Off to Russia we go where a devout Christian unknowingly has been living with the Antichrist baby for two years! Furthermore, the fate of our very existence falls upon her actions. I’m sure you’re confused so allow me to clarify.
A mother in Stavropol Russia gave birth 2 years ago in what was a seemingly ordinary birth. But was it? Over the next few years, the Antichrist was nursing normally and growing at a normal rate. Nothing strange had happened in their home and there was no reason to even suspect that this child was the Antichrist.
In it’s infinite wisdom the diabolical Antichrist chose to be born as a girl, obviously expecting that everyone would assume the Antichrist would be male. Brilliant! Seemingly the Antichrist had covered all it’s bases and was merely biding time. Soon he would be strong enough to unleash his fiery hell storm upon humanity.
But God works in mysterious ways, and fired off a warning to us mere mortals. God wisely arranged the hospital registration system so that the Antichrist’s birth would be 666. Double brilliant!
With the couple’s recent discovery of God’s latest miracle, the family is rightly shocked. Unable to part with their precious baby girl, the mother has foolish asked the hospital to change the registration number to anything other than 666. The hospital wisely refused to tamper with God’s work. The mother’s response was taken out of the good ole USA playbook. She’s suing.
While the courts argue over this matter, the Antichrist grows stronger and more evil with each passing day. Latest reports show that the Antichrist is already walking, reciting the alphabet, and even worse… he’s potty trained! Oh the humanity!
Related posts:
- Evil Muslim Kites Strike Again!
- Shunned Jesus Sues Elementary School
- Jehovah’s Witness Needs A Brain Transplant Too
- Darwin Is The Root Of All Evil
- Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda, Christ Or Antichrist?
WTF!!!!!
I’m sure that I saw on TV that Nostradamus predicted that hitler was the Antichrist. How many antrichrists can one expect in a lifetime? Even more perplexing could it be that Nostradamus was fallible? Maybe belief in things like religion could be false…. Oh, the humanity!!!!
Nostradamus predicted three “anti-christs”. One, according to Nostradamus fans was Hitler, one was Napeleon, and the other has yet to appear.
The antichrist will be with one eye which means, his other eye not working, and he is a male, and he will never have any childern.
The other thing I don’t what is this topic has to do with the web site, 666 is just a myth, can somebody explain what is this has to do with religion, because sometimes I’m slow:)
This woman clearly suffers from hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia.
Mohamed: “The other thing I don’t what is this topic has to do with the web site, 666 is just a myth, can somebody explain what is this has to do with religion, because sometimes I’m slow:)”
Mohamed. You really need to start reading some books. I keep telling you :) 666 is from the book of revelation in NT and religion and myths has a lot in common.
I once read that it was not uncommon in the roman empire to calculate names into numbers – the cool thing about it was appearently that you would know your own number but others didn’t, so you could write “4235 loves 123″ on a wall. 123 would then know that she was loved but not who her secret admirer were.
Nero may have been emperor at the time the book of revelation was written and he was a great threat to the christian society. The christian cult probably burned down his city and Nero responded by burning them or feed them to the lions.
If you calculate Neros name into a number you get “666″.
I recall from memory so I can’t gurarantee that its correct.
616 is the number of the beast ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/616_%28number%29
Wait,
What about all those people off worshipping that Mexican guy and getting 666 tattoos? Weren’t they doing it to be identified as Christians or something?
My anti-christ would be a lawyer AND a parking meter guy, and end up a devout scientologist.
666 has also been tied numerologically to Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Microsoft, the USSR, and, with the right numerological math, me. It is one of those numbers that depending on how you interpret it, can mean anything. Just like the sum of the digits of any multiple of nine adds up to nine, 666 is one of those mathematical anomalies that magicians use to play mind games with the audience.
@Mohamad: “666 is just a myth, can somebody explain what is this has to do with religion”
Is it just me or is that a captain obvious moment?
Religion and God a just myths too….Any proof to the contrary would be most welcome by this hell bound infidel. Insults and resorting to the authority of a book or “wise” men are not proofs.
@Mohamed: Wait, rewind just a bit. Do Muslims believe in an Anti-Christ? There are many Christians who believe, because of the current political climate, that he will be Muslim. Of course these are generally the same batch who thought it was Mikhail Gorbachev and the Russian Army was the army of Gog and Magog. So much for the sanity of those nuts.
@Skids: I second your call for proof from any mythological follower, outside of the circular logic of their own doctrine, that a god exists.
The Bible refers to all those who are against God as antichrists. Just do a search for “antichrist” in the Bible and you’ll see that it doesn’t refer to a single person but is a general label. Why people assume that some notorious leader or notable person may or may not be the antichrist is beyond me.
And as for 666, that is a mark that all those would receive on their hand or forehead in order to be able to buy or sell. So someone being associated with the number 666 does not make them the beast either. They should be happy for their baby, she’ll be able to conduct business apparantly. :-)
“And as for 666, that is a mark that all those would receive on their hand or forehead in order to be able to buy or sell. So someone being associated with the number 666 does not make them the beast either. They should be happy for their baby, she’ll be able to conduct business apparantly. :-)”
Yes…business IN HELL!!!11!
(I know that’s not how it actually goes, but humor me here)
DeusExMichael:
Yup Muslims have their fair share of horror stories in their holy scriptures too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dajjal
Not to mention that he’ll have great (magical?) powers and be able to perform miracles. A good question is how the good people will distinguish him from a “real” prophet. If you read the Wikipedia page you’ll see that God is probably sharing a bed with him:
“He will claim to be God and will deceive people into thinking that he has raised the dead. One particular person he will kill and then say he will now resurrect him, whereupon God will resurrect him.”
And is it just me or is that baby in the picture giving us all the finger? Perhaps it isn’t a Photoshop job after all…
LOL – I was so thrilled that the baby was flicking the camera the bird that I just took it all in and chuckled for a good 10 minutes or so… Thanks for the laugh, gasmonso.
We believe in antichrist and we believe also that he will try to tempt a lot of people to believe in him, and god will give him the ability to do some miracles, and people will believe in him, but the true believers will see in his fore-head “Liar”, and at the end angel Gabriel and Jesus will kill him, and the death angel will take Jesus soul, and Jesus will die for the 1st time, and I say that he will die for the 1st time for the Christine that they claim he crucified.
If you want to know more, you welcome to ask.
@Mohamed: “and Jesus will die for the 1st time, and I say that he will die for the 1st time for the Christine that they claim he crucified.”
Didn’t James Cameron just announce that they dug up Jesus’ bones recently? Seems to me this Jesus character is shifty, to wit:
option 1: Jesus, the son of god, died on cross in effort to ingratiate himself to all who came after as our “saviour”. Then cunningly remembered he was God himself and resurected himself and did a moon shot.
option 2: Jesus was a prophet send by Allah, not God. Jesus didn’t die, but did the moon shot (probably something like that).
option 3: Jesus was one of many charismatic leaders of that time. Israel was ripe with revolution, many people didn’t like the ruling powers and Roman influence. His teachings were remembered and embellished “somewhat” by the people who wrote the gospels (gotta love propaganda). He died as all men do and didn’t do a moon shot.
option 4: Jesus was an invented character, based on common preachers/ideas. Thus, he didn’t live and therefore didn’t do moon shot or die.
There are probably many more options too. I ask which one is the most probable and requires the least faith?
@mohammed
don’t believe in coherent sentences do ya?
I see the most probable is what the Quran mentioned about Jesus peace upon him.
@Mohamed: “I see the most probable is what the Quran mentioned about Jesus peace upon him.”
Pray tell, how do you see this as the most probable? I’m genuine in my question. With no disrespect the Quran is a book designed to proselytise. It’s not history.
Boris: Lets see how coherent your Arabic is.
Mohamed: This is why we have such a hard time figuring you believers out, just about everything in your books are wildly improbable. Yet you say it is. Crazy.
As for the Antichrist, many people (especially muslims and my wife) believe he is among us now. Verily, his name be’eth George of Bush.
@michael
this is not an arabic site…
Boris: That is completely immaterial. Are you saying a non-speaker has to write in perfect english or not post at all? That is just ridiculous.
does an answer infer it’s own question?
if so, it would be safer to know, than to not
as most questions don’t answer themselves
but, they might if you thought about it.
me. (now)
@Shaze “does an answer infer it’s own question?”
It does if the answer is God. And the question is who created God?
We’ve covered this ground a dozen times. God can create Himself. As a being that does not exist wholy within the spacetime that we exist within, he is not constrained by our laws, including the law of causuality. Cause can occur after effect, because without a time dimension, the concept of “before” and “after” are meaningless.
Ask more, if you want more.
@Outsider “God can create Himself. As a being that does not exist wholy within the spacetime that we exist within, he is not constrained by our laws, including the law of causuality.”
And how do you know all this? What proof do you have?
I don’t have any. But that’s not what you implied. Let’s see…
Skids says:
“@Shaze “does an answer infer it’s own question?â€
It does if the answer is God. And the question is who created God?”
You are stating that if God is the creator (the answer to the existance of our universe), what created Him? What I’m saying, in effect, is that given the existance of God, there doesn’t need to be a creator Him. He can create himself.
Of course, that’s (quite obviously!) circular reasoning. But it’s also quite logical and self-consistent, which is more so than you can say about alot of other theories about the beginning of everything… (If the universe was created in a large explosion, what caused the explosion? It can’t be anything from within that universe because everything in that universe is contained within the constraints of time, ect…)
I’m just making the point that the argument that God needs a creator is flawed. It’s a commonly used argument for aethism, but it’s flawed at it’s most basic point.
It’s not flawed as I understand it. Nothing complex just is, it needs to be created either by a more complex being or by a slow gradual process like evolution.
It’s intellectually lazy to say that circular reasoning is suffices. That makes unreasonable thinking, i.e. blind faith a virtue. Which it isn’t. The book “The God delusion” debunks your argument quite well.
Our theories may suck, but that is the strength of science. Sucky theories will get thrown into the dustbin sooner or later. And things that we don’t get today, we just may get in the future.
It’s a limitation not of the argument, but of your acceptance of underlying assumptions. The assumption that something complex requires a creative force that is more complext than it (or an evolutionary process) has two main assumptions that I can see. One; the assumption I attacked, ie causuality must be maintained. If the complex things exist in a frame of reference where causuality is not maintained, then the complex thing can be its’ own creator. Two; The concept of a “slow, gradual process” is meaningless without a dimension of time.
In other words, you are assuming a dimesion of time that does not exist to a creator being. (Or, more accurately, does not need to exist.) It’s not illogical to assume that the being that created everything is outside of the limits of his creation.
That being said, it is not “intellectually lazy” to say that the reasoning involved suffices. (BTW, I was joking about the circular reasoning. It’s not; it’s a different form of reasoning in that it involves nontemporal elements.) I, stating my assumptions, prove that those assumptions are self-contained and non-conflicting. In other words, given the existance of a God being, it makes sense that He can exist. Your argument is that he cannot exist without a creator, which just puts the problem up a level, leading to Gods ad absurdium. My argument is that the logic you use is flawed, and you’re ‘intellectual laziness’ is apparent in the fact that you avoid thinking outside of our frame of reference.
The logic is there. The assumption that God exists does not automatically invalidate itself, as much as you would like it to. Now, whether or not that assumption is valid is another point entirely. But, again, that’s not what you started this by saying. You stated that the existance of God implies a problem in that God needs to be created, and I just showed you that it does not.
Hello Skids and Outsider,
You two are discussing one of my favorite topics, so I hope you don’t mind if I add my thoughts.
I just finished Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” last night and it was a fantastic read. It actually changed my Theology. Dr. Dawkins is clearly a brilliant man, but that doesn’t make him infallible. First, he successfully refutes the classical arguments for God’s existence, including the one you two are debating, but he did so in one of its most primitive forms.
As Outsider correctly points out, the form of the Cosmological Argument in Dawkins’ book, the Aquinas version, relies on the assumption of causality. And since causality is likely an attribute of the universe, it has no meaning ‘before’ the existence of the universe. Philosophers long before Dr. Dawkins have pointed this out. Philosophers have also refined the argument to avoid the problem of causality. Read this link for a full description of contingency version of the argument. Dawkins fails to even address this more modern version of the argument.
The second mistake Dr. Dawkins makes is that he extrapolates without sufficient justification from his extensive knowledge of evolution. He assumes that since complexity in biology comes about via slow changes from simpler things, the same must be true for physics as well. But biological evolution is a very specific physical process. Like all spontaneous complexity, it comes about in an open system (thermodynamically speaking) through which energy flows. The universe, by definition is a closed system and hence, by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, complexity decreases globally (though it can increase locally, as has been seen on the surface of the earth).
Furthermore, physics exhibits both spontaneous complexity, evolution, and spontaneous simplification, a supernova, for example. We cannot generalize from one example of spontaneous complexity to a general principle of spontaneous complexity, nor can we suppose the opposite. In other words, we cannot know whether the ultimate cause (in the contingency sense) is simpler than the universe or more complex. It is still an open question.
In short, the Cosmological Argument is still valid, but it only proves the existence of a metaphysically necessary being. We must remain agnostic about the nature of that being. It could be simple, such as a singularity, or it could be complex, such as an intelligent creator. It could even be something in between the two.
I’d like to follow up on my previous comment. I just finished reading a fantastic critique of a portion of Dr. Richard Dawkins’s “The God Delusion”. In the previous comment, I critiqued his philosophy. In this new article, Dr. David Sloan Wilson critiques one of his scientific claims; the claim that religion is non-adaptive from an evolutionary perspective. Dr. Wilson has performed research that points to the likelihood that religion is adaptive and is selected for at the group level, not the individual level.
He does, however, agree with Dawkins on many points. From the article:
and my favorite:
Hi there. The bible talks about ‘the spirit of the anti-christ’. That ‘spirit’ is somehow against Christ. Anyone might get afflicted with the spirit of the anti-christ.
Enmities or disagreements with what Jesus said and did, might be regarded as sort of ‘anti-christ’ in a way.
Adding to gods word, might be sort of ‘anti-christ’-ish in a way.
As to whether one specific and exclusive person is the anti-christ, well I do not think so. But, it may be that sometimes some people might be having more anti-christ-like
thoughts and/or actions.
The ‘spirit of the anti-christ’ was already in the world, when Paul wrote about it. In fact, the people who were present at the crucifixion of jesus may have had the ‘spirit of the anti-christ’ or thoughts and/or actions that implicate them as being afflicted by the ‘spirit of the anti-christ’.
Hello Mehere, i appreciate your thoughts and i hope you post more often. Your are correct that “The ’spirit of the anti-christ’ was already in the world”
But we must take heed in how we walk. Here is just one verse for you and i.
“This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.”
Galatians 5:16
“But, it may be that sometimes some people might be having more anti-christ-like thoughts and/or actions”.
i agree mehere and we must look to scriptures to fulfil the spirit, so that as we walk, we walk for the Glory of God and His spirit that is in us.
Mehere go, go and walk in the spirit and away from the anti-christ
Hail Satan
your right Irish satan is in hell and i am here to save you, friend. follow the light that i hold for salvation is near, Irish.
“I am not here to convert anyone for the power to change a life is not in me.â€
zing
Going through life without knowing what lies ahead really does complicate things. It’s like trying to navigate through a dark tunnel with no light, no eyes, and no warning signs….eventually you’re going to bump into a wall—that’s how life is.