So, I'm supposed to be Agnostic...

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[Adam Alexander]

But my Girlfriend made an interesting statement yesterday...

What if the Anti-Christ isn't a person at all, but really the government?

I know, I know--every age has something that fits the description. But I never thought that the theory of the Big Bang or Evolution were contrary to the King James. In fact, after reading some of Revelations last night, I'm quite certain there's no contradiction of Christianity in the Big Bang theory (no reason that that couldn't of been the way the Big Cheese [if indeed there is a Big Cheese] couldn't have used that process to create the Universe).

Further, who's to say the six/seven days in the beginning weren't very, very long days...that allows for evolution.

Now, if you can buy those potential deviations from orthodox beliefs, why's the Anti-Christ have to be a "man" in the classic sense?

As I read, the AC is an "abomination" which has everyone's trust.

I know we've got some seriously religious folks on here. I figured I'd run it by you.

[Neil Mick]

But my Girlfriend made an interesting statement yesterday...

What if the Anti-Christ isn't a person at all, but really the government?

As I read, the AC is an "abomination" which has everyone's trust.


Well, if (s)he IS the gov't: (s)he's doing a terrible job winning our trust. Bush's approval rating is low: and the ppl seem to have a low opinion of Congress, as well.

I know we've got some seriously religious folks on here. I figured I'd run it by you.

I'm not religious (don't believe in an Anti-Christ, except as an archetype), so I'll limit my response.

[Adam Alexander]

No need to limit the response. I don't know what I'm talking about anyway:)

As far as the opinion polls go, I'm not referring to Bush. Sure, I think he's dirty (in reality, I think he's just a symptom of the real problem: the people and our form of government [it's amazing, the more I read, the more ashamed to be a US citizen--note: our history]). However, I think people believe the government is going to fix everything for them--too much crime? make a new law. people starving? make a new law. poor schools? make a new law. someone doesn't agree with the majority? make a new law.

That's what I mean by having everyone's trust.

[malsmith]

that would kinda make sense, in a weird way, that the antichrist would not be a man, because the christ was a man... or so they say... so if christ was a man, the antichrist would be something else... hmmmm.... maybe a woman :hypno: . or a "spirit" if there are such things. or an idea, such as government.

[Nobleronin4]

To make sure that we are on the same footing, what is your definition of being an agnostic?

Webster's Unabridged defines Agnostic as: 1: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Is the above definition agreeable to what you maintain as a belief or lack there of? What is the purpose of the question(s) in the first place? And lastly, are you analytical person?

I am not looking to change your mind just share my beliefs and maybe help you in the process come to some conclusions. Fair enough? By the way I am a Christian.

Remember: To all the others, this is an open discussions (free)forum.

[DustinAcuff]

Well, as a Christian, I have a couple comments:

1. Before you tackle the Anti Christ take on Ezekiel 1. This is one of the most confusing and misinterpreted chapters in the Bible, a good deal more complex than Revelations (IMHO- I dont mess with Rev too much).

2. If you are really seeking to understand the Anti Christ (and I am in no means saying that I know much of anything about it) then you are simply going to have to command a great deal of knowledge in regaurds to the entirety of the Bible. Again, this will only be possible if you keep an open enough mind to play "what if".

3. On the six/seven day thingy. I cannot speak definitively on ANYTHING, however, in my last two physics classes an experiment was mentioned in refrence to quantum physics that could fit the bill you are looking for. In an experiment some agency, maybe NASA, had some really accurate atomic clocks made and syncronized perfectly, then one clock was left on earth and the other was put into orbit for a period of time. When the clock left in orbit got back on earth there was a significant time discrepancy (dunno how long). At the time gravatons (little packets of gravity) were assumed to exist. This experiment led to the theory of chronotons (little packets of time) and furthermore that time is actually a function of gravity. This is significant b/c the scientific cycle for the birth/formation of a planet (especially a life-supporting planet) is identical to the cycle described in the Bible. One can reason (I am no expert on the formation of planets) that as the planet was formed and became larger that time would begin to flow more and more quickly. Combined with the change in earth's orbit over time that would legnthen the "day" it could be concluded that the days were truely accurate "days" in that they had the perscribed ammount of chronotons and rotation. This raises a much bigger question of what happens in the absence of time? (you can tell my instructors hate me). Note: I am not saying that I believe this, this is just one of my knock around ideas.

4. I remember on the Discovery channel there was a special on Rev. and it refrenced 666 being an Aramaic word (Aramaic was supposed to spell with numbers some times) for "Nero" in refrence to Nero Ceasar, a man who can be put on the same level as Hitler and or Stalin, especially to the Christians of the day. According to Rev. 13:1-4 the Anti Christ will be the beasts spoken of in Daniel, hence the refrencing Nero Ceasar with the Beast with the AC.

None of my comments should be taken as fact, just some conjecture on my part from things I have either heard from somewhere else or put together on my own by combining things that I by no means have a full knowledge or understanding of. Nor do I believe that anything I have said is fact, just vauge possibilites, in any way other than this is what I have heard or drawn together.

[LOEP]

Big Bang is sort of not cutting edge physics/cosmology today. Look up MIchio Kaku and read some of his work, Steve Hawking's got some good stuff, too.

As for Revelations, if you accept ANY of the Bible as being literal, then don't you have to accept it ALL? And vice versa, of course.

Anyway, Revelations, AFAIK, is considered by many (non-fundamentalist) biblical scholars as actually more of a political commentary on Rome ...



Chuck

[Bronson]

Further, who's to say the six/seven days in the beginning weren't very, very long days...

I once was talking to an exchange student at school who said that if you read the bible written in Hebrew it translates more accurately as seven "periods of time". I have no idea if this true or not as I don't read Hebrew :)

She also said "thou shalt not kill" was more accurately translated as "thou shalt not murder".

Bronson

[BC]

But my Girlfriend made an interesting statement yesterday...

What if the Anti-Christ isn't a person at all, but really the government?


What if your girlfriend is the Anti-Christ?
;)
Just kidding!

[DustinAcuff]

Chuck, you have a point, in a way. If the bible says earth was created in 7 days it was created in seven days (days are delieniated in the bible by a period of light and dark). That is not far fetched if you believe in God. But the KJV also describes unicorns, dragons, cyclopse and a number of other things.

The bible in many places is literal, but in some places, such as Hebrews, Revelations and a few others you have to take in concideratin who it was being written to, when it was written, and what the siginificance of the writing was to the group it was written to to really understand what is going on....kinda like Matthew Mark Luke and John were all the same story, the story of Jesus, but each one told it from a diffrent angle geared toward a diffrent audience.

[Adam Alexander]

To make sure that we are on the same footing, what is your definition of being an agnostic?


That's the thing. I am agnostic ( I don't think one should waste their time worrying about what "might" be out there because there's no way to know.). However, I was raised in a "Christian" household. Therefore, I'm sort of familiar with this stuff. So, when she made the remark, it just triggered the curiosity.

[Adam Alexander]

I once was talking to an exchange student at school who said that if you read the bible written in Hebrew it translates more accurately as seven "periods of time".

Yeah, the sense of betrayal I experienced when I started to find out about contradictions and misinterpretations in the KJV is what set me on a course to really question things and ultimately, become agnostic.

For example, as I understand it, the original doesn't say that Mary was a virgin...which throws a wrench in what I had always been taught about Immaculate Conception.

[Kent Enfield]

For example, as I understand it, the original doesn't say that Mary was a virgin...which throws a wrench in what I had always been taught about Immaculate Conception.Not to hijack this thread, but you're raising one of my pet peeves. Contrary to popular opinion, the immaculate conception is not the same as the virgin birth of Jesus. The immaculate conception refers to Mary's conception, and is the Roman Catholic dogma that she was conceived free from the stain of original sin. I.e. she was born in a state of grace rather than with inherited guilt like the rest of humanity since Adam and Eve.

And I'm not even Catholic.

[Adam Alexander]

Not to hijack this thread, but you're raising one of my pet peeves. Contrary to popular opinion, the immaculate conception is not the same as the virgin birth of Jesus. The immaculate conception refers to Mary's conception, and is the Roman Catholic dogma that she was conceived free from the stain of original sin. I.e. she was born in a state of grace rather than with inherited guilt like the rest of humanity since Adam and Eve.

Ah, very well. Good thing I said early on that I didn't know what I was talking about:)

My gripe is that I was taught she was a virgin then it turned out she wasn't. Is that the case?

[DustinAcuff]

Not quite. Jesus was her first child/son. He was the virgin born kid. But he had siblings I do believe. I will check around and see if I spot the contradiction you were speaking of. Where did you find/hear about it?

KJV was intended to be the most accurate translation from the origional texts of the time, but knowledge in a field constantly does change in a few centuries, consequently there is some debate over if some points were misinterpreted in the old and new testament (heaven forbid you get some Jews and Greeks to help translate).

The periods of time were night and day, which were periods of light and dark, not a measurement of hours.

Also a number of the bugs in the KJV have been worked out in either the NKJV or the AMP (Amplified). I list these two b/c the intent with the creation of these two was to preserve the original works rather than tailor them to fit the denomination of the writer.

[LOEP]

Also a number of the bugs in the KJV have been worked out in either the NKJV or the AMP (Amplified). I list these two b/c the intent with the creation of these two was to preserve the original works rather than tailor them to fit the denomination of the writer.

Ah. So the inerrant word of god had to be edited to make sense? Hmm ...

Chuck

[Adam Alexander]

[1)]Where did you find/hear about it?

[2)]The periods of time were night and day, which were periods of light and dark, not a measurement of hours.

1)I can't state a specific source...it's just what I believe I was taught in church as a child. I think they were pretty specific to say that she was a virging.

2)How do you know? Seems like if there could be a misinterpretation with some stuff then, there could be one now. Further, unless you take the whole book literally, why can't you take "day" or "night" figuratively?

In the end though, it doesn't really matter. It's just some light conversation to me...and I really like the idea that science and Christianity, according to my interpretation, isn't contrary.

The point, originally, was that I was raised that the Anti-Christ would come someday. "He" (that's what they always said) would be a wonderful person--smooth talker and good looker. When she made the comment (about the gov.), it just struck me.

I was just wondering what other folks with similar upbringings thought of it.

[DustinAcuff]

Chuck, nope, it does not need to be edited to make sense. But since most people aren't fluent in 2000 year old dialects of Greek and Hebrew, it does need to be translated, and a translation made by people who believed that they were at the top of the evolutionary ladder who also believed in their manifest destiny who were translating from Latin, could have been less accurate than people who have actually gone back and studied the Hebrew and Greek and put it into modern day english (in the KJV/Old English nice meant foolish) that is more applicable and understandable to us.

Jean, first I'm sorry I lost focus on the topic..I'll get back there in just a second. Most of the time children get the condensed version of things (see Santa Clause). Also sometimes people raised with traditional answers (the Christmas Story) forget that that is not how it actually happened.

As to the AC, I think that depending on how you look at it, it is possible, but it just makes more sense to be a person. Governments are just too commonly hated. Countries/governments are viewed more subjectively. But look at Ghandi. Everyone loved him!

[makuchg]

This thread is very interesting, but it all comes back to the legitimacy of the bible. If this is an accurate record of history, why is there such discrepancy between all four books? Also, why is John considered the author of book four? Nowhere does it indicate John is the author, for hundreds of years it was anonymous. The Roman Catholic church determined John was the author. If John wasn't it changes the context of many biblical assumptions. The four books of the bible were all written in a time after Jesus' death, in some cases as much as 50 years or more after his death. How accurate is the story that long after the events? It is also believed (in some circles, not all) that the bible was written to give an anti-Jew lean to appease the Romans who were in power at the time. This would explain the vastly different story told in the book of Thomas discovered in Egypt. His writing wouldn't have been under Roman scrutiny. Additionally, the bible was translated several times and edited by the Roman Catholic church. The bible you read today is not the complete content but an approved content by the Roman Catholic church. One has to wonder what was omitted and why?

Additionally, having studied world mythology, I find it interesting that almost every religion on earth has similar stories for creation, messiah, flood, and afterlife. What makes us believe the bible is the right story since similar creation stories existed long before the story depicted in the bible? How do we know the bible is not a plagiarized copy of an earlier tale passed orally generation to generation?

[Efe Yucemen]

Is the government the anti christ? Well, I dont know about anti christ but if you ask the billions of muslims of the world the US is certainly an agent of Satan. ;)

please dont take this comment too seriously, just trying to raise some cross-cultural issues here.

[dan guthrie]

Well, as a Christian, I have a couple comments:

1. Before you tackle the Anti Christ take on Ezekiel 1. This is one of the most confusing and misinterpreted chapters in the Bible, a good deal more complex than Revelations (IMHO- I dont mess with Rev too much).

2. If you are really seeking to understand the Anti Christ (and I am in no means saying that I know much of anything about it) then you are simply going to have to command a great deal of knowledge in regaurds to the entirety of the Bible. Again, this will only be possible if you keep an open enough mind to play "what if".

3. On the six/seven day thingy. I cannot speak definitively on ANYTHING, however, in my last two physics classes an experiment was mentioned in reference to quantum physics that could fit the bill you are looking for. In an experiment some agency, maybe NASA, had some really accurate atomic clocks made and synchronized perfectly, then one clock was left on earth and the other was put into orbit for a period of time. When the clock left in orbit got back on earth there was a significant time discrepancy (dunno how long). At the time gravitons (little packets of gravity) were assumed to exist. This experiment led to the theory of chronotons (little packets of time) and furthermore that time is actually a function of gravity. This is significant b/c the scientific cycle for the birth/formation of a planet (especially a life-supporting planet) is identical to the cycle described in the Bible. One can reason (I am no expert on the formation of planets) that as the planet was formed and became larger that time would begin to flow more and more quickly. Combined with the change in earth's orbit over time that would lengthen the "day" it could be concluded that the days were truly accurate "days" in that they had the prescribed amount of chronotons and rotation. This raises a much bigger question of what happens in the absence of time? (you can tell my instructors hate me). Note: I am not saying that I believe this, this is just one of my knock around ideas.

4. I remember on the Discovery channel there was a special on Rev. and it referenced 666 being an Aramaic word (Aramaic was supposed to spell with numbers some times) for "Nero" in reference to Nero Caesar, a man who can be put on the same level as Hitler and or Stalin, especially to the Christians of the day. According to Rev. 13:1-4 the Anti Christ will be the beasts spoken of in Daniel, hence the referencing Nero Caesar with the Beast with the AC.

None of my comments should be taken as fact, just some conjecture on my part from things I have either heard from somewhere else or put together on my own by combining things that I by no means have a full knowledge or understanding of. Nor do I believe that anything I have said is fact, just vague possibilities, in any way other than this is what I have heard or drawn together.


I may have seen the same show you saw on "666" = Nero. The Christians at that time were wary of their writings being discovered by Roman soldiers so they used 666 as code. At least that's what I remember.

RonJon, I wouldn't spend too much time looking for absolute, verifiable evidence of God, the Antichrist, Satan or Angels. I don't think you can have free will and an absolute proof of these things at the same time.
If you want to discover or rediscover the feeling of belief read something by C.S. Lewis. I don't think he'll convert you but he might give you a better understanding of what's really important.
"The Chronicles of Narnia" is being made into a blockbuster movie. That would be a good start, son of Adam.
If you want to laugh read "Good Omens," by Neil Gaman (sp?) and Terry Pratchett (also sp?).