Yep. In a way, it’s a variation of the old “How much sin do you have to commit before you get sent to Hell?”, albeit with a real-world example at the heart of the matter.
True, though I admit I was using the antiquated notion of the Oval Office being where the buck stops, instead of where the blame gets assigned.
I hold no disillusions that anyone will change their views of George W. Bush and/or the Iraq war as of this thread. I simply wanted to explore the notion that – again, assuming that Hell exists – is starting the war with Iraq sufficient cause to get sent there?
And heaven knows you need the chuckles lately. It was either this or ask a hypothetical about a car blowout and a child pinned to the dash…
Since I think most people are familiar with the “beleive-in-Jesus-and-get-out-of-jail-free” of Christian theology, this seems more like a BBQing than a debate. Off you go.
Assuming you were serious (and I hope your weren’t), I’ll just add: Yeah, because we all know that a careful reading of that passages demostrates that what Jesus really meant was that if you made a bunch of money and the tax rate was 33% you couldn’t get into heaven, but if the tax rate was 28% you could.
Aw Jesus. I try to like the people who share my politics. But rjung, would you greatly mind crawling back under whatever rock you slimed out from under?
Well, the jig is up and it’s not like anyone can change things at this late date anyways, so much like a super-villian does to Batman immediately before initiating an overly-complex and needlessly-long death for him, I’ll tell the whole story. You guys can use the commercial to try to figure out a way to counteract the plans.
The truth is that despite rjung’s atheism, God does exist. And the Bible, old and new testaments, is mostly true. Mostly. Turns out there’s a little fib in Revelations. When Jesus comes back to fight the beast? He, well, He loses. Bad. Not just for a thousand years, but forever. The beast just stomps Him like He was the New York Giants and the beast was pretty much anyone else in the NFL.
As it happens, George Bush is the beast. Hey, what can I say – allegory reads funny sometimes. Even absent the Biblical story, people should have been able to read the signs. If you line up the top six NASCAR tracks just right it makes a perfect pentagram. And the beast’s dad spit pea green soup on the Japanese Prime Minister. But no one was paying attention.
At any rate, Bush is the beast and I am one of his minions. Don’t bother bowing down or, for one, welcoming our new Revelations overlord. He’s very Cthulhu-like and all will be devoured in time.
So the answer to the OP is no, George W. Bush is not going to hell. He is hell. You are going to hell. One by one, the lands of the earth will succumb to the power of George W. Bush the Cthulhu Revelations beast. All is lost. Despair. Sadness. Humanity’s brief reign on this puny planet is over. Smoke 'em if you’ve got 'em.
P.S.: I probably shouldn’t be enjoying taunting the PESTs this much, should I? It’s kind of cruel to make fun of the mentally ill.
Wait just a cotton pickin’ minute… Are you trying to tell me that if you get taxed out of your wealth AFTER you die, that it counts? If that’s all it takes to get into heaven, let’s just jack that “death tax” up to 100% and flood the place!!
The hell clause clearly states:
hell is reserved for those who believe in it
the lowest rung being reserved for those who believe they’ll go there if they don’t believe in it.
So, you’re calling 50-odd million voters damned sinners? Or are you calling them liars? What about the other candidate and his lies? I guess we’re all sinners then, and going to Hell unless saved… Oh, wait. That’s pretty much doctrine already. So - You started this thread to be insulting, then? Or had you simply run out of ways to say you don’t like Bush? I’m guessing that last one is it - You just had to announce your righteous dislike of Bush.
I’ve wondered this for any president, or for that matter any nation’s leader under the “easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”.
But if we ignore this, well practically speaking I think we can make a good, almost ironclad case, that S.H. either had WMD’s or at least he presented the illusion that he had WMD’s enough that Bush truly believed which nullified your point that Bush lied. If you don’t accept the various WMD’s that were found in the recent raid on Fulusia, nor the older chem weapons found, nor the missing, UN sealed, nuke material, you have to admit that not just Bush, and not just the 'pbus, but the world, including Kerry, Clinton, and for that matter England knew S.H. had WMD.
OK so we have established that Bush did not lie. And for that matter did not bear false witness.
Again as for those who voted for him, I would wager to say truly believe that S.H. either had WMD, or at least was able to dupe the world, including Kerry and Clinton into believing he did. So again no sin committed in my book (G’sMMY)
Would you folks stop using this bad figure, please? I think the war is totally immoral, run by idiots with no sense of history who had a “vision” of a Middle East that would behave like (Western) Europe between 1945 and 1949 despite the clear differences between the two scenarios, who, in their naïveté, allowed themselves to be led by the nose by two lying, self-promoting scam artists (Chalabi and Allawi), who resorted to lies and threats to initiate and mire themselves in their failing enterprise, and who are still too arrogant and blinded by ideology to actually study the reality to see how they might save something from this debacle,
BUT,
the “100,000” figure is a statistical projection that has no support in real data and which was seriously compromised from its inception. The analysts took what they considered “random” figures from throughout Iraq, but, in fact, over 33% of the deaths on which they based their extrapolations occurred in a section of Fallujah which had been more severely damamaged by attacks both by the U.S. and the insurgents than nearly any other place in Iraq. Whatever efforts they made to assure random sampling failed. (I do not claim that they deliberately skewed the sampling, only that they have been too quick to publish their results once they discovered that their sampling had not actually been random.)
Continuing to use this exaggerated figure is going to simply make it harder to persuade people to oppose the way the war is being conducted when they discover that the figure is in error. The actual number of deaths has been horrific, with on the ground estimates ranging from 10,000 to 37,000 (with the agents divided among the allied forces, the insurgents, and the imported terrorists), but using numbers inflated by factors of three or ten will simply encourage people to dismiss future claims of brutality when the inflated figure is exposed.
(On the other hand, I also note the equanamity with which the war supporters in this thread seem have accepted this number. Does this indicate that they really do not care how many people die as long as we get a W in the Iraq column? A plague on all your houses.)
I’m not a war supporter, but I think we can assume that most people just don’t take the OP seriously in the first place. It was a silly premise and evoked mostly silly responses.
Seems like a rather slippery slope, ainnit? “Hey, I believe in Jesus, therefore I’m guaranteed a spot in Heaven. Hot damn, let’s mow down a schoolyard full of kids!” :eek:
No, I’m not calling the voters liars, since AFAIK none of them claimed Saddam had tons of unclaimed WMDs in hidden stockpiles. As for whether or not it’s a sin to vote for a person who did make such claims … well, that’s the nature of what I was trying to explore with the OP. Unfortunately, it seems like I’m the only one interested in probing the nexus of theology and politics tonight.
Trot 'em out and let’s run 'em around the block, then. Let’s remember, though, that AFAIK John Kerry has never said anything that’s led to an invasion of another country and the deaths of an unspecified number of thousand of civilians (howzat, tomndeb?), so the gravity of his sins is probably much less.
I’m still perplexed by some of the responses in this thread. If we assume that Bush won’t go to Hell for starting the Iraq war, then doesn’t that effectively mean Hell is a useless deterrent? After all, if you can start a war on false pretenses and still go to Heaven, why would anyone be sent to Hell for lesser sins?
Why are you perplexed? You shouldn’t be. First off, your question is pointless because as I said before we are not the ultimate judge of anyone’s final disposition. Second, you started a thread about Bush, who we all know you hate, as evidenced by your thinly veiled insults in virtually every thread you respond to, no matter what the topic is. Third, as if that wasn’t good enough, you proceed to imply that everyone who voted for Bush and/or supports the man belong in Hell, thus condeming over half the country (by percentage, assuming the election results were representative) to eternal damnation.
Be honest. Did you really expect a serious discussion? If you did you were only fooling yourself.
Actually, 100,000 figure excludes the deaths recorded in that problematic Fallujah cluster. If the deaths from that cluster are included the figure rises to nearly 200,000.
It was either this or ask a hypothetical about a car blowout and a child pinned to the dash…