Question for Christians: why is the Antichrist bad?

[Ghost Rider]

Are you suggesting that in order to be "serious", a question cannot be phrased in such a manner that it will offend Christians? Are you sure you're not asking a retarded question?

I'm asking Christians to explain something to me. I am under no obligation to fellate Christianity while I ask this question.

I'm not suggesting that serious questions must be inoffensive. Not at all. It's just that I don't know if I've ever heard a serious question asked with so much sarcasm. Clearly the question was worded to be quite offensive.

But like I said, it all depends on the intended audience. If you were trying to ask a person who really knows his actual theology, say a Catholic Bishop or someone else who really takes his religion seriously and has thought all these questions out, then a question dripping with that kind of sarcasm is unlikely to get a good response. On the other hand if your question is directed at a group of people who debunk religion in their spare time using oversimplified theology, then you are very likely indeed to get a thoughtful response.

I'm sure it's not a retarded question. Just useless, since I kind of answered it for myself in my original post: it depends on the intended audience.

Translation: The athesists on this board are heathen bastards, but won't say it their faces.

Just give an answer if you can so easily debunk it.

[Darth Wong]

I see that "pskouson" is too fucking stupid to read English. There was no "sarcasm" whatsoever in the question as it was worded. Does he even know what "sarcasm" means? There were critical comments about problems I see in the Christian religion, but negativity and sarcasm are two entirely different things.

I like the way he says that it's OK to ask an offensive question, and then tries to rephrase his opposition to offensive questions by characterizing them as "sarcasm" even though they do not fit the definition of sarcasm at all.

[Agent Fisher]

Well, I'll take a shot at the OP. Personally, I never really bought into the whole Revelations/Rapture thing. I always figured Revelations was just some guys trippy dream and wrote it down, figuring it was a vision. Of course, I also don't really pay attention to anything that wasn't said by Jesus, in the four gospels. But when it comes to Antichrist, eh, don't know, don't really care.

[apocolypse]

Hell, the entire concept of holding 2 completely opposing ideas in ones head while believing in them both completely is fucking alien to me.

Christianity has declared both of those things true and then used the fact that they are mutually contradictory as evidence of how Wonderful and Mysterious God is.

If I remember correctly, it also has something to do with God's omnipotence or somesuch. Essentially, we all have free will to make whatever choice we want, yet God knows all and already knows what choices will be made, thus fitting God's plan. Or something like that.

[Elric]

I suppose I may as well give it a shot. Hope the quote tags work.

This is a serious question. If I understand Christian dogma correctly, God allows evil deeds to occur on this Earth because he believes in free will (I guess he had a change of heart after his last righteous massacre), and he does not reveal himself to us because he wants us to choose him by faith, not by evidence (convenient). He sent his son Jesus to Earth to give us salvation (from a sentence that God himself inflicted on us), and if we choose him, we can live with him forever in Heaven, etc.

I'm going to have to say "Not Exactly." I think that most would say that God allows evil to occur in order to bring about a greater good, which can include free will (of some sort), but should also include other good.

In regards to your understanding of faith as some kind of trust without evidence...some think that to be the case, but the Bible doesn't really seem to support that view. You've got Yahweh continually reminding the Israelites that he was the one who freed them out of their captivity (or slavery or something) in Egypt. Later, quite a number of Psalms recount the history of Yahweh's interaction with the people (Psalm 105 would be a good example here).

So the question is: how does the antichrist harm any of this agenda? If people follow the antichrist, they will be doing so of their own free will, which God supposedly supports. If God reveals himself to us in order to fight the antichrist, then he will be violating the whole "must choose by faith" thing. Since those who choose salvation in Christ are guaranteed endless back-rubs and chocolates etc. in Heaven, it really doesn't cause any problem if most of the world slides into Satanic worship under the antichrist.

So why is the coming of the antichrist supposed to be a bad thing? Why will God reveal himself to fight him?

I should probably note something before I go on. The term "antichrist" doesn't actually occur in Revelation. Believe me, I checked using a tool that allows me to search the Greek. The antichrist isn't actually a single person, but rather those people who oppose the true beliefs that John and those he is addressing hold to. This includes lack of belief (denial, really) of Jesus as being the Christ, as coming from God, and as having come in the flesh (1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:3, 2 John 7, respectively). So saying, these antichrists were already around when John was writing his letters and were likely causing problems in the group of believers John was writing his letter(s) to.

I think you may have been thinking of the beast in Revelation, which is a whole 'nother matter entirely (especially since apocalyptic writings can be such a pain the butt to interpret). Some think it was Nero or Domitian, others would disagree and assert a future figure, while yet others would say that many figures filled the role or that there will be a greater fulfillment of the role. Whatever the case, the beast persecutes the church, and God is ultimately going to deal with that, and not in a nice way.

Hope this helps.

[syzygy]

Scriptural illiteracy is the norm, thanks to Ba' al's boys who present the 'Bible" as "Gods Word", ya right. For example, some apparently believe that Heaven consists of eternal massages and candy. Others believe there'll be perpetual virgins, ( boys or girls, depending on one's preference), at their beck and call, serving up silver platters of hash.
If these be the case, I think I'll select option number two. The virgin girl part sounds pretty cool, and I can unequivocally affirm a pronounced preference for endless hash rather than an endless supply of Babe Ruths.


Now Ba'als boys didn't botch it entirely, just mostly. But between Constantine, a mithraist, and King Jimmy, a bonehead, it's no small wonder there is so much confusion. Throw in a healthy dose of god hatred from those who claim he doesn't exist, a rather illogical mix, and we have the not unpopular current perspectives.
The prob I have with this anti-messiah fellow, is that he's just the same ol' same ol'. Just another 'submit or die' religionist. I'm tired of that stuff. We've been gettin' it from the RCC, who had a way of torchin' folks who failed to submit. Thank goodness they at least conform to current laws making murder a crime. Then we have the Islamicists, who are conveiniently unconcerned with laws making murder a crime. The there was the ever popular, at least among monarchies, emperor worship. Their options were rather narrow as well. In other words, these folks have had a rather myopic view of choice. As in, there is none. Free will is not what one could call pc, at least in their view.

Oops, lost track of time. Gotta run so as to get on the ice in time for the dusk walleye bite. Catch ya'll later...
Personally, I prefer a wider selections of options.

[Darth Yoshi]

Um...what? What are you rambling about?

[syzygy]

Sorry DY. Allow me to clarify. A walleye is a fish. Fish have a tendency to be active at dusk, (and dawn), walleye even more so.
The reservoirs generally freeze at this time of year, at least here in the Great Lakes region. Hence my reference to ice.
Naturally, this condition requires cutting a hole in the ice to facilitate presenting a lure to the walleye since the fish are under the ice and not over it.
I suspect that is why it's called 'ice fishing'.
Hope this helps.

[Stark]

I think he was asking what the fuck you were even talking about, not your irrelevant fishing method.

[pskouson]

I think sarcasm is an appropriate word. Some of the synonyms for sarcasm are mockery and sneering, both of which seem to apply in this situation. I looked it up.

The OP was certainly oversimplified. Many of the responses are, too. If we can't agree on that then we are wasting our time. I will concede, however, that I haven't looked up other posts on other topics where you may have gone over all of those points beforehand. In fact, now that I think about it more, I would be surprised if you hadn't already discussed most of theose points.

So now we come to the main bit: my veiled insults. It was not my intention to be insulting. But I should have been more forthright. These forums seem very hostile indeed to those with frowned-upon points of view and beliefs. I think you'd be more likely to get thoughtful responses from, say, a theologian from the Holy See if you were less sarcastic. It's true that many religious people (myself included) are too subjective, but I'd bet that there are some physicists who would not waste their time answering every last nut who belittled their profession and expertise.

It seems to me that civility is a better way to get better responses. Unless you want a certain kind of responses. Don't you all think you are all playing to the crowd?

[Metatwaddle]

The OP was certainly oversimplified. Many of the responses are, too. If we can't agree on that then we are wasting our time. I will concede, however, that I haven't looked up other posts on other topics where you may have gone over all of those points beforehand. In fact, now that I think about it more, I would be surprised if you hadn't already discussed most of theose points.

What about the OP was simplified? Because it seems that what some call "oversimplified theology" just means not twisting logic in ways worthy of an Inquisition torture chamber in an ill-advised attempt to make one's religion seem moral, logical and internally consistent.

[Stark]

So now we come to the main bit: my veiled insults. It was not my intention to be insulting. But I should have been more forthright. These forums seem very hostile indeed to those with frowned-upon points of view and beliefs.

Is this why there are no Christians on this board? We sure wouldn't have a usergroup just for them hey? We're so intolerant and you're not!

It seems to me that civility is a better way to get better responses. Unless you want a certain kind of responses. Don't you all think you are all playing to the crowd?

Read the fucking rules.

[Darth Wong]

I think sarcasm is an appropriate word. Some of the synonyms for sarcasm are mockery and sneering, both of which seem to apply in this situation. I looked it up.

None of which are synonyms for serious criticisms, dumb-fuck. Those comments which you assume to be mocking or sarcastic are in fact quite serious expressions of how I believe Christianity to work. If you have a problem with that, why don't you explain to me why I'm wrong rather than pretending that I should not be expressing my opinion?

The OP was certainly oversimplified. Many of the responses are, too. If we can't agree on that then we are wasting our time.

Why don't you explain exactly what's wrong with them then, instead of ranting endlessly about how morally inferior I am to be even asking my questions and posing my points in a manner that offends you?

I will concede, however, that I haven't looked up other posts on other topics where you may have gone over all of those points beforehand. In fact, now that I think about it more, I would be surprised if you hadn't already discussed most of theose points.

That's not as good as conceding that you chose to attack the questioner without answering his question: the classic hallmark of someone who does not actually have an answer and is searching for a way to make himself feel as if he's scored points anyway.

So now we come to the main bit: my veiled insults. It was not my intention to be insulting. But I should have been more forthright. These forums seem very hostile indeed to those with frowned-upon points of view and beliefs.

That's a tautology, you idiot. Obviously, if something is frowned upon, then this will be perceived as hostility. The real question is whether people with unpopular viewpoints are allowed to make a case for them. They are, whether you admit it or not. If they ask for it, we will even make it possible for them to do so with civility. See BrandonMustang.

I think you'd be more likely to get thoughtful responses from, say, a theologian from the Holy See if you were less sarcastic. It's true that many religious people (myself included) are too subjective, but I'd bet that there are some physicists who would not waste their time answering every last nut who belittled their profession and expertise.

Nothing in the OP belittled theologians. I attacked the belief itself. The problem is that oversensitive little dipshits such as yourself cannot distinguish between the two. I might as well insult you with every other sentence, since it seems that you cannot distinguish between an attack on an argument and an attack on the arguer anyway.

As for your other point, scientists have to answer questions asked by people who attack and hate science all the fucking time. It's called the "evolution vs creation debate", and it always starts with the assumption that all scientists are liars.

It seems to me that civility is a better way to get better responses. Unless you want a certain kind of responses. Don't you all think you are all playing to the crowd?

I don't need to "play to the crowd", moron. I own the fucking board and I've insulted people whose views were a helluva lot closer to mine than yours are. The board history is in fact littered with people who thought that they could get away with the kind of evasive bullshit you're trying to pull now, just because their political views were similar to mine. That's not how it worked for them, and it's not how it will work for you.

Are you going to answer the fucking question, or just fuck around evading the point and trying to make yourself feel morally superior? If your goal was to demonstrate stereotypical Bible thumper condescension and haughty delusions of superiority, you've definitely succeeded. Otherwise, you haven't posted jack shit.

[syzygy]

Oh, that. Ummm, I thought it was self explanatory. But apparently not.
The whole point about the religion thing is this. It doesn't matter what the religion, be it Christianity, Islam, (which is actually so inane as to defy all attempts at rational explanation, if you don't believe that, check this out,: http://prophetofdoom.net/Prophet_of_Doo ... ords.Islam), judaic rabbinicism, socialist secular humanism, communism, illuminism, and on and on and on, they're all religions, not relationships. They all have the same common thread, submit or die. Relationship is what Yahweh wants. Not worship or fear. He wants our love. He actually wants a one on one, first name basis, familial relationship where we are at ease with him. One cannot love what one fears. He literally calls religion shit. Religion requires obeisant submission-worship. Take the Muslems for example. Allah is actually a pagan moon god. This explains why the muslems unroll their prayer rugs five times a day and shoot the moon. All kidding aside, allah requires worship. Submit or die.
So the anti-messiah will be just another 'submit or die' religionist, just like all the rest. Either worship him or die. This answers, at least partially, the question as to why he is bad, at least in my view.
The relationship thing is kinda neat when you think about it. Yahweh is very humble, has a great sense of humor, and is never boring. Neither is he bored by His kids. He's never short on time and loves our companionship. He will do, and has done, anything/everything short of compromising his integrity to gain this relationship.
Imagine that. The light essence, one of his physical essences, that configured all 15 billion years ago, (sorry yecs, but it's true), wants us to be in His family. Our friend, companion, brother, father, savior. Oh well, I've gone on long enough. And btw, for all you yecs, this explains the 15 billion year thing. I might also add that some basic knowledge of physics, astrophysics, thermodynamics, and some quantum mechanics is helpful, but not particularly vital. http://yadayahweh.com/Yada_Yahweh_Foundation_Owr.YHWH

[Darth Wong]

I love the way your argument is nothing more than a string of unexplained and unsupported claims. Every single one of them is stated as a fact without so much as a shred of supporting evidence or logic, other than the usual "OMG check out this link it speaks TRUTH" nonsense. You must have been the star of your high-school debate team.

[syzygy]

Darth, you crack me up. I actually kinda like you. And I might add in all seriousness, you have a lovely family. I saw the pic. Good show...

[rhoenix]

Darth, you crack me up. I actually kinda like you. And I might add in all seriousness, you have a lovely family. I saw the pic. Good show...

Ok. It's not necessarily my place to tell you this, but I will anyway. You need to keep the hand-wavery and not answering points part of your posting to a minimum. Zero is better.

Syzygy, go back to the original post, and answer it point for point, with supporting evidence for your claims. If you cannot do so to the original poster's satisfaction, concede the point and let it go.

Those are the only two ways in which things will end okay, since you've managed to embroil yourself in this debate through hand-wavery.

[Velthuijsen]

@syzygy:

I'll bite even though I suspect you are just trolling.

On your newest post, don't evade points. The board rules don't like it.

Now to the post before that.
I suggest you start proofreading what you write down. In it you contradict yourself.
First you assert that all religions based around the concept of Yahweh demand obedience. Then you assert that all those religions do not want that.

Then you show your ignorance of religions. Islam is an Abrahamic religion, just like Christianity and Judaism. The difference between Islam and Christianity is that Islam sees Jezus just a another prophet (albeit an important one) paving the way for Muhammad who's word is the voice of God. One of the reasons that the Quran is not to be modified and ideally should be only read in it's original form.

From there you jump to the anti-Christ with wording that implies you think the anti-Christ will be a believer in Islam.

And then your last paragraph. Have you ever read the OT?
If so how have you been able to twist the petty, vengeful, psychotic, schizophrenic, insecure, stupid and murderous behavior displayed by Yahweh in it into great humor and all those other assertions you made.

And that link is to an attempt to reconcile genesis with modern cosmology. The author doesn't understand the slightest thing about the theories he's is trying to use as appeals to authority (a debating fallacy) to bolster his argument. I was planning to write an argument for argument rebuttal but I gave up after the CMB was mentioned in the piece (no you can't use the CMB like that). There is just to much trash (earth and sun being the same since they are only a tiny speck of matter compared to the rest of the universe while the relative difference between the two is huge), misuse of theories (that is not the way that GR & SR work) and plain lies (the CMB bit, there is only one study so far that indicates the fine structure constant isn't a constant and scientists are still debating if there were/are errors in the study).

[Darth Wong]

All attempts to reconcile Genesis with cosmology rely on the basic technique of looking for things which can be stretched or distorted to match and ignoring all of the things which are impossible to match. Like the fantastically wrong order of events in Genesis, for starters.

I also like the people who "reconcile" Genesis with cosmology by treating it as non-literal, thus begging the question of why it should be taken seriously at all. But remember, that website has flashy graphics on it, so it must speak truth!

Darth, you crack me up. I actually kinda like you. And I might add in all seriousness, you have a lovely family. I saw the pic. Good show...

Thanks, but once more, your so-called "argument" is nothing more than an assemblage of claims, without so much as a shred of supporting evidence or logic. And I have to laugh at your claim that Islam is irrational but Christianity is not. As if there's any real difference.

[Ghost Rider]

So to sum up...one is babbling idiot who is taunting Mike because he regards Mike's question as using vicious language. Too bad, given it doesn't throw away the seriousness, one that he's said time and time again. But Mike's addressed that post clearly.

Oh, that. Ummm, I thought it was self explanatory. But apparently not.
The whole point about the religion thing is this. It doesn't matter what the religion, be it Christianity, Islam, (which is actually so inane as to defy all attempts at rational explanation, if you don't believe that, check this out,: http://prophetofdoom.net/Prophet_of_Doo ... ords.Islam), judaic rabbinicism, socialist secular humanism, communism, illuminism, and on and on and on, they're all religions, not relationships. They all have the same common thread, submit or die.

Really? Couldn't gotten that from the Old Testament.

Relationship is what Yahweh wants. Not worship or fear. He wants our love. He actually wants a one on one, first name basis, familial relationship where we are at ease with him. One cannot love what one fears. He literally calls religion shit.

So in the first, religion is about Submit or Die!!! but the being in which the entire thing was created around wants something completely contradictory?

You have proof of this complete contradiction, right?

Religion requires obeisant submission-worship. Take the Muslems for example. Allah is actually a pagan moon god. This explains why the muslems unroll their prayer rugs five times a day and shoot the moon. All kidding aside, allah requires worship. Submit or die.

Your bits of Allah aside, which is your way to make Islamist the nutbars and everyone else relatively sane...you are just repeating your initial sentiment without explaining your second.

So the anti-messiah will be just another 'submit or die' religionist, just like all the rest. Either worship him or die. This answers, at least partially, the question as to why he is bad, at least in my view.

So you're going to prove Yaweh wanted love and a relationship?!

The relationship thing is kinda neat when you think about it. Yahweh is very humble, has a great sense of humor, and is never boring. Neither is he bored by His kids. He's never short on time and loves our companionship. He will do, and has done, anything/everything short of compromising his integrity to gain this relationship.
Imagine that. The light essence, one of his physical essences, that configured all 15 billion years ago, (sorry yecs, but it's true), wants us to be in His family. Our friend, companion, brother, father, savior. Oh well, I've gone on long enough. And btw, for all you yecs, this explains the 15 billion year thing. I might also add that some basic knowledge of physics, astrophysics, thermodynamics, and some quantum mechanics is helpful, but not particularly vital. http://yadayahweh.com/Yada_Yahweh_Foundation_Owr.YHWH

So you use circular logic by going "I say Yaweh wants our love, thus he proving he wants our love."

So you're handwaving your way to either a quick ban or a footstool for the Senate?

[Darth Wong]

I suspect his plan is to break every debating rule in the book until we finally get sick of him and boot him out of here, whereupon he will claim that he was treated badly for having unpopular opinions.

Then again, it's also possible that he's just slow-witted and honestly doesn't understand how debating is normally conducted. Perhaps in his church, everyone just repeats what they know to be "truth" and the whole idea of making a cogent argument for something is alien to them. Sort of like Jehovah's Witnesses who can't argue their way out of a paper bag but figure they win as long as they can get you to read their handouts and publications. Just replace "Watchtower Magazine" with "read this website".

[General Zod]

I suspect his plan is to break every debating rule in the book until we finally get sick of him and boot him out of here, whereupon he will claim that he was treated badly for having unpopular opinions.

Then again, it's also possible that he's just slow-witted and honestly doesn't understand how debating is normally conducted. Perhaps in his church, everyone just repeats what they know to be "truth" and the whole idea of making a cogent argument for something is alien to them. Sort of like Jehovah's Witnesses who can't argue their way out of a paper bag but figure they win as long as they can get you to read their handouts and publications. Just replace "Watchtower Magazine" with "read this website".

Can we at least demand that he use proper grammar, punctuation and paragraphs? I thought about responding to some of his stuff but it's so hard to read it's almost painful.

[TithonusSyndrome]

"Oversimplified theology"? What, do we need to have an intimate understanding of the Holy Trinity and the 13 Aspects of God and all the major concepts in Kaballah before we can tread on theological ground? "Hard theology" that goes on lengthy and fanciful rants about mystical concepts like "Brahma" or "Gnosis" and the nature of God, often not only pardoning but celebrating the contradictions inherent in them, is little different than the problems with PoMobabble discussed in the threat to progress thread: it's self-indulgent fluff that exists to gratify it's adherents, simpletons who assume that anything baffling must be meaningful.

All attempts to reconcile Genesis with cosmology rely on the basic technique of looking for things which can be stretched or distorted to match and ignoring all of the things which are impossible to match.

"Shoehorning", I call it.

So in the first, religion is about Submit or Die!!! but the being in which the entire thing was created around wants something completely contradictory?

You have proof of this complete contradiction, right?

I doubt it, because whenever I've heard this line from others before they're promoting the value of "spirituality" over "religiousity". What's the difference? IS there a difference, or is it likelier that they're trying to have their cake and eat it too by keeping what they like about their childhood religion and jettisoning everything that bothers what little rationality they're capable of?

[syzygy]

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

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?

[Stark]

So rather than support ANY of your previous arguments - my favourite being your desciption of the Christian god 'very humble, has a great sense of humor, and is never boring' - you just rattle of MORE unsupported garbage. Also awesome is your claim that the Christian god doesn't want to kill or punish people - which he clearly does - but instead wants a personal relationship. A personal relationship - or die. And burn in hell forever. Which is totally different from the other Judaic religions, right?