Bond is a type of the Antichrist along with Batman, Harry Potter, Superman, Frodo,...

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Or save people and point to Jesus like say, John the Baptist did.

So doing good and pointing to Jesus is ok, but doing good for the sake of itself isn't and makes you an aspect of the anti-Christ? Making a statement like this, but also endorsing the opening post is exactly that idea. Please stop making awful arguments. I know you're better than this.

You also do nothing to defend your position that it is the "good guys" that are at fault, and not the people who follow them instead of Christ. If they aren't trying to offer an alternative to Jesus, how is it wrong from ANY perspective? It isn't. The worshippers are the only ones at fault, and then only from a Christian perspective. And the fact that James Bond, Spider-Man, etc. don't have their own church means there isn't really any blame to go around.

Silly argument. Still is. It's taking something good, something that detracts from no worldview whatsoever and probably brings about happiness in the world, and turning it into something negative. It's also militant theism at its irrational worst, because its inspiring hatred in themselves and creating problems for others.

Originally posted by Digi
To my knowledge, none of those characters has ever tried to replace a religious figure.

Batgod 😐

The OP's statement is the kind of backwards thinking I've come to expect from the Christian hard liners these days. Anything modern and not Bible approved is wrong and shall be marked as such.

All this talk of the anti-christ and end of days is about as valid as worrying about orcs invading London and planning UN air strikes on Mount Doom. By that I mean its all fictional mumbo-jumbo.

(oh and my application for Hogwarts just came through HOORAY!!)

Originally posted by MilitantDog
All this talk of the anti-christ and end of days is about as valid as worrying about orcs invading London and planning UN air strikes on Mount Doom. By that I mean its all fictional mumbo-jumbo.

Well of course that wouldn't happen. Orcs aren't smart enough to see the value in taking over the UN and bombing Mount Doom. Besides the UN headquarters isn't in London, its in New York.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well of course that wouldn't happen. Orcs aren't smart enough to see the value in taking over the UN and bombing Mount Doom. Besides the UN headquarters isn't in London, its in New York.

So, are you telling me that the Orcs have already taken over the UN? 🙂

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, are you telling me that the Orcs have already taken over the UN? 🙂

yes

Originally posted by inimalist
yes

Damn them. 😠

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, are you telling me that the Orcs have already taken over the UN? 🙂

Four point racial Int penalty. Poor handling of the UN. It makes sense!

And by the transitive property of mythology: If Orcs, Then Jesus and If Jesus, Then Anti-Christ! We're all gonna die!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Four point racial Int penalty. Poor handling of the UN. It makes sense!

And by the transitive property of mythology: If Orcs, Then Jesus and If Jesus, Then Anti-Christ! We're all gonna die!

We are all going to die one day. 😉

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We are all going to die one day. 😉

Only if we accept it as inevitable like you do.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Only if we accept it as inevitable like you do.

It's the only way I will reincarnate. It's nice to get a new body. 😄

Originally posted by Digi
So doing good and pointing to Jesus is ok, but doing good for the sake of itself isn't and makes you an aspect of the anti-Christ? Making a statement like this, but also endorsing the opening post is exactly that idea. Please stop making awful arguments. I know you're better than this.

Originally posted by Digi
You also do nothing to defend your position that it is the "good guys" that are at fault, and not the people who follow them instead of Christ. If they aren't trying to offer an alternative to Jesus, how is it wrong from ANY perspective? It isn't. The worshippers are the only ones at fault, and then only from a Christian perspective. And the fact that James Bond, Spider-Man, etc. don't have their own church means there isn't really any blame to go around.

Originally posted by Digi
Silly argument. Still is. It's taking something good, something that detracts from no worldview whatsoever and probably brings about happiness in the world, and turning it into something negative. It's also militant theism at its irrational worst, because its inspiring hatred in themselves and creating problems for others.

What we need to remember is many Christians/Muslims/ET AL believe that no person can be good if it is not directly related to God. Therefore a doctor who works tirelessly to save lives might be seen as a good man, but because he does not worship God many Christians would say he is not a good man.

This extends to many of these examples he has given, they teach morals/ideals etc but do not mention God- ergo they are bad. (In some Christians eyes.

The Justification for this would be when Jesus said in Matthew 12:30 "He who is not with me, is against me." Though a retort which you might know is that he also said in Mark 9:40 "he who is not against us is for us."

So you see the basis for the debate amongst Christians- is Frodo against Jesus? No. Is he for him? Not explicitly (as you know Tolkien was very much a dedicated Roman Catholic and so I see many parallels in LOTR which lean towards Christian theology, much like C.S. Lewis.) So in Frodo's case he is neither for nor against Jesus. The same is with James Bond and the others I suppose. So what can a Christian say to this?

Well, the Mark 9 verse is Jesus' response to the disciples who inform him that people not of the group are invoking his name and healing people. The Matt 12:30 verse is a response to the power of Satan and demons. Here Jesus forgives blasphemy against the incarnate Christ but not against the Holy Spirit.

So I suppose, you could say that denying or being silent on Jesus' divinity will be forgiven- provided we see a following of Jesus' philosphy (love, caring, alms etc) However, denying God but doing good works would be considered the unforgivable sin.

Does that make sense? I feel that it is a very flimsy interpretation...but best I could come up with.

[edit] Ultimately, these characters could be seen as anti-Christ if one holds a strict but in my opinion incorrect understanding of the Matt 12:30 verse. So that is where he is coming from, but who has responsibility? Perhaps no one- it is a very subtle thing...but one does not have to know they are anti-Christ to be anti-Christ.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I think that per his scenario their is no "guilt" here on behalf of the fictional characters or even the creators of them. I don't believe he considers them to be intentional anti-Christ but rather, accidental. They do not intentionally draw away from Jesus Christ but it is what they do- in his eyes. Perhaps it is possible that while the characters do good things and such there are underlying themes which might seem incompatible with Gospel teaching. Namely, one can be a wonderful person like Superman without God. In Harry Potter's case one can fight evil with sorcery. So I feel that his argument while very much the extreme of the community is one which has some rational basis.

You're reading a much different opening post than I am, then. Your interpretation sugar-coats the vehemence that is obviously present in it in order to make the argument seem more palatable. And there are wonderful people that don't do it in the name of any particular God, so it's being true to life. Unless, of course, your religion tells you that it is evil to do good things but not in the name of God...if that's the case, we're back to square one, with the argument being not to do good works and inspiring hatred for those with good intentions and actions.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I actually answered you're first para before reading this one but I think I answered it- they are not to blame entirely for the void of Christ in their stories, neither are their creators- I do not suspect they were at all intended to be an alternative to religion. However it might be that they do unintentionally carry messages which, as stated seem contrary to some Christians understandings of goodness.

I'd love to see exactly why people doing good acts is unintentionally contrary to Christian teachings. Again, it's shooting yourself in the foot: don't do good things. It's not Christian. Surely having some virtues of Christ is desirable, yes? Otherwise you're punishing them for doing good and just being unlucky enough not to be the savior of mankind.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
What we need to remember is many Christians/Muslims/ET AL believe that no person can be good if it is not directly related to God. Therefore a doctor who works tirelessly to save lives might be seen as a good man, but because he does not worship God many Christians would say he is not a good man.

This extends to many of these examples he has given, they teach morals/ideals etc but do not mention God- ergo they are bad. (In some Christians eyes.

The Justification for this would be when Jesus said in Matthew 12:30 "He who is not with me, is against me." Though a retort which you might know is that he also said in Mark 9:40 "he who is not against us is for us."

So you see the basis for the debate amongst Christians- is Frodo against Jesus? No. Is he for him? Not explicitly (as you know Tolkien was very much a dedicated Roman Catholic and so I see many parallels in LOTR which lean towards Christian theology, much like C.S. Lewis.) So in Frodo's case he is neither for nor against Jesus. The same is with James Bond and the others I suppose. So what can a Christian say to this?

Well, the Mark 9 verse is Jesus' response to the disciples who inform him that people not of the group are invoking his name and healing people. The Matt 12:30 verse is a response to the power of Satan and demons. Here Jesus forgives blasphemy against the incarnate Christ but not against the Holy Spirit.

So I suppose, you could say that denying or being silent on Jesus' divinity will be forgiven- provided we see a following of Jesus' philosphy (love, caring, alms etc) However, denying God but doing good works would be considered the unforgivable sin.

Does that make sense? I feel that it is a very flimsy interpretation...but best I could come up with.

[edit] Ultimately, these characters could be seen as anti-Christ if one holds a strict but in my opinion incorrect understanding of the Matt 12:30 verse. So that is where he is coming from, but who has responsibility? Perhaps no one- it is a very subtle thing...but one does not have to know they are anti-Christ to be anti-Christ.

Lol. So you agree with me? Seems like yes.

Though I love that under this interpretation, a person who did ONLY good works their entire life, but didn't give credit to Jesus, would need to be forgiven for it. Looking for sin where only goodness exists is the very definition of the negativity I was talking about earlier, and its deleterious affects on humans.

Also, A+ on finding your own contradicting Bible verses. Were I a Christian, I'd probably agree with your interpretation. As it is, your view on it is as arbitrary as anyone else's, and subject to endless debate. Which is why internal contradictions only breed hatred and misunderstanding, because countless others will take those same verses (and many other verses, to be sure) to find their own justification to hate Harry Potter, or Superman, or...etc. etc.

...

...there's a cliche line about love not being Christian or Muslim or any other religion. It is simply love. So too with goodness of any sort. And you're drawing a distinction that makes "non-Christian good" worse than "Christian good," even though either would be considered "good" in nearly any ideology. Whether or not the former is "forgivable" (which is laughable) is not the point. It is needless and harmful to make such distinctions, and only separates us and creates barriers between peoples and cultures.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well of course that wouldn't happen. Orcs aren't smart enough to see the value in taking over the UN and bombing Mount Doom. Besides the UN headquarters isn't in London, its in New York.

Would you kindly put your glasses on. I at no point mentioned that the UN HQ was in London.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Only if we accept it as inevitable like you do.

Sorry but there are two constants in the universe (as we understand it at this time):

1. Death.

2. Taxes.

Unless you have proof of someone by passing number 1.

I'm walking down the road with a loaf of bread in my hand, when I happen across a starving man in the road.

Scenario 1.

I give the man the bread and I am a Christian. I have done good and its in the name of God so thats okay.

Scenario 2.

I give the man the bread, just out of normal human niceness and in the spirit of good, and I am not a Christian so I am the anti-christ.

Scenario 3.

I give the man the bread, don't give a hoop what the Bible or the Christians say and can carry on down the road knowing I have done a good thing.

Originally posted by MilitantDog
Sorry but there are two constants in the universe (as we understand it at this time):

1. Death.

2. Taxes.

Unless you have proof of someone by passing number 1.

If you are a congressman you can bypass #2. 😛

Originally posted by MilitantDog
Sorry but there are two constants in the universe (as we understand it at this time):

1. Death.

2. Taxes.

Unless you have proof of someone by passing number 1.

Death can be avoided by not dying. So far I'm doing awesome.

Taxes can be avoided by just leaving society.

anything but batman

I'm a Christian, but I believe that if something is in NO way real (i.e. a fictional character) then it's not much of a problem, unless they're saying "WORSHIP SATAN!!!"