Fuck you Snopes for dumbing yourself down and giving legitimacy to the idea at all. Since you apparently believe in the bible but haven’t read it or don’t understand it welcome to the fold of Dan Brown Christians.
Ooh, aren’t they gonna be red-faced if he IS the anti-christ. Personally I think there is an anti-christ, made of anti-matter. Doesn’t every piece of matter have a corresponding particle of anti-matter?
Perhaps the end of days are when the two touch. 
What the hell are you talking about?
I’m not clear what in that gives you the idea that snopes believes in the bible? Nor am I clear how the profuse quotes gives you the idea that snopes hasn’t read the bible. Nor, in fact, am I clear that the reporting of an urban legend as “false” by snopes gives it legitimacy.
Perhaps it’s just me.
Besides, I thought snopes was Jewish.
This doesn’t make any sense. They don’t have to believe in the Bible or in its description of the anti-christ. The Bible provides a description, the claim is that Obama fits that description, they debunk the claim. Are they also lowering themselves by debunking Back to the Future II and Nostradamus?
If anything, the warning/cheap shot at the end seems a little unwarranted…
You’re concerned that a Snopes article about the Bible legitimizes Christianity? They’re not even commenting on the veracity of the Bible; they’re making factual corrections about what it says and what it is merely rumored to say, which is kinda the point of the site. Does a page about Wingdings mean they’re legitimizing the Microsoft monopoly?
I don’t quite understand what you’re getting at here. Snopes has been known to answer completely asinine questions before just because they can. Do you mind spelling out was wrong with their response though? I’m genuinely curious, as far as I can tell while not exactly a dissertation it addressed the rumor pretty well and they didn’t make any giant gaping errors like saying he isn’t the anti-Christ described in Revelation and forgetting there wasn’t one mentioned in there. The biggest error is probably that in the letters they never mentioned an “anti-Christ” as a singular entity, but rather “anti-Christs” in general, but it wasn’t really that big a deal and after posting I’m starting to wonder if I just read what they wrote wrong.
For what it’s worth, I took the last paragraph as being more of a “if you HAD to use the Bible to hate him…” statement if that’s what you’re getting at.
I am intrigued by your theory and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
As to the complaint in the OP, that’s just silly. They aren’t saying “Yep there’s an antichrist, but Obama isn’t him”, they’re debunking the idea that the Bible contains a description of the “Antichrist” that relates to Obama. What’s wrong with that?
That’s a stupid attitude, don’t fight. Whether or not there’s any truth in the Bible, it’s plain Obama doesn’t match the Biblical description of the antichrist. That’s factual. If I said the Brothers Grimm foretold the coming of Sarah Palin by writing a story about a girl in red who shoots a wolf from a helicopter, you could tell me the story says something different without assuming it’s true.
So…you’re claiming that Barack Obama is the Antichrist?
The first rule of Anti-Christ Club is you do not talk about Anti-Christ Club.
I think it’s fine. Notice that the claim they were debunking was “The Book of Revelation describes the anti-Christ as someone with characteristics matching those of Barack Obama.” If it had simply been “Obama is the anti-Christ”, then I would have a problem with Snopes using the Bible as a source.
To a great extent, they choose what wording of each claim they’re going to evaluate, so they could have elected to address the general idea that anybody is the anti-Christ. But I’m glad they didn’t, because they didn’t need to, and they’re really not in that business anyway.
There are Dan Brown Christians?
Minor league team, Central League I think. Had some luck in the early post-war period, but then were dominated by the Mud Hens.
Christians whose familiarity with the tenets and beliefs of their own religion is so slight that they think “The DaVinci Code” is based on history and theology instead of the ravings of some krazy Kiwi and a French Surrealist.
This is fairly ignorant in its own way.
I’ve always seen the Snopes folks as very drily academically analyzing claims for factual support, internal self-consistency, etc. As others have abundantly noted, it is hardly necessary to prove “the Bible is false” to disprove the rumor du jour “BHO is described as the anti-christ in the Bible.” My profs always told me to answer the question before me, and then stop, not to instead/additionally address the one they might have asked, or the one that would allow me to do a full data dump of everything I knew or believed.
By the way, if it’s your contention that seriously discussing religious texts by taking their premises at face value for purposes of analysis is “dumbing down,” then you’ve just put most university theology departments out of business. Discussion of text /= agreement with or vouching for.
ETA: after re-reading the OP, I am more shocked than ever that anyone would draw the conclusion that the Snopes people “apparently believe the Bible.” That’s just out of left field based on their posting.
OP, what the fuck? Really. Are you retarded?
This is a parody of nutty atheists, I think.