Text 4044, 103 rader
Skriven 2004-10-25 01:25:30 av Steve Asher (3:800/432.0)
   Kommentar till text 4036 av Gary Moore (1:396/45.0)
Ärende: Bush & Mark Of The Beast?
=================================
Mulling over Gary Moore to Steve Asher 23 Oct 2004

 SA> Whether Bush is (or is not) the Antichrist cannot be known.

 GM> If you're going to speculate, it could be Kerry.  Why focus on
 GM> Bush?

 SA> The article refers to Bush, not Kerry, so I kept my comments to Bush.
 SA> Feel free to introduce any material that relates to Kerry.

 GM>  My question was prompted by the thought that Bush would seem to be
 GM> eliminated as some kind of an end-time despot if he were to lose
 GM> the  election and he willingly relinquished the White House.

I think it is more likely the reverse; while Bush -is- in the White
House, he is not in a position to fulfil a number of the criteria
of the "job description". E.g., he is unlikely to sit in the temple
of God, showing himself to be God. In any event, the Temple has not
yet been rebuilt, & Bush so far has not claimed to be God, AFAIK.

 GM>  Your article and accompanying argument is posted mere days before 
 GM> an election, the results of which might make you have to change
 GM> your  speculation about things.  I don't see Kerry as "the
 GM> Antichrist,"  but if your argument is based on the aggressiveness
 GM> with which the  presidential candidates might wage war, you should
 GM> consider that  Kerry has said he wants to substantially increase
 GM> the number of  men and women in the U.S. military, and he claims he
 GM> would wage war  more effectively.  It's difficult to know what he
 GM> would do, were he  to be elected.  Hence, my question.

And a very good question. I have previously expressed concern at Kerry's
support for the "Patriot Act" & associated identification, profiling etc
(though he has apparently back-flipped since). Of course, once elected,
he can backflip once more.

 SA> However, the ultra-liberal course he has embarked upon of
 SA> bringing "peace and freedom" to the world, at the point
 SA> of a cruise missile if necessary, is consistent with the
 SA> "job description" of the Beast, and will result in
 SA> destruction.

 GM> How does the desire to bring peace and freedom to the world
 GM> equate to an "ultra-liberal course," Steve?

The "liberal" course, which most followers of the "peace movement"
follow, look to human institutions, such as the United Nations &
its many and varied NGOs to solve the problems of peace & freedom;
"global governance" in one form or another. Bush goes further, and
and presents freedom not as a gift of the USA or any other human
agency, but as a universal gift of God to all humans. OK, how
will Bush (or anyone else) go about imparting the gift of freedom
to the world? Answer - by making the human institutions (whether
existing, such as the UN and the Parliament of the World's Religions,
or yet to be instituted) empowered by, and answerable to, his God.

Which God is it that gives universal freedom? Not the God of the
Bible, who makes peace through the blood of Jesus Christ, and
sets free with the truth (not cruise missiles & carpet bombs,
or bomb belts for that matter). To get a feeling for which God
might be behind the "peace" & "freedom" that Bush is promoting,
you might read the works of (eg) David Spangler (and others).

 SA> I think you'd agree that what is commonly viewed as the
 SA> "peace movement" is largely the liberal (in the US sense)
 SA> left, well-meaning church members (palm Sunday marches etc),
 SA> socialist worker alliances (etc) - at least when it comes
 SA> to organising peace marches & rallies - i.e. "liberals".
 SA> That was my experience of the "peace movement" in Adelaide
 SA> in the 1970s and 1980s, anyway.

 GM>  There are many ways in which one might pursue peace and freedom 
 GM> throughout the world, Steve.  All paths aren't the same.

This is true. One "path" I have in front of me is a pamphlet from
1986 from the United Nations Association of Australia". Again, I
am not the judge, & the motives & sincerity of the UNAA (or Bush
for that matter) are not the issue, but the UN is presented as
contributing to the "solutions of complex ecological, moral,
political, racial, religious, social and economic problems ...
harmonising the actions of nations in attaining these common 
goals".

 SA> While the "movement" was successful in opposing the Vietnam war,

 GM>  The "peace movement" with which I'm most familiar would appear to 
 GM> have been pacifist in nature.

 GM>   It was against the war.  Yet, you're applying the term 
 GM> "ultra-liberal course" to the course of perpetual war upon which 
 GM> the Bush administration has embarked. 

I don't know that the Bush administration has intentionally embarked
on a course of perpetual war. I suspect that they are so full of it
that they believe that they can win their "war on ... (insert war
du jour)", and quickly. Iraq was framed - it had no "weapons of
mass destruction", & little else of any consequence with which to
defend against a vastly superior invasion force, resulting in
"catastrophic success".

Cheers, Steve..

--- 
 * Origin: Xaragmata / Adelaide SA telnet://xaragmata.thebbs.org (3:800/432)