Hilary Clinton fought the battle of Armageddon?

BorgHunter sir, should this topic be in politics? Or in religion?

Armageddon is religion and Hilary Clinton is politics. Bush Jr. started Armageddon, he just did!

Can a woman who is marginally Christian, represent mankind in a battle that is religious in nature? Hilary wants to be president of a country that is going to be up to their butts in a religious reality. Thanks to W. Bush :)

What is interesting is that Christians think that the battle of Armageddon is about Israel, it is not about Israel, it is about Mecca. If the Islamic fundamentalists control Mecca, we "will" all become Islamic.

Once the Islamic fundamentalists control Mecca, all Islamic folk will become combatants. Yepper, they will :) ! And Islam motivated will be a handfull, especially backed by Paris :) Which the fundamentalists actually are.

W. Bush has actually started something that the whole world now has to deal with. Can we consider Hilary our savior, if we would rather not be Moslem :) ?

Hilary and guys :) how do you want to play this? Crap is now happening, thanks to President W. Bush, US of A. If we had left Sodom in power, this never would have happened :)

Tucker58

If the Christian Bible is true, the battle of Armageddon will happen; so what is the big deal about who started it? The beginning and end is already laid out in their bible, so why would it matter who wins a U.S. election?

Since, according to the Christian faith, everything is preordained, no practicing Christian would bring religion into any election. To do so would show no faith in their god's ability to control events without the entervention of the Christian followers.

Sounds like some followers of Christianity can not decide who is leading the show-them or their god.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b222/godsandmen/religion/rapture/stranger003.jpg

Since when are politicians religious leaders?

Im confused but intrigued.

Some corrections are offered below, Tucker. Your misspellings and grammatical errors have detracted from the strength of your original message:

Will Hilary Clinton inherit the battles of Armageddon?

(BorgHunter sir, should this topic be in the Politics forum? Or does it belong perhaps in the Religion and Philosophy forum instead?)

Armageddon is a religious concept and Hilary Clinton is a less a religious figure than a creature of politics. My assertion is that George W. Bush has precipitated Armageddon, by leading us into war in Iraq.

Can a woman who is marginally Christian represent mankind in a war that has such staggering religious implications? Hilary wants to be President of a country that is going to be up to their butts in a religious reality. (Thanks to George W. Bush, of course.)

What is interesting is that Christians think that the battle of Armageddon is about Israel. I assert that Armageddon is not about Israel, but rather is about Mecca.
(And if the Islamic fundamentalists control Mecca, will we all become Islamic?)

Once the Islamic fundamentalists control Mecca, all Islamic citizens in the region will find themselves combatants. This is my fervent belief! And it naturally follows that an Islamic people thus motivated will be a formidable foe, especially if they are supported by the French. (And I assert that the Islamic fundamentalists are indeed backed by the French.)

Our current President has started something that the whole world now has to deal with. Might we consider Hillary Clinton our savior, if we would rather not be Muslim?

Hillary Clinton and your political machine; how do you intend to deal with this situation? We are up to our necks in the early battles of Armageddon, thanks to President George W. Bush. I believe that if we had left Saddam Hussein in power, we would not be in such a mess!!



Or words to that effect.
:rolleyes:

Please notice lives of heretics.
Please notice lives of people who think differently.
Please notice lives of people who are around you.
Please notice lives of your children.
Please notice lives of animals, and maybe your pet.

Please notice what's to structure the world.





It sounds like that I'm a religious.:lolhit:

Since when are politicians religious leaders?

There are a lot of religious leaders playing politics, so turn about is fair play.

Still confused but a little more understanding has been brought to light.

I dont think Mecca will start Armageddon. I believe it is important in the involvement of Armageddon but not the beginning.

Thats just one confused Christians thoughts.
Back to you Sparky.

You know what, Tucker actaully has a good thought there. Maybe it is the beginning. I can see the same thing happening in present day to Mecca, that happened to the Jews in the 1st century.
Christians would be all over that.

If the Christian Bible is true, the battle of Armageddon will happen; so what is the big deal about who started it? The beginning and end is already laid out in their bible, so why would it matter who wins a U.S. election?

Since, according to the Christian faith, everything is preordained, no practicing Christian would bring religion into any election. To do so would show no faith in their god's ability to control events without the entervention of the Christian followers.

Sounds like some followers of Christianity can not decide who is leading the show-them or their god.

Thank you DanF for your input. Your response is very current :) and well thought out. It just is.

If Hilary is elected President and we are actually in the last days, she will fight the battle of Armageddon as Commander and Chief of the free world :) and win. Scripture says so. :)

So now the question is, "If the followers of the Kings of the East (Which is alot of the folks East of Iraq) knew that they were going to lose and curse God/Allah, would they march and follow the Kings of the East?

Input?

Tucker58

Im confused but intrigued.

Inviolable I love you! A Christian (you) really needs to be involved in this as we (all of us that are interested) attempt to sort this :) out. I came to All Forums .net with this because I don't trust any other messageboard. On All forums, everbody is here and they are real.

Guys I have to rush off but I will be back to study everybodies input. This one topic/thread is really inportant to me as an individual. I am just really glad that you guys are here and willing to provide input. Thank you!

Tucker58

Thanks Tucker.

I was wondering if you could highlight for us a little about the trouble Mecca could be in at present.

There are a lot of religious leaders playing politics, so turn about is fair play.

yea but politics is everywhere... and i'm talking about the broad term. Religion is not.

It worries me to see people who aren't christians hold George Bush as some kind of example... i mean, did i miss something? did he go become an ordained preist and work his way up to pope?

yea but politics is everywhere... and i'm talking about the broad term. Religion is not.

It worries me to see people who aren't christians hold George Bush as some kind of example... i mean, did i miss something? did he go become an ordained preist and work his way up to pope?

Hi Decka, You are most welcome to this mess :)

About W. Bush :) his dad, based on experience and knowledge refused to do what W. did. And I have to personally agree with Sr. Bush. My step son who is basically your average voter, felt that if Sr. Bush had dumped Sodom that all would have been well and solved. I told my stepson that we as US folks would be up to our butt in one hell of a mess if that had been done. But your average voter put W. Bush in there to dump Sodom, to clean up what they felt was the mess that Sr. Bush refused to clean up durring the first Iraq war.

I agree with you about some people, and Hilary and her folk are some of them.

If one wants to study Christian Prophecy, "Revelation The Book", there is no doubt that Iraq is between the Kings of the East and those Kings target, be it Mecca or Israel. We are all sitting here watching "World War Three" start. Every world war envolves people and we all in this world are people. But because everybody hates the US and hates Christians, for whatever reason, here we are.

So let me ask this, "Is prophecy set in stone, or is it a warning? If it is a warning, then how should we handle it?"

And I would like to add this, "Paris is going to be proven to be Babylon." It just is.

Guys? Decka? What do you think?

Tucker58

Thanks Tucker.

I was wondering if you could highlight for us a little about the trouble Mecca could be in at present.

Inviolable at the present Mecca is no trouble. Mecca is controled by moderates. All is well :) If Mecca was controled by the fanatics then things would be different. All Moslems owe allegiance to Mecca. Or they can't be Moslem. :) What is funny is that there are folks in the US government and other governments that know what this Irac war is about. But if they tell people all hell will break loose. They can't even tell the Christians :) I love that part. The Chrisians are saving Jerusalem, who cares about Mecca.

Anyway Inviolable, my point is, if we can prove that Prophecy Christian is real, and involve the rest of the world in the decision, can we save lives?

I have to give it a try :) you know how it is.

Tucker58

So now the question is, "If the followers of the Kings of the East (Which is alot of the folks East of Iraq) knew that they were going to lose and curse God/Allah, would they march and follow the Kings of the East?
Input?
Tucker58

It seems that people would risk going to war to either gain something or not lose something.
Followers of the main religions feel that their religion is the complete truth and that other religions contain lies. They would feel that if another religion becomes dominant, their's would suffer. With God on their side, they would not lose a religious war. Add to this belief, the belief that rewards will be in the next life if death occurs from doing "Gods work" and you have armies that will not back down.

Never forget that there are many good people on both sides, people that help one another and love and care for their families. Good people that are tempted and stimulated by systems of repression mislabeled as god's will by those leaders that they follow.

Inviolable at the present Mecca is no trouble. Mecca is controled by moderates. All is well :) If Mecca was controled by the fanatics then things would be different. All Moslems owe allegiance to Mecca. Or they can't be Moslem. :) What is funny is that there are folks in the US government and other governments that know what this Irac war is about. But if they tell people all hell will break loose. They can't even tell the Christians :) I love that part. The Chrisians are saving Jerusalem, who cares about Mecca.

Anyway Inviolable, my point is, if we can prove that Prophecy Christian is real, and involve the rest of the world in the decision, can we save lives?

I have to give it a try :) you know how it is.

Tucker58

I kind of understand. Cant say I'm with you 100%.
However, Mecca is constantly under a pretty heavy light.
Jews and Christians alike want to see Mecca be something else and it isnt exactly on friendly ground. If you know what I mean.
So, I can see the simplest of things spark a lot of rumors. But I dont think Mecca is going to come down on rumors alone.

Just to clear up a few misconceptions.

Mecca and the Kaabah are not controlled by moderates. They are controlled by Saudi Wahabis a far from moderate group within the Muslim community.

Moslems do not owe allegiance to Mecca any more than Christians or Jews owe allegiance to Jerusalem. Mecca is a symbol of their faith just as Jerusalem is a symbol of Christianity and Judaeism. Were there no longer a Mecca or Jerusalem there would still be Islam, Christianity and Judaeism. Moslems owe allegiance to Allah and to Mohammad as his profit just as Jews owe allegiance to Yaweh and Christians to the Triune God.

Christians also do not all believe in life being preordained or predestined as someone has stated. Certain Christian sects do but a belief in life being preordained is not a basic tenet of Christianity. The majority of Christians believe in free will and this automatically negates predestination.

Just to clear up a few misconceptions.
Christians also do not all believe in life being preordained or predestined as someone has stated. Certain Christian sects do but a belief in life being preordained is not a basic tenet of Christianity. The majority of Christians believe in free will and this automatically negates predestination.

Frogger, does this mean that, to you, the things predicted in the Bible will not come true?
I do not remember reading the words of Daniel or John as an option.

I did not say that. I said the majority of Christians do not believe in predestination. Predestination deals with individual acts not with broad, worldwide occurences.

As for the book of Revelations, I don't think any of us really understands it. It reads like it was written by someone on LSD. While it may very well foretell what will happen in the world it is so cryptic that it can be interpreted in a myriad of ways. The Hermeneutics related to Revelations has come to many different conclusions, some of them antithetical to others.

While I believe in the inerrancy of The Bible I do not believe in the inerrancy of those reading and interpreting it.

Moslems do not owe allegiance to Mecca any more than Christians or Jews owe allegiance to Jerusalem.
We all know that Christians and Jews all have a pillar of their faith that tells them to visit Jerusalem.

I mean, the Hajj? Fuggedaboudit. Muslims don't care anymore about Mecca than they do about Yokohama.

No, we don't all know that, Evakian. I am a Christian and feel no great desire to visit Jerusalem.

Yeah, it'd be cool to visit but I'm not overwhelmed by the idea.

He's also pretty dead on about Revelations as well. It's not an easy subject to get around or figure out. I've talked to 3 different people with more then 10 years study on just Revelations and they all have a different story to tell.

The only thing we can all agree on is, that Jesus will return.

No, we don't all know that, Evakian. I am a Christian and feel no great desire to visit Jerusalem.
Muslims have a great attachment to Mecca that is not comparable with Jerusalem, specifically because of the Hajj.

Shahadah, Salah, Zakah, Sawm, and Hajj--the five pillars of Islam.

Your statement that they have no more attachment to Mecca than Christians do Jerusalem is wrong.

In short, I was insulting you.

Muslims have a great attachment to Mecca that is not comparable with Jerusalem, specifically because of the Hajj.

Shahadah, Salah, Zakah, Sawm, and Hajj--the five pillars of Islam.

Your statement that they have no more attachment to Mecca than Christians do Jerusalem is wrong.

In short, I was insulting you.

Thank you Evakian! :) and now a smily for Frogger :hula: :)

Tucker58

It seems that people would risk going to war to either gain something or not lose something.
Followers of the main religions feel that their religion is the complete truth and that other religions contain lies. They would feel that if another religion becomes dominant, their's would suffer. With God on their side, they would not lose a religious war. Add to this belief, the belief that rewards will be in the next life if death occurs from doing "Gods work" and you have armies that will not back down.

Never forget that there are many good people on both sides, people that help one another and love and care for their families. Good people that are tempted and stimulated by systems of repression mislabeled as god's will by those leaders that they follow.

Your words DanF, are words of wisdom!

What I like about this messageboard is that everybody here is a free thinker. Except for Sal :) she is a woman and they are a different species :) and nobody really knows what they are thinking :)

Tucker58

I kind of understand. Cant say I'm with you 100%.
However, Mecca is constantly under a pretty heavy light.
Jews and Christians alike want to see Mecca be something else and it isnt exactly on friendly ground. If you know what I mean.
So, I can see the simplest of things spark a lot of rumors. But I dont think Mecca is going to come down on rumors alone.

Inviolable, If you were with me 100 percent I would be somewhat concerned :) "I am abit over the top for a cookie" :)

My interpretation of Revelation is completely different that anybody elses. And I would like, just for fun, to have some free thinkers have a look at it. Heck, there is no way that input can hurt. And your back ground in the study of Revelation, The Book, is valuable. I don't know very much about the other versions.

Tucker58

No, we don't all know that, Evakian. I am a Christian and feel no great desire to visit Jerusalem.

So Frogger is a Christian! Too cool! So was he "sprinkled" or "immersed"? :)

Tucker58

So lets start here:

The four horses of the Apocalypse:
The white horse of the apocalypse (the good guys ride white horses in Revelations) is "Democracy". The red horse is "Communism". The Black horse is "Capitalism". The pale horse is "Dictatorship".

This needs to be said; Most interpretations of Revelation, The Book, are designed to scare people into becoming Christians. Personally I don't think that that was why it was written. And I don't think that the fellow who wrote Revelation was deliberately trying to be cryptic.

As an example, if you lived around two thousand years ago and you saw a vision of a flock of helicopters wouldn't the best way that you could describe them, based on your time, would be to see them as locuses. I was watching a movie, I think it was called "Apocalypse something?" about Vietnam, and the helicopters coming in over tree level looked from a distance just like locus.

And how would you describe a tank the shoots from one end and stings with the other end with rockets?

My point is that I don't think that Revelation was ment to be cryptic and I don't think that it was ment to scare you into being Christian.

Input?

Tucker58

So lets start here:

The four horses of the Apocalypse:
The white horse of the apocalypse (the good guys ride white horses in Revelations) is "Democracy". The red horse is "Communism". The Black horse is "Capitalism". The pale horse is "Dictatorship".

This needs to be said; Most interpretations of Revelation, The Book, are designed to scare people into becoming Christians. Personally I don't think that that was why it was written. And I don't think that the fellow who wrote Revelation was deliberately trying to be cryptic.

As an example, if you lived around two thousand years ago and you saw a vision of a flock of helicopters wouldn't the best way that you could describe them, based on your time, would be to see them as locuses. I was watching a movie, I think it was called "Apocalypse something?" about Vietnam, and the helicopters coming in over tree level looked from a distance just like locus.

And how would you describe a tank the shoots from one end and stings with the other end with rockets?

My point is that I don't think that Revelation was ment to be cryptic and I don't think that it was ment to scare you into being Christian.

Input?

Tucker58

Well... Give me a minute to scratch my head here.

It is descriptive in the manner in which the explanation can be seen as several things.
Helicopters could also be seen as jet's and so on.

I can very easily give you the links to 20 or more sites about what each verse means and they would all be talking about something else.
However, I do know of several Evangelist who are cheering you on. Or rather what youre saying here.

I believe that there could come a time when peace isnt seen as useful.
Thats also when I think Mecca will be taken.
How soon it will be is another conversation.
My personal thoughts on the topic differ with quite a few of my fellow Christians.
I honestly believe that when Jesus comes back, he will leave no doubt, whatsoever, that it is him.
That would mean that there will be nothing man does to usher in his second coming.
I believe it'll be a natural distater, more exactly, a comit or asteriod. Something from space. Something unbelievable and unforseen from any perspective scientifically.

As an example, if you lived around two thousand years ago and you saw a vision of a flock of helicopters wouldn't the best way that you could describe them, based on your time, would be to see them as locuses.

Or mebbe just big flyen grashoppers.

Who nos.

So Frogger is a Christian! Too cool! So was he "sprinkled" or "immersed"? :)

Tucker58

I was baptized as an infant by having the sign of the cross made on my forehead with water and then again with oil. I have also baptized others in the same way.

Evakian,

I know you were trying to insult me. The problem is you have to be just a bit more informed than you are to do so successfully.

We were not talking about Muslims having a special affection for Mecca. They do. They also have a special affection for Medina and Jerusalem. There is a difference, however, between having an affection for and an allegiance to a place.

I forgive you for not understanding the difference because I like you, Evakian. Since all my kids are highly intelligent I consider you the slightly dumb kid I never had. jk :lolhit:

EWe were not talking about Muslims having a special affection for Mecca. They do. They also have a special affection for Medina and Jerusalem. There is a difference, however, between having an affection for and an allegiance to a place.
LOL!

You're trying to win the argument!

What I have read, leads me to think that possibly Revelations was written by a man named John, who happened to live on the island of Patmos, in a cave.
At some point in time, this manuscript was placed into the composition of manuscripts known as the bible.

There is controversy as to who John was, where he lived, and when it was written. There seems to be no concrete proof for any argument.

All manuscripts used by the early Christians were not included, for some reason the visions of "John Someone" was chosen for inclusion.
Some have said that it was symbolism about the Roman Empire and a particular ruler, others believe that it is about some events that will occur in the future.

John could have been a psychic, madman, user of hallucinogenics, instrument of god (as the Christians believe), or a man simply trying to warn his fellow citizens of the Roman threat in a way that would not get him crucified.

I will probably never know for sure which, if any, is correct; it makes for fascinating reading and guessing at its meanings.

If John truly saw a futuristic battle, and used his limited experience to describe the new things he saw for the first time, this battle could have been one of those we have already fought. Then again, it may be around the corner in time.

What I have read, leads me to think that possibly Revelations was written by a man named John, who happened to live on the island of Patmos, in a cave.
At some point in time, this manuscript was placed into the composition of manuscripts known as the bible.

There is controversy as to who John was, where he lived, and when it was written. There seems to be no concrete proof for any argument.

All manuscripts used by the early Christians were not included, for some reason the visions of "John Someone" was chosen for inclusion.
Some have said that it was symbolism about the Roman Empire and a particular ruler, others believe that it is about some events that will occur in the future.

John could have been a psychic, madman, user of hallucinogenics, instrument of god (as the Christians believe), or a man simply trying to warn his fellow citizens of the Roman threat in a way that would not get him crucified.

I will probably never know for sure which, if any, is correct; it makes for fascinating reading and guessing at its meanings.

If John truly saw a futuristic battle, and used his limited experience to describe the new things he saw for the first time, this battle could have been one of those we have already fought. Then again, it may be around the corner in time.

DanF, I love you! We have played in the old days and I loved you back then also. Thank you for being here!

Jesus said that He would be right back, that was two thousand years ago :)

For two thousand years everybody has been studying Revelation, The Book, to explain to others that He Jesus's return is imminent. Here we are doing the samething. Every generation expects Jesus to come back in their time.

He didn't :) And now we have John (me) saying that things are soon. :)

Only on Allforums.net is this possible. Because everybody is here. And wecome! If they are willing to have just abit of sense, realitive to a social reality :)

The Christian Bible seems to indicate that God is going to separate mankind into two camps and issue one of those camps a lessen that is going to last one thousand years. Both camps are giong to think that they are right :) ! I love that part. So the question is how do we use Revelation, The Book, as a warning and encourage folks to choose wisely :) ! That is my challenge.

Revelation, The Book, has actuall nothing to to with Christianity. It has to do with mankind stepping in it. Christian or otherwise.

I am not fanatical Christian (even though Jesus is my Master and Savior), but I am fanatical about humankind, "And what kind of mess are we all about to step into?".

I love Hillary Clinton, and if what we are discussing and will discuss here, actually becomes public knowledge, she won't get elected as preseden of the US, because she is a women. But at the sametime I think that she is on the side of Humankind, Christian or otherwise.

Anyway everybody thank you for allowing to to be here. This messageboard is the only place that that I have ever felt was a place to call home.

Tucker58

I love Hillary Clinton............she won't get elected as preseden of the US, because she is a women.

?!

Did you glean that from the huge tome of supersitious nonsense that the Christians revere so......??

?!

Did you glean that from the huge tome of supersitious nonsense that the Christians revere so......??

I love you FreeThinker! And everybody else on this messageboard also!

Most male dominated groups (the Father God folk) do not consider a female functional enough to lead any group into battle. But Caesar once wrote that the Kelts could be whipped easy as long as their women were not present :) and that they, the Kelts, can't be whipped if their women are present.

The Kelts worshipped the Goddess.

And Mother Russia durring WWII had to take their women companies out of the the war, because they were too brutal :) they took no prisoners :)

You invoke a woman and shit gets serious quick. Ask Sal if she can be screwed with :)

Yes some women are whimpy, but then so are some men. But at the same time, all things equal, women are dangerous :) Once they consider family threated, all hell breaks loose. No man who is actually sane, or has any sense whatever, wants to deal with a really pissed lady. They are dangerous. They just are.

Jesus was abit radical when He tried to explained to "Man"kind that Father God was a loving God and Father. Oh and He whipped the "money changers" out of the temple :) I love that part. As a guy I maintain that we need a womans touch and let God/Goddess sort it out. :)

"Oh, don't give women the vote!" We actually have a better world because we did!

The only problem with women and war, is that they are like the Hindu Goddess Kali, when they are pissed.

Tucker58