CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1885767870/qid=1076452075//ref=pd_ka_1/002-4877198-9060836?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

HAHAHAHA! This book is great!

I read the reviews and it sounds funny. One huge spoof-- even the title. I may buy it seeing the cost isn't much.

whats it about?

That is hilarious. I'd buy it.

The Left Behind series (what I read of it) was rather poorly written... not to mention the scarily bad theology. *shudder*

I'll have to see if the local library has this.

Is it anti-Christian in any way? Cos' if not, then I'm looking into it...

I read the first 3 books in the Left Behind series, and thought it was written well. Might be just taste.

Right Behind sounds funny though; and yeah, is it a mockery of Christianity, or just a funny Christian spoof?

The review says the author is a "conservative Christian."

:lol I think I'll go and find this book now...

Though I disagree with the basis of "Left Behind" I must say this comment in the reviews really bothered me: "...laughable characteristics of modern evangelicalism..."

While I disagree with the pretrib theology, Christianity is an evangelistic faith... I'd go so far as to say people who refused believe that weren't really Christians. I would have to read this book AND "Left Behind" to see what this thing was really saying, I guess, but the evangelical portion of Christianity is not one that can be argued.

It's not anti-christian in any way. Yes, it's anti-evangelical, but you don't understand what we mean by 'evangelical'.

Ok, mike, we've gotten into this before. You obviously don't know the meaning of the word Evangelical. As most people mean it, they mean "evangelistic" I.E. the belief we need to spread our faith.

But, what do YOU mean by evangelical, as I am rather curious.

Michael's correct in his usage Bob. Evangelicalism refers to a particular subset of Protestant beliefs, and is often used interchangably with Fundamentalism or with the term "Born-Again Christian". The movement itself is more or less cross-denominational.

Some discussion may be found at
http://www.wheaton.edu/isae/defining_evangelicalism.html

OK, I read the site, but am no where nearer to understanding this. Could someone please explain in plain and simple einglish what "evangelical" really means? And if evangelical is not the word for the belief we need to spread our faith, what is?

I find this quite amusing, though I'd have to see the book to give a true response. Unfortunately, there is no way in purgatory I'll be able to buy it, so unless I find it at a library...

If it actually worked with the theology and had jokes based from it, I'd be quite pleased.

Meanwhile, I'd ask you all to keep the evangelical issue polite and civil, and informational as opposed to a debate; otherwise, I'm not going to touch it.

The book sounds amusing, although I doubt that I will read it. I haven't read any of the "Left Behind" books, so I imagine that many of the jokes would be lost on me.

As for the evangelical issue, the necessity of spreading the gospel is one of the tenets of evangelicalism, although it is not a defining issue. The link provided by Technomancer gives a good, detailed description, but if you want a shorter definition, an envangelical holds the follows beliefs:

1.The Bible is the inerrant Word of God; therefore, it is authoritative and true in all matters it touches.

2.Jesus died on the cross, and rose bodily from the grave.

3.There is no way to heaven except through Christ.

There are of course other propositions that evangelicals would hold; and those listed here are not exclusive to evangelicalism, but this is the foundation of evangelical beliefs.

After reading the information from Amazon.com, it appears that the author of "Right Behind" passed through Liberty University at one time. If you want a good example of the most radical evangelicals, check them out; however, keep in mind that they are the extreme.

Hehe. That looks hilarious.

I've read Left Behind... most of the series. I read up through "The Indwelling" I think... I really liked the series, I was really into it for a while. I liked the thriller aspect to it, and I really liked the character Buck Williams and... Nicholae Carpathia (the Antichrist character). Yes, my second favorite character in the book was evil incarnate. Hey, I tend to like villains.

But, I lost my interest. There was a lot in the books that was poorly written. There was an excitement to the books... and... you can only really enjoy them if you put some of your theology aside and see them as fiction. (which is what they are, though I do think the authors cling to the theology in them). As for me... I'm *hoping* that the Rapture is pretrib, but I'm not really sure. The way I read the Bible, it could be pre-trib or mid-trib... Then, there are some other things that the authors kind of take liberties with, some things they take very literaly that *might* actually be more symbolic. Bottom line: I really don't think we are going to know exactly how the apocalypse will happen until it does. So, the books were something I enjoyed on a level of fiction. I think of it almost as how I was able to enjoy the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion - put personal theology aside and enjoy the fiction.

What I liked about the books: They have a lot of courage. The characters face a lot of bad things but keep on going. Also, the books taught me that I don't have to sugarcoat things and gloss over gore to be a Christian writer -
The books have some nice, scary gorey scenes, and that encouraged me as a writer that I didn't have to worry so much about how much I relish writing gore, myself - that I'm not being "evil" by writing detailed descriptions of death and injury in my own work.

However, in hindsight, there really is more to dislike with Left Behind than to like as far as the writing. First of all, Carpathia has spooky mental powers. That just seems... so cliched. His ability to brainwash large numbers of people and to project what he wants them to think they have seen with his mind just makes things too easy for him as a villain.

The main male characters... Rayford and Buck... and others... do seem to be too much the "sterotypical dashing male leads". Yeah, they emote, they have their problems, but... it just seems like they are too brave sometimes.

Left Behind's female characters SUCK. I understand male-centric stories, books written by men, for men... Tolkien's work is like that, but Tolkien could make up for his lack of numbers of female characters by making the female characters he did have in his books really wonderful. The Left Behind females... They drive me nuts. Chole started out well enough, but by about the fifth book... it seems like having a kid totally changed her... and in a bad way. She basically turned into a damsel in distress wimp. Don't get me started on Hattie... UGH... The women in these books are, frankly... portrayed as ditzy and stupid. Chole had her smart moments at first, but... gah, the way she turned after about the 4th book.. I kept wanting to smack her upside the head... Hattie...from the start I wanted to smack her over the head repeatedly with a 2 x 4.

The books, overall, are very preachy in places. I understand the authors wanting to witness to people, but the way they write it... the books are primarily marketed to a Christian audience, so in that sense, they are "preaching to the choir" - and to most non-Christians... I think they would be turned off by th style of the preaching in the books. I know I would have had I read them before I got saved. I know my unsaved friends would likely be turned off by the preaching in the books just by the style in which the message is delievered. I won't knock it completely... the style works for some people... just, it's not something that I think would work for most people I know.


Reading the reviews on "Right Behind"... I might read it eventually, it seems hilarious... stuff about a fake Rapture and people throwing Precious Moments figurines and Thomas Kinkade paintings at each other! Hah! Knowing the Left Behind cannon... I'd get all the in jokes - and probably laugh myself sick.

cbwing0 wrote:1.The Bible is the inerrant Word of God]bodily[/i] from the grave.

3.There is no way to heaven except through Christ.

I fail to see anything drastically wrong with such propositions, at least not to the level of comments made here. Of course, certain interpretations of #1 could cause some issues, and some people will be unhappy about the second portion of #2. If #3 is something you (speaking not to any individual) object to, I'd dare to call that heresy.

I don't think that the bodily raising from the Grave can really be argued either.

The second half of number 2... I believe John spoke about that. The belief that he didn't raise bodily was a belief of the Gnostics, who John Vehemently opposed. Any attempts to downplay or remove Christ's (who said "I AM" numerous times in association to the message spoken to Moses by Y-H-V-H and said that he and the father were one) divinity OR his humanity are wrong.

In any case, while my definition may not match the standard definition of that word, that did NOT tell me what Micheal's definition was.

Ummm... so what is the real definition? I feel like I'm spinning around in circles.

Wiggins, for the sake of the peace of the boards, why don't you try dictionary.com or ask your local pastor--I'm afraid anything else might spark a nasty debate here.

O sorry... I'll do that...

Hey not a problem; just trying to keep the peace.

Huh? I thought this was a thread about certain books and their parodies... how did this become a theology disscussion?

In the past 2 years, Shadsie, it's become rather apparhent to me that just because a thread starts off one way (innocently) doesn't mean it will stay that way.

Anyway, back on topic now folks...

I read the first couple Left Behind books and then stopped after reading Soul Harvest. I got tired of it and long series' tend to discourage me.

Don't know if I really care for this parody thing though. Whether or not it's written well, the authors of Left Behind were trying to reach people for Christ.

It might be an interesting read however.

Done properly, it could reach a similar number of people for Christ. I seriously doubt this, however. Allow me to explain further: many individuals have hated the Left Behind series from the beginning (non-Christian individuals) as well as the theology behind it. They see it as another incarnation of Christian stupidity.

A book of this type (by a Christian) could possibly show that the Christian community isn't all like that... some of us do heavy thinking and can be humorous as well.

Along the same vein, I have an atheist friend who says the movie "Dogma" came closer to converting him to Christianity than anything else.

The thing about Dogma is that if people think "Oh, Christians don't all have to believe what the Bible says..." then will they really become Christians?

I am getting tired of defending a book I don't even agree with, but I think any argument against it should be for valid reasons. Not liking the style, the simplicity, or even the "evangelical" nature is not valid reasons for a Christian to completely refute the books. Resorting to methods like that, for A christian anyhow, is damaging to our witness. I said I don't like the books because of the pre-trib theology, but I don't just count them as completely worthless garbage. Now, the belief that God won't let us suffer, even as much as people will suffer through the tribulation, IS garbage because it directly contradicts both Jesus' words and the suffering of Christians worldwide (outside of "first world" countries such as the US, England, Australia, Japan...) However, if there is other reasoning for the Pre-trib belief, I still disagree with it but it's not damging to our faith. It doesn't paint the American (or Brittish or whatever) Christians in some superior light than the Christians in other countries, like Sudan. I disagree with the Pre-trib belief, but I don't consider the books total trash, even if they were written very simply without use of many descriptive nouns and constructed poorly in a strictly gramatical sense. I think they should be applauded for their efforts to try to reach people with the Gospel and they HAVE done so, even if the pre-trib stuff gets tossed in there as well. My old pastor was pre-trib. I didn't mind that, as I respected him and his place in authority and protection, but that didn't mean I had to agree with everything he had to say. I could see as much of his heart as any human can (which isn't that much) and what I saw was good. He had a heart to bring everyone in the city, and neighboring cities, to Christ and to make sure NO ONE went to hell. He had a heart for the poor and those in bondage to drugs, alcohol, and a few other things. Despite his entirely anti-alcohol stance (coming from a history as an alcoholic) and his pre-trib stance (since that seems to be the most common belief among Charasmatics) he had the right heart, and our church was blessed and we brought many people in and led many people to Jesus, and had many sucess stories of changes Jesus had done in their lives.

The same is true with these books. While they have doctrine I don't agree with, I think to mock their efforts to reach the world for Christ will come back to haunt us. It will be counted against us. To notice the theological flaws is one thing, but to attack someone who has a heart to reach the world for Christ is a sin. It's not only a sin, but it' s an often unrecognized one. People who have "ministries" devoted to taking other ministries down will judged on that eventually. To oppose anyone who is preaching the gospel and to mock them just because of a disagreement theologically is dangerous waters.

I have no problem with humor and even in the context of correcting bad doctrine, but while I can't speak for the "Right Behind" book, many people supporting this book have been mocking the people themselves and using it as an insulting point to the authors rather than a correction for the people who may have been following bad doctrine. That is a bad thing to do. It will come around, and people who've done that will not like the result.

I am NOT saying you don't question what comes across you... Quite the opposite. You question EVERY doctrine that is taught to you, comparing it to the Bible and NOT to doctrines you've been taught before. Also, look at the context in which scripture is given to you. You may be surprised to find out that the verse by itself out of context is entirely opposite of the intentions of the whole text. So, yes, you do Question and don't condemn or scold those who question, but to mock is a whole different thing.

EDIT: Fixing some grammer mistakes... I don't believe grammer is suptreme in judging someone's intelligence, by the way. Nor, for that matter, do I believe that grammer is supreme in judging a person's bookwriting skills. I think that "interesting story" is at a much higher place than grammer.

I did actually read and consider your entire post, by the way.

Bobtheduck wrote:The thing about Dogma is that if people think "Oh, Christians don't all have to believe what the Bible says..." then will they really become Christians?

Not really that concept (he would have accepted the Bible), but that it was a Christian satire of Christianity. Seeing as he's anti-establishment, and Christianity in its true form is anti-establishment, it appealed to him.

Bobtheduck wrote:I am NOT saying you don't question what comes across you... Quite the opposite. You question EVERY doctrine that is taught to you, comparing it to the Bible and NOT to doctrines you've been taught before. Also, look at the context in which scripture is given to you. You may be surprised to find out that the verse by itself out of context is entirely opposite of the intentions of the whole text. So, yes, you do Question and don't condemn or scold those who question, but to mock is a whole different thing.

I hope I haven't mocked, and if I have, I apologize.

In regard to the reaching the world for Christ point... if they come to Christ under false pretenses (oh so similar to the Dogma point mentioned earlier), have they truly come to Him? That's not meant to be a logical argument, just vaguely thought provoking.