Fischer Declares Himself to Be the Antichrist

Okay, not really. But if you follow his claims through to their logical conclusions, that would be the result. On his Facebook page, he claims (bizarrely) that Jesus was in favor of religious liberty and other buzzwords, and anyone who isn’t is therefore an antichrist.

Barack Obama is not the antichrist, but he is an antichrist:

Christ is for religious liberty, babies in the womb and natural marriage. We can say without equivocation that Christ is for liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17), that he is unequivocally opposed to the dismembering of children in the womb (Ps. 139:13-16), and that he is for marriage as the union of one man and one woman (Matt. 19:5-6).

Whoever is against religious liberty, the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage has therefore set himself against Christ and is working against the purposes of Christ in the world. This makes him an “antichrist” (1 Jn 2:18), even if he is the president of the United States.

Christ is for religious liberty? The guy who says if you don’t worship me, you’re going to burn in hell for eternity is for religious liberty? There isn’t a single verse in the Bible that supports religious liberty. And Fischer himself is not in favor of religious liberty and he has said so quite bluntly. He says that the First Amendment only applies to Christians, not to anyone else. That isn’t religious liberty, it’s religious tyranny.

11 comments on this post.
  1. Wes:

    He’s using the idiosyncratic definition of “liberty” common on the extreme right, where “liberty” means “power over others” and “protection from the influence of others.” So “religious liberty” in this case means “ability to make others follow one’s own religion” and/or “not having to interact with or listen to people who don’t follow one’s own religion.”

  2. Sastra:

    From what I can tell many Christians believe that Biblical ‘religious liberty’ is rationally embedded in the idea that God grants you the right and freedom to believe in Him or not. You are not coerced or forced to love God. The evidence isn’t compelling enough to lead you to inescapable conclusions or commitments. There’s room to make other commitments, if you want. You choose = religious freedom.

    But the freedom to make choices entails that you have to suffer the natural consequences of these choices. Those human beings then who “choose” to follow other gods or reject the authority of any god and go their own way have therefore chosen the consequences: they have chosen to go to Hell. God didn’t damn them. They damned themselves.

    This whole line of reasoning is errant nonsense. Even if God’s existence and will and true form was uncontroversial (which it is certainly not!) you could apply the same bizarre interpretation of “freedom” to a tyrant’s dictates. Genghis Khan allows you the liberty to bow to him or not. Those who do not bow will be instantly beheaded, sure — but you can’t say that bowing when he passes is forced or compelled. The choice is yours. Don’t blame Khan if your head is rolling on the ground. You did that to yourself.

  3. hexidecima:

    hmmm, and only one of those verses comes from the supposed “gospels”? Seems the othes are from that awful OT and “them Jews” and the other is Paul who certainly disagrees with the purported Messiah an awful lot.

    As you said, Ed, no verses about religious liberty. We have Luke 19 who says those who don’t accept this messiah should be brought before him and killed. We have JC and paul who are not for having children *or* marriage but as a pitiful last resort if you can’t keep it in your pants.

  4. whirligig:

    The recommendation isn’t to keep it in your pants, it’s to keep it on a shelf or in that box of stuff that you don’t use, but haven’t gotten around to throwing out.

    Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

  5. dingojack:

    whirligig – “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it”.
    So homoicckybutseks is A-OK then (just as long as you’re the ‘bottom’) – gotcha!
    Dingo

  6. felicis:

    Whenever I see things like this, I always like to go check what the bible actually says (everything from an online NIV):

    Matt. 19:5-6 does indeed talk about ‘what God has joined, let no man separate’, but if you keep reading: “7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
    8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard…”

    So, Moses is an anti-Christ too?

    In Corinthians, the quote to which he refers is at the end, “17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”, but what is meant by ‘freedom’ in this context? Certainly not the idea of ‘liberty’ that we equate with ‘freedom’, but rather freedom from the ‘old covenant’ of Moses. I won’t bother reproducing all of 2nd Corinthians here…

    Psalm 139 makes no mention of ‘dismembering babies in the womb’, instead it talks about how well we are known by god – from when god knit me together in the womb, he knew me. Nothing even about how that gives you human existence from the moment of conception, just from sometime before birth…

    Finally – 1 John 2:18: “18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.” – but how do you know she is a witch he is the antichrist? “22 Who is the liar [antichrist]? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.” Nothing about marriage, abortion, or liberty.

    I am an antichrist, for I actively deny both of their existent – an proud of it. Fischer is merely an ignorant hack.

  7. dingojack:

    Ah so ‘natural marriage’ means absolutely no divorce,, ever
    so as long as all those gays and lesbians stay married, god’s all puppys and rainbows….
    Dingo

  8. Michael Heath:

    Ed writes:

    Christ is for religious liberty? The guy who says if you don’t worship me, you’re going to burn in hell for eternity is for religious liberty?

    Sastra writes:

    the freedom to make choices entails that you have to suffer the natural consequences of these choices. Those human beings then who “choose” to follow other gods or reject the authority of any god and go their own way have therefore chosen the consequences: they have chosen to go to Hell. God didn’t damn them. They damned themselves.

    This whole line of reasoning is errant nonsense. Even if God’s existence and will and true form was uncontroversial (which it is certainly not!) you could apply the same bizarre interpretation of “freedom” to a tyrant’s dictates. Genghis Khan allows you the liberty to bow to him or not. Those who do not bow will be instantly beheaded, sure — but you can’t say that bowing when he passes is forced or compelled. The choice is yours. Don’t blame Khan if your head is rolling on the ground. You did that to yourself.

    An important aspect of biblical claims is relevant here. You might still be destined for eternal punishment if you submit to the biblical god but in the wrong way, even inadvertently.

  9. omnicrom:

    The best the bible has for religious tolerance is a couple of verses which might mean “Oh this silly people of other religions, don’t they know they’re actually worshipping our god without knowing it?” I mean for the Iron Age that was quite the improvement, but no you aren’t going to find actual tolerance in the bible or from Christianity in general. And especially not from self-proclaimed Anti-Christ Brian Fischer.

  10. mithrandir:

    felicitis@6:

    Psalm 139 makes no mention of ‘dismembering babies in the womb’, instead it talks about how well we are known by god – from when god knit me together in the womb, he knew me. Nothing even about how that gives you human existence from the moment of conception, just from sometime before birth…

    Not even that – it could even just be crediting God with omniscience and prophetic power – “God knew me before I even existed”.

  11. DaveC:

    Ah yes, teh biblical message of love for children: “Thou shalt wait until the littl’uns are out in the open before you dismember them, or disfigure them, or abuse them in any way. Because once they are born you are free to brainwash them to MY message, and if they are different from MY chosen tribe, then you can do whatever you want to them.(‘specially if they are the worthless female variety, who are just property anyway.”

    The love, it tingles…..

Leave a comment

You must be