Back in April I covered the seemingly unhinged remarks of former Minnesota representative Michele Bachmann, who is known quite well in my home state as a complete religious nutball. What really didn't make sense about those remarks was that on the one hand, she claimed that Obama was hastening a good old-fashioned end-of-the-world apocalypse, but at the same time seemed to approve of him doing so on religious grounds. On the other hand, when she was in Congress, she opposed everything he did.
Because of the incoherence of the quoted remarks, I held out hope that perhaps she was being misquoted or taken out of context, but during a recent appearance on an evangelical talk radio program she went ahead and doubled down on her nonsensical position. She claimed that Obama's deal with Iran is hastening the End Times and that she opposes the deal, but that we would be "privileged" to see the End Times. But if she really thinks that's a good thing, why oppose the deal?
Most religious people, even fundamentalists, follow some semblance of logic. They take their religious dogmas as starting assumptions and therefore wind up coming to very different conclusions than I and others who don't share their faith do, but in the context of what they believe it still makes some sense. Bachmann, though, comes off as a complete mess on the issue. If she's in favor of the End Times coming to pass she should support policies that she believes will hasten them. If she's not, she should oppose them. How complicated can that be?
I suppose it's possible that I don't understand her take on the apocalypse. But I was under the impression that she's a "Left Behind" Rapture - Tribulation evangelical. According to that doctrine, there's really no way that America could be "spared" God's wrath. Believers get raptured and just vanish, while unbelievers get left behind to face the Tribulation. Seeing as there's no conceivable way for unbelievers to get raptured, it's not going to matter whether they live in America or not. That is, if this particular completely un-Biblical scenario ever were to happen.
Of course it won't. But I find it remarkable that even in the context of her own beliefs, Bachmann's thinking can be so completely muddled.
Because of the incoherence of the quoted remarks, I held out hope that perhaps she was being misquoted or taken out of context, but during a recent appearance on an evangelical talk radio program she went ahead and doubled down on her nonsensical position. She claimed that Obama's deal with Iran is hastening the End Times and that she opposes the deal, but that we would be "privileged" to see the End Times. But if she really thinks that's a good thing, why oppose the deal?
Bachmann claimed that the Obama administration’s historic accord is evidence of the fulfillment of the prophecy from Zechariah 12:3 — “On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves” — and that only through the heroic efforts of Congressional Republicans and their lone Democratic ally, New York Senator Chuck Schumer, to undermine the deal will America be spared God’s wrath.
At least for the time being, of course, as the End Times are upon us, and God and “heaven’s armies” will be bringing this existence to a wrap sooner rather than later. “The prophets longed to live in this day,” Bachmann said, referring to the End of Days, “you and I are privileged to live in it.”
Most religious people, even fundamentalists, follow some semblance of logic. They take their religious dogmas as starting assumptions and therefore wind up coming to very different conclusions than I and others who don't share their faith do, but in the context of what they believe it still makes some sense. Bachmann, though, comes off as a complete mess on the issue. If she's in favor of the End Times coming to pass she should support policies that she believes will hasten them. If she's not, she should oppose them. How complicated can that be?
I suppose it's possible that I don't understand her take on the apocalypse. But I was under the impression that she's a "Left Behind" Rapture - Tribulation evangelical. According to that doctrine, there's really no way that America could be "spared" God's wrath. Believers get raptured and just vanish, while unbelievers get left behind to face the Tribulation. Seeing as there's no conceivable way for unbelievers to get raptured, it's not going to matter whether they live in America or not. That is, if this particular completely un-Biblical scenario ever were to happen.
Of course it won't. But I find it remarkable that even in the context of her own beliefs, Bachmann's thinking can be so completely muddled.
No comments:
Post a Comment