Obama is the Anti-Christ? [Archive] - Unofficial World of Warcraft Forums

Valas Azuviir

14-03-2008, 07:37 PM

My wife's parents can be so strange. Her step father told her yesterday that he believes that Obama is LITERALLY the Anti-Christ. I don't mean he thinks he will ruin the country bad...I mean he actually thinks Obama is the literal Anti-Christ from Revelations.

I've heard lots of kooky stuff said about Obama, but this is a first. Someone please tell me this is just his crazy theory and not yet more right wing christian propaganda being passed around by churches.

Ask him how he knows this. If it's e-mail related, than you got your answer.
This is all that Snopes has (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp) anyway.

Side note, not sure if he believes in Nostredamus, but that chap has the last Anti-Christ (previous two supposedly being Napoleon and Hitler) pegged to rise in the Middle East and that he'll bring peace to that region.

elsegundo

14-03-2008, 08:02 PM

there's a new anti-christ every few years.

lol @obama=aintchrist. i dont believe it. and naturally, i wouldnt care. why does it even matter? if your stepdad-in-law believes in that, then accordingly, he wouldnt be here when obama does start to grow horns... or whatever.

Xlorep DarkHelm

14-03-2008, 09:45 PM

/sigh.... I gotta love the misinterpretations of Revelations that results in people screaming, ranting, etc. about foolishness like the "antichrist".

odinsnephew

14-03-2008, 10:56 PM

You Americans are bloody nuts! But I love you ;)

epochfox

14-03-2008, 11:51 PM

My wife's parents can be so strange. Her step father told her yesterday that he believes that Obama is LITERALLY the Anti-Christ. I don't mean he thinks he will ruin the country bad...I mean he actually thinks Obama is the literal Anti-Christ from Revelations.

I've heard lots of kooky stuff said about Obama, but this is a first. Someone please tell me this is just his crazy theory and not yet more right wing christian propaganda being passed around by churches.

Really? havent heard it in my church.... or from anyone i know....

that comment is really stupid and dont generalize :grin: I am a right wingish christain and I think that it is utterly ludicrous that obama is the anti-christ. We have no proof :tongue:

jschild

15-03-2008, 12:08 AM

No but many right wing christian groups are spreading around enough propaganda as it is. I just was worried they were spreading more lies.

epochfox

15-03-2008, 12:20 AM

both sides use the same tactics the more far right or left you go the dumber they get.

odinsnephew

15-03-2008, 01:39 AM

Again, you yanks are nuts ;)

Religion ftl

MrBCorp

15-03-2008, 08:48 AM

Again, you yanks are nuts ;)

Religion ftl

Agreed. I'm glad I'm living where I am in that regard.

epochfox

15-03-2008, 10:10 PM

...well you know as soon as this post pop up I was like... why havent I heard this yet from anyone I know.... someone at my church said it today erie that it happens right after this post but anyways.
After this person said that about Obama, me, the youth pastor (and also wednsday night speaker) and the childrens pastor all spoke against him for saying that. I would also have you know that none of us want Obama for president. In fact we all think he is the worst out of the three.

jschild

15-03-2008, 10:49 PM

So, it probably is more right wing christian nuttiness, or at least being spread more by them. And I mean the bad right wing, not just simply conservative.

det

15-03-2008, 11:50 PM

Threads like this are the reason why I hardly ever stop by in this forum. Just nuts and ultimately causing my high blood pressure ^^

Telic

16-03-2008, 11:01 AM

The original number of the beast is actually believed to be 616 based on the earliest original manuscript.
It was substituted for 666 possibly because it mirrored the number of Jesus, i.e. 888.
Or possibly because it has more 'magical' qualities which were important in ancient times. i.e. its the sum of all numbers from 1 to 36

So who has a name that adds up to 616 ?

Oral Roberts

Actually, I made that last bit up :wink:
But then, why should religious people have all the fun :tongue:

I'd like to move the subject on and discuss who people think is the anti-"Father Christmas" ?

epochfox

16-03-2008, 07:12 PM

I'd like to move the subject on and discuss who people think is the anti-"Father Christmas" ?

Its your mom, can I get her number?..... sorry kidding man

I have fun all the time with the Bible, christians and everyone just maintain an amount of respect. Heck my favorite nugget of the net right now is arby and the chief.

Telic

16-03-2008, 11:05 PM

Well, I have no respect for the Bible ;)

As to respecting Christians, then its dependant purely on the person. Someone isn't worthy of respect just because they're Christian... As for Oral Roberts specifically - he belongs in prison.

I can't remember the last time I was told to show proper respect for Conservatives or Lefties, but I have to show proper respect to Christians or Muslims ?
No thanks, its all fairy tails. Except no, its not really, as fairy tales don't promote divisiveness, and bigotry...

epochfox

16-03-2008, 11:59 PM

No thanks, its all fairy tails. Except no, its not really, as fairy tales don't promote divisiveness, and bigotry...

Show me where the bible promotes that please.

xDarkDrifterx

17-03-2008, 06:01 PM

Show me where the bible promotes that please.

This isn't where the bible promotes it, it's where the religion as a whole (not it's text specifically) follows in this.

Big·ot (bĭg'ət) Pronunciation Key
n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Should we start with the crusades . . . you know for a fact christians have been forcing their own religious beliefs on other's all around the world for ages, generally reinforced with the point of a blade or barrel of a gun. They even created devices to help get their points across.

Torture devices (http://folk.ntnu.no/erlenkra/Daily%20Radar%20Feature%20-%2020%20Gnarliest%20Torture%20Devices%20of%20All%20Time.htm)

Note that specific ones are from the church - such as The Pear, The Head Crusher, Judas Cradle, etc.

__________

Here's where it supports sexism:

"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife ... wives should submit to their husbands in everything" (Ephesians 5:22-24).

Timothy 2:11-15: "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent..."

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 says, "... women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, if they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

The lists go on and on . . .

jschild

17-03-2008, 06:30 PM

Bible also supports slavery...just treat them well :)

New testament is generally much better than the old, but even it isn't progressive in every regard. Still love all the hate filled christians who miss the majority of Jesus's almost hippy, love everyone policy.

Good, rare, christians I have found are a rare bunch, but are truly wonderful people. Most people who claim to be christian, I have found, love the old testament and very few of Jesus's teachings.

everytimeidie

17-03-2008, 07:39 PM

jschild

17-03-2008, 09:58 PM

Even organized can be good. But, like all things, the more power it gets the worse it gets.

elsegundo

17-03-2008, 11:31 PM

I've had this arguement with my ex-girlfriend (hence the ex part) but she swore up and down that she was a Christian that followed the faith.

But she also thought it was ok to sin, ask for forgiveness, and then repeat the sin... so yeah.

Religion, by itself, is great.

Organized religion = bad, imo.

even if she gets forgiven of whatever she's asking forgiveness for, she's still taking advantage of the system, which is just as bad.

Euphoricsoul

18-03-2008, 01:23 AM

Yeah, this always happens right around election time.

I told my mother long ago that if she kept forwarding emails like that to me I'd stop calling. Worked like a charm. :)

For those that believe, revelations clearly says that the antichrist will rise to power quickly, and will fool everyone as to his intentions or purpose. This could easily be said of Bush Jr., or Clinton, or a number of leaders that achieved power quickly. There are leaders in Africa that would make Bush or Obama look like boyscouts and they never get the attention that the Western leaders get.

det

18-03-2008, 10:50 PM

Can you say russia or china? I mean...if we are talking countries that don't give a toss about democracy as we see it.

Not to forget about 4 billion people who are not christian. Oh..and lets add about a billion people who say they are christians but act like the anti-christ ^^

corga

19-03-2008, 04:29 AM

I say that we should all just sit pretty and wait for the antichrist to come, then take action. untill then I will continue to be helpfull to people and spread the word. Remember not to judge other people, that starts alot of fights that could be avoided.

Shellar

19-03-2008, 09:32 AM

Can you say russia or china? I mean...if we are talking countries that don't give a toss about democracy as we see it.
If by "democracy as we see it" you mean "having a puppet leader who jumps when America says jump", then yes, they don't.

jschild

19-03-2008, 12:39 PM

Considering our very long, and storied history (USA that is) with helping overthrow democracies abroad to instill leaders who we want into power - I really don't think we have any right bragging about democracies "as we see it".

I only wish more americans understand that the Russians (we actually put forces on the ground to support the brutal czar's agasint the communists), Iranians (CIA helped overthrow the popular democratically elected government and put in brutal leaders), and much of Central America (Look up the history of the so called "School of the America's", too much crap to list) have actually pretty good reasons to hate us.

epochfox

19-03-2008, 07:55 PM

hey xDarkDrifterx, how are you? oh and about your qoutes
Wasnt that common practice in that time for the romans as well, having women lower than men? All of these qoutes are letters concerning the current events of each of the churchs.

Xlorep DarkHelm

20-03-2008, 12:23 AM

Ok..... I wish there was an "ignore thread" option.... Because I'm not thrilled about seeing threads where people start bashing my beliefs with blanket statements, and things taken completely out of context.

/sigh

aurebor

20-03-2008, 09:06 AM

Sorry, but its not Obama.

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/US-PRESIDENTIAL-ELECTION-St-Clairsville2C-Ohio-Senator-Hillary-Clinton/photo//080228/ids_photos_ts/r315812455.jpg/;_ylt=AroGWDnmo1wGf3DXUMMHTlMDW7oF

Valas Azuviir

20-03-2008, 01:58 PM

And then of course there is this little gem.. Slightly off topic from the thread, but Anti-Christ.. Evil Overlord over everything he sees.. Same thing really..

http://students.sabanciuniv.edu/~fbirlik/resimler/pope_looks_like_palpatine_01.jpg

Clavina

20-03-2008, 05:26 PM

Shellar

21-03-2008, 12:31 AM

Evil Overlord over everything he sees.. Same thing really..
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g290/senex31337/tsar1.jpg
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g290/senex31337/tsar2.jpg

corga

21-03-2008, 03:21 AM

Shellae, have I ever told you you scare me. I think its the fact that your avatar is willy wonka, and he scares me.

Shellar

21-03-2008, 03:30 PM

Shellae, have I ever told you you scare me. I think its the fact that your avatar is willy wonka, and he scares me.
Strangers have the best candy.

Xlorep DarkHelm

21-03-2008, 09:30 PM

Oh the irony :D

What irony? I just don't care for people mocking my beliefs with the same set of insults I've shown to be incorrect assumptions more times than I'd care to remember. People openly attacking Christianity or the Bible, basically with nothing but poor translations, taking things out of context, or outright false assumptions about what it is.

Now, I will gladly admit there are some real...irritating and far too loud people who parade themselves around as being "Christian" while doing pretty much the exact opposite of what Christianity is. And, I can understand there being issues with those people... but to turn around and attack the whole of Christianity for those few is... disingenuous.

And, it has become so tiresome that I'd rather just ignore the people who continue to do that, rather than sit and repeat the same, exact thing I have for decades, and have shown repeatedly the fallacies of the arguments repeatedly, the same things that were shown to be false for decades, if not in some cases centuries... yet new people seem to find these so-called "problems" with the Bible or Christianity, these "new issues" that have repeatedly been shot down in the past.

So, I fail to see "the irony" here. Christianity is really quite simple. The Bible was written in such a way that even a child could understand it (translation problems not withstanding), I'd easily say 95% of every so-called "error" someone found, every so called "inaccuracy", or "conflicting statement" is no such thing, it is, in fact the product of weak translation, and the evidence of such is found when looking back at the original Greek or ancient Hebrew versions of the texts.

At the same time, I just shake my head at the whole misinterpretation (and in many cases, mistranslation) of the Book of Revelation that has happened which results in this idea of exactly what the anti-christ is or isn't, the whole "rapture" thing, etc. Relating to the original post for this thread, it just doesn't work for me.

But, the attitude of just open unabashedly attacking, insulting, or mocking a belief system, and then doing it with things already proven to be false for decades is honestly quite sad...

epochfox

22-03-2008, 01:05 AM

I forget that a lot of people don't know that I guess I should have said this nice post but to the topic at hand.

Honestly I don't think anyone who thinks things through would think that obama is the anti-christ. As I mentions in my other post the man who said this wasn't known for his thinking ability. Not to be mean to him he is one of the hardest workers at the church but he didn't think it through.

jschild

22-03-2008, 12:23 PM

Glurin

27-03-2008, 04:14 AM

The problem there, is the assumption that someone actually would think things through logically. That is the overlying problem. People are given information by a nutjob religious groups or ministers (not saying all our, but anyone who passes this info on in a church setting is a religious nutjob, sorry) just accept it. They don't question, they don't think for themselves about it.

This applies to many areas, not just religion. Science, politics, schools, mass media, anywhere there is somebody speaking with "authority" in front of a crowd. Most people just gobble up the first thing they hear as absolute truth.

How many people do you think actually thought through the subject of global warming before accepting it as truth? How many people do you think ask themselves "How do we pay for this?" when they hear Hillary talking about her health care policy? How many students question their teachers? And of course, theres the latest scandal in the news. Lots of people either believe it or don't, but how many of them sat down and thought through the story they were presented?

People are complacent and rarely question things... that is, for many educated, thinking (because being educated does not mean you think things out either) people, the allure of science (again, when done properly, luckily science, due to time, always wins in the end in this regard) is that it is always questioning. It never assumes something is answered.

Religion has the exact same legitimate appeal.

jschild

27-03-2008, 05:26 AM

Religion has the exact same legitimate appeal.

Religion does not constantly question. Faith is the answer - Things happen because thats how God wants them to happen. You can explore the roots of religion, but without faith, it is just information. You cannot question it because you will never get an answer (at least one in this world :) )

That is not to say the two must never mesh on any level - but I honestly do not see how something that gives concrete answers has the exactly same appeal with one that can never have concrete answers but only faith.

EDIT: I also never said religion did not have legitimate appeal...the appeal is just as legitimate - though in completely different ways.

Xlorep DarkHelm

27-03-2008, 04:19 PM

Religion does not constantly question. Faith is the answer - Things happen because thats how God wants them to happen. You can explore the roots of religion, but without faith, it is just information. You cannot question it because you will never get an answer (at least one in this world :) )

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on this for two reasons:
Blanket over-generalization
Straw-man argument

There may be some religions that are like this, but it sure as heck isn't all of them. Christianity has historical records, and even evidence outside of the Bible which supports it in many things. The Bible itself is a historical set of documents that were written over thousands of years. And, there is a lot of questioning -- it kind of is the point.

At the same time, I know many who take evolution (or rather, shall I say macroevolution) at face-value, trusting in it implicitly without questioning it either -- merely as an example. My point being that your statement is too over-generalized, and it can apply to religion or not.

That is not to say the two must never mesh on any level - but I honestly do not see how something that gives concrete answers has the exactly same appeal with one that can never have concrete answers but only faith.

Once again, going to disagree with you on this point. We can argue in circles on it, but you are quite honestly straw-manning religion here.

EDIT: I also never said religion did not have legitimate appeal...the appeal is just as legitimate - though in completely different ways.

Which shows potentially how little you understand of it. Further, you are seeming to imply that religion can't be scientific (while all sciences are)... Scientific being things empirically testable through procedure (the scientific method), which there are a great many... sciences that are not scientific either (that is, cannot be empirically tested). Both religion and those sciences look at evidence and make possible explanations from them. None of it is testable as true (or rather, none can be tested as false, which is the key element of the scientific method). Archeology, for instance, is done through observing what evidence there is, and attempting to guess at/interpret that evidence. Religions are doing the same thing.

jschild

27-03-2008, 06:24 PM

You are fair - I will grant that can be too much overgeneralization there.
I should have been more precise in the fact that there is more limits on how much you can question - because then you can start to threaten faith.

And yes, the bible is supported in many instances by historical records. It also is disputed by many. Many Roman records at the time speak of John the Baptist. AFAIK (and I might be wrong on this) there are none that speak of Jesus (I mean records from the same time period, not after Jesus died).

You cannot prove the existance of god - you cannot even give semi concrete evidence of god. You can speak of wonders, but that proves nothing. Show and repeat a miracle again and again, and have it happen every time.

However, all technology on Earth works becasue science is repeatable.

If it cannot be tested, it is not science btw (that is not the same and not being able to be tested with current technology - IE, Einstein).

The problem with your comparison is that there is nothing new to be added (except with discoveries of old, never before seen, texts). Show me a new prophet, show me a miracle. There is nothing that I can see now for evidence. I can read a book with 2 different genesis accounts, 4 different chronicles of Jesus's life (that vary greatly, IE, Jesus saying let he without sin, throw the first stone? That parable doesn't even show up in the oldest bibles and is thus most likely added after the fact).

And I don't take evolution at face value - the sheer amount of evidence, from multiple disciplines in multiple different sciences all support it and it has no scientific challengers. Is it a complete theory with no holes? No, of course not, but there is no alternative that even fits 5% of the evidence like it does.

Xlorep DarkHelm

27-03-2008, 06:50 PM

I'm going to drop it, because I don't want to be getting in the middle of this kind of an argument. I'll leave it as you have a radically differing perspective and take on it than I do. And, I'll even concede you've probably researched it as much as I have at least.... and I've done extensive research for a number of years. I can't force you to see it my way.

I'll also note that this: "I should have been more precise in the fact that there is more limits on how much you can question - because then you can start to threaten faith." still remains inaccurate. Nothing that has been proven has "threatened faith", at the very least, my faith, in fact, there's been nothing even in the area code of doing that (bearing in mind that I believe what you call faith and what I call faith may not be the same thing on this point).

Religion, in general, defines a particular stance, or position on the world, life, and everything else. Typically it defines things with a supreme being (or other supernatural force) doing things. But, in many respects, the position that is the opposite view, where everything must be readily explainable, and there can be no supernatural or "supreme being" out there doing things, shares enough parallels to be able to be classified along the lines of a "religion" in my personal view.

If you take the position "there is no God", or you take the position of "there is a God (or gods)" -- both positions are starting points that will affect/color how you view the world. Even the position of "I don't know if there is or isn't a god" (good ol' agnostics hehe) colors the perspective. I'm not going to get drawn into an argument over which is right or which is wrong, I'm just saying that there is a difference in perspective there, which is one of the fundamental points people will defend vehemently, and it often causes nothing but arguments whenever anyone threatens anyone else's key, fundamental viewpoint on it.

jschild

27-03-2008, 07:08 PM

Agnostic here actually...I do not beleive in any, for lack of a better word, "God of man"

I refuse to discount "a supreme being" however. I do not believe there is any supreme being that gives a whit about what happens on earth however. Until they can show "why" the big bang happened and not the how.

My main point, and I have no problem with disagreement, tis what makes the world go round. is that science is testable. It has a mechanism to eliminate "false beliefs". There is no mechanism for religion. That does not make religion bad, however, just different.

I also do not want you to think I have any issues with Religion as a whole. As in all things, people have a way of screwing good things up. I do have issues with people (mostly christian since I am from America) that don't even understand the basics of their religion. At least in this part of the country (and I grew up in the bible belt) they seem to love the old testament and just gloss over everything that Jesus preached in the new.

But I also fully agree with you that the words "Faith" can mean very different things to different people.

Again, I apologize if you felt that I was insulting Christianity (I did mean to insult the BS churches that spread crap like Obama being the anti-christ - but that is a pastor problem and not a fault of the church itself - damn people messing things up again).

Xlorep DarkHelm

27-03-2008, 10:15 PM

My main point, and I have no problem with disagreement, tis what makes the world go round. is that science is testable. It has a mechanism to eliminate "false beliefs". There is no mechanism for religion. That does not make religion bad, however, just different.

Actually, the funny thing is, when you apply the idea of testable science, which falls under the scientific method, there has to be empirically testable qualities. More specifically, it has to be able to be falsifiable, that is, it has to be able to be potentially tested as false through experiments. Physical (and biological) sciences follow this -- gravity can be tested to be false. If you are on the surface of the Earth, and drop something, and it does not fall to the Earth, there is a potential test showing it to be false. But, objects *do* fall to the Earth. The premise that combining 2 parts hydrogen with 1 part oxygen should make water. If it does not make water (that is, if 2 molecules of hydrogen and 1 molecule of oxygen, when combined, does not make H2O), then it is tested as false. Typically, in the hard sciences, if something is found to be false, the hypothesis is rejected. In a couple cases, it was altered slightly and then retested. Never is the hypothesis altered/modified to fit the data. If it continues to be found false, it completely is rejected as a false hypothesis and no longer pursued.

Those are the "hard" sciences -- the sciences that fall into the strict scientific method of hypothesis, testing, theory, further testing, and finally law. But, there are sciences that are not "hard" sciences. Archeology (or other historical sciences), for example, is not testing things in a laboratory, it is gathering evidence that already exists, and then attempts to fit the pieces together in some reasonable design or structure. There is no way to really empirically test whether it is true or false, all that can be done is guess. There has been times where a skeleton is found, put together the way a scientist (or team of scientists) thinks it should be put together, and then later changed because the original assumption was found incorrect. These sciences allow for the idea that original assumptions are potentially incorrect, and the hypotheses are often altered to fit the new data as it presents itself.

Religions tend to be a lot closer to the "softer" sciences like historical (including archaeological) sciences, astronomy, etc. Now, obviously, religions are not able to be completely empirically testable like the harder sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, etc), but then again, neither is archeology or astronomy. The "soft" sciences are about interpreting existing data, the "hard" sciences are about testing (through the scientific method) in laboratory-like conditions.

As such, I think your statements are still a bit over-generalized :grin:

And, FYIi, I took no offense to your pointing out the idiocy of people thinking Obama = antichrist. That kind of foolishness always irks me too... It shows a serious lack of understanding of what is in the Bible, for one thing.

Herald of Doom

28-03-2008, 04:47 PM

Archeology (or other historical sciences), for example, is not testing things in a laboratory, it is gathering evidence that already exists, and then attempts to fit the pieces together in some reasonable design or structure. There is no way to really empirically test whether it is true or false, all that can be done is guess. There has been times where a skeleton is found, put together the way a scientist (or team of scientists) thinks it should be put together, and then later changed because the original assumption was found incorrect. These sciences allow for the idea that original assumptions are potentially incorrect, and the hypotheses are often altered to fit the new data as it presents itself.
Eh, I'd have to disagree that archeology and astronomy are based on guessing. Are you saying people are guessing the way stars are behaving? Your example has ofcourse happened multiple times, but that happened because there was a lack of evidence (or unfortunately a bad scientist, we are but humans). Think of reconstructing skeletons as a hypothese, you go with the data you have, do it as best as you can and if proven wrong you are glad because the scientific method worked :) This may include some guesswork, but the guessing is ONLY necessary if you don't have all the data needed for a full conclusion, like in your example. Until you can find evidence to support or disprove your theory. And astronomy is now practically synonimous to astrophysics.

The difference with religions lies in the evidence. Everything in holy books (bible, quran,..) is based on what *people* said and wrote down. I'll admit that I'm no expert on religion, but I'm fairly certain nobody has been able to say "Look here, this is God", and tested it. Even if we accept your notion that archeology is soft science and they are merely guessing it is still a guess based on tangible evidence, which allows others to refute it. Jesus said, Muhammed said, Buddha said, Tom Cruise said... You can't retest Mozes bringing down the ten commandments. You can retest archeology. You can't set up a testing environment, kill a bunch of dinosaurs and wait a few million years, you just have to hope for a discovery that resembles your discovery:)

FYI, I'm a pragmatic agnostic, and I'm planning on repenting on my deathbed just to be sure. :thumbsup:

HoD

jschild

28-03-2008, 07:31 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-levine/25-of-antiobama-dems-th_b_93806.html

It's nice to know 23% of democrats aren't supporting him because he's a Muslim.
Except for the fact that he isn't.

Stupidity, sadly, is a commodity that we will never run out of.

Xlorep DarkHelm

28-03-2008, 08:38 PM

Eh, I'd have to disagree that archeology and astronomy are based on guessing. Are you saying people are guessing the way stars are behaving? Your example has ofcourse happened multiple times, but that happened because there was a lack of evidence (or unfortunately a bad scientist, we are but humans). Think of reconstructing skeletons as a hypothese, you go with the data you have, do it as best as you can and if proven wrong you are glad because the scientific method worked :) This may include some guesswork, but the guessing is ONLY necessary if you don't have all the data needed for a full conclusion, like in your example. Until you can find evidence to support or disprove your theory. And astronomy is now practically synonimous to astrophysics.

The difference with religions lies in the evidence. Everything in holy books (bible, quran,..) is based on what *people* said and wrote down. I'll admit that I'm no expert on religion, but I'm fairly certain nobody has been able to say "Look here, this is God", and tested it. Even if we accept your notion that archeology is soft science and they are merely guessing it is still a guess based on tangible evidence, which allows others to refute it. Jesus said, Muhammed said, Buddha said, Tom Cruise said... You can't retest Mozes bringing down the ten commandments. You can retest archeology. You can't set up a testing environment, kill a bunch of dinosaurs and wait a few million years, you just have to hope for a discovery that resembles your discovery:)

FYI, I'm a pragmatic agnostic, and I'm planning on repenting on my deathbed just to be sure. :thumbsup:

HoD

I explained that the "soft sciences" are that they take data that is already exists, and then interpreting it according to whatever framework the person doing the research has. It is biased according to whatever presumptions that the researcher made to begin with. The "hard sciences" can actually empirically test and retest the hypotheses through experimentation.

For instance -- how do we know what dating system is correct? If Carbon-14 is correct, which is, to use the rate of decay of Carbon-14 to figure out how old something is based on the quantity of Carbon-14 there is left... the assumption is potentially that everything starts out with a more or less uniform amount of Carbon-14 in it (for that particular material, of course). Another equally valid presumption could be that things started with varying amounts of Carbon-14 in them when the universe began, which would render the entire process as useless. There are always assumptions made in the "soft sciences" (and I know the term is possibly a not perfect fit), because there is really no way to test it accurately through experimentation. To do that, we'd actually need to go back in the past and see for ourselves (I'd figure).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-levine/25-of-antiobama-dems-th_b_93806.html

It's nice to know 23% of democrats aren't supporting him because he's a Muslim.
Except for the fact that he isn't.

Stupidity, sadly, is a commodity that we will never run out of.

heh, I velieve that was a rumor that was traced back to the Clinton campaign starting it. Good stuff.

jschild

28-03-2008, 09:06 PM

Yeah, I pretty much decided I couldn't vote for her whe she pulled the BS "Oh, He's a Christian AS FAR AS I KNOW"

Xlorep DarkHelm

28-03-2008, 09:22 PM

Yeah, I pretty much decided I couldn't vote for her whe she pulled the BS "Oh, He's a Christian AS FAR AS I KNOW"

I pretty much decided I'd never vote for her while her husband was in office. And her activities have not exactly endeared me to her any further.

jschild

28-03-2008, 09:28 PM

I expect politicians to snipe each other, but Hilary seems to have this desire that she knows she cannot win the primary, so she will make sure Obama cannot win the election.

Then in 4 years, she can just swoop in and say..see you should have chosen me the first time.

Of course, the dodging sniper fire story doesn't help. Nor the, I was tired that day explination - considering she has told the lie multiple times over several months.

PlayThemAll

28-03-2008, 09:32 PM

Yeah, I pretty much decided I couldn't vote for her whe she pulled the BS "Oh, He's a Christian AS FAR AS I KNOW"

So much of everything is just manipulation of ones perception.

Such a small insignificant choice of words can throw fear and doubt into the minds of so many people. Which I'm sure was her, or her spin doctors, goal.

Nothing to blatent but just enough to make people question what they thought they knew.

caldepen

29-03-2008, 12:39 AM

I cannot believe Americans can possibly screw this one up again but it looks like its going to happen...

Who cares if Obama is the anti-christ or Hillary has a deal with Satan, they would still do a better job.

I don't care who wins between the two as long as you get the republicans out! Pulling the US down and everybody else with it! The funniest thing is that everybody knows they are terrible with foreign policy but assume they are good with other things like the economy when the truth is they are terrible at everything! Every single time a decision is to be made you can count on Bush to make the wrong one. "What? A law that would protect the elderly? Well, I better veto that!", "Hmmmm, a law enabling the selling of automatic firearms to toddlers? Well lets push that one through! Excuse me while I go and pardon all my drug buddies..."

After the last 8 years, I cannot fathom republicans winning again. The economy is in the S%&$'er, the world whole world has a hate on, the dollar is so crappy most countries won't accept them anymore, and yet nobody can see it!? And the politicians don't care, they just laugh at all the stupid voters all the way to the bank. Why? why..... wh....w.....

Valas Azuviir

29-03-2008, 12:56 AM

I'll work under the presumption that you're talking about the Republican Party post the Southern Realignment in the 60s. In that case, I have to point out that Daddy Bush wasn't all bad.

Maybe it was because he was a former spook, but he had a far better grip on how to play ball internationally, than his son does. Maybe it's because he worked more with the moderate part within the Republican party as opposed to the religious nutjobs. *shrugs*

Whereas I know that he's had his hands in plenty of dirty stuff (part of the job of being a spook), all round he was someone you could respect, even if you disagreed with him. Junior on the other hand. The less said the better.

TheConfusedCaster

29-03-2008, 02:15 AM

Allow me to put a damper on this whole illusion of a "political party vs. political party" mindset.

Every politician is a sellout, yep, hillary, mccain, obama, you name them, they're selling out. None of these candidates policies are any different from Bushs's policies. They may claim they are different, but this is merely something to feed the people in order to garner votes.

The corporations control the foreign policies of our government. There is no conspiracy theory illuminati bullcrap, it's quite simple, money talks. Money pulls the strings, and the corporations have a lot of it.

So have your little whiny "OBAMA IS BETTER THAN HILLARY"/"HILLARY IS BETTER THAN OBAMA!" debates, they mean nothing, both candidates will be under the will of a 3rd party entity.

Enjoy

Glurin

29-03-2008, 04:10 AM

Not entirely. While this group of candidates are disturbingly similar in several policies, the main difference is in party ideals, which does influence the way they go about doing things. A choice of evils, as they say.

The dems do things for the betterment of the community, but the way it always turns out is them wanting to control every aspect of your life and suck all of your money out of you. They exemplify the "throw money at the problem" attitude. The reps do things for the improvement of the individual and to protect individual freedom, but they often try to legislate morality and things of that nature. Which means they shoot themselves in the foot as far as their ideals are concerned.

Either way, new laws get passed that should not be passed and we loose a little piece of America in the process.

Of course, the republicans have somehow got it in their heads that they need to act more like democrats this time around in order to win. They don't realize that if they would just act like real conservatives, they'd win by a landslide.

TheConfusedCaster

29-03-2008, 04:30 AM

Not entirely. While this group of candidates are disturbingly similar in several policies, the main difference is in party ideals, which does influence the way they go about doing things. A choice of evils, as they say.

Party ideals are an illusion to make you think that the candy-coated dictatorship we live under is a democracy. Anyone who thinks that a single president can still singularly wield tremendous influence in todays government is living the 18th century. Party ideals are not decided by candidates, they aren't even the ideals of the politicians who express them, they're acts. Rehearsed and practiced acts, aimed at distracting the public from the real issues.

The dems do things for the betterment of the community, but the way it always turns out is them wanting to control every aspect of your life and suck all of your money out of you. They exemplify the "throw money at the problem" attitude. The reps do things for the improvement of the individual and to protect individual freedom, but they often try to legislate morality and things of that nature. Which means they shoot themselves in the foot as far as their ideals are concerned.

There are no "dems and republicans". This is like a DA and a defense attorney facing off in court and then going to lunch afterwards. It's a game, what you see on TV and in the primaries is not what happens behind closed doors. There was a day when party's had individuality and did determine the outcome of America, but these days were long before the corporations had taken hold.

Either way, new laws get passed that should not be passed and we loose a little piece of America in the process.

Of course, the republicans have somehow got it in their heads that they need to act more like democrats this time around in order to win. They don't realize that if they would just act like real conservatives, they'd win by a landslide.

I wish we as Americans would stop running on this delusional hamster wheel that constantly acts out this grand play in front of us that we eat right up. The "real conservatives" of the 60s are long gone, any type of party integrity or individuality went out the window with the American dream long ago. We live in an era where policies are determined by money, and political parties are mere actors all working for the same producer.

epochfox

29-03-2008, 06:41 AM

TheConfusedCaster

29-03-2008, 06:46 AM

I mean things are very screwed up but aren't these people voted in by us... so doesn't that make us screwed up as a nation(speaking to americans sorry). So doesn't that mean that all of this is our fault as a people? Bush is a selfish lil child who went after saddam because of the hit that saddam put on his father. Hillary and Obama both want to raise taxes and watch this video about JFK
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU

Saddam used to work for the CIA back in the day against communism, he was put into power by them.

Our votes inevitably don't matter. As I said before, every candidate is controlled by bribes/political strings. It doesn't matter who we vote for, they'll end up taking orders from the same people no matter what we do.

Is this our fault? Well, you could say it may be the case historically, but this generation has no control over what the government does. We're too dumbed down by silly TV shows and mass consumerism to stage any type of revolution. Any intellectual change would require moving the big elements in power that currently have a hold on our economy/government, and that won't be done anytime soon unless one of them somehow betrays the "group", but I doubt that'll happen either.

epochfox

29-03-2008, 07:05 AM

We watch the tv, we buy the stuff. so we teach our kids that. whose fault is that? people don't plan ahead and think of what might or could happen and they get hurt why is it so hard to think ahead? what could this do or what chould this take? thats why we are in this "housing crisis" pfft... and this war. I should not have to pay for peoples stupidity period.

Glurin

29-03-2008, 07:28 AM

There are no "dems and republicans". This is like a DA and a defense attorney facing off in court and then going to lunch afterwards. It's a game, what you see on TV and in the primaries is not what happens behind closed doors. There was a day when party's had individuality and did determine the outcome of America, but these days were long before the corporations had taken hold.

I wish we as Americans would stop running on this delusional hamster wheel that constantly acts out this grand play in front of us that we eat right up. The "real conservatives" of the 60s are long gone, any type of party integrity or individuality went out the window with the American dream long ago. We live in an era where policies are determined by money, and political parties are mere actors all working for the same producer.

Did you ever think that maybe the big bad corporations controlling everybody is an act? That this "truth" you've discovered is merely another distraction? Another piece of the game?

caldepen

29-03-2008, 10:55 AM

good points about them all being the same, they are all human and subject to greed which unfortunately for the planet, the U.S. system cannot control. I am, of course, referring to lobbyists who, unbelievably are allowed to do the completely, obviously (if I can throw two adverbs together) underhanded things that they do...

The rest of the world cannot fathom that system. "Here, take 400,000! And please tell the people that smoking is good for them. Thank you."

surodat

31-03-2008, 08:28 AM

1.
"I knew a parson who frightened his congregation terribly by telling them that the second coming was very imminent indeed, but they were much consoled when they found that he was planting trees in his garden."
-Betrand Russell Why I am not a Christian

2.
Is there a God? (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm)
^If these two far smarter people couldn't resolve it in a debate, we will definitely not. (Although I think this reading is a great starting point for anyone interested in the enjoyable recreation that is this debate: It correctly identifies the fundamental assumption on both sides that will prevent an understanding ever being reached.)

3.
Politics will always be influenced by something. Paraphrasing: "Democracy is the worst form of government. Except for all the others." You want to change it? Join/Start a Lobby that promotes your own interest, start raising money and cause a ruckus. Or run for city council/sheriff/DA/state legislator/the house/senate/president.

TheConfusedCaster

31-03-2008, 11:46 AM

Did you ever think that maybe the big bad corporations controlling everybody is an act? That this "truth" you've discovered is merely another distraction? Another piece of the game?

You should probably refrain from misquoting me by claiming that I somehow alleged a type of "truth". I never claimed to know the truth. "Truth" does not exist, just a various amount of perceived realities (philosophical).

"Big bad corporations"? Nothing is big or bad about wanting more of what you don't have. We are all guilty of desiring something that we haven't yet obtained. Had you or I switched places with the corporate owners, we would probably be doing the same things. There is no stigma attached here or vilification.

I'd say my theory is a minority, it isn't really mainstream yet. So I'd say it wasn't really part of any "plan".

Shellar

31-03-2008, 01:22 PM

we actually put forces on the ground to support the brutal czar's agasint the communists
[conspiracy mode]

Oh, but it goes back much further than that. After all, Russia is the Third Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Rome), the only heiress of the Byzantine Empire's legacy, traditions, wisdom... and its enemies.

The first Rome fell to the barbarian invaders. Centuries later, their descendants, who styled themselves the crusading kings and princes of Europe, drowned Constantinopole (the second Rome) in blood and terror. And now, their descendants govern the countries that constitute the NATO block.

[/conspiracy mode]

jschild

31-03-2008, 04:07 PM

Lol, true, but I don't think the communists (or at the time, leninists) really considered them part of that. It was more that we actively fought against their rebellion (which we had no business being involved in).

American's might have a short memory, but other people tend to remember our actions and how we treated them in the past (Russia, Iran, pretty much all of central america).

Leord

31-03-2008, 06:32 PM

This is a very entertaining read =)

epochfox

05-04-2008, 03:56 AM

This is a very entertaining read =)

The mod killeded it. :embarassed:

jschild

27-04-2008, 03:02 PM

Xlorep DarkHelm

27-04-2008, 04:51 PM

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/antichrist.asp

This...crap, has spread far enough to be Snopes worthy.

It's amazing how much traction something can get when people who "claim" to follow a faith, fail so miserably at understanding it.

No kidding, wars have been started before because of people who "claim" to follow a faith, and yet fail miserably at understanding it. The Crusades, for example, spring to mind.

tsooozavel

16-06-2008, 10:11 AM

Well I say McCain is in serious trouble now, even GOP is not yet warming him up.But don’t worry it’s still an early race then. You never know a senior citizen might have the momentum to smoke the competition between the two; but then again I find this unlikely. The poll that I saw in PollClash (http://pollclash.com), so far, is accurate. And it seems that the recent WSJ/NBC poll coincides with what pollcalash have, Now that the candidates are set for the US Presidential Election, Barack Obama and John McCain are beginning to set the tone for their campaign. Looking at their most recent speeches, what do you think about what you hear?

Xlorep DarkHelm

16-06-2008, 04:00 PM

Mickey Mouse has a serious chance of being elected president.

(Holy Shades of Thread Necromancy Batman!)

Lothaer

16-06-2008, 04:03 PM

jschild

16-06-2008, 04:20 PM

I have no problem with religion, but this blatant racism (yes, there are many shades of that involved with this rumor) and fear mongering (lets scare the christian right so they will all vote for McCain) and outright lying (who do you think is responsible for these "rumors", an insult to rumors if I ever saw one) is insulting.

What is even more sad, is that probably around 15% or so of the population actually believes it. How people can be so ignorant is beyond me. The willingness to cling to disproven ideas (hell, still 40% of the US thinks we found WMD's in Iraq and Saddam was behind 9/11) is mind-boggling.

Glurin

17-06-2008, 05:27 AM

What is even more sad, is that probably around 15% or so of the population actually believes it. How people can be so ignorant is beyond me.

Not surprising to me at all. People are stupid, and its easier to point fingers than think about things. Hell, for every person that thinks Obama is the anti-christ, there are two who think Bush is.

surodat

17-06-2008, 07:39 AM

Not surprising to me at all. People are stupid, and its easier to point fingers than think about things. Hell, for every person that thinks Obama is the anti-christ, there are two who think Bush is.

Possibly, but more in the "he is, in his actions, completely antithetical to everything that the character of Jesus stood for."

jschild

17-06-2008, 12:17 PM

Not surprising to me at all. People are stupid, and its easier to point fingers than think about things. Hell, for every person that thinks Obama is the anti-christ, there are two who think Bush is.

Anything to back up the statement that 30% of the population believes Bush is the actual manifistation of the Anti-Christ? Because I have heard much hatred pushed towards Bush, both honest and imagined, but I have yet to see anyone call him the anti-christ (not that no one has, I am sure some have). But 30% I highly doubt.

While I have ran into many people who actually belive Obama is THE biblical antichrist.

Of interest, every single one that I knew also have at least slight issues with African-Americans, if not more. They are also all very religious, yet at the same time, not well versed in religion. IE, they have not read the bible extensively themselves. They instead rely on bible study classes to get their information with no studying on thier own.

Xlorep DarkHelm

17-06-2008, 11:56 PM

Of interest, every single one that I knew also have at least slight issues with African-Americans, if not more. They are also all very religious, yet at the same time, not well versed in religion. IE, they have not read the bible extensively themselves. They instead rely on bible study classes to get their information with no studying on thier own.

That is the core of the problem right there. It would be like someone who claims to know everything about WoW, but only relying on what other people have ever told them, without even bothering to go to fansites, the worldofwarcraft.com site, or heaven-forbid actually playing the game.

jschild

18-06-2008, 12:02 AM

Xlorep DarkHelm

18-06-2008, 12:08 AM

Unfort, giving the .....lack of reading standards in USA at least, most just go by what they are told. I've read the bible, twice over, even the boring parts like Leviticus. Its a good read in some parts, its downright boring and crazy in a few parts, and some parts are awesome. However, the sheer lack of understanding some Christians have is amazing. I do count myself lucky as having known several people that I would gladly call model christians. They live and breathe the teachings of Christ. The world would be better if all "christians" could follow thier example.

If course, the thing is.... Christianity isn't about following rules & teachings... you can't be saved by following the Law, all the Law does is condemn. Many people have the whole situation in reverse of where it is -- rather than you have to do such-and-such to be saved and go to heaven, Jesus came and paid for everything, we're already saved, everything done 100% in full. And out of the joy in that, Christians want to be better. Of course, this is a foreign concept that human nature won't accept. It takes God working faith in the person to make that person believe, even belief isn't something we can do ourselves.

Glurin

18-06-2008, 02:07 AM

Anything to back up the statement that 30% of the population believes Bush is the actual manifistation of the Anti-Christ? Because I have heard much hatred pushed towards Bush, both honest and imagined, but I have yet to see anyone call him the anti-christ (not that no one has, I am sure some have). But 30% I highly doubt.

Really? So you never heard of "mabus = mad bush"? I've seen that all over the place. This forum is really the only place that I can recall seeing Obama accused of being the Antichrist.

jschild

18-06-2008, 02:33 AM

No, I've never heard of "Mabus".

Ever heard of a pretty famous website called Snopes.com ? Famous for finding out the truth of urban and email legends?

http://snopes.com/politics/obama/antichrist.asp

Check it out and the whole obama section.

Then go to the Bush section.

http://snopes.com/politics/bush/bush.asp

Not one mass email attributed to him being the antichrist. Alot of people hate and lie about him yes, but no one citing the belief that he is the literal anti-christ. As I said, I'm sure there are a few people claiming him to be so, but nothing like the huge movement towards Obama in this regard.

"And out of the joy in that, Christians want to be better"
Yes, but the problem comes from Christians who have almost no firsthand knowledge of the word. So you get people thinking they are serving god, even while they do things that God would almost certainly abhor. You are right - knowing the word will not save you, but knowing it will guide you to some ofthe best ways to serve and honor God.

EDIT: A google search of Mabus brings many links of Nostrodomus. All of which point to Saddam (spelled backwards is MaddaS). None point to Bush. Some pages might but none of the first do, so again, it cannot be too widespread a belief.

Meanwhile.... check out what google says about obama and antichrist
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=obama+antichrist&spell=1

Glurin

18-06-2008, 03:38 AM

Your basing how widespread something is on if snopes has an entry on mass emails about it? Hardly a definitive test IMO.

I'm surprised you've never heard of mabus before. Thats the only name given anywhere for the antichrist. Nostrodamus's third, actually. Saddam is indeed the most popular consensus as far as who mabus really is. Soon after the war started though, the Mad Bush thing really took off. Died down some now, but its still out there. Bush, Obama, many other figures have been largely discredited as viable candidates for the title though. Thats why a lot of sites concerned with Nostrodamus don't mention it.

EDIT: A google search of Mabus brings many links of Nostrodomus. All of which point to Saddam (spelled backwards is MaddaS). None point to Bush. Some pages might but none of the first do, so again, it cannot be too widespread a belief.

Did my own search. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mabus&btnG=Google+Search
Very first link, http://www.mabus.biz/, look who the very first picture is. Look who's picture is missing. :wink:

Looking through the other links, the ones that do mention somebody other than saddam more often than not mention bush. Obama and McCain both appear to be very recent additions when mentioned. I even ran into one that said mabus was both obama and bush. (obamabush) Understandable given the political atmosphere right now. Also explains the large number of hits for all three candidates when you search for their name combined with the word antichrist. Give it time and those numbers will dwindle away as well.

EDIT: Here's a kicker for you. Glenn Beck, the conservative talk show host, more or less defended Obama from these accusations. This got completely turned around by the media as him accusing Obama of being the antichrist of course, but its true.

jschild

18-06-2008, 04:47 AM

When speaking of the Antichrist however, I am refering solely to the Antichrist of Revalations, and not of Nostrodamus. While he mentions 3, I am only aware of the one mentioned in the last official book of the new testament. I think that is mostly where my lack of knowledge of the whole Mabus thing comes from.

Xlorep DarkHelm

18-06-2008, 06:01 AM

As it is, the Antichrist from Revelations is often misinterpreted by people, it tends to imply a particular kind of individual that has been in existence since the beginning of creation, generation after generation, rather than be one particular individual in existence in one brief lifetime.

Glurin

18-06-2008, 06:19 AM

Well, I'd suggest you look into it. Interesting stuff, and not just Nostradamus. Speaking of which, there is another theory out there. Mabus may not actually be the Antichrist. The place where he's mentioned just says "Mabus will soon die." Its possible that mabus is just a noteworthy figure for identifying when this prophecy takes place.

Thats the problem with this stuff. Its purposely written to be vague. There's all kinds of reasons why that would be, both for if they are real and if they aren't.

Nemissa

18-06-2008, 06:44 AM

Wow someone else saw this!

surodat

18-06-2008, 07:15 AM

If course, the thing is.... Christianity isn't about following rules & teachings... you can't be saved by following the Law, all the Law does is condemn. Many people have the whole situation in reverse of where it is -- rather than you have to do such-and-such to be saved and go to heaven, Jesus came and paid for everything, we're already saved, everything done 100% in full. And out of the joy in that, Christians want to be better. Of course, this is a foreign concept that human nature won't accept. It takes God working faith in the person to make that person believe, even belief isn't something we can do ourselves.

Xlorep, I'd just like to offer kudos for this. It's a beautiful thought.

jschild

23-06-2008, 01:55 PM

Grrr.... Yesterday my Dad's wife just sent us an email hinting that Obama is the Anti-Christ. Probably got a little harsh on her, since I asked her to actually read the Book of Revalation and find the "description" that talks about him being Muslim (which, considering the religion wouldn't exist for about 500 years is very impressive and which Obama is not) and everything else the stupid email claimed.

Grrr... just had to vent, sorry.

MixiMan

24-06-2008, 11:00 PM

This post is not to flame or make a point, it is actually a question.

Would you care if Obama turned out to be the anti-christ?

Xlorep DarkHelm

24-06-2008, 11:16 PM

This post is not to flame or make a point, it is actually a question.

Would you care if Obama turned out to be the anti-christ?

Since I don't really believe the Biblical antichrist is a single individual, I don't see how it would apply. It would be like claiming that an orange seed is orange juice.

MixiMan

24-06-2008, 11:23 PM

Since I don't really believe the Biblical antichrist is a single individual, I don't see how it would apply. It would be like claiming that an orange seed is orange juice.

You make a good point. Question still stands though. Would you care about an orange seed being orange juice?

Xlorep DarkHelm

24-06-2008, 11:59 PM

You make a good point. Question still stands though. Would you care about an orange seed being orange juice?

I think it is a strange question. Sort of like asking what purple tastes like, or if I care what purple tastes like.... which it just doesn't make sense to me, there is no way to answer a question that doesn't logically follow...

jschild

25-06-2008, 12:11 AM

MixiMan

25-06-2008, 12:11 AM

The question is not weather it is logical or not. The question is, do you care. And that is my question. Nothing more to it really.

Edit: JS made me think about it after reading his post. Thing is, my question still stands. It is not the question whom i am asking. It is just a question. As so many other sentences are just questions.

jschild

25-06-2008, 12:14 AM

Well, to me the question is totally irrevalent since I don't believe in the anti-christ.

Valas Azuviir

25-06-2008, 12:28 AM

Sort of like asking what purple tastes like?

Plums? Grapes? Eggplant? :wink:

MixiMan

25-06-2008, 12:49 AM

Well, to me the question is totally irrevalent since I don't believe in the anti-christ.

I think i have gotten myself in deeper than originally intended. But that is a good thing since now i got a whole new way of thinking about my question.

That is in my book a testament to the quality of my question:shocked:

Funny thing is, question still stands. Slap me when i get too annoying btw.

Edit: Grapes

Xlorep DarkHelm

25-06-2008, 12:52 AM

Who are you asking this question to?

About the only people who would welcome such a thing are end of time christians who expect and want the rapture to occur in their lifetime. But, considering there is not even a legitimate reason (even from a biblical standpoint) to think that Obama is the anti-christ (in another words, it is shameless fear mongering), there is really no point to even consider the question.

The whole "rapture" thing is seriously lame... and often tied to the horribly flawed millenialistic movement, the same group that tends to point fingers at people and claim they are the anti-christ, all due to misinterpretation of the book of Revelations...

That said, most Christians in general would love to see the end of the world in their lifetimes. Just because that would mean this world is over, and the new one gets to begin. No more pain, suffering, sickness, or death. Honestly, that's a pretty nice deal. That said, while most Christians would tend to like this, the smart ones keep their eyes focused on Christ and His return, but then just live day to day as it comes along. If the end of the world happens, all the better, if not, its just business as usual.

The question is not weather it is logical or not. The question is, do you care. And that is my question. Nothing more to it really.

But there is no logic to your question to be able to answer it. I'm not saying your question is if it is logical or not, I'm saying that your question does not follow, it is non sequitur, and I can't provide an answer to a question that simply makes no sense.

Your question is akin to asking: "Do you care what the color purple tasted like three months from next car?" There is no answer, because the question itself does not follow.

Edit: JS made me think about it after reading his post. Thing is, my question still stands. It is not the question whom i am asking. It is just a question. As so many other sentences are just questions.

I'd be able to answer the question, if the question made any sense. For the question to make sense, I'd have to acknowledge that the anti-christ is somehow one person, which makes less sense to me, based on how the anti-christ is described biblically, it just is foolish to even consider such a thing as Obama being the anti-christ.

MixiMan

25-06-2008, 01:02 AM

The whole "rapture" thing is seriously lame... and often tied to the horribly flawed millenialistic movement, the same group that tends to point fingers at people and claim they are the anti-christ, all due to misinterpretation of the book of Revelations...

That said, most Christians in general would love to see the end of the world in their lifetimes. Just because that would mean this world is over, and the new one gets to begin. No more pain, suffering, sickness, or death. Honestly, that's a pretty nice deal. That said, while most Christians would tend to like this, the smart ones keep their eyes focused on Christ and His return, but then just live day to day as it comes along. If the end of the world happens, all the better, if not, its just business as usual.

But there is no logic to your question to be able to answer it. I'm not saying your question is if it is logical or not, I'm saying that your question does not follow, it is non sequitur, and I can't provide an answer to a question that simply makes no sense.

Your question is akin to asking: "Do you care what the color purple tasted like three months from next car?" There is no answer, because the question itself does not follow.

I'd be able to answer the question, if the question made any sense. For the question to make sense, I'd have to acknowledge that the anti-christ is somehow one person, which makes less sense to me, based on how the anti-christ is described biblically, it just is foolish to even consider such a thing as Obama being the anti-christ.

Thanks for clearing up what a following question is ( my post regarding yours was based on a misunderstanding ). I have to point out though that i wasn't particularly talking about Obama being the anti-christ, i was just wondering if anybody would care if he was. Whatever anti-christ means for that particular person.

Apologies again for the misunderstanding

Edit: I am aware that i am now contradicting myself.

jschild

25-06-2008, 02:27 AM

Xlorep DarkHelm

25-06-2008, 04:28 AM

Thanks for clearing up what a following question is ( my post regarding yours was based on a misunderstanding ). I have to point out though that i wasn't particularly talking about Obama being the anti-christ, i was just wondering if anybody would care if he was. Whatever anti-christ means for that particular person.

Apologies again for the misunderstanding

Edit: I am aware that i am now contradicting myself.

I guess I'd say I don't care if he was, because to me it doesn't make sense anyway :tongue:

I agree, they are the type of christians I tend to put "" around and were the ones I was specifically mentioning. I think most christians would prefer to avoid mass worldwide suffering if possible, not welcome it because it means they will experience the "rapture" sooner.

Unfortunately, the millenialistic movement is central to what could be called the "mainstream" Christian groups. Heck, there are modern translations of the Bible that were written with a millenialistic bent to them (NIV, ESV, etc.) that actually end up interpreting Revelations with millenialistic views, rather than simply doing a straight literal translation (like the NKJV does). Makes me want to spend more time learning ancient Hebrew (Aramaic) and Greek, to just read the texts in their original languages, like my father did all the time.

Glurin

25-06-2008, 05:50 AM

Even if Obama, or anyone else for that matter, did turn out to be the Antichrist, odds are we wouldn't find out about it until all hell breaks loose, literally. At that point there's really not a whole lot we can do about it.

The Antichrist is by definition a deceiver. There's no telling who he or she is. Though if the current doomsday date is correct, we'll find out in about four and a half years. :grin:

Trakamoocow

25-06-2008, 06:58 AM

Picture this.

A species has developed into sentience over a long period of time. With this sentience came more than a few REVELATIONS (see what i did there?) about his/her existence. Most importantly, that some day their and everyone else that they knew in that existence would 'die'. The possible cessation of their existence shook them to their core, so they sought answers where they could find them that would somehow comfort them from this finality.

Others amongst this species realised this in themselves and others, and realised how powerful a tool it could be. With our less than perfect understanding of the world, they attributed various forces of nature to a god or 'gods', wrote down/inscribed/whateverd their 'findings' and went on forming their 'deities' rules and laws and 'goals'. Because they realised that control of this sort equalled power. Tremendous power. If you obey, do the 'right' thing, worship (and dont forget the donations of those pesky material possessions you won't need in your 'afterlife') and show commitment to the faith for your 'soul' to survive in eternity.

A bit simplistic, but i'm sure you get the point. Anti-blah etc... It is dross. Unfortunately, with enough people self-brainwashed into believing in various 'prophecies' and documents they could very well turn into a self(s)-fulfulling prophecy. Which could then fuel more people to believing in it. Yay for humanity.

oh p.s. i am ze ANTIGOOBER!! ph3ar m3!!

rawr.

pps yes i'm aware I could rewrite that into more legible/correct/well formatted english, cbf.

Glurin

26-06-2008, 05:01 AM

Picture this.

A sentient species is created by a very powerful being. He provides them with some guidance in their early development and warns them of their eventual demise, then later takes a largely hands off approach. This species slowly learns to trust in itself through the realization that they too have the power to create and that there is more to the world than simply "God did it."

With this realization however, they grow further and further apart from their creator. So much so that some among them decided that the creator simply did not exist, which developed in them the attitude that they were gods. With our less than perfect understanding of the world, they attributed acts of the creator to random phenomenon and/or mass hysteria, wrote down/inscribed/whateverd their 'findings' and went on forming their own 'deities' rules and laws and 'goals'. So fervent are they in this belief that they work very hard to discredit those who still believe in the creator. Because they realized that control of this sort equaled power. Tremendous power. If you obey, do the 'reasonable' thing, worship (and don't forget the donations of those pesky material possessions you won't need in your life) and show commitment to the faith for your intelligence to be unquestioned.

A bit simplistic, but I'm sure you get the point. No-god blah etc... It is dross. Unfortunately, with enough people self-brainwashed into believing in various 'studies' and documents they could very well turn into a self(s)-fulfilling prophecy. Which could then fuel more people to believing in it. Yay for humanity.

Just as likely as the previous post and also just as irrelevant to the topic at hand. :tongue:

Trakamoocow

26-06-2008, 05:52 AM

Hay the universe is 12,000 years old the bible told me so and dinosaurs were just put there to test us.

Or not. Your attempt to be witty failed and fell short horribly. Picture 13 billion light years of space (if you will). Picture the speck of dust our planet equals. To think that if any such god figure exists that they would take any interest in our combined existences is arrogant and foolish in the extreme. The bible 'version' of a god figure is wrong, they revised (Hay Bible 2.0, now with redemption!!) to suit the times. If any such being exists, it is completely beyond our comprehension as to where, why, how, who and what said beings purpose is. You can scribble a million prophecies and be wrong a million times if it suits you.

Self justifying self ingratiating twaddle to hold up a consciousness unable to deal with the harsh realities of an existence we dont even come close to comprehending. And very relevant to the discussion, the 'Anti-Christ' is a concept based on the baseless, hence there is no such thing. You know, like santa claus or the easter bunny.

p.s. I totally support peoples right to believe in fallacies. Whatever gets you through the day in the end. But if startlingly you don't end up at some pearly gates at the end of your natural life, don't say I didn't tell you so :p

jschild

26-06-2008, 01:58 PM

Yes Glurin. Let's just forget about all the things that were once "magic" or "the work of God" throughout the centuries that is now easily explainable. Just because we cannot fully explain it yet, is not the same as us not able to explain it fully. That right there is where the problem lies.

When something hard to understand comes along there is the science response.
"Let's study it until we can reliably predict it and understand it"

vs. the bad religion method (Not the religion method since many religious scientists have furthered our understanding of this universe - the bad religion method is the type that locks up people like Galieo).
"We can't understand it, so God did it"

See the difference there. One just quits because it's easier to claim God (who for some strange mystical reason used to visit and talk to us constantly, but now only appears on a wall or a potato chip, and does not want any real proof of its existance to be found or known) while the other searches and studies until they find an answer that will stand the test of time. They don't just accept it and forget, any time more knowledge comes along that challenges the old theory, it is either revamped or tossed. It is always evolving, never stagnet.

Oh, and thanks for the old religious stereotype that scientists and people think they are God.

Glurin

27-06-2008, 01:16 AM

I expected Trakamoocow to respond the way he did. Typical atheist arrogance that could give the arrogance of even the most fanatical religious zealots a run for its money. I'm not saying all atheists are like that. Its simply that other than that he isn't killing and torturing those who disagree with him (as far as I know), there is no difference between him and the inquisitors.

jschild, I want you to re-read my post very carefully. All of your points were addressed in it. Particularly this one: "Oh, and thanks for the old religious stereotype that scientists and people think they are God." I'll even give you a hand with that: "....which developed in them the attitude that they were gods."

After you do, I'd be happy to expand on it if you like. Provided of course your civil about it. (That's not an insult, so don't take it as one. I'm just not that interested in arguing with another "Your stupid, god doesn't exist!" type of person.)

EDIT: Oh, and one more thing. Do try not to make assumptions as to my own beliefs on the matter of an afterlife, because I can tell you right now those assumptions will be completely wrong. That goes for everybody.

Xlorep DarkHelm

27-06-2008, 01:25 AM

Twoflower

27-06-2008, 03:48 AM

we cannot prove the existance or non existance of a god figure. And i dont mind.

the only thing we can do is think about how we live our lifes. How we can get along with each other whibout starting a global war that will finish civilisatino as we know it.

i dont care if you get to that point cause a god told you 10 rules which you wrote into a stone or if you get there by a completely different way.

The only thing that has to be is acceptance. You have to accept that other people see things different and that you cannot change them, you cannot prove that you are right and they are wrong, you have to find some way to live together on the same planet. Everything that goes beyond that is a matter of personal taste.

me, personaly, i dont believe in a god as the bible tells us. i think the bible was written by some leaders that were looking for different ways to teach people how they should behave than just creating and enforcing laws. The basic idea was ok, but it got abused and it still gets abused by "the church" to get power and control which is a bad thing for me and leads to a rather strong dislike. But hey, that is just one out of 7 000 000 000 opinions :)

Glurin

27-06-2008, 06:18 AM

surodat

27-06-2008, 07:28 AM

Although I do agree with you, people in general have a real funny definition of "acceptance", "tolerance", "freethinking", and other words of similar meaning. Far more often than not, their definition equals "agree with me". For example, to be a freethinker you must have a specific set of opinions, such as religions are all bull**** or a particular political group is 100% wrong. Tolerance actually has two sides to it. First, that you can think what you want but you'll be banned from speaking or practicing it. And second, that in order to tolerate a certain behavior you must embrace and encourage it. People shift from one side to the other depending on exactly what they are "tolerating".

I suppose one could sum it up as "People need to accept the real definition of acceptance". This makes it a particularly difficult problem to overcome.

Hello again Glurin.
Tolerance, acceptance and freethinking are completely seperate ideas. But instead of arguing the point, I can sort of see where you're going. Tell me if you agree with this somewhat lengthy quote:

"I acknowledge that the tendency of all opinions to become sectarian is not cured by the freest discussion, but is often heightened and exacerbated thereby; the truth which ought to have been, but was not, seen, being rejected all the more violently because proclaimed by persons regarded as opponents.

"But it is not on the impassioned partisan, it is on the calmer and more disinterested bystander, that this collision of opinions works its salutary effect.

"Not the violent conflict between parts of the truth, but the quiet suppression of half of it, is the formidable evil: there is always hope when people are forced to listen to both sides; it is when they attend only to one that errors harden into prejudices, and truth itself ceases to have the effect of truth, by being exaggerated into falsehood.

"And since there are few mental attributes more rare than that judicial faculty which can sit in intelligent judgment between two sides of a question, of which only one is represented by an advocate before it, truth has no chance but in proportion as every side of it, every opinion which embodies any fraction of the truth, not only finds advocates, but is so advocated as to be listened to."

-John Stuart Mill On Liberty

(someone's always said it much better than you in the past :D )

jschild

27-06-2008, 12:40 PM

I'd appreciate if, from all sides of the discussion, there was less of the self-superior attitude.... phrases like "believing a fallacy..." are the basis for building a flamewar, and I'd rather not see one here.... The thing is, it doesn't need to turn into a belief-bashing thread stepping on anyone else who doesn't agree with your particular philosophy in life.

Here here - This thread is supposed to be a discussion about one specific thing - those who believe Obama is the anti-christ and people's reaction to it.

It is beyond wrong to bash the vast majority of Christians (including every single one who has actually read Revalations) for something that a small subset claim (IE, see Islamic Jihadists) or do.

My whole frustration with this "belief" about Obama is that by ignorance, racism, or stupidty, you have to be unaware or twist what the Bible actually says on the matter. That does not mean there is a fundamental problem with the religion itself, but more that people themselves are fundamentally flawed.

Feel free to complain about the actions of the people, or the actions people take place in the name of something, but don't blame that something when it does not even mention anything specific. In this case, don't hate on Christianity for the Obama/Anti-christ thing, when it makes no mention of the sort implied in these emails. The people, however, claiming it and believing it, are fair game.

Twoflower

27-06-2008, 01:30 PM

Tolerance actually has two sides to it. First, that you can think what you want but you'll be banned from speaking or practicing it. And second, that in order to tolerate a certain behavior you must embrace and encourage it. People shift from one side to the other depending on exactly what they are "tolerating".

i disagree on both sides. if you get banned for doing something, it is certinly not tolerated. and if you have to embrace X to be tolerant in their view, X itself is not very tolerant.

we have a saying in german which translates roughly into "the freedom of your fist ends where the freedom of my nose starts."

jschild

27-06-2008, 01:48 PM

Tolerance means nothing like Glurin posted. Tolerance means, I might not agree with X, but I won't prevent you from doing X.

Take for example, tolerance for gays. You might not agree with the gay lifestyle, but if you do not take actions to limit their lifesytle, you are tolerant. Tolerant does not mean you have to like it, just that you accept it.

An intolerant person would actively work to make the person shunned, their lifestyle illegal, rights limited, speak hatefully about them, etc.

Glurin

28-06-2008, 01:21 AM

twoflower: if you get banned for doing something, it is certinly not tolerated.

jschild: Tolerance means nothing like Glurin posted.

Yeah, that was kind of the point. :rolleyes:

jschild

28-06-2008, 02:12 AM

Glurin

28-06-2008, 04:45 AM

I know. That's the "funny definition" I talking about. It has two sides, ban everything or embrace fully. Neither one of which fits the actual definition of tolerance.

surodat

02-07-2008, 12:49 PM

ooooohhhhhh I get it. Glurin was defining what tolerance wasn't without defining what it was.

[The definition of tolerance varies depending on which side of the argument the person defining it falls on.] [Sometime it means] you can think what you want but you'll be banned from speaking or practicing it. And [sometimes it means], that in order to tolerate a certain behavior you must embrace and encourage it. People shift from one side to the other depending on [whether or not they are in favour of the behaviour] they are "tolerating".

I suppose one could sum it up as "People need to accept the real definition of [tolerance]". This makes it a particularly difficult problem to overcome.

Correct?

Don't really get the point of hyperbole without an opinion of what the real definition should be though...

By the by, I'm still waiting on your opinions on John Stuart Mill and his thoughts about expressing violently contrasting opinions....

Glurin

03-07-2008, 01:33 AM

Yeah, that's right. Sorry, but I'm used to not needing to post every aspect of my argument when part of it is implied. And when I do it ends up being pages long, meaning nobody seems to actually read it and thus misunderstand it anyway.

As for John Stuart Mill, its interesting, but your insistence on me giving you my opinion on it raises the question as to why. Any particular reason or just curious?

Trakamoocow

03-07-2008, 07:33 AM

May I recommend youtubing 'george carlin' and looking up his many relgious skits/arguments. Does make you wonder how reasoning beings can convince themselves that they're of significant importance to a God figure in this here Universe.

Raaaar you totally expected me to have the same opinion as i'd voiced before. Your super-sleuthing abilities are impressive Glurin. As was stated last page, i'll not go out of my way (as far as YOU KNOW, mwuahhahaha imply imply imply) to change someones mind. I'll certainly voice my own understanding/reasoning however. Religion is lifes little safety blanket for those nights you wake up all cold and sweaty from a nightmare, fear gripping your a-beating little heart.

We're still a very primitive species, our understanding of existence is far from complete. I don't preclude that no god-figure at all exists, but I certainly denounce the presence of a God that the Bible preaches vehemently. It does no harm to believe, unless you count all the atrocities committed in the name of said God(s) throughout the ages. But your average layman today believing theres an invisible guy in the sky with a plan for him is Aok.

Still concluding that Obama is just a popular guy running for presidency, if he gets in hopefully he doesnt stuff it up (that might mean he's the antichrist!!! :O :O :O)

surodat

03-07-2008, 07:54 AM

Well, a lot of your beef seems to be about the fact that one side or the other is too belligerent, too exclusionary, too narrow minded, too partisan, etc. What John Stuart Mill is saying, and I agree with it somewhat, is to just let the people on the extremes on both sides have their shouting matches. It is the job of the informed individual to listen to everything with a grain of salt, and try to sift through all the junk to find something real.

There are always going to be those who will be reactionaries to certain ideas. You brought up that sometimes there are people who hear the word "God" in a sentence and they immediately recoil in horror and denounce the person and everything they have said. However, these people have every right to stand on their pulpit and scream about religious fanatics. Not only do they have a right, but the fact that they do so is beneficial to the country.

Mill suggests that every opinion - no matter how wrong-headed it seems - no matter how contradictory or ignorant it appears - all opinions benefit the society. The more the better, because only then can the "right-thinking" people sift through these suggested ideas and try to determine where the truth lies.

Your earlier comments (about tolerance, atheist zeal, etc.) condemn the polarization of such debates, because it seems that you believe that such an argument hold true weight. You appeared angered (or at least annoyed) by such bashing. I was curious about what you thought about Mill considering the insistence to engage with what appears to be the opposite pole of the argumentation.

(Please excuse assumptions concerning belief)

As to the other thing, yeah sometimes it can be frustrating creating walls of text, but harking back to an earlier conversation, the more detail - or perhaps the more semantic specification - the easier written communication is. Yet that is tangential...

I hope I have made my curiosities clearer.

EDIT: moocow has provided an excellent example of a belligerent, intolerant opinion that in the past has molded and shaped the public opinion and debate in the United States, yet cannot be taken at face value. I really loved Carlin's work, but not all of his social/political views. Plus, he's ****ing ass **** **** funny.

Glurin

04-07-2008, 02:24 AM

Well, I do somewhat agree with him. However, what we may have in this country at the moment is too much of a good thing. Its really only beneficial if its the "right-thinking people" making the decisions, but its not the "right-thinking people" who win elections. Its generally the people firmly on one side or another who get to make decisions about where this country should go.

We do seem to have something of a pendulum going on where one side has power for four to eight years, then swings back to the other side. This kind of mucks things up in both directions, balancing out each other to some degree. Although, if your food is burnt on the outside, but frozen on the inside, it doesn't make it taste any better.

Trakamoocow

04-07-2008, 02:58 AM

P.S. You're totally awesome now that you pretended to ignore that Trakamocow guy, I mean, he doesnt hold to your opinions, nor approve of your methods of winning arguments!

You know, the bit where you say nothing but horribly loaded sentences/ideas, then when someone calls you on them you're all "Hay but I didn't DIRECTLY say that, ha ha Mr totally reading too much into it lollerfloofles".

I read this once, and it holds true. 'You cannot reason a man out of a belief he didn't reason himself into'. Whilst some of what i've said is certainly inflammatory to a degree, I actually took time to weigh both sides, and believe it or not, I'd love to be able to believe in some sort of God figure. Part of anyones psyche hates the idea of a final end. But that reason alone is not enough justification for me to simply commit to a belief without any proof whatsoever to corroborate said belief. Perhaps the Bible's true word for word and there's a toasty end in store for many people.

I think however, oblivion (and not the cool video game version thereof) awaits us all. Hard to handle, but the truth often is.

Edit: Oops, didn't see Surodats edit at the end. Aye George Carlins pretty funny. Agree with some of his rants, not all of them. Intolerant? Think this was covered earlier. I'll express my opinion as will most other people, but as I don't go out of my way to stop people being religious, how is that intolerant? Perhaps a little belligerent, but eh. Where i'm from plain speaking is the norm, rather than super hi5s "Oh I totally respect your thoughts ideas and opinions even if i disagree, simply glad we had this mental joust old chap wot". Nothing short of evidence to the contrary (and no, the universe isnt irrefutable proof of a creator, it's a sloppy ever expanding primordial mess. If it's planned, it's more like a three year old cooking runny eggs than a creator planning a universe).