Is Obama the Second Coming?

[Barbaralynne]

Um,what would the Mayan Calendar have to do with the Second Coming ?

[Falconer02]

So I overheard an interesting conversation the other day. A gal asked, what if Obama is the second coming. Now again overhearing, here is what I gathered: the time coincides perfectly w/the end of the world in 2012 and his push to get health care coverage for everyone and wanting to give people a little more equality could be the Saviors way of showing us how selfish we are if we don't help the needy.  

I would have chipped in and said "What if Obama is actually Xenu in disguise? I mean considering he said he'd be returning to earth soon, maybe he had already landed and shapeshifted into Obama and is trying to slowly show he's Xenu! Soon the US will be part of the galactic confederacy if this healthcare bill goes into effect!"

[SherylsShado]

So I overheard an interesting conversation the other day. A gal asked, what if Obama is the second coming. Now again overhearing, here is what I gathered: the time coincides perfectly w/the end of the world in 2012 and his push to get health care coverage for everyone and wanting to give people a little more equality could be the Saviors way of showing us how selfish we are if we don't help the needy.

You'd have more reliable information about the second coming if you took the time to read the Bible instead of eavesdropping on fools.

[falcon9]

So I overheard an interesting conversation the other day. A gal asked, what if Obama is the second coming. Now again overhearing, here is what I gathered: the time coincides perfectly w/the end of the world in 2012 and his push to get health care coverage for everyone and wanting to give people a little more equality could be the Saviors way of showing us how selfish we are if we don't help the needy.

You'd have more reliable information about the second coming if you took the time to read the Bible instead of eavesdropping on fools.

Not if either are both essentially the same thing.

[SherylsShado]

@falcon9,
Both aren't essentially the same thing.  The second coming is a Bible-based event, if someone wants the facts about it...it's in the Bible.  Eavesdropping on a "band of fools" that clearly don't know what the second coming  even is ISN'T a reliable source of information.  Believing something just because someone else said so, without doing any research is foolish...no matter what the topic.

[falcon9]

@falcon9,
Both aren't essentially the same thing.  The second coming is a Bible-based event, if someone wants the facts about it...it's in the Bible.  Eavesdropping on a "band of fools" that clearly don't know what the second coming  even is ISN'T a reliable source of information.  Believing something just because someone else said so, without doing any research is foolish...no matter what the topic.

I disagree.  Both are unreliable sources.  Both count on gullibility to believe some which has no basis in evidence, (one is 'textual gossip', one is spoken gossip).  Hence, they are essentially the same thing.

[ULuvCeCe]

I like Governor Mitt Romney for President because he has a centrist look on politics. Not too extreme in either direction of the political isles.

Why do people use these forums to start such silly threads?

Romney is far from moderate and I know a ton of people (Republican) that are totally against the fact that he is a Mormon and will now vote for Obama, at least when Santorum was running the Republican party had a real shot.

Secondly not silly, debate and discuss sweetheart

Um,what would the Mayan Calendar have to do with the Second Coming ?

Pretty sure that is what the person was getting at, how maybe the mayan calendar and the world ending will be the exact time we have the second coming. Not entirely sure how Obama being the second coming got thrown in there but it was interesting to hear bits and pieces.

[gramev64]

 I believe NOT!!  He might be the beginning of the 2nd coming of Christ.  God is the only one who knows!!

[SherylsShado]

I disagree.  Both are unreliable sources.  Both count on gullibility to believe some which has no basis in evidence, (one is 'textual gossip', one is spoken gossip).  Hence, they are essentially the same thing.

"The Second Coming" is not 'textual gossip', it's a "prophecy".   It would be kind of hard to have "evidence" of any such event before it happens, however one can study the past prophecy's in the Bible and see how they have been fulfilled (with the exception of just a few which are yet to happen).  Since it's a "Biblical prophecy",  the Bible would be the BEST source of facts about the Second Coming.   

People that know me know that one of my biggest "peeves" are people that are "gullible" enough to get their "Bible knowledge" entirely from what other people say and totally believe them, without ever opening a Bible to do any studying of their own.  It doesn't matter if we are talking "Bible study" here or "college"...one HAS to do some studying on their own if one ever hopes to know anything.

You can think of Believers as being "gullible", it's everyone's "option" (and thanks to "The Simpson's Ned Flanders") alot of people do.  I will admit to knowing several "Ned's" myself.  One doesn't HAVE to be a Believer to be gullible though..."there's a 'sucker' born every minute".  Those that have read the Book, knows how it ends and so they know not to be believing/repeating such nonsense as "is Obama the Second Coming"?

On that note, for those STILL too lazy to 'crack open the Book' and 'do their homework', then I have a "newflash" for ya...  Obama is NOT the "Second Coming".  The bible says "the King is coming" and so the Second coming would have been...Elvis.  That's RIGHT!!  (That's also why he used the "Theme From 2001: A Space Odyssey" as his opening theme song.)      

(Apologies to the Believer's that found that "blasphemous/disrespectful" in advance...sometimes I just can't help myself.)

[falcon9]

I disagree.  Both are unreliable sources.  Both count on gullibility to believe something which has no basis in evidence, (one is 'textual gossip', one is spoken gossip).  Hence, they are essentially the same thing.

"The Second Coming" is not 'textual gossip', it's a "prophecy". 

It is claimed to be "prophesy" however, the claim is empty since it relies upon 'faith' alone.  Characterizing an empty claim as gossip, (whether written or, spoken), falls under "idle talk or, rumor" and that fits.

It would be kind of hard to have "evidence" of any such event before it happens, however one can study the past prophecy's in the Bible and see how they have been fulfilled (with the exception of just a few which are yet to happen). 

No past "biblical prophesies" which were not 'predicted' after the events, have been fulfilled.  I challenge you to name any to support your assertion.

Since it's a "Biblical prophecy",  the Bible would be the BEST source of facts about the Second Coming. 

False reference; using the reference source to verify/substantiate that same reference source is circular and irrational.
  

People that know me know that one of my biggest "peeves" are people that are "gullible" enough to get their "Bible knowledge" entirely from what other people say and totally believe them, without ever opening a Bible to do any studying of their own.  It doesn't matter if we are talking "Bible study" here or "college"...one HAS to do some studying on their own if one ever hopes to know anything.

If you are tacitly implying that I'm unaware of the contents of at least six different versions of 'the' "bible", you would be mistaken. Conversely, I've run across 'believers' in a 'inerrant bible' who aren't aware of variations.  Nevertheless, I'm not here to argue various 'bible' contents, nor how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  These are irrelevancies for the stated reasons, (unreliable source).

You can think of Believers as being "gullible", it's everyone's "option" (and thanks to "The Simpson's Ned Flanders") alot of people do.  I will admit to knowing several "Ned's" myself.  One doesn't HAVE to be a Believer to be gullible though..."there's a 'sucker' born every minute".  Those that have read the Book, knows how it ends and so they know not to be believing/repeating such nonsense as "is Obama the Second Coming"?

The gullibility aspect mentioned was directly related to having "faith", (in the face of zero substantive evidence).

[SherylsShado]

No past "biblical prophesies" which were not 'predicted' after the events, have been fulfilled.  I challenge you to name any to support your assertion.

That would be a topic for a different thread.  There are many websites that deal with the topic of bible prophecy.

  False reference; using the reference source to verify/substantiate that same reference source is circular and irrational.

Well, I suppose one could find information about the Second Coming on the internet, and perhaps in books because everyone has an opinion.  I would still think the most reliable source to find out about the Second Coming of Christ would be to check out the Bible and see what Christ Himself actually had to say about it. 

If you are tacitly implying that I'm unaware of the contents of at least six different versions of 'the' "bible", you would be mistaken....

Sorry, my bad.  I didn't mean "you", I was referring to the OP.

The gullibility aspect mentioned was directly related to having "faith", (in the face of zero substantive evidence).

  There are MANY gullible people of all types.  Just because someone has "faith" doesn't make them a gullible person.  I have found the opposite to be true.  There are many believers that know WHO they believe in, they know WHAT they believe, they know WHY they believe and therefore they aren't gullible enough to just fall for anything that comes along (or everything that someone says).

[falcon9]

Well, I suppose one could find information about the Second Coming on the internet, and perhaps in books because everyone has an opinion.  I would still think the most reliable source to find out about the Second Coming of Christ would be to check out the Bible and see what Christ Himself actually had to say about it. 

There isn't any reliable way to verify that "christ himself" said any of what slef-serving hearsay stories report.  The source is therefore unreliable and cannot be used to verify itself, (in a 'it says right here that what's written right here is true' manner).

  There are MANY gullible people of all types.  Just because someone has "faith" doesn't make them a gullible person. 

Since "faith" is believing something, sans any evidence, that constitutes gullibility.  If someone were to assure you that "Falconer02" does indeed have an invisible pink unicorn in his garage, would you take that on 'faith' alone or, want some evidence? (not consisting of invisible pink unicorn road apples)

I have found the opposite to be true.  There are many believers that know WHO they believe in ...

No, they _believe_ they know, (that isn't knowing, that's having 'faith' - which means sans evidence).

... they know WHAT they believe, they know WHY they believe ...

I disagree.  These 'believers' apparently aren't examining "what" they believe very closely, (otherwise they'd openly acknowledge that "what they believe" has no evidentiary basis and they are simply taking it as a matter a 'faith', again sans evidence).  As to "why" they believe such superstitions, no doubt the non-reasons for it vary somewhat. Were I to speculate, it could be extrapolated that many of those non-reasons are related to fears.

... and therefore they aren't gullible enough to just fall for anything that comes along (or everything that someone says).

That conclusion does not logically follow from the premise; believing one credulous concept without evidence does not lead to the conclusion that another credeulous concept will be subject to skepticism, (it does however, tend toward an opposite extrapolation).  Be that as it may, there is no reason to infer that a gullible person is either selective or, nonselective about their gullibility.

[lanenadixon]

So sad!! SMH @ some of you people!! I guess you guys want George Bush back huh?? 

[SherylsShado]

There isn't any reliable way to verify that "christ himself" said any of what slef-serving hearsay stories report.  The source is therefore unreliable and cannot be used to verify itself, (in a 'it says right here that what's written right here is true' manner).

After you've been dead  for some two thousand years, do you think anyone is going to be able to prove by any reliable means that "falcon2" himself said any of the things others said he said in the FC forums?   

[Falconer02]

After you've been dead  for some two thousand years, do you think anyone is going to be able to prove by any reliable means that "falcon2" himself said any of the things others said he said in the FC forums?  

If our technological infrastructure holds for that long (which it might- not sure is FC backs up it's forums tho) and people don't assemble to purposely mistranslate what he said and build him up to be a heroic archaetype, it would be extremely easy to prove what he said. But if he were saying these things now to superstitious people lacking any understanding of the actual world, no technology, 75%+ were illiterate, etc. I would highly doubt it would be accurate and you would too. You'll notice a trend that when time goes on and education is a primary focus-point in a culture, the historical records are usually* more preserved and accurate.

Applying this, I am always frustrated not knowing the precise methods of how the pyramids were actually built.