Is Christ really coming back later today?

Here is yet another specific end-time “prophecy” (from the USA again: shock; horror). I don’t know why our mainstream media are infatuated with the antics of small town American preachers (think Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church). The most likely explanation is that the Guardianistas which run the media want to make Christians look like kooks.

The only way that 89 year-old Harold Camping will be correct in his timing is coincidence. Consider this,

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Even Christ doesn’t know the day, but Harold Camping does?!

That would make him God the Father. I doubt he realises that he could be accused of blasphemy. But it gets even worse, Camping has already predicted the Second Coming – that was in 1994 and I can reveal to you that he got it wrong. Even he must see that he is no prophet, but he’s having another stab in the dark anyway (even if he is convinced it is all mathematical).

But, the head of the Christian radio network Family Stations Inc has said that he is sure an earthquake will hit on May 21, sweeping true believers to heaven and leaving others behind to be engulfed in the world’s destruction over a few months.

“We know without any shadow of a doubt it is going to happen,” he said.

I am not laughing. I hope his followers haven’t given away all their worldly goods, as can happen when people fall hook, line and sinker for such characters.

But atheists are not convinced.

No! Really?

Some of you will know, and if you didn’t it may shock you, that I was a Mormon for a short time. I met a lot of very nice and kind people and if any of them are reading this I am not trying to be mean, but stating the facts as I see them.

I won’t go into the circumstances now, but when I started inviting the missionaries into my flat, I was of very low spirit (if you exclude all the alcohol I was consuming). I did believe that the Mormon “prophets” really were what they claimed to be, but fairly soon I started to wake up to reality.

I was given a thick tome about the “prophet” Joseph Fielding Smith by a missionary I got on well with. This particular Smith was the grandson of the brother of the church’s founder, Joseph Smith. Joseph Fielding Smith was the Mormon President from 1970 until his death in 1972, aged 95. In those days black people were not permitted to enter the “priesthood” and JFS wrote in the 1950s that they would never be allowed unless perhaps in the far distant future or on another planet.

It happened in 1978. On Earth.

I have just come across this interesting “prophecy,” which Joseph Fielding Smith announced to stake conference in Honolulu in 1961:

We will never get a man into space. This earth is man’s sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it.

The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen.

I don’t remember any Mormon telling me that they doubted that men have walked on the moon, so it is illogical for them to believe both this “prophet” and NASA.

Of course, most Mormons will neither know nor care about old prophecies which have been proven to be false, despite the Bible warning about false prophets many times. This is because they believe that whatever the “living prophet” says supersedes the errors of past “prophets.”

And if that sounds crazy, it’s because it is. But don’t laugh too hard, especially if you are a LibLabCon voter, as you are enticed by charlatans of the political variety!

If stories of the Second Coming serve any purpose, they remind us (if we need reminding) that we never know when that day will be and to be ready for it. The evil upon the earth today seems to be increasing all the time and the former civilised countries of the West are decaying badly. Satan seems to be making his final big push. He has plenty of willing angels in the filth-spewing media and politically correct governments.

Another thing to ponder upon is the question posed in the title of this post:

Is Christ really coming back later today?

One day, people will be saying. “Christ came back today, but I wasn’t ready.”

This entry was posted in Liars, Mainstream Media, Religion and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Is Christ really coming back later today?

  1. Leg-iron says:

    He’d better not be right. I have a lottery ticket here. The End is set for 6pm and the draw isn’t until 7. Could be worse, imagine winning the lottery ten minutes before the end of the world!

    The most amusing aspect was the Humanist ‘Anti-rapture’ event. Seems there are fundamentalist humanists too.

    Of course, if it does happen, God will be so annoyed with those humanists he might not notice me sneaking in at the back.

    One little detail though – is the rapture a noticeable event for the non-Christians? I mean, all that happens is that the faithful get called in and most of them are already dead anyway so we faithless would only notice a few people missing.

    On the basis that worldwide madness and disaster follow after that event, what are the odds that it’s already happened?

  2. Stewart Cowan says:

    I should maybe have said in the post that I don’t believe in this rapture business. I think the Bible makes it clear that God’s people will suffer. It is he who “endures to the end” who will be saved. And the wheat and tares grow up together until the end

    Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

    The treasure available in Heaven is far more precious than anything you could buy with your lottery winnings, even if it was your favourite malt whisky – factory.

    The Humanists are a funny lot (“not funny ha-ha, funny peculiar”, as my mum would say). Humanists say they don’t require God to be nice people, yet these fundies take great pleasure in sticking the boot into people who don’t think as they do, which is most people.

    They don’t believe there should be state-funded faith schools, only state-funded schools which promote a secular/atheist humanist worldview.

    I imagine the irony is completely lost on them.

    Oh, and you won’t be able to sneak in at the back. You’ll be as welcome as Walter Wolfgang at a Labour Party Conference. Unless, of course…

  3. Leg-iron says:

    I didn’t win the lottery. I’ll try again in five years or so.

    I went to a humanist funeral recently (not a relative). It was very nicely done but it didn’t appear to be a religion. Yet the way some of them talk sounds just like any other fundamentalist segment of any other religion. They deride Islamist demands for Islamist law while demanding only Humanist law. As you say, irony is not their strong point.

    For me, anyone else’s belief is their business. I am not a believer but I am not an atheist either. I’m keeping my options open.

    But I won’t say I believe unless I do, and at the moment I don’t. I don’t think fakery would cut it.

  4. robbo says:

    Dear Leg-iron,
    I really don’t understand much of what you’re on about here. You say it is not much like a religion but then say they are the same. Then you say they are being ironic but that irony is not their strong point. Also I have some news for you. If you are not a believer you must be an unbeliever which is the same thing as an atheist. Atheism requires you to keep your options open, theism requires you to close your mind.
    Dear Stewart,
    At the school in which I work, a typical state funded sixth form college, religions and cultures mix freely. There is no agenda to promote a secular belief system and there is no such agenda in any of the British education system. The irony is not lost on the humanists, it is lost on you and those like you who want to impose your belief system on everyone else’s children and accuse the ones who resist such indoctrination of the very thing you want to do. In fact it is a double loss of irony when you do it. You hypocrite, sir. I don’t want my children being taught a load of mumbo jumbo at school so I will thank you to keep your stupid beliefs in your home, church and Sunday school where you are welcome to them.
    It is amazing to me how easy it is for you to poke fun at other religions when you rival David Icke for kooky beliefs. Unbe-luddy-lievable! Please Stewart, this can’t go on. Why do you think, if there is such an enormous conspiracy going on, that they allow you to blow the lid on it with such impunity? I asked you before, what bit of evidence would it take to convince you any of your beliefs are wrong?

  5. Stewart Cowan says:

    L-I,

    I only did the lottery once – on the very first day. All my numbers were so far away from the numbers drawn that I gave up there and then. I can’t see myself being one of the nouveaux riches anyway. I can’t drink champagne anymore. Not that I ever did much. I was more of a strong white cider man when money was tight. Same colour, I suppose.

    I think that the beliefs of others are everybody’s business when they affect other people, whether political, religious or “gay rights”.

  6. Stewart Cowan says:

    Robbo,

    “Atheism requires you to keep your options open, theism requires you to close your mind.”

    That’s not what I have seen on numerous blogs and message boards. And militant “atheists” seem to love deriding others with their demands and bus ads/billboards, etc. That isn’t keeping their options open, it is declaring a definite position. Dawkins says he isn’t 100% atheist, so that makes him a hypocrite, no?

    My evidence shows that there is an agenda to destroy our Judeo-Christian culture. It’s actually very obvious.

    I don’t want children taught mumbo jumbo either – like all religions are equal and made to watch Al Gore’s film about climate change and the theory of evolution and so on.

    Do I poke fun at other religions? In this post, I pointed out one of the obvious flaws of Mormonism. With Islam, I point out the dangers. Same with secular humanism.

    It might stun you to learn that I am not an Icke fan. I am actually suspicious of his motives. I might be wrong, of course, but then, I have an open mind. :P

    The bottom line is this – every society needs to have rules; a moral code; laws. Moral relativity and the resulting slack laws bring trouble, as we can clearly see. Multiculturalism brings about the condition where just about anything goes. Political correctness means that some people are deemed more equal than others.

    This is all leading to dehumanisation – of Christians, smokers, people of the “wrong” shape, etc. The opposite of the Christian ethos of love, forgiveness, etc.

  7. robbo says:

    Stewart,
    Of course there are some people who genuinely hate religion, and christianity in particular but can you give me an example of a bus ad or billboard that derides others with their demands? I can think of only one bus ad which said something like “There’s probably no god so stop worrying and enjoy life” and a billboard that said “Don’t believe in God? You’re not alone”. How does that count as derision? All religions are equal as far as I am concerned, in a free country that must be the case but mormonism is no more stupid than your beliefs, islam no more dangerous. Al Gore’s film has been shown in some schools maybe but tell me why indoctrinating children into believing your mumbo jumbo would be any better? What opposing view should they be presented with in your opinion after you had preached to them? The fact is that evolution has been shown to be true time and time again, your alternative is nonsensical. There is NO evidence of a global flood 4000 years ago so what can we present to inquiring young minds about it? ALL the evidence shows clearly that the earth is millions upon millions of years old and life has been slowly evolving over that timescale. The bible stories are just that – STORIES. If there is no reason to believe them we should reject them and so we will be able to appreciate them as literature. A moral code is important but I decide my morals for myself based on my own reason. Laws are essential but we have them. The two are not the same thing. You want to ban abortion. How can you claim that is moral when most of the country does not want it banned? Is anyone forcing an abortion on anyone else? That would be immoral and illegal. people have the choice and that is all. “Political correctness means that some people are deemed more equal than others” what does that even mean?
    Rather rambling and badly formatted response I know. I’ve not got time to edit it so it’s going up as it is.

  8. Robbo (my enemy), I don’t have the time for generic debates like creation/evolution these days, but just one point I can’t resist making to you (on behalf of Stewart) is the following…

    You wrote: “Is anyone forcing an abortion on anyone else?”

    My comment in response to your statement is: that is exactly what happens every time an abortion takes place.

    Ask any abortion victim.

    Oh no, you can’t do that, they’re all dead, they were murdered.

    But I’m sure you get my point.

    Right-thinking, moral and decent men and women do not stand by – when one-in-four of the most innocent and defenceless people in our society, unborn babies, are being slaughtered on a holocaust scale – and say and do nothing.

    I applaud Stewart Cowan for being pro-life and for speaking out in public on his blog.

    There is no more important (or more genuine) human right than the right to life itself.

    Every human being ought to have the right to life from the moment of conception until natural death, and the right to life should be enshrined in the law of the land, and that law be enforced to deter murder and to punish murderers.

  9. lionheart says:

    Much as it pains me to do so on that particular point of the debate on abortion I have to say that Richard has a valid point and another issue is that the father has no say whatsoever in the process either if he wishes to raise the child the mother makes that decision for him regarding abortion and his views mean nothing at all in law.

    You have to assume that every foetus would chose to live if they had a say so its the assumption that up to a certain date that the foetus is not considered to be a person with a right to choose that is the key to the current laws Robbo.

  10. Stewart Cowan says:

    Robbo,

    I hope your wounds are healing nicely.

    a) Guardianista-types hate Christianity more than any other faith. They infest the BBC and it is admitedly anti-Christian and pro-Islam.

    b) Mormonism’s prophets are demonstrably fakes.

    c) Islam is no more dangerous? Well enjoy being treated as a second class citizen when the time comes.

    d) Evolution has been shown to be true, but the ^theory^ of evolution has never been demonstrated to be true.

    e) There is an abundance of evidence for a global flood. In fact, it best explains many geographical features.

    f) “I decide my morals for myself based on my own reason.” So did Dr Shipman & Rose and Fred West. The Nazis thought that evolution theory gave them the right to create a “Master Race.”

    g) Abortion – read what Richard has said – and as Lionheart adds, what of the father’s rights?

    h) Political correctness is a device foisted on us to destroy our society – to divide and conquer and silence debate.

  11. lionheart says:

    The dog was sentanced by the Rabbi to stoning to death by local children because it was the “spirit” of a lawyer that insulted the court years ago! It escaped after international condemnation and the sentence was overruled thankfully.

    The religious courts in Israel render some truly crazy verdicts on occasion you should google some of their stranger actions if nothing else it will make think perhaps our courts aren’t QUITE as bad..

  12. robbo says:

    Sigh. Once again I get precious little in answer to the questions I have posted. Here is an idea. Go out onto the street and ask a hundred people if they think abortion is murder and if they think murder should be legalised. Ask a thousand people. If you find significant differences in the results, how do you explain it? The plain fact is you want to impose your stupid minority beliefs on an unwilling majority. This will never happen, the people will not allow it because we live in a democracy. You don’t like democracy because you hold stupid minority beliefs that you want to impose on everyone else and the only way you will ever achieve your aims is to overthrow democracy.
    Should men be allowed to prevent a woman having an abortion? I don’t know why you are asking this question as you want to see abortion completely banned and so it would be irrelevant, wouldn’t it? I see no practical way to implement a system where the father would have to give his permission. How would this be enforced? And anyway is it not totally misogynistic? The doofus says women should even be forced to carry the baby in the case of rape, should a rapist be allowed to force his victim to bear his child?
    Anyway why do you keep changing the subject every time I ask a question you can’t answer. This discussion was not about abortion, it was about atheist bus ad ads. Once again I repeat my question. Which atheist bus ad can you quote that counts as derision? We can come back to the other questions later. Please just answer that one for now.

  13. lionheart says:

    Robbo can you stop calling Richard “Doofus”, he is now to be called “Oscar” in honer of a now deleted blog entry he put up about how his “Gangster Surveillance” group hide in wheelie bins to spy on their targets and how uncomfortable it is for them!

    The vision of Richard popping up like Oscar the grouch in Sesame St has stuck with me ever since lol.

    Its what happens when people watch too many old James Bond films late at night and write blog entries after a few glasses of the communion wine!

  14. Why would you want to murder somebody just because they are conceived as a result of rape? What a sicko murder-advocate you are Robbo.

    Rape is wrong but so is murder. Two wrongs don’t make a right. A rape is not made right by committing a murder.

    The right thing to do in such a case is for the woman to give birth and have the baby adopted if she does not want to keep the baby.

  15. lionheart says:

    And “Oscar” demonstrates why even having a sensible debate that could possibly even lead to a referendum in the future.

    Calling someone a “sicko murder-advocate” because they don’t agree with you is a sure way to be ignored and your points derided in a logical debate.

    Are you writing this from your secret camp inside a gangsters wheelie bin Richard and if so is the heat and dehydration and smell of used nappies having a detrimental effect on your manner perhaps??

  16. robbo says:

    Well, as I’ve said before, you are welcome to advocate that but you have the vast weight of public opinion against you so you have no chance. Murder is a legal term and it does not and has never to my knowledge encompassed abortion. You sicko misogynist.
    Stuart, any chance you can answer my question?

  17. I would welcome a national debate followed by a referendum on abortion. I believe abortion would be banned.

    Abortion was understood by our laws and legal system to be a crime of murder within living memory.

    The term ‘murder’ is exactly applicable to any abortion.

    Any abortion is the deliberate and pre-meditated killing of an innocent human being: abortion is murder.

    Unfortunately since the Abortion Act 1967, murder has been licensed as legal under that Act when it takes the form of the murder of an unborn human being and is committed according to the provisions and stipulations of that Act.

  18. lionheart says:

    You see now THAT is a more reasoned and sensible comment the chances of you ever being included in a debate are zero because you rant like a lunatic (yes I know your better now it was a mannerism rather than a medical description).

    So how is the gangster “gun for hire” (Richards words) fighting going Oscar and will you be saving up for a bin of your own or will you be living in other peoples while you and your “team” are spying on all these gangsters?? (I’m guessing you’ll be moving from other people’s bins to bin as you do with spare rooms?)

    And from reading your latest entry it seems there is yet another person with a “contract” out on them that can only be saved by you if they give you information, isn’t that the same excuse you used for stalking the young girl not that long ago that there was a “contract” out on her as well? An enquiring mind would wonder how an unemployed toilet cleaner is so well informed of all these “contracts” and that the police know nothing about them? Did the voices tell you about this Richard ??

  19. I’ve no doubt GMP have plenty of good information on Mr. Little Black Book of Manchester. I wouldn’t be surprised if they pull him in soon and he makes a deal with them. If he does make a deal expect major repercussions throughout the Manchester underworld and quite a few heads rolling who thought they were untouchable.

  20. lionheart says:

    Are you saying that GMP have “contracts” out on people now Oscar sorry Richard !!!

    http://richardcarvath.blogspot.com/2011/06/gangster-angel-in-big-trouble.html

    I do have to wonder if trawling all these sites like the rather obscure UkPunting and Little Book of Manchester is starting (I’m being generous with the starting bit) as well as all these pornstar sites you have mentioned in the past is really having an effect on you? Hiding out in bins spying on people at two and three in the morning has to be a ticket to another sectioning I would have thought??

    Another thing that occurred to me is if your telling people that your in the bins with a pair of binoculars do you not worry that they might be watching for that or even god-forbid you doze off and wake up being tipped into a bin wagon? This “gun for hire” stuff you describe as your political work sounds very dangerous and more than a little smelly (yes I know as a toilet cleaner your used to that but do you not think that there is something better for you to devote your life to now?)

  21. I’ve told you before that you’re in need of urgent help.

    GMP does not do contract murder! I don’t (and never have) lived in a bin. I don’t spy on gangsters from bins in the early hours of the morning (nor have I ever done). I also don’t live in somebody’s spare room. I’m not registered unemployed. I’m not a toilet cleaner. I’ve never been legally detained in a mental hospital. I don’t spend my time surfing prostitution and pornography websites.

    Do you not see how detached from reality you are? You are a delusional fantasist. When you’re not completely making things up, you take humourous and satirical ideas from my blog and repackage them here as if they were straight fact. Normal people in their right mind are not obsessed with me, as you are, and they have the ability to discern straight from satirical writing, an ability you appear to lack.

    Do you not see it ‘Lionheart’? You are not the lionheart. You are a depraved psychopath. Get help before you end up as a serial murderer – if indeed you aren’t one already.

  22. English Viking says:

    Hey Richard,

    A serious question: before you became a Christian, did you take drugs?

    Can I ask how long you have been a Christian?

  23. English Viking says:

    Hey Stewie,

    C’mon mate, post some more stuff. Weekends are boring without a good argument in your comments threads.

  24. You may ask; whether or not I answer is my prerogative. On this occasion I will answer, and answer thus…

    (1) I have never taken any drugs;

    (2) That information is already in the public domain.

    You, Vickyboy, are a vexatious, impudent and anonymous blog-fairy who gets off on the thrill of the wind-up. Don’t think I don’t know your game.

    This thread and this blog is not a Richard Carvath forum for the purpose of discussing all things Carvathian.

    I would like to ask that in future readers of this blog please show more respect for the author of this blog – the host of all our comments and without whom none of us would be here – and refrain from spoiling Realstreet threads with off-topic trivia and endless speculation about me. Please confine yourselves to commenting on the themes and specific content of Stewart’s blog posts (or set up your own blog).

  25. English Viking says:

    Oooh, hark at her!

  26. lionheart says:

    You are either to mentally unstable to even remember what you yourself have said or you are a diabolical liar Richard.

    1)You say you don’t spy on “gangsters” in the early hours or in bins etc.

    Would you like me to put a screen shot of your deleted posts (timed at ten to two in the morning) stating that bins where one of the tactics you and your “team” use and that you where just on your way out for some “surveillance” at that time?

    2) I’ll leave the “spare room” comment for now but anyone can check the electrol register if they wanted Richard.

    3) You say your not registered unemployed or a toilet cleaner, but then you’ve publicly stated that you used to be a toilet cleaner in a gay bar and named the place (and a quick google search makes it clear it is a gay bar) and your being a little pedantic with the registered unemployed comment so perhaps I should have said “receiving benefits” or “living off the welfare state” instead.

    4) The “legaly detained in a mental hospital” is just the same its semantics but if it makes you feel better to think of it in another way then bless you but by whatever term you want to think of it others will probably be less charitable given your behaviour.

    5) You say you don’t surf “porn websites” but you’ve put up links to many many obscure hardcore porn sites and descriptions of them then I wonder why people might think you do?

    If you are going to lie Richard then you should first check your own archives to see what you’ve said in the past. And as you’ve been so good (yet again) in giving out advice on how to behave on other people’s sites then perhaps you’d like some from me and stop insulting this blog with your lies and slimy semantics to try and twist the facts to suit your own perceptions.

  27. Raulen says:

    Yes the second coming of Christ will be just like a thief. We don’t know when it will come but we must be ready all the time. Please read my site http://havenofrest.yolasite.com to know how Christ will come. Thanks

  28. Silas Blisset says:

    I am NOT a religious man,I don’t believe in any organised religion.
    But I do believe Evolution is called a theory so therefore that is what it is.Evolution of some sort obviously does/and has existed.Anyone who doesn’t believe that is naive.Even The Pope believes in it.But I don’t believe that scientists can claim they know EXACTLY what happened billions of years ago. They can have a good idea and are obviously right about some of the stuff they say but can NOT claim it all as a bonafide fact,only as a theory.
    I do agree that creationism isn’t true,there is NO evidence that the world is a few thousand years old.Therefore because it is obviously not true it shouldn’t be taught in school.
    Now when it comes to Abortion.I think I have mixed opinions,it would be foolish to totally outlaw it as sometimes on occasions it is needed.I believe it should only be used in extreme cases,such as if a baby is going to die,due to having a serious condition/disfigurement which would result in said baby’s death,if a woman is likely to die from giving birth and in cases of Rape and Incest.I think these are all very rare exceptions.I don’t believe with the current state of abortion in our country now where basically anyone can get an abortion just because they don’t want a child.That’s complete BS.
    Most of the public are muddled with the facts regarding abortion and just believe all the pro choice crap they fed.Sadly because of all the Extremist Christian nutters who sadly represent a sizeable portion of pro lifers,a lot of people dismiss them as fruitloops,when in reality TBF they are right about abortion.
    The law was and I assume still is meant to be that abortions are to be only carried out when the woman is in danger:I.E. death,rape,incest,baby suffering from disfigurement/condition that will kill.
    Which obviously is completley fine but instead doctors etc ignore this and a lot of people having abortions have them because they don’t want them.Which is repugnant.If they don’t want kids,they should use a condom.

  29. Silas Blisset says:

    Richard-I do agree with a lot of your points about abortion.But may I suggest not calling people murderers etc as that won’t be taken seriously in a debate.Sadly most people don’t really take much thought about abortion.I do however think in cases where a woman is likely to die or a baby is likely to die,or in cases of rape abortion can be justified then.But I don’t agree with any other form of abortion.

  30. Stewart Cowan says:

    I too say that abortion is murder, Silas. But like you say, “Sadly most people don’t really take much thought about abortion” and so they don’t get to the point where they realise it is murder.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>