Judgment Day?

This has been bugging me for quite a while.

Why would Jesus and the New Testament authors warn their 1st century audiences about impending judgment (the day has come, it is the last hour, these last days, etc.) and then... nothing happens?  Am I missing something?

Here we sit almost 2000 year later, and... still nothing.

St. Paul says that Jesus was "born of a woman, born under law to redeem those under law" when "the fullness of time had come".  God sent his Son at just the right time.  Wouldn't the right time to send Jesus to warn of impending judgment be the time of the people who would actually experience this day of judgment? If Judgment Day is to come in our lifetime (or later), doesn't it make sense that God would send his Son in OUR lifetime (or later)??  Shouldn't God send his Son to the people on whom the final judgment would fall in order to warn them?  How long does "the fullness of time" last?

And here we sit.  Still waiting.

I know, I know-- "no one knows the day or the hour" and "with the Lord a thousand years are as a day" yada yada.  But certainly God wouldn't warn certain people at a certain time in history only to do... nothing! It makes no sense to me.

"Well, we do have the written Word of God to warn us," you might say.  But it employs images and metaphors that are not used today and are, quite frankly, foreign to us and audience specific.

"We have to translate and interpret it," you might further say.  But with an event as big as the destruction of our universe and billions upon billions of people being thrown into hell (if that's what it really is) why is it left to us to translate and interpret?  Why is it left to anyone to translate and interpret? Shouldn't the message be painfully clear without the mental gymnastics??  I'll bet it was to the original audiences!! Show me where it says, "Translate and interpret this book into English so that people in the United States in the 21st century can understand it."

It seems foolish to send a bunch of people on the other side of the planet 2000 years ago to their graves all riled up about the return of the Son of Man only to disappoint them.

As our churches continue to empty out and we are sitting around wondering why, we might want to pause and give people some credit.  Perhaps they already know what theologians (such as myself) are just starting to realize-- that there is a LARGE disconnect between the world of the Bible and the world of today. People are weary of people like me constantly trying to navigate and bridge that disconnect, looking silly in the process.  People are nice and won't say anything.  They just won't show up anymore.

Honestly, I'm also getting weary of people like me.

Do I Have This Right?

Yesterday the SCOTUS made a landmark decision in the so-called "Hobby Lobby" case.  There are a lot of opinions flying around and it's getting tough to keep the facts straight, so I'm going to lay out for my readers how I understand the ruling.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

Corporations in which the ownership and the people who run the corporation are not differentiated have been exempted from adhering to provisions of the Affordable Care Act that conflict with their religious beliefs, citing freedom of religion.  In the case of the owners of Hobby Lobby et al., specifically, have been exempted from providing coverage for employees for abortifacients (not contraceptives, which are different).

The Green Family objects to having to provide insurance coverage for their female employees to use drugs or devices that prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to a uterine wall (abortifacients) because of their belief that life begins at conception.  To keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall is tantamount to abortion, in their view.  The Court agreed in a 5-4 decision.

IUDs, RU486, and elle, if I understand correctly, are not contraceptives.  They do not prevent conception. These are what the Green family doesn't want to cover in employee insurance plans.

There's a lot of shouting going on about the Green family being exempted from providing coverage for contraceptives, but that's not what the ruling says.  Am I wrong?