Rich People Won?t Go To The Heaven Discuss this

[Bikerman 2]

I think it is even deeper than you say Anwiii. Adult personalities are largely formed by the time people leave school and if that period is characterised by deprivation and lack of ambition then you can pretty much predict the results - in fact there is no 'pretty much' about it - we can pretty accurately predict it over any reasonable sample size. Of course the odd one or two will make it out of the cycle, but the great majority will not. As teachers we do what we can, but, as we frequently say at parents evenings - the parents who are here we don't need to see, and the parent's we need to see aren't here....The US used to be regarded as the land of opportunity - rather as we did a couple of centuries ago. That has been changing for 3 decades now and the mobility up and down the income scale is slowing, to the point where the US now has less economic mobility than many EEC countries..http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_03.html

Edited August 5, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[anwiii 17]

i know. i just don't like talking too deep because then i would be talking forever. but it's why i am trying to convey that the BAD people see is not just ONE thing and sometimes what other people see is bad in their eyes is GOOD in other peoples eyes. i know i can be one sided at times, but it's just sad to see peoples subjective mindset on issues. especially when they haven't lived long enough to actually see the whole "truth" they are trying to talk about. and although i can see a person's point of view....i may see a lot more to it than the limited information they are willing to argue...so what have we learned so far? rich people wont get in to heaven as easy, white people wont get in to heaven as easy, the blacks, where 10% of their polulation in the united states are in prisons because they commited the highest crimes wont get in to heaven easy. i am wondering who now is actually going to make it in to heaven....and really, shouldn't we be talking about if heaven really exists before we talk about who is going to get there? and the people who don't get there....where do they go? hell? i still say this is one of the most ridiculous threads. i only found it semi interesting by rpg's limited thinking and harlot's racial prejudice thoughts."the parents who are here we don't need to see, and the parent's we need to see aren't here...."- SO TRUE!!!i see a moderator still hasn't moved this thread to a more appropriate category either....

Edited August 5, 2010 by anwiii (see edit history)

[Bikerman 2]

so what have we learned so far? rich people wont get in to heaven as easy, white people wont get in to heaven as easy, the blacks, where 10% of their polulation in the united states are in prisons because they commited the highest crimes wont get in to heaven easy. i am wondering who now is actually going to make it in to heaven....

This question is absolutely key and science students have been pondering it for some time.

I refer you to a thermodyanmical consideration of Hell and the problems it presents to science, by a post-graduate resarch student of my acquaintence:

A Thermodynamic analysis of Hell - Is Hell Exothermic or Endothermic?

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, lets look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in Hell because Boyle’s Law states that for that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added. This gives two possibilities:

 

If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase in souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

 

So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my first year, “ That it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you. “ and take into account that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then, #2 cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x4758603
Edited August 5, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[anwiii 17]

ha! pretty funny and creative!

[Bikerman 2]

Then there is the thermodynamic study of the other place

 

The thermodynamics of Heaven

The temperature of Heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority is in the Bible:

Isaiah 30:26 reads “Moreover, the light of the Moon shall be as the light of the Sun and the light of the Sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days.”

 

Thus Heaven receives from the Moon as much radiation as we do from the Sun, and in addition seven times seven (forty-nine) times as much as the Earth does from the Sun, or fifty times in all. The light we receive from the Moon is a ten-thousandth of the light we receive from the Sun, so we can ignore that. With these data we can compute the temperature of Heaven. The radiation falling on Heaven will heat it to the point where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation. In other words, Heaven loses fifty times as much heat as the Earth by radiation. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann fourth-power law for radiation,

 

(H/E)⁴ = 50,

 

where E is the absolute temperature of the Earth, viz. 300 K. This gives H as 798 K (525^o C).

 

The exact temperature of Hell cannot be computed, but it must be less than 444.6o C, the temperature at which brimstone or sulfur changes from a liquid to a gas.

Revelations 21:8: “But the fearful, and unbelieving… shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.”

A lake of molten brimstone means that its temperature must be below the boiling point, which is 444.6^o C. (Above this temperature it would be a vapor, not a lake.)

 

We have, then, temperature of Heaven, 525^o C. Temperature of Hell, less than 445^o C. Therefore, Heaven is hotter than Hell.

Notice from rvalkass:

Anything copied must be wrapped in Quote tags.

Copied from Applied Optics (1972, 11 A14).

Edited August 6, 2010 by rvalkass (see edit history)

[Harlot 2]

me too. i hate racism and i hate the people that promote it. yes. hate is a strong word but well deserving.... i am sorry you coulnd't provide any sources for your "facts". but like all racists, they don't have any. just a mind that was shaped and formed by their parents and other adults who want to pass on their demented thoughts before they die to the younger generation of lost causes.
you sure do write a lot for someone who was through with the conversation....

Are you accusing me of being a racist? Well I guess this is becoming more common in America so its not a surprise. After undeniably oppressing minorities for hundreds of years, and still today viewing them as subhuman, while at the same time exploiting colored countries of their resources, you can't really expect anything different other than minorities being accused of being the racists

The thing is that many individuals, such as yourself, wish to believe that race is no longer relevant when reality says different. You can even look over in Arizona and see how the illegal immigrants over there are being treated. Its not because they are illegal, but because they are colored. You don't see anyone putting a fence on Canada's border, which is where the border being used to smuggle drugs and terrorist into this country.

Even if you look at who the U.S. wages war on. Name one country, other than Nazi Germany, that the U.S. has bombed in the last 100 years that consisted of a white population. In fact, why did the U.S. drop a nuclear bomb on Japan but not Nazi Germany? It is widely known that it was become the Japanese were unfortunately not white. And still day, when I point out the exploitation taking place of colored people in third world countries, I am accused of being a racist. Its easy to people like you to accept the fact that colored people were oppressed by this country and in fact all white countries, but it goes against your belief to believe that colored people outside of the U.S. are still being economically and socially oppressed today by majority white countries. Since you accuse me of being a racist and making everything I say up, why have you not directly denied any of the things that I have said? Does telling the truth make me racist? Or does the truth simply hurt?

Racism is being prejudice against a particular race. What prejudgment of any race have I displayed? Everything I posted was based on an "action" that whites took. That is not a prejudgment. Racism also means seeing your race as superior. Where in this forum or thread have I expressed thoughts of racial superiority? If anything, you display signs of racism because obviously in your eyes your race can do no wrong and it is impossible (and you dare not research it) for whites still be oppressing colored people in the world today. However, even if I was unknowingly racist. What would be the cause of that racism? What would be the source of my hate? Could it possibly be hundreds of years of oppression placed on my colored people? Maybe it could possibly be the lynchings? Maybe the rape and pillage of my ancestors? Maybe the assassination of black leaders? However, according to you, the fact that I know these things mean that I am brainwashing by my parents to hate whites (who are in fact uneducated and rarely comprehend issues of race or politics). No I don't hate whites, but if one day I decided to, I would have a lot to use as a justification. Truth, not hate.

But that goes back to the "angry black man" belief. If a white person comes out and tell the historical truth about race (which every white teacher I have ever had did), its simply the truth or at most its a misunderstanding. If a black person comes out and tell the truth, he is angry, racist, and want to take down white society ...I can't stop laughing at the hypocrisy. Whenever blacks tell the truth about history they are looked at as some black version of Hitler (lol). I had this white teacher, who I came to strongly love, and she really broke racial issues down and told the truth. I hated when she moved away, she is now teaching in Georgia. But, she was right when she pushed forth her "angry black man" theory and discussed how blacks have to be careful when discussing sensitive aspects of history (they may look angry and be perceived as a deadly threat to white society lol).

But yeah, this has really turned into the typical denial of history and a game of throwing around the race card. Its kinda sad that a truthful and honest racial discussion can't take place in the 21st century. The white guilt has yet to vanish. That is no surprise though, the KKK and Black Panthers are still roaming around spreading messages of racial superiority and "my race can do no wrong" rather than truth. Yeah...the truth can sometimes move mountains and every now and then make them roar or fall.

But honestly, I should be talking about class rather than race. Poor whites are being exploited by the rich too (and the rich tend to be white). Although not nearly as bad, exploitation is exploitation.

HOWEVER, African countries need to start taking responsibility for themselves. The West is to blame for much, no denying that, but it is NOT entirely to blame for the massive levels of corruption in many African states. Neither is it entirely to blame for Mugabe's suicidal land-reform program that has essentially turned his country from a relatively prosperous country producing enough food for export, into a basket-case.

I agree. Too many opportunist filling their pockets with money and neglecting the poor. Their are many African politicians who have thrown the people of their country under the bus and they don't intend on dragging them out from under there any time soon. People tend to worship money rather than humanity. Sad shame.

I have absolutely no respect for anyone who thinks their lack of success depends on anyone other than themselves. If you aren't making $100 million a year that's your own fault -- nobody else's.


Edit : To take it further. Let's make an earning cap on resources.

Now we have no cars. We have no computers. We have no electricity. We have no beds. We have no (insert item here).

The whole point of inventing new things is to earn money -- otherwise what drive is there?

Instead of complaining about those who earn a lot, thank them for allowing you to live life the way YOU do.

It seems that you have little or no knowledge of economics. It is not "your fault" because you do not make $100 million a year. Based on your logic, anyone can do it when it is in fact economically impossible for everyone to do it or even for the majority to do it. It is a pyramid, and people remind wealthy by keeping others poor. If everyone had $100 million, then the rich would have $1 trillion, and the $100 millionaire would be equivalent to $10,000 a year in today's money. It is a pyramid, it is impossible for everyone to be on top without it collapsing.

So I am telling you that it is scientifically impossible for everyone to be rich. It is also scientifically impossible to have rich people, to the extend that we have them in the world today, without having poor people. The richer one person is, the poorer someone else is. If there is only $100 million in the world, and you have all of it, you are making me poor. I have no chance to have a $100 million, it is impossible because another $100 million does not exist.

As for the "no electricity" and "no cars" crap, who are you kidding? If all the wealthy people in the world disappear tomorrow, the world would go on. The only way there will be "no electricity" and "no cars" is if the poor disappear. You need to get it through your head that the rich don't give you electricity or cars. The poor people build the cars and maintain electrical lines, the rich just get paid for the work of the poor.
Edited August 7, 2010 by Harlot (see edit history)

[anwiii 17]

Are you accusing me of being a racist?

that is exactly what i am calling you because that is exactly what you are when you can generalize about whites and group them all together only stating the bad things about them. it's called racism buddy.

what is also suprising is that you don't have the religious views to even talk about who will be getting in to heaven and that is what you call a hypocrite.

also, half of what you even talk about isn't even about the topic title. i don't know what you call that person, but it ain't good.

[Harlot 2]

that is exactly what i am calling you because that is exactly what you are when you can generalize about whites and group them all together only stating the bad things about them. it's called racism buddy.
what is also suprising is that you don't have the religious views to even talk about who will be getting in to heaven and that is what you call a hypocrite.

also, half of what you even talk about isn't even about the topic title. i don't know what you call that person, but it ain't good.

I call it racist when a white individual refuse to realize the atrocities that some people of their race have committed. As Bikerman stated, it is undeniable, but yet we have some closet racists who deny it and hide behind the lie of progress. They not only hid behind the lie of progress, but they also toss accusations of racism at minorities (or coloreds) who point out the historical fact that minorities (or coloreds) have been oppressed and continue to be oppressed by a segment of white society today. This does not go without saying that some of the oppression lies with minority (or colored) leaders and segments of colored society. However, if it is racist to say that whites oppressed colored people and still do today, than I guess every knowledgeable black in the world is racist by your standards. If you want to hear all the good that white society has done, than maybe you should seriously consider joining StormFront (the white nationalist community).

As for my religious views, the definition of heaven is not static and differs based on belief systems. Although I am not religious, I am a spiritual individual. My definition of heaven is your soul being content with how you lived life upon death. Nevertheless, your actions of bringing my belief into this argument represents your childishness and bigotry. It would be like me pointing out your alcohol problem and how that relates to christian lifestyle. This should serve as a warning to any individual on this board dealing with you and your hypocrisy.
Edited August 8, 2010 by Harlot (see edit history)

[anwiii 17]

your words speak for themselves thank you for proving my point

[Harlot 2]

your words speak for themselves thank you for proving my point

Great, we can leave it at that.

[kleong 0]

Being rich or poor does not dictate whether one goes to heaven or hell. What will decide is the actions of the person. One can be rich and kind while the other poor and evil. Tell me who do you think will go to heaven and who to hell.

[anwiii 17]

Being rich or poor does not dictate whether one goes to heaven or hell. What will decide is the actions of the person. One can be rich and kind while the other poor and evil. Tell me who do you think will go to heaven and who to hell.

i like your example of poor people being evil. way to go
Edited August 12, 2010 by anwiii (see edit history)

[Bikerman 2]

I call it racist when a white individual refuse to realize the atrocities that some people of their race have committed. As Bikerman stated, it is undeniable, but yet we have some closet racists who deny it and hide behind the lie of progress.

But hold on - what I wasn't saying is that people are responsible for the actions of their ancestors. Yes, it is certainly correct to acknowledge that they did evil deeds because not to do so is to lie, but it isn't either necessary or, I believe particularly sensible to apologise for, or take responsibility for those actions in some way. People are responsible for what THEY do, nothing else. Sometimes it can be what they don't do and should have done. Sometimes it can be for encouraging someone else to do something, or not trying to stop them, but in no case can it be for the actions of another, particularly before one was born. To the extent that racism still exists (and it does) then I am responsible for my actions in regard to that. If I don't speak up when I hear racist things said, then I believe I am tacitly condoning it. What about if the person saying it is 7 foot 9 or has a bunch of mates with him? I would love to say that in that case I don't have a responsibility, but I don't believe that to be true. Certainly I would try to avoid violence, but not at the cost of ignoring it. That's a pretty tough bar I'm setting, but I only have the right to set it for me, not for others, and by the same token I do not accept anyone else's authority to set MY moral 'bar'.

When our Prime Minister apologised for the way Alan Turing was treated after the war* then I believe that was right - even though he had nothing to do with it, because he was speaking as leader of the country on behalf of the country, including some who WERE responsible for his treatment. It gets more problematic for older events. Should our PM apologise for slavery? That is a tough one for me. On balance I think not. My reason is that there is nobody alive today who could have been involved, and once you start apologising for historical events then where do you stop? You next have to apologise for the Chinese Opium Wars, the Indian Raj....and on and on, until the very act of apology becomes cheapened and devalued.

 

So, in short I believe you are responsible for your own actions UNLESS you have a specific position of authority that makes you responsible for others, and in any event you cannot be responsible for things that happened when nobody who was responsible for those events is still around.

 

* For those who don't recognise the name, Alan Turing was a mathematician who worked at Bletchley Park Cryptography centre during WW2 and helped to crack the German Enigma Codes - something which I believe shortened the war by at least a year and possibly two. No mention of Bletchley was made after the war because the technology was still secret (they had the first programmable computer - Colossus, and even today many text books don't even mention it, let alone give it the rightful position of first).

Turing was gay - openly so since he refused to lie about it. He was deemed a security risk after the war ended and was eventually arrested for homosexual 'relationships' with a friend of his (who was over 21). He was given the choice - Prison for an indefinite period or chemical castration using female hormones. He took the hormones and it changed his whole physiology - his voice rose in pitch and he developed breasts. After months of this he could take no more and poisoned himself.

It still makes me cry with sadness,anger and shame to think how he was treated. He became a hero of mine when I learned about him on my undergraduate course, both for his genius, and especially for his honesty. Since then I joined a group which campaigned for a public apology for his treatment and we got our wish after petitioning the PM.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8249792.stm