Will the Rich Burn in Hell Forever?

[Kurt Godel]

Those (like the historical Jesus) that don't believe in Hell, can substitute "Can the Rich Enter Heaven". That title is for those that think Hell is the only alternative.

---

There are 1000 cases of the Bible taking the side of the poor, against the rich, from Genesis to Jesus. I can fill many posts with examples. Almost half of the Jewish Written Law (Laws in the first 5 books of the Old Testament) are about our mandatory obligations to the poor. It was LAW, and the penalty was much harsher than anything the IRS can do.

There are no examples to the contrary, not one. Zero. I defy anyone to produce one. The best thing anyone will come up with, is Paul saying if you don't work, you don't eat. He never mentions the poor, it had nothing to do with the poor, the rich had to work too. Their anti-Jesus hatred of the poor inserts it into there.

For instance:

Blessed are the Poor, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
A Rich man is as likely to enter Heaven, as a camel is to pass through the eye of a needle.

Something about that complicated? If so, this might help sort it out...

Luke 16:
[19] "There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day.
[20] And at his gate lay a poor man named Laz'arus, full of sores,
[21] who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
[22] The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried;
[23] and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Laz'arus in his bosom.
[24] And he called out, `Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz'arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.'
[25] But Abraham said, `Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Laz'arus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish.

No refuge for the rich in the Old Testament either. Contrary to popular opinion, the Bible never says Sodom was destroyed because of sex, but it does explicitly say why it was destroyed, by quoting Almighty God Himself in Ezekiel. There's no mystery...

"Now this is the sin of your sister Sodom...She did not support the poor and needy." Almighty God

Those that have two ears, had better listen.

[Foxjazz]

YES

[Kurt Godel]

Hi FoxJazz,

 

Well, maybe James, brother and disciple of Jesus, leader of the Way for decades after the cross, took some of the rough edges off of Jesus and the Hebrew Bible, and for practical reasons, here in the real world left the poor to fend for themselves. Let's take a look...

 

Epistle of James

^2:14What good is it, my brothers, if a man says he has faith, but has no works? Can faith save him? ^2:15And if a brother or sister is naked and in lack of daily food, ^2:16and one of you tells them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled;" and yet you didn't give them the things the body needs, what good is it?...

^5:1Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming on you. ^5:2Your riches are corrupted and your garments are moth-eaten. ^5:3Your gold and your silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be for a testimony against you, and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up your treasure in the last days. ^5:4Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you have kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of those who reaped have entered into the ears of the Lord of Hosts. ^5:5You have lived delicately on the earth, and taken your pleasure. You have nourished your hearts as in a day of slaughter....

Guess not. 

[Foxjazz]

Ummmm, asked and answered.

No one has yet defined rich. Bill Gates is due in heaven, where God serves him ice cream

[Answer_42]

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 2:20:05 AM UTC-5, Kurt Godel wrote:

Those (like the historical Jesus) that don't believe in Hell, can substitute "Can the Rich Enter Heaven". That title is for those that think Hell is the only alternative.

---

There are 1000 cases of the Bible taking the side of the poor, against the rich,

 

Of course. 

Religions survive based on number of adherents. It cannot survive through the generations with only a handful of people following its inane dogmas; it needs numbers. So, since there have always been more poor people than rich people, religions, generally speaking, always tailor their message and try to appeal to the poor, nothing surprising there. When they try to appeal to the rich it is called a sect or a country club.

 

The same thing applies to having rituals involving children. Religious leaders have long realized that children are soft easy target for indoctrination--and that such indoctrination holds for a life time, in most cases. So, under the guise of "education", because young impressionable minds are easier to mould and influence, most religions have rituals involving kids.

 

[ynot]

Kurt-el-God:

"" There are 1000 cases of the Bible taking the side of the poor, against the rich, from Genesis to Jesus. I can fill many posts with examples. Almost half of the Jewish Written Law (Laws in the first 5 books of the Old Testament) are about our mandatory obligations to the poor. It was LAW, and the penalty was much harsher than anything the IRS can do.""

The way the things are (the rich getting richer, etc) you can quote as many as you would like, it looks that very few, if anyone, are really paying any attention to your buybull. Take the wealth of the Vatican, just as a small example. About the Jews, that I think are the richest community in the world; very few of them will ever enter that mythical "kingdom of heavens." FYI, you do not have to waste any time quoting the buybull in this regard; we the atheists know well how hypocrisy is King amongst many of the religious. Sin Monday to Saturday, then ask for forgiveness on Sunday.

ynot

[Kurt Godel]

No, Answer, it's the other way around. The original prophet etc. always defends the poor, but those who come later rake them over the coals, often in his name. The new Pope gets it though.

[Kurt Godel]

There are thousands of Christian groups living in the worst hell holes of the world, helping the poorest of the poor. Thousands.

 

And how many atheist groups are doing the same thing?

 

0.

 

Zero.

 

If Evil has a definition, if the Golden Rule has anything to do with it, atheism is pure Evil.

[e_space]

On Saturday, January 11, 2014 5:49:40 PM UTC-5, Kurt Godel wrote:

There are thousands of Christian groups living in the worst hell holes of the world, helping the poorest of the poor. Thousands.

 

And how many atheist groups are doing the same thing?

 

0.

 

Zero.

 

If Evil has a definition, if the Golden Rule has anything to do with it, atheism is pure Evil.

what a purely fucked up analysis ... atheists give a lot to the less fortunate, they just don't feel the need to dress up their benevolence in fancy buildings, robes, crowns, and parade around calling themselves "holy father" while fucking altar boys ... if you want to analyze religion, don't look at the front line ground soldiers, look at the hierarchy, you know, the ones sitting on bags of cash while watching millions of the converts die of starvation so that they can use their money to pay for pedophile lawsuits and bribe governments into not suing their asses off ... religion created the word evil, and show us what it means on a daily basis ... 

[Kurt Godel]

Living in the worst hell holes on earth, the slums of Calcutta isn't "fancy buildings, robes, crowns, and parade". Thousands of Christian groups do it.

 

And not a single solitary atheist group.

 

Did an atheist somewhere sometime give something to the poor? No doubt.

 

But as a group? As a cause when atheists get together? The could give a rat's ass about the poor. It's It's all just molecules bouncing together, a movie that ends when they die.

[e_space]

On Sunday, January 12, 2014 7:39:57 AM UTC-5, Kurt Godel wrote:

Living in the worst hell holes on earth, the slums of Calcutta isn't "fancy buildings, robes, crowns, and parade". Thousands of Christian groups do it.

 

And not a single solitary atheist group.

typically, atheists don't form groups ... that has no bearing on what atheists contribute to the needy ... 

 

 

Did an atheist somewhere sometime give something to the poor? No doubt.

 

But as a group? As a cause when atheists get together? The could give a rat's ass about the poor. It's It's all just molecules bouncing together, a movie that ends when they die.

group smoup ... who cares about groups? ... what people do for others may be important, but in what capacity or group has no relevance ... what cult do you belong to? 

[Kurt Godel]

Oh, there are plenty of atheist groups alright. No shortage of that. Not to mention the Libertarians etc. that don't give a rat's ass if the poor live or die. They spit on the bible, primarily because of it's support for the poor.

 

And it's not just groups, statistically the religious give far more to the poor individually. You will see Republicans claim Republicans individually give more to the poor. While true, it's marginal and deceiving. In both parties, those that give to the poor are overwhelmingly religious. Strong correlation there. Republicans donate slightly more, because there are slightly less stingy atheists in the Republican party. As a group, Republicans could care less about the poor.

[e_space]

On Sunday, January 12, 2014 8:35:31 AM UTC-5, Kurt Godel wrote:

Oh, there are plenty of atheist groups alright. No shortage of that. Not to mention the Libertarians etc. that don't give a rat's ass if the poor live or die. They spit on the bible, primarily because of it's support for the poor.

 

And it's not just groups, statistically the religious give far more to the poor individually. You will see Republicans claim Republicans individually give more to the poor. While true, it's marginal and deceiving. In both parties, those that give to the poor are overwhelmingly religious. Strong correlation there. Republicans donate slightly more, because there are slightly less stingy atheists in the Republican party. As a group, Republicans could care less about the poor.

and you?

[ynot]

On Sunday, January 12, 2014 3:35:31 PM UTC+2, Kurt Godel wrote:

Oh, there are plenty of atheist groups alright. No shortage of that. Not to mention the Libertarians etc. that don't give a rat's ass if the poor live or die. They spit on the bible, primarily because of it's support for the poor.

 

And it's not just groups, statistically the religious give far more to the poor individually. You will see Republicans claim Republicans individually give more to the poor. While true, it's marginal and deceiving. In both parties, those that give to the poor are overwhelmingly religious. Strong correlation there. Republicans donate slightly more, because there are slightly less stingy atheists in the Republican party. As a group, Republicans could care less about the poor.

And the religious that donate to the poor do so because they only care for the poor? Like the Vatican? 

""  Particular criticism leveled against her are: for her views on birth control and abortion, which aligned wholly with the Church; the operation and funding of her ministry (her association with people such as disgraced US banker Charles Keating and Haitian dictator Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier in particular); as well as her relationship to modern medicine and the benefits it can confer; and her views on suffering . Other critics have included Hindus and Muslims in India, who saw her efforts to help the poor as a front for evangelism, although this is common complaint for any missionary and/or charity work, regardless of religion, and is not particular to Mother Teresa.  ""

Before you talk, get some info about what your kind is doing.

ynot

[ynot]

On Sunday, January 12, 2014 3:35:31 PM UTC+2, Kurt Godel wrote:

......... They spit on the bible, primarily because of it's support for the poor.

Can you supply us a link? 

ynot

[Eris]

They will if I have anything to say about it.

[Kurt Godel]

And "me" espace? The Bible says that's none of your business what charity I do personally. It's supposed to be a secret, including to the recipient if possible.

[Kurt Godel]

Thanks for proving my point, ynot. The Mother Theresa of the world, living in the worst hell holes on earth, helping the poorest of the poor, are the mortal enemies of the cold blooded atheists.

 

And of course she opposed the mass genocide of America's black babies to "improve the breed". That's why they did and do it, look at the statistics. 80% of abortion mills/Moloch Temples are in minority areas and black mothers are 2-3 times as likely to have an abortion. Hardly a character flaw. Jesus said to suffer the little children unto me, not "suck their brains out with a pump."

[Kurt Godel]

A link to what ynot? That Libertarians don't believe in the Bible and all that morality? Do you know what a libertarian is?

 

Or are you are aware that Libertarians don't believe in all that Bible morality, but don't spit on it?

 

Heck, they think parents can have sex with their own children. Some say there should be a minimum age, some don't, but none think the GOVERNMENT should decide the age when the parents can start the sex with the kiddies, they think the parent should.

 

No morality, dog eat dog, they are the precise opposite of Jesus and the moral laws of the Torah.

[Eris]

Or have anal intercourse with them.

[Kurt Godel]

Like the Catholics? Well, the new Pope, so far, for the first time in history, may walk in the footsteps of Jesus.

 

For most of the last 1700 years or so that there's been a Catholic Church, they tried to keep the contents of the Bible secret. All that help the poor stuff wasn't part of their agenda.

[e_space]

On Sunday, January 12, 2014 2:59:42 PM UTC-5, Kurt Godel wrote:

And "me" espace? The Bible says that's none of your business what charity I do personally. It's supposed to be a secret, including to the recipient if possible.

fuck the bible and fuck your silly secrecy ... couldn't care less really and wasn't asking with any interest ... you probably don't have any ... no big deal either way

[e_space]

On Sunday, January 12, 2014 3:32:10 PM UTC-5, Kurt Godel wrote:

Like the Catholics? Well, the new Pope, so far, for the first time in history, may walk in the footsteps of Jesus.

you mean he is going to get crucified after turning water to wine and then off to the clouds to drink wine with GOD? 

[Kurt Godel]

The Torah says you have to be charitable and you have to keep it a secret, not go around bragging about it to help yourself. it has to be totally selfless.

 

Yes, I know, being totally selfless is totally alien to an atheist. It's all just molecules bouncing together, grab as much as you can.

[Kurt Godel]

The historical Jesus didn't turn water into wine, espace. And he said if you think Heaven is in the clouds the birds would get there before you, that the Kingdom of the Father is within you and outside of you, spread out upon the earth, but you don't see it.

[e_space]

On Sunday, January 12, 2014 4:14:01 PM UTC-5, Kurt Godel wrote:

The historical Jesus didn't turn water into wine, espace. And he said if you think Heaven is in the clouds the birds would get there before you, that the Kingdom of the Father is within you and outside of you, spread out upon the earth, but you don't see it.

isn't that wonderful!

[Kurt Godel]

Yes, espace, the first such document in history with no explicit superstition and the first document period that gives full equality to women is wonderful.

[e_space]

On Sunday, January 12, 2014 7:09:37 PM UTC-5, Kurt Godel wrote:

Yes, espace, the first such document in history with no explicit superstition and the first document period that gives full equality to women is wonderful.

lol @ no explicit superstition ... the book is packed with superstition and lies ... you are either blind or very brainwashed 

lol @ full equality to women ... they were made from a males body part, and were told to obey their husbands ... that's just the start of the designation of women as second class citizens ... 

[Answer_42]

On Saturday, January 11, 2014 5:47:19 PM UTC-5, Kurt Godel wrote:

No, Answer, it's the other way around.

 

They first appealed to the rich?

 

The original prophet etc. always defends the poor,

 

This is exactly what I said.

 

It was a better pay off to appeal to the poor than the rich, there were more of them.

[Answer_42]

On Sunday, January 12, 2014 7:39:57 AM UTC-5, Kurt Godel wrote:

Living in the worst hell holes on earth, the slums of Calcutta isn't "fancy buildings, robes, crowns, and parade". Thousands of Christian groups do it.

 

And not a single solitary atheist group.

 

Did an atheist somewhere sometime give something to the poor? No doubt.

 

But as a group? As a cause when atheists get together? The could give a rat's ass about the poor. It's It's all just molecules bouncing together, a movie that ends when they die.

 

Well this atheist feels sorry for you. You have been badly indoctrinated, and, no doubt, are totally unaware of that fact. This is why it is a difficult yoke to break.

 

[Answer_42]

On Sunday, January 12, 2014 8:35:31 AM UTC-5, Kurt Godel wrote:

Oh, there are plenty of atheist groups alright. No shortage of that. Not to mention the Libertarians etc. that don't give a rat's ass if the poor live or die. They spit on the bible, primarily because of it's support for the poor.

 

Wow, your indoctrination is so bad it has totally warped your view of reality. I have never heard of anyone "spitting" on the bible because the bible allegedly defends the poor. People reject the bile because it is a horrible book full of myths being paraded as historical facts.

 

 

[Observer]

On Saturday, January 4, 2014 11:20:05 PM UTC-8, Kurt Godel wrote:

Those (like the historical Jesus) that don't believe in Hell, can substitute "Can the Rich Enter Heaven". That title is for those that think Hell is the only alternative. 

The Bible is such an incredibly stupid, misanthropic, superstitious, piece of shit as to make me wonder why any of you fucking morons think that it is in any way credible.

Psychonomist

---

There are 1000 cases of the Bible taking the side of the poor, against the rich, from Genesis to Jesus. I can fill many posts with examples. Almost half of the Jewish Written Law (Laws in the first 5 books of the Old Testament) are about our mandatory obligations to the poor. It was LAW, and the penalty was much harsher than anything the IRS can do.

[Loopflanger]

On Saturday, January 4, 2014 11:20:05 PM UTC-8, Kurt Godel wrote:

Blessed are the Poor, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
A Rich man is as likely to enter Heaven, as a camel is to pass through the eye of a needle.

 

You can bless the poor with magical kingdoms all the livelong day. None of that is going to end poverty. Doing away with poverty is the REAL solution,  not IMAGINARY magical kingdoms.

[ynot]

On Sunday, January 12, 2014 10:09:48 PM UTC+2, Kurt Godel wrote:

A link to what ynot?

A link to an article published by a credible organization saying that "" libertarians spit on the bible because of it's support of the poor "". Gee, do I have to explain this?   

Or are you are aware that Libertarians don't believe in all that Bible morality, but don't spit on it?

Hang on, now  you confused me: the libertarians spit on the bible or they don't spit on the bible? Which one is it? What on earth are you smoking?
 

Heck, they think parents can have sex with their own children. Some say there should be a minimum age, some don't, but none think the GOVERNMENT should decide the age when the parents can start the sex with the kiddies, they think the parent should.

A link please. This is knew to me.
 

 

No morality, dog eat dog, they are the precise opposite of Jesus and the moral laws of the Torah.

 

"" Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. "" Are you referring to these moral laws? Do you really read the buybull at all? ynot

[Kurt Godel]

Nothing about obeying husbands on the Gospel of Thomas, espace, and I defy you to point out one single solitary case of EXPLICIT superstition as listed in post 1. Lots of strange hard to sort out stuff, but not EXPLICIT.

[Kurt Godel]

No Answer, the rich have always ruled, and it's always been better for one's health to appeal to them, not the poor. The Poor have never ruled here on earth in the way you mean.

[Kurt Godel]

I pointed out an amazing fact, Answer, and since you can't point out one single solitary atheist group following the Golden Rule likie the thousands of Christian groups, making real personal sacrifices for the poor, you resort to ad-hominem.

Thin soup around here.

[Max]

On Monday, January 13, 2014 5:12:10 AM UTC+8, Kurt Godel wrote:

The Torah says you have to be charitable and you have to keep it a secret, not go around bragging about it to help yourself. it has to be totally selfless.

So unless a book says "be charitable".....???? Yep, totally selfless. 

 

Yes, I know, being totally selfless is totally alien to an atheist. It's all just molecules bouncing together, grab as much as you can.

You wouldn't know would you? Your'e not an atheist are you, so how would you know how selfless an atheist(s) is/are. 

[Loopflanger]

On Saturday, January 18, 2014 2:22:32 PM UTC-8, Kurt Godel wrote:

No Answer, the rich have always ruled,

Humans have been around for what? 100,000 years? You're only talking about a fraction of that time. Since it takes society to create the wealth,  not a class of individuals who own things, (including people, one way or another),  why should that wealth be hoarded by the few & not shared by the many? You don't need a god to sort this shit out. Human beings are quite capable of doing it for themselves.

[Kurt Godel]

I know how selfless atheists are, because there isn't a single solitary atheist group living in the worst hell holes on earth, helping the poorest of the poor, like the Christians. Individual atheists occasionally do nice things, but the notion is alien to dog eat dog Darwinian atheism and as a group, it's never ever on the agenda. As Libertarians (who are atheists) demonstrate, often, when they get in a group, the plan is to screw the poor.

I was raised by atheists, and I'm not a Christian, so yes, I'm in a position to judge.

[Kurt Godel]

We could breed successfully with Homo Erectus over a million years ago. By that definition of species, which is the only one remotely related to science, it's all one species.

Yes, human slavery and farming/civilization are the same thing, and it's only 10k years old or so.

But there was plenty of predatory behavior in the hunter gatherer groups. About half the bones we've found of Neanderthal and "modern" contemporaries, it's the result of a cannibal feast. The poor and weak, in that case, get eaten, not just exploited.

No case of the Golden Rule in writing or behavior, until Moses wrote it down in Leviticus. No Darwinian libertarian atheist would never come up with it.

[Kurt Godel]

Here's the Melanesians/Australians having Homo Erectus genes, (which left Africa millions of years ago, if ever), not just Denisovan....

The genome comparisons also show that Denisovans interbred with a mysterious fourth group of early humans also living in Eurasia at the time. That group had split from the others more than a million years ago, and may have been the group of human ancestors known as Homo erectus, which fossils show was living in Europe and Asia a million or more years ago.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218133658.htm

Before the nuclear DNA was sequenced, and the racist/speciesist evolution scientists were all proven wrong, some used to say all modern humans came from that blending of that 100,000 year old paradise of the Arabian Sea. Lots of "modern" African and Neanderthal bones all mixed together in that area.  

But now that we know Neanderthals share 100% of their Genes/Proteins with existing Europeans, and both only share around 97% with Africans,  and that there are Denisovans, in the East, related to the Neanderthals, not influenced by that, and that there was also Homo Erectus mixed in with the Melanesians/Australians and to a tiny extent, Asians in general, It would only be the place existing Europeans and Han Chinese came from.

The Hobbits, are from even before Homo Erectus, more like Lucy. They will find those genes too. Know where the smallest humans on earth are right now? Pygmies in Africa? Nope, it's the citizens of the town of Rampasassa, right next to the Hobbit cave. Quite a coincidence, and they are finally going to test for it after all  these years. The Rampasassans have always said they came from tiny people that used to hide in the woods and mixed with the big people. They've been saying that long before anyone dug  in that cave.

[Answer_42]

On Saturday, January 18, 2014 5:22:32 PM UTC-5, Kurt Godel wrote:

No Answer, the rich have always ruled, and it's always been better for one's health to appeal to them, not the poor. The Poor have never ruled here on earth in the way you mean.

 

You seem unable to grasp what I am saying.

I am saying that for a religion to be successful it has to appeal to the poor. The rich, who end up controlling the religion, know that--so they pretend to be humble and "poor of spirit" in orer to convince the actual poor that they are on the same team.

"To appeal to the poor" does not equate with "the poor rule". I never even implied that, not sure how you got there.

[Answer_42]

On Saturday, January 18, 2014 5:25:27 PM UTC-5, Kurt Godel wrote:

I pointed out an amazing fact, Answer, and since you can't point out one single solitary atheist group following the Golden Rule likie the thousands of Christian groups, making real personal sacrifices for the poor, you resort to ad-hominem.

 

Here we go again. I express an opinion based on what I read, you disagree, as is your right to do so. But then you decide that I am guilty of Ad Hominem.  Really? Care to show exactly  where I allegedly used an Ad Hominem? If I did, it was totally unintentional and I will rectify/clarify what I meant. Meanwhile, if you can't , well, it means you are guilty of an Ad Hominem, not me.

 

Thin soup around here.

 

And now you are guilty of "group Ad Hominem". Even if I did use an Ad Hominem, it says nothing about other posters around here.

 

 

[Answer_42]

On Sunday, January 19, 2014 11:56:38 AM UTC-5, Kurt Godel wrote:

I know how selfless atheists are, because there isn't a single solitary atheist group living in the worst hell holes on earth, helping the poorest of the poor, like the Christians. Individual atheists occasionally do nice things, but the notion is alien to dog eat dog Darwinian atheism

 

Atheism and the theory of evolution have nothing to do with one another, and, furthermore, this statement of yours shows you do not understand the theory of evolution all that well. Cooperation is easily explained in evolutionary terms, in fact, it is more likely, even expected, when a species becomes social. You should read up on game theory as it applies to evolution.

 

and as a group, it's never ever on the agenda. As Libertarians (who are atheists) demonstrate, often, when they get in a group, the plan is to screw the poor.

 

Baseless claims.

 

I was raised by atheists, and I'm not a Christian, so yes, I'm in a position to judge.

 

You seem to have one humongous chip on your shoulder.

 

You may be dissatisfied or unhappy about how you were raised by your parents, who happen to be atheists, as you claim. However, that says nothing about atheism in general or other atheists.

Moreover, it is entirely possible that you misunderstood what your parents were trying to teach you.So, without any other evidence to support your claims they are all highly subjective, as ans such, totally useless to make objective claims like you are doing.