That’s because you’re not someone who attempts to control other people through a Christian faith. You are looking at the avowed purpose of Christianity, instead of its real purpose. If Christianity were really about “love your neighbor” and all that stuff, its leaders would not have any problem with what is described in that paragraph. “…emptied of its divine content” is critical, because divine content can only be interpreted by Christian leaders, which they generally do to enhance their own power and glory.
When you consider that John of Patmos wrote Revelation while exiled to a prison colony, it stands to reason he was bitter and angry towards the regime that sent him there. The descriptions of the Antichrist likely applies to Emperor Domitian, but prophecy tends to be interpreted to whatever era those who bitch about their government thrive in.
Still, Trump fills those criteria like a Tetris piece wiping away four rows.
Good post.
No trumpski is not the antichrist, but yeah, he comes kinda scary close- but so do many others.
When the very same verses that “prove” that Trump is the Antichrist were also used to “prove” that Obama was the Antichrist it shows how utterly useless those verses are when it comes to predictions.
I see, that is what Jared was for. Bold move, to sacrifice your oldest daughter and object of your deepest desires to… er… that. Four dimensional chess. But then Hitler could never have been the antichrist. He was not Jewish and Jews did not accept him as the messiah. So at least in this respect tanTrump is a wee tiny bit more antichrist-y than Hitler. Which shows, at least to me, that this antichrist concept is hollow and useless.
One of the primary indicators of the Beast is that he is someone who “speaks boastfully.” I’m not sure of any prominent politician who fits that description better than Trump.
More like somewhat.
Trump is far from a powerful orator. And the second qualifier would in his case be more like “tolerated by Christians with a highly flexible moral compass”.
There have to be at least 666 reasons why Trump is not the Antichrist. Although if he had long hair and was a snappier dresser, this could be him.
You seem to forget that the entire point of Christianity is to worship a Jew who proclaimed himself to be God. “Divine content” is not exactly a minor point here. Remove it, and you have something that’s no longer Christian.
Do any other scriptures outside of Revelation say anything at all about a dangerous and powerful anti-Christ?
There is the mark of the best, which wasn’t possible back then, but now with scanners and paying with phones, people can be prevented from buying and selling.
“I know marks, I have the best marks.”
He mamaged to convince 3 women to marry him, and even allow conjugal access.
He is either extremely charming or Ivana, Marla and Melania have/had exceptionally low standards.
ETA: this may be read as somewhat sexist, but it is aimed at the Orange Buffoon, not his unfortunate wives.
Is it established in the Bible that this “Anti-Christ” will be the son of Satan, the same way Jesus was supposedly the son of God? This is usually how he (and very occasionally “she”) is portrayed in popular media.
No, I didn’t forget that. The fact that the entire point of Christianity is to worship someone as divine, rather than to behave better, is exactly what I was getting at.
Isn’t it accepted Melania just married him for the money and the green card, and didn’t even want to live in the white house with him?
The last half of Daniel has quite a bit of information, and there’s a very small amount in the Gospels.
Well, then, you failed. Because the Bible is very clear and explicit that anybody who loves God WILL behave better than people who don’t. The two things go hand-in-hand, and cannot be divided. (And incidentally, the Bible is ALSO very clear that not everybody who calls themselves a Christian actually is one, so don’t think that you can slip one over by pointing to the bad behavior of “Christians.”)
It’s amazing how many people preen themselves, and strut around, thinking that they’ve come up with some amazing “gotcha” moment against religion, when in reality all that they’ve managed to do is show how wildly ignorant they are about religion.
No-The Bible is very clear and explicit that anyone that loves the book’s god will do whatever he asks without question, be it slay the men and children of a country and steal(and rape) the women, offer your own son for sacrifice (Abraham got off easy with that one, but Jephthah had to follow through with burning his daughter alive in order to get on God’s good side before battling the Ammonites), kill a mixed race couple(a priest did this with God’s approval to keep the people “pure”), and then there is this happy little psalm, “O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!”(Psalm 137:8–9 NRSV).
Well, is that not the point? The scripture itself defines what constitutes good behavior, so by definition believers will behave better because they have the guide for what is good behavior. And it is not a tautology, no, not at all, because, jehovallah.
I see @Czarcasm got there first, but this is a pretty interesting view on the alleged word of god.
I don’t personally love god. I do behave as well - or no differently - than when I was a christian. I am now an atheist, and have been so since my teen years. My brother is a believer, and I can detect little difference between our behaviours
We both are compassionate and kind, we both donate to charity, we both abhor violence etc. He believes in the magic sky fairy; I do not.
How do you propose that his behaviour is better than mine because he likes to think there is an imaginary being in charge?
ETA: my uncle is a priest. He shares my world views, he’s also a kind, compassionate man. He just sincerely thinks god exists. But he absolutely respects my view that such a thing is absurd.
You @Bootb should have a look at Mathew 7.1 and maybe a period of thought about it.