. . . and I feel fine.
Humans have always been fascinated with the "end times." So it's no surprise that literalist Christians are seeing the new war in the Middle East as the sign they have been waiting for. These people interpret the rather surreal and allegorical images of the book of Revelation through their worldview, looking for events in the world today that can be made to fit into their understanding of Revelations.
Two looks at this phenomena: First, a serious report by CNN, then a fun segment from Stephen Colbert.
And please don't bother to accuse me of making fun of Christians. That isn't my point. I'm interested in how a worldview shapes the way people read current events.
To further illustrate my point (in the integral blogosphere), take a look at how conservatives are reading these events by stopping by Colmar's blog. Or perhaps you want to see how the left is looking at the Israeli-Arab conflict, so you might stop by Thoughts Chase Thoughts (especially Nagarjuna's contributions).
What kind of goggles are you wearing?
And now, a lighter look at the end of the world.
Technorati Tags: Revelations, The End Times, Bible, Apocalypse, Stephen Colbert, CNN, Israel, Middle East War
3 comments:
Colmar, given that your recent posts present views not greatly divergent from the editorial positions of National Review and similiar publications (not that that's an inherently bad thing), readers can certainly be forgiven for assuming you're a conservative. Minus the "integral" SD lingo, your posts would hardly be out of place in the conservative blogosphere. Perhaps in future posts you might elucidate some of your "liberal" views to balance the picture out.
Colmar,
I do think labeling you a conservative was an honest mistake on my part -- you actually quoted from the Washington Times, the far rightest of the far right newspapers in this country (that's like quoting Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity). Most of what you have quoted from in the past week or so has been from the right or far right.
I'd love to see you post something that liberals or progressives might be able to get behind, or at least to see some posts that feel more balanced in including both sides of an issue.
Back in January or so, there was a big long dust-up about whether or not integral was conservative or progressive -- Matthew Dallman argued a conservative stance, Joe Perez, some others, and I argued a progressive stance. It was fun, in a poke-myself-in-the-eye kind of way.
The issue remains open.
Peace,
Bill
Bill,
If Liberal means keeping your head in the Echo Chamber, then what a terrible thing it is.
Liberals become merely tired carbon copies of fundamentalists if all they hear is the blathering of folks on their side of The Great Divide.
Anyone truly interested in politics must listen to his perceived opponents most of all. And anyone interested in advancing in their political education must find the wisdom there might be from that other side and must do so as assiduously as if they were listening to Gandhi or Buddha or Lincoln.
Post a Comment