Farrakhan called Obama a “Herald of the Messiah,” not the Messiah himself, but it’s all moot since Farrakhan is not part of the left.
No, it’s sarcasm directed at him ever since he started to refer to himself as “The One” who’ll do all the crap he said he’d be the one to do. Jesus, the Messiah, was The One --tiny logical leap of sarcasm–>Obama, the self-proclaimed One, must also be the Messiah.
But imagine for a second that your largely imaginary people who literally think he’s the antichrist are right: Obama will be the best president ever! Before everything goes to hell, the Antichrist is supposed to preform all sorts of miracles. The war will be over and the economy healthy again by Easter.
Obama has never once referred to himself as “the One.” You are misinformed, and you’re making my point. The allegations that Obama has made grandiose claims about himself or that his supporters hold such beliefs are utter, right wing mythology designed to spook morons into think he’s the Antichrist.
They’re not imaginary at all. google “Obama antichrist.”
The Antichrist isn’t “supposed” to do anything. That character, as conceived of in popular culture, does not actually exist in the Bible, so there aren’t any actual Prophecies about him except whatever people want to make up.
The only people I’ve heard refer to Obama as a messiah use it in a derogatory manner to ineptly mock those who were smart enough to not support McCain. As for me, come see me when he takes the Water of Life and rides Shai Hulud into Arrakeen. That’s when I’ll sign up.
I don’t see how anyone can reason out what would make someone assassinate Obama or do any other crazy thing, because the guy doing it would be crazy. Maybe it would be done because the yellow voices in his head won the argument with the green voices in his head. Did anyone say ‘If someone attempts to assassinate Reagan it will be out of a need to impress Jodie Foster’?
The character in we know in popular culture does exist in the bible, but isn’t called The Antichrist. Instead, in the bible s/he is refered to as the false prophet of “The Beast.” Though, ftr, I’ve read claims that the beast is the antichrist instead. It doesn’t really matter which is which, because the bible says they’ll both do miracles anyway.
Revelation 16:13
“And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.”
16:14
“For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.”
Revelation 19:20 says that this false prophet specifically does miracles.
“And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.”
No it doesn’t.
No it doesn’t. “Antichrists”, plural, are not supernatural figures, but merely refer to competing, “apostate” Christian sects in the late 1st/early 2nd Centuries (i.e. the Gnostics). The term is used only in the Epistles of John, and has nothing to do with the Beast of Revelation, and they don’t do miracles/ They’re just represented as false teachers…
The “Beast” in Revelation was a coded reference to the Roman Emperor, not a prediction of a futuristic supervillain. That character does not exist in the Bible, period. Nothing in Revelation is suppose to be a prophecy of our future. It’s all about late 1st Century Rome.
Isn’t anyone going to comment on my dissertation? 
Biblical Prophecy is whatever the reader wants it to be – that’s how the Christian Mind works. The “Beast” has commonly been interpreted as the EEC (ref: The Late Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsey), or the EU, or (perhaps) whatever the G20 Summit comes up with. Don’t assume these fundie whackjobs are capable of reasoned, historical interpretation – they will quote verses out of context, connect unrelated passages together, and you must believe & obey because it is all THE LIVING WORD OF GOD!!! Seriously, there is no logic or individual thought allowed amongst these people.
Yes, he is.
I did. He said
He. Said. The. Messiah. Is. Absolutely. Speaking. When. Obama. Speaks. That’s what he said.
Simply and unambiguously false. Farrakhan said that when Obama speaks, “the Messiah is absolutely speaking”.
Horseshit. If I said that “when Obama speaks, God is absolutely speaking”, then I would be saying that Obama is God.
This is just blackwhite.
If Obama is described as the herald of the messiah, it’s clear he’s not the messiah himself. If somebody is a herald, he’s not also the person being heralded. Isn’t that right there in the definition?
At most, I’m very unconventionally religious, but I’m familiar enough with the idea of “God speaking through someone” to know that it doesn’t mean the speaker is God or even a messianic figure. At most it means they’re holy, or at least that they are expressing a righteous sentiment.
These are all ridiculous and grandiose claims, and mocking them is fair game even if attributing them to all Obama supporters isn’t. But “he’s a herald” and “he’s the messiah” are not the same statement.
THANK you. Here is what I am seeing, and it isn’t religious in nature at all:
Those on the left that I have seen referring to Obama as “the messiah” are doing so partly out of relief and partly out of self deprecation. To put it mildly, the Democratic party is disorganized. Every faction of the Dem party has its own pet project and they all think theirs is more important than that of any other faction. It took someone of nigh-messianic quality to unite them. It became increasingly evident to even lukewarm cynical voters like myself that he’s capable of getting those warring factions to put aside their differences and work toward a common goal.
Those on the right that I have seen referring to Obama as “the messiah” were doing so partly out of derision and partly out of fear for more or less the same reasons as above. A disunited Dem party is what Republicans count on to win elections. The fewer disenfranchised angry Dems showing up at the polls, the better.
elfkin477, that whole “The One” thing that you’re referring to: Obama never referred to himself as “The One.” He explained that his name meant “That one” in Swahili. I can understand how it was corrupted into “He called himself THE ONE OMG!!!1!” by more reactionary members of the Christian right, however. It was just the out of context sign they needed to work themselves into a frenzy. That so many people are not aware of it or misinterpreted what was said also explains why John McCain’s now famous reference to “That one” in the presidential debate fell flat. No one got that he was calling Obama by name while at the same time attempting a rather lame joke.
As for Farrakhan, I don’t take him seriously and I’m surprised anyone here is actually quoting him as if his words matter a tinker’s damn to either the right or the left. Who cares what the man said? Proponents from both sides have written him off as an opportunistic loud mouthed ass for as long as I can remember.
When he said Barack means “That One” in Swahili, he was joking. It was said in response to McCain calling him “that one” in a debate. It doesn’t really mean that. Barack is actually a variation on the Hebrew name Baruch and means “Blessed.”
“The One” orignated with Oprah Winfrey who once excited exclaimed that Obama was “the one” to fulfil MLK’s dream. The phrase was then adopted sarcastically by John McCain and used in a campaign ad (an ad which contained allusions to the Left Behind books and surreptitiously played to the “Antichrist” meme).
Obama himself has never used it or even come close to that kind of rhetoric. The idea that he has personally expressed any such granndiose beliefs or sold himself as a transcendent figure exists only in the imaginations of his political opponents.
“Farrakhan’s a prophet and I think you ought to listen to, what he can say to you, what you ought to do.”* Chuck D.
Hey, I ain’t gonna argue with him! 
Atlanta has a weekly rag called The Sunday Paper. It is a sort of right-leaning competitor to Creative Loafing. There was an interesting editorial this week by (conservative) Editor in Chief Kevin Forest Moreau: Between Partisanship and Paranoia, which thoughtfully addresses the over-the-top rage and fear stirred up by radio idiots:
I recommend reading the whole piece. It’s a good thinking conservative’s look at the problem.
Which makes my reaction every bit as ridiculous as those who took it seriously and ran with it. 
I may be overlooking something here but I don’t understand what difference it makes if people on the fringes of either side are calling him the messiah. It would make a difference if he acted as though he believed it. From what I can tell he does not. He acts like a leader. That isn’t arrogance; he is our leader.
Well, all respect to Chuck D, just because Louis Farrakhan takes himself seriously and has convinced others to do so is not enough to convince me to do the same. I’m disinclined to do more than give polite acknowledgement to someone who judges me as a blight on this earth merely because of my religion or lack thereof.
Farrakhan sees President Obama as a thing, and worse yet a thing to be exploited.
A lot of leftists said that there was an irrational religious fervor for Bush on the right, and this is the same thing going in the other direction. It was true in many cases with Bush; when I had the misfortune to see Jesus Camp last week, it provided a good example. And there are absolutely people on the SDMB and elsewhere who have an irrational passion for Obama. I think most of us knew that without asking for any cites. What it means about Obama support overall is the question. More than 66 million people voted for him last week, and if 1 percent of them saw him as any kind of savior that would be a small portion but still a large number.
Cite? I quoted what Farrakhan actually said, which is different from your interpretation of it above. Show me where he actually said “The Messiah is absolutely speaking when Obama speaks”.
He also actually said that Obama is NOT the Messiah. So I don’t know why you’re continuing to try to insist that he said that Obama IS the Messiah.
Just admit that you made a mistake, and move on. That’s what I did when tom pointed out that I’d violated the forum rules about trolling accusations.
I know, I’m nitpicking, but technically, “Barack” and “Baruch” are cognates, with “Barack” being the Arabic name and “Baruch” being the Hebrew name. But they’re not variations of the same name in the same language.
But he has hands. Hands! It’s obvious what he’s trying to say.
He’s got the whole world in his hands?
Yes, of course it can.:rolleyes: See “the messiah” is a code word that will trigger the deep mole assassin.