Originally posted by IAMIAM
what is the "Anti-Christ"?
Since Christian political philosophy is, by default, "theocratic fascism " the expected "Second Coming" of that 2000 year old religious fanatic,
would not seem to be an improvement over the Biblical Antichrist; after all the expected arrival of the alleged "King of Kings" is portrayed as
being accompanied by the genocide of non believers and a global apocalyptic war; this "King of Kings" is portrayed as a brutal dictator, and if he
is the same religious fanatic as depicted in the Gospels, we might expect him to impose his religion (Judaism) and his primitive and savage laws
(i.e., Biblical Laws) which would certainly result in the mass exeuctions of almost all humankind.
Christ brought a new doctrine to a world that was divided between judaism, mithraism, Roman Paganism, and many other small cults.
There are countless "Christian doctrines" which have emanated from myriads of Christian theologians over the centuries, however the stated
"religion" of the Jesus of the Gospels was Judaism, and he further promoted a strict adherence to the "Law and the Prophets;" this was not a "new
religion" but an old one.
The idea of "loving each other" was hardly a new one, however if the law (the Mosaic Law) was adhered to, I doubt if most human beings would feel
very loved when they were executed for adultery, for working on the Sabbath (Friday sunset till Saturday sunset), for being found not to be a virgin
when they were sold into slavery, for worshipping any other deity that the ancient and barbaric tribal deity of the Israelites, and for numerous other
executionable and genocidal offences.
What Christ taught was equality.
He did refer to a Gentile (foreign) woman as a "dog," he told his followers not to go into the towns and cities of the Gentiles; he clearly did not
believe in human equality.
He judged NO MAN.....................and in like manner shall he judge you!
The Jesus of the Gospels "was" extremely judgemental, but the idea of a person being non-judgementally judgemental is just typical of a religionist
who can quite comfortably hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time.
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who
believe : In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink
deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
In other words, if you cannot drink deadly poison without coming to harm and miraculously cure the sick, you are "condemned." That seems very
judgemental to me, particularly since the Christian charlatans who do claim to be able to do such miracles are simply fanatics who prey on the old,
the sick and the vulnerable, and who have never been able to establish that they can do such miracles.
Do you turn a deaf ear because to hear him would shame you?
I have studied the Jesus of the Gospels, just as I would try to study "any" major enemy of humankind who wished to lead humanity down the road of
religious fanaticism. It would of course "shame me" to even consider accepting such religious tyranny as he proposed.