Is Bush the Antichrist?

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.

" If you go down the Scriptural list of the fruits of the Spirit in Galations 5, and observe this President's behavior, you can see evidence of all of them. "

To your credit, that's something that I'm not familiar with!! Apologies!

You'll never get any argument from me re:Clintax. He's nothing more than a scumbag politician with a serious sex fetish. Consider how harmful his sexual fetish was (not to America but) to the Dems: If not for Lewinsky...and the resultant conservative uproar and movement, there's a good chance that Gore would've ridden the coattails to 2000 victory! Look how close Bore was to winning even with the trash of Clinton hanging on him!

"And my point was just as you stated as far as living in a theocracy is concerned. There are people on this forum who claim that this President is not Christian enough because he has not forced his own personal faith on the laws of the land, and abused the Constitution in doing so. And some of them may well have been on this very thread. "

I agree entirely. So many of the Christians on this website would apparently be thrilled if we got turned into Saudi Arabia West, with Christian form of Sha'aria (extreme Muslim law and apologies for spelling!). That thought scares me as much as the thought of Billary becoming President.

That thought scares me as much as the thought of Billary becoming President.

To tell you the truth, it does me too.........and I've been a Christian for a long time. It's never become more apparent to me than it is here on FR, when I read the posts of Christians (?) who would seemingly rather string someone up than allow them to differ in thought, even in the details of their interpretation of Scripture. It's a dangerous thing to allow any particular religion to have ultimate power.....a fact borne out by history, and obviously prevented by the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

As to the dangers of Xlinton and his lewd behavior with Monica, and whoever else he practiced his pre-adolescent 'sexuality' on....I don't believe that we'll know for a very long time the depth of the risk his narcisism put this country at. And it scares me to even think of what would have happened if we were under a continuation of the 'let terrorists alone,' poll driven, put America last policies of the xlinton/gore administrations.

That's why I seriously thank God every day for the honor and strength of President Bush.

(btw....pick up a New Testament and read Galatians 5!)

I do not disagree with you regarding pretrib teaching. The teaching was from John Darby in the mid first half of the 19th century (1825 or so) and was based on the "vision" of a young Scottish girl, a follower of the teachings of Edward Irving. Much of Darby's teaching of a dispensantional nature was popularized by Scofield, who became an admirer of Darby and we find much Darby influence in Scofield's notes. This includes a predisposition toward a pretrib rapture. I grew up being taught Darby's view - my great grandfather in England was contemporary with Darby, though some 25 years younger, and one of Darby's follower's.

Matthew Chapter 24 is one of several that contains verses used to support a pretrib teaching. A careful look at Matthew 24 would seem to lead one to a posttrib position, however. The chapter needs to be read in its entirety so that nothing is taken out of context. With that in mind I will comment on just a couple of verses but would encourage anyone to read them in context of the whole chapter:

(KJV) Matt 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

If we liken the flood to the tribulation, then the analogy with the days of Noah in v 37-39 suggest that we shall be taken through, not out. Noah and those in the ark with him were taken through the flood, not out of it. I do not suggest here the means of our being taken through, but I do not see a removal, a "rapture" before tribulation.

V 40-41 are used in support of a pretrib rapture, yet careful reading here in context with v 39 suggest that in each case the one taken is taken to judgement, not "raptured". In v 39 those taken away were those nt in the ark, taken to judgement in the flood. The being "taken" in v 40 & 41 is a similar taking to that in v 39, reading in context.

Finally, I do not see a need to be overly taken by concern regarding a tribulation or a rapture, and especially not as to timing or chronology. In v 36 Jesus says "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." In v 44 Jesus says very simply regarding all this, "be ready". If one is expecting to be "raptured" so as not to experience tribulation, will one "be ready"?

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.