The next Anti-Chirst!

I guess I missed the first anti-chirst.

That woulda been Bill Gates.

Avril Lavigne

And this has ??? to do with the political forum?


Ned Flanders

She's stupid alright. Could grow to become evil with time. Good choice.

i know who the next anti-christ is but he i'm sure you guys dont know who he is.

She has walked among us for years, and her name is Celine Dion.

Avril Levine is merely one of her hoarde of minions.

CV

He's been around for years. His name starts with Donald and ends with Rumsfeld.

We have a winner!

Why? Why is he the anti christ?
Because he is leading the department of defence against a regime that rapes, murders and forces its men to fight by taking their familes hostage under threat of death ?


Honestly... how can anyone say what was going on in Iraq good, how can we overlook that... I mean if you told the jews no we arent gonna invade germany because we dont think whats goin on is a real threat to humanity.. dont you think they would hev gotten a little bitter?


Gee while we are at it... lets clone hitler and give him a teaching position at berkley

This guy:

No, Because he is leading the department of defence of a regime that rapes, murders and forces its men to fight by taking their familes hostage under threat of death ?

Oh really? That's interesting! What 'regime' is that? And what policy is it that 'forces its ment to fight by taking their families hostage under threat of death?" Even less, what policy is it that even forces its men to fight? We aren't even using the draft!

Rapes and murders happen of course, but they are hardly commanded or overlooked (and if they are overlooked, it isn't because of Rumsfeld or even Bush).

Sheesh. Sometimes, you write worthwhile things, but sometimes you are just incendiary. What a punka$$ thing to do!

I've even seen posts where you target America, Americans, and their leaders for neglecting to deal with Saddam from '80-98! Yet, I also remember that LONG-A$$ thread in which people got onto you about being from Switzerland, which of course neglected to do anything at all, even after the US did, which was a long time.

(Of course, I will also note that you are not actually from there, since you so poignantly claimed that you were actually from S. Africa. Then, people got onto you about being from S. Africa, but you claimed that you weren't responsible for their policies, which you aren't really, assuming you were too young or didn't vote for the guilty. So, I'd just like you to be VERY careful in the future of not getting onto Americans for policies on which they had little impact, like our Iraq policies.)

I thought Zimphire was going to be the next anti-christ ?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAHHHHHHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


We have us a winner.

Umm, you probably mean Columbia University. I think they may have supplanted Berkley for outrageous statements now.

Is this an attempt to find some sort of personal guilt on my part for the failings of your government?

Perhaps you would like to point out to me the place where I wrote about not being culpable for the atrocities in South Africa?

I was definitely indirectly responsible, in my own capacity as a human being, for that part of what happened in South Africa. I grew up taking black people as "untermenschen" (look it up yourself) for granted. I believed every bit of propaganda that was continually thrown at us and was proud of my country and it's invinceable army...

until I was 15.

I was very careful, later at university, not to open my mouth too loudly, in order to avoid being arrested and detained without trial, as were a number of my friends found out to their detriment. Some of those people were never seen again. I carry guilt with me to this day for not having had the courage to stand up in the open against that government of murderers, thieves, psychopaths, sadists and torturers. I was simply too scared.

But it was very hard having friends on both sides of the conflict, drafted soldiers on the one hand, some of them very patriotic when they went in, but not when they came out, and members of banned organisations on the other, who had to lead secret lives in order to avoid being tortured and killed.

If you take offense because you are an American, and feel that I am lumping all Americans into one box, then I apologise. I'm sorry, it was wrong of me. (I've done this before, and it has been pointed out to me)

If you are trying to tell me what I should think and what I should write here, then I don't apologise, and will continue to do so until I am banned or in some other way forced to start voicing my opposition to this insanity of killing and suffering.

On one level, I take offense, because I see no grounds for the claim you made against America (and trust me, I am constantly around wild claims with which I disagree but can attest that there is some reason to think this or that way).

On another level, with regards to the moral culpability, I've read Daniel Goldhagen, "Hitler's Willing Executioners," and I don't really buy it. I mean, sure, one could do more, as you said about yourself in S. Africa, but you did not take part. So, I guess I agree that you are somewhat responsible for that (just going by what you said), but I think it is futile to beat yourself up about it, because it would have been futile to oppose the situation in a position of so little power (at that age and without any power or expertise).

Anyway, I am not telling you how to think. I am picking a fight about what you think - if you really think that America "forces...." as you wrote earlier. You saw my concessions, and I stand by them. Of course, rape, murder, etc go on here and it is terrible. Yet, it is not forced by the government. If it is, it is not overlooked. If it is overlooked, then it is the fault of some individual who should not have overlooked it. It is not a cultural, mass-political head turning on atrocities.

We certainly don't force men to join the military (except during the draft, so part of my argument goes out the window in those instances), and we certainly don't hold their families hostage to do so.

There is plenty wrong with America, but next to Saddam's regime it is like smooth vanilla ice cream. And, anyone who says otherwise deserves a lesson.

Ah, I see what you're getting at now. That twisted post I made by turing that sentence around that someone else posted. That was not right on my part, and was made in anger as a stupid response to a response on my comment on Donald Rumdfeld. I do, however believe that Donald Rumsfled (just do a google on him, or go to everything2.com) is somehow the personification of evil. To me that man has done so much damage to people of your own country and has never shown a single sign of remorse for his love of power, death and weapons of mass destruction and is someone personally responsible for much of what is now happening in Iraq. Saddam is far worse in terms of actual numbers, but I believe Rumsfeld would be just as happy to have served in the Iraqi regime if he has been born there, and I think he would have gained great power.

I have no idea who the "anti-chirst" will be...Chirstie Alley?

heh.

The anti-christ you mean, perhaps?

I have no idea, but I wonder if he would take control of the most powerful country with the greatest and most powerful weapons, and then proceed to pre-emptively attack an ever increasing list of "enemies" until world domination was achieved. Simultaneous to that, he would have his henchmen make it difficult, unpopular, and even illegal for his own countrymen to object or obstruct him.
Then, he would assign little ID chips in everyone so they could be more easily tracked, and prevented from buying or selling if they disagreed with his policies. He would use threats of terrorism or outside enemies as justifications for further and further restrictions of civil liberties, and stigmatize anyone who disagreed as not being patriotic.


Of course, I'm only speculating.

There's a lot of light in your speculation and it's shared by many around the world. I'm not one to preach, but the "Revelations" (the last book of the bible) apparently tells of these events, leading up to a world government, comprising of a single curancy (the euro, one step to that) increased surveilance and control of people (check), and the heavy unrest starting in the middle east (check). Out of this chaos, a leader from hell will be sent among men to take down the world. After a bloody battle in which most of the world's population will die, Jesus is claimed to come and rescue his believers. That ain't me talkin...but if that's what revelations says, then it's pretty on the mark.

That's more a conservative American protestant interpretation. If you read the book it is couched in flowery symblic imagery and tying it to any particular world event is difficult. It says nothing about any "world currency" for instance. It speaks of the mark of the beast (typically taken to be Caesar) and that to buy or sell you had to have the mark of the beast. Even if one see the beast/Caesar as a type of the last days, one must quickly see that the Protestant interpretations are but one of dozens of possible readings. Take pretty much any period of the last 150 years and you'll find at least some Protestant theologian claiming Revelation talked about it in depth.

*looks at your location*

You have some weird obsession with me don't you?

True. Its all interpretation, which I couched what I said in speculative terms.

However, when the antichrist comes, I don't think he'll do much that is different. He will have to have access (I assume) to the largest arsenal in order to rule the entire world with a "rod of iron". At present, that's the US. He will also (apparently) wage war between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers (which is Baghdad, or Babylon). He will order the rebuilding of the Temple (have no idea how that would come about), and would fool the very elect (have strong christian support -- the right wing christian contingent would do nicely here in the equation).
As far as the Mark of the Beast, its said everyone must have a number written in their hands or their heads. Right now the technology exists to make implanted ID chips, and the only impediment to them is simply that Bush hasn't asked for them yet.
Under Homeland Security, I can easily see a situation where we are required to be implanted for "security".

but everything is open to interpretation, as always.

Lerk, and he will probably have to be Jewish, AND BTW having the a large arsenel doesn't mean it has to come from the US. He could have every country BUT the US in control and be able to topple the US. I believe Revelations talks about a "country" getting bombed out off the earth when this starts.

I dunno, I don't recall anywhere where his religion was stated.
I also don't recall your last line at all. All I recall is that Babylon will be destroyed in a day, calling for the lament of "alas, babylon" in grief of all the women and children.
However, like I said, how you interpret it is highly subjective.

back to the arsenal, I cannot see the antichrist trying to get a coalition of all the other countries against the US, very unwieldy. Instead I think its going to be easier to supplant the US democracy (thanks ashcroft) and then move from there.
Considering also our relationship historically with Isreal, its not inconceivable that if we lay waste to the middle east EXCEPT for isreal, it would in a way be rebuilding temple metaphorically.

Lerk, you think the Jewish people would accept anyone else but a Jew as their messiah?

You seem to be confusing the antichrist with the second coming, I think.
the antichrist comes first, and has some of the characteristics we have mentioned, mainly ruling the world with a rod of iron for a time. I don't recall he had to be jewish. then, after all hell has broken loose (literally), the second coming happens. The second coming is for everyone, not just the jews.
I'll have to reread revelations, but I'm fairly certain it never gets to the nitty gritty detail of the religion of choice of the antichrist.

Unless I've misunderstood your point?

The Anti-Christ will indeed try to repeat the resurrection of Jesus. This will be the end of him. He will be deemed as the 1st coming of Christ to those who didn't think Jesus was such, He will be fullfilling the prophecy of the Jewish people. THEN Jesus will show up. The ANti-Christ will rule the world in a socialist regime. I really can't see the US accepting such a government, unless of course there is a liberal in the white house pushing such a regime.

Of course, this is assuming it's coming in the near future.