The End Arrives For Apocalyptic Preacher

HAROLD Camping, the US radio preacher who convinced thousands of followers that Jesus would return on May 21, 2011, to usher in the end of the the world, has died, according to a statement released by his Family Radio network. He was 92.

Camping died Sunday evening, the report says. He had fallen at his home on Nov. 30 and had been in weak health due to a stroke since 2011.

Camping first predicted Jesus’ return in 1994, but his most recent forecasts gained national attention through advertisements and the Family Radio network of stations he founded. He warned that “judgment day” would occur in May 2011 and said the world would end in October 2011.

When his prophecies turned out to be false, he declared in March 2012 that his May 21 prediction had been “incorrect and sinful” and said his ministry would get out of the predictions business.

The ministry sold its prominent stations and laid off staffers, with assets dropping from $135 million in 2007 to $29.2 million in 2011.


32 thoughts on “The End Arrives For Apocalyptic Preacher

    • Yea! Yea! Yea! Lah di dah dah dah! According to the common garden atheists, Jehovav is barbaric because He ordered the mass execution of people on moral grounds. Now we have Dabbles whingeing that nobody goes to war to impose Dabbles’ morality on people who are not convicted that what they are doing is wrong!
      Whilst Jehovah was long suffering and bore long with sinful people (see Gen. 15:16 for a typical reason why Divine Justice is often delayed) Dabbles would play God and go to war with Chinese, the Palestinians etc. Thus the atheist is no better than the God s/he despises.


      • And if we ever decided to go to war with the Middle Eastern and Chinese in order to impose Dabbles’ version of morality, we would be involved in a bigger blood bath than is supposed to have been done in the name of Jesus.


      • You ever think of proof reading comments before you post em?

        Or does it not bother you that sometimes you don’t make any sense at all?


      • How can you be such a hypocrite Bubba Ray?
        Atheists constantly engage in bitterly vilifying Jehovah for murder on moral grounds, yet in this case Dabbles (the atheist) would murder palestinians on… moral grounds (“where is the Israeli airforce…” I believe he said).
        The question is not whether I proof read what I post, but whether you engage brain in gear when you post.


      • Ok Dabbles, if not on moral grounds, on what grounds do you wish to send the IAF inside the Gaza strip and start WW3? Please be specific.


      • Specifically? —> “on what grounds do you wish to send the IAF inside the Gaza strip?’`
        Because it’s closer than the syrian airforce. Less air pollution.
        Does ‘pest-eradication’ mean anything to you?

        Unfortunately ~ as all yon varied gods make clear ~ y’can’t make omelettes without breaking eggs. Fortunately though, theologically-speaking, since Original Sin was created, the only true innocents in gaza are the other (non-human) animals,
        …and they can only benefit from the eradication treatment of the god-stoked barbarians.

        I’ll assume you’re kidding about the WW3 quip. Gazans/palestinians lack the capacity and/or the guts to fight their way out of a wet paper mosque. They can’t even win a fight among their own ranks.
        …..and history clearly demonstrates that NO israeli atrocity will ever elicit any sort of armed challenge from anywhere else. But they, too, make omelettes:- and in due course they’ll get theirs, also.

        Palestinian politics 101:


      • Listen to yourselves Bubba Ray and Dabbles! Pest Eradication? So people are now pests because their morality is different to yours? As much as you would like to deny it, you still haven’t answered my question. You merely evaded the moral aspect of it, because you don’t have a leg to stand on.
        Despite all your b/s you cannot avoid the fact that you would send the military (Israeli or otherwise) to “eradicate” the Palestinians because you feel that the manner in which they slaughter their animals is morally wrong.


      • I repeat, hasan (more loudly, since you seem to have pre-conceptions blocking your ears):- ‘MORALITY’ HAS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!

        You base your attitude on the (undemonstrated and undemonstrable) religious mores that the human animal is somehow special and not of the animal kingdom, and that therefore different rules apply.

        That’s self-serving nonsense, and absurd as the worst kind of racism. It’s the same argument the (other) nazis used as justification for the slaughter.

        But the human animal is the ONLY one who commits the countless atrocities recorded throughout HUMAN history. Rabid hyenas behave more rationally, less cold-bloodedly and less brutally.

        Even a wolf-pack will kill a member who goes mad and behaves like a human. We award such a member accolades, medals, and elevate him to an exalted position, sanctified by the God of Love. PtyLtd.(Inc.)

        The only hopeful thing about the cultivated garden-variety ‘morality’ you and others tout is that it’ll probably hasten the extinction of our species.
        ….to the benefit of every other living thing, from rabid hyenas to blackberries.

        Merry christmas…or whatever brand of sado-masochism your devotional totems demand.
        For mine, I’m going to nail the doors shut, draw the drapes, and, in a hushed and holy voice, explain to my current pack of rescued animals how grateful they should be to what-gods-there-be for keeping them well-away from davinci and his mongrel-bred ~ but no doubt ‘moral’ ~ relatives.

        Specific enough?


      • ….and just in case you missed the point, this ‘morality’ argument is as incorrect as it is irrelevant:- “you cannot avoid the fact that you would send the military (Israeli or otherwise) to “eradicate” the Palestinians because you feel that the manner in which they slaughter their animals is morally wrong.”

        The target would be those who pervert the natural order ~ as demonstrated by the fact that nowhere else is such perversion practised ~ on the basis of equally perverted notions of superiority based (usually) upon the invention of also-equally perverted gods.
        ….like the one who had his own ‘beloved son’ tortured and crucified in a cause his ‘omniscience’ must’ve told him was futile. Tell HIM about ‘morality’.

        What next? Shall we export crammed-boatloads of children to a land where paedophiles, duly democratically-elected, reign, whose gods condone ~ nay, demand! ~ the sacrifice, ‘sexual’ and otherwise, of tender young kiddies ~ perhaps especially factory-farmed in some out-of-sight location so’s ‘moral’ people won’t need to feel any unease?

        If not, WHY not?……

        Though personally, I’d just as soon bomb the bejesus out of the bastards.
        …….even if Jesus does insist I should forgive them.

        We’ve created a sad world, when brutality does less damage than copouts.
        But never mind that! Break out the walnuts and stocking-stuffers, and trim the wicks in readiness in the churches.


      • Dabs, that is no way to stop live export or the practices associated with it. Agression begets only aggression. But you know that anyway. I guess your comment was an unfortunate throw away remark.

        As to which ‘side’ is right in the Middle East, neither and both. There are people working on both sides to bring about a just and peaceful resolution.


      • Partly right Strewth:- “Agression begets only aggression.”
        …..until one of the aggressors is eradicated.
        It takes two to tango.

        But it wasn’t a thowaway remark; rather a sad commentary on homosaps’ unfortunate pursuit of the unnatural; like the things we call ‘equality’ and ‘justice’ and ‘peace’, which results in trying to accommodate EVERYbody and everything.
        The whole concept is in itself a perversion of the nature of all things ~ the nature of all things which, after billions of years, managed to bring us to the here and now.

        Nature may be bloody in tooth and claw, but it does insure that the fittest (in any sense of the word) survive….and the unfit don’t. And we wouldn’t be here otherwise.
        There’s no ‘equality’ in nature, nor much ‘compassion’; but neither is there any judgmentalism, artificiality, treachery or cruelty.
        The basic but universal rules are:- protect the young at any cost ~ even often those of other species ~ and, in societal species: look after each other as much as possible.

        Not a bad starting-point from which to progress.
        Jesus thought so too.

        (and it’s one good reason for not believing he’s the ‘Son of God’…..who’s views are ENTIRELY the opposite.)

        ah well… It wouldn’t be christmas without having regrets about what might’ve been.


      • I hope I’m leaving this in the right spot. Re “Source”, thank you Dabbles. I looked it up in Wikipedia and found a chapter analysis. I can’t easily access a library, but I may be able to down-load it as an e-book.

        I live in Ballarat, would be pleased to catch up with you or others any time. You could ask Bryan for my email, too, if you like. 🙂


    • Wrong again. …..(No surprise there.)

      Like myself, ‘Jehovah’ doesn’t deal in “Morality”. Perhaps because he, also, doesn’t listen to the raving of ratbags.

      He never “ordered the mass execution of people on moral grounds.”
      He murdered multitudes ~ including children and “all living things” simply because they pissed him off.

      So-called ‘morality’ had nothing to do with it; and in fact, the issue of ‘morality’ is never raised in any dealings between ‘god’ and men.
      Perhaps, realizing he’d created immoral creatures, he stayed stumm, hoping nobody would notice; and he certainly wouldn’t be expecting morality from creatures he designed to be immoral. Apart from anything else that would shoot to bits any claims to his omnipotence, just to begin with. (Not that ‘he’ makes any claims to omnipotence, omniscience, etc. in any case.)
      That’s left to assorted ignoramuses like the davinci character, whoever s/he is. Or thinks it is. Or isn’t.

      But one thing your god and I do agree upon:- ‘War’ is a wanton waste and achieves nothing of much import. Neither of us practise it, despite what
      some fools might suggest.
      Much better, if something irritates you enough, is to go and wipe it out without ruth or mercy.

      ….and if he (or I) might like to use the israeli airforce as a tool to and end, well what of it?

      It STILL has nothing to do with morality.
      Only some creature with half the brain of a dead cockroach would think otherwise.


      • And the prize for ignorant utterances goes to… Dabbles with the following statement:
        “He murdered multitudes ~ including children and “all living things” simply because they pissed him off. So-called ‘morality’ had nothing to do with it; and in fact, the issue of ‘morality’ is never raised in any dealings between ‘god’ and men.”
        Here in fact is what the Bible has to say in regards to the first “apocalypse” ever recorded:
        “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Gen. 6:5

        The minute issues of evil or good, or righteousness are brought into discussion, one is dealing with an issue of morality.

        I guess you’ve just showed all the readers here who has the brain of… what did you call it… dead cockroach!?


      • Here is another one for you Dabbles:
        “…Noah was a just man…” Gen. 6:9
        “The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was full of violence” Gen. 6:11
        “…The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them…” Gen 6:13
        And then there is this beaty:
        “”… every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually”. Gen. 6:5


      • ah davinci,
        Yep, the Bible gives those quotes for sure. All it proves is that the individuals who wrote (or edited in) those passages were offering their own opinions.

        But if by any chance they were getting it right, then the deity who is described there killed one awful lot of innocent children and women. In fact if that ‘flood’ really occured, then the God would have to be the worst abortionist ever, since there would have to have been loads of pregnant women around the world. Are you just so certain of your stance that you would insist that every one of those destroyed in this way, just happened to be wicked? every single person, every single baby, every single unborn foetus???

        That’s not anything like the kind of deity that I could ever revere.



      • You really are thick as last week’s porridge, aren’t you?
        ……but I shouldn’t complain; you make my case so neatly:-
        “…..and in fact, the issue of ‘morality’ is never raised in any dealings between ‘god’ and men.” sez I.

        “The minute issues of evil or good, or righteousness are brought into discussion, one is dealing with an issue of morality.” -sez the dill who (a) insists upon defining ‘morality’ in his own perverted image, which demonstrably knows nothing about ‘morality’ and
        (b) bases his argument upon “discussion”. (ie “dealings between ‘god’ and men”)

        All yon citations are, as I said, merely ‘god’s’ reactions to being pissed off with ‘his’ (failed) ‘creation’ –> davinci’s ancestors ~ (probably got sprung skinning cats alive for the chinese take-away.)

        There’s NEVER a case where a “discussion” took place about good and evil (unless you count your schizoid god talking to himself .
        Neither, as far as my memory serves, even a MENTION of the term ‘morality’. It obviously hadn’t been invented back then.
        Or else got lost in the translation.
        Take a hint.


      • “Yep, the Bible gives those quotes for sure. All it proves is that the individuals who wrote (or edited in) those passages were offering their own opinions.”

        Of course you would not accept the Deity of the Bible, Rian. If I debated you on the Flood and the archaeological record, you would soon have to backflip and deny about 99% of the scholarship used to buttress your statement.


      • Perhaps Jehovah was a concept of God which reflected the harsh environmentof the area, and the very mixed psyche of the people?


      • Pretty near the mark, Strewth, leaving aside the question of whether the ‘god’ actually exists or not.

        Lotsa years ago, through some sort of ‘act of god’, I came across a book called ‘The Source’ by James A Michener.
        Although he was a big name I’d never warmed to his style of writing at all, so picking up the book was a sheer fluke…and I wouldn’t have picked it up if I’d had time to see who the author was!

        But this book was different: a real stunner as a literary achievement, tracing the history of man from the start, using the excavation of a ‘Tell’ in Palestine as the source material. Only a novel, of course, but brilliant for what it conveyed. For one thing it ‘normalised’ and made feasible the entire story of judaeo-christianity.

        When the opportunity arose I went to great trouble to find a couple of copies, and am prepared to lend you one if the library can’t get it for you.
        I’m sure both you and Dreamweaver would find it hugely ‘encompassing’.

        Do read it if you get a chance.


      • (I’m sure both you and Dreamweaver would find it hugely ‘encompassing’.)
        Dabs, I won’t be around much until the new year, but would like to get in touch then. Ask Bryan for my email address.

        You can read posts from me at, though you can’t respond there unless you join.

        Blessings, if you will accept them! 😆


      • Aagh! Got my reply to Dabbles “Source” suggestion in the wrong place – it’s higher up the page, Dabs. This set up is so confusing.

        Bryan, is there a possibility of you making this blog into a forum? So much easier to find and reply to posts, not miss items of interest, keep all posts reasonably current?


    • Dabbles old fruit, (meant quite respectfully)\

      I for one read The Source many years ago. Have a feeling it was loaned to me by a Jewish friend. Great story and very stimulating. would recommend it to anyone.
      Cheers, Rian.


      • She’s….er, ‘apples’, Rian.
        Although each chapter makes significantly insightful points very simply (and entertainingly), I was particularly taken by the confused mental/emotional/racial/religious swirl of the ‘contemporary’ (the excavators) characters characters who nevertheless got on well as, simply, ‘men’ with common (non-competetive) interests.
        You can see how we got to ‘here’ but still be aware of something fundamental and all-encompassing if intangible, ‘there’.

        I looked up a reference last night, and ended up reading the last hundred pages.


  1. Has anyone noticed the changing names of what we all call god in the bible? It starts with god in Genesis one, changes to Lord god in Genesis 2 and once again it changed to Lord in Genesis 3.
    Coincidence? Hardly. In the name changes is the deeply buried secret to all the wars in his name. Who’s name? God, Lord God or the Lord? don’t lump it all into the same bag.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s