Could "The Anti-Christ" possibly be all those sociopaths in high positions in corporations & gov't?

[Cal33]

After all, aren't they (banks, insurance, pharmaceutical, and oil companies, plus the
politicians bribed by them) the ones who are bleeding our nation dry and have
caused most of the wars against small foreign countries rich in natural resources?
Aren't they the ones who are leading our nation to hell, but are trying to blame
the Democrats for it at the same time?

Here we go again, another fundamentalist pastor is claiming that Obama is
paving the way for the Anti-Christ:

http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary

[Deep13]

1. I doubt a 1st century writer would predict 21st c. capitalism. nt

[FiveGoodMen]

12. Is 21st century capitalism really that new?

The rich get all the say, the poor work to make the rich richer, and laws only apply to the poor.

I imagine that's been true in just about every century.

[Cal33]

20. I agree with you. In the 7000 years of written history, all the nations of the world had been

ruled by royalty (and their nobility), who owned not only the land, but also owned the people
living on the land. The people were the property of their king. Democracy began only 200+
years ago. Generally speaking, the further we go back into the past, the worse was the
situation. This was why Americans revolted against King George III of Britain.

Yet today power-hungry sociopaths are trying their best to return to the ways of the old days --
with themselves as the royalty and nobility, of course.

Sociopaths have always been the greatest cause of all human misery -- and at every age
and time.

[Deep13]

22. False. You are projecting modernity backward in time...

...to pre-industrial societies. People in the Middle Ages or in antiquity or in the Bronze Age did not have industrial era norms or values.

[Cal33]

25. Regardless of the form of economy at any particular time in history, the main point here is

the grab for riches and power over others. Sociopaths (or people with anti-social personality
disorder) make up from 2% to 4% of the general population. This is as true today as it was
millennia ago, just as 5% of the general population is left-handed.

And sociopaths have been far more successful because they are ambitious and have no
compunction about lying and doing dirty things to reach their goals, because their defective
consciences do not bother them about harming others -- even to the point of causing their deaths.

Democracy is an idea that began to become successful only some 240 years ago. Compare this to
the 7000-year written history of our whole planet having been ruled by absolute monarchs. I
believe that as long as there are sociopaths around, they will always be striving for riches and
power over others. They cannot abide an egalitarian society. They want to be the royalty (or
whatever other name they might choose to use) and have the rest of the people (the commoners)
under their domination and do their bidding.

With them around there will always be conflicts, fights..... wars. It cannot be otherwise. This is
the nature of their personality disorder. They ARE the problem, and they cannot change.

[Deep13]

37. No, modernity has modern (commercial values),...

the Middles Ages and the Classical Age did not.

The whole concept of an absolute monarch has only been around since the reformation. Seriously, you really cannot rely on popularly accepted historical narratives as they have very little to do with reality. We now know that our previously held view of the Middle Ages is simply wrong. In the Middle Ages, monarchs, to the extent they existed, were not all that powerful relative to other noble families. Relations between secular and ecclesiastical nobles and commoners was a relationship of give an take. Before the kind of wealth industry makes possible and before the modern surveillance state, there really was no way for a monarch or a great lord to enforce his or her will on the common people without their acquiescence. While there was no specific, codified law, people did believe in law, including kings. That meant the customs of an area. The Magna Charter was not novel because it brought the king under the law, but because before that time kings had not imagined themselves above it.

It also does nothing to assume that leaders of the past had psychiatric disorders. One, we can only guess. Two, no one around then would have understood what a personality disorder was. What matters when examining the past is what the people around then thought.

I know less about classical and bronze age cultures, but suffice it to say, it probably had little to do with the kind of backward-projecting Marxism you are describing.

[Deep13]

21. No, capitalism started in the late Middle Ages...

...and did not really get going until the early modern era when the reformed churches adopted commercial norms into the new Protestant Christianity. Modern, heavy industrial capitalism did not start until the 19th c. Even then, the rich were no where near as rich as the top 1/10th of 1%.

Modern capitalism is not merely exploitation, it is the deliberate concentration of capital into the hands of industrial elite.

[FiveGoodMen]

23. "it is the deliberate concentration of capital into the hands of industrial elite"

Sure, but monarchs and popes and such have a long history of concentrating wealth into their hands.

The particulars are a little different, but the song remains pretty much the same.

One way or another there's some bastard who won't be happy till they've taken everything.

[Deep13]

36. The particulars are extremely different.

First, an agrarian society is simply not capable of producing the kind of wealth that present day super rich now enjoy. Second, strong monarchs did not really exist in Europe until the 13th c. (except maybe for Charlemagne). Before that they were simply first among many nobles. Loyalty and power existed on a personal level, not an institutional level. One did not obey the king simply because he was king, but because he is one's sister's husband's brother. Even the relationship between nobles and commoners was give and take. While peasants slept on straw in drafty cottages, nobles slept on straw in drafty castles. While peasants were illiterate with myth dominating their thinking, nobles were illiterate with myth dominating their thinking. The Papacy as the power center of Latin Christianity did not really exist until the 12th c. Before then he was one bishop among many, with perhaps an added level of respect for being successor to St. Peter. The Popes rose in power as a result in part of their collaboration in the reformed monastery movement. Noble gave gifts of land, persons, and later, money to monasteries in order to help save their souls. Nobles know full well that a noble life was not a Christian life and that without monastic intervention, they were all going to hell. Churchmen and especially monks were often poor personally even if they belonged to rich institutions.

The image of the decadent king carousing with the decadent bishop is mostly from early modern times when enough wealth existed in Europe to corrupt someone.

What I am trying to say is that the popular impression of the Middle Ages as a backward, oppressive, superstitious, intolerant, poverty and plague-ridden time is simply false. That image is the result of modern people projecting their own sins backward in time. Also, it is the result of Marxism which sees everything in terms of class struggle regardless of how anachronistic it is.

Suggested reading on this subject:
Furta Sacre and Phantoms of Remembrance, Patrick Geary
Every Valley Shall Be Exhalted; Sword, Miter, and Cloister; and Strong of Body, Brave and Noble, Constance B. Bouchard
Fiefs and Vassals, Susan Reynolds
Emotional Communities; Negotiated Spaces; and Rhinoceros Bound; Barbara Rosenwein
Ennobling Love, Stephen Jaeger

The Duby militaristic, top down "feudal" model of the Middle Ages is dead letter.

I'm not an expert on classical civilization, but I suspect one would find that modern, commercial perspectives would not control social norms there either.

[Cal33]

39. I think you are correct that capitalism started in the late Middle Ages. Prior to that a simpler

and more direct method was used: The king told his nobles how much he was going
to tax each one of them, and the nobles, in turn, told their peasants how much taxes
they needed from each one of them. When the need for money was great, the taxes were
high (such as during times of war), and many of the peasants (or serfs) often did not
have enough to eat. In addition, the male children of age were conscripted into the army.

You can be sure that Royalty and nobility never had to starve. The serfs did. Whatever
money they needed they taxed from their peasants, who bore the brunt of the hardship,
while the nobility did not suffer at all. They were the privileged ones.

It's easy to see that right-wingers are trying to bring back those "good old days" today --
and with themselves as the nobility.

[Deep13]

44. No, that is the old understanding of "feudalism."

That is close to how it was in the late medieval/renaissance era, except there were no serfs then, but the Middle Ages were a thousand years long and things were not that regimented during most of it. Kings were simply not sufficiently powerful to tax willy-nilly. The noblity did suffer often as there was no guaranteed harvest and illness affected them the same as everyone else. Even though their high-protein diet tasted better than what the peasants and monks ate, it was probably not as nutritious as their whole-grain, mostly vegetarian diets. And to the degree nobles had serfs--without central records it was hard to prove that someone was a serf--those nobles relied on them for their sustainable and income, so they could not be too callous about their well-being. Serfs were not slaves. They were more like share-croppers. By the 12th century most peasants were either lessees to a lord or monastery or else alloidial freeholders. Freeholders, whether by alloid or fief, were immune from taxation. Serfdom was gone by then and slavery had been gone since Carolingian times.

We now know that the term "feudalism" has no real meaning as it means different, even contradictory things in different contexts. We also know that the rigid top-down system was really unique to post-conquest England, and even then it only lasted a few generations.

[cali]

2. no. why even play into the stupid myth shit?

[stopbush]

5. Yep. Millions of people wondering if the predictions of a bunch of

ignorant goatherds who lived 2000 years ago are true.

Intellectual laziness at its worse.

[AsahinaKimi]

3. I AM so glad that Buddhism does not

Have anything so scary as the Anti-Christ meme.... Do people love to scare themselves? Sitting around camp fires in the past, I guess so.

[el_bryanto]

4. It's recasting the world into a heroic struggle in which you are the good guy

If there's an anti-Christ than naturally all the Christians are being heroic by . . . well doing the things they were already doing. That kind of thinking isn't unique to Christians though - look at arguments on the police statement or the suggestion that we are already living in American Fascism.

Bryant

[MisterP]

14. I'm sure they had campfires in sub-Vedic India!

[Cal33]

34. Yep. They sure must have had.

[Archae]

6. There won't be any "Antichrist."

The actual Bible describes those who are against Christianity as "antichrists."

And this "Beast" is described as having 7 heads, and 10 crowns.

This "Endtimes" mythology is the result of a hysterical cult from the 19th century.

[Cal33]

8. Well, sociopaths certainly do behave in an unChristian manner, even when they do

proclaim themselves as Christians.

[trotsky]

30. Good thing your definition of Christian is the only true one. n/t

[Cal33]

16. I think none of this should be taken literally, but symbolically. Christ represents good, so

Anti-Christ probably stands for evil. And that's enough. Beast, seven heads...etc... might
have been colloquial expressions used in that language at that particular time. ."How do
you do" translated literally into another language simply makes no sense at all.

[Trillo]

53. "Christ represents good" ? That's popular but not clear.

For example, the idea that you are saved only by Christ, instead of one's own actions, seems a bit, umm, "evil". Then, the idea that once you accept Christ, you are forgiven for sins, allows you to keep sinning in confidence you are still saved. Hmm, not sure that's good, either.

So, like I said, it's not really clear to me that Christ is good.

[Cal33]

64. I remember a passage from St. Matthew, where Jesus said to one,"Go, and sin no more." I

Last edited Fri Feb 7, 2014, 11:58 PM - Edit history (1)

thought that message was pretty clear. However, there are large numbers
of people who interpret the bible in their own way, and each one claims
that his own interpretation is the only correct one.

Some years ago I had a neighbor who asked me one day if I would be
interested in visiting her church. I did go. It was a medium-sized, spanking
new church and quite beautiful. It was a fundamentalist church, and quite
new, Later I asked her how many members there were. She said, 150.
I replied I meant how many there were of them in the whole country. She
said, "This is it." The church had been founded 10 years previously. Oddly
enough, this church was founded by two men, and, of course, their
interpretation of the bible was the only correct one.

Not long after I happened to read in a magazine that there were some 20,000
such sects (mostly of the fundamentalist type) in the US alone -- each one
claiming to have the only correct interpretation of the bible. Can you imagine
these people coming together and having a debate?

I wouldn't be surprised if there are more such sects in the US alone than in the
rest of the world put together.

[Vashta Nerada]

7. There is no such thing as an antichrist.

FFS. Why perpetuate the myth?

According to the bible, I'm the antichrist because I don't believe in god or jesus.

[Cal33]

52. Only if you take the Bible literally, word for word. But if the word Anti-Christ is used as a

symbol for evil, then all those right-wingers who rob the poor to feed the rich, who practice fraud
during elections, who rob the people who are already destitute in order to fatten their own coffers
which are filled to the bursting point; the fat banking, insurance, pharmaceutical and oil corporatists
who have brought our entire nation to near economic disaster because of their greed and corruption,
these are the filthy, greedy, corrupt swine who collectively represent the evil Anti-Christ.

[Vashta Nerada]

56. I think the bible is on par with Hansel and Gretel as far as I'm concerned.

No, wait, scratch that. Hansel and Gretel was an excellent story. None of the stories in the bible are any good.

I'll use it for TP.

[Cal33]

57. Many of us think in terms of "all or nothing", zero% or 100%. As far as human living is concerned,

zero% or 100% doesn't exist. How about the "Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt
not bear false witness.......? These are wise, common sense ways for humans to live among one
another in peace. And how about, "As you do unto others, so shall it be done unto you."?

Too many of us throw the baby out together with the bath-water. We should learn to pick out the
useful parts first before throwing out the rest. That's common sense, isn't it?

[Vashta Nerada]

60. There are no useful parts of the bible.

I'd rather follow the spirit of Humanism.

I don't need a fairy tale book telling me killing and stealing is bad.

[Cal33]

62. The Bible has been written by numerous authors over many centuries. The language is often

flowery and written in the colloquialisms of the times. And colloquialisms are not easy to
translate. And the translators could only do as best as they knew how

I see what you are saying and agree with you that the main thing is to treat one's fellow
human beings fairly and squarely.

[xfundy]

9. The thing we were warned against in church

... ended up taking over Christianity in the USA.

[RKP5637]

26. Exactly, much of this crap today christians of today spew are those things I learned

in church eons ago as being evil. The tables have been turned and many christians today, the new christians, spew the evilness. I am not the least bit religious. I view religion as a regression of humanity shrouded in darkness, hostilities and persecution.

[Cal33]

27. By and large I think what you've said is true. There are exceptions, though. Buddhism (as well

as several other smaller less-well-known religions) has never started any wars in the
name of religion. Nor has Buddhism persecuted anyone when some member broke
off and started a sect. Buddhism did not believe in violence and killing, although
not all of their members were "good Buddhists."

I was also taught a lot of nonsense in school, and did become an agnostic for a long
time. Then I began to question if I wasn't throwing out the baby together with the
bath-water. Stephen Hawking became an atheist. On the other hand, Albert Einstein
had written that, he couldn't think of the existence of such order throughout the
universe without there being some Supreme Intelligence present to guide and sustain it.

Some physicists tried to find out the exact time of the beginning of the universe. They
came to 0.000 many zeroes...01 of a second from the moment of the "Big Bang," but
couldn't reach the Big Bang itself. At that tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang,
the entire universe was the size of an apple! It has been expanding ever since (about
13 billion+ years).

What was there before the Big Bang? And what is our universe still expanding into?
We now have time and space. What was there before the universe began? No time and
no space? And what is our universe still expanding into? Most people already think of
space (without solid particles) as nothing. So what's on the other side of space?

[RKP5637]

32. Yep, agree so much, I tend to use a broad brush. All good questions you pose. As a physics minor

in college years ago, ones frame of reference was always the question, which as you pose, "So what's on the other side of space?" We really have no frame of reference for that answer as we are, of course, bound by our own constraints, close, but not close enough. Philosophically our logic tells us there must be an answer, maybe the answer is absolutely nothing.

Thinking back about 100 years, many people were thankful for electricity in their homes and indoor plumbing and others hoped for such. Thinking forward say 1,000 years, mapping the progress, the one thing I really regret in the scheme of life is not being around. I am just so curious about the future. I find it extremely frustrating. I can hope for a UFO to pick me up someday and teach me something? LOL!

[Cal33]

33. "Maybe the answer is absolutely nothing." Or the answer might be a world of a totally different

dimension, in which neither space nor time exists. One could perhaps call it
"The world of spirit?"

Resuscitation methods have so vastly improved recently. Because of them, so
many who have been clinically dead briefly (no heart beats, flat-lined EEGs,
etc.) are living today but would have stayed dead 50 years ago. Statistics vary
somewhat. I've read that 8% of those resuscitated have gone through what
is called "Near Death Experiences." They tell of their experiences while they
were on the other side. Some have died during surgery, and they saw what
the doctors and nurses were doing and saying to each other during their efforts
at resuscitation, and they told the medical people about it afterwards. Well,
the doctors and nurses were incredulous! Yet they agreed to the accuracy of
what the patient had seen and heard during the time they were supposed to
have been dead. But how could they have seen and heard all that, even if
they were not dead during that time? They were under general anesthesia!!!

Worldwide research has been going on for decades now. Here is the link of one
such international research center. They present comments from critiques of
their research, both pro and con. There are all kinds of theories and proposals
given by scientific professionals, as well as counter-theories and proposals.
They give the stories of thousands of those who had gone through these
experiences, some of which are brief, and others are long and detailed.

RKP, it's possible you might not miss anything of what scientific discoveries
will be made in the coming 1000 years. In fact, you might be actively
participating in them in ways you would never have dreamed of. Have fun!

http://www.nderf.org

[RKP5637]

38. Thanks for the link! Very interesting!

[octoberlib]

10. I tend to group all Republicans in the Anti- Christ category. nt

[Cal33]

11. Well, I think that's going a little too far. It's the Republican leaders who are the heartless,

dirty ones. It looks like that today no one could get into any high Republican or corporate position
without being a sociopath first. . There are all types of people making up the masses of those who
vote Republican -- including those who don't really think for themselves, and those who haven't the
slightest interest in politics and vote Republican because their families have always done so, just
to get their "civic duty" done.

[Downtown Hound]

13. Well, as I recall from The Omen movies

The family chosen to unwittingly raise the anti-Christ was a powerful, wealthy, family with a large industrial empire and huge political connections. This was so Damien would grow up into a position of power.

So, I would have to say yes.

[clarice]

15. I think that the "Fed" is the most dangerous entity. nt

[Cal33]

35. Historically speaking, nations do rise and then fall. Before us, Britain was Number One. Before

Britain, France was Number One, and before the French Spain was.....
China was Number One for more than a thousand years -- longer
than the Roman Empire. Should we be any different?

[clarice]

46. I would like to think so.nt

[Cal33]

47. Me, too. But with the ever growing numbers of sociopaths in powerful positions, both in private

industry and in government over the past 40 years, corruption has become the name of the game.
History has shown that long-term corruption has always been one of the main reasons for nations
to go downhill. And we have been going downhill for a long time.

I just hope that we have not yet gone past the point of no return. Those sociopaths couldn't care
less if our whole nation goes under -- just so long as they continue to make their profits and have
the power.

We've got to vote them out of office, and in large numbers, real soon -- or we'll be finished.

[clarice]

48. Correct...that's why I always thought

that there should be a third party called maybe..."The common sense Party"
will never happen though.

[Cal33]

49. If we last long enough as a nation, we might.

[clarice]

58. I always try to stay optimistic. nt

[BainsBane]

17. Wayne LaPierre is the anti-Christ

How many times to I have to tell people that?

Seriously, if you take the biblical account, the Anti-Christ is one man. LaPierre fits the bill for me. Either the Anti-Christ or Satan walking on earth.

[Archae]

18. You're wrong...

I mean, look at this:

Ronald - 6 letters

Wilson - 6 letters

Reagan - 6 letters

666.

So what if he's already dead!
He'll perform a miracle and rise form the dead to lead the Teabaggers!



Seriously?

It's been 2,000+ years.

Jesus is *NOT* coming back.

Neither is Jim Jones, David Koresh, or "Reverend" Moon.

[BainsBane]

19. If he rises from the dead

The Teabaggers will rip him limb from limb for being a RINO.

[sakabatou]

24. Weren't the writers talking about an emperor when it came to the antichrist?

[2naSalit]

28. How many heads

does an anti-christ have?

If it's an arbitrary number greater than one, I think the answer is yes.

[DiverDave]

29. NO! It's all a lie to make people MONEY

oh and keep the poor man/woman down.

Go back to your debate

[Cal33]

31. It looks like you are saying the same thing as I am. Only, you are using different words. :)

[demwing]

40. The AntiChrist is Corporatism

The False Prophet is the Right Wing Religious Fundamentalist Movement, and the Whore of Babylon is FOX News.

[Cal33]

42. Yes, corporatism and its evil cohorts trying to subjugate the entire world and make it their slave

[Iggo]

41. Pssst. There is no antichrist.

There's just us.

[Cal33]

43. Yep. Those of us who are right-wingers.

[Iggo]

45. I meant humans, good and bad.

It's just us.

[kairos12]

50. I think even Satan bailed on these one percent, free market, rigged system sociopaths.

[Berlum]

51. Scientific Materialism run amuck

Some will say...

[Trillo]

54. I think it more likely a shameless tactic to prevent challenge to church hierarchy and power.

Not a new one either.

[LeftyMom]

55. The Revelation of John of Patmos is about rebelling against Rome. The antichrist is Nero.

Read a fucking book.

[Cal33]

59. Nero was the first Roman emperor to officially persecute the Christians. The nine emperors

following him did the same. Many referred to all of them as Anti-Christ. Emperor Constantine was
the first one to convert to Christianity. Not only did he stop the persecution, he ordered Christianity
to be the official religion of Rome.

Later on others. like Attila, Genghis Khan, Napoleon and Hitler...etc... (all war-loving leaders) had also
been spoken of by some as Anti-Christ.

In short, Anti-Christ stands for any leaders who promote violence and evil.

[LeftyMom]

61. Revelation is a symbolic political document. It does not predict the future.

I know that idiots like to refer to every political leader they dislike as the antichrist, but doing so relies on an indefensibly tortured misreading of the text.

[Cal33]

63. Yes, one can only guess at what the Revelation is saying. Nobody can know for sure what the

writings mean.

[Cal33]

65. Do you think they care? (Please see quote and reply)

<<I know that idiots like to refer to every political leader they dislike as the antichrist, but doing so relies on an indefensibly tortured misreading of the text. >>

It's also exactly these idiotic persons who don't give a damn about their accuracy of the rendition of the text.