GIA: Not quite.
Very much quite.
You seem to think you're refuting something. You aren't. You're just illustrating my point.
Christ and His ideas are thought of generally as good.
You use the word 'Christ' as a metaphor for 'good.' Exactly as I said.
The Antichrist as the name implies is supposed to be full of evil ideas.
You use the word 'antichrist' as a metaphor for bad. Again, my point exactly.
This shows why it's a good idea to understand a point before attempting to refute it.
Mine is--follow closely this time, ok?--that you are simply using the word 'Christ' for ideas you like and 'Antichrist' for ideas you don't like. This is no great insight. All you've really said is that you have been able to find ideas you like and ideas you don't like in a work of literature.
You have said nothing meaningful about the text itself. You have said nothing meaningful about the theological concepts normally denoted by these terms you use. You say only that you have your likes and dislikes when you read something. That is all.
You can find the same 'dualism' in anything. And you can use any dualistic metaphor you like to describe it.
Among die-hard Red Sox fans, the word 'Boston' can mean 'good stuff that we like' and 'New York' can mean 'bad stuff that we don't like.' Yankees fans might do the reverse. Either way, the word game is the same one you play in your OP.
It makes little sense to complain about semantics when your OP is nothing but.
______
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.