Prophesies/Evil Doers/Religions influence on GW BUSH

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
Here is a clip from an interesting article:

The anti-Islamic rhetoric is at fever pitch today. Last June, the prophecy magazine Midnight Call warmly endorsed a fierce attack on Islam by Franklin Graham (son of Billy) and summed up Graham's case in stark terms: "Islam is an evil religion." In Lindsey's 1996 prophecy novel, "Blood Moon," Israel, in retaliation for a planned nuclear attack by an Arab extremist, launches a massive thermonuclear assault on the entire Arab world. Genocide, in short, becomes the ultimate means of prophetic fulfillment.


Anticipating George W. Bush, prophecy writers in the late 20th century also quickly zeroed in on Saddam Hussein. If not the Antichrist himself, they suggested, Saddam could well be a forerunner of the Evil One. In full-page newspaper advertisements during the Persian Gulf war of 1991, the organization Jews for Jesus declared that Saddam "represents the spirit of Antichrist about which the Bible warns us."


Prophecy believers found particular significance in Saddam's grandiose plan, launched in the 1970s, to rebuild Babylon on its ancient ruins. The fabled city on the Euphrates, south of Baghdad, which included one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, owed its splendor to King Nebuchadnezzar, the same wicked ruler who warred against Israel and destroyed Jerusalem in 586 B.C., for which impiety, according to the Book of Daniel, he went mad and ended his days eating grass in the fields.


In Revelation, Babylon embodies all that is corrupt, "a great whore ... with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication." It stands as the antithesis of Jerusalem, the city of righteousness, and Revelation prophesies its annihilation by fire. Since Babylon cannot be destroyed unless it exists, Saddam's ambitious public-works project is seen as an essential step toward prophetic fulfillment.


Charles Dyer's "The Rise of Babylon: Sign of the End Times" (1991) elaborates the theme. Along with the emergence of modern Israel and the European Union (forerunner of the Antichrist's world system), writes Dyer, Saddam's restoration of Babylon signals the approaching end and offers "thrilling proof that Bible prophecies are infallible." "When Babylon is ultimately destroyed," he continues, "Israel will finally be at peace and will dwell in safety."


That theme resonates powerfully with today's calls for Saddam's overthrow. Indeed, the cover illustration of Dyer's book juxtaposes Saddam and Nebuchadnezzar. Hal Lindsey's Web site recently featured a cartoon of a military aircraft emblazoned with a U.S. flag and a Star of David and carrying a missile with a label targeting "Saddam." The caption quoted the prophet Zechariah: "It shall be that day I will seek to destroy all nations that come against Israel."


All of these themes converge in the Left Behind novels. As the plot unfolds, the Antichrist, Nicolae Carpathia, becomes secretary general of the United Nations. ("I've opposed the United Nations for 50 years," boasts one of the authors, Tim LaHaye, a veteran activist on the religious right.) Carpathia moves the U.N. from New York to a rebuilt Babylon, laying the groundwork for the simultaneous destruction of both the city that in the grammar of dispensationalism represents absolute evil and defiance of God's prophetic plan, and the organization that more than any other prefigures the Antichrist's satanic world order.


To be sure, some current Bush-administration policies trouble prophecy believers. For example, the expansion of Washington's surveillance powers after 9/11 (led, ironically, by Attorney General John Ashcroft, darling of the religious right) strikes some as another step toward the Antichrist's global dictatorship. Counterbalancing that, however, other key administration positions ? its hostility to multinational cooperation and international agreements, its downgrading of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, its muted response to growing Jewish settlement in Palestinian territory, and its unrelenting focus on Saddam Hussein ? strike prophecy believers as perfectly in harmony with God's prophetic plan: a plan that will bring human history to its apocalyptic denouement and usher in the longed-for epoch of righteousness, justice, and peace.


Academics do need to pay more attention to the role of religious belief in American public life, not only in the past, but also today. Without close attention to the prophetic scenario embraced by millions of American citizens, the current political climate in the United States cannot be fully understood.


Leaders have always invoked God's blessing on their wars, and, in this respect, the Bush administration is simply carrying on a familiar tradition. But when our born-again president describes the nation's foreign-policy objective in theological terms as a global struggle against "evildoers," and when, in his recent State of the Union address, he casts Saddam Hussein as a demonic, quasi-supernatural figure who could unleash "a day of horror like none we have ever known," he is not only playing upon our still-raw memories of 9/11. He is also invoking a powerful and ancient apocalyptic vocabulary that for millions of prophecy believers conveys a specific and thrilling message of an approaching end ? not just of Saddam, but of human history as we know it.



To read the whole article click below.


http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15221
 
This type of stuff drives me nuts. You simply cannot predict or cause the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. There is a lot more to God's Word than the Book of Revelation.
 
Dreadsox said:


Charles Dyer's "The Rise of Babylon: Sign of the End Times" (1991) elaborates the theme. Along with the emergence of modern Israel and the European Union (forerunner of the Antichrist's world system), writes Dyer, Saddam's restoration of Babylon signals the approaching end and offers "thrilling proof that Bible prophecies are infallible." "When Babylon is ultimately destroyed," he continues, "Israel will finally be at peace and will dwell in safety."

My stepmom has that book. I read it about ten years ago. :crazy:
 
I think this is pretty scary stuff. I agree with NB, people are silly to think they can influence God's plan for the world.

Peace
 
nbcrusader said:
This type of stuff drives me nuts. You simply cannot predict or cause the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. There is a lot more to God's Word than the Book of Revelation.

It also isn't even conclusive that the Book of Revelation is even about the end of the world. From a scholarly point of view, it could be a coded book written by a persecuted Christianity, and, by writing in such symbolism, the book wouldn't be destroyed by Roman authorities.

If anything, it is such a vague book that it really can be applied to every point in time. The reality is that human behavior is terribly predictable, and we have probably had around four empires since the real Roman Empire that would fit the descriptions of this book.

When I hear this stuff from "Christian" preachers, I am often reminded of "false prophets"...

Melon
 
melon said:


It also isn't even conclusive that the Book of Revelation is even about the end of the world. From a scholarly point of view, it could be a coded book written by a persecuted Christianity, and, by writing in such symbolism, the book wouldn't be destroyed by Roman authorities.

If anything, it is such a vague book that it really can be applied to every point in time. The reality is that human behavior is terribly predictable, and we have probably had around four empires since the real Roman Empire that would fit the descriptions of this book.

When I hear this stuff from "Christian" preachers, I am often reminded of "false prophets"...

Melon


I agree. This stuff drives me nuts. Generally, fundamentalists are bad news. People who can't separate their religion from their politics remind me of the Puritans. :madspit: :mad: :censored:
 
It was no accident that, immediately following 9/11, Bush called this a "crusade." :| It is the battle of the born-agains: Bush, the born-again Christian, and bin Laden, the born-again Muslim--both of whom think God is on their side. The question becomes whether God takes sides...

Melon
 
nbcrusader said:
This type of stuff drives me nuts. You simply cannot predict or cause the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. There is a lot more to God's Word than the Book of Revelation.

precisely.
 
Honestly, I never thought I'd see my government declaring, and fighting, a "holy war". No wonder Bush used the word "crusade" right after 9/11. He was showing his true colors. Gosh, this is a nightmare. I absolutely cannot believe this is going on in 2003 :madspit: :censored: :mad: :scream:
 
Last edited:
All I can think of is the Irish guy in Braveheart.....

He heard words from the almighty if I remember correctly too.
 
:no: Two grown men believing their fighting for God... :tsk:

I still say throw both of them in a caged ring... duke it out... and leave the rest of the world out of it.
 
paxetaurora said:


The Lord says He thinks he can get me out of this one...but He's pretty sure...you're fucked.

Yep...that is the one!
 
I can't believe that he is tying the Iraqi issue to a Christian Jihad. I'm a Christian and my church is against this war.

If anyone gets Worldlink they are going to have an excellent documentary on Iraq this week.

Honestly, the man scares me to death.
 
My church is against the war too. I'm Catholic; can you say "the Pope isn't liking this war stuff, the bishops don't, and my friends who are Benedictine nuns don't"?? I don't know any Catholics who support this thing, not even the conservatives! This shocked me, when I found out some big shot conservative in my church is against the war. Actually, a few of them do support the war, but certainly not as a "holy war". The "Holy War" thing=:censored: . It's the worst of the Middle Ages returned. :madspit: :mad: :censored: :censored:
 
Last edited:
I am a conservative. I am in no way shape or form against using military intervention to remove Saddam Hussein from power. I am 100% certain that he has WMD's. I am 100% convinced that he is has done and will do horrific things if he is allowed to continue.

My reasons for war, have nothing to do with Religion. They have everything to do with the fact that the policy of containment is failing. They have everything to do with the fact that in my opinion, the United Nations is a useless organization IF they do nothing to enforce their own resolutions. I also 100% BELIEVE that if we move forward without the Security Council on this issue, we are making life in the future, much more difficult for our country. Without the UN we lose the moral ground and the backing of the international community.

The article I posted above I have read three times. It disturbs me. It bothers me that there are people who have the Presidents' ear on these issues, who are guiding him to take action on religious grounds. It bothers me, that the President percieves that the ALMIGHTY wills us to go into Iraq with WAR. It is almost as if the PRESIDENT is saying, United Nations, GOD has told me to do this. It bothers me tremendously, and I pray and pray on it that a peaceful solution can be found.

The President has pledged 15 Billion Dollars to help AIDS in Africa. Without getting into the politics around this issue.....Let's look at what he is pledging to our "GOOD ALLY" Turkey so that we can use the bases for a WAR that the United Nations has not given approval for. Turkey is being offered "26 Billion Dollars" in aid. WE are offering an entire continent 16 Billion in for AIDS and 26 Billion to one country for WAR. The "Almighty" must really want the War or the Almight must not be speaking loudly enough on AIDS.
 
Interesting that Newspapers in the Middle East are also focusing in on this Religious Relationship and the BUsh Administration. I am not saying this is the most reliable newspaper in the world, nor am I saying I agree with anything said in it. However, it definitely points to the fact that there is definitley a growing perception on this issue by Muslims in the Middle East. Some clips for you to read:


On Feb. 9, The Washington Post's Bob Kaiser finally broke through the sound barrier to document what has long been reported in encrypted diplomatic e-mails from foreign embassies to dozens of foreign governments: Washington's "Likudniks" - Ariel Sharon's powerful backers in the Bush administration - have been in charge of U.S. policy in the Middle East since President Bush was sworn into office.

In alliance with Evangelical Christians, these policy-makers include some of the most powerful players in the Bush administration. The course they plotted for Mr. Bush began with benign neglect of the Mideast peace process as Intifada II escalated. September 11 provided the impulse for a military campaign to consign Saddam Hussein to the dustbin of history.


and some more

The roots of the overall strategy can be traced to a paper published in 1996 by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli think tank. The document was titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" and was designed as a political blueprint for the incoming government of Benjamin Netanyahu, a superhawk in the Israeli political aviary. The complete break with the past was to be a new strategy "based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism."

Israel, according to the 1996 paper, would "shape its strategic environment," beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the restoration of the Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad. The Iraqi monarchy was overthrown in a military coup in 1958 when young King Faisal, a cousin of Jordan's late King Hussein, was assassinated.

and


The rebuilding of Zionism, as the paper urged, must at the same time abandon any thought of trading land for peace with the Arabs, which it described as "cultural, economic, political, diplomatic and military retreat."




Whole article here:

http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=1786&CategoryId=5

This paper keeps popping up everywhere. This paper that was written for the Governement of Israel, was written by Richard Perle on of the leading advisors to the President on Foreign Policy.

"A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" can be found here:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/1990s/instituteforadvancedstrategicandpoliticalstudies.htm
 
Dreadsox--I understand that not everyone supporting the war is supporting this "holy war" stuff. One of the priests at my church supports the war, but not as a holy war or any such a thing. It's strictly policy with him. I think Saddam is a :censored: and I don't like him at all. If they could guarantee that a war would take him out I'd feel differently, but I'm afraid I don't necessarily think that a war would take him out. Perhaps. It's going to be very difficult to democratize these countries, but I definitely think this would be in their best interest in the long run. If they were democracies perhaps there would be no terrorists.
 
Dreadsox said:

The President has pledged 15 Billion Dollars to help AIDS in Africa. Without getting into the politics around this issue.....Let's look at what he is pledging to our "GOOD ALLY" Turkey so that we can use the bases for a WAR that the United Nations has not given approval for. Turkey is being offered "26 Billion Dollars" in aid. WE are offering an entire continent 16 Billion in for AIDS and 26 Billion to one country for WAR. The "Almighty" must really want the War or the Almight must not be speaking loudly enough on AIDS.

Great point. :yes:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom