37 p.m. ET July 28, 2006
July 28, 2006 - When Tim LaHaye talks, the faithful listen-by the millions. The conservative Protestant minister is the coauthor of the wildly popular apocalyptic "Left Behind </id/4988269/site/newsweek/>" novels. The controversial books, which have sold more than 60 million copies, depict the biblical end of the world: the Christian eschatology of the upheaval that precedes the second coming of Jesus Christ, known also as "end times." LaHaye recently spoke with NEWSWEEK's Brian Braiker about why he believes the events currently unfolding in the Middle East reflect biblical prophesy. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: How do you interpret what's happening in the Middle East? Are you seeing signs that these are the end of days?
Tim LaHaye: Biblically speaking, the very nations that are mentioned in prophecy-and have been mentioned for 2,500 years as occupying the focus of the tension of the last days-are the very nations that are involved in the conflict right now. That may be one of the reasons there's a sudden interest in bible prophecy because all of a sudden they realize end-time events could possibly take place and break forth right now.

NW:But first-century Christians believed that the end of the world could come during their lifetime.

TL:We call it the belief in the imminent return of Christ. It's a motivational factor to serve the Lord and not let the world be so much with us that we don't serve the Lord in the spiritual environment.

NW:Couldn't almost anything then be taken as a clue that any point in history might be the end times?

TL:Down through the years that's true. But never the accumulation of events as we have today. I have often said that no one knows the day nor the hour that Christ will come, but no generation has had so many signs of the times as our generation. We have more reason to believe that Christ could come in our lifetime than any generation before us.

NW:You mentioned biblical prophecy. I'm not the student nor the scholar that you are-

TL:Well, I'm not the journalist that you are.

NW:[Laughs.] But my understanding is that current biblical scholarship reads some of the apocalyptic scenes in the Bible as metaphorically addressing events that were taking place as the Bible was being written.

TL:These are usually liberal theologians that don't believe the Bible literally.

NW:So the Revelation should not be interpreted, for example, as a polemic against Rome?

TL:That's what they say. We believe that the Bible should be understood literally whenever possible. The next big event is the second coming of Christ. That's preceded by a number of signs. And some of those signs could be stage-setting right now. They're not going to come out of nowhere. For example, the Bible predicts when the antichrist comes and sits at his kingdom after the Rapture, he's going to have one world economy and one world government and one world religion. We're already moving rapidly in the direction of those very things.

NW:Really? It seems we're a ways off from one world religion.

TL:That's the least developed, but there are many particularly liberal theologians that just think that "Oh, if we could just get everybody together of all beliefs ..." If you don't have a strong belief system, you're willing to compromise your beliefs with other religions.

NW:You've written about the threat of secular humanism.

TL:Part of the opposition to our position is from the secular humanists, but part of it is from the liberal people of theology that reject the Bible. I don't see a great deal of difference between them. Their basic conclusions are often the same.

NW:You've also written that "millions of unbelievers will be saved during the terrible time of the 'Tribulation'." What do you mean by that?

TL:I take that from Revelation, chapter 7. One of the things that's going to happen after the Tribulation, after the church is gone, there'll be no one here to witness the faith in Christ. So the Lord raises up 144,000 Jewish witnesses and he names the tribes that they come from. The result of those witnesses is they reach a multitude of souls that receive Christ.

NW:Does this explain how living right with God, in a Christian sense, would entail supporting the Israeli state right now?

TL:I think those two things are related. Christians who take the Bible literally are generally supportive of Israel because God promises to bless those nations that are a blessing to Israel and curse those nations that are not. And the history of America bears that out.

NW:But is it accurate to equate the state of Israel, which is a geopolitical entity, with all Jewish people around the world, who far outnumber the people actually in Israel?

TL:No, that's just a third of the number of Jews in the world.

NW:So believers in the Rapture don't necessarily foresee a damnation of the Jews then?

TL:No, we don't believe in the damnation of people in ethnic groups. We believe that's an individual decision. Now, it often follows in people groups. Take the Muslims that we've been talking about. Everybody knows that they do not accept Jesus Christ as a means of salvation from sin. That's the only way you can be saved, is to call on the name of the Lord. They're not about to do that.

NW:Neither are Jews.

TW:Correct. But during the Tribulation period, there'll be a sea change, and many Jews will accept Christ. Not all. Again, it's an individual decision.

NW:You recently donated a whole lot of money for a hockey rink at Liberty University. If these are the end times, why make an investment like that?

TL:[Laughs.] My strategy is that Canada and Northern America produces the bulk of hockey players. We use the ice rink to get the hockey players to come to Liberty University where many of them are exposed to accept Christ. Many of them come because they are Christians. They are challenged to go into the ministry, and we've already had some of the guys in the earlier classes that graduated, and they're going home to Canada to start churches.

NW:Proselytism with a hockey puck?

TL:"Evangelism with a hockey puck" would be better.

NW:But if the end times are indeed near, why would there be any point in working toward fostering peace?

TL:Right now the Church of Jesus Christ is busy in the spiritual vein of trying to win people to Christ. We're concerned about the salvation of individual souls. This whole thing has heightened the spirit of evangelism. Wars have always done that. But never have we had a war that is so specifically following the pattern of the scripture.


NW:Michael Standaert is a critic of yours who has written recently in a blog <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-standaert/the-dinosaurs-roam-the-ea_b_25703.html> that this belief in the end of the world in a big explosion of violence, reflects a "spiritual malaise" a "hopelessness in humanity" and that you're "making money off of fear and hopelessness" in your "Left Behind" series. How do you respond to that?

TL:I would say that he's just betraying his poverty of faith. If he had faith in the Bible, faith in the future and Jesus Christ, he'd recognize that our passion is just like the theme song in our books: we don't want anybody to be left behind.
 
LaHaye via Danny said:
If he had faith in the Bible, faith in the future and Jesus Christ, he'd recognize that our passion is just like the theme song in our books: we don't want anybody to be left behind.
Somehow I was reminded of a few lines from a Rolling Stones song :

I was driving home early Sunday morning through Bakersfield, listening to gospel music on the public radio station, and the preacher said, "You know you always have the lord by your side!" And I was so pleased to be informed of this that I ran twenty red lights in his honor. Thank you Jesus, thank you Lord.
As someone said (I'm not sure who, and I might be liberally paraphrasing here), if the rapture happens can we have our planet back?
 
Yeah, hope this rapture happens soon, so that one big bunch of fanatics and idiots are gone and we don't have to bother about them. :rolleyes:

Being very sarcastic here.
 
I think the most important part of this whole interview is:

NW:But if the end times are indeed near, why would there be any point in working toward fostering peace?

TL:Right now the Church of Jesus Christ is busy in the spiritual vein of trying to win people to Christ. We're concerned about the salvation of individual souls. This whole thing has heightened the spirit of evangelism. Wars have always done that. But never have we had a war that is so specifically following the pattern of the scripture.

(In other words: "We aren't concerned one bit with peace.What we are trying to do is put people to sleep and give them the false hope that the bus is coming any minute and hand them a fake ticket outta here.This whole thing has really boosted ticket sales.Killing mercilessly always brings despair and fear.And the actors on this stage have been more convincing than any other production to date.")
 
Of course they aren't concerned about peace. They aren't concerned about fixing any of the messes they have made or the destruction of the planet which people like them are responsible for because they believe that god gave them the earth and all its resources to "use up" and when it's all gone, Jesus is gonna take 'em home. I wonder if they plan to "use and abuse" heaven the same way?

What IS so truly amazing is that somebody like this gets one second of time in a mainstream media piece. I mean, it just boggles the mind that there are cretins like this walking around in our century, wearing 3 piece suits, and spewing this utter mindless nonsense. What is worse is that, either this guy believes this stuff - in which case he is just a dupe of psychopaths - or he IS a psychopath. As I wrote in Discernment Or Machiavelli and the ET's

In William Bramley's book: The Gods of Eden, it is noted that "War can be its own valuable commodity," and that "War can be an effective tool for maintaining social and political control over a large population." ... Consider the following:

"In the sixteenth century, Italy consisted of numerous independent principalities which were often at war with one another. When a prince conquered a neighboring city, he would sometimes breed internal conflicts among the vnquished citizens. This was an effective way to maintain political control over the people because the endless squabbling prevented the vanquished people from engaging in unified action against the conqueror. It did not greatly matter over what issues the people bickered so long as they valiantly struggled against one another and not against the conquering prince." [Bramley, 1989]
This is, of course, pure Machiavelli.

Okay, you say, let's stop squabbling and all work together.

But, there is something else about Machiavelli that is important: Machiavelli saw religion and its teachings of faith, hope, charity, love, humility and patience under suffering as factors that render men weak and cause them to care less about worldly and political things, and thus they will turn political power over to wicked men who are not influenced by such ideals.

There is a deep truth here that applies to us all at many levels. And, clearly, somebody realized this early on and our "standard religions" as well as many of the modern day channeled messages are the result of this drive to render us not only powerless, but blind and apathetic to real threats, and ever on the march against chimerical threats that have no basis in reality.

Another of Machiavelli's ideas is that a religion is good only if it supports the state or a "hierarchy" and contributes to hierarchical ends. By using religion, one can give "divine sanction" to instructions which people would otherwise have no reason to obey. Therefore, we can see that any form of "hierarchy" is rooted in control of others.

Still another teaching of Machiavelli is: The leader must APPEAR to be religious, even though he does not believe in nor practice religion. Machiavelli writes:

"To see and hear [the Prince], he should seem to be all mercy, faith, integrity, humanity, and religion... for men in general judge more by the eyes than by the heads, for everyone can see but very few have to feel... Let a prince therefore aim at conquering and maintaining the state, and the means will always be judged honourable and praised by everyone, for the vulgar is always taken in by appearances." [The Prince]
Another precept of a successful domination of humanity is:

"Love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails." [The Prince]
Thus we see that "fear" or "guilt" will, in some sense, predominate, even if it is expressed subtly.

Power and authority can be most easily obtained where people obey because they believe that obedience is morally appropriate. Machiavelli taught that authority is preferable to coercion because coercion is a terribly inefficient method to compel obedience. It requires enormous resources to "hold a gun" against the heads of the masses. Because, in the end, raw power is inadequate in holding a whole population in line by the use of force.

Therefore, an astute prince would harness the power of emotions and manage the passions rather than guide men through reason. The prince must make use of the human passions of love, hate, fear, desire for glory and power, and even boredom.

Think about all of this for a moment.

What system is in place today that fits all of the above criteria for domination and control? Take your time. Think carefully and objectively. No rush here!
 
mark said:
As someone said (I'm not sure who, and I might be liberally paraphrasing here), if the rapture happens can we have our planet back?
Yes, I think the planet is going to get itself 'back' from being over-run by humans! It probably needs a rest by now as it is. And, its going to be a lot quieter around here too.

Maybe this 'rapture' business is just selling the population reduction idea to christian fundamentalists. It reminds me of what Laura said about COINTELPRO: there being a 'program' for everyone. Is it the same with the 94% (or was it 96%) people reduction?
 
Laura wrote:
What IS so truly amazing is that somebody like this gets one second of time in a mainstream media piece.


Oh but it gets better still....

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14122311/?GT1=8404


By Dylan T. Lovan
Updated: 4:22 p.m. ET July 31, 2006
PETERSBURG, Ky. - Like most natural history museums, this one has exhibits showing dinosaurs roaming the earth. Except here, the giant reptiles share the forest with Adam and Eve.
That, of course, is contradicted by science, but that's the point of the $25 million Creation Museum rising fast in rural Kentucky.
Its inspiration is the Bible - the literal interpretation that contends God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them just a few thousand years ago.
"If the Bible is the word of God, and its history really is true, that's our presupposition or axiom, and we are starting there," museum founder Ken Ham said during recent tour of the sleek and modern facility, which is due to open next year.
Ham, an Australian native who started the Christian publishing company Answers in Genesis <http://www.answersingenesis.org/> in the late 1970s, said the goal of his privately funded museum is to change minds and rebut the scientific point of view.
"We're going to show you that we can make sense of the different people groups, we can make sense of fossils, we can make sense of what you see in the world," he said.
Visitors to the museum, a few miles from Cincinnati, will be able to watch the story of creation unfold in a 180-seat special-effects theater, see a 40-foot-tall (12-meter-tall) re-creation of a section of Noah's Ark and stare into the jaws of robotic dinosaurs."It's education, but it's also doing it in an entertaining way," Ham said.
Scientists say fossils and sophisticated nuclear dating technology show that Earth is more than 4 billion years old, the first dinosaurs appeared around 200 million years ago, and they died out well before the first human ancestors arose a few million years ago.
"Genesis is not science," said Mary Dawson, curator emeritus of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History <http://www.carnegiemnh.org/> in Pittsburgh. "Genesis is a tale that was handed down for generations by people who really knew nothing about science, who knew nothing about natural history, and certainly knew nothing about what fossils were."
Ham said he believes most fossils are the result of the Great Flood described in Genesis.

Mark Looy, a vice president at Answers in Genesis, said the museum has received at least $21 million in private donations. He said two anonymous donors have given $1 million, and he expects the museum to be debt-free when it opens next May.
John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, an organization that promotes creationism, said the museum will affirm the doubts many people have about science, namely the notion that man evolved from lower forms of life.
"Americans just aren't gullible enough to believe that they came from a fish," he said.
 
Danny said:
the giant reptiles share the forest with Adam and Eve
Indeed and that's a real problem

at least for us (Adam and Eve)
 
Laura said:
What IS so truly amazing is that somebody like this gets one second of time in a mainstream media piece. I mean, it just boggles the mind that there are cretins like this walking around in our century, wearing 3 piece suits, and spewing this utter mindless nonsense.
I think when you wear a 3-piece suit people take you more seriously no matter what nonsense you spew. Now, if that guy who was interviewed was wearing a straight jacket and a white robe, it might be more appropriate and in line with the content of his mental processes.

This obsession with appearance is really interesting in its influence on people's assumptions. Why does Jesus have to have long hair and just the appearance he is always portrayed as? Why can't he be like a short, bald black guy and still be taken seriously? Why does heaven have to be all white and shiny, why not look like earth and have every color spectrum, light, dark, etc? Why does hell have to be lava/blackness? Why do bad people have to look evil and angry? Why do good people have to look good/innocent?

People are so programmed to assume based on appearance alone, it's scary just how powerful and far reaching that programming is. So as long as the white house is big and pretty, the lawn is nicely cut, you have lots of people in 3-piece suits who brush their hair/teeth and have a pompous strut/smile as they walk/wave to the cameras, as long as they make really serious faces as they talk and sound all smart and like they know what tehy're talking about, etc.. people will be prompted to take it seriously. Our minds have trouble handling that contrast between what's inside and its appearance on the outside due to pre-programmed associations that what's inside should match what's outside, or so it seems.

So caricatures help :D
 
ScioAgapeOmnis said:
Why does Jesus have to have long hair and just the appearance he is always portrayed as?
Meanwhile other people, many of who claim to be Christians, will quickly label anybody else with long hair and a beard a hippy and assume such a person is head high into the drug culture. Amazing, the lack of symmetry in such thinking. Maybe it's hypocracy.
 
LaHaye and his ilk are the kind of people that can't stand the thought that somewhere, someone is having a bit of fun and being happy. Or that even there exists the possibility that someone out there might be able to have some fun. Just the thought alone drives most of them nuts.

Living in a world where people like him are running things is not something I want to see. Because it isn't really living.

Normally, I'd be happy to leave those people alone, you know, live and let live. Except that they don't seem to want to leave the rest of the world alone.
 
Scio said:
I think when you wear a 3-piece suit people take you more seriously no matter what nonsense you spew. Now, if that guy who was interviewed was wearing a straight jacket and a white robe, it might be more appropriate and in line with the content of his mental processes.
(...)
Our minds have trouble handling that contrast between what's inside and its appearance on the outside due to pre-programmed associations that what's inside should match what's outside, or so it seems.
I think much of the issue concerning the 'appearance program' (shall we call it the 'Woman in the Red dress' program?) is mainly about vectoring attention. In the same way the physical attraction of a '3 peice suit' or 'red dress' may distract from a more pertinant issue at hand, this process also occurs one level up at the emotional attraction of religion, which obscures sight of the hidden face of our political system - the pathocracy. And this is what Laura's discernment piece included in the thread was saying:

Laura said:
But, there is something else about Machiavelli that is important: Machiavelli saw religion and its teachings of faith, hope, charity, love, humility and patience under suffering as factors that render men weak and cause them to care less about worldly and political things, and thus they will turn political power over to wicked men who are not influenced by such ideals.
So I think it's valid to say that religion is the red dress of politics and we're about to be shot in the head.
 
Back
Top Bottom