Barack Obama is trying to copycat the Antichrist/Mahdi

I'm happy you made all these points. Pretty much your entire Round 4 debate is contrary to your premise. "Meaning, Obama didn't go to church, but on the rare occassion he decided to go, it was to a church who preached the downfall of America. He wasn't practicing Christianity, but going for the novelty of hearing anticolonialist rhetoric from Wright as he trashed our nation." "In speaking about Barack and Michelle Obama, Wright said, "Church is not their thing. It never was their thing." And you also agreed to my point that Obama was not raised in a religious home. If you're making a case for anything about Obama's religious aspirations, it's that he's atheist, or I guess the proper term would be a "self-theist". Allow me to expand your point. He has made up his own laws on immigration, bypassing the legislature in direct contradiction of Constitutional balance of powers: http://www.cnn.com... He did the same on gun control: https://www.whitehouse.gov... He has vetoed any attempts to crack down on sanctuary cities, actively choosing not to enforce the law, in direct contradiction of his oath to uphold the laws of the country: http://www.washingtontimes.com... Just today he set a record by commuting 214 sentences: http://www.usatoday.com... If you're looking to establish that Obama believes himself to be God, I'll be happy to help you make the case. God (the real one, not Obama) knows there's plenty of material to use. Of course, this is nothing new. Since the beginning of recorded history totalitarian dictators have existed (if you like I'll be happy to make references here of every tyrant in history). All of the evidence you've presented creates a very strong case that Obama is a totalitarian who believes he should have total power over everyone. I agree wholeheartedly with that. But you don't have a direct link to your claim that he is trying to be both the Antichrist and the Madhi. Don't forget your premise means you have to prove both, and you haven't made a direct case for either. You've cited plenty of vague references that could be interpreted as supporting your point but also could be interpreted the opposite. You need the direct link and it's not there. Let me prove this by going back to one of your key points, Revelation 6:2. "I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest." I could make just as strong a case for this being Clayton Kershaw than you've established of any point to Obama. White horse=color of Dodger home uniforms Bow=A bow is a device for launching a projectile, which is Kershaw does better than anyone else Crown=Kershaw won the pitching triple crown Conquest=conquers the vast majority of hitters That's the problem with inferring specific premises from vague references. Virtually anything can be twisted to a ridiculous result. That's what you're doing with Obama. When it comes to Obama thinking he's God, you're still short a direct link, but you've at least established a circumstantial case for it (certainly more of a case than for him being the Antichrist.) If he's trying emulate God, then he can't be the Madhi (who is an agent of God) or the Antichrist (who is in opposition to God). Certainly the Antichrist will claim to be God, but he himself will know it to be a lie, so if Obama is genuinely trying to be God he's not the Antichrist. You may wonder why I seem to be defending him when I so strongly oppose what he's doing as President. It's the same reason legitimate climate change scientists cringed when they watched "The day after tomorrow". People making ridiculous claims about a legitimate issue devalues the real claims. Focus on the real problems with Obama, not this insane conspiracy theory that doesn't even stand up to logic.