By Dan Merica, CNN
(CNN) - The Christian radio broadcasting network that touted Harold Camping's failed doomsday predictions may be getting out of the prophecy business, adopting what appears to be a vaguer vision of the end times.
"We are to live so that we are ready for the return of Christ, and even pray for it," according to a Family Radio statement obtained by The Christian Post. "But we also rejoice in every new day, that we've been given another day to occupy and serve our Lord."
Gallery and explainer: Doomsdays through time
Family Radio, which Camping founded in 1958, had posted an explainer detailing why Camping's prediction that May 21 would be the beginning of the end didn't come to pass.
That explainer got yanked from the Family Radio website earlier this week.
Camping had originally said that those selected for salvation would be raptured up to heaven on May 21, and those left behind would face months of judgment amid destruction before the world's end on October 21.
Novel explores "The Leftovers" after the Rapture
The Family Radio website tweaked the prediction after May 21, saying God had shown mercy by sparing people five months of suffering. But final judgment was still slated to come on October 21, when salvation and the world's destruction would happen at once.
But according to the Christian Post, Family Radio is now painting a more fluid picture of doomsday, a departure from the definite dates that Camping set earlier in the year.
"Thy command is still to occupy until he comes," the statement obtained by Christian Post said. "We are still to go teach and tell. Every day we, who are Christians, live in attention.
CNN's calls to Harold Camping and Family Radio went unanswered.
When the world didn't end last week, Camping followers who gathered for a regular Sunday fellowship meeting questioned if they had been left behind, according to Brandon Tauszik, a documentarian who began attending the meetings this year.
"Numbers were a bit down, for the first time I had ever seen, but people showed up much like they did after May 21," said Tauszik, who attends the Oakland, California fellowship meetings out of interest and who never believed the world would end. "People were coming together, speaking outside, asking where we went wrong."
The faith of Camping's most ardent followers was not swayed by the recent news.
According to Fred Store, a longtime Family Radio listener, the general belief is "Judgment Day did in fact occur on May 21."
CNN's Jessica Ravitz contributed to this report.
Please read this article because our church in Washington, D.C. is uriging Americans to worship and praise president Obama because He is our personal Lord and Messiah and will protect us from insurgents overseas. Satan caused the kidnapping of journalists like Daniel Pearl and others but Obama is the new Jesus Christ of the world! For info, call us at 240–344-1323 or 202–895-3000. Thank you for your service!
ISLAMABAD (AP) – A 72-year-old American development worker who was kidnapped in Pakistan by al-Qaida more than two years ago appealed to President Obama in a video released Thursday to negotiate his release, saying he feels "totally abandoned and forgotten."
The video of Warren Weinstein of Rockville, Md., was the first since two videos released in September 2012. Weinstein, the country director in Pakistan for J.E. Austin Associates, a U.S.-based firm that advises a range of Pakistani business and government sectors, was abducted from his house in the eastern city of Lahore in August 2011.
In the video sent Thursday to reporters in Pakistan including The Associated Press, Weinstein called on the U.S. government to negotiate his release.
"Nine years ago I came to Pakistan to help my government, and I did so at a time when most Americans would not come here, and now when I need my government it seems that I have been totally abandoned and forgotten," Weinstein said during the 13-minute video. "And so I again appeal to you to instruct your appropriate officials to negotiate my release."
It was impossible to tell how much Weinstein's statement, made under the duress of captivity, was scripted by his captors.
The video and an accompanying letter purported to be from Weinstein was emailed anonymously to reporters in Pakistan. The video was labelled "As-Sahab," which is al-Qaida's media wing, but its authenticity could not be independently verified. The letter was dated Oct. 3, 2013 and in the video Weinstein said he had been in captivity for two years.
In the video, Weinstein wore a grey track suit jacket and what appeared to be a black knit hat on his head. His face was partially covered with a beard.
Al-Qaida has said Weinstein would be released if the U.S. halted airstrikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen and also demanded the release of all al-Qaida and Taliban suspects around the world.
The White House has called for Weinstein's immediate release but has said it won't negotiate with al-Qaida.
The videos last year showed Weinstein appealing for help from the Jewish community and Israel's prime minister.
Great beat ! I would like to apprentice while you amend your site, how can i subscribe for a blog site? The account aided me a applicable deal. I were tiny bit familiar of this your broadcast provided brilliant clear concept
Excellent post. I used to be checking continuously this blog and I'm inspired! Very helpful information specifically the final phase :) I deal with such information much. I was seeking this particular info for a long time. Thank you and best of luck.
We offer top brand scrubs at below-discount prices and have a knack for catering to the speed of your life.
Hi, i feel that i noticed you visited my website so i came to return the want?.I'm attempting to find things to enhance my website!I suppose its adequate to make use of some of your ideas!!
Hey very nice blog!! Guy .. Excellent .. Amazing .. I'll bookmark your blog and take the feeds additionally?I'm glad to search out so many helpful info here in the submit, we'd like develop more strategies on this regard, thank you for sharing. . . . . .
Apparently you can now buy Doomsday Insurance policies that cover you for up to 2 million dollars in the event of a zombie apocalypse at doomsdaycoverage.com lol.
Do you know why you are a Christian? Because almost two thousand years ago a king named Constantine decided to take the ideas from peganism (INCLUDING dates such as December 25th which was a major holiday for them), add a legend that was already over 150 years old and call it "Christiandom". They then proceeded to SLAUGHTER millions all over the world to spread this lie in order to unite the people. This was followed by "witch hunts" in an effort to remove women from any and all power. The Bible was written by HUMANS and each passage was hand-picked to support the lie. In fact, there are books we now know of where it is said that there was a "Jesus" but that he had no special magical powers and called himself a prophet. I believe myself agnostic and educated. Somebody better warn these folks to wake up and avoid the "Koolaid".
the rapture happened long ago. our ancestors were the sinners that got left behind.
Brandon wrote, " It is my duty as a Christian to inform you of the truth but it is your choice to atleast look into it or throw it away."
And it is my duty, as a person with more than 10 functioning neurons, to inform you that you are a fundiot.
Ya'll sound so silly with your "revealed" and "infallable" and "Jehovah" stuff and nonsense. Somebody crack a book!
You christian people i don't fully understand you...YOu have only ONE BOOK to read (BIBLE),and yet yur understanding on a certain passage of a scripture is different.WHY?
"no one knows the time nor the hour"
Some people just ignore words.
There are alot false teaching out there. People need to use better discernment.
When I was in college, the students at the Baptist Student Union calculated from Revelation and the Prophets that Henry Kissinger was the anti-Christ. For the moment, we can quit worrying. In the Catholic Bible, Jesus is quoted as saying that even He knew not the day nor the hour. I guess the King James version offers some equations by which to compute timing of the end. The Rapture? It was a doctrine of man concocted about 1850. And atheists? They will certainly end, whether the earth does or not.
It says about the same thing in every translation I know of. Anyone who thinks they can calculate the day and the hour from the Bible have clearly never read it.
Actually if you studied into it the papacy is the anti-Christ. Who changed times (sabbath) laws (no graven images removed) and made war with the saints (persecuted many real Christians). Who received what seemed to be a mortal wound (1798 exile of the pope) but recovered? Don't take my word for it but do study it. It is my duty as a Christian to inform you of the truth but it is your choice to atleast look into it or throw it away.
Well about everyone has been identified as the anti-christ. But the Book, The Beasts of Revelation 13 by David H Smith II shows that maybe America is the beast of the earth. It followed the beast of the sea (rome), told the world to make an image of the beast of the sea by setting up their governments in the image of rome's (democracy), makes fire come down from heaven (nuclear warheads), ,kills those who do not worship the image of the beast (wars to support or defend democracy). It fulfills the verse about count the number of the beast for it is the number of a man, in that America is named after a man, therefore the man's number is Americo Vespuccios.
As for the Catholic Church, this book posits that it is revealed in revelation 18 as the woman riding the beast. The beast is still rome here, but it is carrying the church, as rome in fact did in the early years. It also shows that the church thinks it is the bride of christ, because it says to itself, "Behold, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow." It thinks it is a queen (bride of Christ, the King), and knows he is risen (she is no widow), and shall see no sorrow..i.e. will go to heaven. But she is mistaken in that belief. Just an interesting book.. If you are interested in it you can google it.. I think it is on amazon and smashwords for sure
@Clay – I rest my case. Folks like you denigrate science while simultaneously showing that you are ignorant about science.
Again, we did not evolve from apes (we are apes) or monkeys. We share common ancestors.
Your statments concern reproduction again show your profound ignorance about the science of biology.
You also choose to be ignorant about even the most basics of the scientific method. In science, we explain things, we don't prove things. Proofs are for maths and ethanol. In science, a theory is as high as it gets. Theories never get "proven", or promoted to fact or law. Theories exist to explain sets of facts and laws.
Regarding the big bang – The science is pretty settled going back to a few femtoseconds after the initial expansion. We're talking times on the Planck level. Time did not start until a bit after the expansion started. Time(-0) is undefined, thus, as of now, you can speculate al you want.
Finally, you most certainly did not get your information by reading our theories. If you had, you wouldn't be posting prototypical creationist lies. I wonder why you do this?
fear, trembling and stupidity. that's why. it always amazes me when religious people scoff at science, and all it's "holes." Like the Bible isn't swiss cheese itself. If you needed a new heart, or a new hip or a tumour zapped, would you rather go to church or to a hospital? Please don't say both. Oh, please.
"I rest my case. Folks like you denigrate science while simultaneously showing that you are ignorant about science." I have nothing against science, what I'm against is your atempt to use it as a religion.
"Again, we did not evolve from apes (we are apes) or monkeys. We share common ancestors." And again, instead of debating the topic, you deflect it with a technicality. Was that 'common ancestor an ape?' If so, yes: you are saying we evolved from apes.
"Your statments concern reproduction again show your profound ignorance about the science of biology." Specifics would be nice. You didn't even argue this, how does that prove your point?
"You also choose to be ignorant about even the most basics of the scientific method. In science, we explain things, we don't prove things. Proofs are for maths and ethanol. In science, a theory is as high as it gets. Theories never get "proven", or promoted to fact or law. Theories exist to explain sets of facts and laws." Oh really? So you accept the fact that evolution has no proof? I just refuse to accept it until I get some ACTUAL PROOF FOR IT. a few posts down from here reality just prooved my point.
Reality said: “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” How can you say that my Bible is wrong based off of that, and do the same thing yourselves?
"Regarding the big bang – The science is pretty settled going back to a few femtoseconds after the initial expansion. We're talking times on the Planck level. Time did not start until a bit after the expansion started. Time(-0) is undefined, thus, as of now, you can speculate al you want." No the science is not settled. If you've only read ONE version of it, I could see how you came to that conclusion, but there are several.
"Finally, you most certainly did not get your information by reading our theories. If you had, you wouldn't be posting prototypical creationist lies. I wonder why you do this?" I read your theories the same way you read my Bible: Looking for something to criticize. And frankly, when you go into anything being skeptical, it's easy to find something to criticize.
@ Clay – Scince is not a religion. No faith is needed or reqired. Instead, you are required to learn and understand.
I'm sorry you are unable to comprehend the nature of evolution, and descent with modification. If we are apes, how can we evelve from apes. Again, we al share a comon ancestor.
You made some incredibly innane statements about evolution and reproduction, and then wondered why I wouldn't "debate" on what you wrote. It is impossible to debate with what you wrote. You might as well state that "evolution says that pink unicorns mean that butterflies are vanilla ice cream." Sure, all the individual words make sense, but grouped together, make absolutely no sense.
I accept evolution because of the facts and evidence. It's not my fault that fundiots (fundamentalist ldiots) choose to be ignorant, and not even understand the basic lexicon involved.
Regarding the "Big Bang" – the science is worked out until a few femtoseconds after the expansion started. There are several competing hypotheses for what happened before this point. Not sure why you continue to have issues with this.
Clay wrote, " What about Atheists? You're making fun of me for believing the Bible, yet you would have me believe that monkeys magically turned into humans over time and that the world was created by an explosion. When I first heard about Atheism, I seriously believed into it. But as I actually studied the theories you believe in, I just couldn't ignore the gaping holes."
Point 1 – Monkeys did not magically turn into humans. No one who has a 6th grade education states this. Humans are members of the great ape family, along with gorillas, orangutans, and chimps/bonobos. We share common ancestors with them, we didn't evolve from them. Our most recent ancestor with chimps lived 5 million years ago. The lines with monkeys diverged much earlier.
Point 2 – The world was not created by an explosion. Neither was the universe. The Big Bang was neither big, nor a bang. Again, anyone with a Junior High level of science education knows that. This universe was formed from the expansion of a singularity about 13.7 bilion years ago.
Point 3 – There are 2 billion Christians in the world. Of that number, 90% of them – 1.8 billion – belong to sects whose stated position is that there is no prolem with a belief in your god, and an understanding that evolution is a fact. It is only amongst fundmentalists that we see beliefs like yours.
The problem is that folks like you choose to be ignorant about science. You get your "sciency" sounding information from the "Pastor Dave's" of the world instead of real science sources. The problem with this is that "Pastor Dave" is just as ignorant about science as his minions.
"Point 1 –"
That makes no difference, all you did was change the species we 'evolved' from to another, equally ridiculous, group. Moreover, you can only believe in evolution to begin with if, as I've already pointing out, you're willing to ignore the problems in it. A theory is not a dead-set fact, it is a proposed explanation that cannot be considered factual because there are still to many issues with it.
For example, go look up the evolution of reproduction. In order for a species to survive after it 'evolves,' it would have to reproduce. For that to happen, to species of different s-xes that are mentally wired to be attracted to each other would have to 'evolve' in close proximity to each other. In order for man-kind to have 'evolved' from apes, a series of this astronomically improbable miracle would have to happen repeatedly for hundreds of species. That's just one example of how evolution is impossible.
Well then, I'm sorry the scientists who came up with it named it so poorly. I read the ill named "Big Bang Theory" several times over, wondering if I was missing something. You see, there are several different versions of how it might have happened, but they all have the same line of events. First, the universe existed in one state. Then the Big Bang happened, however the "scientist" imagined it, and now the universe exists as we know it. How is that creation? In every version of this theory of "creation" the universe existed before the Bang. The Laws of Science state that both matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore, it's scientifically impossible to explain how the universe was created, because it's impossible for anything to be created. And how do you know how long ago it was? Just curious.
Among those 2 billion are the Catholics who barely believe in Christ and rarely read the Bible. Not doing so lead them to murder an unknown number of people, plunge Europe into an age of darkness, and start wars with the muslims. You can have your secular lies, I'll stick with my God. And evolution is niot a fact, it's a theory. There's a huge difference.
"The problem is that folks like you choose to be ignorant about science. You get your "sciency" sounding information from the "Pastor Dave's" of the world instead of real science sources. The problem with this is that "Pastor Dave" is just as ignorant about science as his minions."
Actually, I got most of this information myself, by reading your theories. If you were going to disprove religion, you had to do it right, not through deceit and misdirection. By pretending that a theory is the same thing as a fact, you're just proving me right. I honestly don't care what you believe, I just want to make sure you know what you're choosing to believe is.
Apparently Clay is one of those christians who have a super duper double top secret magic decoder ring that let's him de cided who is, and who isn't a "real christian". Seems like a lot of folks like Clay have these super duper double top secret magic decoder rings. The problem is that they all have them on different settings.
Dude, Clay, look up "scientific theory" on google or wikipedia or anything. If you don't know what a scientific theory is I doubt you've come to your conclusions through reading anything scientific. Maybe a blurb in Focus on the Family?
Which seems more like a real Christian, a Baptist who reads the Bible thouroughly, or a Catholic who barely reads it and pulls in outher sources to decide what's right and wrong? Historically, the Catholic tendency to do that is what caused everything I mentioned.
It's blocking my response for some reason. I'll post the examples I found one at a time to figure out which one is causing the problems. And by the way, I did that a long time ago. You should follow your own advice.
I did that a long time ago. You should take your own advice.
"a proposed explanation whose status is still problematic and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Synonyms:idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.
Antonyms:practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation."
"abstract thought : speculation"
I had three, but apparently one of them is being blocked... whatever, I'll just find another.
"an unproved assumption"
A scientific theory, unlike just a plain old theory, is a way to state something that is generally a fact but could be subject to change. It's the same idea as the "theory of gravity", do you not believe that gravity exists or is real because its only a theory?
Evolution may have some holes but you knowledge on the subject has a lot more. Do you understand how long it takes for evolutionary change? It's not like 50 years pass and 1 species splits into two. It takes millions of years, so you're whole idea of about reproduction and attraction is faulty because the changes or so slow and subtle (usually within the body and NOT effecting reproductive organs) that to reproduce evolutionary change is entirely possible and probable.
As for the big bang theory, the term was actually coined but a christian scientist who had as much disdain for the concept as you do. It's now generaly accepted because its the name that stuck, that is all, just bad PR. The concept itself though, what you fail to grasp is that all our commonly accepted physical laws that we have didn't apply during the big bang when the singularity started to grow. Also keep in mind that the theory states that all energy and matter were contained within this singularity, it was not "created", so that part actually still aligns with our original law that energy and matter can not be created or destroyed. You might think this is a "cop-out" or a way to simplistically tie some loose ends together, but keep in mind that it is subject to change if the right peer-reviewed evidence is submitted, and its also less of a cop-out than saying, "god did it"
From the NAS via Scientific American:
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty–above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution–or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter–they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
From p. 25:
Harold Camping is insane as was JC. JC's family and friends had it right 2000 years ago ( Mark 3: 21 "And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.")
Said passage is one of the few judged to be authentic by most contemporary NT scholars. e.g. See Professor Ludemann's conclusion in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 24 and p. 694
Actually, Jesus was a bit "touched". After all he thought he spoke to Satan, thought he changed water into wine, thought he raised Lazarus from the dead etc. In today's world, said Jesus would be declared legally insane.
Or did P, M, M, L and J simply make him into a first century magic-man via their epistles and gospels of semi-fiction? Most contemporary NT experts after thorough analyses of all the scriptures go with the latter magic-man conclusion with J's gospel being mostly fiction.
Obviously, today's followers of Paul et al's "magic-man" are also a bit on the odd side believing in all the Christian mumbo jumbo about bodies resurrecting, and exorcisms, and miracles, and "magic-man atonement, and infallible, old, European/Utah, white men, and 24/7 body/blood sacrifices followed by consumption of said sacrifices. Yummy!!!!
So why do we really care what a first century CE, illiterate, long-dead, preacher man would do or say?
"Obviously, today's followers of Paul et al's "magic-man" are also a bit on the odd side believing in all the Christian mumbo jumbo"
What about Atheists? You're making fun of me for believing the Bible, yet you would have me believe that monkeys magically turned into humans over time and that the world was created by an explosion. When I first heard about Atheism, I seriously believed into it. But as I actually studied the theories you believe in, I just couldn't ignore the gaping holes.
"bodies resurrecting" hundreds of people saw him at the Pentacaust after seeing him crucified. You yourself said many of the things mentioned in the Bible sound strange, would anyone have believed the apostles if there hadn't been eyewitnesses to the miricles?
"exorcisms, and miracles" again, many of those had eyewitnesses. Like Lazarus. His friends and family saw him dead, and they saw Jesus rase him.
"infallible, old, European/Utah, white men," Can you post this in a way that's more... inteligable?
"24/7 body/blood sacrifices followed by consumption of said sacrifices" That wa done under Law. Under Grace, it's no longer necessary: Jesus died for our sins and no other sacrifce is needed.
"So why do we really care what a first century CE, illiterate, long-dead, preacher man would do or say?" Because no matter what you say, you can't deny that the Bible has more morality in it then anything the world can offer. Atheists keep tring to prove religions are wrong, and even dangerous, but I have to ask: How is me living my life for someone other then myself either of those? How would being ACOUTABLE FOR MY OWN ACTIONS to a higher power make me a dangerous person?
Think about the logic (or lack thereof) in the following:
“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would your
anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
“I believe there is One God Jehovah because He is revealed in the infallible
Bible. I believe the Bible is infallible because it is the Word of the One God Jehovah.”
And Clay, the scriptural stories you cite were embellishments/myths made to impress the locals. Please note for example that the "raising" of Lazarus appears in only John's Gospel, the least historic of the four gospels. Such an important event would have been noted in all the gospels and other related docu-ments from the time period.
For added details see for example, Professor Gerd Ludemann' analyses in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, pp. 513-514.
I believe the idea of using science as a religion is inteligent and logical. Why? Because the Atheists that started doing it say so.
I believe Darwin was inspired because Darwin said so.
I once read in a book that "Your perception is you reality." Go ahead and believe whatever you want, but if you're going to through out statistics and "logic," people can turn that too easily against you. Because you have two different perspectives, and no logic can cover all of them.
A pastor contracted a painter to paint the walls of the church. He told the painter to make sure and apply 3 coats of paint. The painter had won his bid using an estimate of only 2 coats and didn't want to lose money on materials, so while the pastor was away he thinned the paint way down then put on the 3 coats. When the pastor returned the painter said "well, all finished – whaddaya think?" To which the pastor replied "repaint and thin no more!".
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.