It *is* interesting how a series of books that have sold 60 million+ copies have managed to stay out of the media spotlight, isn't it?

I find it humorous when I hear liberals complain that the media is slanted to the right in light of something like this.

Good point concerning people's views of Jesus' "disposition" during the end-times. Even in the New Testament he was no pushover. He was a man who stood up for his beliefs and did not do it quietly... he got in the face of those in power in public.

Modern day religion has painted this version of a "gentle Jesus" that's more like a lamb than a lion, but anyone who reads the Bible knows that isn't the only side there was to him.

Vic

Vic

It's worth noting that the world-view of "Left Behind" is not that of orthodox Christianity. In the eyes of the both the Catholic Church and most mainstream protestants, it's deeply heretical. In some way's the west's equivalent of Saudi Wahhabism.

It's worth reading Slacktivist's commentary on LB. Fred Clark is himself an evangelical Christian, and understands where LB is coming from, and why it's wrong.

I find it humorous when I hear liberals complain that the media is slanted to the right in light of something like this.

What does fiction book sales have to do with liberal/conservative news coverage?

If a non-Christian series of books had sold 60 million copies I'm pretty sure you'd hear about it on the news, regardless what it was about.

The Liberal media is extremely anti-Christian.

Vic

I've seen coverage of the series and the movies in the 'liberal media'. Perhaps it doesn't need 24/7 coverage? One can easily go to a liberal newsite and search for the title, coverage comes up.

I don't know how book sales are tallied, but I would imagine that the news media would report on NYT bestseller lists (or similiar) and if the book was there I'm sure it was mentioned. Perhaps some best seller lists don't include Christian bookstores which might be why you feel it is underreported. I would think that wouldn't be a problem with the coverage, but rather their source.

Personally, I don't think it has received a lack of coverage. I've seen plenty of interviews with Kirk Cameron about the movie, and I've seen news reports about the rise in sales in Christian bookstores sparked by the series. And I've seen plenty of coverage of Passion of the Christ, including lots of positive reviews that weren't all focused on the contraversy (like I know will be immediately brought up). And this was in the liberal media too.

The Liberal media is extremely anti-Christian.

Your claim to this is a lack of coverage. Not promoting something is not the same as being against it.

When the "Liberal Media" rubbishes "Left Behind", perhaps it could be interpreted not so much as being "Anti-Christian" as anti- the postmillenial dispensationalist heresy?

I don't understand Tim. I watch what everybody considers liberal news all the time. MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc. and I've never heard anybody 'rubbish' left behind. What does that mean? Do you mean they refer to it as fiction and not to be taken as fact or as a documentary? Is that what rubbishing means?

Perhaps "rubbish" isn't the right word, since they're largely ignoring it. But this article is hardly complimentary.

My perspective of the article you referred to, wasn't so much a slam at Christianity, as it was a slam against a fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity.

Some of the references used in that article, refer to scenes in the book that the reporter takes issue with. Like the description of Christian believers having to 'drive carefully' to avoid the flying body parts and the spewing blood of the unbelievers being ripped apart by God.

I can see how someone can take issue with that interpretation of the End of Days, without necessarily being anti-Christian. In fact, that was the message that I took from the article, that the author didn't have a beef with Christianity, but with an interpretation of it.

I probably didn't make myself clear; that article is rubbishing "Left Behind" and the twisted theology behind it, and certainly isn't attacking Christianity as a whole.

But it wouldn't surprise me if some fundamentalists who subscribe the sorts of heresies championed by "Left Behind" interpret it as an attack on Christianity.

But it wouldn't surprise me if some fundamentalists who subscribe the sorts of heresies championed by "Left Behind" interpret it as an attack on Christianity.

That may be, Tim. Comment 4 would tend to indicate you are correct in your assumption. However we do not remain silent because we worry about how others may interpret what we say.

I believe in God and Jesus. However, it has been my experience when discussing religion, which is by far the most volatile subject ever, that it is impossible to never offend somebody. And that it always boils down to interpretation.

Example, I believe in God and the teachings of Jesus. I also believe that organized religion is currently about as far away from both as you can get. However, there are many fundamentalists out there who believe that the Church IS God (the voice of God, etc.). So when I make a comment about the evils of organized religion, from my perspective I am not commenting at all on Christianity or the teachings of Jesus, but rather the actions of Man. You can clearly see how others though would take my words as a direct assault on their faith AND their God.

So it's always been my perspective that any comment from the 'liberal' media about religion, will always be seen as an assault by someone. But I don't think that means we should be silent with our viewpoint, and I don't think anything should be above a critical perspective. We can only say what we feel, we can't control how others interpret it.