# The End



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

This is not intended to start a fight it is intended to get you thinking.

I recently watched a show on the history channel about the Antichrist. After watching the show I started reading the book of Daniel. This is were you can come to your own conclusions. Everyone can determine these writings differently.

If you haven't read it you wont understand but it pretty much describes the Liberals to a T.

Some Examples - They will denounce the name of god. 
(Liberals want gods name taken out of everything)

- He will speak of false tragedy and bring it to an end.
 (Liberals Global warming, Katrina)

- His word will reach the masses
(Liberal Media)

- He will bring world piece.
(Liberals turn on their own country during times of war)

- After 3 1/2 years he will bring world destruction 
to the defenseless
(Liberals want to take away our right to defend our 
Selves.)

I could go on forever with similarities but I real think everyone should read it even if you dont believe in God. Again this not is intended for a fight but it makes me very curios to read a little more. For ages and ages people have blamed leaders of the world as antichrist but I believe he is yet to come the Liberal party is not strong enough yet. And dont forget at first he is going to preach world piece.

Other thoughts would be great I am not that religious but as a hunter and outdoorsman I know there is a god.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Don't know what you want everyone to think about. Even as a gun toting conservative I find your examples about as far reaching as Rosie O'Donnell's theory that the government brought down the World Trade Centers.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

Ya you can only really comment if you have looked at the book of Daniel. And I never said I believed it I just said it was similar. I was just wondering about other peoples thoughts. (Only if you have red the book, its pretty hard to comment on something you know nothing about.) Everyone can determine it different its pretty wide open. Nothing I said was a fact all of it was theory. It's a good read anyway it grabs your attention through out.

And No they are not far reach at all I am quoting several "experts" so they are not exactly my ideas just the ones that I felt were shockingly similiar, others were much more far fetch.

By the way I am far from fat A$$ Rosie. I left my theory open for other thoughts.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Ya you can only really comment if you have looked at the book of Daniel. And I never said I believed it I just said it was similar.


Bull****.......... why would it be required to read the book of Daniel to see how ridiculous the comparisons are to anything. The examples shown have no similarities to anything.



> They will denounce the name of god.
> (Liberals want gods name taken out of everything)


An atheist denounces God. I don't agree with removing the word God from certain things but that doesn't mean those that do are denouncing God



> - He will speak of false tragedy and bring it to an end.
> (Liberals Global warming, Katrina)


Global warming and Katrina were not real? They were/are a false tragedy? Could have fooled me. Ask the people swimming in the filthy water in New Orleans if they think Katrina was a false tragedy.



> - His word will reach the masses
> (Liberal Media)


His word............ who is this His person in the liberal media that is controlling the liberal media? The media may be on the left of the political agenda but I see no one person in control of it.



> - He will bring world piece.
> (Liberals turn on their own country during times of war)


Would you like to give an example of what you're trying to say here. Makes no sense at all.



> - After 3 1/2 years he will bring world destruction
> to the defenseless
> (Liberals want to take away our right to defend our
> Selves.)


Does this have something to do with gun control? And again who is this singular person of the Liberal media you are referring to. Another example that is senseless.

Well, there may not be a fat *** involved here but the thought waves sure run parallel. BTW, it has been many, many years but I have read the book of Daniel.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

Cool Down there Gohon as I said its all opinion of the "experts" not me just saw a pretty interesting show I decided to read the book of Daniel and I thought it was interesting.

I never said you didnt read it.

And I was hoping we could read between the lines I didnt want to have to tipe out all of the long winded explanations for each similarity.

The singular person is the antichrist if you read the book of Daniel you would of known that "HE" is referring to the antichrist. The actual word antichrist is only used 4 times throughout the bible the rest of the time the antichrist is referred to as "he".

Katrina I will explain that one since that maybe hard to understand. It was the response of Katrina that was the tragedy. It was a huge tragedy but know one was to blame but Mother Nature. Now the liberals instantly blamed GWB but it was in know way his fault. Then when the looting started the liberals wanted to take away the peoples rights to protect the family and land by taking there guns. Then to make things worse they blamed GWB and FEMA directors for not helping them get jobs and to get back on there feet. Again not true I volunteered when I was there they had every opportunity to find jobs. But they didn't because the Media was relaying a message that they should be held by the hand and have someone else fill out there job apps. and do everything else for them.
As a result making it much more of a tragedy than it ever should have been.

And I will say it one more time the intention of the post was to get your interpretation of the writings not to bash my interpretation. A little bit of self thought that's all. Its all opinion every generation has predicted than end.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Now the liberals instantly blamed GWB but it was in know way his fault. Then when the looting started the liberals wanted to take away the peoples rights to protect the family and land by taking there guns. Then to make things worse they blamed GWB and FEMA directors for not helping them get jobs and to get back on there feet.


FlashBoomSplash, the point is what you say above is only half true. Yes, those incidents you point out above did occur, and yes the people making the claims were liberals. But, they did it out of hate for George Bush, not believing anything they themselves said. However when you use the term liberal, you are throwing everyone on the left into the pot. I don't think all liberals blamed these things on the President. Your examples in the first post was what I would expect the far right would put out when attacking the left. No different than the far left attacking the President for Katrina.

Not all conservatives are far right and not all liberals are far left. There is a substantial group in the middle that associates themselves with the left and right. You in effect are associating the term liberal as the antichrist and the antichrist in the bible is projected to be a singular form.

Bottom line is your projection of examples given is to paint all liberals as a antichrist, no different than the liberals that painted GWB as the devil that caused Katrina.

Anyone on here can tell you I'm certainly no liberal but this finger pointing and sticking it in the eye from both sides is starting to look more and more like a Shiite and Sunni squabble. I just don't see the point in trying to tie quotes from the bible to a political belief you disagree with.

I wasn't attacking you although re-reading my post I'm sure, I know it appears that way. I am attacking the message.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

FlashBoomSplash

Have you seen the left behind series? When you read the Bible you know these things will come about. My theory is wait and let things reveal themselves. All to often we Christians have stepped in it by making predictions further in advance than we are able to. This leaves us with egg on our face. I do see Christianity being demonized just like the NRA is demonized. Some groups are trying to drive God from our courts, our schools, and our nation. You are right, those are things to watch for, but there are many more. I am certainly not going to jump the gun or give anyone reason to think I am radical.

However, FlashBoomSplash I do respect what you are doing. I really liked the movie the Late Great Planet Earth. The left behind series is good also. What concerns me most is the willingness of people, liberal or conservative, to give over more power to the United Nations. There is one organization to be very careful of. I know you asked this question more out of curiosity than anything else FlashBoomSplash, and you were brave to do it. I knew you would get hit hard.

My feelings are that although I believe the Bible I am not reading any signs. I don't hear voices either, but wouldn't it be nice. I'm not skeptical about God, I'm just a little dense sometimes, and if he wants me to hear something he is going to have to speak louder. I'm not being disrespectful, I am serious. I have a hard time understanding the Bible, but I keep trying. Christianity is being attacked through the political process, so you are not wrong to look at that. Time after time the Jewish people turned from God only to suffer. Sadly I think we will suffer likewise. People do not speak up today, because as soon as they do there are a dozen people waiting to poke fun at them for being Christian. It's not considered politically correct or sophisticated anymore. Oh well, I will march to the drummer I choose to listen to.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

Why would you not attempt to tie Biblical quotes to something political? Both the left and the right do it on a constant basis. Yeah, a lot of it leaves a sour taste in my mouth as well, but it's not going to stop. Politics is religion, and vice versa. Keeping them seperate would be a neat trick. If anyone knows how, send an e-mail to your favorite politician today!
Burl


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

To clear one more thing up I do not mean democrat when I say liberal. The old school democrats and republicans were never this far apart. And I also agree we fight entirely to much but I dont think it's ever going to be the way it was. That's probably why I am so conservative so I can try to balance the liberals. I just wanted to post this topic because I havent read anything ever that grabbed my attention like that. I am sure a liberal could read it and put conservative in the same places I put liberal. Thats what I wanted to get as a response. I was intentionally vague. The story just had me up all night and I wanted to hear more about it. I dont want it to stop here and if anyone wants me to I can alberate on my Vague comments.

And Gohon do you really believe in global warming. :lol:


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

Burly your right religion and politics are one in the same. Its when they become separate it will all end. I think we just have to agree that we are going to disagree. After all being different is what makes us great. Its ok not to be Christian but believe in something. It is just to hard for me to think this was all an accident. ( The Balance of Nature )

P.S. Beware of the UN.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Of course I believe in global warming, as well in global cooling. Both have existed since the creation of earth. What I don't believe in is that man is the major cause of either. But I think this has been hacked to death in another thread.

Burly1, I don't believe for a minute that politics is religion and vice versa. There may be a marriage of the two to a certain degree but trying to use one to dominate the other is not only asking for trouble but has proven to be the case throughout history. Just because both sides do it doesn't make it so. If one was to believe that, then one would have to acknowledge that Jesus Christ was not a prophet but a politician as some historians actual believe.

To me there has to be a middle ground where people can work out their differences for the betterment of all and pushing hot buttons of the opposing parties views is not the way to get there. People with religious views should be firm in their beliefs and I'm sure those beliefs are what shaped their political views, but that alone is not a reason to inject religious beliefs into political decisions that affect a wide population of different religious views.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

Our country was founded as a result of the quest for religious freedom. The two are inseperable, in spite of those who would keep the mention of God and His love for all out of the public venue. To insinuate otherwise is simply ignoring the obvious. If only the ideals of a true believer, whatever the denomination, were adhered to, conflict would never rear it's ugly head. All Gods' representations, whether it be Allah, Yaesu, Buddah or the Lord Jesus Christ, seek peace, love and forgiveness for all humankind. The problem, is misuse of power, a fault of ALL men and women, throughout history. I don't live in an idealized ivory tower, where all is peaches and cream. I know that the world is far less than Ideal. I also know that if the leaders of the world were able to come together and use peace and love rather than power and intimidation to achieve their goals, the world would be a better place. Sound familiar? Yes? John Lennon and whole generation of hippies had an idea. Maybe it's time to try it again. What's happening now isn't working at all. But you know what? I'm going to pray a lot, AND continue to write my political representatives, seeking changes, and promoting a better world, if only a small step at a time. God, after all, does take care of those who venture to take care of themselves.
Endit
Burl


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

As I said before "People with religious views should be firm in their beliefs" and I see that you are. You are to be commended for standing up for your views. However to say this country was founded on biblical principles and religious freedom is in my opinion to rewrite history. This country, "the United States was founded on the concepts of reason and individuality along with the three principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. None of which are Biblical, and none of which are detrimental to a strong society". That's not to say that our laws that govern this society do not have a connection to the Ten Commandments as it would appear the founding fathers placed a great deal of trust in those commandments, so there is a relationship to some degree.

Not to be picky but to point out a misconception, Buddhism does not include the idea of worshipping a creator or god. There is no belief or prayer to a higher form of life. Thus Buddha is not a God nor a representative of God. The name Buddha itself was the name given to the creator of Buddhism who taught spiritual development leading to insight into the true nature of life by developing the qualities of awareness, kindness, and wisdom from good karma and shedding bad karma. This in turn results in a better life after reincarnation which Buddhism believes in.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Burl1

I agree with you that religion was the basis for this nation. It guided not only our laws, but our constitution. Our pledge to the flag states that we are one nation under God. It is these things the crazies want to remove.

The only thing I don't agree with you is that John Lennon had half a mind. I don't remember the name of the song, but some of the words were: "imagine there's no country, no religion to, nothing to live or die for". His thoughts were that patriotism and religion, all religions, were the root of all evil. The scary part is there are a lot of people that feel that way. The funny thing is this fits right into FlashBoomSplash's original question. He didn't put it that way, but it fits into Revelations in the Bible, as far as the one who will promote world peace. The big one that caught my eye was when Madalin Albrecht said Bill Clinton would make a good WORD PRESIDENT. 
My concern was not with Bill Clinton, it was that anyone would hold such a position. I thought I should make that clear for liberals who would go off the deep end thinking I was talking about Billy.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

Differing interpretation is the basis for a good deal of our conflicting views. While Buddhism does not seek a singular God, it does hold all life as dear and even the smallest as integral to all being. Buddha is their figurehead. I bow to your knowledge as valid on the subject. I enjoy nit-picking as well, and am sure you got my point.
Lennon sought a world of peace and love. While it's almost certainly true that his mind was clouded by whatever intoxicant he had chosen on a particular day, I think the basic premice is still one worth persuing, at whatever level it is possible for our twisted world situation to attain.
For the short haul, personal peace as a result of seeking a close relationship with your chosen God can never be a bad thing. I admire the understanding and tolerance shown by my fellow posters. 
While the founders of our nation were merely men, and as such, imperfect and bound to fault. They were, for the greatest part, guided by their desires for freedom. Freedom to worship as they chose, without bowing to the desires of the British Crown, was foremost of their considerations in forming our nation, followed immediately by freedom from taxes. I guess our desires haven't changed much in that regard.
Burl


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

formal religion is the biggest obstacle between mankind and God, it is politics with all the corruption and intentional division of people to "win" control over people.

I can speak to God directly in my prayers without some corrupt middleman


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Gohon said:


> To me there has to be a middle ground where people can work out their differences for the betterment of all and pushing hot buttons of the opposing parties views is not the way to get there.


 :lol: Gohon! You smack the hot button almost daily, you really are a very amusing charactor!


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Bore, What is the problem with you. Every time there is a thread going where people are exchanging views, opinions and ideas albeit sometimes pointed but civil, you come along and jump in with the disparaging juvenile remarks. If you don't have anything to say on the subject, why can't you just keep the hell out. Another decent thread soured by you and you are constantly pulling this crap. The hot button comment concerned political parties but I guess that went right over your head. You on the other hand seem to delight in trying to push individual hot buttons. Big difference........... Don't know if you just want attention or what but you are really looking like the spoiled little kid that doesn't like it when no one plays with them. Maybe the subject is simply do deep for you to comprehend, I don't know but it is really sad. You really need to get a life. :eyeroll:


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

WOW you sure have been cranky latley, but I know Gohon the truth hurts and then you lash out, but that's ok!

Sorry did not mean to derail the thread but you attacked the op like a shark and I figured I give you the bang stick a little!

Have a good day Gohon!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Flashboomsplash


> This is not intended to start a fight it is intended to get you thinking.


Back to subject please.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Flashboom very interesting stuff as far fetched as it is, as pointed out by some other poster's who shall remain nameless :wink:

The way I understand the devil is that he belived that free will of men would lead to kaos and he questioned the will and word of god and then was driven from the heavans.

If this is the case Lucifer will not introvein he will sit back and let the dark heart's of men do his work for him. So in short do not fear the devil but only what is in the hearts of men. We should work to prove that God was right every day! :2cents:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

The antichrist the OP refers to is not Satan, The Devil, or Lucifer. Christianity refers to the antichrist as first mentioned in the books of the apostle John as a chief representative of the devil. The antichrist may or may not be one person, it could be many. Even during the period the words of John were penned he stated "Even now are there many antichrists." The pope, Ronald Reagan, Bill Gates, Hitler, Stalin, and George Bush just to name a few have been declared the antichrist. He or she may even be lurking in this forum. I'm sure some of Lucifer's pet angels are............


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

Gohon said:


> He or she may even be lurking in this forum. I'm sure some of Lucifer's pet angels are............


Yeah, and they are all demoncrats aren't they? :roll: :lol:

Old man, you amuse the hell out of me. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Jiffy, Jiffy, Jiffy, just because your zipper is down you don't have to be looking for a pi$$ing contest.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

I actually agree with Gohon. To somehow link the antichrist with politics and liberals is just way out there and not worthy of discussion. Plainsman, you just have WAY to much free time and need to pick up another hobby to keep you off this web site!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DJRooster said:


> I actually agree with Gohon. To somehow link the antichrist with politics and liberals is just way out there and not worthy of discussion. Plainsman, you just have WAY to much free time and need to pick up another hobby to keep you off this web site!!!


I agree also, and as for the rest of this:

      

Actually I am trying to build two stone decks. I can't learn to work slow, so I go out and shovel fill like a madman for an hour, then come down the basement and drink a coke and get on nodakoutdoors. Over and over and over. I should be working on reseeding the lawn, doing oak trim in the house, and building cupboards, but I can only do three things at once.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

I have been gone for a while sorry I missed all this.

DJROOSTER

Come on please. The Antichrist is portrayed as a politician so you are wrong again. Maybe not a liberal but definitely a political figure.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Where are you getting the information the antichrist is a politician? Looking through the book of John, I can't find anything that makes that claim nor in the book of Revelation which some biblical historians at one time (some still do) thought the apostle John authored. The examples in the first post appear to me to be coming from the book of Revelation. I know a lot of people that are caught up in the end of the world as described in the book of Revelation and they always tie the antichrist to that book. Truth is, in the book of Revelation the word antichrist does not appear even once.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

Read the book of Daniel. The antichrist is someone that will bring world piece boost the economy and bring all countries together as one United Nation. And unless the antichrist is miss america I am pretty sure the antichrist is going to be a politician.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> I am pretty sure the antichrist is going to be a politician


Okay, then the comment "Maybe not a liberal but definitely a political figure" is not a statement of biblical fact but merely your opinion. Just wanted to clear that up.

Again I would remind you the only place the word Antichrist is used by the subject of the book is in John 1&2. Any place else the word Antichrist appears is merely a assumption of the writer or translator of the bible. The word Antichrist in the book of Daniel do not appear as those spoken by the author. I'm certainly not a biblical scholar and only read the bible on occasion as a historical reference so I'm sure someone with more knowledge on the subject will correct me if I'm wrong. The *only* four places I'm aware of actually containing the name Antichrist as spoken by the author are ......

1John.2:18-19: 
Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

1John:2:22: 
Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist--he denies the Father and the Son.

1John.4:2-3: 
This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

2 John 7: 
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.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

You are right Gohon the actual word antichrist only appears 4 times through out the bible. Daniel never says the word Antichrist but it refers to him and it talks about the end of the world. The reason why I said politician is it refers to him as a world leader. It says he will win the average people over with world piece and a good economy.

I said this all already but I just want to know what else you would call a world leader.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Oh I don't know.......... in his time Jesus was a world leader as was Mahatma Gandhi, The Dalia Lama, Confucius, and even Mohammed. If you want to believe in the Antichrist then you have to believe it could be anyone. Could be Pat Robinson for all I know. Point being is if one chooses to believe in the Antichrist as described in the scriptures then they have to understand it is not just one person but anyone, that is anyone that does not believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God. As stated in the book of John the Antichrist is many and they are already among us. And that as we know was a long, long, long time ago.


----------

