Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Why Christians shouldn’t wait for the Rapture before making changes

Published

on

Most western Christians today believe in the rapture of the church as a precedent to the return of Yeshua Hamashiach, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The concept is broken down into several theoretical variations, but the three most common rapture doctrines are the pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation, and post-tribulation theories.

Of those three, the pre-tribulation rapture doctrine is the one that is most commonly taught in western churches today. This video won’t be an argument against this view nor do I want it to turn into a debate in the comments about which view is correct. Instead, I want to focus on a trend that has been building for some time among Bible-believing Christians that must be stopped immediately.

Thanks to a combination of bad teaching and fictional representations of the rapture, most notably the extremely popular Left Behind series of books and movies, there are many people who believe they will be given a second chance to repent of their sins, turn their lives around, and make a mad dash to Heaven. It truly worries me when I hear about people who intend to make the necessary changes to their lives when they see the rapture happen based on the concept that after the rapture, the world will be turned upside down but people will have an opportunity to fight the good fight before they die.

There are three reasons why this is a horrible idea. The first reason doesn’t require you to question the validity of the pre-tribulation rapture doctrine at all. What if you don’t make it to the rapture? What if you’re hit by a car tomorrow and you haven’t repented, haven’t given yourself over to the Lord, and haven’t truly believed that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior? The old pamphlets they used to give out at grocery stores often started with the question, “If you died today, do you know whether you’ll go to Heaven or hell?” I may not have agreed with the arguments made in some of these pamphlets, but the intention was good and the question is a valid one.

The second reason actually is a challenge to the pre-tribulation rapture doctrine. If, as a growing number of people are starting to realize, the Bible clearly points to either a pre-wrath or post-tribulation rapture as more viable scenarios to the pre-tribulation rapture, then what happens to those who are pre-trib who start seeing the tribulation happening and nobody at that point has been raptured? This is one of the biggest reasons the teaching is so dangerous. Those who are expecting to not go through the hardships the Bible tells us will occur in the future will be forced to question what they’ve been taught about the rapture over the years. This could lead many to start to question everything they’ve been taught. I strongly recommend researching the concepts thoroughly. Don’t believe me. Don’t believe your pastor. Do the research for yourself and come to your own conclusions. It’s fairly safe to say that those who could have their faith shaken by terrible upcoming events can be made more firm in their beliefs by learning for themselves. That’s not to say you should abandon your church, but please do not assume the teachings at most American seminaries are unquestionably true. Some of it is very much not true. Don’t get me started on the accepted interpretations of Genesis 6 which are almost all incorrect.

The last reason is very straight-forward regardless of your belief in the rapture. You have very little to lose by putting on the full Armor of God today and living your life as instructed in the Bible. Sure, you might skip a few shows on Netflix, but putting in the time and effort into reading your Bible, praying, and learning more about the Word of God will be much more fulfilling in the eternity than watching the last season of House of Cards.

It is a huge risk to believe that you’ll have the opportunity in the future to follow the straight path through the narrow gate. Make the change today. The last thing you want to do is live an eternity gnashing your teeth over an irresponsible decision.

I’m JD Rucker. Thank you for listening.

0

Conservatism

They don’t want your guns, they want your doctrine

Published

on

They dont want your guns they want your doctrine

Beto O’Rourke may in fact be the most honest of the Presidential candidates. He may have gone full Swalwell in an attempt to revive a disastrous campaign; however in recognizing his present shortcomings, Beto O’Rourke has gone the AOC route of revealing the poorly hidden secrets of the Democrat Party. For years, the right was (falsely) accused of using a straw man fallacy with gun confiscation, but Beto O’Rourke has now been unabashed in championing the policy. O’Rourke merely confirmed what we already knew: the socialists want to confiscate our guns. They want the monopoly on force, so they can upend our way of life.

But this upheaval, revolution, is not about redistributing the wealth, fixing the climate, or reducing violence. Beto O’Rourke’s latest Freudian slip is all the more telling. At the gay town hall hosted by CNN, Beto O’Rourke said that the government should strip away tax exemption from churches that refused to partake in the gay agenda, which includes but is not limited to the performing of marriages, removal of ministry standards that prohibit (blatant) non-Christians, and permitting men to pee with little girls. Put more concisely, Beto O’Rourke wants to use the government to coerce the doctrine of the church.

Blatant unconstitutionality aside, if the socialists have their way, we will be at the mercy of the courts, legally speaking, who have an entrenched precedent of conjuring their own law. There have long been talks by atheist about taxing churches, a less unconstitutional means of persecuting the church. The atheist Freedom From Religion Foundation erroneously claims that we pay more in taxes because churches pay nothing, ignoring the history of the income tax in America. The Supreme Court touched on this issue in 1970, ironically close to Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court maintained in Walz v Tax Commission of the City of New York that:

Obviously a direct money subsidy would be a relationship pregnant with involvement and, as with most governmental grant programs, could encompass sustained and detailed administrative relationships for enforcement of statutory or administrative standards, but that is not this case. The hazards of churches supporting government are hardly less in their potential than the hazards of government supporting churches; each relationship carries some involvement, rather than the desired insulation and separation. We cannot ignore the instances in history when church support of government led to the kind of involvement we seek to avoid.

The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.

Even a Supreme Court devoid of Christians would have agreed that the Establishment Clause is best maintained through the financial insulation of church and state, that history showed that when the church supporting the state was as threatening to freedom as the reverse. But what Beto is suggesting is a next level takeover. He wants to use government to manipulate the doctrine. So after he has taken your guns, he will use “civil rights” law to target the church. But remember, nothing about Beto O’Rourke is original. He’s just trying to be AOC while also trying to be Eric Swalwell. The Equality Act that Taylor Swift loves to promote would also place churches in the cross hairs of the law, should they remain faithful.

This isn’t a new ambition. Socialism is atheist by its nature and has never existed with a thriving church. In similar fashion, socialism has corresponded with the direct persecution of the church, often with genocidal purposes. An ideology that lumps people in with the collective dismisses the individual pursuit of a relationship with God.

The Second Amendment is a defense mechanism against various forms of government tyranny, among them the aforementioned scenario. Pacifying civilians is never an end but always a means to an end. A disarmed people are neither safer nor freer. In this case, Beto O’Rourke, by the progression of his rhetoric, wants to disarm the populace and coerce doctrine. This is the exact reason to refuse disarming. The socialists want to control our doctrine, by extension, what we think. They ultimately, as Beto O’Rourke’s policy suggestion explicitly demands, want to command us to disobey God, to rewrite doctrine to appease the latest whims of society.

The socialists aren’t floating confiscation just for the sake of confiscation. Institutions that have historically rejected collectivism and adhere to an objective morality standard are natural adversaries to the modern socialist movement. Therefore socialists would see strategic gains in undermining these institutions. This logic is not new or surprising, but is becoming increasingly obvious and less conspiratorial. The words of Beto O’Rourke corroborate the suspicion that gun confiscation is a means to enact religious persecution among other tyrannies.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Pete Buttigieg attempts to recreate God in his own image

Published

on

Pete Buttigieg attempts to recreate God in his own image

By Richard Ferguson

During a town hall meeting a CNN host asked Pete Buttigieg that question, “As a Christian, can you point to any teachings in faith that provide instructions to deny services to the LGBTQ community? His answer was a total copy-edit to both Christian and Jewish foundational writings, saying, “When religion is used in that way, to me, it makes God smaller.”

Instead of rebuking Pete’s answer, it was met with thunderous applause.

But just the ‘trinity’ of Pete, the Democrat audience, and it’s sycophants in media want to recreate Judeo-Christian truth into their own image, doesn’t mean the Creator of the universe is in agreement simply because He chose not to rain fire and brimstone from heaven as an immediate response.

Clearly, Almighty God, Creator of the entire universe of all that is seen and unseen can never be small in any way, shape, or form. Only a small mind would view God that way.

If Pete Buttigieg wishes to create a new small religion, it’s his prerogative. Such an effort is supported by the U.S. Constitution and the free will God allows all of us. Maybe he can call it the gospel according to Buttigieg, or just ‘Peteiology,’ but he dare not call it Judaism or Christianity.

Pete’s analogy about a Christian’s rights with his fist ending at the other person’s nose is totally out of place considering we are NOT talking about violence. Unconditional Christian love does NOT mean unconditional approval. Loving others does not mean ignoring wrong behavior that could lead to their annihilation. That is NOT Christian love. Christian love promotes moral guardianship. Just as friends don’t let friends drive drunk, we must not let ‘friends’ corrupt what we know is right.

This is what politicians do best. They frequently twist answers to questions to sound great and loving when in fact they are avoiding the question and giving false answers.

Pete’s form of Christian love seems to be “live and let live” and “let everyone do what’s right in their own eyes” which is not synonymous with the Judeo-Christian ethic. But whether Pete Buttigieg likes it or not, there are many Bible verses about homosexuality. The Judeo-Christian book of Leviticus is very specific.

Are we to have “agape” love for all people? Yes. But trying to copy-edit the Torah is ‘sloppy agape.’ Does the fact that Peter was an altar boy and claims himself to be a very knowledgeable Christian fountain of knowledge make a difference? Satan himself knows scripture inside and out and even quotes it as an ‘angel’ of light.

What is the essence of the one true Christianity? It is simple and absolutely beautiful as written in Matthew 22:36-40

In verse 37 Jesus replied: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” In verses 38-40 Jesus said, “This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Every other commandment and Christian principle is derived from these two simple and lovingly profound commandments. These are very simple, very profound and very HARD to apply in life in this physical world we find ourselves in today. This is why we must pray to God for His guidance every day.

Praying means we need to be humble before God. I cannot find a trace of humility in any of the Democrat candidates for president. These people have put on a thin veneer of humility, thinner than a worn-out paint job on a 1955 Chevy Bel Air left out in the desert sun too long. You should be able to see through their rusted-out socialist philosophies like a worn-out tissue paper.

So, do not believe our schoolboy altar boy who may envision himself as master of the theological universe. In reality, he is attempting to draw people into his deceptive web that includes false religion and recycled socialist dung. Open your eyes dear people and see the truth of things Petey is hiding from you.

Richard Ferguson is a retired business executive who once traveled the country visiting countless corporations and executives singing the praises of Hewett Packard products. Today he is a full-time author, sounding the alarm of how liberal Democrats are attacking the United States from within.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

William Barr nails the secular upheaval of Judeo-Christian morals

Published

on

William Barr nails the secular upheaval of Judeo-Christian morals

Humans have a moral compass. We’ve had it for over 2000 years. Before we had it, there were other parts that were already being formed so mankind would have a basis for morality and absolute truth that differs from postmodernism or its emerging despicable cousin, the post-truth society of false absolutes based on personal feelings.

This moral compass is the Bible, and our adherence to Judeo-Christian beliefs as a nation and in many places around the world has helped mankind keep evil at bay. Our flawed efforts through the millennia have fallen short, not because the Word wasn’t perfect but because we are not perfect. This has eroded to the point that modern society is experiencing a secular upheaval forcing cataclysmic decay of our morality.

We are flawed. Progressives are trying to use these flaws to pull us further away from the truth of our existence and the only truly moral compass we possess. They’re doing it through media, education, and entertainment. They’re attacking churches, synagogues, and adherents to the Bible with an anti-Biblical worldview that is growing increasingly militant.

Attorney General William Barr recognizes this and expressed as much during a speech at Notre Dame last week.

William Barr’s speech on religious freedom should resonate with everyone who recognizes the degradation of our values as a people and a nation. The further we diverge from the Biblical worldview, the worse the world becomes.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending