If there is to be an Antichrist, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

Topic started on 14-8-2009 @ 01:07 PM by LoneGunMan

I was reading an article and it mentioned the end times and an Antichrist I thought maybe I should do a thread on who would follow it and how to avoid doing the same.

I think we would have to use a reverse barometer for knowing who this would be.

The mainstream religions I think would be a great way of determining this. They always seem to be following the wrong ideal and this is one indicator as to what not to follow.

I think the mainstream people also are a great way of determining what not to follow. They always seem to go in the wrong direction until a minority group of thinking people lead by example and right the course they are going in.

How about you what do you think about how to tell whats what?

*This thread is hypothetical and not a debate as to whether there will be or not be an Antichrist*

reply posted on 14-8-2009 @ 01:37 PM by ExPostFacto

Yes. You are right in my opinion.

The term antichrist seems to show that he would come peaceful and within 3 1/2 year you would know what his true intentions were. After 7 years, he would be removed from power to be replaced by GOD's law. The church teaches god requires you perform works in the material world so that when you become in spirit you will have material rewards in heaven. Oh and that you would worship him forever in heaven. Well thats the religious teachings.

I honestly think if there is an anti christ, he destroys the religions, as he has people turn away from the churchs and unite together. That doesn't sound like a bad thing to me...why would god be against that? Is it possible the church put the antichrist story in there so that people would turn back to the church instead of uniting together?

reply posted on 14-8-2009 @ 02:19 PM by autowrench

The term antichrist also says not a man who is against the Christ, but anyone who is against organized religion of the Book variety, ie, Christianity and Islam. I could be called an
"anti-christ," simply because I am dead set against organized religion is any of it's many forms. Religion cannot run a Nation, never could, never will. Religion, by the Law of the Constitution is separate from State, and the two cannot mix for any reason whatsoever. I will give you an example....I have not one thing against the brand of gasoline in your car, but I hate the Big Oil companies that produce the oil. Nothing against any Christian, but against their hierarchy and dogmatic organization. No religion on this planet has all of the truth, or knows the only way, the only path to follow, although some state that they have a lock on this.
No body is going to Hell, unless they actually want to, and from what people have been saying to me, partying in Hell is way better than bowing down in Heaven.

Living easy, living free
Season ticket on a one-way ride
Asking nothing, leave me be
Taking everything in my stride
Dont need reason, dont need rhyme
Aint nothing I would rather do
Going down, party time
My friends are gonna be there too

Im on the highway to hell

No stop signs, speed limit
Nobodys gonna slow me down
Like a wheel, gonna spin it
Nobodys gonna mess me round
Hey satan, payed my dues
Playing in a rocking band
Hey momma, look at me
Im on my way to the promised land

Im on the highway to hell
(dont stop me)

And Im going down, all the way down
Im on the highway to hell

(ACDC HIGHWAY TO HELL - Young, Young, Scott, 1979)

Go ahead, dear religious types, post your Bible quotes for all to see how deluded I am.

reply posted on 14-8-2009 @ 02:34 PM by octotom

reply to post by ExPostFacto

I honestly think if there is an anti christ, he destroys the religions, as he has people turn away from the churchs and unite together. That doesn't sound like a bad thing to me...why would god be against that?

Humanly speaking, it does sound like a good thing. Peace, harmony, and the like...things that have been striven for for ages.

The reason that God would be against this isn't because man would finally "get along" and he wants man to be constantly at odds with one another. We should first notice that the Antichrist doesn't "abolish" religion. He in fact creates one, centered around the worship of himself. This is idolatry [in addition to blasphemy] and is something that God doesn't take kindly to, because, in replace God with Antichrist worship, God is being robbed of something that he deserves. That is the main reason that God would be against the Antichrist is what he does.

A second reason would be because God has established a path through which man can come to him. That path is grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ. The Antichrist goes against God's established plan, which is yet another reason God would be against him.

A third reason God would be against what the Antichrist does is that, that Antichrist is an enemy of God's people, Israel. God has said that anyone that is against his people, he will be against. [Likewise, those that are for Israel will receive God's blessings.]

Is it possible the church put the antichrist story in there so that people would turn back to the church instead of uniting together?

I don't think so. Simply because that, the idea of the Antichrist is fairly well spread and a majority of the Western world isn't Christian. The notion of the Antichrist didn't lead me to Christianity, nor is it what keeps me a Christian, and it isn't making people flock to the church is droves. Among the Christian teachings, the doctrine of the Antichrist is rather far on the back burner.

Going along with your thought though, why would it be a bad thing if the world united under the Christian banner?

reply posted on 14-8-2009 @ 03:53 PM by Dean Goldberry

Not that I'm even close to convinced it would be possible for one person to rule over billions of people in this age, no matter what unexplained powers he or she may have, but I believe the solution to the "Antichrist" hubbub, if there's ever to be one, would be in (somehow) firmly, incontrovertibly establishing once and for all what qualifies as TRULY Messianic and what doesn't.

Would a Messiah be one who arrives to take leadership of the followers of the religion in his name, only to tell everyone else on the planet to basically eat # and die? Would a Messiah be one who tells people mostly what they WANT to hear? As astronomically f-ed up as human "civilization" (as we know it) is, I strongly think not on both counts.

reply posted on 14-8-2009 @ 04:33 PM by infolurker

Well, the "New Age / Luciferian movement has been planning this a very long time. I am going to share with you some information on the subject. Please do not take it lightly.

Public opinion, the majority of politicians, and social scientists are at any event unable to accept facts which contradict their deeply held belief that they understand and control all that happens in society. Both Lenin and Hitler openly revealed their real aims years before they ever came to power. Did the nations heed the warning? No, they preferred to go on sleeping. It is no different today.

The plan is ingeniously simple:

"We shall unleash the Nihilists and Atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will be from that moment without compass (direction), anxious for an ideal, but with out knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view, a manifestation which will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time" (William Guy Carr, Pawns in the Game, p. xv-xvi)

www.libertyforlife.com...
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...

See also: Share International & The Lucifer Publishing Company (Lucis Trust)

www.redmoonrising.com...

Share International Foundation is a member of the NGO (non-governmental organization) community at the United Nations

SI has a long list of prominent, well respected international diplomats, religious leaders and political figures who have had articles published in this magazine. They include articles written by former UN leader Boutros Boutros-Ghali; present leader Kofi Annan; former President of Ireland Mary Robinson; Gro Harlem Brundtland who is director-general of the World Health Organization and former Prime Minister of Norway; the Dalai Lama; and recently even Britain's Crown Prince Charles.(7) Even though the average man on the street would most likely dissolve into hysterical laughter upon being presented with the beliefs of Creme and Share International, it is easily shown that this magazine is well-respected and taken seriously by many influential members of the Global Elite. In fact, Share International Foundation is accredited as an official non-governmental organization (NGO) by the United Nations,(8) and the magazine, as stated on the inside cover of each issue, is published by SI "...in association with the Department of Public Information at the United Nations."

Now The Lucis Trust, formerly known as the Lucifer Publishing Company was formed by Alice A. Bailey a Theophsist and disciple of Madame Blavatsky (Helena Petrovna Blavatsky). Blavatsky was the founder of Theosophy and is considered the "mother" of the New Age movement and modern occultism. She taught in her Secret Doctrine that Lucifer was "higher and older than Jehovah. She further expressed in her "great work" that Satan, under different god-names, is really an allegory of "Good, and Sacrifice, a God of Wisdom." Blavatsky believed that Satan was the only god of earth, "is one with the Logos," and is the "cosmic reflection of God.". Blavatsky also equated Lucifer with Jesus Christ.

The Lucis Trust (or Lucifer Publishing Company) is a United Nations Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) and is represented at weekly sessions at the United Nations in New York and Geneva and a member of the UN Economic and Social Council.

The Lucis Trust promotes IoNs as one of the "New Group of World Servers". The Lucis Trust are pushing for the establishment of a permanent "Age of Aquarius" ruled by one "christ" figure, "Lord of the Word" or Maitreya (the new age messiah) and a One World Religion.

Zeitgeist Part I used the controversial author Archarya S as the consultant for the movie. Part I of the movie is based on her book "The Christ Conspiracy", she also penned the companion guide for Zeitgeist.

Archarya S plagiarized her book from a book written in the 1800's by a Quaker who claimed without any evidence that there were 16 previous crucified saviours. This book was heavily cited by the Theosphical Society (founded by Madam Blavatsky - see above).

Archarya S expanded on the themes of the original book by drawing on material from Madam Blavatsky; revered 33rd degree Freemason Alber Pike who stated "Yes, Lucifer is God"; controversial researcher "Jordan Maxwell" (a pseudonym: derived from one of Maxwell's mentors, Madame Blavatsky's, works-- i.e., Jordanus Maximus); Gerlad Massey (High Chief Druid and contributor to Blavatsky's Lucifer Magazine); Albert Churchward (Freemason); James Churchward (Freemason); Michael Baigent (Freemason); Godfrey Higgins (Freemason / Cheif Druid) and others. To this day there are unclaimed financial rewards for anyone who can actually back up any of the claims made by Archarya S or Zeitgeist Part I.

www.redmoonrising.com...
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 14-8-2009 by infolurker]

reply posted on 14-8-2009 @ 04:54 PM by Demoncreeper

Interesting topic for sure. Star and Flag.
I've often wondered.
Antichrist.
I've heard that he/she would be the ultimate false profit. Perhaps the whole "antichrist" isn't singular.
In my opinion, to date, the biggest false prophets are organized religions.

However, according to Nostradamus' 14th quatrain, the name of the antichrist is "Mabus".
14th quatrain

I watched John Hogue in a documentary, try to manipulate the word "mabus" to fit "sadam". That was a few years ago. I lolled. I'm looking for that particular segment.

I wonder how we are supposed to perceive an antichrist, when all of humanity isn't united in a singular belief. It's like the definition of evil. It needs "perceptions' of morality, to actually carry a definition.

If an antichrist were to present themselves as such, would we feel duped? Or, just say..."figures".

Hope I didn't miss the point of the thread, its just how it "tied into me". haha.

reply posted on 21-8-2009 @ 10:42 AM by pasttheclouds

patterns repeat,

freedom comes up, get destroyed, rest follows.

revelation and daniel and quran are misunderstood
they expect the turn around,

the ones they think will be the false prophet
will be the prophet that was promised in malachi

religion does not understand symbols
they think a beast is a person
but it's everyone who lives in lie
divided.

Daniel talked not about antichrist,
he talked about patterns, the stories,
he talked about the prince,
the angels that will know god
not as how we believed before
but a god on another way, the good way

like jesus teached us,
god is one.
thats the message of the angels
but relgion will be afraid.

reply posted on 21-8-2009 @ 11:11 AM by happygolucky

reply to post by octotom

We should first notice that the Antichrist doesn't "abolish" religion. He in fact creates one, centered around the worship of himself. This is idolatry [in addition to blasphemy] and is something that God doesn't take kindly to, because, in replace God with Antichrist worship, God is being robbed of something that he deserves.

You don't see the hypocrisy in that..?

why would it be a bad thing if the world united under the Christian banner?

How about the world unite under a free thinking banner instead...that way when things are eventually done correctly, we can give each other the credit rather than an ideology based on myth..?

reply posted on 21-8-2009 @ 11:31 AM by JustG

Originally posted by autowrench
The term antichrist also says not a man who is against the Christ, but anyone who is against organized religion of the Book variety, ie, Christianity and Islam. I could be called an
"anti-christ," simply because I am dead set against organized religion is any of it's many forms.

I'm curious why you would be posting such blantant mis-information. Or in other words promoting the religion (theosophy) of the NWO and the anti-christ. Whether you know it or not.

Lucifer (the dragon) is believed by many to be mightier than God. The anti-christ (beast) is going to rule the nations. He is their christ. But he's not THE Christ. He's the anti-christ. I trust this is clear.

I think though we have here an answer to the question. Who is promoting that all churches are the same thing. Who is promoting that all leaders ie Mohammad, Buddha, Christ all lead to the same place. Who is calling for a NWO or promoting that we are all god.

From this you could we wary of everyone from the Oprah to Maxwell to the Pope.

the (hypothetical?) doctrine is clear. And if we apply it to our reality, this is what you get.