Prog antichrist

CPicard wrote: Guys, guys, please, keep focusing on the Antichrist of PROG. So, now that we have cleared the discussion about the nature of the Biblical Antichrist, let's go to a more serious question: is Yoko Ono the Lilith of proto-prog?

Yes , in the same way Bjork is the lilith of crossover

Rottenhat wrote: Well, Nils Frykdahl of Sleepytime Gorilla Museum did a quite nice antichrist impression on "A Hymn to the Morning Star", but that of course is not really what this thread is about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eFd91CXfc0

That guy's so f*cking scary, it's amazing.

Paravion wrote: Epiglottis wrote: < ="-" ="text/; =utf-8">You cannot speak of a "prog antichrist" without first knowing who the prog Christ is.   I'd suggest either Jon Anderson or Steve Hillage for their quirky and charming 'spirituality' and overwhelming positivity.

Edited by Rottenhat - February 01 2011 at 11:49

Eärendil wrote: Epignosis wrote: Well, I'm pretty convinced that there is no "Devil," no "Satan," no invisible malefactor running around tempting people, and I can give a hundred reasons why not. The first is that these words in the bible are common nouns, but because of tradition, are rendered proper nouns by translators.  Diábolos (translated Devil) means "slanderer" or "accuser."  Satanas (translated Satan) means "adversary."  The former term has a negative connotation (it generally would refer to a false accuser, like the false witnesses at Christ's trial). The latter term is more neutral- it refers to an opponent.  Hence, Jesus called Peter "Satan," ("get behind me Satan") because Peter was going against his master's plan. There's an interesting part of the Old Testament where David takes a census. 2 Samuel 24 says God moved David to take a census, while 1 Chronicles 21 says Satan provoked David to number Israel.  So many people do all sorts of literary and theological gymnastics to reconcile this idea, when there is no problem at all if the language is taken at face value.  In context, God's anger was kindled against David and Israel, so he was acting as an adversary to them (i.e., a satan).  Yet tradition unfortunately provides us with a number of convoluted and needless solutions to a problem that only exists because of silly traditions. One other reason I am confident that a single being called the Devil or Satan does not exist is because if he did, and if he could tempt everyone in the world at the same time (as Christians worldwide will say they are tempted by Satan), that would mean Satan is omnipresent- in other words, Satan has an attribute that biblically speaking, only God alone has. So to answer your question, the prevalent ideas about both the Antichrist and the Devil are false teachings and depend entirely upon a poor interpretation of what the Bible actually says. I agree with the danger of making leaps while interpreting the Bible and that many people don't actually know what they believe or why they believe it.  However, the Bible clearly teaches that a supernatural, yet limited, fallen angel called Satan that was cast out of heaven.  He is "roaming the earth" and not living in hell with a pitchfork and red tail like many people believe.  One way to look at it is that he directly doesn't tempt people but that his physical demons do.  I think the more logical explanation though is that it more symbolic, that Satan brought the idea of evil into the world which man chooses and thus becomes corrupted. I do agree, though that much is lost in translation and interpretation of what actually is the Devil.  I mean, you hear southern Baptists that burn books because Satan is in them or the "God hates fags" dirtbags who are complete idiots.   As for the Antichrist or antichrists, there are so many interpretations, and everyone is sure they're right, that it's pretty useless to debate.  Since the Bible was written, people have been trying to guess what the end time prophecies mean and how it applies to them, but what has that accomplished? Perhaps since, for us, perception is reality, there is some merit to forming opinions on those things, but it doesn't actually accomplish anything.  If people could know any of this for certain, there wouldn't still be the same debate over it that there has been for millennia.

Responded here.

Ok. I go with Phil Collins.

Epignosis wrote: Well, I'm pretty convinced that there is no "Devil," no "Satan," no invisible malefactor running around tempting people, and I can give a hundred reasons why not. The first is that these words in the bible are common nouns, but because of tradition, are rendered proper nouns by translators.  Diábolos (translated Devil) means "slanderer" or "accuser."  Satanas (translated Satan) means "adversary."  The former term has a negative connotation (it generally would refer to a false accuser, like the false witnesses at Christ's trial). The latter term is more neutral- it refers to an opponent.  Hence, Jesus called Peter "Satan," ("get behind me Satan") because Peter was going against his master's plan. There's an interesting part of the Old Testament where David takes a census. 2 Samuel 24 says God moved David to take a census, while 1 Chronicles 21 says Satan provoked David to number Israel.  So many people do all sorts of literary and theological gymnastics to reconcile this idea, when there is no problem at all if the language is taken at face value.  In context, God's anger was kindled against David and Israel, so he was acting as an adversary to them (i.e., a satan).  Yet tradition unfortunately provides us with a number of convoluted and needless solutions to a problem that only exists because of silly traditions. One other reason I am confident that a single being called the Devil or Satan does not exist is because if he did, and if he could tempt everyone in the world at the same time (as Christians worldwide will say they are tempted by Satan), that would mean Satan is omnipresent- in other words, Satan has an attribute that biblically speaking, only God alone has. So to answer your question, the prevalent ideas about both the Antichrist and the Devil are false teachings and depend entirely upon a poor interpretation of what the Bible actually says.

I agree with the danger of making leaps while interpreting the Bible and that many people don't actually know what they believe or why they believe it.  However, the Bible clearly teaches that a supernatural, yet limited, fallen angel called Satan that was cast out of heaven.  He is "roaming the earth" and not living in hell with a pitchfork and red tail like many people believe.  One way to look at it is that he directly doesn't tempt people but that his physical demons do.  I think the more logical explanation though is that it more symbolic, that Satan brought the idea of evil into the world which man chooses and thus becomes corrupted. I do agree, though that much is lost in translation and interpretation of what actually is the Devil.  I mean, you hear southern Baptists that burn books because Satan is in them or the "God hates fags" dirtbags who are complete idiots.  

As for the Antichrist or antichrists, there are so many interpretations, and everyone is sure they're right, that it's pretty useless to debate.  Since the Bible was written, people have been trying to guess what the end time prophecies mean and how it applies to them, but what has that accomplished? Perhaps since, for us, perception is reality, there is some merit to forming opinions on those things, but it doesn't actually accomplish anything.  If people could know any of this for certain, there wouldn't still be the same debate over it that there has been for millennia.

Snow Dog wrote: Epignosis wrote: Snow Dog wrote: CPicard wrote: Eärendil wrote: An Antichrist is someone who leads people away with false teaching... I don't really understand what this thread is going for. But surely the Portnoy comment is a joke? More precisely, I think remembering that the antichrist is someone who doesn't believe in the Christ...  Incorrect. The anti Christ is the opposite of Christ. The son of the devil in fact.(or fiction) Furthermore, if you believe that Christ is not only the son of god but also his earthly embodiment (as Catholics do) then it follows that the Antichrist is Satan himself. Actually, 1 John 2:18 indicates that there is more than one antichrist, and that many have already come: Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. Then 1 John 2:22 explicitly tells us precisely what the antichrist is: Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. In 2 John 1:7, John also says I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. One assumption commonly made is that Paul's "man of lawlessness" in 2 Thessalonians 2 and the antichrist mentioned in John's epistles are one and the same, but no one ever seems to give any convincing literary justification for these being one and the same.  Just like saying Lucifer = Satan = the Devil = the serpent in the Garden of Eden, these assumptions create fantastical doctrines that are based largely on sheer speculation and Medieval mythology rather than explicit scriptural cross-references and the common rules of the original languages. Well I'm not going to argue with a Christian about it. So the Antichrist being the devil is mythology added later?

Well, I'm pretty convinced that there is no "Devil," no "Satan," no invisible malefactor running around tempting people, and I can give a hundred reasons why not.

The first is that these words in the bible are common nouns, but because of tradition, are rendered proper nouns by translators.  Diábolos (translated Devil) means "slanderer" or "accuser."  Satanas (translated Satan) means "adversary."  The former term has a negative connotation (it generally would refer to a false accuser, like the false witnesses at Christ's trial). The latter term is more neutral- it refers to an opponent.  Hence, Jesus called Peter "Satan," ("get behind me Satan") because Peter was going against his master's plan.

There's an interesting part of the Old Testament where David takes a census. 2 Samuel 24 says God moved David to take a census, while 1 Chronicles 21 says Satan provoked David to number Israel.  So many people do all sorts of literary and theological gymnastics to reconcile this idea, when there is no problem at all if the language is taken at face value.  In context, God's anger was kindled against David and Israel, so he was acting as an adversary to them (i.e., a satan).  Yet tradition unfortunately provides us with a number of convoluted and needless solutions to a problem that only exists because of silly traditions.

One other reason I am confident that a single being called the Devil or Satan does not exist is because if he did, and if he could tempt everyone in the world at the same time (as Christians worldwide will say they are tempted by Satan), that would mean Satan is omnipresent- in other words, Satan has an attribute that biblically speaking, only God alone has.

So to answer your question, the prevalent ideas about both the Antichrist and the Devil are false teachings and depend entirely upon a poor interpretation of what the Bible actually says.

Snow Dog wrote: CPicard wrote: Eärendil wrote: An Antichrist is someone who leads people away with false teaching... I don't really understand what this thread is going for. But surely the Portnoy comment is a joke? More precisely, I think remembering that the antichrist is someone who doesn't believe in the Christ...  Incorrect. The anti Christ is the opposite of Christ. The son of the devil in fact.(or fiction) Furthermore, if you believe that Christ is not only the son of god but also his earthly embodiment (as Catholics do) then it follows that the Antichrist is Satan himself.

Actually, 1 John 2:18 indicates that there is more than one antichrist, and that many have already come:

Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come.

Then 1 John 2:22 explicitly tells us precisely what the antichrist is:

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.

In 2 John 1:7, John also says

I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

One assumption commonly made is that Paul's "man of lawlessness" in 2 Thessalonians 2 and the antichrist mentioned in John's epistles are one and the same, but no one ever seems to give any convincing literary justification for these being one and the same.  Just like saying Lucifer = Satan = the Devil = the serpent in the Garden of Eden, these assumptions create fantastical doctrines that are based largely on sheer speculation and Medieval mythology rather than explicit scriptural cross-references and the common rules of the original languages.


Edited by Epignosis - January 31 2011 at 08:26

CPicard wrote: Eärendil wrote: An Antichrist is someone who leads people away with false teaching... I don't really understand what this thread is going for. But surely the Portnoy comment is a joke? More precisely, I think remembering that the antichrist is someone who doesn't believe in the Christ...

Edited by Snow Dog - January 31 2011 at 04:15