Question for Christians: why is the Antichrist bad?

[Darth Mordius]

I mentioned a common thread among all religions was worship/submit or die.

Yeah...

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume by "religions" you mean Judaism/Christianity/Islam, and that you in fact have never heard of any others, or assume that they're just like ye olde Abrahamic trilogy with a differently named head-guy: while in fact, there are lots of religions that don't have submit or die as a central theme.

Lets take Buddhism as an example: there is in fact no-one to submit to, which makes the whole question rather meaningless. While there are god(s) in Hinduism, they don't require submission in the face of some kind of divine punishment. I could go on and list all sorts of religions which lack a "submit or die" command, but a cursory study of world religions will reveal many examples.

Mayhap next time you make a grand sweeping statement, you might research beforehand so as to avoid looking like someone who is the product of a long line of baiseurs de chapeau.

[Ghost Rider]

Ummm, I get the distinct impression that the consensus thing isn't gonna happen.
What a shocker.

Proof, motherfucker...do you understand what it means?

I noticed complaints that I don't "present evidence", even though I explained the man made concept of religion/worship, at least I thought I did.
I might add that there was no evidence to prove what I said was inaccurate. However, there was plenty of evidence that suggests either my post was not entirely read, or at least misunderstood, of which I'll take some of the blame.

Or in other words, instead of demonstrating with your own quotes where you said this, you dodge like a five year bitch in soccer.

So, I'll back up some and try again.
I mentioned a common thread among all religions was worship/submit or die.
There is another that fits into the worship category. That being 'works'.
"Works" can be defined as earning favor with one's god through ritual, observance, good deeds, and/or paying a bribe.
Allah demands Jihad from his adherents as the price for admission into his favor/paradise. For those who fail to see the merits of Islam, a ruinous, confiscatory tax will suffice to save one's head. It's called the "jizyah". http://www.prophetofdoom.net/POD_Quran_Surah_108.Islam
Christianity, at least the RCC brand, demands an endless array of ritual as well as money. The Eucharist is a classic example of ritual. RCC dogma maintains that the wafer and wine consumed at "Communion", are literally the flesh and blood of christ. This 'flesh and blood' are to be worshipped. I asked a catholic just how long the wine/wafer remained flesh and blood, and thus worshipped. The response was that the wafer/blood were always the flesh and blood of christ and to be always worshipped.
While true that I'm rarely accused of great intellect, even I have a tough time believing that we are to kneel next to the toilet and worship turds.
Papal dispensations and indulgences imply that Yahweh's moral code will be abrogated for a fee. The amount of this fee/bribe is contingent on the severity of said transgression, as well as the ability of one to pay. Rich "sinners' have to pay more.
For any protestants out there who are beginning to feel smug, there is the 'name it and claim it' theology. This form of worship/bribery maintains that we can be blessed for a fee. If one contributes 100 bucks to the offering plate, then god will bless them 10 times over. So, if one wants 1000 bucks, all one need do is put 100 bucks in the offering plate.
In their competition for church members, some preachers have upped the antie to a 300% return.
Then there is the 'nice guy' type of religion. One can earn favor by attending church on Sunday, (worship), and being a good person, (works).
A 'good person' being a civic minded, charitable, good neighbor type.
I could go on, there are other issues to address such as legalism. However, if the point isn't understood at this juncture, it never will be. Besides, I hear Bob Evans beckoning.

And behold...circular logic.

As to my punctuation/grammer/spelling? All I can say is that I'm a product of the public school system.
And I might add, that if deemed unworthy by this board and subject to excommunication, all I'll say is, the force be with you.
One more thing. I only troll when I fish.
Oh, and another one more thing. What the hell is "hand-wavery?

One foot stool, coming up within three...maybe four days?

[NeoGoomba]

Isn't the antichrist supposed to unite the world and bring some sort of order and peace? Or simply unite it in a way that shoves Christianity to the curb?

Like, say, THE EVIL ATHIEST/HOMOSEXUAL/ARAB CONSPIRACY?

Maybe the anti-Christ was a tag to be given to the supreme enemy of the Christian religon at the time? If, say, the Muslem world were to be united under a single religous leader (or even the Jewish or Hindu faiths as other examples) that started to heavily convert, would the Pope name said leader the antichrist? Thats a powerful title to use to galvanize the "faithful" against a common foe

[rhoenix]

What the hell is "hand-wavery?

It's becoming increasingly obvious that not only have you read around the site for a while before posting, as well as not read the rules for this site, but lack the curiosity to look up the term for yourself.

Since I just finished dinner and I'm feeling "giving," here you go. In future, if you make a claim of any sort on these forums, you'd better have conclusive evidence to back up what you say.

Handwaving is also occasionally used in informal debate or discussion. If the opponent in a debate uses the term, it is meant as a shorthand way to accuse the proponent in the debate of having committed a logical fallacy.

The proponents in a debate might also use the term "handwaving" against themselves, in the same sense as a speculative fiction author, as noted above. When the proponents uses this term, they are exposing to the opponent that they know the portion of their argument to which the term is being applied is weak. "Vigorous handwaving" or "furious handwaving" may also be used to indicate a very weak argument. In an unplanned or informal discussion or debate, the proponent may have little or no preparation. The proponents in the debate can use the word "handwaving" as a way to indicate that while they believe a statement is true, they cannot prove the argument at this time. Even in an informal debate, the phrase is only used to an intermediate step or ancillary issue, never the primary subject matter or end conclusion. Use of the term indicates that the proponent wishes to exclude from the debate discussion of the weak point in order to discuss a more central or important issue.

Of course, you might very well say that Wikipedia isn't a good source. Very well. Just to be safe:

Attempting to get past a moment when a difficult explanation is required. e.g., "His project was late and all he could offer was some hand waving."

In short, the scientific method of arriving at conclusions is valued highly here, as it applies logic to our understanding. Doing so requires data before a hypothesis can be made, and experimental data before a theory can be created. These forums follow those principles. Go read the rules for this site in the Announcements forum - it will cut down on much possible confusion.

[Velthuijsen]

Ummm, I get the distinct impression that the consensus thing isn't gonna happen.
What a shocker.

Religion has been debate probably from before the time man started painting caves and you expect to be able to resolve it with a bunch of bad assertions, abuse of authority figures, circular logic and more basic debating errors?

I noticed complaints that I don't "present evidence", even though I explained the man made concept of religion/worship, at least I thought I did.

You didn't. You made two claims on this point which contradicted each other and only encompassed a subset of the religions in which a fatalistic world view is (almost) mandatory or encouraged.
If you make a claim you need to back it up, then you can get an explanation.

I might add that there was no evidence to prove what I said was inaccurate. However, there was plenty of evidence that suggests either my post was not entirely read, or at least misunderstood, of which I'll take some of the blame.

I suggest you take your own medicine and actually read the criticism on what you posted.
Like the first post of yours that I responded to in which you do things like:

• Say A is true according to X then you say A is not true according to X.
• Don't know about what you are talking
• Just plain lie
• Link an essay to prove your point while the essay has nothing to do with your points and can better be described as a tissue of lies so dishonest as the writer has been with just about everything in it.

So, I'll back up some and try again.
I mentioned a common thread among all religions was worship/submit or die.
There is another that fits into the worship category. That being 'works'.
"Works" can be defined as earning favor with one's god through ritual, observance, good deeds, and/or paying a bribe.

Buddhism has already been mentioned. I'll suggest another one Taoism.
If I could be bothered I can probably dig up more examples by just browsing.

Allah demands Jihad from his adherents as the price for admission into his favor/paradise. For those who fail to see the merits of Islam, a ruinous, confiscatory tax will suffice to save one's head. It's called the "jizyah". http://www.prophetofdoom.net/POD_Quran_Surah_108.Islam.

Care to explain the first assertion?
As for the second assertion. The jizyah was hardly ruinous. For one it was based on how much a healthy man could afford. And if I've done my research correctly was exactly the same percentage as the zakah (or zakat) that Muslims had to pay.

Christianity, at least the RCC brand, demands an endless array of ritual as well as money. The Eucharist is a classic example of ritual. RCC dogma maintains that the wafer and wine consumed at "Communion", are literally the flesh and blood of christ. This 'flesh and blood' are to be worshipped. I asked a catholic just how long the wine/wafer remained flesh and blood, and thus worshipped. The response was that the wafer/blood were always the flesh and blood of christ and to be always worshipped.
While true that I'm rarely accused of great intellect, even I have a tough time believing that we are to kneel next to the toilet and worship turds.

Nice bit of sophistry here. The person you asked this obviously wasn't talking about the wafer/wine in the ultra literalist interpretation you gave it. While you are technically right I suggest going back to the person you asked this from and saying you got this conclusion. Then spend the next 15 plus minutes listening to the lecture about the symbolic meaning and such.

Papal dispensations and indulgences imply that Yahweh's moral code will be abrogated for a fee. The amount of this fee/bribe is contingent on the severity of said transgression, as well as the ability of one to pay. Rich "sinners' have to pay more.

Catholic encyclopedia on dispensations.

For any protestants out there who are beginning to feel smug, there is the 'name it and claim it' theology. This form of worship/bribery maintains that we can be blessed for a fee. If one contributes 100 bucks to the offering plate, then god will bless them 10 times over. So, if one wants 1000 bucks, all one need do is put 100 bucks in the offering plate.
In their competition for church members, some preachers have upped the antie to a 300% return.

You should stop the ultra literalist interpretation of other peoples words, at least the protestants I talked to this afternoon were a bit peeved at the way interpreted this and said it is symbolic.

Then there is the 'nice guy' type of religion. One can earn favor by attending church on Sunday, (worship), and being a good person, (works).
A 'good person' being a civic minded, charitable, good neighbor type.

Problem with any of your arguments above. None prove the point you said you would prove (that is that religions are a submit or die case) at most that greed is everywhere and that includes religions.

[PainRack]

Lets take Buddhism as an example: there is in fact no-one to submit to, which makes the whole question rather meaningless. While there are god(s) in Hinduism, they don't require submission in the face of some kind of divine punishment. I could go on and list all sorts of religions which lack a "submit or die" command, but a cursory study of world religions will reveal many examples.

Not exactly......... The current trend of Hinduism fundamentalist introduced a patriach god aspect of Krishna, and along with it, the submission part. There is a distinct lack of evangelism, something that's more unique to New Age type religions and of course, Christianity.

Similarly, Buddhism in practice also practise a form of coercion to worship such as in the ancient kingdoms of Tibet.

[Darth Wong]

It really does take a remarkable level of chutzpah to declare that all religions say "submit or die" and then declare with a perfectly straight face that Christianity is the exception to this rule. I guess he must have missed the entire Old Testament, not to mention the Book of Revelation and Book of Matthew in the New Testament.

[Edi]

It really does take a remarkable level of chutzpah to declare that all religions say "submit or die" and then declare with a perfectly straight face that Christianity is the exception to this rule. I guess he must have missed the entire Old Testament, not to mention the Book of Revelation and Book of Matthew in the New Testament.

Never mind the actual history of how Christianity was spread in the first place once it got to be the main religion in Rome...