Ship of Fools: The Boy Who Didn't Die

Thread: The Boy Who Didn't Die Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028865

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

There has been a spate of movies, aimed for showing to church groups, depicting people who "went to Heaven" in one manner or another.

One such was "The Boy Who Went to Heaven", which was shown after great fanfare as an entertainment at our local Baptist church, the one with megachurch pretension. Fortunately, it wasn't publicised as an attempt at evangelism.

Unfortunately, the boy, now a teen, says he didn't die, and certainly was never shown a glimpse of Heaven. That seems to have been a lot of Malarkey (There, aren't I nice? I spared you the need to make the obligatory joke) The boy says that, basically, he was told what to say.

The publisher and the now-estranged father have tried to avoid dealing with the problem until recently. The publisher has now withdrawn the book and will not print more.

The boy's mother, who is now the sole caregiver of the paralytic and his three siblings, says she has received no financial return from this best-seller. Presumably the now-absent father has received some of this largesse.

So far, at one level, a depressingly-familiar tale of marital discord and money, with an implication of scam.

The publisher also profits from the (in)famous "Left Behind" series, which have a significant following among a certain group of Christians. Given all this, can the publisher claim to be "Christian"?

Publishing shoddy apocalyptic material is not a crime, but may be a sin, since we are not supposed to know when the Hour will come. Cheating a paralytic of his proper funding is definitely a sin, and helping the father to avoid paying for the care of his son is certainly sinful. (Yeah, I know, two sides to that story - but the indication is that there is definitely a problem)

Then there is the vast number of Christians who lap this kind of story up while not reading their Bibles. Why do churches encourage this?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I haven't perused the source materials. But who was it who wrote the original story? He or she must have known it was fiction. Either the author didn't speak to the paralytic boy, or he or she discounted what the boy said and embroidered it.

That's the person who should be on the hook. Publishers are well known to be sharks, and you cannot blame them for swimming towards blood.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

The book was co-written by father and son though as the book was published in 2010 (and almost certainly written earlier) when the son was under 12, one guesses that the father was the chief writer. The son certainly did say he had some experiences but now says he didn't. However he was 6 at the time so knowing the difference between fiction and non-fiction might be a bit tricky (especially if adults are telling him he must have met Jesus, gone to heaven, etc.).

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

He says that he made it up because he wanted attention.

article here

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

The article also says the father is keeping the royalty checks. This may well be so, but it may be that the publisher is getting all the money. Of course, I'm biased since I see the "Left Behind" series as exploitive and creepy.

If the boy is setting the record straight on his own accord, it's a sad story of exploitation but he possibly may have grown by setting the record straight. It does seem possible that he's just the pawn in the latest struggles of a broken marriage. I feel bad for him.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Then there is the vast number of Christians who lap this kind of story up while not reading their Bibles. Why do churches encourage this?

There are a number of factors in play:

1. The so-called Christian publishing industry is dominated by financial interests. With others I thoroughly investigated an award-winning, best-selling "true story"; it quickly became apparent that it was anything but true, and neither the ghostwriter nor the editor had done any fact-checking at all, and parts were plagiarised.

The publisher pulled the book, not when they realised it was not true, but when it became more of a liability than an asset. It acknowledged the allegations of untruth but, presumbly to avoid litigation, stopped short of conceding they were accurate. The book has never been stripped of its industry awards, so the ghostwriter still bills themself as an "award-winning author".

The assumption of the Christian book-buying public is that due diligence is applied in these cases by so-called Christian publishers. There is absolutely no guarantee of that.

2. Christians are not encouraged to be Bereans. Many people who speak in public in churches do not bother to check facts they assert, and do not like being called out on mistakes. A culture of believing what's said from the pulpit uncritically can emerge, especially if supernatural happenings are part of the church's eschatalogical imperative. This is more comfortable for leaders (who are challenged less) and for congregations (who rely on leaders to do their thinking for them). An 'emperor's new clothes' situation develops in which nobody dares admit the obvious. (In the case I researched, the book was endorsed by a leading evangelical leader with a huge influence in the world of books, now retired. Despite entreaties, he would not withdraw his endorsement).

3. We are enthralled by the exotic. The reality of Christian life is that it is 99.9% mundane. In a culture obsessed with entertainment and a Christian culture that often encourages belief in practically everyday miracles, this creates cognitive dissonance to which this kind of book is a quick fix.

It may be that some of the stories out there are true, but as a result of my experience in this field I basically don't believe the truthfulness of any contemporary Christian paperbacks, and even find myself wondering about old classics like The Hiding Place.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

The publisher also profits from the (in)famous "Left Behind" series, which have a significant following among a certain group of Christians. Given all this, can the publisher claim to be "Christian"?

The publisher can claim to be what he likes, there is no copyright on the label 'Christian'.

It really is up to us to discern what to believe and put our faith in (religious or otherwise, there are plenty of crazy claims out there in the non-religious world too!)

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The article also says the father is keeping the royalty checks. This may well be so, but it may be that the publisher is getting all the money.

Just to point out that the margins on paper books are sliced up several ways: cost of production and distribution, bookseller margin (typically 30-40% of the cover price), and publisher's profit. The author will make 10-15% of the cover price. "All the money" is slightly misleading.

As in the old anecdote: "what's the best way to make a small fortune in publishing?"
"Start with a large one."

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
1. The so-called Christian publishing industry is dominated by financial interests. With others I thoroughly investigated an award-winning, best-selling "true story"; it quickly became apparent that it was anything but true, and neither the ghostwriter nor the editor had done any fact-checking at all, and parts were plagiarised.

The publisher pulled the book, not when they realised it was not true, but when it became more of a liability than an asset...

...as a result of my experience in this field I basically don't believe the truthfulness of any contemporary Christian paperbacks, and even find myself wondering about old classics like The Hiding Place.

You mention a book about which I know some history. Corrie ten Boom wrote a short book about her time as prisoner, called "A Prisoner and Yet" (I have a copy). Jamie Buckingham used that as the basis for Hiding Place which he ghost-wrote into a popular book. The situation written about is real, the emphasis very different. Corrie's book is hard to read, dominated by the gruesome and brutal conditions of the prison, and she reports the experience from the strained assumption maybe God let her be in that terrible place because she was supposed to evangelize her cell mates and save one or two of them from hell. Very dark painful book to read.

Jamie rewrote the story from the viewpoint of forgiveness, which is what Corrie preached in her later years. He left out a lot of the darkness and depression of the prison life - that doesn't sell! Note that Corrie didn't live high, Jamie when he saw his books brought in enough royalties to live on stopped accepting any salary from his church. (If I remember right, the publisher was Logos and went bankrupt in a few years.)

That was back when Christian publishing of books for mass market entertainment was new. Secular money interests have taken over the Christian pop music industry and no surprise if secular money interests control Christian publishing, in which case the word "Christian" refers to the marketing niche genre, not to the character or values of the company's owners or managers or mission statement, or even of the author's lives. Some men write women's romance fiction, I expect some atheists write Christian entertainment books.

As to the kid not yet seeing any of the money, kids cannot validly sign contracts, the parents sign the contract and the parents by law hold the child's earnings in trust for the child until majority.

Periodically you see lawsuits by now grown kid against parent who spent all the money the kid earned as a movie star. Parents can spend kid earnings on behalf of kid, but not for the basic needs (food clothing shelter, medical care) that are parental obligations.

For the father's name only to be on the contract makes sense; if he says he is holding the royalties, that may be to turn them over to the kid at majority. From the sketchy reports, it's possible the father is a decent guy doing what he is supposed to within the strains of a failed marriage including the (common to separated couples) fear the mom would take and spend all the money if she could get her hands on it. We just don't know.

[code]

[ 18. January 2015, 15:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Thanks for that insight into the history of The Hiding Place, Belle.

It confirms my deeper instinct, which is that it laid out the trajectory (testimony-rewrite-FILM $$$$) which many others have later followed, or attempted to, often with a lot less integrity.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

3. We are enthralled by the exotic. The reality of Christian life is that it is 99.9% mundane. In a culture obsessed with entertainment and a Christian culture that often encourages belief in practically everyday miracles, this creates cognitive dissonance to which this kind of book is a quick fix.

As an aside, this is a phenomena outside Christian circles. The turn around story which later turns out to be not quite on the ball is relatively common as is the story of the exotic (see Somaly Mam, or Margaret Mead).

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
3. We are enthralled by the exotic. The reality of Christian life is that it is 99.9% mundane.

I think this is true of all life, not just Christian life.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
this is a phenomena outside Christian circles. The turn around story which later turns out to be not quite on the ball is relatively common as is the story of the exotic (see Somaly Mam, or Margaret Mead).

Or indeed Shin Dong-hyuk, perhaps?

The phenomenon is of course not confined to Christianity, but Christian books are likely to attract less scrutiny because most people will assume that if it says it's true, it is. Trust is automatic and the words "a true story" a big selling point.

A major Christian publishing company in the US got within inches of publishing a US version of the book investigated by the team I was part of (you could already pre-order it on Amazon), because they had assumed the original publisher had done the due diligence, and done none themselves. Confronted with our evidence, they halted the entire project within 24 hours.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

I didn't expect that the "outside" world was perfect.

I was just annoyed that, for instance, our local Baptist church made such a fuss about what I thought, even then, was hokum. All "feel good", but no thought.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Oh, and, re the money thing: the boy may not be entitled to the cash, but one might think that any extra expenses relating to his condition might be assisted by a "loving father".

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Thanks for that insight into the history of The Hiding Place, Belle.

It confirms my deeper instinct, which is that it laid out the trajectory (testimony-rewrite-FILM $$$$) which many others have later followed, or attempted to, often with a lot less integrity.

Yes, that's a common pattern. In the case of the Hiding Place it was (according to an article by the ghost writer Jamie Buckingham) about getting out to a much broader readership the message of the importance of forgiveness of even the worst anyone intentionally does to you. If Corrie can do it, you can. A hard hitting message conveyed broadly by putting it in an easy to read popular-market story style.

In many of today's pop Christian books, there is no hard hitting message. Just "how wonderful I am" sometimes not even wrapped in pretend humility; or junk Christianity ("I died and met the ruler of the kingdom of Hell, Satan"). The book this thread is about sounds like one or both of these - no challenge to the reader in how to live or in understanding God's values.

But in general the standards for Christian art (music, literature, graphic art) are way way below commercial standards in any other field. Plop the word "Christian" on it and masses of believers turn off their brains. Just a warm fuzz "ah" reaction like watching kitten videos on YouTube.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
In many of today's pop Christian books, there is no hard hitting message. Just "how wonderful I am" sometimes not even wrapped in pretend humility; or junk Christianity ("I died and met the ruler of the kingdom of Hell, Satan"). The book this thread is about sounds like one or both of these - no challenge to the reader in how to live or in understanding God's values.

I think Adrian Plass referred to some of these as "Look how interesting my life was before I met Jesus".

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Does anyone remember the Brother Barnabas cartoons by Graham Jeffrey?

I recall one depicting a room full of eager monks in front of a projector screen, with the abbott explaining "and this evening Brother Barnabas will be presenting a slideshow entitled 'things I used to do before my conversion'"

Posted by cosmic dance (# 14025) on :

What do we know then about "Heaven is for Real" by Todd Burpo. Another fraud in the same genre??

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :

I would consider any and all such books to be patent frauds, flying in the face of basic Christian teachings that clearly deny that a person can die, "go to Heaven", come back to life, and then describe the whole process.

[ 20. January 2015, 00:18: Message edited by: ldjjd ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Alternatively, Lazarus missed a great marketing opportunity.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cosmic dance:
What do we know then about "Heaven is for Real" by Todd Burpo. Another fraud in the same genre??

I actually thought this was the one the movie had been made about -- I didn't recall seeing any reference to a movie in the articles I read about the Malarkey story. Anyway, little Burpo is still a child and his parents are presumably still married, so the cracks in that story haven't begun to show yet.

Of course as a Seventh-day Adventist who doesn't believe anyone pops off to heaven during a near-death experience, I always viewed these stories with the greatest of skepticism, but I'm glad to see in the wake of the Malarkey "revelation," so many evangelical Christians asserting that what the book claimed was not Biblical. And even while the book (and the Burpo book, and others) were selling briskly on Christian bookstore shelves, there were speakers and writers saying, "This is not what the Bible teaches about heaven; don't believe it."

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cosmic dance:
What do we know then about "Heaven is for Real" by Todd Burpo. Another fraud in the same genre??

Fraud is a big word. People get self-confused about what did they actually experience. False memories are easy for eager parents to plant in kids without really intending their leading questions to mislead.

I haven't read Heaven is for Real (and don't plan to unless someone gives me a free copy). Does it have imagery that contradicts the Bible? I haven't heard.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by cosmic dance:
What do we know then about "Heaven is for Real" by Todd Burpo. Another fraud in the same genre??
Fraud is a big word. People get self-confused about what did they actually experience. False memories are easy for eager parents to plant in kids without really intending their leading questions to mislead.

I (along w/ a host of others) have always thought that's what happened with the Burpos. I would agree that "fraud" may be too strong a word as it may be entirely unintentional-- more a wish-fulfillment type of thing.

Posted by Jante (# 9163) on :

quote:
Does anyone remember the Brother Barnabas cartoons by Graham Jeffrey?

I recall one depicting a room full of eager monks in front of a projector screen, with the abbott explaining "and this evening Brother Barnabas will be presenting a slideshow entitled 'things I used to do before my conversion'"

I still have the Barnabas Bible on my bookcase [Big Grin]

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :

I retract the word 'fraud'. Would 'bogus' be more satisfactory?

Some of the claimed experiences may spring from sincere mistakes, but when they are accepted without basic theological testing, I find it hard to use gentle words.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

The phenomenon is of course not confined to Christianity, but Christian books are likely to attract less scrutiny because most people will assume that if it says it's true, it is. Trust is automatic and the words "a true story" a big selling point.

Yes, and when a lack of trust is seen to signify a lack of faith, then that has an effect on whether something is investigated or not.

Simultaneously we have seen the triumph of PR and lawyers in the wider world - where the tactic has been to spin faster than the opposition whilst simultaneously bogging down any investigation of facts in minuteae. And this is rapidly becoming a tactic in the church too.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Christian books are likely to attract less scrutiny because most people will assume that if it says it's true, it is. Trust is automatic ...
Yes, and when a lack of trust is seen to signify a lack of faith, then that has an effect on whether something is investigated or not.

Maybe the trust issue needs a separate thread. Back when Christian friends would send me alarmist emails I would look up the alarm of the day on Snopes, quote the truth, and hit reply all.

One person thanked me, saying she had doubted the story but forwarded it because, well, if it were true people should know!

Most took me off their lost and continued sending the same sorts of emails to others (friends would mention the emails I no longer got).

But one friend scolded me for replying with the truth - I think it was the one about FCC having forced "Touched by an Angel" off the air and planning to eliminate all Christian broadcasting; I went to the FCC site and quoted their statement of the law forbidding any such thing - the friend said it was wrong wrong wrong of me to contradict the email, "don't you care about your reputation?"

Which raises an interesting question about what reputation some Christians think they need to be acceptable by other Christians. Don't think, just believe? If you point out ways the latest heaven-hell tourist book directly contradicts the Bible you are not part of the group but a troublemaker, your Christianity is in doubt?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Christian books are likely to attract less scrutiny because most people will assume that if it says it's true, it is. Trust is automatic ...
Yes, and when a lack of trust is seen to signify a lack of faith, then that has an effect on whether something is investigated or not.
Maybe the trust issue needs a separate thread. Back when Christian friends would send me alarmist emails I would look up the alarm of the day on Snopes, quote the truth, and hit reply all.

One person thanked me, saying she had doubted the story but forwarded it because, well, if it were true people should know!

Most took me off their lost and continued sending the same sorts of emails to others (friends would mention the emails I no longer got).

But one friend scolded me for replying with the truth - I think it was the one about FCC having forced "Touched by an Angel" off the air and planning to eliminate all Christian broadcasting; I went to the FCC site and quoted their statement of the law forbidding any such thing - the friend said it was wrong wrong wrong of me to contradict the email, "don't you care about your reputation?"

Which raises an interesting question about what reputation some Christians think they need to be acceptable by other Christians. Don't think, just believe? If you point out ways the latest heaven-hell tourist book directly contradicts the Bible you are not part of the group but a troublemaker, your Christianity is in doubt?

ai yi yi, I've been there too. Some fb friends really do not appreciate truth-telling.

The one that really irked me was a friend who posted the familiar meme that Obama had broken with a long-standing tradition as the only president in modern history not to attend the Washington Prayer Breakfast, and that he instead held a "secret Muslim prayer breakfast" at the White House. I tried to respond as gently as possible in posting a snopes link demonstrating:
1. Far from a long-standing tradition, only one president has ever attended the prayer breakfast
2. The meeting with Muslim clerics was not a prayer meeting but the sort of ordinary diplomatic meeting the president has with all sorts of people all the time.

The really galling thing was when my friends' pastor's wife jumped in to say that the Evil Liberals at Snopes were liars-- she knew that for sure because she said "I was there". A confusing statement, because, as I queried, it was unclear if she was saying she was at every single prayer breakfast in modern history to witness that more than one president had attended (if so, then she looked far younger than her age-- you must share your beauty secrets!) or if she had somehow been invited to the "secret Muslim prayer breakfast" (which would be quite the coup-- how'd you pull that off)?

These requests for clarification were, uh, not well received.

[ 20. January 2015, 14:29: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :

Belle Ringer said

quote:
Maybe the trust issue needs a separate thread. Back when Christian friends would send me alarmist emails I would look up the alarm of the day on Snopes, quote the truth, and hit reply all.

Tell me about It Belle. Since arrival of Social Media I've been a Snope's regular.

Here we get the 'X wants to ban Christmas/Christianity/Jesus/The Union Jack/ British Beef / The British Army /Rice Pudding - please share if you don't agree' stuff, all the time. There is often a not-so-subtle sub text that this alleged happening is to appease the Muslims.

How did the Church (or people in it) become so gullible?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

We used to have an entire magazine section and associated discussion board dedicated to some of this stuff. Perhaps there might be interest in putting in a suggestion to the 8D board?

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
Here we get the 'X wants to ban Christmas/Christianity/Jesus/The Union Jack/ British Beef / The British Army /Rice Pudding - please share if you don't agree' stuff, all the time. There is often a not-so-subtle sub text that this alleged happening is to appease the Muslims.

How did the Church (or people in it) become so gullible?

It's not that they are gullible (any of us are occasionally). It's that gullibility is proclaimed a virtue. Questioning, or offering objective facts, puts your Christianity in doubt.

I suppose it's all the teaching about "believe!" as in "don't believe your eyes, believe the Bible and believe your teachers."

They all do it. Believe the bread and wine is converted to something else even though you can't see any difference, just trust what we tell you" or "believe you are being persecuted even though you don't see any restraints on your life, just trust what we tell you."

Many people accept one and scorn the other but it's the same appeal to authority over concrete experience, churches commonly teach against investigating for yourself. So if you do, you are disobedient or disruptive (sowing discord) or lacking faith (or all three) which means you need to repent.

One endorsement of a book from the pulpit, lots buy it and proclaim it good. In any brand of church.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

quote:
One endorsement of a book from the pulpit, lots buy it and proclaim it good. In any brand of church.

I wish my sermons had that sort of power! Why aren't the faithful flocking to buy The Celestial Hierarchies by Dionysius the pseudo-Areopagite?

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
We used to have an entire magazine section and associated discussion board dedicated to some of this stuff. Perhaps there might be interest in putting in a suggestion to the 8D board?

Unfortunately, with the exception of 2 threads stored in Limbo, all the old threads from the UM board went to oblivion long long ago and have since evaporated. That was the board that brought me to the ship, and was the first I hosted.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

It cuts both ways. A few years ago I received an e-mail from a friend (we'll call her Beth). Beth was forwarding an e-mail that she said was from the wife of a nationally-known politician. That e-mail criticized President Obama for dissing soldiers in Afghanistan.

I snopes-ed it and found out that the Obama-dissing bit was wrong on several points. I sent a reply to Beth correcting the mis-statements. I then went on to state that I doubted that the original e-mail came from the wife of the politician because (said I) surely she would know better than to spread such gossip without fact-checking.

Beth wrote back thanking me for the corrections, but also telling me that I was wrong about the politician's wife. It turns out that she and Beth were friends and Beth received it directly from her.

So we were both at fault. I criticized them accepting the Obama part without checking up on it, but then I (without checking up on it) skeptically rejected that it had come from a politician's wife. My skepticism was just as ill-informed as their acceptance of the underlying e-mail.

Yes, some people do accept certain things uncritically and don't bother to check them out. But some people also skeptically reject things without checking them out. To quote G. K. Chesterton (back in 1921--so not a new problem): "They would just swallow the skepticism because it was skepticism. Modern intelligence won't accept anything on authority. But it will accept anything without authority."

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:

quote:
One endorsement of a book from the pulpit, lots buy it and proclaim it good. In any brand of church.
I wish my sermons had that sort of power! Why aren't the faithful flocking to buy The Celestial Hierarchies by Dionysius the pseudo-Areopagite?

Yeah, come to think of it I think it does take a bit more than an endorsement from the pulpit ...

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:

quote:
One endorsement of a book from the pulpit, lots buy it and proclaim it good. In any brand of church.
I wish my sermons had that sort of power! Why aren't the faithful flocking to buy The Celestial Hierarchies by Dionysius the pseudo-Areopagite?

Does it have words of more than two syllables or require readers to think?

I did word it poorly - mention a pop book... [Smile]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
Here we get the 'X wants to ban Christmas/Christianity/Jesus/The Union Jack/ British Beef / The British Army /Rice Pudding - please share if you don't agree' stuff, all the time. There is often a not-so-subtle sub text that this alleged happening is to appease the Muslims.

How did the Church (or people in it) become so gullible?
It's not that they are gullible (any of us are occasionally). It's that gullibility is proclaimed a virtue. Questioning, or offering objective facts, puts your Christianity in doubt.

I suppose it's all the teaching about "believe!" as in "don't believe your eyes, believe the Bible and believe your teachers."

They all do it. Believe the bread and wine is converted to something else even though you can't see any difference, just trust what we tell you" or "believe you are being persecuted even though you don't see any restraints on your life, just trust what we tell you."

Many people accept one and scorn the other but it's the same appeal to authority over concrete experience, churches commonly teach against investigating for yourself. So if you do, you are disobedient or disruptive (sowing discord) or lacking faith (or all three) which means you need to repent.

One endorsement of a book from the pulpit, lots buy it and proclaim it good. In any brand of church.

It's not even really limited to church/faith. We all have a tendency towards confirmation bias-- to notice only the data that confirms our preconceived beliefs and dismiss or not notice that which doesn't. I've found this on Facebook with political rants. I try to be discerning, but the times when I've had my own Snopes moment where something I've liked/commented/shared turned out to be urban legend have all been times when the bogus article/meme appeared to confirm something I already believed/ aligned with my particular political views. I've even been taken in by a few satirical pieces [Hot and Hormonal]

that I failed to recognize as parody for that reason. (basically, if you tell me Dick Cheney or Sarah Palin burned down an orphanage and ate the kiddies for Christmas dinner, I'm in danger of believing you...)

[ 20. January 2015, 22:18: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Christian books are likely to attract less scrutiny because most people will assume that if it says it's true, it is. Trust is automatic ...
Yes, and when a lack of trust is seen to signify a lack of faith, then that has an effect on whether something is investigated or not.
Maybe the trust issue needs a separate thread. Back when Christian friends would send me alarmist emails I would look up the alarm of the day on Snopes, quote the truth, and hit reply all.

One person thanked me, saying she had doubted the story but forwarded it because, well, if it were true people should know!

Most took me off their lost and continued sending the same sorts of emails to others (friends would mention the emails I no longer got).

But one friend scolded me for replying with the truth - I think it was the one about FCC having forced "Touched by an Angel" off the air and planning to eliminate all Christian broadcasting; I went to the FCC site and quoted their statement of the law forbidding any such thing - the friend said it was wrong wrong wrong of me to contradict the email, "don't you care about your reputation?"

Which raises an interesting question about what reputation some Christians think they need to be acceptable by other Christians. Don't think, just believe? If you point out ways the latest heaven-hell tourist book directly contradicts the Bible you are not part of the group but a troublemaker, your Christianity is in doubt?
ai yi yi, I've been there too. Some fb friends really do not appreciate truth-telling.

The one that really irked me was a friend who posted the familiar meme that Obama had broken with a long-standing tradition as the only president in modern history not to attend the Washington Prayer Breakfast, and that he instead held a "secret Muslim prayer breakfast" at the White House. I tried to respond as gently as possible in posting a snopes link demonstrating:
1. Far from a long-standing tradition, only one president has ever attended the prayer breakfast
2. The meeting with Muslim clerics was not a prayer meeting but the sort of ordinary diplomatic meeting the president has with all sorts of people all the time.

The really galling thing was when my friends' pastor's wife jumped in to say that the Evil Liberals at Snopes were liars-- she knew that for sure because she said "I was there". A confusing statement, because, as I queried, it was unclear if she was saying she was at every single prayer breakfast in modern history to witness that more than one president had attended (if so, then she looked far younger than her age-- you must share your beauty secrets!) or if she had somehow been invited to the "secret Muslim prayer breakfast" (which would be quite the coup-- how'd you pull that off)?

These requests for clarification were, uh, not well received.

I wonder if the Hebrew for "Thou shalt not bear false witness" sounds a bit like just a throat clearing, so perhaps some people never heard that one?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Alternatively, Lazarus missed a great marketing opportunity.

"I went to Heaven, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt"? [Biased]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I would consider any and all such books to be patent frauds, flying in the face of basic Christian teachings that clearly deny that a person can die, "go to Heaven", come back to life, and then describe the whole process.

Out of curiosity, what teachings do you mean?

I'm moderately neutral about "life after life" and "near death" experiences. But I grew up when whole spates of them were being published, so I know the general ideas. Most of them seem to be of the "Loving Presence, nice place, sent back to do stuff" variety.

I think the only one I've had a very serious problem with was when a child died, and was told to go back "because you have to save Mommy from the flames". Wasn't clear to me whether flames = Hell, or a future this-world fire. But, if true, it seemed a lot to put a little kid through.

I have more trouble with claims that God sent bad things--and (since we're on the topic of odd/fraud experiences), I include stigmata in that. It doesn't make any sense to me that God would do that. I understand that it's supposed to be a gift, and a miracle, and maybe a reward for faith. But seriously? Making someone's hands bleed, in order to glorify God? Seems like it would be better to give them the strength to do things that need to be done. Plus it seems a bit creepy. There was a woman in New York, maybe late 1800s or early 1900s, who was bedridden and also had stigmata. All sorts of people went to see her, IIRC. But good grief--didn't she have enough trouble already??? I'm more inclined to think that maybe it's a psychosomatic manifestation of wanting to imitate Christ--and/or to get attention. YMMV.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I have more trouble with claims that God sent bad things--and (since we're on the topic of odd/fraud experiences), I include stigmata in that. It doesn't make any sense to me that God would do that. I understand that it's supposed to be a gift, and a miracle, and maybe a reward for faith. But seriously?

Tee hee, where's your faith?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Which I guess tells how often I've heard it, "we aren't supposed to question, just believe."

(Which if it's common human I guess explains how despots get elected to office. They draw on the "only believe" appeal.)

Posted by Talitha (# 5085) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by cosmic dance:
What do we know then about "Heaven is for Real" by Todd Burpo. Another fraud in the same genre??
Fraud is a big word. People get self-confused about what did they actually experience. False memories are easy for eager parents to plant in kids without really intending their leading questions to mislead.

I (along w/ a host of others) have always thought that's what happened with the Burpos. I would agree that "fraud" may be too strong a word as it may be entirely unintentional-- more a wish-fulfillment type of thing.

I have read Heaven is for Real. The father writes that he was very keen to avoid this, and chose his words very carefully to avoid leading questions or planting ideas. He even used "trick" questions like asking his son what happens in heaven when it gets dark, to which his son replied that it never gets dark because the light comes from God (an idea which was the opposite of planted by his dad).

So either it's accurate, or deliberate deception.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Or someone else the dad doesn't know about had a talk with the boy about what heaven is like.

[ 24. January 2015, 17:44: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Talitha (# 5085) on :

Yes, good point. I thought the book was a bit unclear about how soon after the near-death experience these conversations took place, and hence whether there would have been any opportunity for other adults to plant those ideas.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I (along w/ a host of others) have always thought that's what happened with the Burpos. I would agree that "fraud" may be too strong a word as it may be entirely unintentional-- more a wish-fulfillment type of thing.
I have read Heaven is for Real. The father writes that he was very keen to avoid this, and chose his words very carefully to avoid leading questions or planting ideas. He even used "trick" questions like asking his son what happens in heaven when it gets dark, to which his son replied that it never gets dark because the light comes from God (an idea which was the opposite of planted by his dad).

So either it's accurate, or deliberate deception.

No, those are not the only options. I'm willing to give Dad the benefit of the doubt and assume he was making a good-faith effort not to ask leading questions and even to ask those "trick" questions. But the fact that he wasn't trying to lead his son doesn't mean it didn't happen though. There are all sorts of ways that we subtlety influence others through very indirect means-- even more so with a young child who loves and adores you. This can happen either intentionally or unintentionally. Even trained investigators have fallen prey to this in several notorious cases involving child witnesses-- much less an untrained parent. It's entirely possible it was an accidental deception.

[ 24. January 2015, 20:31: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It's entirely possible it was an accidental deception.

The book deal, and the movie rights (which they are sure to have prefaced with the get-out words "based on a true story") were not accidental. They are an indictment of the moral integrity of those responsible.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

I've had one of these near death experiences.

No really, I have.

There was no conversion afterwards, I was a committed Christian at the time, and I put it down not to going to heaven and back, but the strength of the medication.

The important thing, as far as a Christian is concerned, is that it is the truth that sets people free, there is no need to resort to falsehood or jazzing the truth up a bit.

I don't tell of my near death experience because all I am sure of is that I went into hospital dying, was injected with lots of strong drugs at the hospital and left alive. Most of the rest was a drug induced blur.

If people would just stick to the truth of what they are sure about....

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It's entirely possible it was an accidental deception.
The book deal, and the movie rights (which they are sure to have prefaced with the get-out words "based on a true story") were not accidental. They are an indictment of the moral integrity of those responsible.

Again, not if the self-deception was unintentional and subconscious. If Dad (or others) "lead" the kid in ways they were unaware of (something that trained investigators have trouble avoiding, so IMHO a very real possibility) they could honestly believe that what they wrote was a "true story." I don't think it says anything about their moral integrity, even if they took money for the book/movie deals, if they were unaware of their own self-deception.

Of course, it's also quite possible Dad or others were aware all along and it was a deliberate sham, in which case your condemnation is quite apt. In this particular case (the Burpo's, not the one in the OP) we don't really have any way of knowing if it was intentional or not.

[ 24. January 2015, 20:55: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

My aim was at the publisher first and foremost, followed by whoever bought the movie rights.

A responsible publisher does due diligence before putting the book out, as does a ghostwriter with ethics.

I discussed the case I was involved in with a colleague of the producer who was to make the movie. He said that it was common knowledge in the Christian movie industry that many "based on..." stories were entirely made up or at least grossly exaggerated, and that nobody cared/took it as normal.

I know from experience that some (but not all) Christian publishers see the dollar signs, skip the due diligence, publish, rake in the money, and hope nobody notices.

It is possible the originators of the story were self-deceived, but the real disaster here is the Christian establishment giving them a platform. In the case of the Malarkeys, if nobody at the centre of the story had blown the whistle, the book would still be on the shelves.

[ 24. January 2015, 21:03: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My aim was at the publisher first and foremost, followed by whoever bought the movie rights...

It is possible the originators of the story were self-deceived, but the real disaster here is the Christian establishment giving them a platform. In the case of the Malarkeys, if nobody at the centre of the story had blown the whistle, the book would still be on the shelves.

Oh, sorry-- I follow you now.

Yes, couldn't agree more.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, not if the self-deception was unintentional and subconscious. If Dad (or others) "lead" the kid in ways they were unaware of (something that trained investigators have trouble avoiding, so IMHO a very real possibility) they could honestly believe that what they wrote was a "true story." I don't think it says anything about their moral integrity, even if they took money for the book/movie deals, if they were unaware of their own self-deception.

In this case, where the child has admitted to deception we can make a decision. In a lot of cases it isn't that easy. Experiences under serious levels of medication seen real at the time. People in danger of dying can be given serious medication.

Even when someone is sure their experience is real we have to ask what were they on?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

When Paul got ravished to whichever level of heaven it was, he didn't sign up for the book deal; apparently God told him to STFU about it and he obeyed.

A lot of the more exciting "testimonies" seem to skip that passage somehow.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, not if the self-deception was unintentional and subconscious. If Dad (or others) "lead" the kid in ways they were unaware of (something that trained investigators have trouble avoiding, so IMHO a very real possibility) they could honestly believe that what they wrote was a "true story." I don't think it says anything about their moral integrity, even if they took money for the book/movie deals, if they were unaware of their own self-deception.
In this case, where the child has admitted to deception we can make a decision. In a lot of cases it isn't that easy. Experiences under serious levels of medication seen real at the time. People in danger of dying can be given serious medication.

Even when someone is sure their experience is real we have to ask what were they on?

Yes. (and just to clarify-- the comments posted above were specifically in reference to the Burpo case, where there has been no such admission).

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
When Paul got ravished to whichever level of heaven it was, he didn't sign up for the book deal; apparently God told him to STFU about it and he obeyed.

it is not clear that it Paul. All that is clear is Paul knew someone who was.
if whoever it was had STFU we would not know about it.

Jengie

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

But Paul simply told a story. He didn't have a book deal, or TV or any money deal.

Quite a lot of the Bible is stories told by people who thought they were reporting.

Except for Revelation, of course - that has too many indications of an LSD trip. And look at the trouble people have caused by taking it literally! The shameless part in that case is the Left Behind series and the whole Rapture movement.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But Paul simply told a story. He didn't have a book deal, or TV or any money deal.

mmm... isn't that sorta irrelevant, given that there were not book or TV deals then?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Jengie, for my money it's Paul talking about himself.

It is a bit like Philemon 1:19 where he manages to mention something even as he says he's not mentioning it. There's a word for this stylistic device in Greek which I've forgotten.

In the passage in Corinthians Paul, in his exasperation with them, draws on some of his more exotic experiences, one feels against his better judgement, in order to try and prove his apostleship.

Even in his exasperation, the point is that he does not go into great detail about them.

Paul did not spend the rest of his life going on about being ravished into heaven, he got on with what he saw as his primary task of preaching the resurrection of Christ; this incident is not mentioned anywhere else.

That is very different from making any similar experience (or alleged experience) the "unique selling point" of your testimony and focusing on that (and, most often, the person of the narrator) to the exclusion of everything else.

[ 25. January 2015, 06:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It is a bit like Philemon 1:19 where he manages to mention something even as he says he's not mentioning it. There's a word for this stylistic device in Greek which I've forgotten.

The Greeks generally have a word for it and this case it's Apophasis (who I have to admit I thought was one of the System Lords).

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Thanks for addressing my aphasia!

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Lance Armstrong has a lot of parallels with these stories. In an interview with the BBC out today, he doesn't seem to regret cheating much:

quote:
...it happened. And I know what happened because of that. I know what happened to the sport, I saw its growth."

Armstrong said sales at his bicycle supplier Trek Bicycles went from $100m (£66.5m) to $1bn and his charity foundation went from "raising no money to raising $500m, serving three million people".

He added: "Do we want to take it away? I don't think anybody says 'yes'."

I have actually heard Christians say more or less exactly that about stories that turned out to fake.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I have actually heard Christians say more or less exactly that about stories that turned out to fake.

I've heard similar, along with disparaging remarks being made about how the 'innocent and believing' ultimately had more impact than the cynics.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I have actually heard Christians say more or less exactly that about stories that turned out to fake.
I've heard similar, along with disparaging remarks being made about how the 'innocent and believing' ultimately had more impact than the cynics.

"cynics" being code for truthtellers.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

If I interpret that correctly, YES! I've just seen a shining example tonight. And I'm a pomo, neo-liberal blah-blah-blah-di-bloody-blah. I asked the guy, who talks to blokes about Jesus, to show me how.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But Paul simply told a story. He didn't have a book deal, or TV or any money deal.
mmm... isn't that sorta irrelevant, given that there were not book or TV deals then?

But Paul did not make a point of using whatever media there were, and certainly did not address the important people of any community, except when he was forced to.

I suppose he cadged free meals and lodging, but he clearly preached effectively and gave back other value, such as looking after the various prisoners that he met. He definitely was interested in building communities, not receiving praise/money/whatever.

The false story of the OP has become a money-maker rather than a community-builder.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

He'd have rather starved and froze than cadged.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

About publishers - back 50 years ago they would help shape the framework of the writing, do the fine edit, fact check; today you are supposed to submit camera ready or awfully close to it and the contract says you the author guarantee the accuracy and you the author will pay all the expenses if the publisher gets sued for libel or other issues.

Basically, publishers now deny responsibility for what they publish. Their only question is - will it sell?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0