We watched a clip from Marjoe, an academy award winning documentary about former child minister Marjoe Gortner. He became a born-again preacher four years after he was born, apparently because he had been forced (physically) by his mother. This happened around 1950, but could people still pull it off today? A few people were quick to point out Jesus Camp as a modern example.

Sounds interesting, right? We’ll probably have a screening of Marjoe at a later point in time.

The main topic for this meeting was the endtimes. Of course the date everyone knows is December 21, 2012, the day when the Mayan Calendar ends. Because those Mayans sure knew a lot, especially about the 21^st century. Spencer note that the Mayans in fact did see their own endtimes—and they never saw it coming. But there are plenty of other predictions of the world’s demise. We got a bit into the Y2K bug and the zombie apocalypse, but the other really well-known endtimes prediction comes from the book of Revelations.

The basic storyline of Revelations, I’m told, is that the Anti-Christ first unites the Earth and creates a false religion. And then, a series of disasters occur! This should probably be interpreted in its historical context, but never mind that. Now we have a series of popular novels (as well as a movie and video game), called Left Behind, which is based loosely on Revelations. In Left Behind, suddenly all the born-again Christians (and none of those other kinds of Christians) disappear in the Rapture. Everyone else, left behind, either joins the Anti-Christ, or start fighting against the UN. Apparently, this story speaks to people. It speaks to Glenn Beck, who took perhaps legitimate fears about the bailout, and turned them into an outrageous argument relating to the endtimes.

For discussion, I asked the question, “Why does the belief in endtimes come up so often throughout history?” It’s not just the Christians who have had the belief, and not just in modern times. Perhaps it comes from the belief that things are just getting worse and worse, not like the good old days. Or, as Kevin suggested, it is to create fear, which can be used to control. It’s not necessarily malicious in intent; people simply want to be able to turn the world around. Someone else suggested that once you are afraid enough, you have the need to spread it around, causing a chain reaction. The Shrinking Penis panics in parts of Africa were cited as an example of this phenomenon.

And how can we argue against belief in the endtimes? Do we ask for a definitive date, and then wait it out? Do we point towards all the previous failed predictions? Wrong beliefs can be so resilient.

Ground Rules for Polemicists
by Donald Lazere

(excerpts–with parts that seem especially useful in bold-face)

[Donald Lazere's "ground rules" were directed originally to scholarly writers engaged in heated debate with professional adversaries. I've found them to be helpful for anyone engaged in political dialogue with allies or adversaries. Adapt to your own uses as writers seeking to acknowledge your worthy opponents.]

1. …Apply the same standards to yourself and your allies that you do to your opponents, in all of the following ways.
2. Identify your own ideological viewpoint and how it might bias your arguments. Having done so, show that you approach opponents’ actions and writing with an open mind, not with malice aforethought. Concede the other side’s valid arguments–preferably toward the beginning of your critique, not tacked on grudgingly at the end or in inconspicuous subordinate clauses.
3. Summarize the other side’s case, fully and fairly, in an account they would accept, prior to refuting it. Present it through its most reputable spokespeople and strongest formulations (not through the most outlandish statements of its lunatic fringe), using direct quotes and footnoted sources, not your own undocumented paraphrases. Allow the most generous interpretation of their statements rather than putting the worst light on them; help them make their arguments stronger when possible.
4. When quoting selected phrases from the other side’s texts, accurately summarize the context and tone of the longer passages and full texts in which they appear.
5. When you are repeating a second-hand account of events, say so–do not leave the implication that you were there and are certain of its accuracy. Cite your source and take account of its author’s possible biases, especially if the author is your ally.
6. In any account that you use to illustrate the opponents’ misbehavior, grant that there may be another side to the story and take pains to find out what it is. If opponents claim they have been misrepresented, give them their say and benefit of the doubt.
7. Be willing to acknowledge misconduct, errors, and fallacious arguments by your own allies, and try scrupulously to establish an accurate proportion of sense and reciprocity between them and those you criticize in your opponents. Do no play up the other side’s forms of power while denying or downplaying your own side’s.
8. Respond forthrightly to opponents’ criticisms of your own or your side’s previous arguments, without evading key points. Admit it when they make criticisms you cannot refute.
9. Do not substitute derision for reasoned argument and substantive evidence.
   

Donald Lazere, “Ground Rules for Polemicists: The Case of Lynne Cheney’s Truths” (College English 59.6: 661-2)