Obama is the Antichrist

Thank you for the response. =========================================================== I. <<<"Though I expected the opponent to be a Christian.">>> 1) Each of my points were arguments that Christians themselves have made. I myself was once a former Christian, and in my days, I rejected the strict interpretation of the Bible. Taking it word for word not only contradicts itself, but it would force us to slay many of our peers in cold blood. 2) My claim stands. You never refuted the argument that the Bible can not be taken literally. Extend this claim. 3) Also extend that in order to affirm the resolution, that you must take the Bible literally in order to even create the being known as the antichrist. ---The rest of my claims will see what happens when we do take the Bible literally... =========================================================== II. <<<"First, I will comment on each of these qualifiers you have used as descriptions for the Antichrist that Obama could match.">>> a. <<<"a powerful organization like the UN">>> 1) The U.N. is not powerful whatsoever. [SOURCE] http://www.philforhumanity.com... 2. "The primary reason the UN cannot control war is that it cannot effectively govern its Member States." Therefore, even if Obama has control over the U.N., he does not have control over those countries. [SOURCE] http://www.notimetokill.org... 3. There are over a hundred countries in the U.N. In order to win the requirement given to us from the Bible, he must have control over 3, then control over 10. You have shown neither is possible nor likely. [SOURCE] http://www.un.org... ---Therefore, Obama does not have control over 3 nations. (I would even claim that he doesn't have control over America, although that is unnecessary as far as the argument is concerned.) =========================================================== III. <<<"Also note that Obama has the ability to achieve all the points you have written so far. You have not mentioned anything that could be [theoretically inapplicable] to Obama.">>> 1) EXTEND: -He will rise to power first over 3 and then 10 nations -He will bring 'peace', yet conquer through treaties and war ---There is no way that he is going to unify the nations. -He will receive what appears to be a fatal wound to the head -He will appear to be resurrected from the dead -His right eye may be blinded and his arm completely withered ---This could be applied to McCain but not to Obama. -He will enforce a "peace" plan or resolution (covenant) upon nation Israel ---He has no such plans of doing so in the future. -He may help to get the new Jewish Temple built in Jerusalem -He will appear to perform miracles ("lying signs and wonders") -He will require that everybody on Earth receive a mark or identification on their forehead or hand and nobody will legally be able to buy or sell without it -He will stand in a new Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and declare he is "God" ---Do you really think that Obama will stand in the middle of a Jewish Temple and proclaim that he is God without being shot at? At the very least he would be mocked which would make it impossible for him to be liked "around the world." -Unspeakable terror and war will then engulf Earth for exactly 3ï¿½ years (1260 days) -He will direct the slaughter of millions of Christians and Jews who come to know the Lord ---How could he do this with the power delegated to him from his American Presidency? Your claim that he mocks the Bible which means he's the antichrist is laughable when compared to the actual things that he would have to do to complete this conspiracy. -He will lead the armies of the world into Israel . . . Armageddon. ---Note: That in order for PRO to win this debate, he would have to prove that Obama will do this (probably) by the end of his Presidency. My argument is not, necessarily, that Obama is without a doubt not the antichrist, but rather, that it is extremely unlikely that he is. The information aforementioned is next to impossible for one man to do even with the most powerful office in the world. EXTEND: Obama has SOME relations to the biblical prediction, but he does not have all of it, nor does he even have a majority of them. ---I would be satisfied if you could even show that it is likely that Obama would do these things. EVEN with the topic explicitly pointing out that he IS the antichrist (therefore WILL do these things). =========================================================== IV. <<<"thus "horsemen" might stand for tanks">>> 1) Well the Bible says that he will ride on a white horse. If it was being metaphorical, then why would it describe the color of the horse? Furthermore, why would he be riding it? =========================================================== V. <<<"Prince Charles">>> My argument is two fold: 1) That Prince Charles applies to more of the standards of being the antichrist. 2) Obama does not apply to as many of the standards (and in argument three's case... none of them) ---It really seems that you attacked what could be rather than what is. Therefore, extend this framework. Now, for what you did argue. =========================================================== VI. <<<"Charles may mean "man"">>> 1) Charles does mean man. Man also means Charles. 2) Barack does not mean man. =========================================================== VII. <<<"A dragon symbolizes bravery and a desire to do what is right.">>> 1) Basically this is a justification for why Charles meets one of the standards of being the antichrist given to us from the Bible. Notice, that the dragon does not mean the same things in America, meaning that Obama does not wear any sort of clothing with dragons on it. Thus, he misses this standard completely. =========================================================== VIII. <<<"It is very possible that someone started lies to attack Charles even further after the adultery scandal was proven.">>> 1) It is even more possible that the Obama rumors were spread from some Fox News hippie or a right wing Christian who wanted a reason to hate Obama since they couldn't think of a political way to. =========================================================== IX. <<<"First, it is possible to err on lineage charts. Thus, it is possible that Prince Charles is not truly the eighth of the seventh.">>> 1) How is it possible to completely forget a generation of royalty? 2) Even if this .0001% chance is true, it is still closer to meeting the interpretation of the Bible than Obama. =========================================================== X. <<<"Thus, perhaps it was a conspiracy theorist in the British College of Heraldry and not Charles's own design.">>> 1) The Bible does not say that it has to be his design, only that he wears it. =========================================================== I look forward to your response.