09.30.04

the anti-christ

Posted in faith, politics at 12:46 pm by

So, I was thinking about Revelation last night. You know, fire, brimstone, nebulous dudes charging around on various colored stallions unleashing bowls of wrath on the earth and shit, etc. (I’ve always fancied Revelation as that book where God nances around kicking ass and taking names.) You get the idea. It occurs to me that I think I know who the anti-christ is.

You all remember back in Sunday School, when the teacher talked about Revelation she–or he, but women can only be trusted with the smallest of minds because they are inferior to men…so it was probably a she–talked about the anti-christ. You remember what she said, right? He’ll go around and get people to follow him people will think he’s good. Probably, if you’re like me, you began to panic at this point because you were worried you would fall for the anti-christ.

At this point the teacher tells you, because she too must have been like me once, that you needn’t worry about falling for the anti-christ because while he says he is good…he bears bad fruit. “Whew! Dodged that bullet.” Me and all the other 2nd graders in my Sunday School class thought, we’ll know he’s bad because he does bad things. (We prefer to go on in gleeful ignorance of the question, if he does such bad things why do people follow him?)

So, anyway, that’s my concept of anti-christ. I don’t really know if I believe it the way it was rolled out to me anymore. The concept could just be a metaphor for the type of evil that humans will battle in the world, or the anti-christ could have been many people throughout history. But for the sake of argument, today I’ll assume that it’s just one dude.

Okay, here it is, my pick for anti-christ (drumroll) goes to none other than the President of the United States. Now, hold on. Bear with me, here. Just think about it for a minute. Lots of people follow him. He sells himself as being a person of the light. He’s commander in chief of an (arguably) unjust war. He gives to the rich and takes from the poor. He supports the growth of a reckless amount of debt. Seems to fit the bill to me, right?

Obviously, I don’t believe this. Yet, it seems as though the Republican Party thinks it about John Kerry. For what other reason could a group unveil something as viscious as the pamphlet sent out to Alabama and West Virginia folks that claimed that John Kerry would ban the Bible? Actually, it was even worse. The pamphlet claimed that “democrats” would ban the Bible. Now it’s not just Kerry that is the anti-christ, but the whole of freakin’ capitol hill is just crawling with the little demons.

I suppose as long as there are liberals there will be conservatives there to call them the scourge of morality (and vice versa.) In the meantime, I think I’ll sit by my little window and keep my eye out for any horseman of the apocalypse, rumor has it they’re going to be out kicking ass and taking names.

Trackback URL »

http://www.badchristian.com/2004/09/30/the_anti_christ/trackback/

Comments »

  1. Sign up at gravatar.com to have your own image

    Visiting Atheist said,

    September 30, 2004 at 7:41 pm

    Stallions? How do you know the horses aren’t mares, you sexist you?

    This protest has been brought to you by “Working to Help Injustice-prone Nonspecific-Gendered Equines”, or WHINGE.

  2. Sign up at gravatar.com to have your own image

    Brandon said,

    September 30, 2004 at 10:43 pm

    I stand corrected…although doling out bowls of wrath seems male marked. I’m surprised that we haven’t so twisted scripture so as to stipulate that the horse (men) of the apocalypse were all riding white stallions. T’would seem the most appropriate, no?

  3. Sign up at gravatar.com to have your own image

    Visiting Atheist said,

    October 1, 2004 at 1:38 am

    Heh, I’m just fooling around. But now that I think about it, if it turned out that Roman warhorses were primarily male (I myself don’t know one way or the other), you’d have a pretty good case for the Revelation horses being male also, just to make the imagery consistent.

    Back when I studied NT Greek, the case for Domitian being the “unique” antichrist of Revelation seemed pretty solid, but then again, 1 Jn 2 implies that anyone who opposes the teachings of Christ (as determined by the Johannine school of course) is, by definition, an antichrist. I doubt it’s reasonable to expect unanimity from the Biblical authors on this matter.

    Assuming that Matthew 25 contains teachings of Christ and that cutting taxes for the very wealthy might be interpreted as not feeding the hungry, then by Johannine definitions you have a very solid Biblical case that GW Bush is an antichrist.

  4. Sign up at gravatar.com to have your own image

    Brandon said,

    October 1, 2004 at 8:12 am

    Quite true.

Leave a Comment

the anti-christ

Posted in faith, politics at 12:46 pm by

So, I was thinking about Revelation last night. You know, fire, brimstone, nebulous dudes charging around on various colored stallions unleashing bowls of wrath on the earth and shit, etc. (I’ve always fancied Revelation as that book where God nances around kicking ass and taking names.) You get the idea. It occurs to me that I think I know who the anti-christ is.

You all remember back in Sunday School, when the teacher talked about Revelation she–or he, but women can only be trusted with the smallest of minds because they are inferior to men…so it was probably a she–talked about the anti-christ. You remember what she said, right? He’ll go around and get people to follow him people will think he’s good. Probably, if you’re like me, you began to panic at this point because you were worried you would fall for the anti-christ.

At this point the teacher tells you, because she too must have been like me once, that you needn’t worry about falling for the anti-christ because while he says he is good…he bears bad fruit. “Whew! Dodged that bullet.” Me and all the other 2nd graders in my Sunday School class thought, we’ll know he’s bad because he does bad things. (We prefer to go on in gleeful ignorance of the question, if he does such bad things why do people follow him?)

So, anyway, that’s my concept of anti-christ. I don’t really know if I believe it the way it was rolled out to me anymore. The concept could just be a metaphor for the type of evil that humans will battle in the world, or the anti-christ could have been many people throughout history. But for the sake of argument, today I’ll assume that it’s just one dude.

Okay, here it is, my pick for anti-christ (drumroll) goes to none other than the President of the United States. Now, hold on. Bear with me, here. Just think about it for a minute. Lots of people follow him. He sells himself as being a person of the light. He’s commander in chief of an (arguably) unjust war. He gives to the rich and takes from the poor. He supports the growth of a reckless amount of debt. Seems to fit the bill to me, right?

Obviously, I don’t believe this. Yet, it seems as though the Republican Party thinks it about John Kerry. For what other reason could a group unveil something as viscious as the pamphlet sent out to Alabama and West Virginia folks that claimed that John Kerry would ban the Bible? Actually, it was even worse. The pamphlet claimed that “democrats” would ban the Bible. Now it’s not just Kerry that is the anti-christ, but the whole of freakin’ capitol hill is just crawling with the little demons.

I suppose as long as there are liberals there will be conservatives there to call them the scourge of morality (and vice versa.) In the meantime, I think I’ll sit by my little window and keep my eye out for any horseman of the apocalypse, rumor has it they’re going to be out kicking ass and taking names.

Trackback URL »

http://www.badchristian.com/2004/09/30/the_anti_christ/trackback/

Comments »

  1. Sign up at gravatar.com to have your own image

    Visiting Atheist said,

    September 30, 2004 at 7:41 pm

    Stallions? How do you know the horses aren’t mares, you sexist you?

    This protest has been brought to you by “Working to Help Injustice-prone Nonspecific-Gendered Equines”, or WHINGE.

  2. Sign up at gravatar.com to have your own image

    Brandon said,

    September 30, 2004 at 10:43 pm

    I stand corrected…although doling out bowls of wrath seems male marked. I’m surprised that we haven’t so twisted scripture so as to stipulate that the horse (men) of the apocalypse were all riding white stallions. T’would seem the most appropriate, no?

  3. Sign up at gravatar.com to have your own image

    Visiting Atheist said,

    October 1, 2004 at 1:38 am

    Heh, I’m just fooling around. But now that I think about it, if it turned out that Roman warhorses were primarily male (I myself don’t know one way or the other), you’d have a pretty good case for the Revelation horses being male also, just to make the imagery consistent.

    Back when I studied NT Greek, the case for Domitian being the “unique” antichrist of Revelation seemed pretty solid, but then again, 1 Jn 2 implies that anyone who opposes the teachings of Christ (as determined by the Johannine school of course) is, by definition, an antichrist. I doubt it’s reasonable to expect unanimity from the Biblical authors on this matter.

    Assuming that Matthew 25 contains teachings of Christ and that cutting taxes for the very wealthy might be interpreted as not feeding the hungry, then by Johannine definitions you have a very solid Biblical case that GW Bush is an antichrist.

  4. Sign up at gravatar.com to have your own image

    Brandon said,

    October 1, 2004 at 8:12 am

    Quite true.

Leave a Comment