For many years, the teaching that the Harlot of Revelation is Rome or the Catholic Church has reigned within many Protestant circles. Today, most Western Analysts have diverged from this theory, and rightly so. Yet the problem of searching for alternatives leaves many in the dark – most Western Analysts are looking for a global Harlot that combines all religious systems and is political in nature, like Rome was. Yet neither Rome nor this “combination universal religion” Harlot conforms to many of the basic Scriptural descriptions of the Harlot. I have compiled seven reasons to prove this point. The Harlot described in the Bible must be in Arabia.
ISAIAH’S ORACLE AGAINST BABYLON
The Harlot must be connected to Arabia, not Rome or New York or any other nation or city. In Isaiah 21:9, Isaiah levels a prophetic oracle against Babylon: “Babylon is fallen, is fallen,” is the same announcement used in Revelation 18:1-2. Yet this prophecy is not ultimately about ancient Babylon (Iraq), but the Mystery Babylon of Revelation. Ancient Babylon was simply a type of the Last-Days Babylon. The names in this prophecy are all areas in Arabia:
“The burden against Dumah” (v. 11)
“The burden against Arabia” (v. 13)
“All the glory of Kedar will fail” (v. 16)
Pacifist: Someone who is opposed to violence, especially war, for any purpose. A pacifist often refuses to bear arms for reasons of conscience or religious conviction.
Jesus is the “prince of peace” (Isaiah 9:6) in that He will one day bring true and lasting peace to the earth. And His message in this world was remarkably non-violent (Matthew 5:38–44). But the Bible is clear that sometimes war is necessary (see Psalm 144:1). And, given some of the Bible’s prophecies of Jesus, it is hard to call Him a pacifist. Revelation 19:15, speaking of Jesus, declares, “Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. ‘He will rule them with an iron scepter.’ He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.” The setting up of Jesus’ millennial kingdom will necessitate violence in the form of a war waged against the forces of the Antichrist. Jesus’ robe will be “dipped in blood” (Revelation 19:13). Continue reading
68% approve of terrorist attacks on US.
78% had positive or mixed feelings about Osama Bin Laden.
51% grieved for the terrorist mastermind’s death (Bin Laden).
76% wanted strict shariah law in every country.
87% agreed with the goals of Al Qaeda in opposition of the U.S.
95% said it was good that Islam is playing a major role in politics.
55% approval rating for Hezballa Terror group.
60% approval rating for Hamas Terror group.
40% support suicide bombings and attacks against civilians.
89% favored sharia law.
89% support terror attacks on Israel.
87% of American Muslims said that violence against civilians is often, sometimes or mostly justified to defend Islam.
100% do not believe Allah is the god of the Christian Bible and do not believe Jesus is the son of Allah (their god).
One in eight respondents said they think those Americans who criticize Islam should face the DEATH PENALTY.
Four in 10 said Muslims in America should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution, but by Sharia law.
~Source: Breightbart, American Thinker
SHOULD NATIONS HAVE BORDERS?
By Wes Walker
Why do people who would rather spit on a Bible than read it justify their wrongheaded ideas by appealing to it? “Who would Jesus deport” they ask, rhetorically. They haven’t suddenly “found religion”, they’re just using words they don’t personally believe to shame religious people into silence.
Since they brought it up first, let’s discuss what the Bible actually DOES say..
Let’s start with their emotional appeal to charity. Does the Bible say anything about caring for the poor or respecting a foreigner? Absolutely. But tell me, how does it say to do so? Private citizens helping the poor? Sure. People voluntarily coming together to provide for someone? Great! But big government..? I’m gonna need chapter and verse for that one.
Are all poor, all people, from everywhere your personal responsibility? Or even the Church’s? Nope. Not at all. Emphasis is given to widows and orphans, and even widows were to be cared for by their own relatives, first. (This acknowledges our finite resources with which to help the needy.)