OMeGa

February 1, 2006 4:36 PM

Interpreting Revelation's "Millenium." Outside of the all-too-virulent rapture-crazy pre-tribulational dispensationalist premillenialism permeating JesusLand, some Christians hold to other, more nuanced eschatological alternatives. You've got historic post-tribulational premillenialism, which places the transformation of the faithful at the final judgment rather than before it; amillenialism, which regards Christ's "millenial" reign as a symbolic spiritual reign culminating in the last judgment; and postmillenialism, which sees the millenium as a gradual progression towards goodness and light. Overlapping those, you have the "it's all been fulfilled" preterists, and their prophecy-party-pooping compatriots, the hyper-preterists. It's a debate just slightly more fun than the end of the universe. Meanwhile, the noncanonical apocalypses sit in a corner, sadly ignored, and sunny Megiddo is still waiting for some end times action.
posted by brownpau (70 comments total)

OR... people could simply stop waiting for the world to come to a horrible fiery end predicated on belief in a convoluted patchwork of ridiculous superstition and documentation of dubious historicity, and you know...


live their fucking lives?
posted by stenseng at 4:40 PM on February 1, 2006

Well, I for one appreciate the links. I start class back in less than a week and eschatology is part of the theology class I have to take.

For those of you who are not believers, does it hurt you to be a little more informed about those of us that are? We are by no means a monolithic entity.
posted by konolia at 4:51 PM on February 1, 2006

Love the page title, but the setup was a bit lengthy, no? Cheers.
posted by boaz at 4:54 PM on February 1, 2006

Millennium has two Ns. It begs the question, were your typos deliberate?
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 4:55 PM on February 1, 2006

Oh crap.
posted by brownpau at 4:55 PM on February 1, 2006

Don't worry. When Jesus returns, he'll gather all the lost N's too.
posted by boaz at 4:57 PM on February 1, 2006

For those of you who are not believers, does it hurt you to be a little more informed about those of us that are?

Like it's soooo hard to be informed about Christianity in this country. Why is the onus on us? How about: for those of you who are believers, does it hurt you to be a little more informed about [evolution/physics/other religions/politics/society/history] than those of us that aren't?
posted by billysumday at 4:58 PM on February 1, 2006

Interesting. Wish I had time to give these more than a cursory glance right now. Thanks.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:59 PM on February 1, 2006

I'm all religioned out. Good bye.
posted by furtive at 5:02 PM on February 1, 2006

For those of you curious as to brownpau's own beliefs, he once told me he believed in the literal truth of the Bible, except ("obviously") for the opening parts of Genesis. Since then he has become less literal, as I understand it, but remains a Baptist of some description. He once confided that, yes, it does sometimes depress him that all his unsaved friends will suffer eternal torment. Whether this song-cycle of posts is an attempt to save others, I cannot say.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 5:04 PM on February 1, 2006

for those of you who are believers, does it hurt you to be a little more informed about REALITY
posted by cassbrown1 at 5:06 PM on February 1, 2006

He once confided that, yes, it does sometimes depress him that all his unsaved friends will suffer eternal torment.

Maybe these posts are preparatory torment.
posted by boaz at 5:06 PM on February 1, 2006

Meh. If the literalists are right, all the cool kids will be in hell anyway.
posted by stenseng at 5:09 PM on February 1, 2006

It's a debate just slightly more fun than the end of the universe.

What fucking debate?
posted by billysumday at 5:10 PM on February 1, 2006

Sorry - I meant to say, what is the debate over the end of the universe?
posted by billysumday at 5:10 PM on February 1, 2006

Big Crunch, Big Stretch, Big Freeze, Steady State, that kind of thing.
posted by brownpau at 5:18 PM on February 1, 2006

These days it's a race of Heat Death vs. Cold Death vs. Crunchy Death.
posted by boaz at 5:18 PM on February 1, 2006

Revelations presumably falls under the "Big Stretch" category.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 5:22 PM on February 1, 2006

I couldn't care less what brownpau believes, it has no impact on his ability to, in this case at least, make a decent post:- these are links to some fascinating nonsense. The preterists are new to me, as are the apocryphal apocalypse prophesies, both are fascinating. (NB, this argument only makes sense if you think links are the business of MetaFilter, as opposed to the ensuing shouting.)
posted by jack_mo at 5:26 PM on February 1, 2006

I prefer the scientific notion that eventually the universe will start contracting, and, at that point, time itself might reverse. Perhaps we will live our lives backward at some point.

I, for one, have a number of mistakes I am looking forward to reversing.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:26 PM on February 1, 2006

If Astro Zombie is correct, kids are going to have to start playing their Led Zepplin albums forward.
posted by cortex at 5:28 PM on February 1, 2006

cortex, Stephen Hawking said something about that:

The thermodynamic and psychological arrows of time would not reverse when the universe begins to recontract, or inside black holes.
posted by oflinkey at 5:34 PM on February 1, 2006

And God has already punished him for such heracy.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 5:35 PM on February 1, 2006

Dear Christians: Jesus called. He wants his legacy back.

More seriously, I do appreciate the link to noncanonical Apocalyptic literature--it proves that any asshat can write a book about the end times (to wit: Left Behind) and be taken seriously, at some point, by some Christians. Revelations (actually, even that's a misnomer) is itself a mess, textually, thematically, and theologically, and there's a reason many Christians over the years didn't want it in the Canon. To try and interpret it seriously is a fun parlor game. Unfortunately, some in power think it's the basis for sound policy.
posted by bardic at 5:36 PM on February 1, 2006

metafilter: all-too-virulent
posted by scheptech at 5:43 PM on February 1, 2006

I'm ready to throw down at Meggido. I'll stand on the hill with a pair of brass knuckles shouting "Who want's a peice of me!?"
posted by Smedleyman at 5:47 PM on February 1, 2006

Thanks, brownpau. Some interesting reading to look forward to.

I used to fall asleep listening to Garner Ted Armstrong on the radio when I was 11-13ish, and the eschatalogical stuff has always kinda stuck with me.

Looking at the events of the past 50 years or so, I sometimes wonder if the prophesies could come true not for any supernatural reasons, but because so many people believe in them that they become a sort of "script" for the collective unconscious.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:52 PM on February 1, 2006

because so many people believe in them that they become a sort of "script" for the collective unconscious.

I certainly believe in the power of the placebo effect, but I doubt it can lift people out of the clothes or have them eaten by giant whores of babylon.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 6:03 PM on February 1, 2006

eaten by giant whores of babylon

Now there's an eschatology I can get behind!

Seriously, if brownpau is witnessing, s/he's not doing a very good job of it by producing sterling examples of the xtian batshitinsane in this [good] post and drivelly non-arguments in others like that ex-atheist one I can't be bothered linking to in case someone wastes their time going it.
posted by Sparx at 6:27 PM on February 1, 2006

"...prophesies could come true not for any supernatural reasons..." Exactly, but I don't think it's that we collectively believe the script, it's that we just haven't that many to choose from. Humanity really has only a handful of stories that are played out over and over.
posted by klarck at 6:49 PM on February 1, 2006

Ah, man, the 90s. Truly generation x.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 6:56 PM on February 1, 2006

The Apocalypse is god's way of telling us pesky kids to get off his damn lawn.
posted by qvantamon at 7:13 PM on February 1, 2006

Skallas, too bad you aren't more like a college professor I had back in the 70's. He started out the semester an agnostic, announced before the end he was now an atheist, and still had no problem assigning us a take-home final in which we were to logically prove the existance of God (yes, this was a philosophy class.) Perhaps more to the point, the bible college I attended a few years later actually had a course in comparative religions in which the students had to learn the basics of Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. Before I went on a shortterm trip to Thailand a few years ago I also had a class-held at my church-which explained to us the differences between the two main schools of Buddhism.

They're just links. They can't leap out of the computer, grab you around the throat and choke you.

If they make you uncomfortable, ask yourself why. If not, why do you care?
posted by konolia at 7:41 PM on February 1, 2006

Being extremely religious, it seems, is not compatible with being an ordinary person who lives in ordinary times in an ordinary solar system in an ordinary universe.

How is non-religious compatible with being ordinary? Who wants to be ordinary, theist or no?
posted by tweak at 7:50 PM on February 1, 2006

As someone who's obsessed with the apocalypse*, religious in nature or not, thanks for this post. My cup runneth over.

*For a while there, my profile listed by occupation to be, among other things, "secular eschatologist." Then I realized what a pretentious ass I was being.
posted by brundlefly at 7:56 PM on February 1, 2006

konolia, I just found Jesus. Thanx!
posted by bardic at 8:06 PM on February 1, 2006

He started out the semester an agnostic, announced before the end he was now an atheist, and still had no problem assigning us a take-home final in which we were to logically prove the existance of God

For your final, he asked you to do something he judged to be impossible? Hmm. Did you manage it?
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 8:22 PM on February 1, 2006

"No, I don't think this is the end of the world, but it may lead to serious regional destabilization" -

Reminds me of "The Jesus Landing Pad", by Rick Perlstein of The Village Voice :

""Everything that you're discussing is information you're not supposed to have," barked Pentecostal minister Robert G. Upton when asked about the off-the-record briefing his delegation received on March 25. Details of that meeting appear in a confidential memo signed by Upton and obtained by the Voice.

The e-mailed meeting summary reveals NSC Near East and North African Affairs director Elliott Abrams sitting down with the Apostolic Congress and massaging their theological concerns. Claiming to be "the Christian Voice in the Nation's Capital," the members vociferously oppose the idea of a Palestinian state. They fear an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza might enable just that, and they object on the grounds that all of Old Testament Israel belongs to the Jews. Until Israel is intact and Solomon's temple rebuilt, they believe, Christ won't come back to earth. "
___________

As far as the post goes.....

I'd suggest adding "Dominionism" , "Christian Reconstructionism" , and "Presuppositionalism" to the lexicon.
posted by troutfishing at 8:30 PM on February 1, 2006

OR... people could simply stop waiting for the world to come to a horrible fiery end predicated on belief in a convoluted patchwork of ridiculous superstition and documentation of dubious historicity, and you know...


live their fucking lives?
posted by stenseng at 7:40 PM EST on February 1 [!]

ROFL, btw.
posted by tweak at 8:36 PM on February 1, 2006

Where's the "batshitinsane" tag for this post?
posted by five fresh fish at 8:54 PM on February 1, 2006

The point of the post is to direct attention to Christian alternatives to the "batshitinsane" category of dispensational premillenialism, but everyone else seems to like focusing on that anyway.
posted by brownpau at 9:10 PM on February 1, 2006

Since Protocols brought up Generation X, here's an quote (as I remember it) from Douglas Coupland's book:

"When people start getting all misty eyed about the Last Days and hoarding cases of Rice A Roni, it's about as clear an admission you're ever going to get that their life isn't working out as they had planned it."
posted by salvia at 9:37 PM on February 1, 2006

brownpau, we focus on it because to take the inherent batshitinsanity of Revelation and attempt to use it to guide oneself or to predict the future in any way, no matter how banal, is itself batshitinsane. We focus on the basis for your beliefs, as opposed to the complexly layered interpretations you place upon it, because that requisite basis is, to us, an obvious lie. There is no escaping this. Taking the religious side of an argument is always going to be more exciting and fun than the atheist side, which fundamentally consists of just repeatedly pointing out the nonsense and absurdity of the core of the subject and hence the subject as a whole, again and again, in the dire hope that someday mankind will awake from 'neath this mountain of winged mammalian guano and start sorting out its priorities.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 9:46 PM on February 1, 2006

When the Jews return to Zion
And a comet rips the sky
And the Holy Roman Empire rises,
Then You and I must die.
From the eternal sea he rises,
Creating armies on either shore,
Turning man against his brother
'Til man exists no more.

Sanguis bebimus! Corpus edimus!
Sanguis bebimus! Corpus edimus!

Aaaarrrrgggghhhh!!!!!
posted by Crabby Appleton at 9:47 PM on February 1, 2006

Don't forget 88 reasons why the rapture is in 1988: The Feast of Trump (Rosh Hash Ana) September, 11-12-13
posted by tweak at 10:22 PM on February 1, 2006

Spelling it with one n is fine. It just changes the meaning a little.
posted by flabdablet at 10:29 PM on February 1, 2006

this is awesome. its like having 20 different theories on how tall the easter bunny is.
posted by braksandwich at 11:11 PM on February 1, 2006

The point of the post is to direct attention to Christian alternatives to the "batshitinsane" category of dispensational premillenialism, but everyone else seems to like focusing on that anyway.

That's a nice thought, brownpau.

Unfortunately, comparing millennialist frameworks is about as sensible as comparing the philosophical frameworks of Alien parts I through III. You can do it... but it doesn't make much sense.

IMO, best to stick with studying what the Jesus dude himself directly did and said. Everything else is interpretation, political spin, and 'shrooms.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:56 PM on February 1, 2006

I do wish Alison Lurie's book, 'Imaginary Friends' was more widely read.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 2:12 AM on February 2, 2006

Five Fresh Fish:
IMO, best to stick with studying what the Jesus dude himself directly did and said. Everything else is interpretation, political spin, and 'shrooms.

Safe, sane, and good. The whole prophecy game too easily becomes an obsession, distracting people from the real deal (look at the mess in the US!)
posted by Goofyy at 3:35 AM on February 2, 2006

braksandwich wins.
posted by quite unimportant at 4:11 AM on February 2, 2006

I think studying the Jesus Dude directly may actually have more risk of disappointment and anger associated with it. After all, if they go about that task honestly, they'll have to start trying to figure out whether the Jesus Dude actually existed and, if so, what really happened to him.

As it stands, we really have only a set of canonized legends to describe his words and actions and the course of his life. (And some un-canonized legends, if we also look at the various apocrypha. And those pretty much contradict the canon.) We can verify the existence of his "cult" from other primary sources, but not the existence of the man.

I doubt most "students of the Jesus Dude" would have the mental flexibility to get behind studying him as a metaphorical Jesus Dude.
posted by lodurr at 6:40 AM on February 2, 2006

Forgot one:
Left Behind

The 800 lb. gorilla of Revelation end times crap.
posted by nofundy at 7:36 AM on February 2, 2006

the more you know the less you like, really bp's posts just make me feel more and more that a deep mass hysteria is upon the earth and that we are going to destroy ourselves for all the mundane reasons (global warming, war, etc), and that no one is going to do anything about it because they are all waiting for the all red cow, or Israel to reform or some such bullshit. sigh.
posted by stilgar at 7:39 AM on February 2, 2006

What stilgar and others above have snarkily but intelligently said. The more I read about this stuff (having spend much time reading the stuff itself in many religious traditions) the more I feel that Christians have no right to claim a "sanity" about their own death cult that doesn't belong to Islam. Sure, in practice there are many more Muslims willing to strap on a bomb, but that's a question of global politics and economics. If the shoe were on the other foot, Ogrish.com would have plenty of grainy video of Xtians murmuring "Jesus Here I Come" whilst aiming an RPG or driving a Cellica into a building.

And in all sincerity, what Jesus said. There's a reason he pissed off the book-learned Pharisees with their cyrptic interpretations and their esoterica--try to live a good, decent life, and ignore the preachers and religion professors. Everything else is a mutation of Jesus' message, e.g. anything today that calls itself Christianity.
posted by bardic at 9:22 AM on February 2, 2006

*spend* = *spent*
posted by bardic at 9:24 AM on February 2, 2006

Yeh, but bardic, FWIW, that simple message was basically the message of the rabbinical movement. Hillel was preaching that in the generation prior to Jesus. He didn't get crucified for it, but the pharisees sure as hell didn't like him very much.
posted by lodurr at 9:33 AM on February 2, 2006

... and as I sit here, I wonder if Hillel's clarity versus Jesus's obliqueness might not explain why one was heralded as "savior" and the other doesn't even make the "prophet" list.
posted by lodurr at 9:36 AM on February 2, 2006

huh, I really thought brownpau was sort of playing with us with all these serious christian links 'cause he had struck me as generally reasonable. what space & time and all within it really are is fascinating, but to imagine humanity as a centerpiece of it all, and some kind of anthropic mind overseeing matters, seems just clueless to me. There are ways to interpret "god" that I can appreciate (spinoza is always a good example) but so many beliefs just seem to have utterly no sense of the size/age of human civilization in comparison with the universe, etc...

That said, I do find this kind of stuff interesting anyway, just for sort of literary/group psychology insight...
posted by mdn at 9:37 AM on February 2, 2006

Whether or not Christ was real is irrelevent to my previous post: what the NT records as his words and actions are, in any event, a pretty damn fine bit of "how to live your life."

Indeed, I've yet to hear anything bad about anything Christ is supposed to have said or done.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:04 AM on February 2, 2006

How about, "I bring not peace but a sword"? Coming to set brother against brother and children against parents?

Sure, you can produce interprettions of those that make them work at a spiritual level. But you've got to interpret them.

As for whether he was real, I take "reality" as implicit in "what he did". Unless, again, he becomes a legendary figure. And as I said, I don't think most modern christians have the stomach for that. It sounds as though you do, and I'm sure you're better off for it.
posted by lodurr at 12:10 PM on February 2, 2006

For your final, he asked you to do something he judged to be impossible? Hmm. Did you manage it?

Of course. We'd gone over it in class, after all.
posted by konolia at 12:14 PM on February 2, 2006

Jesus didn't carry a sword, but his Apostles did--hence a Roman lost (and regained) an ear in Gethsemane.

I'm all for reverence of Jesus the person, but even there it gets sticky--reject your family, reject all personal belongings but for sandals and a walking stick, castigate flora and fauna that don't accept you as the Christ, etc. He's one of literature's great eccentrics, and perhaps one of history's.
posted by bardic at 12:20 PM on February 2, 2006

I stand corrected. That Jesus dude was one mean mofo!
posted by five fresh fish at 12:53 PM on February 2, 2006

i love how dropping stupid statements like "i've yet to hear anything bad" immediately results in hearing the bad. it's a sure-fire response-generator!
posted by five fresh fish at 12:55 PM on February 2, 2006

i've yet to hear anyone offer me a million bucks or even some decent odds on it
posted by cortex at 1:31 PM on February 2, 2006

Skallas always provides an excellent foil to the wishy-washy "Jesus was just a great philosopher" response when he posts his stock "Bad Sayings of Jesus" reply. I'm in full agreement with him on this -- the Jesus of the bible isn't a gentle love-love-love hippie. As the too-often-quoted C.S. Lewis passage goes, "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a boiled egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell."

But that's derailing from the main topic of eschatology.
posted by brownpau at 2:26 PM on February 2, 2006

(Dammit, I told myself I wouldn't post in my own topics religious topics anymore.)
posted by brownpau at 3:11 PM on February 2, 2006

Ha ha! (I told myself I wasn't going to post at all this week.)
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:27 PM on February 2, 2006

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a boiled egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell."

Doesn't that imply that the Devil of Hell is merely a man? How does that work?
posted by mdn at 7:09 AM on February 4, 2006