Antichrist

Antichrist [+ favourites]

Who Will Be The Antichrist Post Your Vote Now.....

Mine goes to non other than ur friend and mine vice president Dick Cheney..............you go Dick

""Veritatem quaere et insaniam inveni""

http://www.captaincynic.com/thread.php3/thrdid=33883-u-frmid=23

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"

Antichrist? Is that like Antipasto?
I’m sorry, I just find the whole concept of Satan and an antichrist absurd. Isn’t the Antichrist supposed to be the demonic counterpart of Jesus, and the son of Satan? How is it that an Angel gets to have as much power as a God?

"Oops, it appears I have run over your dogma with my karma."

"How is it that an Angel gets to have as much power as a God?"

This question has gotten me a lot a blank stares from the faithful.

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"

I don't think that an angel has as much power a as God because only He is all powerful. But the angels power is given to them by God. At least thats what I believe.

"Crap. I lost my watch, now I'm lost in time."

“I don't think that an angel has as much power a as God because only He is all powerful. But the angels power is given to them by God. At least thats what I believe.”

Yay, someone with an intelligent, concise answer, thanks Wandering. So on with the debate, if you don’t mind. (and please forgive me, the following should not be taken totally seriously, it is an attempt, perhaps a bad attempt, at seeing this important concept for some people in a bit of a lighter vein)

So with the clarification, one would say that an Angel, fallen or not, will never be as powerful as God, am I correct please?

Now, taking that analogy into deific offspring, Jesus was not as powerful as his Father, yes? And Pat Robertson, erm, I mean the Anti-Christ would not be as powerful as his Father, the Devil, yes? Now, if the Christ was, say for simplicity of debate, a million times less powerful as his Father, then the same would be true for the Anti-Christ, in that he would be a million times less powerful than his Anti-Father.

Is everyone following my rather twisted logic so far please?

So, if Jesus was a million times weaker than his Father, and the devil is weaker than God, and his son Anti-Pat-Christ is a million times weaker than his Anti-Father, and the Anti-Christ would be the complete opposite of Jesus, shouldn’t we be looking for a frail, sickly, ailing woman?

(A – B) – (Y – Z) = Z

"Oops, it appears I have run over your dogma with my karma."

On a serious note, my vote goes to Pat Robertson. A preacher of hate, intolerance, and oppression, with a powerful and influential personality, his Christian Coalition came d***ed close to influencing enough states legislators to force a National Constitutional Convention, and have been behind some of the more recent State Constitutional Conventions. If they have enough votes for a NCC, they have enough votes to completely wipe out our present Constitution.

Can you imagine the type of “Constitution” he would put in place? Just take a look at the Taliban. Think I am paranoid, do a Google on Constitution and Robertson.

"Oops, it appears I have run over your dogma with my karma."

The "antichrist" is not gonna be a bad person....the world is gonna love him/her....lmao.....progression that's how you bring down people, by making them progress!....

"Being is not knowing!"

The only difficulty with that opinion, is that we MUST progress. You appear to suggest the world should be as it was in ancient times?

"Oops, it appears I have run over your dogma with my karma."

what's ancient to you....the physical world or people?... the people and their attitudes are the same...faces change... the physical world all it's spiritual conterparts are the same..the buildings and technology changed...society...is still the same, it's all mass confusion and seperation....... and the world is turning back to how it was in ancient times......but that's another topic...

sorry because this is all written it's hard to fully explain...but in order to hold back people...you must let them progress, but only on the path where you choose so that in the end your hold will be able to stifle......The "Antichrist" is a man of freedom, freedom of all relgion, politics, war, pain....yet in the end that's where imprisonment will come up....because folllowing a single being is imprisonment of the mind!......

"Being is not knowing!"

Jesus is supposed to return again, take his followers to the Kingdom and then wage war on the earth and overthrow Saten. But before that happens, a false Christ will come, pretending to be Jesus and deceive most of the followers. But the true believers will know that this whatever is an emposter. I can't remember if this imposter is supposed to be an angel or not. When Jesus comes back the second time, he will reveal this imposter.

The Anti Christ must fist declare that they are Christ before they can actually be the antiChrist. Mr. Chainey doesn't fit this bill yet. If he, or Mr. Bush start calling themselves the Christ, you might want to start worrying.

The Catholic church believes that this has already happened. This is poetry discribing a horrible world of great persicution for the Christians in the Roman days. The Anti Christ was one of the Ceasors who declared he was God.

Should the Catholic Church be wrong on this, I believe the Anti Christ will come from outer space, but I beleive that the Catholic version is far more accurate then my belief on the situation.

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

I think that the antiChrist would be some sort of powerful group or organisation(s?), that is misleading many many people, that claim they're true, but that they'll be exposed through their own hipocrasy, and will be brought to distruction by those like their own, and then the real Christ will bring all of them to distruction.

"Crap. I lost my watch, now I'm lost in time."

the mark of the beast if such things where true

666

""Veritatem quaere et insaniam inveni""

quote:

---

A newly discovered fragment of the oldest surviving copy of the New Testament indicates that, as far as the Antichrist goes, theologians, scholars, heavy metal groups, and television evangelists have got the wrong number. Instead of 666, it's actually the far less ominous 616.

---

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

My point exactly, friend Ok. Unless I am mistaken, there are no complete surviving examples of the original OT and NT, yes? What we do have, even the oldest, are bits and pieces of copies, of copies, of multiple copies of the originals as created by the hands of the original Scripture Authors, yes? The originals have either been lost to time, stored away somewhere yet to be found for safety, or purposely hidden and/or destroyed, yes? And please keep in mind, the following is offered for theological debate, I am not “attacking” any Scripture or religious beliefs, merely the authenticity of modern Scripture as seen today.

Who is to say, that between the times that they were originally written and the oldest verifiable copy, that someone of questionable integrity or saneness might have not “adjusted” the Scriptures somewhat? When the Christians religion was new and still in it’s infancy, it was subjected to violent oppression and faced imminent annihilation from many sources, yes? Who can say that some well meaning Clergyman, or some despotic power hungry Pope, may not have “adjusted” the Scriptures? Whether to try and protect the Church through acquiring and keeping followers, or imposing some sort of paranoid, sexual dysfunction or fixation, power hungry, and/or delusional psychosis within the Scripture? During its formative years, and well into its life, the Church and its Clergy were the only ones who had access to the Holy Books. As machine printing was invented, the common laity could have a copy of his own Bible to read from, and this would have stopped any “adjusting” in its tracks, simply too many copies to compare, yes?

Throw into this volatile mix, meanings of words lost to translations, mistakes in hand copying, original Scriptures being based written decades after His death, and the differences in cultures in time and geography to the original Authors of the Scriptures, and there is plenty of room left for error. So with these things in mind, should the Bible be taken literally?

"Oops, it appears I have run over your dogma with my karma."