Dubya in Hell?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
juliod
Guru
Posts: 1882
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:04 pm
Location: Washington DC
Been thanked: 1 time

Dubya in Hell?

Post #1

Post by juliod »

Assuming that the general christian view of heaven and hell were true...

If you were Dubya, would you be worried about Judgement Day?

OK, we have the war mongering thing. The capital punishment thing. The drug and alcohol thing.

But I think the biggest worry is the obscene wealth thing. I mean the bible does say that it easier for a camel to pass through "the eye of the needle" than for a rich person to enter the "kingdom of heaven". Sounds ominous. And even if you accept that this is metaphorical, that "eye of the needle" is a device for livestock control, you are still left with a damning (pun) message. There are apparently special barriers keeping the rich out of heaven.

It's just part of the general issue with religious conservatives. They've adopted christianity, but ignore it's doctrine. It seems that the only doctrine they accept is that god wants them to hate homosexuals.

So, if you were in Dubya's shoes, and apparently a true christian, wouldn't you be terrified?

DanZ

User avatar
juliod
Guru
Posts: 1882
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:04 pm
Location: Washington DC
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #31

Post by juliod »

I might disagree with a lot of what Bush does, but I would never suggest he is going to hell because of it.
But what if you were in his place? Would you be worried? Or does the fact that you may think that what you are doing is right trump any of the statements in the bible?

Apart from the specific example of Dubya, what do you think of the Jesus' view of the rich? Are they barred from heaven except for a few in extraordinary circumstances?

DanZ

User avatar
juliod
Guru
Posts: 1882
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:04 pm
Location: Washington DC
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #32

Post by juliod »

Youyr intellectualism sees the greatness of Biblical morality and the practice of them.
That may not be an entirely accurate appreciation of my beliefs.
No different than putting same-sex perpetrators to death in Israel, by similar omnipotent edict.

Do you agree that that practice can be justified now? It seems from your assertion that it indeed should find validity.
Within the context of the bible, yea, killing of homosexuals is justified. I would never quote from the bible to argue with a theist that capital punishment is wrong. I would use other arguments.

But you can quote from the bible to show that the bible does not disapprove of abortion. There is no mention in the bible of anyone being punished for having or performing an abortion, for example. And the bible shows the true value god places on children, babies, and fetuses.
than my views about keeping homosexuals that do not repent from good churches pales in comparison to your literalism.
I don't think anyone opposes letting churches exclude homosexuals. They are hypocrits if they don't also exclude mixed-fiber-wearers, but that's their business, not mine.
I'm thinking that the Christian theolgy about the "new covenant" has found an extra-biblical supporter in you.
Not really. We atheists merely recognize the incompatibility between YHWH of the OT and Jesus of the NT. We see that morality has a progressive nature. That in the bronze age the author of the OT expressed the morality of early city-states. Later, in the late iron age, the inventor of Jesus expressed his own morality, which by now had aquired the beginnings of individual rights.

Nowdays, of course, we are all more moral than either YHWH of Jesus. Killing children for disobedience is pretty universally disapproved of, for example. And we don't allow slavery either.

DanZ

AlAyeti
Guru
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:03 pm

Post #33

Post by AlAyeti »

The OT actions of God are harsh without debate. But the enemies of Israel were supposed to be killed every man, women and child. I don't remember a text that called it aborting the bad guys' fetuses but the grueling work of killing a person was never hidden.

Again, though, your hypocsisy is showing. You don't seem to have a problem with Molech worshippers. Now, they did kill their children for religious and beneficial reasons. God knew that they would someday become Liberals and do what liberals do.

The people of Israel were not dealing with nations around them that will tolerate the Supreme Deity choosing a people for His own. It is reported that some of them did realize the True God was with Israel and left their own peoples. Jerico's prostitute? Ruth?

Hmmm, both part of the family of Jesus? Hmmm, maybe there is a theme here?

It's impossible though for you to understand the Bible because you have accepted blindness of supernatural explanations. That the nations Israel were told to wipe out were evil and corrupt finds no validity in your mind because evil to you, is someone voting "against" legalizing prostituiton and sodomy and not choosing the common sense that chaos begets chaos.

It is clear also from the text, that the Israelites chose the way you choose more often than not. They chose diversity tolerance and evil spread in them accordingly. Every book of the prophets details that.

Some sound like they were five minutes ago.

Nations not tolerating Israel? Wiat a minute I'm not talking about two-seconds ago I'm talking about other earlier observable history.

Is there any dealing with Nazi or a Klan members or an evolutionist? They are not going to listen to any other view. Especially religion. We "toleratre" there existence and look at the continuation of their brand of evil. Evil is like rust. Painting a pretty color over it doesn't stop the spread of it.

And c'mon now, the very goal of the atheist and evolutionist is good ol' fashion genocide of the religious. And very probably (doing the numbers) more people have been murdered by atheism than any other faith-based belief system in history. There probably (mathematically) wasn't even millions and millions and millions of humans outside of Noahs ark.

It's creepy how much like those peoplet the garden variety secularist-humanist-atheist-liberal- (insert elipsis) of today is.

Atheism and evolution fit hand to glove far to conveniently. Hedonism, licentiousness, Abortion as birth control, the sex slave trade (prevelant in communist atheist countries), sodomy (oops gay rights), human beings as products, morality as relative, human suffering, but no evil!, I mean, the coincidence that anti-Christians would go out looking for evolutionary proof and find it because evolutionists said it was there, has shown itself for what it is. Now people are being turned into products.

Mankind like a child, will never find order from chaos. Go to any kindergarten classroom and observe. No different behaviors present than in a guy like Michael Newdow. Call the bullies Papa Joe and history has its correlation viewable in original sin.

But the innocent kindergarteners (children) still "feel in their hearts" that what is being done to them by the stronger less moral children is somehow "not the way it should be."

- - The Bible has proved that progressive values are indeed a goal of God's, but coupled with immutable moral values as well. Neither Christians nor Jews can find the Biblical support for men with men, women with women marriage for example. Though the evil inherent in this finds an easy license in evolution/atheism. How convenient. - -

God did want mercy and not sacfrifice. Jesus had a good perspective in stating this truth. But knew that also barbaric practices would not go away either. The Israelites screwed up but it was to be expected.

Now, with atheism, relativism and evolution setting the world's agenda the madness that God pointed out would happen is going to happen.

Isn't there a thread just started about some Catholic clergy picking and choosing Biblical truth? And "coincidently" setting the stage for both millions of new members now flocking in with debit cards (and young children) and the hatred of those that follow the word of God consistently and accurately.

Now Revelation and the Catholic church comes out smelling like a rose almost. Darn that secular history.

The Bible is definately tough to understand if facts are ignored but not in the light of empiricism. The world is heading exactly where God said it would. But, if the evil was driven from the land, like the Israelites were told to do, gneration after generation would only be playing sports and raising kids and everything would pretty much be spiffy.

Even atheists, communists and the Third Reich, see the logic of wiping away those that will not follow a set agenda.

Now though, the world will have to play out the way it is heading.

Atheists like you are prime examples that you can see the truth, but will not reach for it. It would mean bowing.

AlAyeti
Guru
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:03 pm

Post #34

Post by AlAyeti »

Not really. We atheists merely recognize the incompatibility between YHWH of the OT and Jesus of the NT. We see that morality has a progressive nature. That in the bronze age the author of the OT expressed the morality of early city-states. Later, in the late iron age, the inventor of Jesus expressed his own morality, which by now had aquired the beginnings of individual rights.
J,

What is the basis for the belief in secular relativism? Observable evolutionary processes (science) or personal opinion?

Progressive nature?

How do evolutionist/atheisst see scientific truth that in nature there is no such thing as "individual" rights?

Aborting healthy babies and approving homosexuality would sem to violate nature more so in evolution than anywhere in the Bible, like you have pointed out.


Yet the Bible has the immutable and common sense go hand in hand.

How do evolutionist/atheists violate the laws of nature on abortion and homosexuality and support them, when "nature" is immutable on both?

Both abortion and homosexuality are aberrations of natures observable ways and means. Neither end can justify either means to evolutionary process. Both abortion and homosexuality would only find definition of the unhealthy individual being aborted or being homosexual.

Now, Dubya seems to support evolutionary evidence on both.

I find ithypocritical and downright uneducated in grasping of abortion and homosexuality as individual rights, if science is the guide to moral choices.

In evolution there are no individual rights.

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #35

Post by micatala »

AlAyeti wrote:the very goal of the atheist and evolutionist is good ol' fashion genocide of the religious.
Uhhh. I don't think so. If by an evolutionist you mean anyone who thinks that evolution is the most reasonable explanation for the diversity of life and the history of that diversity, than this is false and slanderous. You're getting a little hyperbolic here.
In evolution there are no individual rights.
What do you mean? This statement seems ridiculous to me.

AlAyeti
Guru
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:03 pm

Post #36

Post by AlAyeti »

Might makes right.

Survival of the fittest.

Athesists are always right and the religious are ignorant and/or worse.

Evolution.

Evolution is presented as true because evolutionists say the evidence for diversity came from evolution. Looking through rose colored glasses will prove the world is pinkish red.

Evolution just happens to fit every atheist belief system.

How neat.

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #37

Post by micatala »

Well, I probably shouldn't have brought it up, since it is not really relevant to the thread, but as long as I did, I'll post one more time on the topic.

Evolution does not mean 'might makes right.' Right is a moral concept, and evolution has nothing per se to do with morals. Evolution does not even always say the 'mightier' species is the one that will survive, but even if it did, it would have nothing to say about whether this situation would be 'right' or not. You're mixing apples and oranges.

I also don't see that evolution has anything to do, per se, with atheism or theism. It certainly doesn't imply that atheism is always right or the religious are always wrong. Even though I do believe evolution is correct, I certainly would not agree that this means 'religion' is always wrong.

I'm not here to defend atheism, but I believe many atheists would say that atheism is not a belief system. (I'll let juliod handle this one if he wants to :) )

You also have not given any evidence that evolutionists seek to commit genocide on the religious, or that the idea of evolution is incompatible with individual rights. I don't think it's really possible to present evidence for the latter as this would again be mixing apples and oranges. Evolution is a biological concepts. Rights are moral or political in nature.

juliod wrote:But what if you were in his place? Would you be worried? Or does the fact that you may think that what you are doing is right trump any of the statements in the bible?


Well, this is again hard to answer without knowing 'the heart' of Bush. If I knew that I had purposefully lied to trick the country into going to war simply in an attempt to put more oil under the control of my energy buddy cronies, then yes. If, on the other hand, I had sincerely been trying to accomplish some good end, however convoluted and inept my strategies might have been, I might be embarassed at how things turned out but have no fear of hell.

In invading Iraq, one could make the case that Bush was trying to accomplish a 'good' and that he was willing to take a big risk in doing so because he thought the payoff was worth it. I disagree with this assessment, but giving GW the benefit of the doubt on his motivations, I would not say what he did was entirely evil, even though I think his actions have had 'evil' consequences (the killing of innocent civilians, etc.). In the same way, I think it is unfair to characterize opponents of the war as 'unwilling to deal with Saddam' and as preferring the evil of having Saddam in power versus not. Opponents simply made a different judgment on the relative good to be achieved vis-a-vis the methods to be employed or the likelihood of success. It is not true that they are or were unwilling to stand up to evil, or that they preferred evil over good, as some have said or implied (including GW himself).

It is not unlike abortion. I think that there is at least some 'evil' in aborting a fetus. And yet, in each individual decision to do so, there may be some good, and I am not willing to judge the person making the decision, especially as I don't have to live with the consequences, either way the decision is made.
Apart from the specific example of Dubya, what do you think of the Jesus' view of the rich? Are they barred from heaven except for a few in extraordinary circumstances?
I would say that Jesus saw wealth as a temptation or moral 'trap.' I think he understood that the desire for wealth, or that becoming accustomed to wealth, would make it difficult for people to make correct moral choices, and to follow God rather than their own selfish pleasures. I don't think the rich are barred from heaven, but I do think it is more difficult because they have to battle this temptation while those who have no access to wealth or are able to 'let go' of their wealth.

I think Jesus would have a very dim view of wealthy folks who felt justified by their wealth, who let it rule over them, who did nothing good with the wealth that they had. I don't think this necessarily means one has to dispense with wealth entirely, but that when one has wealth, one has a greater power and thus also a greater responsibility. As such, it is easier to screw up, and especially make a 'big' screw up.

The same with political power. GW has great political power, thus he has great responsibility, and a greater possibility of screwing up. Yes, this probably means he is also susceptible to greater judgment, but again, as far as hell or no hell, that is not up to me to decide.

User avatar
juliod
Guru
Posts: 1882
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:04 pm
Location: Washington DC
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #38

Post by juliod »

But the enemies of Israel were supposed to be killed every man, women and child.
Right. And so you can see how morality has changed. No people with a claim to be civilized would accept such a policy. Bronze age cultures were much more bestial than ours. And so were the gods they invented.
I don't remember a text that called it aborting the bad guys' fetuses but the grueling work of killing a person was never hidden.
You're mistaking my point in mentioning this. You cite abortion as an issue that shows the morality of conservatives. But abortion isn't disapproved of in the bible. In Hosea, YHWH himself performs abortions.

In Hosea 13, YHWH is angry at the Isrealites for worshipping Baal (what harm did worshipping Baal ever do?).

Hosea 13 (NIV):
(YWHW speaking:)
7 "So I will come upon them like a lion,
like a leopard I will lurk by the path."

8 "Like a bear robbed of her cubs,
I will attack them and rip them open.
Like a lion I will devour them;
a wild animal will tear them apart."

9 "You are destroyed, O Israel,
because you are against me, against your helper."


And later:

16 "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open."


Even if the men were "guilty" of Baal worship, the women, children, and unborn were not. The point being that this passage shows what is the true views on abortion of god.
You don't seem to have a problem with Molech worshippers.
As in, "What harm has worshipping Molech actually done?". Why should I object. Neither Molech, nor Baal, nor YHWH ever existed.

It is clear also from the text, that the Israelites chose the way you choose more often than not. They chose diversity tolerance and evil spread in them accordingly. Every book of the prophets details that.
Yes, you are right here. The bible repeatedly shows YHWH punishing Isreal because they didn't adequately oppress minorites and dissentors. Hence we see many conservatives in the US blaming liberals, feminists, and homosexuals for natural and other disasters (even though the US is not Isreal). I think we should define conservativism as a psychopathy.
Is there any dealing with Nazi or a Klan members or an evolutionist?
Ha, ha, I like that. Nazi/Klan/evolutionist. :) You should get extra points for that. But of course, the Nazi's where christians. And the Klan is a specifically christian denomination. Evolution is a valid scientific hypthesis regardless of the social or political views of those who support or oppose it.
And c'mon now, the very goal of the atheist and evolutionist is good ol' fashion genocide of the religious.
Piffle. And it makes you sound foolish to write such things. Even the "official atheist" Soviet Union did not even attempt to destroy the Russian Orthodox church. (Stalin was a divinity student, you know...)
Atheism and evolution fit hand to glove far to conveniently.
The how to explain that most people who understand and believe evolution are theists?
Neither Christians nor Jews can find the Biblical support for men with men, women with women marriage for example.
Yet you can find support for wearing mixed-fiber clothing, having church on Sunday rather than the Sabbath, and not keeping kosher. Hmmm...

And you've still not answer as to whether Dubya being rich is sufficient to keep him out of heaven.

DanZ

User avatar
juliod
Guru
Posts: 1882
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:04 pm
Location: Washington DC
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #39

Post by juliod »

I don't think the rich are barred from heaven, but I do think it is more difficult because they have to battle this temptation while those who have no access to wealth or are able to 'let go' of their wealth.
But doesn't the bible go well beyond this? Poverty is held up as a holy ideal. The standard set for the rich in Jesus' teachings is very high, isn't it? One rich man is told to give away all of his belongings. Another gives away much more than 1/2.

How hard is it for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle? If you read that literally, it is an impossibility. If you take "eye of the needle" as a device for controling animals, then it is very nearly impossible.
Yes, this probably means he is also susceptible to greater judgment, but again, as far as hell or no hell, that is not up to me to decide.
One of the frustrations these days is that christians, particularly conservatives, are often (nearly constantly) talking about morality. But when asked about specific events don't seem to be able to decide if something is moral or immoral.

BTW, is "good intentions" biblically supported? If you do something generally biblically disapproved of (like warmongering) will iy be a valid defense to say you thought it was a Good Thing.

DanZ

AlAyeti
Guru
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:03 pm

Post #40

Post by AlAyeti »

I do not disagree with facts.

You are accurately reporting what happened with Israel and its surrounding neighbors. But why did it have to happen? It certainly makes no sense that the Israelites would document a genocidal agenda. If men wrote the Bible of their own accord, why not wipe out your enemies and make no mention of it?

I'm like the prositute in Jerico. I see what is going on and choose whom I will serve. There is definately a side to God that is not to be on.
Within the context of the bible, yea, killing of homosexuals is justified. I would never quote from the bible to argue with a theist that capital punishment is wrong. I would use other arguments.

But you can quote from the bible to show that the bible does not disapprove of abortion. There is no mention in the bible of anyone being punished for having or performing an abortion, for example. And the bible shows the true value god places on children, babies, and fetuses.
That is your quote. Then why do unborn human beings deserve the death penalty to you?

It is clear that Israelites were admonished to wipe away the evil within their midsts. We both know tha that is not a bad idea. You just see the unborn child as evil when it is clear that its mother and whoever impregnated her are deserving of judgment.

Where did the Israelites abort fetuses and allow their mothers to go on with their lives? It is clear from the text that wiping out sin and sinners was what was going on. I don't read anything into the text. The story has almost played itself out.

You have no problem with heartless murder, but why not end the life of the mother and her unborn child and playboy father to certainly discourage unwanted pregnancies. Makes sense huh? Then the Democrats would certainly have abortion rare as they seem to want. It certainly isn't safe but unfortunately legal.

Your views of picking and choosing Biblical truth is fascinating to watch.

When it serves your purpose you're all over it. When it shows God as having a plan being carried out, you are blind.

Post Reply