With the descriptions of the Antichrist in Christianity and the Dajjal in Islam, would it make sense that these descriptions refer to people whose actions go against fundamental tenets of the respective religions (e.g. the Antichrist/Dajjal would be someone who glorifies the harm of others)?
Both Jesus and Muhammad preached guidelines for attaining peace.
Wouldn't it make more sense that the descriptions of the Antichrist/Dajjal would be guidelines of how not to attain peace rather than a warning of look out for this guy?
Personally I find it hard to accept that something is going to come about and the world will end. I think mankind does enough to jeopardize the world.
2007-05-16 14:37:41 · 2 answers · asked by Yahoo Sucks 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I don't know, but I think you're trying to hard to find a specific meaning to it.
It's doubtful that either story is a cryptic puzzle, with a specific goal.
End stories are ambiguous anyways.
2007-05-16 22:50:43 · answer #1 · answered by Mr. Bad Day 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Just a concept. In order to define the ultimate good, you have to have the ultimate bad. I don't think either ever thought there would be a real "antichrist" and a real fight to the death. It was just a parable trying to explain that If it comes down to it and you have to die for your beliefs, and you aren't willing to--you are no different than those who didn't believe.
It is very hard for Jesus and Mohammad to tell people they had the only right way if they didn't scare you with that all others were wrong and would make sure you suffered for all eternity.
2007-05-18 10:49:04 · answer #2 · answered by phantom_of_valkyrie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋