Afarensis is a 3.5-2.8 million year old hominin from the Kada Hadar member of the Hadar formation in the Middle Awash, Ethiopia. He is approximately 41 inches tall, weighs approximately 60 pounds and has a cranial capacity of a whopping 410 cc (approximately). Afarensis is currently considered to be transitional between apes and humans and displays some traits of both. Since he spends a lot of time on the couch watching monster movies, some observers question whether he is an obligate biped (although no one has observed him climbing a tree). He also has a blog called 
Tim Lahaye, author of the Left Behind series was interviewed by Newsweek as part of the coverage of the Mideast Crisis. Couple of interesting things stand out. Questions are in bold
But my understanding is that current biblical scholarship reads some of the apocalyptic scenes in the Bible as metaphorically addressing events that were taking place as the Bible was being written.These are usually liberal theologians that don't believe the Bible literally.
So the Revelation should not be interpreted, for example, as a polemic against Rome?That's what they say. We believe that the Bible should be understood literally whenever possible. The next big event is the second coming of Christ. That's preceded by a number of signs. And some of those signs could be could be stage-setting right now. They're not going to come out of nowhere. For example, the Bible predicts when the antichrist comes and sits at his kingdom after the Rapture, he's going to have one world economy and one world government and one world religion. We're already moving rapidly in the direction of those very things.
Really? It seems we're a ways off from one world religion.
That's the least developed, but there are many particularly liberal theologians that just think that "Oh, if we could just get everybody together of all beliefs ..." If you don't have a strong belief system, you're willing to compromise your beliefs with other religions.
You've written about the threat of secular humanism.
Part of the opposition to our position is from the secular humanists, but part of it is from the liberal people of theology that reject the Bible. I don't see a great deal of difference between them. Their basic conclusions are often the same.
So there you have it. According to Lahaye, if you are not a biblical literalist you are a tool of the Antichrist - little better than those evil secular humanists. Newsweek should be ashamed of itself for publishing this tripe...
Comments
I don't think so. Newsweek's readers deserve to know that LaHaye is a lunatic. They should be commended for exposing him for what he is.
I like the tone of "It seems we're a ways off from one world religion" - it seems to imply "did you forget your tinfoil hat?". Believing that one world religion is going to happen any time, let alone any time soon, is right up there with a young and/or flat earth, credibility-wise.
Posted by: Chris | July 30, 2006 2:39 PM
Yeah that was good. I did like the fact that the interviewer was pushing LaHaye. My objection to Newsweek publishing the piece is more where they put it...
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | July 30, 2006 2:44 PM
.....but there are many particularly liberal theologians that just think that "Oh, if we could just get everybody together of all beliefs ..."
Well, there you go. What's the power of millions and millions of radical sectarian believers compared to a few liberal theologians?
It's sad. But I do get pleasure contemplating the disappointment of the millions of LaHaye readers who are certain that the Rapture is coming soon and that they won't have to worry about death. Or their credit card debt.
Posted by: Ick of the East | July 30, 2006 8:51 PM
If anyone is aiming for "one world religion" it would seem to be the religeous right. They are the ones who called for a "crusade" in the middle east and who proselytize at the military academies and on the street corners.
Posted by: Gerry L | July 30, 2006 9:17 PM
Part of the opposition to our position is from the secular humanists, but part of it is from the liberal people of theology that reject the Bible. I don't see a great deal of difference between them. Their basic conclusions are often the same.
Such as, you're a nut?
Posted by: Urp | July 31, 2006 4:37 AM