Good morning. You are one day closer to the end of the world. You have been warned: Discussions of the Antichrist and a Postmodern Rejection of Jesus (722 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.41 on 42 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by whataefag (View user info) at 2004-04-13 11:56:03 EDT
Nietzsche writes that "some men are born posthumously" and indeed this is the case. With Christian politics gestating in contemporary American culture, the discussion of a second rising of Christ must be evaluated in context with the equal probability of the rise of an Antichrist. The character of Christ has cycled through human consciousness for centuries, and the Antichrist has been discussed on a much more elusive, forbidden platform—he being what is not found in Christ but is needed by religious and atheistic followers alike.
Religion addresses society's moral code. What is good? According to Nietzsche, "Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself." And evil? That which "springs from weakness." What about happiness? "The feeling that power increases—that resistance is overcome. Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, virtu, virtue free of moral acid.) The week and the botched shall perish: first principle in our charity. And one should help them to it." What is more harmful than any vice? "Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak—Christianity."
If the concept of an Antichrist is accepted, does this inherently preclude the second rising of Christ? Would it preclude the generally accepted Christian premise that he exited his guarded tomb at all?
Yes. And here's why: instead of an early 19th Century philosophical predisposition to define the Antichrist as an antipode to Jesus, the new rationalistic view that many non-Christians have of Christ and his logical role as a great prophet and leader, the Antichrist in the context of Christ makes sense only to the extent that it accepts Christ as having died as our savior, having been resurrected, having died again and (most troubling) having promised to return to earth to save us from sin. But what would catalyze his return? Surely only an Antichrist or a threat to his religious installment on earth. Why hasn't he returned yet? Perhaps because he never rose for our sins in the first place.
With the celebration of Easter, I sat in church and listened to a sermon preaching that because Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead then we as humans no longer have to fear death. I find this a hard reality to accept, mainly because the accounts of his rising seem inaccurate, confounded, sparse and unconfirmed to me. The word "antichrist" occurs only once in the Bible in the Johannine Epistles, although references to it are mentioned in the Apocalypse and to a lesser extent the Gospels and the Book of Daniel.
I'm not willing to be a blind sheep. I believe in a savior, and I'm not convinced that the savior will manifest itself as a seeable entity. If Jesus came to earth to prove his existence and allay faith in God, then why is his only remnant a book that has been bought by rulers and translated to assert their empires as the product of God's whim?
Christ as the Son of God is illogical. To believe in him as your savior is to recognize that an Antichrist will rise and threaten his rule.
User Reviews
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-05-29 20:43:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Ignore the first line in my post got sloppy with the cut and paste fanctions
Submitted by K.M (user info) at 2004-05-29 20:35:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Hey, check it out.
You have star quality now.
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-05-29 20:08:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I would like to thank all the people who have provided me a novel way to piss away my time. Some of the posts here have been truly sublime others, not so much.
This was brilliant; I don't know how I missed this.
I am not a Christian so I don't know how valid my opinion is, that being said...two things strike me as I read the post and the discussion that followed.
First, the matter of Christs return. I suppose it's possible, Jesus could return tomorrow and dance the funky chicken. What I know for a fact is that I do not have all the answers. To me Shakespeare put it best when he wrote "There are more things in heaven and earth than dreamt of in your philosophy." The emphasis should be on your philosophy or your belief system. I don't begrudge another person the comfort and certainty that comes along with having a highly structured belief system. I do get resentful when your beliefs either a) limit my ability to question or b) require you, as the believer, to press your views on me. If it makes it easier to get through a day, then by all means believe what you want.
As for the science religion debate, well we know that the Earth is ALOT older than what the bible says. Please don't bring up the intelligent design "theory", that is just creationists desperate attempt to co-opt science. And we know that ancient cultures created stories to explain the natural world (myths, legends, folk tales, etc.) Science can be wrong, in fact it is predicated on testing assumptions. And creating new theories when new information becomes available. Given that set of facts, would it not be reasonable to assume that a dynamic flexible system is far more likely to generate good information. The other choice is to believe a text which was highly edited and of dubious providence.
For me the choice is clear.
BTW Quatermain your answer to this question **What validates your faith over another's?**
"Jesus Christ said 'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no man cometh unto the Father but by me.' Given that he was the Son of God, I'm inclined to take him at his word."
Is a tautology
Submitted by schwenckie (user info) at 2004-04-14 09:07:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
WhyWhyWhy: Cute answer. You should get a +2 for the electron thing.
Submitted by Lucifer_Industries (user info) at 2004-04-13 23:05:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
What everyone must remember is the word antichrist does not mean what we think it means in it's English. In New Testament Greek, the principle meaning of the prefix 'anti-' is "against". Hence, the Greek 'antichristos' is translated as "opposed to the messiah". There is a secondary meaning of the Greek 'anti-', which connotes "substitution" or "correspondence". If you think that this is the meaning implied in Antichrist as used in the Bible (in the Iohannine epistles), then you are probably an antichrist yourself, as the text makes it clear that an antichrist is "opposed" to Christ, not His equivalent.
The antichrist will appear to preach the "word of God", not against it.
Malone
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2004-04-13 20:31:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
**How are you sure? Faith?**
Got it in one.
Romans 5:1-2: Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Hebrews 1:1 and 3: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen...Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God.
**What validates your faith over another's?**
Jesus Christ said 'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no man cometh unto the Father but by me.' Given that he was the Son of God, I'm inclined to take him at his word.
Submitted by unumlegio (user info) at 2004-04-13 15:51:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Oh...ok
Submitted by whywhywhy (user info) at 2004-04-13 15:40:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Another problem with humans as a species is that we have egos. All of us think we are important and thus all think that there has to be a meaning to our lives. Noone can accept that we are just another planet out in the wilderness of the universe that by random chemical reactions had the ability to support life. No doubt there are millions of other planets out in the universe that share this ability.
Submitted by whywhywhy (user info) at 2004-04-13 15:36:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh yeah the meaning of life is to get 8 electrons in your outer shell to become a noble gas...
Submitted by whywhywhy (user info) at 2004-04-13 15:29:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
There has to be something after this, it makes no sense that I can think now and later I won't even exsist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It does make sense that one day you will just cease to exist as every living organism had been in that state before. Its like saying that it doesnt make sense that you did not exist before you were born. Anyway, the end of the world will only occur once the sun engulfs it. Even if humans as a race were wiped out due to a major disaster the earth would continue to go on with other surviving species adapting and evolving.
As a race we are only a small dot on the timeline of the earth.
As well as this think of all the ancient religions which are no longer followed. No doubt that todays religions will one day be lost, forgotten or change beyond recognition meaning there is no one true religion to follow.
Science on the other hand will continue to grow and evolve as we become more and more advanced. That gives it an edge over religion. Science can be updated and move along with civilisation whereas any religious source cannot.
Submitted by schwenckie (user info) at 2004-04-13 15:12:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by reallybored (user info) at 2004-04-13 13:22:38 (#)
Ranking: 0
There has to be something after this, it makes no sense that I can think now and later I won't even exsist.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
I agree. I have had Christianity ingrained in my head since I was a little kid. But that does not mean I am sure how it will end. How do you read the Bible? Literally or figuratively? For me, it's both. But I may believe in it because I don't want to face any other possibilities.
Submitted by whataefag (user info) at 2004-04-13 13:56:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
unumlegio: I think it's just a myth, and that the antichrist coming is as equally absurd as Jesus returning to earth to save us.
Submitted by reallybored (user info) at 2004-04-13 13:54:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
when has the big bang ever been proven? just because something works in theory doesnt mean it works in reality. if there was nothing, where did the explosion come from... why did it happen? what started it? doesn't make sense. science has been proven wrong over and over and over again. you can't prove Christ wrong. you don't have to believe it, but you can't prove it wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So theres a guy living in the clouds who just appeard on day? Why did it happen? What started it? doesnt make sense.
We both can say the same things about science and/ religion. The only reason i choose science over religion is because its evolving. Everday new theories, concepts, ideas and discoveries are made. When you speak about religion all knowledge is taken from one source , The Bible, which is over 2000+ years old.
Somebody youll come to the realization that you cant put your faith 100% into either category.
Submitted by whataefag (user info) at 2004-04-13 13:44:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Quartermain:
Re: the appearance of antichrist in the Bible ... Semantics. You know what I meant, the word appears at only place in the Bible, I John. I know it's mentioned a handful of times, but whatever, just semantics. Should've said the word doesn't appear outside of the Johannine Epistles I guess. But this is a moot point and irrelevant to our conversation.
"It is the fact of ultimate truth, against which no lie can prosper"
How are you sure? Faith? What validates your faith over another's?
Submitted by unumlegio (user info) at 2004-04-13 13:42:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
May I inquire to the writers and readers, of concern with this issue, what it may be that they, or all of you, believe an Anti-christ may come to appear as?
What are your opinions in all aspects of the issue...or is it just a long held myth of our times?
Submitted by slowlyrotting (user info) at 2004-04-13 13:39:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by transcendent (user info) at 2004-04-13 12:37:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
------------------------
when has the big bang ever been proven? just because something works in theory doesnt mean it works in reality. if there was nothing, where did the explosion come from... why did it happen? what started it? doesn't make sense. science has been proven wrong over and over and over again. you can't prove Christ wrong. you don't have to believe it, but you can't prove it wrong.
im not going to argue today as i am looking forward to getting laid for the first time in 100 days tonight. that being said, i bid you good day, sir.
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2004-04-13 13:36:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Quartermain:
"Actually, it occurs five times. Twice in 1 John 2:18, once in 1 John 2:22, once in 1 John 4:3, and once in I John 1:7."
I John is the Johannine Epistles, the only place the word antichrist appears.
*****************************************************************************************
I know that. The sentence I addressed is still false though, no matter which way you slice it. If the sentence is taken to mean that the word 'antichrist' appears once in the Bible, that is wrong because it appears five times, all of which happen to fall in the Johannine Epistle. If the sentence is taken to mean that the word 'antichrist' appears only once in the Johannine Epistle, that is also wrong, because it appears five times, in the verses I cited.
**I doubt that this book, full of so many deceptions, could be such a soothesayer with regards to the specifics of the Antichrist's life, especially considering it's fabricated so many specifics of Jesus'.**
The Bible is not full of deceptions and it has not fabricated any of the specifics of Jesus's life. It is fact the ultimate truth, against which no lie or deception can prosper.
Submitted by reallybored (user info) at 2004-04-13 13:22:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
There has to be something after this, it makes no sense that I can think now and later I won't even exsist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why?
How does it make no sense to be once and then not be later?
Submitted by whataefag (user info) at 2004-04-13 13:18:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
MasterofMelee:
"And the Bible was not a political machine. Have you actually read it? Half of the books in there have no use for political reasons whatsoever (and trust me, I'm halfway reading through the bible myself). The rest could only be that way in a world without education, and if there isn't education and there wasn't a bible, political tyrants would use another method. The bible COULD be used in the way, but so could thousands of other innocent docuements."
The point is that it HAS been used as a ruling doctrine, like many others granted, for great empires to weild power. Who was that King James guy anyway? It wasn't the first book or teaching to herald this.
Submitted by necrofeelya (user info) at 2004-04-13 13:15:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Definatly a decent post. As far as the whole "End of the world" thing. Anyone can end the world with one bullet, because it's all in your head.
Submitted by whataefag (user info) at 2004-04-13 13:15:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Quartermain:
"Actually, it occurs five times. Twice in 1 John 2:18, once in 1 John 2:22, once in 1 John 4:3, and once in I John 1:7."
I John is the Johannine Epistles, the only place the word antichrist appears.
"It is true that the Antichrist is a man, with a separate personality. However, three and a half years into his seven year reign on Earth, he will suffer a fatal head wound. It is at this point that Satan will possess him and bring him back to life in a counterfeit of the resurrection of Christ."
This is the essence of this post. I doubt that this book, full of so many deceptions, could be such a soothesayer with regards to the specifics of the Antichrist's life, especially considering it's fabricated so many specifics of Jesus'.
Submitted by MasteroftheMelee (user info) at 2004-04-13 13:07:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
God the Son will come to earth as the beast comes to destroy his chosen people (that means Israel). The army to march on them is to be in the billions. Take into account that roughly half of the world's population will be gone by then, and you get a grim picture of what the world is like outside of God's influence. We even know where Jesus is supposed to make is second coming, Megiddo.
And the Bible was not a political machine. Have you actually read it? Half of the books in there have no use for political reasons whatsoever (and trust me, I'm halfway reading through the bible myself). The rest could only be that way in a world without education, and if there isn't education and there wasn't a bible, political tyrants would use another method. The bible COULD be used in the way, but so could thousands of other innocent docuements.
And almost any problem with the story of the ending of the world can be explained away. The 666, for instance, what if that was hidden in a code that all citizens were required to where, who would be the wiser? Plus, most people at that point would not believe in Christianity seeing as the beast would be their god.
I don't know what to rate this, seeing as I agree with some of these things and disagree with others, and I'm not just taking about the author's post.
And vergedor, why did you post that? Some frustration at religion? And if so, what do you believe in? Don't you realize that anything you believe in will fail? There has to be something after this, it makes no sense that I can think now and later I won't even exsist. If not, whats the point to begin with?
Submitted by SpikeGoddess (user info) at 2004-04-13 13:04:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
vergedor,
You're in an interesting mood today. I haven't seen you around in a while and I hope all is well. I agree with your point about the use of empathy, but whataefag makes a good counterpoint when he asserts that not everyone is able to be empathetic on the same level. I dare say that empathy and spirituality are deeply correlated, and that in the abscence of deep empathy, a hollow following of religious teaching can keep a population comforted and subdued into proper behavior.
This is not directed at anybody in particular, but rather to everyone in general. As one of the nuns who taught me in 7th grade used to say, "A word to the wise is sufficient."
Human beings have a deep need to make meaning out of their lives, and the religions of the world are an outgrowth of this need. Intellectually cutting them up satisfies that same need for other individuals. We are all unique, and what works for one person won't be what works for another. Mocking someone else's way of finding meaning, or believing that your own way of finding meaning is the ONE TRUE WAY are, in my mind, only a step away from hatred. Empathy is something we must make use of when dealing with people who believe differently than we do, not just when we meet someone who is like us.
Submitted by SeaBriscuit (user info) at 2004-04-13 12:49:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
God is Dead - Nietzsche
Nietzsche is Dead - God
Submitted by reallybored (user info) at 2004-04-13 12:48:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I gave up religion for lent.
Submitted by Deisangua (user info) at 2004-04-13 12:48:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
+0 Worth Reading.
+1 for a pic from The Omen (I think that's where the kid is from, anyways).
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2004-04-13 12:46:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
**The word "antichrist" occurs only once in the Bible in the Johannine Epistles**
Actually, it occurs five times. Twice in 1 John 2:18, once in 1 John 2:22, once in 1 John 4:3, and once in I John 1:7.
**Quartermain: actually the Antichrist under Christian definition is separate from Satan**
It is true that the Antichrist is a man, with a separate personality. However, three and a half years into his seven year reign on Earth, he will suffer a fatal head wound. It is at this point that Satan will possess him and bring him back to life in a counterfeit of the resurrection of Christ.
Submitted by whataefag (user info) at 2004-04-13 12:39:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
vergedor: you make a point there, but also consider the fact that the majority of people do need these "superstitions" (which I agree is a completely valid term for all of your mentioned elements) to have a moral base. It's not as easy as using empathy for everyone, mainly because a lot of people don't understand what the hell that is or how to use it. I'd also like to ask how you know you're not bastardizing empathy? And why do you care if you're a good person if you don't believe in some sort of penance/consequence?
Religion is the principle social check on morality. Whereas one person could dance around and believe that sacrificing their first born will get them into heaven, another could say that murder will send you straight to hell. That has nothing to do with an intellectual understanding of either "heaven" or "hell," just a moral association of consequences.
Submitted by Envenom (user info) at 2004-04-13 12:38:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oops, I meant -1
Submitted by transcendent (user info) at 2004-04-13 12:37:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Slowlyrotting: How is the idea that the universe was created by a large explosion illogical when it is based on a scientific theory proven with facts and figures. Science has nothing to gain. The Church, while not wholy true now, certainly used to have things to gain. The Bible is one of the greatest works of propaganda ever written.
Religion is a sham.
+/- 0 because this post is intelligent, even if I disagree with the underlying message.
Submitted by Envenom (user info) at 2004-04-13 12:37:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
+1 for quoting Nietzsche
-2 for quoting him again and not quoting anyone else. Like he's the only authority on the matter. Fuck Nietzsche.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-04-13 12:36:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
what vergedor said
(Verge D'or is french for "Golden Cock")
Submitted by vergedor (user info) at 2004-04-13 12:32:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Quatermain is just ridiculous.
Christ... anti-christ.. god... allah... Insanethemind...
Rapture, sin, end of the world, heaven, hell, bla bla bla...
Superstitions...
What you believe to be true about these superstitions is irrelevant... how you conduct your life is... Do you create sufferance, misery, destruction, hate? do you oppress, exclude, violate, steal, bully, kill etc..? or Do you help, comfort, heal, teach, clean, laugh etc.?
I don't need a fucking savior, prophet or whatever to know deep in my heart, by using empathy, what is good or evil. And I don't need superstitions of eternal life or heaven to comfort me in the face of death.
Écrasez l'infâme! Vive les agnostiques et les athées!
Submitted by whataefag (user info) at 2004-04-13 12:17:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
slowlyrotting: In Revelations, there are the four horsemen of the Apocalypse -- the Antichrist, the conqueror, on a white horse; war, on a red horse; economic depression, on a black horse; and death rides a pale horse, and hell rides with him. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are said to ride as the Antichrist rises to power. Also in Revelation, there are descriptions of angels, but the angel there can be an angel of death, carrying plagues. There is also a description in Revelation 8 of what appars to be an asteroid or comet hitting earth, destroying much of life on earth.
Submitted by whataefag (user info) at 2004-04-13 12:13:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Quartermain: actually the Antichrist under Christian definition is separate from Satan. Also, Nietzsche wasn't the one who originated the term, just the first one with the intellectual capability to discuss it. The concept has been around for centuries.
Submitted by slowlyrotting (user info) at 2004-04-13 12:13:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The anti-christ's coming is detailed in Revelations. As far as calling the belief in Jesus as God's Son "illogical", there are many things on Earth that are illogical, despite science's greatest effort to explain them.
I am not a great debator, I am more of a grunt. But there are many brilliant minds on both sides of the issue, well educated and intelligent men and women. It is just as illogical to accept that the universe was created by some great explosion.
Submitted by TaK (user info) at 2004-04-13 12:11:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
uhg
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2004-04-13 12:10:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It's odd, some friends of mine and I were talking about this last night, but rather from the other end of the spectrum. I don't know, I think I'll take the Word of God over Nietzsche.
**To believe in him as your savior is to recognize that an Antichrist will rise and threaten his rule.**
No. The Anti-Christ does not threaten Christ's rule, or God's dominion. Any power he has will only be that which God lets him have, and in the end, he(and Satan, who will possess him)will go down to defeat at Armageddon.
Submitted by mystiamoon (user info) at 2004-04-13 12:02:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by hendrixjrr (user info) at 2004-04-13 12:00:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for the picture alone.
Submitted by iamhewhoisnot (user info) at 2004-04-13 11:59:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
i do not know enough on the subject to accurately agree or disagree with you, which may or may not be what you are looking for in terms of a response...
so....you seem to have a point
+2 for the creepy picture
Submitted by I_Have_a_Kristen_Fetish (user info) at 2004-04-13 11:57:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I think someone was handing out pamphlets about this at Wal-Mart this morning.