BookTalk.org

Harold Camping is preaching that the Rapture will be happening on May 21, 2011. Of course he doesn't tell us the time zone in which God resides so we cannot be sure of the precise time for each of us personally.





http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... d=rss.news

This thread will remain open, but the poll will end on May 22, 2011. I'm looking for your predictions on what he will say when he is proven wrong. I'll post in this thread his actual response when it happens. Or maybe we'll all be dead.

You forgot the option that the Rapture actually happens. He sounds pretty confident.

A variation on one of the choices - You never hear from him again as he and his family count their donations. In the second video, it sounds like he might be raking in the cash, and there's a no-return policy.

He'll say God changed his mind because x happened.

This gives him a good out while maintaining the delusion that he knows what "God" wants.

Who cares what he has to say?! Are you aware that the Bible specifically says that we are not to speculate about dates for eschatological events? People like Camping are hacks. They are trying to make a buck and should be ignored. As for the larger issue which this thread raises, albeit tacitly; let me contradict it; just because Camping or Rutherford, or ... claims to be a Christian, sets a date and is wrong is no reason to dismiss the Rapture.

Do you really care about Camping or his prediction? Isn't this tread intended to mock Christians? Why the continued obsession with God and Christianity here at BT? Do you really think Anthony Hopkins is an expert on religion or do you quote him because his statement confirms the beliefs of the patron saints of atheism?

stahrwe wrote:Who cares what he has to say?! Are you aware that the Bible specifically says that we are not to speculate about dates for eschatological events? People like Camping are hacks. They are trying to make a buck and should be ignored. As for the larger issue which this thread raises, albeit tacitly; let me contradict it; just because Camping or Rutherford, or ... claims to be a Christian, sets a date and is wrong is no reason to dismiss the Rapture.

Do you really care about Camping or his prediction? Isn't this tread intended to mock Christians? Why the continued obsession with God and Christianity here at BT? Do you really think Anthony Hopkins is an expert on religion or do you quote him because his statement confirms the beliefs of the patron saints of atheism?

To those of us who are outside the religious belief system, all religious certainty appears equally absurd. Your conclusion that Camping is a hack is a good example of the pot calling the kettle black. Your viewpoint is hopelessly biased by your own particular strain of ridiculousness. It reminds me of Will Smith defending his involvement with scientology by saying it is no more ridiculous than Christianity. He actually makes a good point.

Likewise, anyone who is so entrenched in one particular religious strain can never be an expert on religion in general as you so well demonstrate. They are much too emotionally biased.

Stahrwe, Harold Camping makes just as much sense as you do. As Geo said you calling Harold Camping a "hack" is humorous and like the pot calling the kettle black. You actually disregard all of science to support your young Earth creationism while Camping simply adds a bunch of dates and comes up with a Rapture date. Camping seems FAR more rational than you right now.

Chris OConnor wrote:Stahrwe, Harold Camping makes just as much sense as you do. As Geo said you calling Harold Camping a "hack" is humorous and like the pot calling the kettle black. You actually disregard all of science to support your young Earth creationism while Camping simply adds a bunch of dates and comes up with a Rapture date. Camping seems FAR more rational than you right now.

In the context which I use the term 'hack' it is someone who exploits celebrity by churning books, articles, interviews, etc. for profit. It therefore has no relation to a person's beliefs. Camping is far more rational in what respect? I suspect he is a YEC removing that differentiation and as I have not set dates and do not support annihilation I question the basis for your assessment.

I'll reword it. Harold Camping doesn't appear any more irrational than you.

To a limited extent, I agree with starhwe, in that the use to which anyone puts his or her beliefs is the important real-world effect of those beliefs. Stahrwe believes in the rapture just as Camping does, but he doesn't make a ridiculous public spectacle of himself and irresponsibly get vulnerable people all excited (and later, upset) by setting dates. Advantage stahrwe.

Regarding what I would call weird beliefs--like YEC, but also including astrology, homeopathy, astral travel, scientology, and a host of others--there isn't usually a moral reason to condemn these. I would except something like beliefs in racial supremacy. People make choices to value their intuitions or fancies over what can be demonstrated to be true. Many of us don't like this, and we might believe, further, that it is socially harmful and should be actively opposed. But all we really can do about that is to make sure we are good positive advocates for our own values. When we see that people are beginning to enact their weird beliefs in a way that affects others, then we should oppose those people. The best example I can think of is creationist school board members trying to insert ID into the science curriculum.

DWill wrote:To a limited extent, I agree with starhwe, in that the use to which anyone puts his or her beliefs is the important real-world effect of those beliefs. Stahrwe believes in the rapture just as Camping does, but he doesn't make a ridiculous public spectacle of himself and irresponsibly get vulnerable people all excited (and later, upset) by setting dates. Advantage stahrwe.

Regarding what I would call weird beliefs--like YEC, but also including astrology, homeopathy, astral travel, scientology, and a host of others--there isn't usually a moral reason to condemn these. I would except something like beliefs in racial supremacy. People make choices to value their intuitions or fancies over what can be demonstrated to be true. Many of us don't like this, and we might believe, further, that it is socially harmful and should be actively opposed. But all we really can do about that is to make sure we are good positive advocates for our own values. When we see that people are beginning to enact their weird beliefs in a way that affects others, then we should oppose those people. The best example I can think of is creationist school board members trying to insert ID into the science curriculum.

I agree with DWill. I do pick on Stahrwe, but at least he knows well enough not to set a date for the Rapture. I wonder if Camping is just hoping for a surge of pre-Rapture donations. He makes it pretty clear in the second video (when questioned) that he won't need to return donations if the Rapture doesn't happen because it absolutely will. One might wonder here why he needs donations at all if the Rapture is coming. He might as well shut down the funding arm of his ministry.

Certain other televangelists have set dates as well. I wonder how they weaseled out of it.

It is interesting to see how the different strains of religion have set different levels of credulity in their tenets. YECists deny evolution which certainly must limit their numbers to only the most credulous of True Believers. The Pope is on record as saying that it's okay to accept evolution, but the Catholic Church still maintains that Jesus was born of a virgin and performed miracles and that during mass transubstantiation takes place. Scientologists for that matter probably accept evolution as well. They would have no reason not to.