The Rational Antichrist

[Kaplok Kaplok]

It is really amusing how there are people who would picture the antichrist as a monster, a satanic figure, or whatever superstitious jazz they believe in. Some (ehemm) creative people would even claim that they are the antichrist, or even form a cult based around the false understanding.

Before you get it, you have to understand that the bible is a book containing philosophies and principles that is meant to be a framework of a society. This includes politics. This includes the individual mindset. Theist might find this disagreeable, which i dont mind.

THE TERM "ANTI"
usually we think of anti as "against". But even theologist would consider it to mean "instead of". Antichrist does not necessarily mean describe an entity that blatantly go against christ like John described.

²² Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. -1 John 2:22

He is not wrong either. Denying does not have to be literally saying one denies it. It could be as simple as thinking that this persons' ways are better than what the Bible recommends, which leads to making this person a leader.

One thing is for certain, the antichrist will NOT call itself an antichrist. Either they would deny being one, or they would not even know they are the one referred to by the Bible.

THE ARCHETYPE OF A TYRANT

When we look back in history and learn about tyrannical leaderships, we are baffled on how these tyrants were allowed to rule at all. We think that the subjects are just stupid. Or rather incapable of choosing a leader.

What we fail to realize is, these tyrants never presented themselves as tyrants, especially in the beginning of their rule.

Usually, they would lead with decisions that are presented as "peace", "wise" or something very agreeable to the intuition. They would make decisions that would appeal to the masses. And at some point, they would be corrupted by power before they become a true tyrant. The point is they would always start of with a seemingly proper way to rule, and it would seem impressive. Then later on, tyranny.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

Tyrants don't only appear in politics though. They could be religious leaders, a boss, parents, or they could even be a partner. The thing that identifies them is the narrative they abide by, which justifies their right to rule over you.

...SO WHO IS/ARE THE ANTICHRIST(S)?

Before we answer that, we must first identify who or what is Christ.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. -John 1:1

As originally written in Koine Greek, "the word" was written as Logos, which was well understood by philosophers before adapting Jewish philosphies, to mean "logic", "reason" or "principle".
In short, Jesus is "logic", "reason" and "principle" personified in flesh, which unfortunately does not have a direct english translation.

So who is the antichrist? This could be anyone who will rule over you against your "logos", a tyrant who will decieve you with "good" things to lead you away from your good principles, logic and reasoning...

It could be me...
your religion...
Your boss...
your favorite politician..
your idol..
your beloved partner..
Or it could even be yourself...

It will tyrannize you if you dont identify it..
you wont identify it if you dont reflect...
You wont reflect if you feel that you're in control..
You would feel you're in control if you are persuaded..
..And that is how the Anti-christ will lead you to a life of "hell".

Thank you for reading

 

[dummy01]

This is why the enlightenment is wrong when it claimed that the world will be a better place if mankind could become purely rational and void of any supernatural beliefs. The 20th century history is a solid picture (a dark and tragic reminder to the present) what would happen if mankind attempted to kill God, which ironically predicted by a religious critic, Nietzsche. The so-called progressive secular people are actively undermining the religious institution to claim moral ground by means of false compassion to minorities. One good example is the people who, affirm to gender ideology, are now celebrating and applauding one of the deadly sins (i.e. Pride). Furthermore, we are in a society where religious truths are seen generally as irrational invalid claims over scientific facts that are in different domains of objective statements. In my view about the rising of atheism in our society, they over-criticized the foundation of religious beliefs and arrogantly over-estimated the rational capabilty of mankind in scientific discoveries to the point they were gripped by the dogma of their own beliefs.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

I totally agree with your observation. Except some minor details.

. In my view about the rising of atheism in our society, they over-criticized the foundation of religious beliefs and arrogantly over-estimated the rational capabilty of mankind in scientific discoveries to the point they were gripped by the dogma of their own beliefs.

I think you are referring to "anti-theism". I am an atheist myself but I support having religions as philosophies and frameworks to build a society. In contrast, anti-theists like Neitsche are people who are against religion because of a deep dissatisfaction of how irrational the teachings of the church has become, and and they were former fundamental theists.

Most teachings styles could work if applied on a pagan society, but not on a literate one. So partly, the church is to blame for the creation of anti-theist, by becoming dogmatic, and failing to adapt to enlightenment.

This is why the enlightenment is wrong when it claimed that the world will be a better place if mankind could become purely rational and void of any supernatural beliefs.

The enlightenment in itself is not to blame, as it has made the world a more peaceful place. And we are enjoying technological advancements and modernity through it.

It has prevented dogmatic religions from waging any more holy wars, very specially the Islam zealots.

Like I said, it is partly the churches fault on why "anti-theism" has become séxy. The church(es) themself has become a tyrannical power.

There were a some philosophers who attempted to make christianity more rational and less superstitious, like St. Thomas Aquinas and Georg Hegel, who tried to make Biblical teachings more rational, but are not widely accepted by the church. They were even considered heretics. Only some of the more liberal bishops considered these teachings.

In my personal opinion, i think the church in general was also filled with pride and dogma, that it rather fail to teach than to adapt. And like in the Philippines, there were different sects that formed, but they are still more on the fundamentalist type of christians though more literate. Which is a recipe to produce more "anti-theists".

 

[Frustrated Burger]

Lol, ang meaning ng word na " Anti " ay "kalaban" kagaya ng anti-biotic kalaban ng mikrobyo , sa Bibliya naman kapag sinabing anti-Kristo ay kalaban ni Kristo , meaning hindi naniniwala at hindi sumusunod kay Kristo bagkus tahasang nilalabag ang mga utos Niya

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

Lol, ang meaning ng word na " Anti " ay "kalaban" kagaya ng anti-biotic kalaban ng mikrobyo , sa Bibliya naman kapag sinabing anti-Kristo ay kalaban ni Kristo , meaning hindi naniniwala at hindi sumusunod kay Kristo bagkus tahasang nilalabag ang mga utos Niya

Buksan ang diwa.

 

[Frustrated Burger]

View attachment 2487269

Buksan ang diwa.

Lol, thats from wikipedia, ang tinutukoy ko ay yong pakahulugan mismo ng Bibliya ukol diyan

1 Juan 2

18 Mumunting mga anak, ito ang huling oras: at gaya ng inyong narinig na darating ang anticristo, kahit ngayon ay lumitaw ang marami nang anticristo; kaya nga nalalaman natin na ito na ang huling oras.
19 Sila'y nangagsilabas sa atin, nguni't sila'y hindi sa atin; sapagka't kung sila'y sa atin ay nagsipanatili sana sa atin: nguni't nangagsilabas, upang sila'y mahayag na silang lahat ay hindi sa atin.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

Lol, thats from wikipedia, ang tinutukoy ko ay yong pakahulugan mismo ng Bibliya ukol diyan

Baka ang tinutukoy mo ay ang turo ng simbahan nyo? O baka nmn sarili mo lng din na pag unawa?

 

[Frustrated Burger]

View attachment 2487278
Baka ang tinutukoy mo ay ang turo ng simbahan nyo?

The Bible answer itself , hindi manggagaling sa labas ng Bible ang mga sagot sa bawat tanong mismo nito

1 Juan 2

18 Mumunting mga anak, ito ang huling oras: at gaya ng inyong narinig na darating ang anticristo, kahit ngayon ay lumitaw ang marami nang anticristo; kaya nga nalalaman natin na ito na ang huling oras. 19 Sila'y nangagsilabas sa atin, nguni't sila'y hindi sa atin; sapagka't kung sila'y sa atin ay nagsipanatili sana sa atin: nguni't nangagsilabas, upang sila'y mahayag na silang lahat ay hindi sa atin.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

The Bible answer itself , hindi manggagaling sa labas ng Bible ang mga sagot sa bawat tanong mismo nito

1 Juan 2

18 Mumunting mga anak, ito ang huling oras: at gaya ng inyong narinig na darating ang anticristo, kahit ngayon ay lumitaw ang marami nang anticristo; kaya nga nalalaman natin na ito na ang huling oras. 19 Sila'y nangagsilabas sa atin, nguni't sila'y hindi sa atin; sapagka't kung sila'y sa atin ay nagsipanatili sana sa atin: nguni't nangagsilabas, upang sila'y mahayag na silang lahat ay hindi sa atin.

Iba ba ang tinutukoy na John sa tinutukoy ko dito?
Tingin mo ang antichrist ay literal na ihahayag na antichrist siya?
Kung ganyan tingin mo sa antichrist, paano ito makapanloloko?

Kapatid, baka nalilinlang k na ng "antichrist" sa buhay mo kung inaakala mong ganyan ka-engot ang antichrist.

 

[Frustrated Burger]

Iba ba ang tinutukoy na John sa tinutukoy ko dito?
Tingin mo ang antichrist ay literal na ihahayag na antichrist siya?
Kung ganyan tingin mo sa antichrist, paano ito makapanloloko?

Kapatid, baka nalilinlang k na ng "antichrist" sa buhay mo kung inaakala mong ganyan ka-engot ang antichrist.

Bakit ka naglalagay ng sarili mong pakahulugan ? Pinapalitan mo yong mismong sinasabi ng Bibliya ukol dyan, maliwanag naman ang nakasulat sa verses?

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

Bakit ka naglalagay ng sarili mong pakahulugan ? Pinapalitan mo yong mismong sinasabi ng Bibliya ukol dyan, maliwanag naman ang nakasulat sa verses?

I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.
2 John 7

Deciever daw. Hindi engot

 

[Frustrated Burger]

I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.
2 John 7

Deciever daw. Hindi engot

Wala naman nakasulat na engot doon sa verse at sinasabi doon sa verse ay nahayag sila na sila ay mga anticristo ?

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

Wala naman nakasulat na engot doon sa verse at sinasabi doon sa verse ay nahayag sila na sila ay mga anticristo ?

Deciever nga at. Kaya manloko.

Ibalik natin ung verse mo.

19 Sila'y nangagsilabas sa atin, nguni't sila'y hindi sa atin; sapagka't kung sila'y sa atin ay nagsipanatili sana sa atin: nguni't nangagsilabas, upang sila'y mahayag na silang lahat ay hindi sa atin.

Hindi ba't tumpak ito na deskripsyon ng mga iba't ibang bersyon ng mga kristyano (sekta) na naglipana? Mga false prophet

 

[dummy01]

The enlightenment in itself is not to blame, as it has made the world a more peaceful place.

No one is blaming here. I just pointed out that their claim is wrong. I don't deny the success of the scientific endeavours of the most intelligent people who ever lived to better understand the natural physical material world. The problem is when you have arrogant intellectuals who proactively undermines the reality of supernatural abstract metaphysical beliefs. Antheism at its core trumpeted the worldview of the materialism which has its own dogma.

I think you are referring to "anti-theism". I am an atheist myself but I support having religions as philosophies and frameworks to build a society. In contrast, anti-theists like Neitsche are people who are against religion because of a deep dissatisfaction of how irrational the teachings of the church has become, and and they were former fundamental theists.

The line between the anti-theist and the new atheist movement today is almost non-existence. I have high regard in the atheistic criticisms who genuinely questioned the dogmatic teachings of religion. In fact, that is the role they should be focusing on since that is what they excel intellectually instead of over-antagonizing the divine. You may be the first person I engaged here who understands the importance of religious beliefs in the society. Most people I engaged have this feeling of contempt, bitter, and close-minded who failed to realize their own dogma. They are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater in the name of modernity and progressivism.

In my personal opinion, i think the church in general was also filled with pride and dogma, that it rather fail to teach than to adapt. And like in the Philippines, there were different sects that formed, but they are still more on the fundamentalist type of christians though more literate. Which is a recipe to produce more "anti-theists".

This, I agree more. That is why I distance myself to churches and so-called spiritual leaders who are trying to have a political grounding and influence in the secular world which is clearly against the biblical teachings. The message is straight-forward. To those who hold the fundamentalistic view of religion, there is a fair good reason why there is a separation between the church and the state. And to those who hold the atheistic view of rationality, there is also a fundamental reason why God is stated in the constitution of the free world.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

The line between the anti-theist and the new atheist movement today is almost non-existence. I have high regard in the atheistic criticisms who genuinely questioned the dogmatic teachings of religion. In fact, that is the role they should be focusing on since that is what they excel intellectually instead of over-antagonizing the divine. You may be the first person I engaged here who understands the importance of religious beliefs in the society. Most people I engaged have this feeling of contempt, bitter, and close-minded who failed to realize their own dogma. They are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater in the name of modernity and progressivism.

I understand how anti-athiest and athiest may seem the same to believers. Overcritisizing religion is not really rooted from the difference of belief, but more of lack of maturity and philosophical perspectives.
Most athiest who would gain maturity would either just shut up about it, or blend in with the theists, thats why the immature kind is the kind that seems more common.

It is very clear that science, the divine of atheist, has fallen short when it comes to socio-political issues. Even the most critical athiest will inevitably tackle these issues by turning to beliefs.

 

[mutagenesisx]

si boss rodey_lyf Anti-Antichrist yan, vessel sya nang isang high ranking ophanim angel.