"Left Behind" Books Anti-Catholic?

[jaz1976]

mikey1974:

There is no skewed interpretation of the bible as they do not interpret the bible, but believe as I do that the bible is written plainly. If you need to interpret it than you are lying to yourself. Why would GOD leave the bible in a way that would confuse us or open to interpretation so that we could have thousands of religions claim they now the correct interpretation as is now the case.

2Peter 3:16 In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.

Hey Mikey,

Good luck interpreting those easy Scriptures buddy.

 

[David_Zampino]

JKirkLVNV:

Didn’t they attempt to dispel the notion that the books were anti-Catholic by having (in one of them) the pope become “saved” and start to “reform” the Church so it would be the way it was supposed to be?

I’m serious.

Yes, the Pope was “raptured” because he had secretly become a theological Lutheran! Actually, LaHaye and Jenkins know as little about authentic Lutheran theology as they do about Catholic theology.

 

[Trick]

mikey1974:

If the series is anti-catholic than i am glad i left the catholic church a couple years ago. The problem is the catholic church as well as most other churches do not teach what the bible says. The left behind series is excellent and wholly based on scripture directly from the bible. There is no skewed interpretation of the bible as they do not interpret the bible, but believe as I do that the bible is written plainly. If you need to interpret it than you are lying to yourself. Why would GOD leave the bible in a way that would confuse us or open to interpretation so that we could have thousands of religions claim they now the correct interpretation as is now the case.

Mikey,

I notice on your profile that you put " not sure" for your religeous affiliation.

May I suggest that you put Christian, for I do believe you are trying to follow Christ.

I would like you to truly explore and learn what the Catholic Church teaches, for if you do I think you will embrace it since I am sure you love Christ.

Trick

 

[bohelton]

In the Left Behind series, many who were lukewarm Christians of many denominations were Left Behind because they were not looking/hoping/living for His return. That was one of the main themes of the series.

Unity in the essentials!

Bob

 

[mastda]

Newly Married, my wife and I left the Catholic Church in 1991. We participated in a few different protestant denominations including Fundamentalist Churches and a church which preached this “Left Behind” doctrine. It was about the time when all the Y2K and the end of the world was about to happen (accoriding to them). In 1997 my wife and I went to a bible study group as we were fascinated with end time prophecy. With out us knowing, It was the beginning of our return to the Roman Catholic Church. There were so many inconsistencies and quite honestly many personal agendas, it left us questioning everything that was preached by every minister. In fact it made us question everything we believed to the point we spent hundred of dollars on CD’s, books and conferences. It was very confusing as every question was being answered by the Roman Catholic Church. To make a long story short, it took almost 3 years but in October of 2000 we attended our first mass since 1990 (non-funeral) and have not missed one since. We look back and think if it hadn’t been for this book series we probably would of stayed protestant.

 

[catsrus]

My grandaughter, who was raised with no faith tradition at all, read all those *left behind *books, signed up for RCIA and was Baptized & Confirmed into Holy Mother Church 3/26/05.
Yes, God DOES work in mysterious ways!

 

[mikey1974]

Trick:

Mikey,

I notice on your profile that you put " not sure" for your religeous affiliation.

May I suggest that you put Christian, for I do believe you are trying to follow Christ.

I would like you to truly explore and learn what the Catholic Church teaches, for if you do I think you will embrace it since I am sure you love Christ.

Trick

I do consider myself christian, but don’t believe christianity to be a religion, but rather a belief in christ and a way of living. I consider religions to be Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant, Mormon, Episcopalian, etc… When I say I am not sure it is because I believe them to all be christian based, but all to also be wrong at least a little, some more than others, I don’t believe that a single one teaches everything the bible says and picks only those things they find necessary to sustain their beliefs and leaves out or finds a way of twisting those things the bible says that don’t jive with what they want to believe. I also don’t believe that the majority of the bible calls for intepretation as it is written plainly and what it says is what it means. To say that the bible needs interpretation is like saying that GOD is trying to trick us and wants us to mess up. This is a belief that is shared by very few religions and it saddens me to see so many good people in this world that have good hearts and good intentions being led astray by a religion that is not fully true if at all true to GOD’s word. I hope I have clarified myself and maybe caused a few people to think.

 

[Milliardo]

mikey1974:

I do consider myself christian, but don’t believe christianity to be a religion, but rather a belief in christ and a way of living.

The same way some claim Buddhism to be a way of life as well? Chrsitianity is a religion, no matter how some might want to avoid the term. Religion, incidentally, is termed as a way of living one’ beliefs in a diety. Hhmm…

When I say I am not sure it is because I believe them to all be christian based, but all to also be wrong at least a little

So which one for you would be correct then, or at least have most right by your notion?

I also don’t believe that the majority of the bible calls for intepretation as it is written plainly and what it says is what it means.

Depends on the verse and the context by which it was written. It’s hard to just generalize like that.

To say that the bible needs interpretation is like saying that GOD is trying to trick us and wants us to mess up.

Ditto for this one as well–see my point above. Incidentally as well, the Left Behind series is but an interpretation by the authors of Revelation. In that itself, by subscribing to the notions presented in the book, you contradict yourself.

 

[Phaedrus]

May I suggest a Catholic alternative to the Left Behind series? It’s Father Elijah: An Apocalypse, by Michael D. O’Brien. A novel about the end times, like the LB books, but very well written, unlike LB. Solidly Catholic, and chillingly believable. This one will give you the shivers.

Under the Mercy,
Phaedrus

 

[JKirkLVNV]

mastda:

Newly Married, my wife and I left the Catholic Church in 1991. We participated in a few different protestant denominations including Fundamentalist Churches and a church which preached this “Left Behind” doctrine. It was about the time when all the Y2K and the end of the world was about to happen (accoriding to them). In 1997 my wife and I went to a bible study group as we were fascinated with end time prophecy. With out us knowing, It was the beginning of our return to the Roman Catholic Church. There were so many inconsistencies and quite honestly many personal agendas, it left us questioning everything that was preached by every minister. In fact it made us question everything we believed to the point we spent hundred of dollars on CD’s, books and conferences. It was very confusing as every question was being answered by the Roman Catholic Church. To make a long story short, it took almost 3 years but in October of 2000 we attended our first mass since 1990 (non-funeral) and have not missed one since. We look back and think if it hadn’t been for this book series we probably would of stayed protestant.

I grew up Baptist. They went on and on, with charts and diagrams, etc, about eschatology and the Second Coming. Sometimes it seemed like it was all they talked about.

 

[David_Zampino]

mikey1974:

I do consider myself christian, but don’t believe christianity to be a religion, but rather a belief in christ and a way of living. I consider religions to be Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant, Mormon, Episcopalian, etc… When I say I am not sure it is because I believe them to all be christian based, but all to also be wrong at least a little, some more than others, I don’t believe that a single one teaches everything the bible says and picks only those things they find necessary to sustain their beliefs and leaves out or finds a way of twisting those things the bible says that don’t jive with what they want to believe. I also don’t believe that the majority of the bible calls for intepretation as it is written plainly and what it says is what it means. To say that the bible needs interpretation is like saying that GOD is trying to trick us and wants us to mess up. This is a belief that is shared by very few religions and it saddens me to see so many good people in this world that have good hearts and good intentions being led astray by a religion that is not fully true if at all true to GOD’s word. I hope I have clarified myself and maybe caused a few people to think.

Mikey,

With all due respect, you certainly have not clarified yourself. Your notion of Biblical “interpretation” flies in the face of reality. If you are correct, then why are there tens of thousands of different “Bible preachers” with radically different interpretations of what the Bible says? By what authority do YOU interpret the Bible? Where does the Bible itself say that it is self-interpreting?

My friend, I fear that in your eagerness to follow Christ (or to follow what you THINK is Christ) you have placed your definition of “Bible” as an idol – and it is an idol which you will find will prove to be most unsatisfactory.

Come home. We’re waiting for you.

Blessings,

 

[tamccrackine]

I read these books… all but about 1/4th of the last one… by book 10, I was FORCING myself to finish the series and then by the last book… I couldn’t bring myself to finish it. Not because of some anti-Catholic thing… but because the writing, the plot line and everything else had reached such a nauseating juvenile feeling, I just couldn’t do it anymore. My DH brought the first four to me because we lived in Germany and didn’t have TV, and I love to read. So I was happy to have something to read. They are entertaining in an adolescent manner. I remember telling my husband “If I wasn’t Catholic, and I believed this junk, I’d be running to be baptised right now.” and this was all before it hit the fan as being the best sellers and moving people to get to church, etc. My best friend and her husband, who are devout Protestants, were giddy when they told me how suprised they were at who was revealed as the indwelt. At that point, I nearly fell off my chair laughing because you pretty much figure out who is who by book two.

However… just like the Dan Brown novel The Da Vinci Code… it’s FICTION!!! The way I read fiction is that I don’t care if the author claims one iota is true… the whole thing is false. But, if you have a good day to loll around on the beach or in a hammock and don’t want to think… this would be a good set. All I know is I made the local Protestant thrift shop extremely happy by donating the entire set (in hardback too) to them.

 

[aurora77]

tamccrackine:

I read these books… all but about 1/4th of the last one… by book 10, I was FORCING myself to finish the series and then by the last book… I couldn’t bring myself to finish it. Not because of some anti-Catholic thing… but because the writing, the plot line and everything else had reached such a nauseating juvenile feeling, I just couldn’t do it anymore.

I’m so glad someone else felt this way!!! I got through, I think it was book 4 or 5, whichever one they revealed who shot the anti-Christ. It was totally obvious at the end of the last book who did it, yet it took them half way through the next to “reveal” and it was supposed to be a surprise! I stopped then and there. I tried about a year later to pick up where I left off (I would like to finish the series), but I just couldn’t do it. And, I can, and do, read just about anything!

I knew they weren’t Catholic friendly when the Pope was raptured b/c he’d fallen away from the Church spiritually. It made me giggle.

If you really want to see anti-Catholic, read The End Times, by the same authors. It’s supposedly the official companion to the fiction series.

 

[flameburns623]

Catholics who are criticising LaHaye & Co for their lousy writing need to pick up Bud McFarlane’s “Pierced By A Sword”, a Roman Catholic example of why one should consider many times over before attempting to novelize some pet theory. (And yet–I’ve read “Pierced…” several times, but the "Left Behind . . ." books only once or twice). As with Ayn Rand’s philosophical monstrosity Atlas Shrugged, character development always seems to suffer. Frank Perretti actually does the best job of writing fiction for the Evangelical Christian crowd–try his “This Present Darkness”, or “Piercing the Darkness”. Perretti’s main problem is that near the end of the story, when the masks drop off and good becomes manifestly distinct from evil–his writing starts to fall to pieces, imho. The characters lose some of their believability. And he does a horrible job of describing action: sort of like the BOP! BANG! WHAM! of the campy Batman-and-Robin TV series.

The eschatology of the Left Behind books does indeed leave much to be desired. It is not deliberately ‘anti-Catholic’ in quite the way Maria Monk or Charles Chiniquy would be anti-Catholic. It simply presumes certain things about where Babylon is, who the anti-Christ is, etcetera. As I recollect, the anti-Christ of the series obtains his position illicitly and through murder, coercion, and intrigue, which would pretty-much make him an anti-Pope rather than a true pope. The only thing the writers might have done to further salve the feelings of Catholic readers would be to have done as McFarlane did, and arrange for the prior Pope to somehow secretly survive the attempted assasination. Of course, then they would have had to have validated the Pope’s status as a bona fide Christian in some manner which alienated neither Protestant Evangelicals–their main audience–nor Catholics, really a marginal target for this novel. And if the Pope were ‘Christian’ by Evangelical lights–how’d he get ‘left behind’? Far better to just ‘Rapture’ him out of the story.

One of the better novel series, from the Protestant side of the spectrum, is the one being developed by Hank Hannegraaff and Sigmund Brouwer, The first was named “The Last Disciple”, the most recent is “The Last Sacrifice”. Much more refined character development and a less predctible storyline, so far as I could see from the first novel. Still not great literature but far more than a shade above the caliber of “Left Behind”.

 

[StMarkEofE]

koda:

They aren’t thinking for themselves. “Oh, I’ll have to ask my pastor…” Good grief.

Asking your pastor if you are Roman Catholic or Orthodox Catholic may not be such a bad idea if one is stymied by a problem not explanable through the scriptures.

 

[tamccrackine]

flameburns623:

Catholics who are criticising LaHaye & Co for their lousy writing need to pick up Bud McFarlane’s “Pierced By A Sword”, a Roman Catholic example of why one should consider many times over before attempting to novelize some pet theory. (And yet–I’ve read “Pierced…” several times, but the "Left Behind . . ." books only once or twice). As with Ayn Rand’s philosophical monstrosity Atlas Shrugged, character development always seems to suffer. Frank Perretti actually does the best job of writing fiction for the Evangelical Christian crowd–try his “This Present Darkness”, or “Piercing the Darkness”.

hehehe… I have read the books you described… I LOVED Bud McFarland’s books and as a matter of fact, Pierced by a Sword (a/the?) is what got me back to thinking of my beloved Church. I love Frank Peretti, especially The Oath as it deals with abortion. And I agree… he loses it at the end. It’s kind alike “aaaannndd… that’s it??” I love the thought of the angels over us fighting though. I’m not sure
Ayn Rand’s books… never heard of her.

 

[flameburns623]

Ayn Rand’s books… never heard of her

Ayn Rand was a Russian emigre who developed her own atheistic philosophy known as ‘Objectivism’. In many ways it is synonymous with Libertarianism. She wrote at least one play and several novels. Her two best novels–and least heavy-handed in terms of her philosophical convictions–were “We the Living” and “The Fountainhead”.

Following these she wrote a truly massive novel in which she made the details of her personal philosophy as explicit as possible. This novel was “Atlas Shrugged”. Followers of her ideas are as zealous as they come and they lionise the all of the woman’s novels, especially “Atlas Shrugged”. The novel is full of long-winded characters expounding Rand’s philsophy for her–one particular speech runs for dozens of pages. Less fanatic readers find her ideas interesting, but her writing style increasingly ham-fisted as she grew older. Many college and high school literature courses require students to read at least some selections from Rand’s novels.

Obviously, these are not faith-affirming books for the average Christian reader. She’s quite cynical about religion–she speaks of ‘mystics of muscle’ (tyrants who use deadly force to exert their will) and ‘mystics of spirit’ (religious leaders), who work hand-in-glove to attempt to exalt the exploiters and the underacheivers at the expense of the creators and builders. She was rabidly laissez-faire free-enterprise, opposed any sort of social intervention by governments into the private lives of citizens, and exalted the heroic individual over the collective achievements of many. In a lot of ways, her personal philosophy was an explicit inversion of the Leninist-Stalinism she escaped in Russia.

My only reason for mentioning her was to illustrate my point that when ideologues attempt to incorporate their ideas into fiction, the marriage is often an unhappy one.

 

[tamccrackine]

flameburns623:

Ayn Rand was a Russian emigre who developed her own atheistic philosophy known as ‘Objectivism’. …

My only reason for mentioning her was to illustrate my point that when ideologues attempt to incorporate their ideas into fiction, the marriage is often an unhappy one.

Ah… thank you… very enlightening and moreso, enough that I’ll look her up and take a gander at her writings.

And I agree with you on the ideologues… Dan Brown is a good example of what can happen.

thanks for the info!! I appreciate it!
theresa

 

[flameburns623]

tamccrackine:

Ah… thank you… very enlightening and moreso, enough that I’ll look her up and take a gander at her writings.

And I agree with you on the ideologues… Dan Brown is a good example of what can happen.

thanks for the info!! I appreciate it!
theresa

If you’re going to read Rand–start with “We The Living”, progress to “The Fountainhead” and then tackle “Atlas Shrugged”. Finish up with “Anthem”, which is a futuristic novel which suggests an autocratic world in which the word “I” has been abolished, along with any semblance of technology (because the ‘creators’ and ‘builders’, the individualists with the ability to create and repair things, have been brutally suppressed).

Not only is this course of reading more or less chronological–it starts with the Russian Revolution and ends in some sort of futuristic nightmare-world–but it also traces Rand’s writings from the best-to-worst. I will be honest–I read “Atlas” first, but then, I was on my way out of a period during my college years where I had dabbled in leftist political speculation, and Ayn Rand was something of a corrective for me.

Some of the leading lights of the Reagan years were alleged to be disciples of Ayn Rand, btw–so she’s not merely a speculative thinker whose ideas have never had much bearing on the world. She has really been quite influential in certain political circles.

Now, back to “Left Behind” . . . . . .

 

[RCCDefender]

flameburns623:

As with Ayn Rand’s philosophical monstrosity Atlas Shrugged, character development always seems to suffer.

poor illiterate Officer Barbrady…