Posted on 05/03/2003 9:47:29 AM PDT by MatthewViti
During the eight years of Clinton's presidency, I was repeatedly asked, "Chuck, do you think Bill Clinton is the antichrist?" (Of course, I answered no.) Therefore, it is more than interesting to me that since G.W. Bush became president no one has asked if I thought he was the antichrist. Not one single person! Instead, many people attribute to Bush god-like qualities, which actually makes him a better candidate than Clinton was.
You see, one of the chief characteristics of the coming antichrist is that he appears "as an angel of light." Therefore, an obvious reprobate such as Bill Clinton is immediately disqualified. The antichrist, by very definition, is a master deceiver. He must be someone who appears as good and benevolent. The bite is in his tail not in his tongue. In reality, Bush's angelic persona makes him much more dangerous than bad boy Billy.
For example, while Clinton was in the process of appointing numerous homosexual activists to his administration, copious letters from Christian leaders such as Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and D. James Kennedy flooded America's Christian community. Appeals for protest and resistance were heard from pulpits throughout the country. A massive media campaign began against Clinton.
Today, however, President Bush is in the process of copying Clinton's numerous appointments of open homosexuals to high positions of government, but there are no letters, no warnings from pulpits, and no media campaigns opposing it. Just the opposite. Bush is being defended, lauded, and glorified for everything he does, no matter how unconstitutional or unscriptural it might be.
When Clinton only talked of legalizing embryonic stem cell research, he was castigated and condemned. Bush actually made the procedure legal, and yet, he was praised and honored. Clinton was denigrated when he tried to convince Israel to give up land for peace. Now, Bush is in the process of actually trying to create an independent Palestinian state for Israel's enemies (with Jerusalem as its capital, no less), yet continues to receive glowing adulation. If Clinton even suggested that America's immigration laws might need to be liberalized, he was denounced in the harshest terms; but Bush can actually grant limited amnesty to thousands of illegal aliens, and there is not the faintest whisper of protest.
Do you recall how Clinton was criticized for the "low lifes" he invited to the White House? Well, Bush recently invited wild man rocker, Ozzie Osbourne, to the White House. Have you heard any notable Christian leader take Bush to task for that?
You remember Ozzie Osbourne, don't you? He is the former front man for the heavy metal band, Black Sabbath. He is famous for stage antics such as biting the heads off birds and bats. His abuse of drugs and alcohol are also well known. Furthermore, Ozzie Osbourne desecrated The Alamo by pissing all over it. In spite of this, George W. Bush is said to be one of Osbourne's biggest fans. As such, Osbourne was recently invited to the White House for dinner. Have you heard any criticism of Bush for this?
Obviously, I do not believe President Bush is the antichrist any more than I believed Bill Clinton was. However, I do believe that Bush possesses more deceptive qualities than Clinton did and, therefore, is more dangerous. I also now understand more clearly how even "the elect" can be deceived. Bush' s acceptance by the overwhelming majority of Christian people proves the country is ready for the antichrist, whoever he is.
Refutation? Or just assertation/
But as I posted to the other member of the Bush Intimidation Squad - if you will get a grip and read my post - I was referring to watching the TV show and why would anyone want to pollute their home and their mind.
As I said, I insulted no one - not even your Saint George - except may the Ozbourne's. Get a grip and get a life - for goodness sakes.
Who Brown?
But yes, it is true that the Republicans are giving a pass to Bush on many things they screamed outrage at Clinton.
Personally, I am a little more upset that someone on the terrorist watch list was invited and allowed in the WH, rather than embarrass the other ME people.
Just imagine if Clinton was in office when 9/11 occurred and a picture of him at a fund raiser with someone who was on the watch list and later charged? (not sure what his status is) - What would have been said by the Republicans? The why or wherefor would not have mattered - but if it had been Clinton - he would have been guilty per the Republicans and innocent per the Democrats - that doesn't speak well for this country.
It's okey to love and worship Bush without insulting everyone who doesn't follow him blindly. Remember this is a free country where people are allowed to have differing opinions.
Matthew, I'd suggest that both you and the author spend a little more time in prayer asking the Holy Spirit to direct you to the truth.
This is patently absurd, and if you are really a believer in Jesus Christ and the Scripture, you know it.
Your point in posting this is highly questionable.
They are in such a tiny minority, and do NOT represent the CHURCH.....the body of CHRIST through whom God has chosen to do His work here on earth.
I've been a believer for 45 years, and these nuts scare the LIFE out of me!! IMO, they may be more dangerous than atheists in keeping people away from a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
That means it's false.
Now who else likes to use that term for those they deem less than human? What could that possibly imply?
I've been here a while too and I don't see the drastic changes that you do. In fact, it seems pretty much the same to me except that there are more of us. There has always been infighting and petty bickering.
My grip is fine, thanks.
You were speaking of having trash in your home and I merely asked what home you were speaking of since the topic was President Bush having the Osbournes in his and that has been shown to be not true. I don't know why you pretend you didn't say anything about President Bush when you were intimating he had hosted the Osbournes as the point of your criticism and the point is invalid. That's pointing out facts, not baseless defending.
Saying things like "You know President Bush has people on here that just go ballistic at the faintest criticism - it makes Clinton's Intimidation Squard look like pikers" or "but since I don't know and it seems not too many others know from the posts", when it is clear some of us do know and some still feign that the facts aren't clear and they're the ones saying it would have been wrong if they had been invited, indicates who is in need of getting a grip on things.
Horse hockey. I've read Free Republic since September 1997, which is darn close to its very beginning.
Every few days someone says what you just did. Just isn't so.
LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.