The Guide For Going To Hell For Christians!

I am not a biblical scholar and do not profess to be one.  Nevertheless, I am always confounded by many Christians who are more than happy to tell me I am going to hell because “I don’t believe.”  So many are ready to judge others and condemn them to hell, without really looking at their own behavior.

What happened to judge not least you be judged (For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Matthew 4.24)?

Yes I know, many “Christians” have an answer for that too:

Cor. 6:2-3 Do you not know that the saints [the saved; Christians] will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

Prov. 3:21 My son, preserve sound judgment and discernment, do not let them out of your sight;

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement

Jer. 22:3 Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness...

Phil. 1:10 so that you may be able to discern [judge] what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ...

Phil. 1:7 It is right for me to feel this way about all of you [judge you]...

Darn, I have barely gotten started and I don't know whether judging is right or wrong?  Isn’t it all so confusing?  I mean, here the Bible says one thing, here it says another?  What does it mean?  I guess to be safe, just don't violate any rules.

And, then you have to ask yourself which version of the Bible do you mean?  Old Testament; New Testament?

Even more confusing did you know about The First Council of Nicaea?

The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. This first ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.

The council affirmed and defined what it believed to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is: that Christ is the one true God in deity with the Father.  The council also promulgated twenty new church laws, called canons, (though the exact number is subject to debate), that is, unchanging rules of discipline (it included a prohibition of kneeling on Sundays and during the Pentecost (the fifty days after Easter).

I was reared Catholic and we kneeled.  Are all Catholics going to hell?

Some argue that Christianity consisted of many sects and that Constantine (The Great) by converting the Paul heresy triumphed as the concept of trinity and the ending of the Mosaic law (which made swine flesh permissible) brought this version of Christianity very close to the Hellenic paganism that was practiced in Rome and Greece. At Nicea Constantine had 300 versions of the Bible burnt, thus legitimising and patronizing only the Paulic heresy.

So which is it? Do we read just the New Testament and/or the Old Testament?(Matt 5:18: For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law (the TORAH, including Leviticus) until all is accomplished).

For you “Conservative/Born Again Christians,”I would point out that when claiming that the Bible forbids homosexuality, most people point to Leviticus 18:22 which reads, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination."  OLD TESTAMENT.  Darn, I guess all those Christians that say the Old Testament doesn't apply to them, must have no objection to Same Sex Marriage!

Three centuries after Jesus lived, this council was given the task of separating divinely inspired writings from those of questionable origin. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to do it when you had Jesus there, in front of you?  That way you could ask for clarification of the rules.  Did Constantine just pick and choose what went into the Bible?

Since we can't ask Jesus, what should we do?  To be safe, let's just try and avoid violating as many rules as possible.  Luckily for you, our guide includes things that are forbidden in all three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

But others have argued that the passage is merely one of many archaic religious laws that are no longer relevant to today's modern times and do not need to be upheld.

So, let’s look at our guide to going to hell.

********************************************

Let's start out easily on what we can do!!

A hot topic today among the GOP is whether President Obama is trying to establish a class/racial war.  Don’t you worry about that. 

Leviticus 25:44 states that; I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.

I think that explains a lot of why the GOP wants to “control the border;” so that they may properly process their slaves.  A friend of mine claims that applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Why can't I own Canadians?

Newt Gingrich has been talking a lot lately about being able to put children to work; you know, get rid of those pesky child labor laws.  Don’t worry, that will not send you to hell.

Exodus 21 provides that: I may sell my daughter into slavery.

My cousin asked me what might be a fair price for his daughter.  What do you think?

********************************************

Now let's move on to those "abominations" that will damn you to HELL!

Tattoos are also all the rage these days.  Thinking of getting a sweet little rose tattoo where “no one can see it?”

Leviticus 19:28 states: Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

Off to have your hair done

Leviticus 19:27 states: Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

My girlfriend really gets this one!  She wants to kill her hair-dresser when he messes up.  Now she can!  Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden in Lev.19:27.  How should they die?

INow for us guys.  What is the worst thing most guys can imagine?  Yes it involves their "man-hood."  It's bad enough if you're a man who has had his private parts injured -- or heaven forbid cut off -- but to add insult to injury.

Deuteronomy 23:1 states: He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

How do circumcised men enter into the "congregation of the Lord" when Deuteronomy 23:1 forbids it?

Have you ever had your palm read? Or maybe you've consulted your horoscope for a little guidance?

Leviticus 19:31 reads:  Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.

My friend believes in numerology.  Is that exempt? 
Writing the horoscope should be easy: "Read this and you will burn in hell!"  My newspaper has the horoscope in it, must I burn the newspaper as heresy?

Heard some juicy news about Harold in the accounting department? Can't wait to tell your BFF that you just read that Snooki is pregnant?

Leviticus 19:16 states: Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the LORD.

Gentlemen -- if you ever get in a fight and you get the feeling your lady might jump in and lend you a hand by squeezing your opponent's... ahem... "secrets," you'd better stop her.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 states: When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

Almost Easter.  We use to have delicious hams at Easter.

Leviticus 11:7-8 reads:   And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.  Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.

May I still play football if I wear gloves?

Kids these days -- you never know what's going to come out of their mouths!  But hopefully your child doesn't curse you.

Exodus 21:17 states:  "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."

When it comes to the Bible, this is a big no-no.

Mark 10:11-12 states:  Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich must surely be going to hell; seven wives between them.  And they complain about Mormons having multiple wives.  Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with in-laws? (Lev. 20:14).

My friend is always complaining that her boss makes her work late every night and sometimes on weekends.

Exodus 31:14-15 states:  "Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Next time her boss tells her to work over-time, I suggested she cut off his manhood (instead of putting him to death).   That way he will burn in hell and be without his manhood.

Headed to church, ladies?

Corinthians 14:34-35 states:  Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.  And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Does this apply to nuns or are they exempt too?  I had a mean nun as a teacher.  I am sure she is burning.

Craving a big bowl of popcorn shrimp or lobster salad?

Leviticus 10-11 states:  And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:  They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

Does that mean that all of the congregation of the church in my neighborhood that is advertising a "cat-fish" fry are going to hell?

And let’s not forget Rick Santorum, who must just love Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy 22:20-21 states:  But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:  Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Is there a limit on the size or number of the stones?  What if she doesn’t live with her parents, is it okay to pull her from her apartment?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have any defect in my sight.

My friend wears contacts, does that count?

My uncle has a farm.  He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).

My girlfriend also gets this one.  Nothing bothers her more than when people dress poorly, she calls them "fashion sitations."  Who know those sitations meant that those people would burn in hell too!

My neighbor tends to curse and blaspheme a lot.  Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev. 25:10-16).

********************************************

Why do I feel like I just read Santorum's campaign platform?

Are we all doomed?  Well, luckily if you are Catholic there is a way out!!!!!

No matter how horrible you are, you can do anything anytime you want; IF, you just pray after and ask for forgiveness.  Then amazingly you are forgiven.  So the “Golden Rule” is just don’t die unexpectedly, that way you can do whatever the “HELL” you want and just ask to be forgiven latter.

Sounds like the perfect "get out of jail free" card.  That is a rule I could live with.

I Find I Agree With Ron Paul More and More

Such as on Today's State of the Union show on CNN when asked if Obama has done "enough" to force Iran to stop its nuclear development via sanctions and others, his reply was spot on: "I think he gets too much involved. I think sanctions gives the motivation for them to want a nuclear weapon. We have 45 bases around them, we can demolish them within hours. And the worst thing the sanctions do, and Republicans and Democrats both support it and the other GOP candidates want war even more, the whole thing is there is a lot of dissension in Iran and we should encourage it by not interfering, once we get involve and threaten to bomb them, it becomes nationalistic - everyone joins the Ayataollah and Ahmedinejad. So there is a blowback - unusual circumstances and unintended consequences. So yes, our people are well-intended, but they don't realize how much damage they do by not accomplishing what they want and causing more harm to us. So our military personnel right now are very adamant not to be involved in a bombing of Iran, it makes no sense whatsoever to our military personnel, to the CIA, even though they are much more interventionist than I am."

Do you want war in the Middle East?  Other than Ron Paul, every GOP candidate virtually insures it!

Call Me F**KING Surprised - Romney’s Tax Plan Takes From the Poor, Gives to the Rich

A new non-partisan study has determined that Mitt Romney's tax plan "strongly favors the wealthiest Americans."

The analysis comes from the Tax Policy Center, who note that the bottom 20 percent of earners would see their taxes increase by 1.3 percent ($149) on average. Well, that doesn't sound too bad. But how are the super-rich fairing?

The top 20 percent, meanwhile, would see an average tax cut of $16,134 — a 5.4 percent reduction in their tax rate. The top one percent of earners would see their average tax rate fall by nearly $150,000 per year, and the top 0.1 percent would see a reduction of more than $725,000.

Seriously?  I am living in a parallel universe? 

Every poll shows that even the rich, yes the rich even say it,should pay more taxes (well of course not all the self-indulgent assholes).

With record unemployment and people on food stamps, we need to give the rich a bigger tax break???

The Tax Policy Center also looked at how Romney's new tax plan would affect the deficit over the course of the next decade. The answer, it turns out, is "not so well."

According to the Tax Policy Center, Romney's plan would add $900 billion to the deficit in 2015, when the changes would go into full effect. The group has also found that the 20 percent tax cut, combined with Romney's proposal to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax, would add $3 trillion to the deficit over ten years — even if the Bush-era tax cuts and more recent tax cuts are extended.

So the all important deficit issue of the GOP (cough, cough) is nothing but lies.  Deficits are good as long as the rich get richer, and a GOP is President.

Vein & Company?

And in case you're wondering how Obama's tax plan stacks up, the Tax Policy Center reveals that it "would increase taxes on the top 20 percent of earners by two percent while leaving taxes on other Americans essentially unchanged." Won't somebody think of the one percent?

Is there anyone who does not yet see why OWS does have a single, coherent message?

Soon the poor will having nothing left to eat except the rich.

Hey Fat Old Lady – You Will Die A Miserable Horrible Death

In the poster-child for Teacher Of the Year Award, we have a winner, Principal Dorothy Bond of Haywood High School.

Public school teachers have a difficult enough challenge as it is.  But Principal Dorothy Bond of Haywood High School, has set the sites even higher.  She has decided that the separation of church and state should be tossed aside in favor of her bible beliefs (Yes believing in a false deity, born to a virgin, and not heard again for 150 years – makes her top of the class).

During a recent meeting with students, she allegedly pointed to a bunch of gay students and told them they were going to hell. She also made sure that pregnant students were aware that their lives were over. 

WOW!!!!  That was inspirational.  And so Christ like (wasn’t one of Jesus’ principal disciples a former (?) prostitute?).  But hey, each to their own, if you not gay or a pregnant teen.

To be fair, if there is a God and he's anything like the one this crazy lady believes in, it's not just the gays who are going to hell. We're all fucked.

Everything Is Coming Up Roses!

Everything is coming up roses!!!  Can't you just hear it (certainly as presented by MSNBC, Fox, etc.)

According to iFoodstamps - the number of Americans living in poverty (or at least doing a damn good job of fooling the government in pretending they do). As of December, per SNAP this number just hit another record high of 46.5 million, an increase of 384,000 in one month (and ending the trend of declines from October and November), 2.4 million in 2011 (about as many as have dropped out of the Labor force.

We don't have soup lines (right now) because we have food stamps (unless until the GOP get ride of them).

But roses smell good, so "everything is coming up roses."

“How did you not notice 24-year-olds were being paid $2 million a year who clearly didn’t know anything?”

In many cultures, older people are viewed as wise and worthy of respect.  It is viewed that only by living a life full of ever changing events that one can appreciate the present.

No one told that to anyone of us the US.  Youth is vitality and vigor.  Old ways are just that - old and outdated.

They say that history always has a way of repeating itself. Whether it’s the tragedies, the famines, the prosperous times, or the faith of the people in the Bible, we always find that throughout history most of what has happened has already happened again or will happen soon.

But as outlined in Zero Hedge today, having faith and trust in a 24 year old is perhaps naive, but more likely trusting the fox in the hen house.  What could go wrong?

The flip side of that is that younger people are more willing to accept change
and view things differently.

The question then, is how to reconcile the two axioms.

I think most would agree, that "trusting" 24 year olds with economics for the future (when they have lived but 24 years) is putting "change" above "foresight."  There mist be an equilibrium and 24 year olds deciding economic policy just doesn't sound right.

But hey, younger and younger guys are winning the Grand Championship of Poker more and more.  Luck?  Or just more wiling to go all in, damn the consequences?

All Hail The Holy Roman Emperor - Executive Power and Absolute Power

This is a tough article for me.  I like what President Obama has done very much and think he has served us well as President.  It also seems that others have been overly critical of his Presidency, including attacking him over things which he inherited from past administrations.
However, I have a great deal of trouble with the Administration's position on a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, regarding U.S. citizen Anwar Awlaki in his efforts to obtain a court order barring the U.S. Government from assassinating him without due process. 
In a nut-shell, the ACLU and CCR filed a lawsuit on behalf of Anwar Awlaki, with Awlaki's father as the named plaintiff, to prevent the Obama administration from proceeding with Awlaki's due-process-free assassination.  According to the suit, Awlaki is unable to file the lawsuit on his own because the U.S. government's threats to kill him, as well as its prior unsuccessful attempts, cause him to be in hiding and thus make it infeasible for him to assert his legal rights directly.

This is a very difficult case and involves a very undesirable accused terrorist (assuming all the accusations against him are true).
I mean, who wants to defend the rights of a terrorist who has publicly stated that he wishes to kill millions of Americans?  Shouldn't this be an easy case and we could all just say good riddens?

The problem is that it raises some very difficult Constitutional issues, including the question of whether the US Government should be able to execute one of its own citizens without due process. 

What is alleged in the suit is that the Government is violating Awlaki's "Fifth Amendment Right Not to be Deprived of Life Without Due Process."  The Complaint also alleges that using lethal force against a U.S. citizen in these circumstances violates the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizure, and also violates the Alien Tort Statute, which bars "extrajudicial killings." 

As I said this is very heavy stuff, and is the very foundation of our personal liberties and freedoms.  It is the Administration's response which has given me so much pause.
According to The Washington Post, the Administration filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality.

I think we call all appreciate the notion that the Government must have certain state secrets which should not be divulged.  But what is surprising is that the are not asking the Court to not disclose those matters which are "state secret" but to not review the entire case as a state secret.  That gives me great pause.

If the President has the power to order American citizens killed without due process, and to do so in complete secrecy without the review by any court of his decision, then what doesn't he have the power to do?  Does he have absolute "executive powers"? 

Some are insisting that the President not only has the right to order American citizens killed without due process, but to do so in total secrecy, on the ground that Awlaki is a Terrorist and Traitor.  However, Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution provides that "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."  Treason is a crime that the Constitution specifically requires be proven with due process in court, not by unilateral presidential decree.

So what is the reach of Executive Power?  To answer that we must look to the unique American concept of Separation of Powers.

According to Wikipedia:

Separation of powers 

is the political doctrine according to which the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. This U.S. form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.

Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States.

Judicial power — the power to decide cases and controversies — is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress.

Executive power is vested, with exceptions and qualifications, in the president - the president becomes the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Militia of several states when called into service, has power to make treaties and appointments to office -- "...with the Advice and Consent of the Senate"-- receive Ambassadors and Public Ministers, and "...take care that the laws be faithfully executed"

The Constitution does not explicitly indicate the pre-eminence of any particular branch of government and, in general, each branch is seen as a check and balance on the other branches.
 
The idea of unfettered Executive Powers tends to run con tray to the notion of co-equal branches.  It doesn't take much to realize that a President who can do whatever he chooses under the notion of Executive Power is more an Emperor than apart of a co-equal government.
 
Most notably Nixon declared he could not break the law as he was President.  Richard Nixon—whose presidency is sometimes described as "Imperial" - used national security as a basis for his expansion of power. He asserted, for example, that "the inherent power of the President to safeguard the security of the nation" authorized him to order a wiretap without a judge's warrant. Nixon also asserted that "executive privilege" shielded him from all legislative oversight.

George Washington was offered the role of "King."  He rightfully turned it down.  Now is the time to stop the intrusion of the legislative and executive branches into our freedoms least we become mere serfs.