About the Antichrist

 

The Antichrist is an interesting figure.  It or he is referred in the New Testament of the Bible, but not in the Old Testament.  This shouldn't be surprising as there is no Christ in the Old Testament, though over the years those books of the Bible have been searched for references to Jesus which were duly found, but were less than clear and required inventive explanation.  The same may be said of the Antichrist.

The Antichrist is also mentioned by Paul of Tarsus and several of the Church Fathers, who found it necessary  or useful to describe it or him in more detail than appears in the Bible.  I don't know if the Antichrist is referred to in the many gospels which were excluded from the Bible, some of which refer to Jesus using his divine powers to kill those who annoy him and decribe him as quite different from the Jesus we know through those authors known as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

As only makes sense, the Antichrist denies Christ, and works to induce others to do so as well.  It's unclear whether the Antichrist is to be a single individual or if there's to be more than one.  Many have been called the Antichrist over the centuries.  Nero was one of those named. So we're various Popes or the very office of the Papacy (by Protestants).  Mohammed was called the Antichrist, and so were some heretics like Arian.

Some have claimed the Antichrist is among those false prophets and wonder-workers we were warned of in Scripture. There were quite a few of those wandering around the Mediterranean while Jesus is claimed to have lived, like Simon Magus and Appollonius of Tyana. Appollonius' story is similar to that of Jesus in many respects--each performed the same kind of miracles, for example, like raising the dead.

The Antichrist is described as having various characteristics, some of which have a certain, or in some cases uncertain, basis in Scripture.  Others have been added over time.  Among other things the Antichrist is charismatic, a deceiver, considers himself divine, is worshipped as a god, controls the economy, and rules the world from Jerusalem of all places.  Various figures have been thought to to qualify over the centuries given this description; some are considered the Antichrist even now (I need not name them). But after a relatively short period of time the Antichrist is destroyed by Jesus.

Among the problems I have with the Antichrist is the fact that his death and defeat is inevitable according to all sources.  It may be that the Antichrist's followers would be stupid or ignorant enough to disregard the many prophecies of their leader's ruin, but presumably, the Antichrist would be aware of these sources, and know his fate.  Who or what would want to be the Antichrist given the destruction which awaits?

Difficulties arise when we believe that accounts which were intended to address contemporary or imminent events apply thousands of years later. So the end times, preceding the Second Coming of Jesus, which he himself said would take place in the lifetimes of his disciples according to the Gospel of Matthew, are still awaited by the credulous, although believers predicted they would take place many times already and have been disappointed as many times in the past.

So it should be no great surprise that we're so gullible, so easily misled, so completely bovine when those who wish to take advantage of us do so in these New Dark Ages.  We've been dupes for millenia.  

"Have You Seen the Bigger Piggies..."

 

In another, happier, time I was given the Beatles' White Album (as it's popularly called) for Christmas.  The lyric that's the title to this post is of course taken from George Harrison's song Piggies which appears on that album.

The song spoke to class distinctions of the time.  Perhaps its focus was on the peculiarities of the British class system.  In any case, it criticized the haves of society and their disregard for the have-nots.

There was a time when the British upper class was notorious for its disdain for and mistreatment of the the poverty stricken lower classes condemned to live among but far, far below them.  This time was most famously described in the works of Charles Dickens.

But I wonder whether the lyrics of Piggies better reflect the times we live in now, here.  America has arguably become even more of a plutoctacy than England was in the 19th century.  Billionaires and their minions effectively rule the nation and, like the Bigger Piggies of the song, are intent on stirring up the dirt in which others live, even to the point of classing them as enemies of the nation and seeking to use the military against them.

There's something offensively smug about the Piggies of our time.  They snort and snigger at the problems of others. 

Riches may corrupt separately from and in addition to power.  The very rich are used to buying people as well as things, and so take them both for granted. Things are important to today's Piggies solely to the extent they give them pleasure or otherwise serve their interests, and they view people as essentially the same as things.  The Piggies don't care about people or what they do unless they irritate them. The Piggies of the song eat bacon.  The Piggies of our time consume us. They think themselves entitled to do so, living Piggy lives.

Not Being Able to Govern Events

 

Montaigne offers wisdom, and an example, on how to live in this dreary age: "Not being able to govern events, I govern myself."

It might be true that we can govern events only rarely and to a limited extent in most times, and that we should in lieu of events govern ourselves always. But I think that events, now, have grown beyond anyone's control and the need to govern ourselves is urgent.

It's difficult to believe that anything or anyone can be tiresome, remarkably embarrassing and dangerous at one and the same time, but those who should be governing events have managed to be just that. Some drone on in a shambling, rambling, sometimes incoherent fashion about what they believe to be their own greatness and and malign those they dislike; some strike poses and prance about a stage in the manner of a television evangelist while they expound on death, destruction, fitness and grooming; some threaten to deploy troops against their fellow Americans in select cities.

There's something ugly about the state of our Glorious Union. It's become misshapen, repulsive, in the hands of pillagers. 

What can be done while things fall apart and the center cannot hold?  Montaigne's response is that of a Stoic.  Don't allow yourself to despair over things beyond your control.  Do the best you can with what is in your control.  It's possible to be reasonable and virtuous although others are neither.

There may be worse to come.  If that's to be, Hemingway was right that grace under pressure is admirable.

The Pledge of Impedance

 

It's one thing for a government to withhold information from its citizens, regardless of any need to do so. It is another to require that members of the media pledge to assist government in this dissimulation.

This demand for an agreement to join government in its efforts to impede communication of government conduct to the public is particularly unworthy of a nation founded on a Constitution which includes the First Amendment.  The impropriety of concealment in that case becomes even more loathsome as it includes an effort to restrict freedom of speech and "of the press" and force the media to join in a conspiracy to do so.

But it seems that the regime now in power is determined to violate the First Amendment in this and other ways, seemingly to prevent criticism if not for other, more sinister, reasons.  It also seems that Congress is either content to see this to take place or too cowed to do anything about it. 

Whether the Supreme, or Subordinate, Court will tolerate this remains to be seen.  The outlook is bleak, though, as some of the Justices appear to believe themselves to be beyond criticism or at least strongly resent it, and so may sympathize with the regime. It certainly seems inclined to favor the regime, judging from what it's done in the shadows of the Shadow Docket.

Our One True God

 

Here, it is all powerful.  If you have a great deal of it, your sins will be forgiven; indeed, having it may mean you shall not be deemed to sin at all, or at least won't suffer for your sins. With it, you shall not want, and you will fear no evil.

For the wealthy, it is their refuge and strength.  No weapon fashioned against them shall succeed.  They  will refute any tongue raised against them.

This being the case, why not call money God?  Why not worship it as God? If love of God is our purpose, if God is what we should strive for, we all love money and strive to have it, strive mightily to have more of it, and more and more.  Indeed, we do nothing else.

We suffer without money.  Just as we do without God. We dread the absence of Money/God. We do all we can to remain in the presence of Money/God. We have a duty to express our faith in it, to worship it.  We do that by spending it or harboring it.

A fifth-century Christian zealot proclaimed "There is no crime for those who have Christ."  As money is God now, there is no crime for those who have money.  Next to possessing, making and keeping money, all is secondary.  That's why threats being made by the current government against money worshippers so often in these sad times--to withhold money from them, to prevent them from making money, or to cause them to spend money--are so successful. Considerations of justice, Constitutional rights and duties, morality generally, virtue, honesty, mean nothing here in the Kingdom of Fear.

So, repent!  Get your mind right. Follow the chosen of your God.  He is the way, the truth and the life.  His is the only path to be taken.