Friday, June 17, 2005

Rapture Crapture

As I have said before, Jewish people are not synonymous with the pro-Israel crowd or their friends the Israel-at-all-costs crowd. There are Christian groups (mostly Southern Baptist?) that have also decided the return of Jews to Israel is an important goal.

I believe the view of these Christian groups has something to due with "Rapture" and the belief that bringing the Jews back to Israel will cause the Rapture to take place. I gather that the Rapture is a good thing if you are a Christian.

My description of the Rapture concept is probably not completely accurate, but the point is these religious groups have allowed their interpretation of the Bible to affect their politics in a way that I don't think is good for the United States (and maybe not for Israel either).

So, I would ask anyone who believes the Rapture is comming to visit the Lighthouse World Ministries, which interprets the bible based on the Greek text, not the English translation. Based on the Greek text the Lighthouse Ministry believes this modern day interpretation of the Rapture is completely wrong.

More particularly the head of this ministry, John Anderson, believes:

[T]hat the "end times" prophecies in question were fulfilled by 70 AD with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. The modern idea of the Rapture, he believes, is not actually in scripture, and is misinterpreted or mistranslated and was first popularized in the 1830's, and more recently in the Left Behind books. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that people are going to fly off the Earth, he added.

We also learn that:

Anderson was critical of Rapture doctrine as he believes it can drive America's foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, and cause serious problems in that regard. [...] Anderson [thinks] that the Antichrist is not one person, but many that are already here. [Any ideas who that group of people might be GIR readers???]

Let's hope that Rev. Anderson can get his message out.

Link to Coast to Coast AM (I am a poor sleeper).


Anonymous r said...

That is interesting. I don't know a whole lot about the rapture sect, every time I start to read up on them I get a raging headache from all the gobbly gook.

Since my sleep is also off and on lately I found something interesting tonight to offer.

At the Carter Library are the papers and oral history of Amb John G. Dean..(the papers aren't on line yet but the oral history above is)

The link above is about his time as US Amb to Lebanon from 1978 to 1981.

If you scroll down to the DEAN 241 section, about 3/4 of the way down on the page above you can find his account of how the Israelis tried to assassinate him in 1979 while he was the US Amb to Lebanon.

Sometimes I feel that I am belaboring the point about the Israelis but.. darn it, there are just so many instances of their underhandedness and shit stirring assassinations it is astounding.

It is worth noting that Amb Dean was a German jew, immigrated to the US when he was 12 in 1938. Reading his entire background is worthwhile for anyone with the time. Especially his take on the zionist in Germany. In Dean's account of pre Hitler Germany most upper class German Jews were fully assimilated into German society and loyal to Germany and regarded their nationality and their religion as seperate things. His description of the zionist in Germany is of them being "cultist" in their religion and their plans to use German jew's resources as a springboard for a homeland in Palestine. His descriptions of living in small town America after his family moved here is also very interesting.

The more one learns from your normal and educated Jews, the more one can see that the zionist sect was and is a dangerous threat to the jews themselves, as it was in Germany, and to any country and society that doesn't accept their delusions of greater Israel and their destiny of being the world's rule makers.

What earned Dean his assassination try by the Israelis was his reputation for promoting US even handedness in mid east policy while he was in Lebanon.

I am going back to read his actual cables and official papers as soon as they become available.

And last but not least to get back to Brian's post..further down in his interview is mention of the radio station the Israelis erected in south Lebanon that was a "Christian" broadcast station...and his wonderment at the christian-jew efforts to agitate conflict in Lebanon's very mixed religious commmunities. Lebanon has 18 different religions in their country.

6/17/2005 11:56:00 PM  
Anonymous r said...

opps...I am trying this link again, you might have to type it in

6/17/2005 11:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Arminius said...

So called Christian Zionism (I prefer to write "Christian"-Zionism)is absolute nonsense from the point of view of both Orthodox Judaism and mainstream Christianity.
For Orthodox Jews who affirm religious (as opposed to political) Zionism the true Israel will be established only after the arrival of the Messiah (Moshac) and is not to be confused with the present-day State of Israel.
For mainstream Christianity the Israel in Christian apocalyptic literature (Bk. of Revelations etc.) has nothing to do with the State of Israel, for 'Israel' in this lit. means the new Israel, the Christian ecclesia that has replaced the old Israel with the substitution of the Old Law (of Moses etc) with the New Law (of J.C.).
"Christian"-Zionism affirms that J.C. will return (and the Rapture will take place) after the full establishment of the present-day State of Israel.
It is, accordingly, a bizarre mixture of misinterpretations of Christianity and political Zionism.
From the point of view of mainstream Christianity it is a rather weird heresy based on misunderstandings.
Insofar as "Christian"-Zionism is a motive force behind the aggressive, wormongering policy enacted by the US in the Middle East today, for the benefit of the State of Israel, it is particularly pernicious and its results are likely to be as deleterious as the analogously mythical Nazi belief in a "master race".

6/18/2005 02:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The zionist/Christian fundamentalist alliance is a marriage of political convenience and the apocalypse hoo ha is a nice cover and a handy explanation.

6/18/2005 05:44:00 AM  
Anonymous David said...

Arminius wrote:
"it is a rather weird heresy based on misunderstandings."

This agrees with what I have always been told. Christian Zionism seems to have roughly the same relationship to Christianity as UFO-belief has to astronomy.

I am very suspicious of all these recent claims about how powerful this lobby is. Something doesn't add up. I live in the Midwest, and so far have met exactly one person who thinks the Jews' claim to Israel is Biblically justified. (I was too embarrassed to ask about the flying off the earth part.) There aren't enough UFO-freaks to determine NASA policy, and there aren't enough Rapturists to be controling our foreign policy.

I suspect the attention given to them (which, if you notice, has been increasing) is caused by the fact that many anti-war folks from the left feel uncomfortable saying the word "Jew" in public; but anything related to Christianity is, of course, fair game. It's the perfect bogeyman for them, but I wonder if it really exists.

6/18/2005 08:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you're right, David. The zionist/fundie apocalypse explanation is a convenient way to cover up the politics of their alliance, and possibly sell it to some innocents.

Roughly similar misdirection as, It's ALL about oil, beloved trope of lefties not wishing, for various reasons, to face facts.

6/18/2005 10:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dont forget about the complete oxymoron of "Judeo-Christianity", since
A. Judaism is a religion from mystery Babylon,(circa 500bc) not from the tribe of Judah, encapsulating much of Babylonian mysticism(Paganism).
B. Even though Christ himself was of Judean lineage(Jehudite not jew),
he warned constantly of the false religion of the "Jews"and was ordered murdered by Jewish priests(pharisees), not Romans.
also see Rev.2:9 and 3:9.
C. Zionism wasnt even a concept until little over a century ago.There is nothing in the bible or Torah that supports it.

D. Try Matthew 7:21 for a little on what J.C. thought about all the phony "Christians"(churchians).
"I never knew you, depart from me"

The point is both "JEWS" and "CHRISTIANS" arent following the laws of Moses/Jesus they are puppets and shills adhering to the doctrines of mundanity, man made religions. So sincere they believe, but so, so misled.


6/18/2005 01:07:00 PM  
Blogger MArtin Frobisher said...

I believe that the Bible does support such a doctrine, however, it is incorrect to call it "Rapture," as such a term does not appear in Scripture. The Greek term is something like "parousia" and it refers to a "catching up" by Christ to "meet him in the air." the other time it was used in the Bible was when Paul was talking about going out to meet a visitor and returning with him. The implication is that Christ will airlift the devout out of harm's way while the rest of us fry in God's wrath. (interpreted by Christians as referring to Israel's nucler arsenal.)

6/18/2005 01:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I suppose the rapture folks would like to have their prophecy fulfilled while they are still alive, so they may experience the nude-flying moment, I guess. Therefore they must have planned the transfer thing, I mean the transfer of the Jews to Israel. Do any of our Gorillads and Gorillasses know if the Raptulians have planned said transfer? Should it be voluntary? But then some may not want to go. And then?

Mr. "r", Brian should ask you to write alongside him, you're such an excellent commentator! I always search for your comments. Thanks.

6/18/2005 02:21:00 PM  
Anonymous r said...

I agree with David, I am in the South and I have only met one or two of the rapture type people, although there are two Evangelical churches here. I think those TV type ministries are where the bulk of that group originates from.

Meanwhile here is something real to use when the next politican makes the claim about Israel being a friend to the US.

Letter from Marine Commandant Barrow to Defense Secretary Weinberger

April 4, 1983

The following is the complete text of a letter from General Robert H. Barrow, Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, to Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. General Barrow sent a copy of the letter to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

March 14, 1983

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I must formally register my deep concern over the two unprovoked incidents in Beirut of this past weekend involving Marines of the Multinational Force and members of the Israeli Defense Forces. I had considered commenting on earlier incidents between Marines and the IDF but corrective measures, which were rapidly implemented in February 1983, appeared to defuse the situation. I can no longer remain silent on this continual problem of provocation from the IDF.

In addition to the U.S. MNF incidents, I have received information concerning serious harassing incidents by the IDF of U.S. officers attached to the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization (UNTSO). These particular incidents involved USMC and USA officers in life-threatening situations, replete with verbal degradation of the officers, their uniform and country. Unfortunately, and of greater concern to me, incidents of this nature are the rule, rather than the exception.

It is evident to me, and the opinion of the U.S. Commanders afloat and ashore, that the incidents between the Marines and the IDF are timed, orchestrated, and executed for obtuse Israeli political purposes. The U.S. has been prompt and forthcoming in defusing previous problems and has established a viable communications procedure between the Marines and IDF. The IDF, however, persist in creating serious incidents.

I am distinctly proud to have Marines participating both as members of the Multinational Force and with UNTSO under the auspices of the United Nations. It is inconceivable to me why Americans -serving in peacekeeping roles-must be harassed, endangered, and degraded by an ally.

Previous demarches and diplomatic initiatives have not eliminated difficulties between our Marines and the IDF. Additionally, the expansion of communications links and the use of Liaison Officers will not preclude additional problems, unless the attitude and actions of the Israelis are altered. It is time for firm and strong action, to demonstrate to the Israelis that a role as a peacekeeper does not presume weakness. If anything, the Israelis should respect our efforts in this region.

Warm personal regards,


R. H. Barrow

© Copyright 1995-1999, American Educational Trust. All Rights Reserved.

6/18/2005 02:25:00 PM  
Anonymous r said...

Thank you anonymous..but I am not as dependable as Brian..

I currently have my left hand immobilized for some treatment and am type pecking with one hand like a parrot..

but that flying nude sounds real good right now...LOL

6/18/2005 02:38:00 PM  
Anonymous r said... is the full explaination of the Barrow letter on the IDF.

Israel Charged with Systematic Harassment of U.S. Marines

By Donald Neff
Former Time Magazine Bureau Chief, Israel
Washington Report, March 1995

It was 12 years ago, on March 14, 1983, that the commandant of the Marine Corps sent a highly unusual letter to the secretary of defense expressing frustration and anger at Israel. General R.H. Barrow charged that Israeli troops were deliberately threatening the lives of Marines serving as peacekeepers in Lebanon. There was, he wrote, a systematic pattern of harassment by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) that was resulting in “life-threatening situations, replete with verbal degradation of the officers, their uniform and country.”

Barrow’s letter added: “It is inconceivable to me why Americans serving in peacekeeping roles must be harassed, endangered by an ally...It is evident to me, and the opinion of the U.S. commanders afloat and ashore, that the incidents between the Marines and the IDF are timed, orchestrated, and executed for obtuse Israeli political purposes.”1

Israel’s motives were less obtuse than the diplomatic general pretended. It was widely believed then, and now, that Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, one of Israel’s most Machiavellian politician-generals, was creating the incidents deliberately in an effort to convince Washington that the two forces had to coordinate their actions in order to avoid such tensions. This, of course, would have been taken by the Arabs as proof that the Marines were not really in Lebanon as neutral peacekeepers but as allies of the Israelis, a perception that would have obvious advantages for Israel.2

Barrow’s extraordinary letter was indicative of the frustrations and miseries the Marines suffered during their posting to Lebanon starting on Aug. 25, 1982, as a result of Israel’s invasion 11 weeks earlier. Initially a U.S. unit of 800 men was sent to Beirut harbor as part of a multinational force to monitor the evacuation of PLO guerrillas from Beirut. The Marines, President Reagan announced, “in no case... would stay longer than 30 days.”3 This turned out to be only partly true. They did withdraw on Sept. 10, but a reinforced unit of 1,200 was rushed back 15 days later after the massacres at the Palestinian refugee camps at Sabra and Shatila that accompanied the Israeli seizure of West Beirut. The U.S. forces remained until Feb. 26, 1984.4

During their year-and-a-half posting in Lebanon, the Marines suffered 268 killed.5 The casualties started within a week of the return of the Marines in September 1982. On the 30th, a U.S.-made cluster bomb left behind by the Israelis exploded, killing Corporal David Reagan and wounding three other Marines.6

Corporal Reagan’s death represented the dangers of the new mission of the Marines in Lebanon. While their first brief stay had been to separate Israeli forces from Palestinian fighters evacuating West Beirut, their new mission was as part of a multinational force sent to prevent Israeli troops from attacking the Palestinian civilians left defenseless there after the withdrawal of PLO forces. As President Reagan said: “For this multinational force to succeed, it is essential that Israel withdraw from Beirut.”7

“Incidents are timed, orchestrated, and executed for Israeli political purposes.”
Israel’s siege of Beirut during the summer of 1982 had been brutal and bloody, reaching a peak of horror on Aug. 12, quickly known as Black Thursday. On that day, Sharon’s forces launched at dawn a massive artillery barrage that lasted for 11 straight hours and was accompanied by saturation air bombardment.8 As many as 500 persons, mainly Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, were killed.9

On top of the bombardment came the massacres the next month at Sabra and Shatila, where Sharon’s troops allowed Lebanese Maronite killers to enter the camps filled with defenseless civilians. The massacres sickened the international community and pressure from Western capitals finally forced Israel to withdraw from Beirut in late September. Troops from Britain, France, Italy and the United States were interposed between the Israeli army and Beirut, with U.S. Marines deployed in the most sensitive area south of Beirut at the International Airport, directly between Israeli troops and West Beirut.

It was at the airport that the Marines would suffer their Calvary over the next year. Starting in January 1983, small Israeli units began probing the Marine lines. At first the effort appeared aimed at discovering the extent of Marine determination to resist penetration. The lines proved solid and the Marines’ determination strong. Israeli troops were politely but firmly turned away. Soon the incidents escalated, with both sides pointing loaded weapons at each other but no firing taking place. Tensions were high enough by late January that a special meeting between U.S. and Israeli officers was held in Beirut to try to agree on precise boundaries beyond which the IDF would not penetrate.10

No Stranger to the Marines
However, on Feb. 2 a unit of three Israeli tanks, led by Israeli Lt. Col. Rafi Landsberg, tried to pass through Marine/Lebanese Army lines at Rayan University Library in south Lebanon. By this time, Landsberg was no stranger to the Marines. Since the beginning of January he had been leading small Israeli units in probes against the Marine lines, although such units would normally have a commander no higher than a sergeant or lieutenant. The suspicion grew that Sharon’s troops were deliberately provoking the Marines and Landsberg was there to see that things did not get out of hand. The Israeli tactics were aimed more at forcing a joint U.S.-Israeli strategy than merely probing lines.

In the Feb. 2 incident, the checkpoint was commanded by Marine Capt. Charles Johnson, who firmly refused permission for Landsberg to advance. When two of the Israeli tanks ignored his warning to halt, Johnson leaped on Landsberg’s tank with pistol drawn and demanded Landsberg and his tanks withdraw. They did.11

Landsberg and the Israeli embassy in Washington tried to laugh off the incident, implying that Johnson was a trigger-happy John Wayne type and that the media were exaggerating a routine event. Landsberg even went so far as to claim that he smelled alcohol on Johnson’s breath and that drunkenness must have clouded his reason. Marines were infuriated because Johnson was well known as a teetotaler. Americans flocked to Johnson’s side. He received hundreds of letters from school children, former Marines and from Commandant Barrow.12 It was a losing battle for the Israelis and Landsberg soon dropped from sight.

But the incidents did not stop. These now included “helicopter harassment,” by which U.S.-made helicopters with glaring spotlights were flown by the Israelis over Marine positions at night, illuminating Marine outposts and exposing them to potential attack. As reports of these incidents piled up, Gen. Barrow received a letter on March 12 from a U.S. Army major stationed in Lebanon with the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization (UNTSO). The letter described a systematic pattern of Israeli attacks and provocations against UNTSO troops, including instances in which U.S. officers were singled out for “near-miss” shootings, abuse and detention.13 That same day two Marine patrols were challenged and cursed by Israeli soldiers.14

Two days later Barrow wrote his letter to Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger, who endorsed it and sent it along to the State Department. High-level meetings were arranged and the incidents abated, perhaps largely because by this time Ariel Sharon had been fired as defense minister. He had been found by an Israeli commission to have had “personal responsibility” for the Sabra and Shatila massacres.15

Despite the bad taste left from the clashes with the Israelis, in fact no Marines had been killed in the incidents and their lines had been secure up to the end of winter in 1983. Then Islamic guerrillas, backed by Iran, became active. On the night of April 17, 1983, an unknown sniper fired a shot that went through the trousers of a Marine sentry but did not harm him. For the first time, the Marines returned fire.16

The next day, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was blown up by a massive bomb, with the loss of 63 lives. Among the 17 Americans killed were CIA Mideast specialists, including Robert C. Ames, the agency’s top Middle East expert.17 Disaffected former Israeli Mossad case officer Victor Ostrovsky later claimed that Israel had advance information about the bombing plan but had decided not to inform the United States, a claim denied by Israel.18 The Iranian-backed Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. Veteran correspondent John Cooley considered the attack “the day [Iranian leader Ayatollah] Khomeini’s offensive against America in Lebanon began in earnest.”19

Still, it was not until four months later, on Aug. 28, that Marines came under direct fire by rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons at International Airport. They returned fire with M-16 rifles and M-60 machine guns. The firefight resumed the next day with Marines firing 155mm artillery, 81mm mortars and rockets from Cobra helicopter gunships against Shi’i Muslim positions. Two Marines were killed and 14 wounded in the exchange, the first casualties in actual combat since the Marines had landed the previous year.20

From this time on, the combat involvement of the Marines grew. Their actions were generally seen as siding with Israel against Muslims, slowly changing the status of the Marines as neutral peacekeepers to opponents of the Muslims.21 Israel could hardly have wished for more. The polarization meant that increasingly the conflict was being perceived in terms of the U.S., Israel and Lebanon’s Christians against Iran, Islam and Lebanon’s Shi’i Muslims.

Accelerating the Conflict
Israel accelerated the building conflict on Sept. 3, 1993 by unilaterally withdrawing its troops southward, leaving the Marines exposed behind their thin lines at the airport. The United States had asked the Israeli government to delay its withdrawal until the Marines could be replaced by units of the Lebanese army, but Israel refused.22 The result was as feared. Heavy fighting immediately broke out between the Christian Lebanese Forces and the pro-Syrian Druze units, both seeking to occupy positions evacuated by Israel, while the Marines were left in the crossfire.23 On Sept. 5, two Marines were killed and three wounded as fighting escalated between Christian and Muslim militias.24

In an ill-considered effort to subdue the combat, the Sixth Fleet frigate Bowen fired several five-inch naval guns, hitting Druze artillery positions in the Chouf Mountains that were firing into the Marine compound at Beirut airport.25 It was the first time U.S. ships had fired into Lebanon, dramatically raising the level of combat. But the Marines’ exposed location on the flat terrain of the airport left them in an impossible position. On Sept. 12, three more Marines were wounded.26

On Sept. 13, President Reagan authorized what was called aggressive self-defense for the Marines, including air and naval strikes.27 Five days later the United States essentially joined the war against the Muslims when four U.S. warships unleashed the heaviest naval bombardment since Vietnam into Syrian and Druze positions in eastern Lebanon in support of the Lebanese Christians.28 The bombardment lasted for three days and was personally ordered by National Security Council director Robert McFarlane, a Marine Corps officer detailed to the White House who was in Lebanon at the time and was also a strong supporter of Israel and its Lebanese Maronite Christian allies. McFarlane issued the order despite the fact that the Marine commander at the airport, Colonel Timothy Geraghty, strenuously argued against it because, in the words of correspondent Thomas L. Friedman, “he knew that it would make his soldiers party to what was now clearly an intra-Lebanese fight, and that the Lebanese Muslims would not retaliate against the Navy’s ships at sea but against the Marines on shore.”29

By now, the Marines were under daily attack and Muslims were charging they were no longer neutral.30 At the same time the battleship USS New Jersey, with 16-inch guns, arrived off Lebanon, increasing the number of U.S. warships offshore to 14. Similarly, the Marine contingent at Beirut airport was increased from 1,200 to 1,600.31

A Tragic Climax
The fight now was truly joined between the Shi’i Muslims and the Marines, who were essentially pinned down in their airport bunkers and under orders not to take offensive actions. The tragic climax of their predicament came on Oct. 23, when a Muslim guerrilla drove a truck past guards at the Marine airport compound and detonated an explosive with the force of 12,000 pounds of dynamite under a building housing Marines and other U.S. personnel. Almost simultaneously, a car-bomb exploded at the French compound in Beirut. Casualties were 241 Americans and 58 French troops killed. The bombings were the work of Hezbollah, made up of Shi’i Muslim guerrillas supported by Iran.;32

America’s agony increased on Dec. 3, when two carrier planes were downed by Syrian missiles during heavy U.S. air raids on eastern Lebanon.;33 On the same day, eight Marines were killed in fighting with Muslim militiamen around the Beirut airport.;34

By the start of 1984, an all-out Shi’i Muslim campaign to rid Lebanon of all Americans was underway. The highly respected president of the American University of Beirut, Dr. Malcolm Kerr, a distinguished scholar of the Arab world, was gunned down on Jan. 18 outside his office by Islamic militants aligned with Iran.;35 On Feb. 5, Reagan made one of his stand-tall speeches by saying that “the situation in Lebanon is difficult, frustrating and dangerous. But this is no reason to turn our backs on friends and to cut and run.”;36

The next day Professor Frank Regier, a U.S. citizen teaching at AUB, was kidnapped by Muslim radicals.;37 Regier’s kidnapping was the beginning of a series of kidnappings of Americans in Beirut that would hound the Reagan and later the Bush administrations for years and lead to the eventual expulsion of nearly all Americans from Lebanon where they had prospered for more than a century. Even today Americans still are prohibited from traveling to Lebanon.

The day after Regier’s kidnapping, on Feb. 7, 1984, Reagan suddenly reversed himself and announced that all U.S. Marines would shortly be “redeployed.” The next day the battleship USS New Jersey fired 290 rounds of one-ton shells from its 16-inch guns into Lebanon as a final act of U.S. frustration.;38 Reagan’s “redeployment” was completed by Feb. 26, when the last of the Marines retreated from Lebanon.

The mission of the Marines had been a humiliating failure?not because they failed in their duty but because the political backbone in Washington was lacking. The Marines had arrived in 1982 with all sides welcoming them. They left in 1984 despised by many and the object of attacks by Muslims. Even relations with Israel were strained, if not in Washington where a sympathetic Congress granted increased aid to the Jewish state to compensate it for the costs of its bungled invasion, then between the Marines and Israeli troops who had confronted each other in a realpolitik battlefield that was beyond their competence or understanding. The Marine experience in Lebanon did not contribute toward a favorable impression of Israel among many Americans, especially since the Marines would not have been in Lebanon except for Israel’s unprovoked invasion.

This negative result is perhaps one reason a number of Israelis and their supporters today oppose sending U.S. peacekeepers to the Golan Heights as part of a possible Israeli-Syrian peace treaty. A repeat of the 1982-84 experience would certainly not be in Israel’s interests at a time when its supporters are seeking to have a budget-conscious Congress continue unprecedented amounts of aid to Israel.

* (there was also a study done on this by the War college in regard to peace keeping forces)

6/18/2005 03:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes the rapture is going to happen but only if the christians grab their bibles in one hand and a rifle in the other and kill more satanic non human Muslims whom God hates. God wants christians to force his creative, mighty hand to bless the jews and christians and this can only occur if all muslims convert to the right faith and that is only christianity. Heck even american christian generals think killing is fun so it's O.K. Thou shalt kill to make sure everybody's happy. Praise Jesus and look at all those dead Iraqi children and devil babies, praise God for the new world order of ages. Praise God's chip implants and bio cards for they are gifts from heaven. amen.

6/18/2005 03:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Check out this Flash-animated satire about The Red Heifer, The Third Temple, The Rapture, "Self Fulfilling Prophecies", war contracting and profiteering, and all that kinda stuff: NSFW - May Offend Some People

6/18/2005 04:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Texas Arcane said...

American "christians" are morons with reserved parking in hell.

The Rapture is the strangest pagan offshoot of traditional scripture the world has ever known.

I don't know why these kinds of "Christians" even refer to the Bible, they've written their own and made themselves the pampered stars of the show.

These trailer park hellbound losers truly believe their gassy asses will float straight up into the arms of Jesus at the next sign of this generation's troubles beginning. It's the ultimate consumer convenience.

They've got a helluva surprise coming when the next World War starts.

6/19/2005 07:52:00 AM  
Blogger Brian said...

I have invited r to post but she was not confortabe. I agree her posts are of the highest quality - much higher than mine, especially lately.

I will try to repost some of her comments to the main blog next week.

I have heard Tom Delay gets lots of pressure from the "rapture" crowd. Don't know how true this is...

6/19/2005 08:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those wanting to know the truth about the dispensational system and the rapture should do a search on the man who's work really created it. Google Cyrus Scofield and find out the truth. This doctrine neuters Christiandom.

More Zionist tactics straight from the covers of Sun Tsu.

6/19/2005 03:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I have invited r to post but she was not confortabe. I agree her posts are of the highest quality - much higher than mine, especially lately."

Oooh, like that's a high bar...

r basically inserts ridiculously long links from whatever anti-Israel site he/she can find, no matter how discredited.

Then again, that's sort of what Brian does.

6/20/2005 08:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anybody who believes that Jews are "God's Chosen People" is just plain CRAZY (& "racist" too). Anyone who believes that THE BIBLE is at all TRUE is also just plain CRAZY. This should be all anyone has to say about these subjects... "Well you know these are the End Times and Prophecy is being fulfilled" : ... NO, YOU ARE JUST PLAIN CRAZY!!!!!

6/20/2005 09:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"JUST PLAIN CRAZY"- WOW you are so insightful and profound.

6/21/2005 01:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Just Plain Crazy".... well, that is all that really needs to be said to these people. I made it short and succinct. What's the problem?

6/21/2005 04:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Rufus Choate said...

"Neither irony nor sarcasm is argument."

6/22/2005 09:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was not being either ironic or sarcastic, I was simply trying to state the facts, the fact is that those people are CRAZY. I am sick of being "tolerant" of their stupid and dangerous beliefs.

6/23/2005 07:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All I am saying is don't even attempt to argue, because you can't argue with crazy people, they do not respond to logic, just realize that they are crazy and tell them so to their faces, it works every time for me!

6/23/2005 07:17:00 AM  
Anonymous rufus choate said...

No, I was refering to the other poster who was being a sarcastic smartass but making no argument of his own:

Anonymous wrote:
"WOW you are so insightful and profound."

6/24/2005 05:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the so-called 'rapture' refers to the remnant 144,000 going to heaven. if you disagree, you're misinformed.

7/04/2005 04:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the so-called 'rapture' refers to the remnant 144,000 going to heaven. if you disagree, you're misinformed."

Yeah, sure, but it is still a bunch of FUCKING CRAZY NONSENSE HORSESHIT!

7/07/2005 09:56:00 PM  
Blogger Alvin Miller said...

My inaugural address at the Great White Throne Judgment of the Dead, after I have raptured out billions!


Your jaw will drop!

eschatology,End Times,second coming,rapture,secret rapture,Second Resurrection,Great White Throne Judgment of the Dead,
End of Days,Day of the Lord,Endtime,Judgment Day

1/16/2006 03:15:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home