NOT the AntiChrist

This video, as well as the "messiah" one, has stirred a lot of controversy:


It's getting to be a really popular thing to call Obama the AntiChrist. Is he? It's doubtful for many reasons that he is actually the Antichrist. Just because Farrakhan called Obama the "Messiah" doesn't mean that THE Antichrist has come. Too many Christians just love to give each other chills talking about how 'he's HEEEEeerrrre" like a Poltergeist of some sort, because it brings attention to them and extremists always get followers because they speak as though they are so sure of what they are saying.

While many are certain that he is the Antichrist, there are several sites where one can go and find qualifications, based on REVELATION, to determine if this is true of Obama, and the result is that though he matches most of them, he does not match ALL of them (i.e. Dan 11:37 - "he does not regard the desire of women" - Obama is married to a woman). Let us remember that Jesus Christ fulfilled every single prophecy made in the Old Testament regarding His coming.

One statement I recently saw, made by a Christian and regarding Obama, said "already the spirit of the false one is here." Sounds ominous, right? But this statement is quite ignorant when considering that the "false one" has been here since the beginning of creation.

Now let us look at 1 John.
1:18 - As you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come.
5:19 - we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one

Obama's arrival is not the arrival of evil into the world. Obama may be AN antichrist (lowercase a), but is most likely not THE Antichrist, as he does not fit every qualification.

Remember, Christians have been for centuries pointing at people and screaming "Antichrist" (consider Nero, Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, among many others) and have always been wrong.

All's Fair In WAR

Mercer University News is at it again. This time, a poll was performed, analyzing the views on "white evangelical southerners" regarding whether torture of captured prisoners for information should be performed. See the Pole Here

The "Golden Rule" was used to incite a slanted response. The findings are that apparently, when reminded of the golden rule, white evangelical southerners are more likely to change their mind if they are in favor of use of torture.

The poll results in a complete waste of time, as determining whether the golden rule could sway opinions on the matter of torture in warfare is simply a gauge of the ignorance of the one being polled. Jesus quoted a rule that was around before His own incarnation, and was referring to our everyday interaction with each other as humans.

The poll overextended the realm of this rule's application by invoking people's opinions about warfare practices based on the golden rule. Consider the logic - if you would do to others as you'd like for them to do to you, then when you capture a prisoner, you should let them go immediately. After all, isn't that what you'd want them to do for you? Therefore, if we are going to follow the golden rule in warfare, when we capture prisoners, we should let them go. For that matter, when we get into a skirmish with a small faction of terrorists on a battle front, we should just let them kill us without shooting back and risking the lives of the terrorists - after all, isn't that what we'd want them to do for us?

Shawshank

In the movie, The Shawshank Redemption, we see a character named "Red" who becomes institutionalized, meaning he is so used to being in prison that he doesn't know how to function outside of it. Sadly, this is a reality that many people face after being imprisoned. It's much like the way a bird may become so familiar with its cage, that the cage becomes a "Safe haven" and therefore the bird, when let go, comes back to the cage. After being let out of prison, people often will find ways to get themselves back in, because it's their safe haven and place where they have adapted to functioning.

I thought prisons, and perhaps hospitals or mental institutions were the limit to the occurence of institutionalization. However, a new locale has appeared on the news front as a place of institutionalization: the Courtroom. Lest we overlook this phenomenon, consider this news title:

"Jury in O.J. Trial to Hear Defense"
(see the real article if you actually care)

This is a news topic I have heard more than I can remember in my life. It began when I was in elementary school. Now, I'm about half the age I"ll be when I retire, and I'm still hearing about this. As soon as O.J.'s trial was completed, he found a way to get himself back into the courtroom. Clearly he is suffering from institutionalization.

Plus USC football (OJ's Team) is always overranked. They lost to unranked 1-2 Oregon State and are still in the top 10?!

Imagine if the Republicans did this...

PART I.
Could you imagine the outcry that would come from the democratic party if the upcoming VP debate moderator had written a book entitled, "A Legacy of Security: Politics and POWs in the Age of McCain". Man that sounds like a great book. But if this legendary book had been written and the author was going to be the debate moderator... well, it's a moot point because the fact is that the debate commission NEVER would let such a person be the debate moderator, having a clear Republican slant.

However, we see this happening in reverse, and of course the debate commission turns their shoulder and looks the other way, as though it's no issue of concern that the moderator has a strong democratic slant. Gwen Ifill, the moderator, has written a book entitled "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama" to be released on INAUGURATION DAY.

See the news article

What the country needs is an accurate depiction of both candidates, democrat and republican, and in order to ensure that this takes place, an impartial moderator should be instated for the debate, not a fan of Obama who has written a book about him and the struggles of his race in politics.

This is also a clear publicity stunt for her book.

PART II.
Now imagine if the Republicans waited until next week and pulled John McCain for "health reasons" and replaced him conveniently with someone who is incredibly popular, like say... Rudy Giuliani. Obviously he's not popular enough to win the Republican vote, but he'd pull in some Dems. Hypothetically, though, say there WAS someone like that. The Democrats would be spitting and raging over the fact that the Republicans had a huge conspiracy to boost their votes since they were desparate.

Yet, my bet is that Biden will back out of the race due to "health issues" and Hillary will come in as a replacement, because the Democrats need some sort of a boost and though the media is working hard for them, it's still looking too close for comfort to someone who's been considered a "rock star" for the past year now.

Read more on this theory at snopes.

PART III.

Finally, could you imagine the news coverage if the Republicans put in a candidate that was not legally a citizen of the United States?! By now, everyone has heard about the possibility that Obama is not even a citizen, as the blog world exploded with discussion about this topic a while back. Yet, it's not mentioned very often in the media, and there is not a lot of news updating the status of this court case. Even a search for information on this topic yields little helpful results. The media would be all over this if it were McCain's citizenship in question, though.