John Dickson: Hugh “…Mackay’s godly-but-godless-ethic is really just a relic of the Judeo-Christian culture in which he, like most of us, was raised.”

It’s blindingly foolish to claim that Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, and Jesus are different.

For anyone who missed the easily understood story: Jesus is Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament. In fact, Jesus is God, period.

Yet it’s become “a thing” to talk about how Jesus wants us to be compassionate to one another which is really a way of saying “Hey Christian, shut your mouth about God and truth but open your wallet and pay to fix all the problems that godless people have created.”

No surprises but that sounds a heck of a lot like Communism. If you can’t see it though, don’t strain yourself.

Frankly, either you quote Jesus on God’s judgment on the godless and the establishment of his rule over the nations or you don’t get to quote him.

You can’t ignore the topics Jesus speaks predominantly on – like judgment on the Godless, the lake of fire, the coming kingdom of God where Jesus rules the nations – in favour of the ones that atheistic Marxisxs accept to further their dominance in Western society.

Nonetheless, on a regular basis someone who totally rejects the biblical scriptures and Jesus own testimony of who he is will come out and attempt to tell all of us exactly why Jesus only cares about social justice issues and how to treat people.

Welcome to the May 2016 edition of that farce.

For good measure, here is a great response to said farce:

To suggest Jesus never told anyone what to believe in is not only historically wrong, it misses the essential connection between what we believe and how we treat others, writes John Dickson.

At the Sydney Writers’ Festival yesterday, the much loved social commentator and author of The Good Life and Beyond Belief Hugh Mackay opined about the teacher at the root of Western ethics: “Jesus never told anyone what to believe in. He only spoke about how to treat each other.”

My colleagues in the room – experts on this stuff – raised an eyebrow. The festival social media department thought the remark worthy of an immediate verbatim tweet.

Who knows whether Mackay’s words were a throwaway line or studied aphorism. But they are inaccurate in the extreme, both as a religious statement and as a historical one. Mackay may come from the modern school of thought that says that religion is not really a proper field of study. Anyone is therefore allowed a firm view without reference to “experts”. I mean, how can someone be an expert in something that doesn’t exist? And so on.

But forget religion. What about history? What do our first-century texts say Jesus said? I’ll spare you the long list, but what struck me once I gave this five minutes’ thought is the way almost all of the paradigmatic statements in the Gospels urge beliefs as the logical basis of ethics.

The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s Gospel opens with the words, “Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” The most famous sermon of Jesus, in other words, begins with a reminder that he is not just looking for moral riches but a humble recognition of our moral poverty as the key that unlocks the door to God’s kingdom. There’s a bit of belief in there.

Or consider the opening words of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel: “The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the gospel”. There’s that pesky “kingdom” stuff again, and a call to believe it all – as “gospel”.

Luke’s Gospel is often thought to contain the most “ethical Jesus”, with loads and loads of material about caring for the poor, being a Good Samaritan, and all that. The opening manifesto of Jesus in Luke declares, “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners … to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.” As so often in the Gospels, God’s grace and favour are the drivers of the grace and favour we are meant to show others.

What about the fourth Gospel? John has Jesus sum up the work of God in this way: Jesus says, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

It’s only a matter of time before a society which rejects the love of God realises that loving everyone, including enemies, is merely a cultural-historical habit.

Of course, a sceptic like Hugh Mackay might reply that these key passages represent the opinions of the Gospel writers not Jesus. Jesus, he might suggest, is authentically heard only in the humanitarian stuff about “loving enemies” and “turning the other cheek”. But maybe it’s the other way around. Perhaps the real Jesus only ever banged on about believing theological stuff, and it was the Gospel writers who invented the ethical material Mackay prefers. That’s the point: Mackay is just picking and choosing.

In truth, neither caricature is likely. Everywhere you look, Jesus appears to have endorsed the old-fashioned idea which Mackay wants us to abandon: namely, that what you believe about ultimate things impacts how you think you should treat others.

Two further examples bear this out clearly. When asked by an expert in the Jewish tradition, “Which is the greatest commandment?” Jesus replied that there were actually two great commands: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart. This is the first and great commandment. And a second is like it: love your neighbour as yourself.” Like it or not, Jesus probably thought the religious hypocrite was in exactly the same position as the moral agnostic. The former cares for God but ignores people; the latter cares for people but ignores the source of all reality. Jesus would have condemned both.

And when Jesus himself summarised all his beautiful sayings about “love your enemies”, “do good to those who hate you”, and “turn the other cheek”, he concluded the speech with, “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” Here we find the inner logic of all that Jesus taught about ethics: it is precisely because mercy is at the heart of God that it is also the central ethical principle of the universe.

I am almost tempted to say that Jesus never taught people “how to treat each other” without grounding it in stuff we are “meant to believe” about ultimate things, including God and his kingdom.

Read charitably, Hugh Mackay is trying to open up an important discussion about the role of “beliefs” – or fundamental convictions – in shaping ethics. Jesus is a bad example to use, but I agree it’s a vital public conversation to have.

Personally, I reckon Mackay’s godly-but-godless-ethic is really just a relic of the Judeo-Christian culture in which he, like most of us, was raised. It seems obvious to him that we should be humble, love our enemies, and show compassion to the destitute. But, historically, these things were connected with religious ideas in the West about the inestimable value of human beings made in God’s image, the love and mercy of God for all, and so on. These particular morals – humility, love, etc – played no role in the ethics of Greece and Rome for the simple reason that Greeks and Romans did not believe that everyone was made in God’s image or that God loved everyone the same. Their different beliefs led to different moral emphases.

I would love to see a genuine debate about whether one can logically justify an ethic of love, humility, and compassion – things Mackay admires so much – without appealing to the “kingdom of heaven” Jesus spoke so much about. I don’t think we can. I think it’s only a matter of time before a society which rejects the love of God realises that loving everyone, including enemies, is merely a cultural-historical habit rather than a logical match between fundamental realities and human ethics. I could be wrong, but it’s a debate that needs to be had. And if we’re going to have it, important public intellectuals like Hugh Mackay need to do better than give us quotable memes like “Jesus never told anyone what to believe in. He only spoke about how to treat each other.”

Mackay’s sad hope will not comfort him or anyone else when Jesus is established on the throne of the nations and executes long deserved judgment on everyone who refuses to belief exactly what the Truth proclaims is truth.

Do yourself a favour and get to know Jesus for yourself – he cares infinitely more about your future than Hugh Mackay does.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-20/dickinson-can-we-love-our-enemies-in-a-godless-world/7433288

Advertisements

Joel Richardson’s The Global Jesus Revolution: The Church Must Embrace Prayer And Missions, Target Muslims As Largest Unevangelized People Group

Joel Richardson is one of the most important voices in understanding the role of Islam in biblical eschatology. Richardson has outlined this relationship in numerous books including Islamic Antichrist, Mideast Beast, and When A Jew Rules The World. 

Most recently, his documentary End Times Eyewitness reviewed this idea from the midst of the Arab Spring uprisings across the Middle East over the past few years.

Now, Richardson has released the follow up documentary The Global Jesus Revolution, which focuses on how the Church in the West needs to respond to the increasing troubles we see across the world, especially in the Middle East.

In a recent episode of The Underground, Richardson discusses these issues and the roadmap forward for Christians:

http://www.amazon.com/End-Times-Eyewitness-Joel-Richardson/dp/1938067517

The Turkish Ottoman Empire Strikes Back

The return of the Turkish Ottoman Empire is etched in biblical prophecy and a number of Christians, and politically aware non-Christians, have seen this coming for a long time.

I am convinced (but you should do your own research) that the restoration of the Turkish empire will form the basis of the antichrist empire itself.

Step by step, as this latest news article suggests:

Turkey should have a religious constitution, its parliamentary speaker Ismail Kahraman has said in comments that will likely add to concerns of the erosion of secularism under the ruling party.

“As a Muslim country, why should we be in a situation where we are in retreat from religion?” state-run news agency Anatolia quoted him as saying.

“We are a Muslim country. As a consequence, we must have a religious constitution,” the AKP lawmaker told a conference in Istanbul.

“Secularism cannot feature in the new constitution.”

Critics accuse President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Islamic-rooted AKP of eroding the secular values laid by modern Turkey’s founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk since it took power in 2002.

Over the past two years, the Government has lifted bans on women and girls wearing headscarves in schools and civil service.

It also limited alcohol sales and made efforts to ban mixed-gender dormitories at state universities.

The head of Turkey’s main CHP opposition party, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, slammed the speaker’s comments.

The Young Turks

Between East and West, Europe and the Middle East, Islam and Secularism. Six young Istanbul residents talk about the issues.

“The chaos that reigns in the Middle East is the product of ways of thinking that, like you, make religion an instrument of politics,” Mr Kilicdaroglu wrote on Twitter.

“Secularism exists so everyone can practise their religion freely, Mr Kahraman!”

Since the AKP’s re-election in November, the Government has said it wants to prioritise replacing Turkey’s constitution, inherited from a military junta after a coup in 1980.

Several rounds of negotiations have failed, most recently in February, with the opposition rejecting the increasingly powerful role of the presidency under Mr Erdogan.

Mr Kahraman on Monday backed a “presidential system” for Turkey, and rejected claims this would push the country towards authoritarianism.

“Some people say that [a strengthened presidency] means dictatorship,” he said.

“Where is this link? Is [US President Barack] Obama a dictator?”

To answer that last question: Obama’s certainly getting there, with his recent executive actions.

So don’t let that quip make you feel safe.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-26/turkey-parliamentary-speaker-calls-for-religion-in-constitution/7357312

“Safe Sex” Is Only Found In The Context Of Marriage, Anthing Else Is A Cheap Knockoff

When people talk about “safe sex”, they mostly mean “sex that allows me to avoid any responsibilities that are too taxing for my self-absorbed, convenience-centred life.”

Funny how that kind of “safe sex” often doesn’t make for the safest environment for children or for anyone else really.

Here’s the wisdom on saving sex for marriage, or what I like to call “authentic safe sex”:

God only permits sex inside marriage. But why? Western culture largely doesn’t see a problem with premarital sex anymore. And if the couple consent, what’s the problem? J.B. from the U.S. writes:

I have been asked something that had me quite stumped. Someone was questioning why God does not allow people to have sex outside of marriage, claiming there is no good reason. I am not talking about homosexuality or anything like that, but like a man and woman having sex when they are not married. I saw one article that briefly touches around the subject, but my question is how should I answer this to an atheist?

CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:

God forbids sex outside of marriage because outside of marriage there’s no public agreement in place stipulating that each party of the sexual relationship must care for one another and any children that might come from the sexual union. Sexual desire is an incredibly potent force, and sexual activity has massive implications—procreation being the most obvious (Genesis 1:28), but it also binds a man and woman together in a way that nothing else can (Genesis 2:24–25)—the two texts Jesus himself explained marriage from: Christ the Creationist. By forbidding sex outside of marriage (1 Corinthians 7:2) God is saying that we must publically acknowledge that we have a duty of care to our sexual partner before we get to have sex. Think about it; marriage constitutes a public agreement to care for any potential children from a sexual union, so it provides a level of accountability to parents for looking after their own children. Marriage thus provides a first line of defense against child abuse and neglect (Raising godly children). If sex is OK outside of marriage, nor do we have a publically acknowledged duty of care to the person we have sex with. As such, marriage is a first line of defense against sexual abuse.

By forbidding sex outside of marriage (1 Corinthians 7:2) God is saying that you must publically acknowledge that you have a duty of care to your sexual partner before you get to have sex.

Of course, we all know that child abuse and sexual abuse can occur within marriages. But this doesn’t happen because marriage itself is faulty; it happens because humans are slaves to sin (Ephesians 2:1–3). Is the idea of a car stupid just because my car is a lemon? Of course not! But if sex is OK outside of marriage, then sex and children happen outside of contexts where people have voluntarily acknowledged their duty of care to their sexual partner and their children. Does circumventing that public accountability bode well for lessening sexual abuse and child abuse? Of course not! And so it’s no surprise to learn that child abuse and sexual abuse (of both children and adults) are proportionately more common outside of marriage than within it.

But, people in our society today think sex outside of marriage is OK because we have decoupled sex from a duty of care for our sexual partner. Sex is now a game people play, not an expression of love people share. But if sex is a game people play, then why shouldn’t they be able to make money from playing it? After all, baseball, football, and basketball players make obscene amounts of money just for playing a game, and sex is in many ways more entertaining than any of those, so why can’t people make money from ‘playing’ sex? And if sex is a game, why can’t we change the rules as we feel like, and legitimize all sorts of sexual expressions? And if sex is a game, what’s the point of marriage? Why not redefine marriage to reflect socially acceptable sexual proclivities? And what do we see in the Western world? Homosexuality is now just a ‘sexual preference’, prostitution is legal in many places, and same-sex marriage is sweeping the Western world.

The original design of sex was ingenious—God made the most pleasurable human experience the means by which new life is generated.

But notice in all this how children, as products of sexual unions, have been forgotten. Why? Western culture has (largely) managed to decouple sex from procreation. The original design of sex was ingenious—God made the most pleasurable human experience the means by which new life is generated; it puts an enormous responsibility on those engaging in sexual activity. But of course, the general availability of birth control has largely taken the fear of pregnancy away, so it makes it easy to treat sex like a game.

But even without the threat of pregnancy, promiscuity still has a major consequence—STDs (see Does it matter? for more information). STDs are clearly more prevalent in promiscuous societies. As such, even STDs are a reason to limit oneself to only one sexual partner at most, since then most STDs wouldn’t have a means of being transmitted. And health risks are included in any acknowledged duty of care to a sexual partner and children, so marriage again provides a means of curtailing STDs by binding a person to one sexual partner.

“But sex can still be an expression of love outside of marriage, right?” No. It can be an expression of infatuation, or romance, but not love in the biblical sense of actively putting another’s needs above oneself. “Oh, but I’m a generous lover!” In bed, maybe, but what about the rest of the day? The duty of care God says sex binds us to is not simply our partner’s sexual needs, but all their needs. Food, clothing, shelter, emotional well-being, spiritual well-being—all of it. When we view sex as an expression of that sort of love, then it’s plain that anything less than sex inside marriage cheapens the value of sex. If we are not willing to be so bound to someone that all their needs are largely dependent on us, then we shouldn’t be having sex. And if we are so willing, then we should make the public profession to such willingness (with our partner, of course; it takes two to marry!) before having sex so that everyone else can hold us accountable. For more information, please see Family/Marriage questions and answers.

http://creation.com/premarital-sex

The Problems With Trump

It’s almost inconceivable that Trump would do a worse job than Obama, namely because Obama has made it clear that he hates everything America was founded on: Christianity, Capitalism, religious freedom, and limited government.

Trump likes at least one of these things (and may perhaps tolerate some others) so, for those not mathematically inclined, one out of four trumps none.

The question is how much better could he do?

Bill Muehlenberg offers some sound reflections on Trump:

This is my first full piece on Donald Trump, but it more than likely will not be my last. The front-runner for the Republicans for the White House is certainly generating plenty of discussion and controversy, and it is vital for all true Christians to consider him – and the other remaining contenders – very prayerfully and carefully.

And as usual, I must quickly dispense with various wrong answers or unbiblical extremes. As I recently said in a radio interview, the idea that believers can just pray while ignoring politics is greatly mistaken. That is to renounce our responsibilities as believers to be good citizens and to be salt and light.

But equally wrong is the idea that some politician or political party is going to somehow save us – or in this case, America. The Christian understands that ultimately only Christ can save a nation, and no mere human can even come close.

But government is God’s idea, and righteousness exalts a nation. So who is governing does matter, and clearly some politicians, parties and policies are better than others. So we need to get the biblical balance right here. We must pray of course but we must also get involved in the political process, if at the very least by voting wisely.

The original field of 17 Republican contenders has now narrowed to five: three conservatives (Cruz, Rubio and Carson), one RINO (Kasich) and Trump. At first I and many other Christians and conservatives thought Trump might have a few things going for him, but the more we learn about him, the less appealing he becomes.

trump 5One can certainly see the appeal of someone like Trump. He socks it to ‘em. He speaks his mind. He is not a Washington insider. He is willing to say what many will not say. He is not PC. He is riding on the high levels of disillusionment with both major parties.

As Christian commentator J D Hall explains:

I’ll tell you why people like Donald Trump. He doesn’t care. He doesn’t care what Hollywood celebs think. He doesn’t care what Beltway career politicians think. He doesn’t care what Russell Moore thinks. He doesn’t care what journalists think. He doesn’t care what CNN or MSNBC or even FOX thinks. I kind of get the impression he doesn’t care what the crowds he speaks to think. If he doesn’t win the presidency, he’ll go back to being rich and famous. Frankly, that’s a breath of fresh air. For 30 years, everyone in America has been walking on politically correct egg shells. We’ve all been hunkered down in fear of being called what evangelicals are calling Trump – racist, misogynist, jingoistic, bigoted, egotistical, self-centered. We all want to vote for a guy who doesn’t care. Trump is almost guaranteed to bring the “change” we’ve been hearing about every four years. The only question is if it’s good change. But for many voters, any change is good change.

That is the real issue. Obama of course promised hope and change, but look at how that turned out. Not all change is good change. Yes I too am sick of the Washington cartel, as Cruz puts it. Yes I want some bold, fearless and non-PC leaders to come and clean things up in Washington big time.

But I really question whether Trump is the man. He of course is not a Christian, and one can strongly argue that he is not a conservative either. Most of his life was spent pushing progressive and liberal causes, and much of his wealth has gone to Democrats.

It is not just politics, but questions of his character. And character does matter. As I wrote long ago, if you cannot even be true to your own wife, how can we trust you to be true to the nation? As I wrote 18 years ago:

Our real problems today are not economic problems. Nor are they political problems. Our real problems have to do with values, with character, with morality. A country can survive a current account deficit, but it cannot for long survive a value deficit. And the first place to begin in restoring this value deficit is to reaffirm character, integrity and morality, both private and public.

It is interesting to note that character was the only consideration enumerated by the American founding fathers as relevant to qualifications to serve in public office. A person’s politics, philosophy or ideology may be important, but the most important qualification is character. Without good character, good government is not possible. 

Indeed, more than one commentator has noted that morality, more than anything else, is the key to a healthy and lasting democracy. Politics skills can be learned, policies adjusted. But without character, a nation will soon flounder on the rocks of moral relativism.

We are seeing such an unravelling of the commonweal now. The need for leadership based on character and values is now our most pressing need. We need to recall the words of George Washington in his farewell address: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

We have paid a terrible price in the false separation of morality from social problems. Australia’s (and America’s) rising tide of social pathology will only be reversed when we once again acknowledge that character and morality are not optional extras, but are the essence of civilised society.

And plenty of evangelical leaders of late have been writing about Trump’s character – or lack thereof. George Otis Jr is one of many, and he just penned a piece today on this. 

He writes:

The truth is Donald Trump has two ruined (of his own) marriages, and is now on his third (with a woman who has posed for lesbian porn). He has made a bank-full of money from casino operations, owned strip joints and a vodka business, and acknowledged no need of repentance before a holy God. And yet he has garnered the endorsements of Christian luminaries like Sarah Palin, Jerry Falwell, Jr., Phyllis Schlafly, and Duck Dynasty’s Willie Robertson. Go figure.

A Trump vote is primarily a protest vote: ‘a pox on both your houses’. And fair enough in one sense. But we need more than a mere protest. One can argue that various dictators got in on a protest vote. Simply lashing out at what is broken, while simply opting for something or someone else that is broken is not the answer.

But the Trump supporters will say we need someone who is a strong leader, who speaks his mind, and is not worried about what others think. ‘Trump is a winner’ they say. Yes, but the same can be said about plenty of other leaders, including Hitler.

We need a principled winner, not a megalomaniac whose only priority is himself. Simply winning may solve nothing, and just make matters worse. Indeed, unless we address America’s spiritual problems, no mere man – no matter how strong and forthright – will make much difference. 

As Otis says:

If we think the dysfunction in Washington, DC is anything other than a reflection of our own selfishness, compromise, and neglect, we are seriously deceived. And it does no good to talk of deliverance if we are unwilling to break the habit of blame shifting. It is easy to fixate on the government’s shortcomings, but we cannot afford to overlook our own. As Os Guinness so aptly puts it, “The problem is not the wolves at the door. It is the termites in the floor.” Whether Evangelicals will recognize this danger in time is an open question — but our recent migration to ungodly, narcissistic candidates is not an encouraging sign.

Or as Michael Brown recently put it, “Simply stated, I firmly believe that our greatest problems are moral and spiritual, not economic or otherwise, and to think that we can make America great again by securing our borders, defeating ISIS and rebuilding our economy, without first addressing the moral rot in our society, is to deceive ourselves gravely.”

Yes quite so. Yet everyone prefers the quick fix and the easy way out. They think that a quick vote at the ballot box will deal with our troubles and make everything good again. 

Far too many Christians think this way as well. After all, if they think they can pop a magic pill for instant spirituality, why not for the political arena?

Lazy and carnal Christians prefer a political messiah to come along and solve everything instead of doing the biblical hard work of 2 Chronicles 7:14. Why bother to repent and humble yourselves and pray and seek God’s face when you can just vote for Trump?

Why get on your faces before Almighty God and agonise over your own sins and the sins of a nation when you can just pin your hopes on a fast-talking political contender? Getting Trump to restore America to greatness sounds good, and is a pain-free option.

But the only ultimate answer to America’s malaise and decline is if God’s people get on their knees and repent. Until that happens, we are likely toast. Yes if it ends up between Trump and Clinton, I may still very grudgingly vote for Trump. However, each new day makes me really wonder about that.

Just opting out from voting is not the biblical answer. But what then are the best alternatives if a genuine conservative does not get the nomination? Do we go for an independent, or third party? Both options will pretty much guarantee Hillary or Bernie will win and finish off Obama’s job of destroying America.

All avenues are looking real grim and will take a lot of careful praying and thinking by believers if Trump does win the bid. Political realists will argue (and I have at least some sympathy for them) that if we opt out of voting for Trump and allow the Dems to get in, we are creating real trouble. The debate in part centres on how much less bad – if at all – Trump will be than the two Democrats.

We are in a difficult place here and need a lot of divine wisdom on all this. But for the time being we still have much better choices with folks like Cruz who are real Christians and real conservatives. And in future articles I will seek to make the case for why we need someone like Cruz as POTUS.

We really must pray and work like never before here. Even if a real solid conservative gets in on November 8, that still guarantees nothing as to America’s future. It may just slow down the rot for a few years, and God’s judgment may well still be upon the land.

John Calvin spoke in his Institutes about how God allows evil rulers as a form of punishment on a nation. If Clinton or Sanders get in, and maybe even Trump, we may well be in for some real divine – and rightly deserved – judgment. Lord have mercy.

There are plenty of better candidates. Pray that one gets the nomination.

http://billmuehlenberg.com/2016/02/26/christians-and-trump/

Thanks, Obama! Iran Gains Billions And Warm Welcome To Do Whatever It Wants As Economic Sanctions Disappear (One Day, Iran Will Invade The Middle East)

Marxists and useful idiots recently rejoiced as Obama embraced Cuba, a nation that once housed atomic weapons pointed at the United States, and they rejoice again as Obama embraces Iran, a nation for whom Obama has done everything he can to fulfil their dream of building and pointing nuclear weapons at the United States.

“What could go wrong?” earnest useful idiots everywhere scoff at the legions of people who question “why exactly it is good for Iran to receive billions of dollars we could otherwise prevent them from receiving and having more influence in the Middle East and in the world?”

Here’s the story:

The US and the EU have lifted crippling sanctions against Iran following the UN nuclear watchdog’s finding that Tehran had curbed its nuclear program as promised.

Key points:

IAEA report confirms Iran has honoured its side of the nuclear accord

Raft of US, EU and UN sanctions lifted, oil exports to resume

Iran has always said its nuclear activities were for peaceful purposes

In a dramatic move scheduled to coincide with the scrapping of the sanctions, Tehran also announced the release of five Americans including Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian as part of a prisoner swap with the United States.

Together, the lifting of sanctions and the prisoner deal considerably reduce the hostility between Tehran and Washington that has shaped the Middle East since Iran’s Islamic Revolution of 1979.

Tens of billions of dollars worth of Iranian assets will now be unfrozen and global companies that have been barred from doing business there will be able to exploit a market hungry for everything from automobiles to airplane parts.

The UN nuclear watchdog ruled on Saturday that Iran had abided by an agreement last year with six world powers to curtail its nuclear program, triggering the end of sanctions.

“Iran has carried out all measures required under the [July deal] to enable Implementation Day [of the deal] to occur,” the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in a statement.

Iran to emerge from years of economic isolation

Within minutes, the United States formally lifted banking, steel, shipping and other sanctions on Iran, a major oil producer that has been virtually shut out of international markets for the past five years.

The European Union also began the process of lifting sanctions and Iran’s transport minister said Tehran planned to buy 114 civil aircraft from European aircraft maker Airbus.

Australia would also lift sanctions on the Islamic republic, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said.

Iran nuclear deal at a glance

The main points in the nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers aimed at curbing Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

“The easing of these sanctions will ensure that Australian business is not disadvantaged in pursuing opportunities in Iran,” she said in a statement.

The lifting of sanctions means more money and prestige for Shiite Muslim Iran as it becomes deeply embroiled in the sectarian conflicts of the Middle East, notably in the Syrian civil war, where its allies are facing Sunni Muslim rebels.

America’s thaw with Iran is viewed with deep suspicion by US Republicans as well as American allies in the Middle East, including Israel and Saudi Arabia.

US-Iranian suspicion remains deeply entrenched.

Washington maintains separate, less comprehensive sanctions on Iran over its missile program.

For its part, Iran detained 10 US Navy sailors on two boats in the Gulf a week ago, although they were released the next day.

Four American prisoners ‘yet to leave Iran’

In an unusual move, President Barack Obama pardoned three Iranian-Americans charged for violating sanctions against Iran, a lawyer for one of the men said, while prosecutors moved to drop charges against four Iranians outside the United States.

Iran agreed to free five Americans including Rezaian and Saeed Abedini, an Iranian-American Christian pastor sentenced to eight years in prison in 2013 on charges of undermining Iran’s national security.

But a US official said four of the Americans had not yet left Iran due to ongoing logistical issues.

The fifth prisoner, Matthew Trevithick, has left the country after 40 days in prison. Trevithick, a student and journalist, had travelled and worked in conflict-torn nations including Syria, Mali and Afghanistan.

The prisoner deal was the culmination of months of diplomatic contacts, secret talks and legal manoeuvring that came close to falling apart because of a threat by Washington in December to impose fresh sanctions on Iran for recent ballistic missile tests.

The detente with Iran is opposed by all of the Republican candidates vying to succeed Mr Obama as president in an election in November.

Republican front-runner Donald Trump said at a campaign event he was happy Americans were being freed, “but I will tell you it’s a disgrace that they were there for so long”.

Ted Cruz, a conservative senator from Texas and one of the leading Republicans, tweeted in support of Mr Abedini’s release: “Praise God! Surely bad parts of Obama’s latest deal, but prayers of thanksgiving that Pastor Saeed is coming home.”

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton took credit for helping to start the sanctions pressure on Iran during her 2009-2013 tenure as Mr Obama’s secretary of state.

Now, you may not believe in God or believe the Bible (not sure how you ended up here but welcome!) but it takes a pretty special stubborn refusal to deal with reality to pretend that this Iran deal will probably work out well for anyone, Iranians included.

After all, even Germany enjoyed the benefits of economic recovery until Hitler plunged it into a decimating world war.

Good thing Iran doesn’t have an evil, blood-thirsty dictator in power over its massive, un-sanctioned oil wealth…

Oh.

Nonetheless, welcome to the Obama administration’s foreign policy record that currently has such hits as Arab Winter, Benghazi, and the heart-wrenching Islamic State.

Time to add nuclear-Iran to that best-of because, let’s face it, what President is ever going to top that utter catastrophe?

Anyway, if you have read the Bible, especially the book of Daniel and are inclined towards a consistent futurist interpretation of Chapter 8 (more on that here), then Iran’s new lease on life and money and regional influence should be very much expected.

It’s likely that Iran’s confrontation with Saudi Arabia will escalate and eventually, whether it takes years or decades, Iran is going to come good on its promise to be really dangerous and launch an invasion of the Middle East for whatever reason it finds acceptable.

From there it’s pretty straight forward – Turkey leads a coalition to fight against Iran and whoops them, seeming regional peace, antichrist rises, Jesus returns as King to rule and reign for a Millenium, new heavens and new earth.

Dangers In The Middle East: The Saudi Arabia-Iran Conflict

While most Westerner know next to nothing about either of these nations, nor about Islam, recent events are neither surprising nor to be quickly dismissed.

Indeed, we may all eventually be impacted by the distasterous-at-best relationship between these two nations.

Consider Dave Jolly’s take on the situation:

On June 28, 1914, a Serbian nationalist assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the nephew of Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria, King of Hungary, Croatia and Bohemia. Archduke Ferdinand was the heir to the Austro-Hungarian empire. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and his wife is generally believed to be the spark that ignited World War 1.

On Saturday, Saudi Arabia executed 47 people accused of terrorist crimes. One of those executed was a Shiite cleric by the name of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr. While you may not understand the importance of his execution, it may possibly lead to war between Iran and Saudi Arabia and if that happens, it may well be the final spark that launches World War 3.

Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader claims that Sheikh Nimr was not a terrorist but a peaceful man. He accuses Saudi Arabia of executing him because he was a Shiite Muslim who disagreed with Saudi Arabia’s Sunni leaders. As reported by BBC News:

But Ayatollah Khamenei said the cleric had been executed for his opposition to Saudi Arabia’s Sunni rulers.

“‘This oppressed scholar had neither invited people to armed movement, nor was involved in covert plots’ the ayatollah tweeted.”

“‘The only act of #SheikhNimr was outspoken criticism,’ he added, saying the ‘unfairly-spilled blood of oppressed martyr #SheikhNimr will affect rapidly & Divine revenge will seize Saudi politicians’.”

“Sheikh Nimr had been a figurehead in the anti-government protests that erupted in the wake of the Arab Spring up to his arrest in 2012.”

The animosity or hatred between Sunni and Shiite Muslims is stronger than the hatred held by the southern states about the northern states that led to the American civil. Allow me to explain:

“The conflict between the two Islamic sects goes back to the death of their prophet Muhammad in 632 AD when a successor was to be named to lead the Islamic people. The majority, the Sunni, wanted the community to select the new leader and a minority, the Shiites or Shia, insisted that Muhammad’s successor be a family member, namely Ali who was Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, married to his daughter Fatimah.”

“The Sunni majority won out and named the first caliph, but the Shiite minority was not happy and tensions soon flared into conflicts. Eventually Ali was named as the fourth caliph, but it was too late. Ali was murdered at Kufa in present day Iraq in 661 AD as were several of the early caliphs.”

“Ali’s son Hussein assumed the leadership of the Shiites and openly rejected the rule of the Sunni caliph. Hussein continued to defy the caliph and eventually faced the caliph’s very large army with only 72 followers, many of which were family members. The caliph’s army massacred Hussein and his small group. He was beheaded and his head was taken to the Sunni caliph in Damascus. His body was left on the battlefield until it was burned and buried.”

For the past 1300 years Sunni and Shiite Muslims have been at odds. Many of the civil wars and skirmishes that have taken place in the Middle East over the past 1300 years have been due to the bitter hatred between the two Muslim sects. That’s why I’ve long contended that it is extremely naïve of our government to believe that they can actually bring peace to the Middle East.

If Khamenei’s threat of divine revenge becomes a reality and Shiite Muslims retaliate against Saudi Arabia’s Sunni leadership, there is a good possibility of a full-fledged war breaking out between Iran and Saudi Arabia. If that happens, it could spark further conflicts between Shiite and Sunni Muslims throughout the Middle East. With so many nations dependent upon Middle East oil, a war in the entire region could very well spill out in much of the rest of world and yes, the US will most likely get involved as well but this time a world war will surely come to our shores and endanger us all.

World war happened once over the death of one man and may just happen again.

Walid Shoebat is an expert in these matters and offers a clear biblical perspective of these events:

When we tell you that Iran (biblical Elam) will soon wipe Saudi Arabia off the face of the map, you better believe it, Isaiah 21 confirmed it and it will be done. Today Iran’s Ayatullah threatens: “I have no doubt that this pure blood will stain the collar of the House of Saud and wipe them from the pages of history,” says Iran’s Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami. The threat with complete annihilation came as result when King Salman of Saudi Arabia today executed an Ayatullah figure named Nimr Al-Nimr in Saudi Arabia. So like birth pangs, this speeds up the end of Saudi Arabia by the hand of Elam/Iran (Isaiah 21).
There are only 47 Ayatollahs in the world and 17 of them are assigned to 8 Muslim countries outside Iran and yesterday the King of Saudi Arabia, King Salman, decided to behead one of them; Nimr Al-Nimr who was executed privately among 47 others on terrorism charges in an indoor beheading fest that was carried out in small batches throughout the kingdom.

The event sparked havoc all throughout; Shiites ignited in riots in several countries, Qatif, the Shiite community in Saudi Arabia are revolting while the Saudi Embassy in Mashhad, Iran was set ablaze with calls to destroy Saudi Arabia which echoed throughout the Shiite world while Iran vowed to destroy Al-Saud.

The execution was carried out few days when Erdogan of Turkey, the candidate for Caliph of the Muslim world had visited with King Salman and entered the Gate to Allah (Bab-Illah) in the Kabaa in Mecca. The King perhaps is confident that his back is covered by major Muslim sunni power, the Caliph to be, the neo-Ottoman Erdogan. This, we predict, will backfire on Saudi Arabia.

Ayatullah Nimr Baqir al-Nimr, the Ayatullah appointed in Saudi Arabia to represent the Shiites

Several videos surfaced showing the havoc. The first two is setting Saudi embassy ablaze in Mashhad, the other two are the riots in Qatif, the Shiite region of Saudi Arabia.

The title Ayatollah is from Arabic: آية الله‎, āyatu allah “Sign of Allah”, and is the highest ranking title given to Usuli Twelver Shī‘ah clerics after the Grand Ayatollah and are considered experts in Islamic jurisprudence, ethics, and philosophy.

The best way to relate this story to the western mindset is perhaps to compare the feud between the English (as the Sunnis) and the Scottish (as the Shiites) where William Wallace had become the hated enemy of King Edward I, the Longshanks who eventually had Wallace beheaded. Nimr, according to the Saudi Kingdom was a cause of much controversy for leading a Shiite uprising within the Sunni kingdom.

As it was in Wallace’s mock trial, Nimr’s trial was no ordinary criminal trial, since the prosecutor sought to convict al-Nimr of “waging war on Allah” and was ultimately convicted of “disobeying” the king; waging violence against the state; inviting “foreign meddling” in the kingdom; inciting vandalism and sectarian violence; and insulting the Prophet Muhammad’s relatives, a thing that all Shiites are accused by Sunnis because of their theological convictions. The prosecutor requested the court to have the Ayatollah to be publicly executed by “beheading crucifixion” (just as they did to William Wallace), a rare method of execution that entails beheading the individual before publicly displaying his decapitated body on a crucifix.

Since the October 15, 2014 ruling to execute Nimr, Iran was up-in-arms and the international human rights organizations including the U.S have sought to pressure Saudi Arabia into sparing al-Nimr’s life while demonstrations erupted in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen and the United Kingdom, even including Bashar Al-Assad of Syria and Hezbollah.

The King carried out the execution despite requests from U.S. state department showing that Saudi Arabia realizes its ally, the U.S., no longer is the protector. Keep in mind, the executions were carried out after Erdogan of Turkey (the new fledgling protector) of the kingdom entered into the heart of the Kaaba.

The beheading was celebrated by Saudis and scorned by Shiites.

Welcome to Muslim death festivity. Cake and Halva with decoration that says “To hell with you Nimr Al-Nimr” with two chalices of red drink resembling Nimr’s blood for drink. Keep in mind when the Two Witnesses in Revelation are executed in Jerusalem, that sweets are passed in celebration resembles Muslim joy.

Tweets like “the martyred Nimr’s blood is the beginning of the end of the Kingdom of Daesh” filled Twitter. Shiites render Saudi Arabia as the instigator and originator of Daesh (ISIS). Another tweet says “the blood of martyred Sheikh Nimr will remove Al-Saud from existence and will draw the pathway for freedom of the people of Saudi Arabia”.

The last mass execution of similar scale in Saudi Arabia was in 1980, when 63 jihadists were put to death after they seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca.

The executions of at least 157 people in 2015, a year that began with the inauguration of a new monarch, King Salman, were a sharp increase from the 90 people put to death in 2014. Saudi officials have argued that the increase reflects not a change in policy but a backlog of death sentences that had built up in the final years of the previous monarch, King Abdullah.

The spark to end Saudi Arabia perhaps has begun. Emirati political scientist, Abdulkhaliq Abdulla,wrote on Twitter, adding that the kingdom was better prepared to confront Iran “than at any other time.”

The cyber rattling between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia stems from ancient wounds that will never be resolved, with Saudi Arabia having destroyed Shiite holy places and Iran making countless claims of persecution. Iran has recently forbidden its citizens from traveling to Mecca to practice the Hajj, one of the five pillars of Islam. Iran’s prohibition on traveling to Islam’s holiest sites, Mecca and Medina, confirms that Iran will even eventually abandon Mecca altogether. As it seems, the Sunni-Shiite divide reveals a major schism between two Muslim holy cities, Mecca on the one hand and Karbala (holiest site for Shiites in Iraq) on the other. The execution of Ayatullah Nimr will backfire on Al-Saud. Anyone today now can deduce that Iran with Iraq, a majority Shiite nation, soon to become Iranian controlled, this including Iranian controlled Yemen, Oman and later Bahrain will pin Saudi Arabia where they have only the Red Sea behind them and the enemy on its eastern flank leaving no escape. This is definitely a deadly combination and Saudi Arabia sees the writing on the wall: the Persians (Elam) are coming for Arabia (Isaiah 21). This is no longer prophetic theory but is becoming prophetic reality. In the geo-politics of everything Middle East, when Iran eventually controls these nations, even if one takes Jordan (Edom and Moab), prophetically will likely be entered by Turkey (Daniel 11:41) leaving no escape for the harlot except by the Red Sea. Yet the Bible even tells us that her destruction is heard at the Red Sea (Jeremiah 49:21) and is where the shipmasters will weep and wail “Alas Alas that great city …” (Revelation 18).

Saudi Arabia is rummaging to find a solution and sees the writing on the wall. The dual fulfillment of “MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN ()” is on the horizon. And while it is explained to mean that God had “numbered” the kingdom of Babylon and brought it to an end; that the king had been weighed and found wanting; and that his kingdom was divided and given to the Medes and Persians (Dan. v. 1-28), we need not forget the duality of fulfillment here. This also applies to the end time Mystery Babylon which is not in Iraq, New York or Rome (see full detailed explanation here) but Arabia. Within few years, Mecca and its 7 massive structures, the largest building structure on earth, called “The Towers Of The House” that overlooks the Ka’ba, Islam’s holiest place will meet its doom in accordance to prophecy. There is no place on earth today where stands the largest structure in the world, used for a religious purpose, all worshipping in one tongue, regardless of their mother tongue, and is holy to more than 1.5 billion people on earth that is literally called Mount Babel today, except the one in Mecca overlooking the Ka’ba.

This is an un-healable divide and the Scriptures in Isaiah 21 predict that Iran will end up destroying Arabia, so let the symphony begin and let the angels proclaim God’s judgment which right after, the earth will rest and the holy people will rejoice.

Finally, Mark Davidson offers a brief but important comment:

Iran will run out and invade in the three directions: north, south and west. So says Daniel 8:4. This is the Second Signpost

To the west, Iran is already engaged antagonistically in limited combat with its enemy to the west: Islamic State.

We have yet to see a significant development to the north. However, Iran’s enemy, Turkey has restarted its war with the Kurds and perhaps Iran would be seen as a liberator.

But we have just witnessed a major development with Iran’s enemy to the south: Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. I believe we have just seen a big step forward to setting the stage for the Second Signpost in the south. Saudi Arabia has cut off diplomatic relations with Iran, and so has one of the Gulf States, Bahrain. A second Gulf State, the UAE, has cooled relations with Iran.

Like dominoes, the events are falling one after the other. First there was the execution of Nimr, than the burning of the Saudi embassy, then the cutting off of diplomatic relations. Historically, the cutting off of relations is a common sign often seen when two nations drift slowly towards war with each other.

The two best candidates for the longer horn on the ram, to lead the charge in the three directions: Major General Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force, on the left, and Major General Ali Jafari, commander of the other four branches (Army, Navy, Rocket forces, Basij) of the IRGC, on the right. Both men report directly only to the first horn of the ram, the supreme leader.

We don’t know what exactly is next. But I believe we can know that it will culminate in the Second Signpost. Remember to keep the actual Second Signpost as the sign God’s word tells us to watch. All events preceding and marching towards the Second Signpost are only the preparation.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/27650/iran-vs-saudi-arabia-could-spark-world-war-3/
http://shoebat.com/2016/01/02/90379/
http://foursignposts.com/2016/01/04/another-big-step-towards-the-second-signpost/

More Signs Poiting To The Iranian Invasion Of The Middle East As The Fulfilment Of Daniel 8

The futurist interpretation of Daniel argues that Daniel’s prophecies were not fulfilled but merely shadowed in ancient times.

Instead, they will be fulfilled in the lead up to the end of the age.

If this is indeed the case, the fulfilment of Daniel 8 would be a significant and defining event before the end of the age, one that would reshape the Middle East in preparation for the rise of antichrist.

Here is just one more reason Iran has to launch such an attack:

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says Saudi Arabian politicians will face “divine vengeance” for executing prominent Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr.

Key points

Iran’s Supreme Leader warns of ‘divine vengeance’ for execution of Shiite cleric

Comments came after protesters attacked Saudi embassy in Tehran

US warns execution could inflame sectarian tensions

UN’s Ban Ki-moon ‘deeply dismayed’

The comments came as Iranian officials announced that 40 people had been arrested for attacking the Saudi Arabian embassy in Tehran with fire bombs.

The angry crowd set the building on fire and destroyed its interior.

“The unjustly spilled blood of this oppressed martyr will no doubt soon show its effect and divine vengeance will befall Saudi politicians,” state TV reported Ayatollah Khamenei as saying.

“This scholar neither encouraged people into armed action nor secretly conspired for plots but the only thing he did was utter public criticism rising from his religious zeal.”

Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, a prominent cleric executed in Saudi Arabia, was a vocal critic of the kingdom’s ruling family.

It said he described the execution as a “political error”.

Sheikh Nimr was executed along with 46 others on Saturday, including three other Shiites and dozens of Al Qaeda members.

Despite Iran’s anger at the execution President Hassan Rouhani denounced the embassy attack, saying it was “totally unjustifiable”.

“The actions last night by a group of radicals in Tehran and Mashhad leading to damage at the Saudi embassy and consulate are totally unjustifiable, as the buildings should be legally and religiously protected in the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Mr Rouhani said.

Riyadh considered Sheikh Nimr a terrorist, but he was hailed in Iran as a champion of the rights of Saudi Arabia’s marginalised Shiite minority.

Analysts have speculated that the execution of Sheikh Nimr and the other Shiites was partly to demonstrate to Saudi Arabia’s majority Sunni Muslims that the government did not differentiate between political violence committed by members of the two sects.

Execution risks increasing sectarian tensions: US

 Iranian protesters set fire to the Saudi Embassy in Tehran during a demonstration against the execution of prominent Shiite Muslim cleric Nimr al-Nimr by Saudi authorities, on January 2, 2016

PHOTO: Iranian protesters set fire to the Saudi Embassy in Tehran. (AFP: Atta Kenare)

Despite the regional focus on Sheikh Nimr, the executions seemed mostly aimed at discouraging jihadism in Saudi Arabia, where dozens have died in the past year in attacks by Sunni militants.

The ruling Al Saud family has grown increasingly worried in recent years as Middle East turmoil, especially in Syria and Iraq, has boosted Sunni jihadists seeking to bring it down and given room to Iran to spread its influence.

A nuclear deal with Iran backed by Saudi Arabia’s biggest ally and protector, the United States, has done little to calm nerves in Riyadh.

But Saudi Arabia’s Western allies, many of whom supply it with arms, are growing concerned about its new assertiveness in the region and at home.

The US State Department said Sheikh Nimr’s execution “risks exacerbating sectarian tensions at a time when they urgently need to be reduced”.

The sentiment was echoed almost verbatim by EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini and an official at the German Foreign Ministry.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was “deeply dismayed” by the execution.

“Sheikh Nimr and a number of the other prisoners executed had been convicted following trials that raised serious concerns over the nature of the charges and the fairness of the process,” Mr Ban’s spokesman said in a statement.

Mr Ban raised the case with Saudi leaders on a number of occasions and urged Saudi Arabia to commute all death sentences that had been imposed, the spokesman said.

“The Secretary-General also calls for calm and restraint in reaction to the execution of Sheikh Nimr and urges all regional leaders to work to avoid the exacerbation of sectarian tensions,” the spokesman said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-03/saudi-leaders-face-divine-vengeance-iran-leader-says/7065336

Saudi Arabia’s 34 Islamic Nation Coalition And The Makings Of The Coming Sunni-Shiite War

It’s complex but watching the mainstream media won’t help you come to an informed understanding of the major players in Islam.

Walid Shoebat’s commentary is worth some serious consideration:

Whenever Mecca is involved in instigating war, it sparks and fuels apocalyptic mania amongst Jihadists where they flock to play the role and be counted as true Muslims for judgment day sake. Several things stand out immediately about this new Saudi-based 34 Islamic states Coalition to combat ISIS. Saudi Arabia says that it plans to form a Muslim antiterrorism coalition saying it underlined a new muscular foreign policy aimed at confronting ISIS. This adds assurance to Muslims regarding their version of apocalypse where prior to the appearance of the Muslim Mahdi that a conundrum is caused by the appearance of an anti-Mahdi. A very interesting development as result of the war in Syria, Iraq and now that Arabia is getting involved sparking an apocalyptic fervor throughout the Muslims world (which we will explain in more detail later).
The 34-member bloc will fight terrorism in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan, so declared Saudi Arabia. The question is, how can Saudi Arabia fight ISIS, without the agreement of the Shia-majority nations of Iran and Iraq which are noticeably absent, as is their ally Syria? Turkey never got approval from Iraq and is causing a fiasco. This spells out the whole issue, that is, Sunni Wahhabist Saudi Arabia will end up having to confront the Shiites of Syria, Iraq and Iran as well. This does not spell out Muslim prophecy only, but also biblical prophecy.

With a Saudi war on ISIS, is Saudi Arabia finally getting tired of its own vomit, ISIS, which in the first place sprouted out of Saudi Arabian pure Wahhabism?

Wahhabist Islam was tasty to Arabs when they concocted the Wahhabist recipe and ate it daily, but it was very bitter when they were forced to re-eat what they vomited having had enough of ISIS. This is why many Muslims rather tickle their throats with a feather since they subconsciously know what Islam is all about.

This is so true, especially in Saudi Arabia itself. So is Wahhabism ready to denounce a Caliphate just because they prefer a monarchy? And how will such verdict square in the Muslim world; Saudi Arabia fighting ISIS very strongly will undermine its authority at home; how could Wahhabists religiously justify fighting other Wahhabists?

Saudi Arabia is checkmated no matter how one slices and dices the issues.

It has a hard-time combating ISIS. Didn’t we all hear this war on ISIS before? Back in March, didn’t the Arabs declare:

“Arab foreign ministers meeting in Egypt agreed a draft resolution to form a unified military force, in a move aimed at countering growing regional security threats … The Arab league chief described the resolution as ‘historic’ … The 22 Arab states often have different views on how to tackle crises and calls for a unified force in the past have failed to produce tangible results … Conflicts are intensifying in Yemen and Libya and the civil war in Syria is entering its fifth year … Islamic State militants have taken over swathes of Iraq and Syria and spawned splinter groups across the Arab world”

And what happened with that draft resolution? Nothing. It was all about Saudi Arabia bombing the crap out of the Shiite Houthis in Yemen, not ISIS.

This is more reason to believe that a Shiite-Saudi war is on the horizon. Many concluded that a Sunni-Shiite war will erupt. This analysis lacks in understanding that not all Sunnis are anti-Shiite as in the Turkish Sufis who also harbor hatred towards the Saudis just as much as the Shiites do. Although this is hidden in the daily Turkish expression in the media, nevertheless it is a historic vendetta since Saudis worked with the British to dismantle the Ottoman Empire in the past.

Saudi record proves the case. Arab allies conducted only 143 of the 2,827 airstrikes against ISIS in Syria in one whole year, while it sometimes conducted as many as 125 strikes against the Houthi Shiites in Yemen a day, according to the BBC.

But the problem for Saudi Arabia is that Syria doesn’t border Saudi Arabia like Yemen does, plus Saudis view Shiite-Alawite Assad just as they view Yemen, as the root problem, and have argued from the beginning (just as Obama argues and Turkey argued as well) that Assad has to be defeated first in order to defeat ISIS.

The declaration of war on ISIS by Saudi Arabia, has more to do with elevating its negative image. There are more reasons that Saudi Arabia is the whore that is hated by the surrounding nations which, will end up burning her. It is an attempt in trying to clean up its own ISIS image. Saudi Arabia found itself at the centre of several human rights controversies for its use of the same abuses ISIS does: public floggings, stonings and even beheadings as means of punishments and is also embroiled in an online storm after a Justice Ministry official reportedly threatened to SUE a Twitter user for likening the country’s approach to human rights to those seen in ISIS.

Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the UK has attacked Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn for suggesting the kingdom supports ISIS. Saudi Arabia is involved in funding ISIS, a theory shared by many journalists and Middle East analysts and the Saudis want to clear their name.

And to top it all, in the Arab world, we have a saying “The Arabs agreed never to agree”!

The Arab states will argue over the exact definition of terrorism. The Saudi authorities’ interpretation of it extends far beyond the violent actions of armed insurgents. Recent legislation has branded peaceful opposition activists and reformers, whether online or in the street, as suspected “terrorists” and a security risk to the state. Amnesty International said it had concerns that this new coalition could be used to further restrict human rights.

Saudi Arabia is becoming hated by the day and needs to clean its image. In announcing the coalition, the Saudis stated that Islam forbids “corruption and destruction in the world” and that terrorism represents “a serious violation of human dignity and rights, especially the right to life and the right to security”.

Where is this in Sharia? No where. This is why they are using all the secular talk.

THE MUSLIM PROPHECY AND THE ANTI-MAHDI CONUNDRUM

Where Muslims fight each other in Arabia and the Levant (Syria), it sparks the prophecy that goes viral in the Muslim world regarding their view of their versions of the man of sin. The war and rumors of war in Syria and now stemming from Mecca itself with involvement of the royal family fuels Jihadists on both sides of the fence, be it the Shiites or the Sunnis. This spells out, in the Muslim mind, the Muslim version of Armageddon.

Here, let me explain. Just as Christian prophecy has a Christ and a false Christ called Antichrist, Muslim prophecy has a Mahdi and a false Mahdi (anti-Mahdi) they call Sufyani who comes from the lineage of Muhammad the prophet of Islam just as some Protestants believe that Antichrist comes from the lineage of Abraham being a Jew.

And just as Christians divide between Catholic view and Protestant view, where the Antichrist arises from, Muslims too divide as to where the Anti-Mahdi arises from.

Its the devil’s oldest trick in dividing human beings causing them to kill each other.

What better idea than to transfer the idea of Harlot from being Saudi Arabia where Protestants who do not pay close attention to the biblical narrative regarding the harlot of Babylon, believe that Vatican is “Antichrist and Harlot”?

Such divide caused the death of hordes of Christians who were stupid enough to believe a demonically inspired interpretation when Babylon is clearly in the region of the Middle East and not in Europe!

Jesus gave us a key, biblical wisdom has it, that we must understand the mindset of God and also understand the mindset of the devil (be as wise as serpents).

Likewise with Muslims, the devil is also at work. Many devout Shiites view the Syrian civil war as the fulfillment of a Shiite version of the prophecy that presages the end of time: a devil-like figure, Sufyani, raises an army in Syria and marches on Iraq to kill Shiites. At times ISIS’s Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi is viewed as the Sufyani while others believe the leader of Qatar, a chief backer of Syria’s Sunni rebels is (the anti-Mahdi) Sufyani. These two come from Muhammad’s lineage as many Saudi royals do.

And the Muslims do not take these issues kiddingly. Thousands are flocking to Syria to protect Islam from the Sufyani. It’s the kind of stuff the western media never tells you about.

Despite fighting bitterly against each other in Iraq and Syria, Sunni and Shi‘a Islamists have been drawn to the battlefield are motivated by this common apocalyptic belief believing that they are fighting in the vanguard of the Mahdi, the Muslim savior whom the Prophet Muhammad prophesied would appear in the Levant (the coastal Mediterranean region that includes Syria and Lebanon).

Muslims killing one another somehow fulfilling a prophecy of Muslims defeating infidels as a standard since these prophecies arose from sectarian conflicts in early Islam waged in Iraq and the Levant.

What is going on between Sunni and Shiites is a parallel to past Islamic prophecies. And if God has parallels in the Bible, the devil who studies the Bible has arranged similar parallels for the rebellious Muslims.

How these prophecies developed stem from Muslim history in Arabia itself. Soon after the death of Muhammad, civil wars or tribulations consumed the Muslim empire as Muhammad’s immediate successors, the caliphs where partisans on both sides circulated prophecies in the name of the Prophet to support their sect. For such divisive war the prophecy of “the Sufyani” arose.

According to the prophecies, the Sufyani descends from Abu Sufyan, the leader of Muhammad’s tribe in Mecca who persecuted the Prophet and his early followers. Although Abu Sufyan and his family later converted to Islam, Abu Sufyan’s son fought Muhammad’s son-in-law, Ali, for control of the Islamic empire and eventually became caliph, establishing the Umayyad dynasty that ruled for nearly a century.

And today, this apocalyptic vision is transcribed all throughout the Arab and Persian media. Watching the invited analysts in any Arab TV where there is a Sunni and a Shiite in the fair-and-balanced clip it became customary to see these terms “Umayyad” or “Safawi/Safavid” in almost every heated argument where a Shiite would call the Sunni analyst “Umayyad” while the Sunni calls the Shiite “Safawi rebel”.

An Umayyad Calph pictured on an early Umayyad coin. Notice the Ziggurat with the pole and crescent moon on top, reminiscent to Babylon

Such prophecies have become reality even when it comes to stereotyping. Sunnis dismiss Arab Shias as Safawis (a term that paints them as Iranian agents from the Safavid empire), rafidha (rejecters of the faith), and “majus” (Magi, Zoroastrian or crypto Persian), to describe Shias. Iranians describe Sunnis as takfiris (code for al-Qaeda/ISIS terrorists) and Wahhabis. In fact, and unlike what prevails western media, it has become the norm today to see the the Turks accused by Arabs all over the Middle East media of being “the Ottoman Empire” while the Iranians are being called “the Persian Empire”. Insults are tossed back and forth for current governments in Turkey and Iran since these days these empires are believed to already have been re-created and to the Muslims worldwide it has become reality.

The only ones who it is not becoming the standard is in the West, where the belief in Scripture prevails. So we have the Muslim world acknowledging such reality and they do not know the Bible and we have the West which claims it does believe in the Bible and are clueless.

As one might expect, the partisans of the losing side, called the “Shi‘at Ali” (“partisans of Ali” or “Safawi” and later just “the Shi‘a”), began circulating words of the Prophet prophesying the new dynasty’s downfall at the hands of the Mahdi, a member of the Prophet’s family who would defeat the dynasty’s champion, the Sufyani, in the Levant. To Shiites this would be the the Saudis and the Qatari.

“When the Sufyani reaches Kufa [a city in Iraq] and kills the supporters of the family of Muhammad, the Mahdi will come,” goes one early prophecy.

“All of us believe the Sufyani will fight the Imam, and the Prophet will kill him in the land of al-Sham (Greater Syria)” asserts the secretary general of Iraqi Hezbollah.

“We want to stress that what is happening in al-Sham is the beginning of the tribulation and is the beginning of the appearance of the army of the Sufyani, which is now called the Free Army.”

When it comes to Sunnis, not all of them believe that Sufyani is bad. He is seen fighting on the side of the Mahdi against his enemies: “The Sufyani and the Mahdi will come forth like two race horses. The Sufyani will subdue (the region) that is next to him, and the Mahdi will subdue (the region) next to him.”

Sufyani is a national hero for some Sunnis today, especially those in Syria—the historic homeland and seat of government for the Sufyani’s ancestors. “God willing, all of us will be in the army of the Sufyani, who will appear in (Syria) by the permission of Allah,” prayed Adnan al-Arur, a popular Syrian Salafi cleric and supporter of the rebellion who currently lives in Saudi Arabia.

The fact that these prophecies mention the same place names that are the scenes of today’s battles only heightens the prophecies’ relevance to the current conflict—and makes them attractive material for jihadi recruitment pitches by Al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria and the Nusra Front.

THE SAUDI-ISIS WAR SPELLS OUT THE DESTRUCTION OF MECCA

These coming battles will only cause more divides between Shiites and Sunnis when Iran wants control over Mecca and Medina. These two cities are significant issues that divide Shiites and Sunnis. Mecca is the Muslim direction of prayer. When Shiite Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in 2013 said that the Shiite holy city of Karbala must be the new Qibla (direction to which Muslims pray) instead of Mecca, it stirred anger from Sunnis worldwide. If and when Shiites do away with Mecca as direction of prayer and its significance is undermined, Shiite Iran, united with Shiite Iraq and Yemen and possibly even the Sufis of Turkey (for old vendettas) will threaten Arabia.

“Karbala must be the Qibla of the Islamic world because Imam Hussein [the Prophet Mohammad’s second grandson, and an important figure in Shia Islam] is buried there,” Maliki said.

Muslim prophecy does not end at the Sufyani and the coming Mahdi only, there is also the Shiite version of the destruction of their own version of the Harlot of Babylon. People ignore that Islam is a Christian heresy and not simply another new religion. To Shia, Karbala supersedes Mecca just as Geneva to Protestants supersedes Rome. In the Shiite faith, there was a feud between the two cities. When Mecca felt haughty and arrogant that Allah warns her, he will toss the Ka’ba in hellfire and will utterly destroy her. This, in accordance to one very popular Shiite belief which utterly terrifies and angers Saudi Arabia:

Once the land of Ka’bah (Mecca) declared proudly, ‘Which land is like me? Allah has made His House on me. People from all parts of the earth come to pay homage to me. I have been made sacrosanct (haram) and sacred by Allah.’ On hearing this Allah, revealed, ‘Be silent! Wait a little (before you say anything further). By My Might and My Honour, the excellence and distinction I have granted to the land of Karbala is more than what I have given you. Compared to Karbala, your position is like a needle head sized drop in front of the sea. If the dust of Karbala had not been there, I would never have bestowed this honour upon you. If the one resting in Karbala (Imam Husain (a.s.)) had not been there, I would neither have created you nor the House over which you are so haughty. Wait, adopt humility and modesty and don’t be arrogant and boastful. Don’t try to prevail over Karbala in importance (as that is not possible). Else I will be displeased with you and throw you in Hell.’ (Kaamil al-Ziarat, p.267, tradition 13, narrating from Imam Ja’far al-Al-Sadiq also see here)

Indeed, Mecca can be seen as a needle head by the Red Sea (see also Jeremiah 49-51). Indeed, this is Shia belief in which Arabia’s pride will cause Iran to finally do the honors and utterly destroy the Ka’ba using its nukes. It is for this reason that both sides are currently arming themselves to the teeth.

Karbala, not Mecca, is Iran’s holiest place. It was in it that al-Ḥusayn ibn ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib was martyred. To Shiites, he is their Messiah. He is the son of Ali ibn Abi Ṭalib (fourth Rashidun Caliph of Sunni Islam, and first Imam of Shia Islam) and Fatimah Zahra (daughter of the Muhammad). Al-Husayn refused to pledge allegiance to Yazid I, the Umayyad caliph because he considered the rule of the Umayyads unjust. As a consequence, he left Medina, his home town, and traveled to Mecca. There, the people of Kufa sent letters to him, asking his help and pledging their allegiance to him. So he traveled towards Kufa. At Karbala his caravan was intercepted by Yazid I‘s army. He was killed and beheaded in the Battle of Karbala in 680 (61 AH) by Shimr Ibn Thil-Jawshan, along with most of his family and companions. The annual memorial for him, his family, his children and his companions is called Ashura (tenth day of Muharram) and is a day of mourning for Shiite Muslims. The killings at Karbala fueled the later Shiite movements. Anger at Husayn’s death was turned into a rallying cry that helped undermine and ultimately overthrow the Umayyad Caliphate.

Westerners should comprehend the significance of this divide on how Shiite messianism and near worship of Hussein whom they blame Arabia for as well as the rise of Sufyani, could appreciate a scene from Karbala as the grave of Hussein is paraded on Ashura where millions have their needles stuck at the time when Hussein was killed:

And it is similar to the way Christians view Christ. In the song, Hussein from his death supposedly cries out to all the Shiite pilgrims: “You know me. I am the redeemer (Messiah) of the world. I register your names [in heaven]. Welcome my visitors. O you vist me. I make a covenant with you. You know me. I am the redeemer of the world. Your banners you carry comfort me. Your tears quenches my thirst … I will not abandon you on day of judgment.” Even Hussein’s mother Fatima Al-Zahra’ she is viewed as if she was Mary, a saint that can also see them and her son was martyred as Messiah.

No matter what political gibberish one listens to these days, and no matter how many times Benjamin Netanyahu calls to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and no matter what prophecy teachers proclaim that Israel will hit Iran’s nuclear facilities, they are all wrong; Iran will build nuclear weapons, but instead of aiming them at Israel, they will aim them at Mecca.

This and for many other reasons, the noose is tightening on Al-Sa’ud which now rummages to form a Sunni Alliance to save itself. Arabia’s days are numbered. There has been an immense oversight by many in the field of biblical eschatology; that when it comes to the destruction of end-days Babylon, Scripture makes no mention of any of the ancient Babylonian cities: Nineveh, Ur, Babel, Erech, Accad, Sumer, Assur, Calneh, Mari, Karana, Ellpi, Eridu, Kish, or Tikrit. All of the literal references in Scripture are in Arabia. The reason for such oversight is simple; people overly focused on traditional rhetoric while God focuses on a plan that He etched in the Bible. The use “Babylon is fallen is fallen” references Arabia, literally. Isaiah even brilliantly predicted that Iran (biblical Elam) must and will destroy Arabia. In Isaiah 21:9, Isaiah levels a prophetic oracle against Babylon using the same announcement in Revelation 18:1-2 and Revelation 14:8: “Babylon is fallen, is fallen”:

“The burden against Dumah” (Isaiah 21:11)

“The burden against Arabia” (Isaiah 21:13)

“All the glory of Kedar will fail” (Isaiah 21:16)

These “Dumah” and “Kedar” are all in Arabia as well as “Arabia” (v.13) is also in Arabia; it can’t get any clearer than this, which is destroyed by Iran “Elam” (Isaiah 21:2) in a complete wipeout.

The Bible is also precise and pinpoints a geographic location for this “Babylon” as was predicted in Jeremiah 49:21, literally, “the Red Sea” which confirms Arabia’s destruction. This is also confirmed in Revelation 18 regarding the harlot city:

“And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning” (Revelation 18:9). “And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, ‘What [city is] like unto this great city!” (Revelation 18:18).

And once one studies Isaiah 34, there should be no doubt. In nearly identical language concerning Mystery Babylon in Revelation 17, 18:

“Its streams shall be turned into pitch and its dust into brimstone; its land shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night or day; its smoke shall ascend forever” (Isaiah 34:8-10).

Incredibly, almost three millennia before the discovery of fuel oil, Isaiah predicted the burning of the very thing that was used in Babel to build a name for the rebellious ones – the pitch. Pitch is bitumen and tar, which technically is simply crude oil.

This judgment on “Edom” which extends from Teman (Yemen) to Dedan on the Red Sea coast:

“Thus Says the Lord GOD; ‘Because that Edom hath dealt against the house of Judah by taking vengeance, and hath greatly offended, and revenged himself upon them. ‘Therefore thus Says the Lord GOD; ‘I will also stretch out mine hand upon Edom, and will cutt off man and beast from it; and I will make it desolate from Teman; and they of Dedan shall fall by the sword’” (Ezekiel 25:12-13).

Is it no wonder why Teman (Yemen) today is in turmoil as I write with the Shiites there upset with Arabia? Karbala will destroy Mecca. Students of the Bible should pay closer attention to the geographic locations which God focused on instead of their preconceived suppositions by imposing their own geography over the Bible.

What Islam did to the Christians and Jews is not forgotten by God and He will use the devil’s prophecies to fulfill his own destruction and give God the glory.

http://shoebat.com/2015/12/15/89404/

Dangerous Christians Discarding Scripture

This blog is all about signs highlighting troubles in these last days.

Many Christians become uncomfortable when you start telling them truths such as the 1.5 billion death toll of murder by abortion or that Islam is, according to its own sources, a religion of terror.

They seem to think that because God is loving, he won’t allow their entire culture to sink into a quagmire of destruction. History and scripture say otherwise.

One of the ways to solve the inconvenient problem of truth is to either twist it or abandon it entirely, something theology schools often seem intent on doing very effectively as this recent story reveals:

A Wheaton College professor announced on Facebook Thursday night that she will be wearing a hijab (Muslim head scarf) throughout her celebration of the Advent as a way of showing solidarity with Muslims.
Larycia Hawkins, a political science professor at the Wheaton, Illinois, evangelical higher education institution, explained on her Facebook page that she will be wearing a hijab to work, class, and church. She also vows to wear the hijab during her trip to Chicago and even when she goes on an airplane to return to her hometown for Christmas.

“I don’t love my Muslim neighbor because s/he is American. I love my Muslim neighbor because s/he deserves love by virtue of her/his human dignity,” Hawkins wrote. “I stand in human solidarity with my Muslim neighbor because we are formed of the same primordial clay, descendants of the same cradle of humankind — a cave in Sterkfontein, South Africa that I had the privilege to descend into to plumb the depths of our common humanity in 2014.”

Hawkins, who has been on the Wheaton faculty since 2007, further asserted that not only are Muslims her neighbors but they also “worship the same God.”

“I stand in religious solidarity with Muslims because they, like me, a Christian, are people of the book. And as Pope Francis stated last week, we worship the same God,” Hawkins stated. “But as I tell my students, theoretical solidarity is not solidarity at all. Thus, beginning tonight, my solidarity has become embodied solidarity.”

“As part of my Advent Worship, I will wear the hijab to work at Wheaton College, to play in Chi-town, in the airport and on the airplane to my home state that initiated one of the first anti-Sharia laws (read: unconstitutional and Islamophobic), and at church,” she added.

Hawkins did not respond to requests from The Christian Post for comments by press time.

The Wheaton College professor further explained that she hopes she is not the only non-Muslim woman wearing a hijab this holiday season, as she desires to start a movement of women showing their solidarity for Muslims.

“I invite all women into the narrative that is embodied, hijab-wearing solidarity with our Muslim sisters — for whatever reason. A large scale movement of Women in Solidarity with Hijabs is my Christmas ‪#‎wish‬ this year,” Hawkins continued. “Perhaps you are a Muslim who does not wear the veil normally. Perhaps you are an atheist or agnostic who finds religion silly or inexplicable. Perhaps you are a Catholic or Protestant Christian like me. Perhaps you already cover your head as part of your religious worship, but not a hijab.”

Hawkins turned to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), where she has a friend on staff, for advice on whether it would be offensive to Muslims if a non-Muslim wears a hijab.

“I asked whether a non-Muslim wearing the hijab was haram (forbidden), patronizing, or otherwise offensive to Muslims. I was assured by my friends at CAIR-Chicago that they welcomed the gesture,” she explained. “So please do not fear joining this embodied narrative of actual as opposed to theoretical unity; human solidarity as opposed to mere nationalistic, sentimentality.”

In a generation in desperate need of people to stand up and speak truth, we have “theology” teachers laying down and becoming absolutely useless.

The reality is that Hawkins has far more in common with atheistic humanists, given her trust in unobserved molecules-to-man evolution and her naive support of Islam, a religion that has killed more Christians than even humanism.

Ken Ham makes some important commentary about this growing trend:

As reported in the Christian Post with the headline “Wheaton College Prof. to Wear Hijab During Advent to Show Solidarity With Muslims,” an associate professor at a once-theologically conservative Christian school, Wheaton College, stated the following on her Facebook page:

As part of my Advent Worship, I will wear the hijab to work at Wheaton College, to play in Chi-town, in the airport and on the airplane to my home state that initiated one of the first anti-Sharia laws (read: unconstitutional and Islamophobic), and at church.

She also stated, “I stand in religious solidarity with Muslims because they, like me, a Christian, are people of the book. And as Pope Francis stated last week, we worship the same God.”

Now, Christians and Muslims certainly do not “worship the same God.” The God of the Bible is not the same as that of the Quran (Koran).

As AiG speaker/writer Bodie Hodge states,

Religious books, such as Islam’s Koran, Mormonism’s Book of Mormon, and Hinduism’s Vedas, contradict the Bible; and so they cannot be Scripture. For example, the Koran in two chapters (Sura 4:171 and 23:91) says God had no son, but the Bible is clear that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God (Matthew 26:63–64).

In another article on the AiG website we point out,

Like the Bible, the Quran teaches that people are descendants of Adam and Eve and are imperfect sinners. However, the Quran also teaches that their god, Allah, inspired sin in humankind (Quran 4:88; 7:16–18; 9:51; 14:4; 16:93; 35:8; 57:22; 74:31; 91:7–9). Muslims believe that humans are sinners because Allah has willed it. They have no understanding similar to the Bible’s teaching that humans, not God, caused sin through rebellion against God (Romans 5:12, 5:18–19).

The Quran’s teachings regarding salvation are inconsistent. On the one hand, the Quran teaches that salvation is based on purification by good deeds (Quran 7:6–9). A Muslim can become righteous through prayer, almsgiving, fasting, and living according to the Quran. Yet the Quran also teaches that Allah has predetermined every person’s destiny, and one’s righteous acts may or may not affect Allah’s decision (Quran 57:22). It teaches that everyone, both the righteous and the unrighteous, will be led into hell by Allah, before the righteous will enter heaven (Quran 19:67–72). Therefore no Muslim can know his or her eternal destiny in this life. Even Muhammad himself was unsure of his salvation (Quran 31:34; 46:9).

The Quran actually states that people are descendants of Adam and Eve. Yet this associate professor from Wheaton College denies this, and so exhibits a gross inconsistency. She states the following in giving an evolutionary view of history:

I stand in human solidarity with my Muslim neighbor because we are formed of the same primordial clay, descendants of the same cradle of humankind—a cave in Sterkfontein, South Africa that I had the privilege to descend into to plumb the depths of our common humanity in 2014.

So she actually contradicts the Quran when she uses an evolutionary view of history as part of her reasoning to display a solidarity with Muslims.

Over the years, we’ve been warning the church that so many Christian colleges have been compromising God’s Word in Genesis—and we’ve been warning that such compromise will eventually lead to apostasy. This is exactly what we are seeing in this example from a Wheaton College professor.

In a way, a similar kind of compromise happened in Jeremiah’s day. Jeremiah warned the people and the leader (the king) to believe God’s Word. When God had Jeremiah write down the warnings to the people, we read,

Now the king was sitting in the winter house in the ninth month, with a fire burning on the hearth before him. And it happened, when Jehudi had read three or four columns, that the king cut it with the scribe’s knife and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the scroll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth. Yet they were not afraid, nor did they tear their garments, the king nor any of his servants who heard all these words. (Jeremiah 36:22–24)

So many Christian college professors have been tearing out God’s Word and, in a sense, “burning” it. They started tearing out the account of the creation in six days, then the account of the Flood, and now the account of the creation of a literal Adam and Eve. They have also been tearing out the Bible’s doctrine of marriage. I submit that they have taken God’s Word and “cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the scroll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.” “Yet they were not afraid,” just like in Jeremiah’s day. But they should be very afraid:

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:31)

One day these Christian colleges, their professors, presidents, and boards will give an account before the Lord for their actions—which are leading generations astray.

In 2011, we published the book Already Compromised that detailed the research on the state of Christian colleges in this nation and what they believe. That book, along with two others, Already Gone and Ready to Return, are the most definitive works on the state of Christianity in America (reflecting the Western world). The research for each book was conducted by renowned researcher Britt Beemer from America’s Research Group. All three books are now available as a special pack titled Ready for Reformation. I urge you to obtain a set and understand what is happening to the church when it comes to compromise with the Bible, and how it is having a devastating impact on generations.

“Times of trouble” is exactly how you describe Christians going AWOL from the gospel about Jesus Christ and the coming kingdom of God and instead centring their lives on catastrophic ignorance and reality-defying idiocy.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/wheaton-college-prof-to-wear-hijab-during-advent-to-show-solidarity-with-muslims-152329/
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/12/15/christian-colleges-burn-gods-word/