Anti-Christ is somebody who rejects Christ, an Atheist rejects Christ, so what's the difference?
2007-12-29 01:03:31 · 24 answers · asked by Clarium 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
To Russj, i'm not trying to be rude or anything, but this thought just came to my mind...
2007-12-29 01:16:50 · update #1
To tetsuno1 too...and to all the others who think i have some kind of other hidden meanings in it...
2007-12-29 01:19:48 · update #2
Atheists are real people; the anti-Christ is a myth resulting from bad interpretation of the New Testament.
2007-12-29 01:07:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 5⤋
I'm not an atheist, buy I can tell you that your definition of Anti-Christ is way off target. An atheist mere does not believe in the existence of a force greater then what we can see right here, right now...no gods, no devils, no mystic forces, etc. The Anti-Christ is the force that is in direct opposition to The Christ...he is called Beelzebub, to begin the list. We all know who he is, just as we know who Christ is. Even the atheist know these spiritual characters; they choose to not believe...no more, no less.
2007-12-29 01:13:07 · answer #2 · answered by RT 66 6 · 7⤊ 1⤋
nicely, it extremely is exciting...i think of i'll celebrity your question. while you're keen to furnish which you're utilizing the derivation and not the definition of "antichrist," i will answer your question heavily. In functional words, the version is extremely important. "Antichrist" in elementary use (the definition) skill some thing very particular (primary antagonist of Christ). you're juxtaposing the commencing place of the be conscious to pose an exciting philosophical question. From my POV, i might say that i'm no longer lots anti-Christ as anti-faith and to a lessor quantity anti-Christians. i do no longer likely have a situation, in an attempt to communicate, with Christ's message taken from the Gospels (esp. Mark) as I do from the translation of those messages interior the books that persist with the gospels. As a working occasion, i might element to Matthew 7:7-12 as a results of fact the essense of Christ's message and evidence of this as a testomony of a believers dedication to Christ. even nonetheless i'm a hearth-respiratory atheist, I carry those truths to be fundmental to my existence as stable person. on the different hand, I deny the divinity of Christ. no longer that he exchange into flesh ("actual"), yet that he exchange into God. i think of the classic worldwide of Christ (and Paul's) time might have an extremely puzzling time with that concept. the belief of the divinity of Christ is obvious interior the later gospels (esp. John, which you quote), despite the fact that that's particular to that element and place: God is a given, the question is Is Christ God? (needless to say the early Christians debated the undertaking) the thought God isn't a given is punctiliously foreign places -- area of the reason that I doubt the divine proposal of the Bible. So, confident, i might lead you far off from the divity of Christ yet i'm completely comfortable with the message of Christ. assessment that to, say, Mohammad and you have a extensive difference. (Islam isn't of God neither is it a message worth of attention by utilizing contemporary peoples).
2016-10-09 08:57:26 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I just reject the existance of Jesus
Not really the same thing
I don't really have a problem with the mythological jesus though.
Also I thought "anti christ" was supposed to be the exact opposite of christ ie the son of satan
2007-12-29 01:24:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no you may not be trying to be rude but your whole ideology produces a malicious mindset, hence the way your question is phrased so negatively. anti-christ as a name carries a whole set of disparaging concepts, so you are being rude. how upset would you get if atheists labelled christians the anti-sane, you reject sanity so what's the difference. you see, when the shoe's on the other foot how insulting it is. is it getting through to you?
2007-12-29 01:25:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Anti-Christ steps in as another Christ
Anti Christ is a counterfeit of the real deal.
How many Christians would be fooled into following Richard Dawkins?
2007-12-29 01:17:13 · answer #6 · answered by Wonderwall 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The difference is the meaning. Anti-Christ in that context means the antithesis of Christ. Atheist simply means someone who has no belief in deities. Are you ignorant or rude?
Edit: "i'm not trying to be rude or anything, but this thought just came to my mind..."
Fair enough. Sorry for calling you rude or ignorant. Comparing atheists and the Antichrist simply looked like trolling.
2007-12-29 01:08:40 · answer #7 · answered by russj 3 · 11⤊ 1⤋
In additional details you say "I'm not trying to be rude or anything," but I don't believe you.
As for your original question, the difference is obvious --- atheists exist, the Anti-Christ does not.
2007-12-29 01:37:03 · answer #8 · answered by youngmoigle 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The anti-christ is satan but to be the anti-christ you have to believe in christ and be against christ.
When will christians realise atheists do not believe in christ?
2007-12-29 01:27:04 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The anti Christ is suppose to be one person, with great ability to rule. That is not the everyday, run of the mill, Atheist.
2007-12-29 01:07:42 · answer #10 · answered by Shossi 6 · 7⤊ 0⤋
The difference is that atheists are real live human beings. The Anti-Christ is a superstitious religious myth. Apparently, you can no longer tell the difference between objective reality and subjective superstition. Could it be you're long over-due for a reality check?
2007-12-29 01:20:29 · answer #11 · answered by Diogenes 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋