Reply #17: Depends on your view of the Antichrist. [View All]

[vixengrl]

Some say that, taken in the historical context, the "Antichrist" of Revelations was someone contemporaneous, such as Nero (a likely contender) who had the bad failing of many of the Roman emperors of self-deification. Becoming a God is very bad for you (Claudius knew that; when death approached, he sighed--"I fear I am becoming a god.") On the allegorical level, the difference between Christ and Antichrist could be viewed not so much as a conflict of good and evil (although it is that) but as a conflict between the earthly world (the "princes of the Earth") and the Kingdon of Heaven. This is why your Napoleons and Hitlers--the "world conquest" types, are considered Antichrists.

As an allegorical Antichrist, Bush is a materialist. His concerns are worldly concerns, his goals, no matter what language he uses, are material. Contrasting the Bush message with the message of Christ, one sees many differences. Christ washed the feet of his disciples. He spoke of the meek and the lowly. He walked among the tax collector and the prostitute. He admitted he was where the lowest were. He was not a man of wealth--he did not value material things. The sword he brought was the "logos", not a daisy cutter bomb, and he healed the sick, he did not step on their wounds. I do not think he is "the Antichrist" in a religious sense--I am fairly materialistic myself! But his confusion of values and the degree to which he has been given real earthly power are not healthy for this planet, in my opinion--and he truly has the wool pulled over many eyes simply because he speaks the language they assume is that of a godly man. I say it's by the deeds you know someone. When all is said and done--every day is a day of judgement. When judged on actions--I'd say it's better to have done good things even on a small level--and stand alone, than do horrible things on a great level--no matter who stands with him.