Actually there is no proof he is the antichrist. He has destroyed no worlds as of yet. What ever he has ruined is just a matter of opinion depending on what side of the train tracks you live on. And a vote for him does not make us any closer to world war 3. In fact he is a great deal more passive than Bush. If there are any wars he would not be the one to start them.
'If' I had to use my imagination in a very fictional sense, and imagine the entity of whom you speak - once again, on a fictional basis, we'd have to explore
the world stage.
Such a topic of historical importance, and the limits of discussion are contained to North America?
Quite entertaining, but limited.
If you, or one wanted to explore a true novel pursuit of such a historical character, portrayed in many different ways - one would conclude you must satisfy the majority of shared prerequisites, as well past events to substantiate such a claim.
I can well say that your speculation on the President above is not only invalid, but lacks to fit any 'hypothetical'/fictional criteria.
I could as well, using a set of 'fictional criteria' imagine whom from the world leaders most fits this illusive notorious role, and the closest has nothing to do with the above named leader of America. Whom would I guess? All I'd say is not a NATO force for sure even in the fictional sense of logical deduction.
Whom would I say? Not telling ya
^^
Not like it matters anyway. When did a fictional hypothetical question ever hold any real relevance to anything?
PS
I'm not trying to sound like I'm devaluing any theological reference at all. In terms of the word 'fictional' - it is a reference to the common misplaced representation of we, the common person, sometimes painting a picture of something much more complex. I just don't think it's healthy for the average person, me included, to focus or speculate on such things day to day.
We can leave that to the experts.
/ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif