BellaOnline Forums Religion and Spirituality Atheist Obama Antichrist ridiculousness

Anyone see the you tube Obama anti christ advertisement?

It's so amazing to me that people will believe that stuff, but I am sure there are plenty who are falling for it.

I wish that religion could be completely taken out of the "race" for office. It's really not helping anyone.

I haven't - but it doesn't surprise me at all that someone has stooped to that tactic (again).

People have been accusing leaders of being the anti-Christ since the fall of Rome. Some people thought that emperor Nero (I hope I grabbed the right one, it's been a while since I have studied the subject) was the anti-Christ because he persecuted Christians (again, I am sorry if I have the wrong emperor). Others thought Hitler was the anti-Christ. Some thought Sadam Housein would initiate the apocalypse. It could be that these were just horrible guys who should not have been allowed to have power in the first place.

I agree with you two about the ridiculousness about it. However, I do sympathize with those that are believing in it. I am a spiritualist at the moment, but I attended a religious private school that tought a very well rounded coriculum.

One of the subjects of study was the end of times and various theories and interpretations. As I said, I do not believe he is the anti- Christ, but I do see that he is doing a lot of things that the Anti-Christ is supposed to do.

This is the clearest and easiest to understand youtube video I could find. (Please ignore the speaker's creepy drone voice)

BellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!

Most polititcians have these sorts of fanatical followers within their midsts ( why else would we have had so many assissination attempts?). It is just that Obama's can be racially qualified this time (but, acutally - there were favorties among the races before, too). So just that he is different is enough to qualify him for this "title".

I think at one point in time JFK was rumored to be the antiChrist, because he was the 1st Catholic president, and *supposedly* his father made a deal with Satan for his family to have power.

There will always be rumors of this sort.

I know this is an atheist forum, but I will just say that from my personal beliefs - I figure the antiChrist will rise up from the religious system, not the political system. That's all the religion I'll get on here.

[quote=whoisjohngalt]

One of the subjects of study was the end of times and various theories and interpretations. As I said, I do not believe he is the anti- Christ, but I do see that he is doing a lot of things that the Anti-Christ is supposed to do.

This is the clearest and easiest to understand youtube video I could find. (Please ignore the speaker's creepy drone voice)

BellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!

God bless

You cannot take religion out of politics because one brings his beliefs, values, customs, experiences with him when he makes decisions.

Obama, the anti-Christ? does it really make a difference to one who does not believe?

No disrespect to you or your beliefs, Dountonia, but you not only can take religion out of politics, but according to our first amendment, it has been established that you do.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

Religion and values are not synonymous, and it is closed minded and uninformed to claim that they are. In fact, there are some religions that promote hatred, anger and violence against anyone who is different than they are - including some Christian sects. Under our constitution there is the solid feeling of safety that we are protected against religous fanaticism of any origin. Because we are a nation which takes pride in our freedoms, imposing Christian or other religious beliefs on the entire nation is both unpatriotic and unconstitutional. Our government does not exist to erode rights, but rather uphold them. To include a single religion's rights and beliefs in the making of laws erodes the rights of other citizens to exercise theirs. Do you want to live in a nation that is stripped of rights?

Furthermore, a group of people interpreting their motives to be synonymous with "God's" motives is presumptuous and arrogant to say the least. It's got nothing to do with "God." It's got everything to do with the fragile human ego needing to cling to their personal ideas - to feel right, powerful and validated. It is a powerful feeling to believe that "God" has the same POV as you do. And it can get out of control very quickly, as it replaces common sense, logic and compassion for all life.

And no, to someone who doesn't believe, it wouldn't matter if any person claimed another person was the "Anti-Christ." That's the whole point. The first Amendment gives us the right to freely consider and discuss the topic, from any angle we choose to. That's what makes our nation work, and why our government imposes it on so many other nations.

Shay

Could you please share with me how Congress is making a law or establishing a religion by considering the background of ones beliefs (religious or otherwise)? And, how do I separate my religious experience/beliefs (or any experience/beliefs) from who I am or how I make decisions in any occupation?

The point I was making is one cannot separate his religious "indoctrination" when making occupational decisions because it is a part of who he is. Anymore than one can separate his non-religious proclamations when making occupational decisions because they are a part of who he is.

BTW my religion shapes my values in the same way that the non-religious "doctrine" shapes the values of the non-religious. I do not recall writing/implying that "religion and values are synonomous."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

In other words, congress can't make any laws that support an established religion, or make any laws that prohibit any other religion from expressing their own. It's the "separation of church and state." This amendment is there to protect our governmental structure from making laws (and presumably manipulating language in such a way to imply that "God" wants them to make a particular decision) and to not make laws that would infringe on the expression of other existing religions. An example would be, if my religion upholds that abortion is acceptable, then anti-abortion laws would be infringing on my freedom to freely exercise my religious beliefs. The same would go for sexual orientation, etc. It's to keep any laws from being passed that are religiously biased in nature. If a law begins or ends with "God says" then it cannot be constitutionally passed.

So, my point in response to your statement that religious values can't be separated from occupational values, is that if a politicians value system is religiously obsessive, singularly biblical in nature, or uses verbal manipulation to persuade the masses that "God" wants them to do something, then they don't belong in the White House. The White House is not a church, nor is it meant to represent biblical teachings. Good, wholesome values did not originate in, nor are they limited to the bible. There is nothing wrong with believing in God. It's when "God's" laws become a politicians personal laws, that there are qualification issues, because they will leak into the laws governing the nation.

By stating that a person's religious value system is a part of who they are, you are saying that an individual and their value system are synonymous with their religion. You are saying that they can't be separated. My point is that if they can't be separated for a presidential candidate, that candidate does not constitutionally qualify for the presidency. The presidency is designed for religiously non-biased, highly intellectual, well educated and compassionate individuals.

Shay