Blair: God told me to do it

d) Arrogantly appealing to a higher authority to give a blessing for actions and thus removing the ultimate responsibility from own shoulders.

Thus tantamount to acknowledging that it has been a big screw up.

Ding Ding, I win with (d), because Mithra told me the answer!

Frankly, as much as I opposed the war in Iraq and think Blair is a tool for being GWB's lap dog (and oppose religion in any shape, way or form, but especially when it interferes with politics), I think you are taking this quote out of context. Blair's quote is still disgusting on many levels, but all he is saying is that ultimately his actions will be judged by his 'god'. Bush seems to suggest his actions are guided by god. There's quite a difference.

But, claiming that your actions will be judged by God, is very arrogantly acknowleding that you believe that your actions 'were right' and that God 'would agree' and 'you can't argue with Gods will'.

Blair wouldn't be claiming to be be judged by God, if he really believed God existed, becuase he would know that God would have some very severe punishment awaiting him. - Unless God is a angry, spiteful, selfish God who wages war amongst the non-Isrealites. Of wait, this is getting all so confusing. Doh!.

So why did the Jews abandon all their Gods, and adopt their volcano God, Jahweh, the god of war, to be their sole diety?

PS, I know the answer, just ribbing ya

I had a very strange discussion with a weird guy some years ago in a midnight club.
The guy as a weird looking, drinked several wiskey, but did not appear to be drunk.
We were discussing his past actions (he told me that he was a big boss in his aera).

Me : don't you have sometimes regrets for your actions ?
Him : no, never
Me : why ?
him : because all my actions are blessed by god
Me : how do you know that god bless your actions ?
Him : I am god

These statements are only useful if there is an instantaneous response from the Deity...

If in mid-press conference the podium gets riven by lightning, or the speaker becomes a newt...

Ah well... retribution may wait for the Adam Sandler 'Pineapples in Hell' variant.

The "war on Iraq" question is not 100% cut. I am liberal so I don´t acknowledge state boarders as limits for how far human rights should extend. My extreme, pre "real world realities facts and constrains" could be formulated like this: "Each Iraqi individual, as well as all individuals in the world, have the right to participate in deciding who they are governed by and I have a personal responsibility towards all people to ensure that". But I recognise that invading Iraq far from ensure this outcome, even if the goal of such invasion was so clear cut (which I don´t believe). So it will always be a balancing idealistic values and real world constrains and that cannot be done within a rationale frame alone (if you could we could leave all political decisions to tecnocrats) but has to be a personal balancing based on your values. Thats what we vote politicians to do for us.

We all have different ways of leading our conscious. For a politician it is importent to tell the voters how her/his conscious is lead, which I don´t think Blair ever hided for his population.

So I have no problem with the core of the issues which is this:


I would have come to a wholly other conclusion than Blair (it would have been 5% pro war/95% anti war). But you can´t flame him for using his faith to make the ultimate decision, based on the facts present, especially not when his faith is well known by the voters.

The former Norweigian prime also used his religious beliefs as the ultimate guide for his decision on the war in Iraq. In a phone call made by Bush to Bondevik, he used his christian belief to refuse to go to war. And Bush accepted this explanation as valid, which is one of the few areas that I really respect Bush. The desicion has not had any economical consequences for Norway, actually Norway as a whole have had progress in its economical contracts compared to Denmark where our 100% secular prime gave strategic and "USA is our good friend so we have to assist them"-reasons to go to war.

I have had a conversation like that in Ein Gedi in Israel. While waiting on the bus to Tel Aviv a bearded man, about 25 years old in plain clothes, no backpack or anything, walked up to us.

Him: Hello
Us: Hi
Him: Do you know the way into the Judean Desert?
Us: (telling him about the roads in the areas).
Him: Thanks.
Us: But its quite hot. It would be a good idea to buy some water and take with you.
Him: No, I haven´t taken any money with me and I don´t think I´ll need it.
Us: So what are you going to see?
Him: I am going to see if I can find God there.
Us: So its kind of a spiritual thing.
Him: No, not like that.
Us: So its more like a mediative.
Him: No. God is meeting me there tomorrow. He asked me to meet him there.
Us: Well hope you will find him.
Him: Have a nice trip to Tel Aviv.

well, thats not quite so wierd as you imagine, its perfectly possible that after reading deep into the Bible and unpeeling the layers upon layers of multidimensionality that exist in allegory and parable that is a conclusion you might come to.

Of course, running around claiming to be God isn't going to win you any favours, and if not all people are going to think you are a nutjob, but perhaps this is the mechanism that keeps such a secret withheld.

But by the time you reach such an understanding, you probably would have realised, or unintentionally it might have happened that you have acquired all the traits in character that you wouldn't want to go around claiming that anyway, if not least because it might spoil the revelation for people who are not as advanced in spiritualness as you.

Like all good riddles, the answer is ususally encoded right at the start, but we are usually to ignorant to ouselves enough to actually think that there is a monumental task to be uncovered, and we happily go on the journey. We would do this because we really believed that there was something worth uncovering, and we would really need to believe it 110% to make a hard journey palatable. Perhaps you might call this unwavering Faith.

As you got further into the journey, you wouldn't need to rely so much on faith, because you would start to acquire wisdom and knowledge, some of which would reinforce the faith, and some of which would superceed it. Eventually wisdom would superceed all of faith, and it would be clear what the end point of the journey would look like, even if you hadn't arrived. Maybe the endpoint of the journey, is a knowledge of God, rather than faith in God.

So the question is, if the Bible is a good riddle, does there exist near the beginning an obvious answer to the riddle that goes unnoticed by the reader while he is still in a state of ignorance, but when he has acquired the knowledge of God, and examines the riddle under new eyes, the answer was staring him right in the face? It would be like a giant Homer Simpson Doh! coming down from Heaven.

Doh!

edit: of course, someone who also knew the revelation, upon hearing someone utter such words, would still utterly refute it.

or just ignore it completely

It would be nice if the topic of thread had anything to do with what Blair actually said.

God did not "tell Blair to invade Iraq." That's something totally differnent. What Blair said was that he would be judged by God for the invasion. I do agree that he is essentially admitting Iraq is not going well right now. But I also think he believes...like Bush...that in the end he'll be proven right.

Agree or disagree with his thinking, I see no problem with the statement. I do have a problem with the thread title, which is delibrately deceptive and intended to provoke a flame war.

just wondering, what in your opinion is the 'end' scenario that would make Bush and Blair appear to be justified in their actions?

Wouldn't it be utterly foolish to believe that someone who is willing to be judged by God for their actions, would not have asked God for guidance on the decision in the first place?

If God had told Blair (and Bush) not to invade Iraq, and they still did it......well.

So we can deduce that God DID tell Blair (and Bush) to invade Iraq.

So the question is, there must be a reason why Iraq is going so badly- and it must be Gods will, OR Blair and Bush were not ever talking to God in the first place, and are using an appeal to a higher authority to justify (which apparently "believers in God"/we -are not allowed to question) their own evilness/stupidity/foolishness.

And when did a volcano ever give an answer anyway?

Sorry. Thats just foolish.

The number of people who believes that their actions will be judged by god at some time in the future far FAR outnumber the people who have a personal line to that same non-existing entity. What you are writing is just as far out as when religious people say that people without religion doesn´t have any morals.

And they are the majority of christians in GB? The world? Remember we are still not talking about US here. WE are talking about Blair and the majority of christians.

I have seen no such think. You are basically going from "Blair is christian and he went to war with US" to "he speaks to god". Thats simply not a way to argue.

Give some links that shows Blairs theology includes the direct communication to god or this thread is meaningless.

Besides it you think the general consensus is that Blair speaks to god, tahts one thing. But the article doesn´t show for or agaisnt that. The article only speak about the judgement of his actions. Every christian would have answered like Bliar did. SO no matter what the thread is meaningless, unless the message is "Blair is Christian"

Direct connection to god without the interference of the church is what all protestantism is about (Lutherans, Calvinists etc. Church of England might be an exception, don´t know). It doesn´t mean he speaks to god.


There are a lot of christian parties that say they get the morals they are basing their policies upon from Christianity (just think of Germany) that would find the idea of taking direction or commands from god blasphemic. So again this article shows nothing.


It say excatly the same as the article in your original post: His consious and the effects of his desicion is something he is going to take up with god, presumable on the day of judgement.

Please explain.

Anders,

Isn't it the very foundation of Christianity, that one who calls himself a Christian, by default, accepts the word of Christ, and utilizes the guidance of God in their daily life?

If Blair and Bush are claiming to be Christians, then by default, they are asking for, and receiving advice and guidance from God to help them make decisions.

If they are not asking for, and receiving guidance from God for these decisions, (and you don't have any bigger decision to make than invading another country) then by default, they are false, non-christians. Liars and deceivers.

In your right mind, could someone who is claiming to be a christian, not ask for guidance from God, when they know that hundreds of thousands of innocent lives might be wasted?

Boy...it seems this thread went off the tracks fairly quickly.

You are completely off the track here. Christians normally find guidance in the bible, not by direct contact...

So the original article tells you he is christian and by using other sources you come to the conclusion he speaks to god.

So basically you agree with me when I said:


And as I showed the links you gave doesn´t tell us if Blair is chatting with god. So yes, give some proof of that to give your opening post credibility.

Just a reminder about what we are discussing precisely:

What good is the Book?- It is just a collection of words written thousands of years ago, written on a few hundred bits of paper. Paper and words are nothing. You shouldn't cry if someone flushes your Bible down the toilet.

The Bible is a Path. The path is a collection of ideas in a journey to understand God. The power of the Bible, is that it is a tool that frees you from ignorance. And being free from ignorance is direct contact with God. Call it Knowledge of God. Faith in God is a good starting point, but if you are not to remain stupid and ignorant, you must seek out Knowledge or direct contact with God.

Anyone who finds guidance in "the Bible" is clearly demonstrating that they are still ignorant.

The purpose of the Bible, is to be used as a tool, and when you have surpassed the capability of the tool, discard it and leave it behind, else it will become your crutch.

Hmmm...I guess you are right.

It was off the tracks to start. Anything that starts with mis-statements like: "Blair: God told me to do it" and editiorializing comments such as: "Like his fanatical religious extremist counterparts" is pretty much poisoned from the start.

First step should be easy then. Show he IS an Evangelical Christian. Show it.

You are making one big, theoretical contructed strawman.

Tomorrow, go down to your local Church (of England) and after the service hand out an questionnaire to the congregation:

"How are you leaded by your faith:

1) Through the Bible
2) Meditating via prayer
3) Talks to God and/or God talks to me"

If choice 3) doesn´t end up last then lets talk again.

I disagree that you even need to show that he is an evangelical christian.

The whole purpose of Being a Christian is to seek out a direct contact with God to guide you through life.

What is even the point of being a Christian, if you do not wish to receive guidance from God?

But you're making a trinity of essentially the same unity. All three of your options are the same thing.

And by giving a questionare to people IN church, you are by default, asking the very people who have not discovered the entire wisdom of God, for if they had, they would not be there.

Seg is sanely enough differentiating between those christians who talk to god and those who doesn´t. The quoted post was an answer to him.

Let me exand my answer to you.

Theoretical: Most people are not taking an intellectual approach to religion. THeir religious feelings are exactly that, feelings. Thats why most christians doesn´t talk to god, even if they (using your logic) should do so or abandon their faith.

Empirical: It flies against all obervations to claim that all, most or even a large part of christians speak to god in Europe of GB. I have the empirical evidence if you want it (its hardcopied, so no links, sorry)

Not according to people. WHile they find a great deal of truth in the bible hey would find talking to god boarderline or outright insane.