Talk:Left Behind

	This Christianity related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

MERGED ARTICLE This article has content that was merged from Left Behind Wiki. 22 September 2012

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

2014 Movie

We need a new section or possibly a new article for the 2014 movie. It's currently rocking a 2% on Rotten Tomatoes. Greatnecro (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

A personal story

When I was a librarian we struggled a bit about adding this series to our collection, but decided to do so just to have a more balanced selection. So we got all 6 or so books that were out at the time. I read the first three books, figuring, "Well they are just a form of Sci-Fi," and came to the conclusion that they were dreadful, boring, insipid and poorly written - all of which has nothing to do with the theology (or whatever) of the series. The good news is that one library patron checked out Book 1 and that was it. No one was interested. After 4 or 5 years, when we needed the bookshelf space, we moved them out to the BOOK SALE area, where no one purchased them for $1 (US) each. They might still be there. Carptrash (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Not to be confused

... with Stay-behinds (do they fall within the RW remit - and have the conspiracists 'discovered' them?) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

"Stay-behinds", as in the military intelligence term? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. One can assume they do still/presently exist (along with other 'cover for certain emergencies, people who can restart the internet' etc) and be fully rational. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

RW articles Militia movement and Red Army Faction have mention of stay behinds. There are a few mentions in the tubes [1] and [2].

Borderline RW-worthy (and needs someone to do more than 'cut and paste from the other place'). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

TVTropes

You may want to take a look at the TVTropes article on this "thing" (here), especially the "Headscratchers" page, with gems such as the fact that the hero is exhausted after just walking two miles (come on, I can effortlestly walk even on a searing hot summer day twice as that, if not even more) to add some snark. I've not readen the books so I cannot tell very much (but they certainly look like AAA Fundie bullshit) --Panzerfaust (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Computer humour

Came across a reference to a computer 'interpretation/translation' of 'left behind' as 'sinister buttock.' Anna Livia (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Query about the recent vandalism

While the latter half of the recent vandal edits (e.g. vulgar, questionably-factual-at-best, well-poisoning, and probably-antisemitic denouncements of Israel) are unquestionably problematic and inappropriate, I'm not sure what's problematic about the first half. That appears to be a semi-professionally-written summation of the Anti-Defamation League's position, complete with a citation. However, given that it's so eloquent competent, I'm quite certain that the vandal didn't write it themselves, so I looked back through the edit history and… that apparently isn't in any prior versions of the article. Was it ripped from Wikipedia or something? If not, then why aren't we keeping that part and throwing out the blatantly-immature vandalism part? (And, yes, it seems weird that a BoN vandal would steal something from Wikipedia, jump to RationalWiki (a completely different website), and then paste it in just to use it as a platform to trash-talk Jews, but I'm pretty sure I've seen weirder shit, like those vandals who actually know how wiki HTML coding works well enough to plaster huge text and images in front of actual article content.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I've read the article in question (which is where the quote came from) and in my opinion that quote is cherry-picking. If we keep that quote, we should also mention that the ADL also believed that they were troubled by the specter of Christian supremacy within the game (despite the toned down violence), and that they also overall believed that the series "promotes an exclusionary Christian theology that believes Jews and others must convert or be killed at the End of Days". Also, I would agree with the ADL that the violent aspects of the Left Behind series were toned down more to get a friendlier age rating than any other reason. The vandal quote alone is a distorted position of the article. BobJohnson (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

So if we present the ADL's opinion at all, we need to present it completely and accurately? That makes sense to me. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)