There Will Be No Rapture!

I usually save matters of religious significance for my Bible blogs, but since Harold Camping's failed prediction of the coming of the rapture has been in the secular news, it is worth commenting on here.  The tragic thing here is not that there wasn't any rapture.  The Bible does not teach that doctrine; there will never be an event where only some people (believers) will disappear from the earth, leaving the rest to muddle through until the "Battle of Armageddon" and the subsequent 1,000 year (millennial) reign of Christ on earth.  That is NOT going to happen.  Much of this doctrine comes from a profound misunderstanding of the New Testament book of Revelation.  I invite readers to study the materials presented in my "Book of Revelation" blog, which I believe gives an historical and Biblically-sound explanation of that book.

No, again, the tragic thing is not Camping's failed prophecy.  The tragic thing is that it leaves Christianity (a very false form thereof) open to mockery and ridicule.  The world doesn't distinguish true Christianity from counterfeits like Camping's.  Skeptics will lump all "Christian" doctrines together and proclaim the whole religion false.  Stephen Hawking, one of the leading atheistic scientists, who may have as many worshippers as Jehovah, has taken this opportunity to write an article about how there is no heaven.  Camping did nothing but add fuel to that already flaming belief among the world's non-believers.  It is incredibly frustrating to those who know what the Bible truly teaches and who knew very good and well that Camping's prediction was false. 

This is not just a matter of differing "interpretations" of the Bible.  The Bible has certainly been "interpreted" in countless ways, but all of them but one are wrong!   That may sound elitist, but it's not--it's a matter of common sense.  When God wrote the Bible, He had one meaning in mind, not 1,000; it is inherently impossible for the God of Truth to contradict Himself.  Thus, there is only one true "interpretation" of Scripture.   Men may misunderstand the Bible differently.  But if they understand it, they will understand it alike because it means only one thing.  And it is up to us to be humble and open minded enough to accept what God says, regardless of where it may lead us.  And it won't lead us to a "rapture."

One also must feel some degree of sympathy--but not much--for Camping's followers.  They put their faith in a man, not in God, and the man, not surprisingly, let them down.  This is why I say our sympathy is limited.  Camping's followers have Bibles.  Let them study that, not a human's doctrine.  If they had done so in the first place, they wouldn't have been swept away by this egregiously false prediction.  Hopefully, many--including Camping himself--will have the wisdom and humility to come to a knowledge of the truth.

The Lord Jesus Christ is indeed coming back (Acts 1:11).  We do not know when (Matt. 24:36), but when He does, "every eye will see Him" (Rev. 1:7), not just a few.  All in the graves--good and bad--will hear Him and rise to whatever eternity awaits them (John 5:28-29).  The righteous who are alive upon His return will ascend to meet Him in the air (I Thess. 4:17).  This is not a difficult Biblical doctrine, but it often seems that the simplest are the easiest to pervert.  The world will continue to mock, but there WILL BE a second coming of Christ.  I don't know when that will be and nobody else does, either.  So the only recourse is to always be ready.

Incidentally, the fact that false teachers exist in abundance is another evidence of the Bible's inspiration, for it has repeated announcements of their presence (I Tim. 4:1; II Tim. 4:2-3; I Peter 2:1-2; Jude 3).  If we fall for their nonsense, we have no one to blame but ourselves.  We can't even blame Stephen Hawking.

Bush vs. Obama

George W. Bush is so superior to Barack Obama as a human being (not to mention a President) that there's no comparison.  Read the following to show the difference these two men.

Bush speech after capture of Saddam:

The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq. The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country.  The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force.  Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people.  Their work continues, and so do the risks.  Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate 'em.

Barack Obama speech after killing of bin Laden:

And so shortly after taking office,  I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.  Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden.  It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan.  And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.  Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan .

Is Obama Unbeatable?

The propaganda wing of the Democratic Party, aka the "mainstream media," is pretty well announcing next year's election as already over, with President Obama a sure winner.  A recent AP poll showed Obama's approval rating at 60%, which is utterly ridiculous.  The fine line to that poll was that 46% of the people who were asked identified themselves as Democrats, while only 29% said they were Republicans.  I wonder what Obama's approval rating would be if those numbers were switched.  Somewhere near (or far below) the 48% that Rasmussen's poll (a professional poller) has him.

That's really irrelevant.  The election isn't for another year and a half, which is an eternity in politics.  Yet, the media is already suggesting a fait accompli, Obama is unbeatable.  The idea is that if it's hopeless for the Republicans, the people who support that party will either stay home, or join the winning team.  You can expect the media to hammer this theme (Obama is unbeatable) relentlessy and ruthlessly over the next 18 months in their desperate attempt to get him re-elected.  As the Nazis taught us, repeat a lie often and loud enough and most people will begin to believe it.

The question is, is he unbeatable?  No, of course not, but his defeat isn't assured, either, and it will not be too many years before candidates of Obama's ilk will virtually be unbeatable on the national stage.  It is simply a matter of history, folks, and especially the history of democracies, where mediocrity eventually reigns.  Empires grow and then they collapse--morally, socially, economically, and in other ways.  Sometimes those empires disappear completely from existence (e.g., Assyria, Babylon), sometimes they simply degenerate into third rate insignificance, a shell of their former greatness (e.g., France, Great Britain).  What it takes for a peoples to become great they must continue to do.  When they stop doing it, they begin their inevitable decline and fall.

The United States started its serious decline in the 1960s, when it lost its moral compass and "intellectuals" began a serious attack on the traditions and unified beliefs upon which the country had been established and built. (Future historians might argue for an earlier beginning, and I'm tempted to.)  The pre-60s America was an America of individualism, a morality solidly based on Judeo-Christian values, and an American exceptionalism that was unique, almost to world history.  The country was far from perfect, of course, and made many mistakes in its history; imperfect, sinful human beings will always commit grievous errors.  Still, there were enough of the qualities (frugality, morality, industry) to build and grow a mighty country.  These are values which are rarely exalted today, and when people are not taught something, they will not know it.  The last generation of "intellectuals" and politicians has been busy criticizing and undermining America's historical values and it has taken its toll.

More and more, an immoral, dependent, lazy populace has grown and replaced the stouter virtues of the past.  Not every American has degenerated, of course; we speak of the decline of empires, and that implies gradualism, not immediacy.  But Barack Obama and the Democratic Party has made its living over the last 50 years by appealing to that '60s generation of rising untraditional, unexceptional American ideals.  More and more people reject the traditional and opt for the "progressive," which, of course, is not progressive at all, but the very opposite.  Rather than individual virtue and industry--people taking care of themselves--there is a growing dependence upon government, something the Democratic Party exists for and without which, wouldn't exist any longer.  Dependence means power for those who crave it, control over others.  Vain, narcissistic politicians want that power, and a vain, narcisstic media wants to share it with them.  Attack moral law, insist it doesn't exist, and people will, morally, fall into such a rank condition that there only hope is dependence, which is simply another word for slavery.  Then, call such dependence "progressive"--lie like the Nazis--and people will be shamed if they don't go along with it.  Who wants to be "unprogressive"?  Hollywood, of course, pitches in with its ceaseless outpouring of immoral rot and attacks on the virtues of the past--virtues Hollywood portrays as the Southern "hick" and the bigoted clergyman.  Folks, this is a classic, textbook example of decline and fall, and it won't be stopped.

Are there enough Americans left who believe in hard work and moral virtue to defeat Barack Obama?  Yes, there are, but their numbers are decreasing and they will eventually be in the minority, if they aren't already.  The left will cower them, probably violently as they always have, and the United States will slowly, but inevitably, descend into oblivion or, more likely, insignificance.  A fractured, "multicultural" society, almost by definition, doesn't have the strength that comes from unity to ward off the rising, hungry mouths elsewhere that will do those things necessary to bring increase and success.  Something must unite a people; what is it that unites America today besides geographical boundaries?  The continued might and power of America is nowhere eternally decreed.  Decline and fall can happen in the United States just as it has elsewhere.  And that decline and fall is evident to those with the eyes to see.  The election of people like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, not to mention Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their ilk, are full evidence of the gradual regression of a once-great country. 

Our Founding Fathers were great historians who knew the lessons of the past.  That's why they were able to establish a country on principles that made America great and have kept it so for over 200 years.  But today we are living off the moral capital of those previous generations, and that moral capital is almost gone.  Two quotes from Benjamin Franklin as I close:  "When the people discover they can vote themselves money from the Treasury, that will herald the doom of the Republic."  Republics--especially democratic Republics--must have a moral, hard-working, economically independent people.  Dependency and a republic are opposites.  Franklin also said,  "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."  What better description is there of the decline of the United States?

Obama On Waterboarding

April, 2009:  "I believe that waterboarding was torture and, whatever legal rationals were used, it was a mistake."  This is after he became President.

October, 2007:  “The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security. We must do whatever it takes to track down and capture or kill terrorists, but torture is not a part of the answer – it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration’s approach. Torture is how you create enemies, not how you defeat them. Torture is how you get bad information, not good intelligence. Torture is how you set back America’s standing in the world, not how you strengthen it.”

Yesterday (Tuesday) White House deputy national security advisor John Brennan said that waterboarding did not provide any crucial information in locating Osama bin Laden.  But he didn't deny it took place! 

As Representative Steve King of Iowa asked, "Wonder what President Obama thinks of waterboarding now?"

What A Pack Of Hypocrites

Leon Panetta, who is the currect Director of the CIA (and an Obama appointee) admitted in an interview that, "water boarding" was one of the "enhanced interrogation" techniques used to get information about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden.  Liberals like Obama went catatonic when they found out, a few years ago, during the Bush administration that "torture" like "water boarding" was being used on terrorist detainees.  Now, they use it themselves.  I wonder if the liberal media will lead the same kind of outcry against Obama as they did against Bush.

Want to take any bets that they won't?

As Usual, Rush Nails It

This is largely what I wrote yesterday, but Rush puts it nicely and succinctly.

"Virtually every tool, apparatus, technique, and policy employed by the administration to effect a successful mission to kill Osama Bin Laden, they campaigned on ending. Now they claim credit for being gutsy and courageous, when none of this would have been available to them had they had their druthers. It's a darn good thing, in retrospect, that President Obama listened to President Bush rather than Sen. Obama."--Rush Limbaugh, May 3

Bin Laden's Death

It's unbelievable.  Not that Osama bin Laden is dead.  Everybody dies at some point, and probably all that will happen is that Al-Qaeda will simply raise up somebody to put in his chair.  It would be nice if this were the end of that terrorist organization, but don't count on it.

No, what's unbelievable is the apparent glee that liberals have over his death, precisely because it happened on Barack Obama's watch.  Obama had nothing to do with it, of course, except he had the sense to leave the troops THAT GEORGE BUSH SENT in Afghanistan so that they could continue the war against terror.  Obama campaigned long and hard about how he was going to get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan--"yeah, yeah, yeah," the liberals echoed, "why are our boys dying over there?"  I've heard liberals say let's pull the troops out immediately, regardless of the consequences.  But now...Obama is a great military leader because bin Laden is dead.  Barack Obama has been such an incredibly inept President that his sycophants are panting for anything--anything--they can find to give him credit for.  Even when this is really George Bush's kill.  But they aren't going to give Bush credit for anything.  Rather praise God than George Bush. 

We're all glad that bin Laden is dead, though again, it remains to be seen how effectual this is in emasculating Al-Qaeda.  It happened when Obama was President, and it is the nature of things for the sitting President to take the credit--or get the blame--for things he really had very little to do with.  Yet, again, Obama has kept our troops over there.  It's his military action now just like it's his economy now.  But he didn't start the former and he hasn't helped the latter. 

Yet, let the liberals have a gasp of fresh air.  They haven't had one since Obama was elected.