First off, "Rapturism", as understood via things like the "Left Behind" novels, is primarily an American phenomenon, not a primarily Christian one.  To be more specific, most of the rest of Christendom generally believes (as does most of the rest of the world, methinks) that Americans are stark raving batshit crazy. 

Right-wing American Christians are generally not on the same page, shit, not even in the same library, as the rest of Christendom.  Christians and Jews in Israel trade jokes about the crazy, and creepy, "Left Behind" folks who go on tours of Meggido hill.

Rapturists gather their views primarily from a so-called "literal" reading of the book of Revelations.  But their reading of this book is hardly literal; it is laced with superimposed superstitions and conspiracy theories (think the "Bible Code").  Frankly, "literalists" are usually at odds with sound reason, and while they "literally" interpret particular passages of the Bible, they frequently stretch and distort other passages.  “Literalism” generally known as biblical inerrancy, is fraught with its own problems (the discovery of dinosaur bones being the least of the difficulties). 

I would suggest that conservatives’ claim to a “literal” reading of the Bible is like the naming strategies of the neo-cons.  Neo-cons like to come up with an overly simplistic (therefore somewhat believable) term, such as “Islamofascists”, and universalize its use, despite the logical difficulties the word.  If you try to argue that terrorists aren’t actually fascists, you risk appearing sympathetic to the terrorists.  If you try to point out the difficulty of the “literal” interpretation of the Bible, you risk appearing to be short on faith.  This is a strategic strength of the conservatives, not a strength of logic.

There is a different approach to reading the Bible, Rob, an approach that is actually more prevalent than the “literal” approach.  It is called the “historical critical” approach.  This approach attempts to put biblical passages not just in context of the rest of scripture, but also into historical context.  There is a tremendous amount that is missed when the historical context is misunderstood.

The people who preach “inerrancy” generally believe that the bible was written, word for word, as the truth spoken DIRECTLY to us.  They often fail to put the Bible into historical context.  The people who use the “historical critical” approach generally believe that the Bible was “inspired” by the Holy Spirit, and is not the actual direct words of God to us.  Think of it like this.  You are human.  As a human, nothing you do is truly “perfect”.  But sometimes what you do is inspired, no?  What is inspired has tremendous power, and shouldn’t be ignored.  But the fact that it is inspired doesn’t make it perfect in every detail.  I believe that the Bible represents God’s loving inspiration filtered through human fallibility.  It gives us the opportunity to better know God, to better know ourselves, and to better know human nature.  I don’t think this should be ignored.  But it also can’t be taken out of context and still provide the same value.

This approach to understanding the scriptures is NOT, as Sam Harris seems to be suggesting, a watered down version of biblical inerrancy.  Mainstream Christians are NOT a weaker, more ambivalent version of right-wing Christians.  The difference between the two belief systems is profound and stretches great distances.  The Catholic Worker cannot be compared to the Christian Coalition.  (Note: Though CW’s make up a very, very small number of Christians, a vast number of Christians take inspiration from the CW and other similar movements.)  The Christianity of Martin Luther King Jr. cannot be compared to that of Pat Robertson.  The beliefs, the way of life, of St. Francis cannot be compared to those of Jerry Falwell.  The differences here are like the differences between night and day.

Nor do the beliefs of mainstream Christians provide the “context” for the beliefs and actions of right-wing Christians, as Sam Harris has suggested at points.  The beliefs and actions of mainstream Christians have more often been at odds with those of the far right. 

Now, for some of your direct challenges and questions: “I guess I don't really know what your take on the whole rapture/revelations/apocalypse/day I get left behind thing.”  I think it is silly.  And dangerous.  “…if you believe the stories of the bible and that the bible is the word of god, then somewhere deep inside, you must believe that someday the world is going to end and could do so at any moment.”  Again, I don’t believe in biblical inerrancy.  The fact that I don’t believe a “literal” interpretation of many of the biblical stories, however, doesn’t mean that I don’t think the world is ever going to end.  I think it is just about guaranteed that the world will end eventually.  I mean, in terms of history of the universe, our little planet is pretty young.  Could it happen at any moment?  I dunno.  I pretty fucking scared of global warming, though.  “The prevailing question is, why would anyone who believes the world is going to end soon take care of what they have? Our consumerist culture may be a direct effect of this. We use things up as if it doesn't matter.”  I hardly think religion has an impact on consumerism.  Fr. David preaches, with quite a bit of passion, against consumerism on a very regular basis at St. John’s.  While I agree with his message, and admire his passion, I don’t see my fellow church people running out the door to start getting rid of their stuff.  Conversely, I’ve never heard of a preacher telling people they ought to consume more… the notion is absurd.  Lastly, you aren’t religious, but I’ve damn sure noticed the number of breakfast cereals and expensive bottled juices you’ve kept around the house, so I don’t want to hear any more from you about how religion causes consumerism.  Capitalism is clearly the culprit here.  (Please note that capitalism, which teaches the “values” of self-interest, is directly at odds with religion, which teaches self-sacrifice, surrender, and generosity.)

If you really want to know what I think about the book of Revelations, I’ll tell you that I don’t know.  It is, as are the spiritual visions in most other faiths, challenging stuff and is difficult to understand.  I do know that there are a number of passages from Revelations that really inspire me, particularly the ones that Selena often reads at memorial services for our guests.  The image of a “new heaven and a new earth”, and a great city descending from the clouds, occur to me as strikingly beautiful metaphors for the very real spiritual transformation that people can and do experience.

Lastly, when I said that “You do roll with heavily religious people”, I wasn’t talking primarily about myself.  I was talking about Selena.  I found it amusing that you had said what you did after spending the last couple years living with a former nun.