Patrocles – The blog is mine. I am not an atheist. I did not present anything as though it was absurd. But I will critique ideas that would support executions of people simply for exercising their personal freedom with no cost to anyone else’s freedom.

there’s no non-arbitrary border in the sky delineating where Pisces ends and Aquarius ends begins.

Also, incidentally, the only non-arbitrary part — from a scientific, astronomical perspective — is that the entire precessional cycle is roughly 26,000 years long; so dividing the circle of the zodiac into 12 equal sectors of 30 degrees, each “zodiacal age” comes out to a bit over 2150 years long.

Thus, if you arbitrarily declared that the “Age of Aquarius” began at Woodstock in 1969 AD, then the start of the “Age of Capricorn” would be (by simple and non-arbitrary arithmetic) circa 4100-4150 AD. But you could just as justifiably claim that the Aquarian Age began in 1500 AD, or 1800, or 2500, and add (roughly) 2,150 to any of these dates for the start of the Capricornian Age.

Or, add 26,000 years to find the approximate start of the NEXT “Age of Aquarius.” (Long wait, hippies!)

Patrocles said:

This is not a blog for atheists only, and I resent that eschatological matters are presented here as if they were absurd.

What a leap you’ve taken, Patrocles, what judging. I am not an atheist; and, I suspect most people are not atheists on this Blog … which matters not, after all.

Eschatology is present in all religions, not just Evangelical Christianity. The Jewish Religion has an eschatology, as does Islam; and, certainly the Catholic Church has its own version of end-times. Does the Mayan Calendar represent their own version of eschatology, end-times?

Patrocles, are you reading another Blog, that you’re so incensed about comments here?

there’s no non-arbitrary border in the sky delineating where Pisces ends and Aquarius ends begins.

Also, incidentally, the only non-arbitrary part — from a scientific, astronomical perspective — is that the entire precessional cycle is roughly 26,000 years long; so dividing the circle of the zodiac into 12 equal sectors of 30 degrees, each “zodiacal age” comes out to a bit over 2150 years long.

Thus, if you arbitrarily declared that the “Age of Aquarius” began at Woodstock in 1969 AD, then the start of the “Age of Capricorn” would be (by simple and non-arbitrary arithmetic) circa 4100-4150 AD. But you could just as justifiably claim that the Aquarian Age began in 1500 AD, or 1800, or 2500, and add (roughly) 2,150 to any of these dates for the start of the Capricornian Age.

Or, add 26,000 years to find the approximate start of the NEXT “Age of Aquarius.” (Long wait, hippies!)

Does it seem odd and perhaps disconcerting that one must understand the nuances of Christian eschatology in order to understand what is happening in the GOP race for the nomination?

I don’t think it’s really necessary to understand Christian eschatology here; though understanding it can shed some light on how some Christian voters think about politics. But it’s more revealing about these voters than it is about the candidates/politicians themselves. (In this case, it helped to clear up the seeming paradox of highly anti-libertarian Christians backing a candidate — Paul — who is frequently described as libertarian.)

I’m reminded that in the Dubya years, and especially in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, some of the loopier leftists were claiming that Bush wanted to start WWIII in order to trigger the events of the End Times. Obviously, events have abundantly shown that Bush hoped for a short and easy war, not a gigantic history-ending one. But even though these leftists were totally wrong in their accusation — they were projecting their own biased assumptions about Evangelicals onto Bush’s personal thinking — I can certainly agree that it would seem “odd and disconcerting” to me if I sincerely believed that a President was basing foreign policy decisions on the Book of Revelation.

(But particularly so if a President was a Left Behind reader who anticipates the “End TImes” coming in the relatively near future — after all, I want a President whose policy views are concerned with long-term thinking about where the US will be relative to China in 2100. But if a President’s eschatology assumes that the Second Coming will probably not occur for thousands of years, I’m automatically less concerned about how his theology influences his policy!)

However, there’s nothing O&D in the fact that (some) voters would factor eschatology into their thinking when they vote. Why should they do otherwise, when — as both Patrocles and Teresa noted — eschatology is important in many highly diverse religions?

P.S. Santorum also attacked Lawrence v. Texas and supports “states’ rights” to criminalize consensual adult sodomy — just as Reconstructionists do. But does it help you better understand Santorum’s position by examining his eschatology? I’m not sure that it does, since Roman Catholic eschatology doesn’t situate the events of Revelation in the fairly near future, “before this generation has passed,” etc.