Reply With Quote
Aww man, this should be good...
Since I opened this can of worms, I am going to go fishing...
Say, for example, someone was to call candidate X the anti Christ
1) Would that suggestion be more hurtful or less hurtful, more damaging or less damaging then calling them anti American?
2)Is calling someone the anti christ uproar worthy. Why or why not?
Follow up question ( for which, I am particulary interested in the thoughts of you who view the Bible as a made up story and/or a collection of philosophy.)
3) If you don't believe the Bible is true and that the book Revelation is prophesy- would you equate calling someone the anti christ as the equivalent of calling someone Scrooge or some other unpopular literary character?
Explain why you agree or disagree.
I am merely curious.
Aww man, this should be good...
You already have, so you can quit with the hypothetical "If someone..."
1) It doesn't matter, because you believe in God, which is the ultimate get out of jail free card.
2) It doesn't matter, because you believe in God, which is the ultimate get out of jail free card.
3) It doesn't matter, because you believe in God, which is the ultimate get out of jail free card.
Calling someone "Scrooge" or "Anti-American" has pretty negative conotations, but those aren't anywhere in the same league as saying someone is evil incarnate, here to hasten death, misery and the end of the world.
Can you provide a factual basis for who wrote the bible? Do you know how it was assembled? If you have to quote from the bible to prove the validity of the bible then what are you basing your faith on? Give me the time and I can write you a new bible on that basis.
The anti-christ, like the devil, is just a buggerbear.
I happen to believe there is a god but its not some old guy, with a pecker, sitting on a cloud. I don't think anyone knows anymore about god than I do, which isn't much. I think Jesus was trying to say you can have a relationship with god without all the organized religion and all. He got wacked for it. He would be horrified with what the Christians have done with him, the opposite of what he was trying to get across.
Revelations just proves that recreational drug use isn't anything new.
Since I opened this can of worms, I am going to go fishing...
Say, for example, someone was to call candidate X the anti Christ
1) Would that suggestion be more hurtful or less hurtful, more damaging or less damaging then calling them anti American?
It depends on the person you say that in the pressence of. There are MANY people who don't believe in the Anti Christ...many. I, for one, don't believe in at all. So being called Anti Christ would be silly to me.
Un-American is subjective too. THe person saying it has an agenda when they say it so it turns the whole question around to "What do you mean by that?".
2)Is calling someone the anti christ uproar worthy. Why or why not?
No.....because it doesn't matter...no one's beliefs will change.
Follow up question ( for which, I am particulary interested in the thoughts of you who view the Bible as a made up story and/or a collection of philosophy.)
3) If you don't believe the Bible is true and that the book Revelation is prophesy- would you equate calling someone the anti christ as the equivalent of calling someone Scrooge or some other unpopular literary character?
Explain why you agree or disagree.
Yes...pure fiction
Sorry for some typos at times...spilled beer on the keyboard
I am merely curious.
Last edited by only1wwff; 10-28-2008 at 10:59 PM.
First, the answers:
1. The term "Anti-christ" is idiotic, fic ious and irrelevant. The term anti-American is somewhat damaging, however in the context of the current election, both phrases are equally idiotic in the way they have been used by some nut-jobs.
2. Idiotic term, hence not uproar-worthy.
3. WGAF since the term is idiotic and the Bible should not be taken literally
Next, a candid suggestion: you're a very nice girl, but also very loony. Stop thinking of the present world in terms of ancient text, since the metaphors and statements do not apply uniformly. Try and seek professional help on how to curb your Bible-thumping BS, because your perception of reality is getting increasingly skewed.
Since I opened this can of worms, I am going to go fishing...
Say, for example, someone was to call candidate X the anti Christ
1) Would that suggestion be more hurtful or less hurtful, more damaging or less damaging then calling them anti American?
2)Is calling someone the anti christ uproar worthy. Why or why not?
Follow up question ( for which, I am particulary interested in the thoughts of you who view the Bible as a made up story and/or a collection of philosophy.)
3) If you don't believe the Bible is true and that the book Revelation is prophesy- would you equate calling someone the anti christ as the equivalent of calling someone Scrooge or some other unpopular literary character?
Explain why you agree or disagree.
I am merely curious.
It depends on the source. No one with any authority is calling Obama the anti-Christ yet many people in important positions are calling him Anti-American. If important Christian leaders such as the Pope said Obama was the AntiChrist I'm fairly certain that would be irreparable to his chances at becoming President.
As far as whether or not its uproar worthy it really depends on the context and the source. If some random person on an internet message board says it then its not that big of a deal in the long run, but I can't imagine a bigger story than "Pop says Obama is Anti-Christ". I don't nessecarily think its shocking that people believe things like this because to be quite frank people believe all kinds of crazy . Look at the 9/11 truthers on this board. I was shocked to hear you say it, however.
Your perception of reality is incredibly flawed. The sad thing about is the more we tell you this the stronger your beliefs probably become. You're probably convinced that most Americans are evil sinners who don't know the "Truth" and that you and your church are living on some higher level. It's really sad.
Wouldn't it be funny if Angel was just screwing around with everyone.....
Who cares what these knuckleheads say.
Forget the OT. Lewis Black said that God was crazy, and Lewis Black is Jewish, it's his book, so he otta know.
If "Christians" would stick to the Christ part of the Bible, they'd be more authentic and believable, and their pastors could still haul in the $$$ hand over fist.
Wouldn't it be funny if Angel was just screwing around with everyone.....I was thinking she might be some sort of christian troll
, but apparently people on this board have met her.
Obviously the first factor is to consider the source. But for the purpose of your exercise, I'll presume the source is one to be respected and considered by some reason or other.
This depends on what you mean by "hurtful." If you mean on a personal level, it would be based on the person's own religious belief and affiliation. To someone that is a devout Christian, being called the anti-Christ would be more hurtful; to someone who is a less devout Christian, it would depend on how much of their personal iden y is wrapped up in being an American.
From a political point of view, it depends on the location and time. Right now in America they are about the same because I'd wager about the same percentage of the electorate that could be swayed by an anti-Christ slur are the same that could be swayed by an anti-American slur.
In my personal opinion, the anti-American would be more damaging because you cannot prove someone is the anti-Christ, but you can always manipulate facts or provide examples that could be considered anti-American. But I think inflammatory language is repulsive and I'm more inclined to be against the name caller than the person being branded.
Meh. Yes and no. It shouldn't be, but it always will be so long as a significant percentage of the electorate is faith based over logic based. By that I don't mean that all people of faith are illogical. I'm simply referring to those individuals who rationalize with their faith first and their logic second.
Given that a significant portion of our electorate is faith-based, I think it's uproar worthy in this particular election mainly because we are involved in a was in the Middle East, and the implications of these two factors cannot be ignored.
Again, context is everything here. If you're talking about Pat Robertson on the 700 club calling a public figure the anti-Christ to millions of faith-based viewers, it's very different then me sitting with my friends and someone laughingly calling you the anti-Christ for cheating at a video game.
If I were to personally ever call someone the anti-Christ it would be intended with fun or hyperbole, as with the Scrooge example, or to engage in intellectual exercise of seeing how someone matches up to the criteria we have set forth to establish an anti-Christ.
For the record, angel, I think it's worth reminding people that you didn't really call Obama the anti-Christ out of no where. You were asked a direct question and you answered it. So, while you certainly stirred controvery with your error, I don't think those of us who read that thread think that you opened this particular can of worms.
Although I still think Bartleby's questions was meant to be flip and rhetorical and that still cracks me up.
1) Since (I hope) the anti-Christ, if/when he/she appears, will likely be Anti-American, it would be worse. Much worse.Since I opened this can of worms, I am going to go fishing...
Say, for example, someone was to call candidate X the anti Christ
1) Would that suggestion be more hurtful or less hurtful, more damaging or less damaging then calling them anti American?
2)Is calling someone the anti christ uproar worthy. Why or why not?
Follow up question ( for which, I am particulary interested in the thoughts of you who view the Bible as a made up story and/or a collection of philosophy.)
3) If you don't believe the Bible is true and that the book Revelation is prophesy- would you equate calling someone the anti christ as the equivalent of calling someone Scrooge or some other unpopular literary character?
Explain why you agree or disagree.
I am merely curious.
2) If a person can offer a basis for this rationale, then it is absolutely uproar worthy. But it has to be more than just, "He's a rising political star", and since we're obviously referencing the Left Behind books here, it would have to be something extremely out of the ordinary. Something that defies the natural senses or the natural order of this world. Then? Sure. Until then? It's not really worth discussing.
3) Well, it depends whether the individuals view the anti-christ as a symbolic figure. If they don't, then no. But if they do, it stands to reason that he would still be a more evocative figure than a greedy old man who doesn't dole out his $$$ to others.
And if there had been no The Hobbit, then Frodo wouldn't have had to carry a ing ring to a volcano all the way through three books of LOTR. You can't expect people to worship and participate in something while ignoring the back story.
Ignoring the Old Testament would make Christians less credible, not more.
Being a religious person, and getting to pick and choose what aspects of your religion you believe in, are two concepts that don't quite seem to fit together.
Your Christianity, angel, is I think, seriously lacking in depth and examination. And furthermore, it's about as un-christ like as could be. It's fundamental, judgemental, empty & dangerous. Furthermore, it's offensive to the notion of spirituality through intense moral introspection and vacillation; in other words, extremely shallow and unexamined. Many great Christian theologians would be appalled at the way you throw your diseased fraud of a "Christian" faith around and you'd be better served reading them than you would listening to whatever right wing kook is brain-washing you in Youth Group. You might be a nice enough person otherwise, but you've been fleeced and fooled into a dangerously zealous fringe cult of Christianity and enough is enough already. Either get with the program called reality or at the very least, stop bandying about your insanely offensive theories.
Last edited by balli; 10-29-2008 at 02:02 AM.
Hurtful to whom? The candidate, or the candidate's supporters? I think in both cases it will depend on the feelings/beliefs of the person calling someone a name, as well as all of the people who hear it.
And here it depends on what you mean by "uproar." I'm of the opinion that the few people who made ridiculous assertions about your needing to be ins utionalized for that su ion/belief were being every bit as over-the-top and reactionary as they accused you of being. On the other hand, it is an outlandish enough assertion, and the result of such completely asinine and flawed "logic," that I'm certainly not going to let such a statement pass without comment.
This is where the intent/beliefs of the person making that comment come into play. If I, as a non-believer, were to call someone the anti-Christ, it would likely be apparent to all involved that I was doing so in jest. Coming from me, that insult would be equivalent to calling someone Scrooge, or Iago, or any other unflattering literary character. However, if someone who was a believer in the Bible as truth were to call someone else the anti-Christ (and mean it), that has a much different connotation. "Anti-Christ," to someone who believes in such things, is the real and tangible bringer of death and destruction. Therefore, if that meaning was the intent of the person doing the insulting, I would feel it as such even though it may not reflect my personal beliefs.
Angel...unless you accept Obama as your savior they are going to attack you. That's the only way to make it stop. If it's intelligent discourse you seek...wrong forum.
1. What is being anti-american? The hurtfulness depends on the person. Do they seriously believe the anti-christ? Obviously it would then be hurtful.Since I opened this can of worms, I am going to go fishing...
Say, for example, someone was to call candidate X the anti Christ
1) Would that suggestion be more hurtful or less hurtful, more damaging or less damaging then calling them anti American?
2)Is calling someone the anti christ uproar worthy. Why or why not?
Follow up question ( for which, I am particulary interested in the thoughts of you who view the Bible as a made up story and/or a collection of philosophy.)
3) If you don't believe the Bible is true and that the book Revelation is prophesy- would you equate calling someone the anti christ as the equivalent of calling someone Scrooge or some other unpopular literary character?
Explain why you agree or disagree.
I am merely curious.
2. Yes, calling someone evil-incarnate is uproar worthy. How many people that have lived are truly pure evil? Very very few. A few murderers and dictators, and even they showed some love towards certain people, be it relatives or friends.
3. Calling someone the anti-christ is not lightly thrown around in any situation that isn't used jokingly. If a believer says it, then as far as I am concerned they might as well say "x is worse than Stalin" or "x is worse than Hitler" or whichever mass-murderer you fancy. And you know, that is not something that is easy to comprehend. Those two men did evil on a grand scale. The amount of grief they caused in a single day is more than most people could do in a hundred lifetimes. But the anti-christ is even worse. Many scholars cite Hitler as the forerunner to the anti-christ. Can you honestly say one of these people that will be elected will be that evil? I find that notion offensive as a human being. Look at the names of people that have been associated with the anti-christ. Hitler. Stalin. Nero.
Need any more even be said? I believe a true, honest, literal interpreter of the bible saying "x is the anti-christ" as a serious meaning is quite a grave assertation.
Perhaps some people do not realize just how much evil being the anti-christ would require. If I seriously believed the bible I would be offended at a fellow believer calling me that, so much so that I would question their faith as they would be judging me, a task not reserved for people, but only God.
For non-believers it's just all fairy-tales. But if you make this assumption seriously, then you need to examine your religious zeal, as it is dangerous.
First of, let me tell you I'm taking this question as coming from somebody raising these two 'labels' seriously, not as a joke. What's more hurtful?
I don't think neither is. The two labels are basically accusations of things you can't conclusively prove. I see the pro/anti American more of an attempt to be divisive. Something more along the lines of separating 'us' against 'them'. Obviously with 'us' being the pro-American, thus the good guys, vs 'them', the anti-Americans who would be the bad guys. Obviously, how do you prove candidate X is anti American? What even is considered anti American?
Different people will tell you different things based on their own preconceived notion of what makes America what it is. So this specific label is more ambiguous than anything.
As far as the anti Christ, I think it takes a complete loon to bring this label seriously. It implies said person believes that the anti Christ story is real and takes it seriously, even though there's no concrete evidence whatsoever to support this assessment. Even more, the mere thought you would be able to stop this harbinger of destruction by not letting him win an election is pretty silly. And asking the actual candidate to address this concern, is re ed no matter what way you look at it. Which makes this specific label mostly irrational.
Not really no. I think the general consensus was what was on display in this board. Not necessarily outrage, but more of a sensation of sadness that a person actually believes in such a thing. I think it makes the the person making the claim look like an irrational fool. The good news is that I think most people see through that accusation, and take it for the junk it is.
You know I'm on that boat...
Depends on who's making the accusation. If somebody lives his/her life using A Christmas Carol as guideline, and believes the book to be a literal account, then I think that person is bat crazy, and his/her accusation to be completely irrational. Pretty much the same applies to the bible in that context.
That's some intelligent discourse right there.
You didn't even address her questions...
Talk about posting junk...
Whottt continues to crack me up.
Just be yourself Veronica and don't worry so much about what others think. Not that I think you are worried since you seem to keep the Faith.
Angel, will you please ask god a question for me? I was curious who's going to win the World Series?
Thanks,
Jesus
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
