Where do you classify "honest skepticism"? Honest skepticism like "hey that issue happens regularly throughout time so why make it a prophecy"?
Honest, healthy skepticism is an odd, seemingly rare thing.
It makes draws far fewer conclusions, asserts far fewer definitive realities than atheistic or political skepticism, both of which work toward an identifiable end.
Take a simple response drawn from the topic:
31 War On Streets
*Gasp* We have wars...and streets! How could one argue with such proof?
Wars have been fought in different ways throughout time, but in history it only spilled into the streets at the end. The idea of what takes place in Israel, or in Northern Ireland a few years ago, on down to the WB/IMF and WTO street battles; Lech Walesea's Solidarity movement in Poland was an astounding display of the power of the people in the streets.
The fact of fighting in the streets is historically irrelevant.
I'm tempted to invoke the awful film,
The Seventh Sign, but it's been so long since I saw it I can't remember what shreds of its theology are worthwhile. So let's hop over to the fine cinematic stroke of art called
The Rapture--if you haven't seen this film, Dr. No, I would advise you to. In addition to blending the simplistic that you're familiar with and the obscure that you don't seem to understand; in addition to speculating reasonably on the born-again mind; in addition to being an inconclusive morality play bent on demonstrating something or another about faith, you, especially, will find a sense of self-superiority in the end. The gunshots should make you cheer.
But
The Rapture uses a few simplified indicators for the coming of the End Times.
So let's take a look at it:
• "
There are wars, and rumors of wars." Drawn from Matthew 24.6, there's nothing new about a day on the Earth when there are wars and rumors of wars among humanity.
As even a
Christian website points out, "
throughout all of human history there have been "wars and rumors of wars'."
So the presence of wars and rumors of wars, even as distorted by
The Rapture, would not necessarily suffice.
How often does the moon turn to blood? Quite frequently; take a pass through farm country during the burning seasons. Watch the sunset.
People can argue what a sackcloth sky looks like; I have no set opinion.
Add to that a random trumpet from nowhere on a clear day.
Sudden weather phenomena.
Now ... admittedly, any of these things are common. And four horsemen charging down a backroad might seem unusual, but it's not unheard-of. If I have to see them in the sky, however, before I know something unusual is afoot, then I would be just stupid.
Think of it like the game show
Wheel of Fortune:
•••• •• ••• •••
You're looking for a phrase.
Can I have an 'S' please?
•••S •S ••• •••
If we look at the 138 cues to the Apocalypse, yes ... it's true that we can check them off one at a time and say, "Common. Been there. Done that. Cliché . . . ."
But
lining the issues up at once is a separate argument entirely.
May I have a 'T' please?
T••S •S T•• •••
And that's just the thing. Dishonest skepticism seeks to undermine something out of some kind of spite. Honest skepticism seeks to understand the relationship between reality and what appears to be an attempted projection thereof.
Honest skepticism can read
A Tale of Two Cities and move onto, "Is it really that good a story?" Dishonest skepticism will hang itself up on the implausibility of the beginning and end of the text.
Honest skepticism knows when it's time to move despite a lack of knowledge. Dishonest skepticism might have heard the sound (common thud), seen the smoke (common in a suburban/rural area), and the neighbors in their driveway across the street talking anxiously among themselves (frequently happens) and hear the sirens on the main road (multiple times daily) but I'll tell you this much: I heard the thud, I saw the smoke, and I didn't need to see the neighbors in order to know where the fire was. Had I seen the flames yet? No. Did I know what was on fire? No. But I knew damn well it was something of ours that was on fire. Of course, that would be a leap of faith, and were I dishonest skeptic I would have to wait until I got concrete proof that something was on fire. Heaven--no, excuse me ... let's be realistic--I have no need or obligation to find out for myself, right? Hell, two seconds' effort of walking into the next room to look out the window told me that yes, there was a problem, but that was a matter of faith from the get-go. After all, who says the signs of a fire went together? That was my silly, unknowing superstition.
Can I buy a vowel? How about an 'E' please?
T••S •S T•E E••
Take a look at the list of signs.
Now ... don't go through them one at a time, but try to imagine a world in which all of them are occurring at once.
I would like an 'H' please.
TH•S •S THE E••
I mean, #35 alone,
Fitnah spreads everywhere describes a pretty morbid condition. As I understand it, though, such a tribulation is part of being human; it's just a matter of degrees. For fitnah to spread everywhere, the Ummah has to be
huge in the first place; perhaps even the dominant influence on human affairs.
So ... what do you think, Dr. No? A world nearly entirely Muslim deciding to have a lethal, warring crisis of faith right then and there from the top down? It's good to know that you don't find that a sign of the End of the World. But billions of people having a simultaneous, lethal crisis of faith under any paradigm is a very ugly sign, regardless of whether or not you put God in the driver's seat.
I'd like to buy another vowel. I'd like an 'I' please.
THIS IS THE E••
Hmm ... you need to spin again ....
The atheistic and political skepticisms are generally dishonest because they tend to assign the meanings of things rather than to search for them. Hence, most atheistic and political skeptics tend to read holy texts far too literally, but according to a strange lexicon. It has the effect of describing the skeptic's intellectual power as near-zero.
Are these skeptics selling themselves short? Some of them, sure. In some cases, it might be the best they can manage.
Is there an 'N' please?
THIS IS THE EN•
They're all common letters, Dr. No. But when they occur in a certain sequence or grouping, they take on different meanings than they would in other settings.
Are we ready to solve the puzzle? Or do we need to spin again?
Let's solve it:
THIS IS THE END