Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

A cabal of Fundamentalist Christians (including VP of the US) try to kill the POTUS with a bomb during a speech and frame radical Muslims, allowing the cabal to seize control of the country and use the brief panic to establish a theocracy.

Does this sound plausible?

Maybe it's that I don't care for spy thriller fiction or fiction in that general category, but it seems to me that plausibility is something subjective and entirely based on execution more than the concept in of itself.

Is this idea plausible in the sense that it could conceivably happen in this world? No.

Is it plausible in the sense that you could write a story about it? Sure, I suppose.

What you need to ask yourself is if it's a good plot, and if it either says anything interesting or if it will be entertaining or both.

What I mean by "plausible" is "Does this sound like something in line with Christian Fundamentalist thinking?". Does this sound like something they would want to do?

Is this for a story idea?

Of course

Then sure.

Well, I'll just say that a writer's job is not to accurately portray reality (though studying reality certainly helps, and indeed is a necessity) but rather to fabricate it in such a way that the reader can't tell the difference.

It doesn't necessarily matter if Christian fundamentalists in the real world behave in a certain way, what does matter is your ability to make your fictional fundamentalists believable and tangible to the reader--and if you're not even sure if you can believe their motivations/actions then you've got an enormous problem.

To summarize, this is one of those "if you have to ask..." questions.

Originally posted by Lestov16
What I mean by "plausible" is "Does this sound like something in line with Christian Fundamentalist thinking?". Does this sound like something they would want to do?

Fundies have orgasms just thinking of establishing a theocracy. If you add assassinating the President they will need to stock up on Depend adult diapers before seeing the movie.

Originally posted by Lestov16
A cabal of Fundamentalist Christians (including VP of the US) try to kill the POTUS with a bomb during a speech and frame radical Muslims, allowing the cabal to seize control of the country and use the brief panic to establish a theocracy.

Does this sound plausible?

That sounds more than plausible, I am pretty sure there are 4 or 5 plots going on right now that fit that description perfectly. (yes, including Biden)

And thus KMC accidentally became enbroiled in a scheme to assassinate the President.

Accident?

Seems workable. I had an idea for a similar plot using misplaced blame to start a multinational war.

Originally posted by Lestov16
What I mean by "plausible" is "Does this sound like something in line with Christian Fundamentalist thinking?". Does this sound like something they would want to do?

No because Christians don't normally run around assassinating public figures. In my experience, the deeper a Christian gets into their particular religion, and its precepts, the further away from violence they become. This of course excludes the ones that claim that they are Christians, but are in fact mentally unstable. Perhaps it would be a better idea to replace Christian fundamentalists, with another radical group proven to resort to such behaviorism's?

Although even if you publish a book that vilifies Christian's, at least you won't have to worry about death threats by the very fundamentalists that you have painted this false picture to represent. I would suggest that you beef up on your knowledge before you make any hard decisions on the subject.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well, I'll just say that a writer's job is not to accurately portray reality (though studying reality certainly helps, and indeed is a necessity) but rather to fabricate it in such a way that the reader can't tell the difference.

It doesn't necessarily matter if Christian fundamentalists in the real world behave in a certain way, what does matter is your ability to make your fictional fundamentalists believable and tangible to the reader--and if you're not even sure if you can believe their motivations/actions then you've got an enormous problem.

To summarize, this is one of those "if you have to ask..." questions. I'm profiling this, that's an important distinction for anyone who wants to be a writer should know.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I'm profiling this, that's an important distinction for anyone who wants to be a writer should know.
Glad to know I've picked up something useful in my time at FSU's writing program.

Yeah, like one that murders doctors and bombs hospitals

oh shi-

IMO, all religions are obvious myths and anyone who still believes in them today is an idiot. I'm willing to accept the possibility of a sentient creator, but definitely none of the cartoon characters we worship as deities

Originally posted by Stoic
Many people seek out religion to help them through life's complexities. I'll never be able to understand the need to submit to what basically equates to comfort food.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I'll never be able to understand the need to submit to what basically equates to comfort food.


But that's how you feel friend, other people may enjoy this type of lifestyle. It's the way of the world. Free thought, and choice, and the rest of all of that good stuff.

Lestov, I can't tell you what to write about, but to use Christian in this way may not be the best subject that you could write about, because for one, Christian's are a peace loving crowd, by edict. Perhaps if you wrote a book based on the same premise but made it more of a John Carter Warlord of Mars setting, without using Christian, Muslim, or any of the other various religious groups in reality, you may get a better response. This would make it far easier for you to tell the tale the way that you would like for the consumer to take it. Just an idea.

Originally posted by Stoic
But that's how you feel friend, other people may enjoy this type of lifestyle. It's the way of the world. Free thought, and choice, and the rest of all of that good stuff. I know and it's something I'll never understand. And I can't even get any of them to explain it to me because when I word it like that, they get offended.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I know and it's something I'll never understand. And I can't even get any of them to explain it to me because when I word it like that, they get offended.


They get a feeling, a good one when they pray to Jesus, and they go back each week seeking that same feeling. Indoctrination, is a very strong thing once assimilation occurs. Now you may believe that you have not been effected by indoctrination, but we all have. What I am speaking of is a very profound thing.

We are all born, and once we reach a certain age, we are each taught certain things like; you must go to school, and educate yourself in order to find a good job so that you can take care of yourself, which will then open doors to you being able to buy a car, a nice house with a white picket fence. This education will also open doors to you having a decent social life; where you may find a spouse, so that you can have children, and then the cycle repeats itself through you, as you indoctrinate your children with what you were taught.

Many Christian's seek to pierce the veil of the facade of what is, or can not be perceived by the natural man/woman in order to see the metaphysical, which is God, and his/it's kingdom. Born again Christian's, are children in the spirit once the baptism takes place, and mature as their understanding of the bible grows. Are they indoctrinated? Of course. Is indoctrination a bad thing? Well, look deeper, and ask yourself if it is worse than the indoctrination that you have been brought up to follow.

By the way... What do you think the Matrix film was based on? Do you recall what Morpheus asked Neo in the first film?

I heard about a pop-science show that was talking about the neurochemistry of prayer. Certain brain-patterns 'lit up' when a person had a conversation with someone in the same room that did not activate when they knew they were talking to an empty room. These same centers showed activity during believers' prayer, but not during atheists' prayer.

Theists actually, on a physiological level, believe their prayers to be heard. So that helped me to understand how the belief is more persistent than the many counterarguments.

Originally posted by Stoic
Do you recall what Morpheus asked Neo in the first film? Since like half his dialogue was questions, I'm just gonna say no. Also I realized that a lot of what you described theists as wanting are all related to sensations of pleasure and comfort, and the belief that worship in their deity will provide those things. It's at about that point that logic breaks down, faith takes over, and my ability to relate to those people falls flat. Not to say "faith" is horrible, but faith for comfort just screams "COP OUT!" to me.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Since like half his dialogue was questions, I'm just gonna say no. Also I realized that a lot of what you described theists as wanting are all related to sensations of pleasure and comfort, and the belief that worship in their deity will provide those things. It's at about that point that logic breaks down, faith takes over, and my ability to relate to those people falls flat. Not to say "faith" is horrible, but faith for comfort just screams "COP OUT!" to me.

But on the same note, many people that do not believe in God, still have faith in something. You seem to be a well educated individual, so excuse me for asking this, but do you have faith that if a person studies hard enough that they will eventually get a job in their field of studies if they'd put forth enough effort in those studies, as well as equally putting forth effort in finding that job?

This is why I said that perhaps you might want to look deeper. We are all jacked into a system one way or the other. What comforts you may be different than what comforts another person. People need something to believe in, whether it be in science, or theology, or some other form of activity to get them through.

Christians, and other religious folk, have good reasons to believe in God, or a higher power, because let's face it, you can hardly get something from nothing, and if you look around, there are a whole lot of things out there.

Belief due to unknown catalyst's? Hahaha

you've talked a lot about why belief feels good, but not about why it's true. And the only truth-argument you've given, "something from nothing" is insufficient to justify a belief in the Christian god. (All the Cosmological argument can establish is a First Cause, but none of the characteristics of that cause.)

And in fact, all my comment was about was how the theist feels during prayer. If you read carefully, my post doesn't say that belief/disbelief is caused by these structures in the brain (not catalysts). Rather, people with different beliefs experience prayer differently.

I didn't give a causal relationship (and afaik neither did the scientists).

Originally posted by Stoic
Lestov, I can't tell you what to write about, but to use Christian in this way may not be the best subject that you could write about, because for one, Christian's are a peace loving crowd, by edict.

I can't tell, are you being serious here?

I hope not. It's a proven fact that the majority of Christians since time immemorial are anarchists, murderers & rapists by nature.

In the future, when archaeologists stumble upon this layer of the internet, they'll probably think that we are all just socks of Symmetric Chaos, or maybe an enclave of absurdists.

But if theres no God and hence no Heaven then where do all the calculators go after they die?

Checkmate, Atheists!

Originally posted by Nephthys
But if theres no God and hence no Heaven then where do all the calculators go after they die?

You actually believe in calculators!?

Originally posted by Stoic
But on the same note, many people that do not believe in God, still have faith in something. You seem to be a well educated individual, so excuse me for asking this, but do you have faith that if a person studies hard enough that they will eventually get a job in their field of studies if they'd put forth enough effort in those studies, as well as equally putting forth effort in finding that job?

This is why I said that perhaps you might want to look deeper. We are all jacked into a system one way or the other. What comforts you may be different than what comforts another person. People need something to believe in, whether it be in science, or theology, or some other form of activity to get them through.

Christians, and other religious folk, have good reasons to believe in God, or a higher power, because let's face it, you can hardly get something from nothing, and if you look around, there are a whole lot of things out there.

Belief due to unknown catalyst's? Hahaha Faith in tangibles I get. Faith in intangibles, not so much.


That said, you kinda nailed what I'm talking about. The cosmological and existential answers evade these theists, so they turn to deities and religions for answers. For comfort. I don't understand why people turn to intangible, imperceptible, and mystical solutions for the sake of comfort. To me, that's uncomfortable. I'd rather be permanently stumped and forever asking "Why?" than formulate a comfort-answer based around unfalsifiability, unquantifiability, and mystery. The weird thing is, many of them will freely admit to their God possessing those traits, and still accept it's existence as being all the answer they need. Like they're surrendering their curiosity and desire to know truth for the sake of feeling emotionally safe and secure. Boggles my f*cking mind.


That's what I don't get: people who try to comfort themselves with answers to (as of yet) unanswerable questions by piling on more mysterious unanswerable questions.

I agree with the notion that everyone lives their lives by faith in the intangible, to varying degrees, for comfort. If you genuinely have no faith in variables that you can't quantify then you'd never step outside your door, unless you simply didn't care whether you live or die.

I don't really see how the statement "I'm not depressed by life because I believe that when I die I'll go to heaven, even though I have no empirical evidence to support this notion" is any different than "I'm not afraid of getting on this airplane because I'm confident that it won't crash, even though I have no empirical evidence to support the notion that it won't."

Originally posted by Stoic
I was very serious. You see, Christians don't kill, however there have always been men that hid behind the banner of Christianity and killed, raped, and done many wretched things in the name of Christ. This does not and never will make them Christians however. For example the crusades that went on and were even ordered to happen by certain churches were not Christians at all. Christlike, in the way that they move yes, but not Christian.

Your argument is, then, that someone who sins is no longer a Christian?

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
"I'm not afraid of getting on this airplane because I'm confident that it won't crash, even though I have no empirical evidence to support the notion that it won't."

wouldn't the statistics on plane crashes be empirical evidence to support that notion?

In theory, statistics that showed the probability of going to heaven would be evidence that one might go to heaven.

Originally posted by Oliver North
wouldn't the statistics on plane crashes be empirical evidence to support that notion? No, because the statistics state that a plane clash is still possible. Ergo, having zero fear that the plane you're on might nose-dive at any minute and kill everyone on it, including you, is a baseless assumption.

It's an assumption most of us make, though, for the sake of feeling better.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
I agree with the notion that everyone lives their lives by faith in the intangible, to varying degrees, for comfort. If you genuinely have no faith in variables that you can't quantify then you'd never step outside your door, unless you simply didn't care whether you live or die."

Or have any sort of relationship with another human being.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
No, because the statistics state that a plane clash is still possible. Ergo, having zero fear that the plane you're on might nose-dive at any minute and kill everyone on it, including you, is a baseless assumption.

It's an assumption most of us make, though, for the sake of feeling better.

ok, but if something only happens 1 in 1000000 times, isn't it rational to think it wont happen to you? I get that being absolutely sure is impossible, but I'd hardly say people are flying in jets based on faith. It is a fairly reasonable assumption based on the statistics.

More specifically, what most people will tell you, if you're afraid of flying, is that you shouldn't worry because airplanes are painstakingly maintained and airplane mechanics are some of the best world. That's what people have told me my entire life anyway, as I'm afraid of flying.

I've always found that line of logic to be odd, though. Even though it's true that airplanes are generally well-maintained by mechanics, there are documented instances of planes crashing due to negligence, or simply mechanical failures that couldn't be predicted nor prevented. So really, when you get on an airplane, unless you yourself go out of your way to personally inspect that airplane yourself, you have no way of knowing whether the plane you're on was properly maintained and inspected prior to your boarding. Even if you did, you have no way of knowing, for sure, that the plane won't suffer a mechanical failure and crash once you get on it.

Yet, you board the plane anyway. That's faith in the unknown.

Originally posted by Oliver North
ok, but if something only happens 1 in 1000000 times, isn't it rational to think it wont happen to you? I get that being absolutely sure is impossible, but I'd hardly say people are flying in jets based on faith. It is a fairly reasonable assumption based on the statistics. Sure, but an assumption, even a reasonable one, is still an assumption. And it's an assumption that you absolutely have no way of being sure about.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
More specifically, what most people will tell you, if you're afraid of flying, is that you shouldn't worry because airplanes are painstakingly maintained and airplane mechanics are some of the best world. That's what people have told me my entire life anyway, as I'm afraid of flying.

I've always found that line of logic to be odd, though. Even though it's true that airplanes are generally well-maintained by mechanics, there are documented instances of planes crashing due to negligence, or simply mechanical failures that couldn't be predicted nor prevented. So really, when you get on an airplane, unless you yourself go out of your way to personally inspect that airplane yourself, you have no way of knowing whether the plane you're on was properly maintained and inspected prior to your boarding. Even if you did, you have no way of knowing, for sure, that the plane won't suffer a mechanical failure and crash once you get on it.

Yet, you board the plane anyway. That's faith in the unknown.

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that you're operating on an assumption that you have no way of knowing is true. Probability =\= prescience, no matter how much the odds are in your favor.

ok, I get what you are saying

I have some trouble flying sometimes. I found it reassuring to remember that most pilots retire rather than die on the job, not sure if that will help you.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
I don't really see how the statement "I'm not depressed by life because I believe that when I die I'll go to heaven, even though I have no empirical evidence to support this notion" is any different than "I'm not afraid of getting on this airplane because I'm confident that it won't crash, even though I have no empirical evidence to support the notion that it won't." ...really?

Stoic, you're completely missing the point.

Christian Fundamentalists need not follow every tenet of the Christian faith or agree with your interpretation of Christianity to qualify as "Christian fundamentalists".

You might disagree with calling them Christian, but Christian Fundamentalist is a lot easier to say than "violent extremists who assert that they are members of the Christian faith"

Originally posted by red g jacks
...really? No not really, I just said that for shits and giggles because I have nothing better to do with my life than make outlandish statements on the internet.

ah, well that i can relate to.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Stoic, you're completely missing the point.

Christian Fundamentalists need not follow every tenet of the Christian faith or agree with your interpretation of Christianity to qualify as "Christian fundamentalists".

You might disagree with calling them Christian, but Christian Fundamentalist is a lot easier to say than "violent extremists who assert that they are members of the Christian faith"
Indeed. Not sure how this got so far off track. I thought it was clear that the premise here was that the perpetrators are not truly following the tenets of Christianity but believe themselves to be. Pretty straightforward concept.