D'Souza d'vorce: another one bites the dust.

[TimCallahan]

Dinesh D'Souza, conservative evangelical pundit, is fond of being critical of the morals of us non-believers. However, as so often happens in the case such people, he himself is involved in something of questionable morality. Here's a quote from the site:

Dinesh D'Souza, president of The King's College and co-producer of "2016: Obama's America," is facing scrutiny for his relationship with a woman whom he has introduced to some as his fiancée. D'Souza is currently married but has filed for divorce.
The Indian American, who was raised Catholic and now identifies himself as a nondenominational Christian, stayed at a hotel with Denise Odie Joseph II during an apologetics conference last month in South Carolina, according to World Magazine.
D'Souza told conference organizer Alex McFarland that nothing happened that night though they shared the same hotel room, the magazine reported.
Though still married to his wife of 20 years, Dixie, D'Souza had also introduced the young woman as his fiancée to a few people at the two-day conference that took place at First Baptist North Church.

So, here's this self-righteous spokesman for Christianity who not only can't keep his own marriage together, but is apparently looking for wife #2 while still married to wife #1. Of course, he's head and shoulders above Hal Lindsey, who got rich off selling books saying the world would end: Lindsey is on wife #4. What I don't understand is this: Why don't evangelical Christians instantly and eternally revile such icons once they've proven themselves to be hypocrits?

 

[DOC]

And according to the Bible King David committed adultery and had the woman's husband sent to the front lines of a battle, and St. Peter, Christ's right hand man, denied Christ to a woman 3 times shortly before the Crucifixion.

All have fallen short and sinned. But it looks like if you sincerely repent of your sins, all is not lost, and God can still use you.

 

[Craig B]

And according to the Bible King David committed adultery and had the woman's husband sent to the front lines of a battle, and St. Peter, Christ's right hand man, denied Christ to a woman 3 times shortly before the Crucifixion.

All have fallen short and sinned. But it looks like if you sincerely repent of your sins, all is not lost, and God can still use you.

This repentance doesn't appear to have happened yet, in the case under consideration. The sins are still going on. So why isn't the sinner rejected pending the sincere repentance?

By the way, King David most certainly "fell short and sinned"! Here he is "repenting" in his death bed. 1 Kings 1

1 Now king David was old and stricken in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat ... 3 So they sought for a fair damsel throughout all the coasts of Israel, and found Abishag a Shunammite, and brought her to the king. 4 And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not.

And here is one of his instructions to his son: 1 Kings 2

8 And, behold, thou hast with thee Shimei the son of Gera, a Benjamite of Bahurim, which cursed me with a grievous curse in the day when I went to Mahanaim: but he came down to meet me at Jordan, and I sware to him by the Lord, saying, I will not put thee to death with the sword. 9 Now therefore hold him not guiltless: for thou art a wise man, and knowest what thou oughtest to do unto him; but his hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood.

(My italics.) But God "used" him so it's all fine and dandy, I suppose.

 

[Wildy]

And according to the Bible King David committed adultery and had the woman's husband sent to the front lines of a battle...

Well that was all Uriah's fault. If he'd just gone back to Bathsheba when he was in Jerusalem and ********** her brains out there wouldn't have been any need to kill him. The more righteous of the two then ends up being betrayed by his own people and killed, while the latter gets rebuked by Nathan, is punished by seeing that child die in pain for 7 days, and ends up being able to keep shagging Bathsheba. Truly David was punished for his deeds.

...and St. Peter, Christ's right hand man, denied Christ to a woman 3 times shortly before the Crucifixion.

And he had a cry and then went on his merry way.

All have fallen short and sinned. But it looks like if you sincerely repent of your sins, all is not lost, and God can still use you.

But do we know that these people sincerely repented of their sins? David himself admits that his wearing of the sackcloth when his infant son was in agony was to ask God to not punish the kid more than him being sorry for everything. David shows more guilt for listening to God and conducting a census than he does for ordering Uriah to be killed to cover up the fact that he slept with his wife.

This repentance doesn't appear to have happened yet, in the case under consideration. The sins are still going on. So why isn't the sinner rejected pending the sincere repentance?

Because he's been born again and is therefore unable to sin?

By the way, King David most certainly "fell short and sinned"! Here he is "repenting" in his death bed. 1 Kings 1

1 Now king David was old and stricken in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat ... 3 So they sought for a fair damsel throughout all the coasts of Israel, and found Abishag a Shunammite, and brought her to the king. 4 And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not.

See, of course he repented. It's quite clear that he did because he didn't sleep with the sexy virgin.

And here is one of his instructions to his son: 1 Kings 2

8 And, behold, thou hast with thee Shimei the son of Gera, a Benjamite of Bahurim, which cursed me with a grievous curse in the day when I went to Mahanaim: but he came down to meet me at Jordan, and I sware to him by the Lord, saying, I will not put thee to death with the sword. 9 Now therefore hold him not guiltless: for thou art a wise man, and knowest what thou oughtest to do unto him; but his hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood.

(My italics.) But God "used" him so it's all fine and dandy, I suppose.

God holds a double standard for those he's chosen to do stuff for him. David and Solomon are the most egregious examples of that.

 

[ddt]

Didn't God punish David by not having him build the Temple?

 

[catsmate]

Dinesh D'Souza, conservative evangelical pundit, is fond of being critical of the morals of us non-believers. However, as so often happens in the case such people, he himself is involved in something of questionable morality. Here's a quote from the site:

Dinesh D'Souza, president of The King's College and co-producer of "2016: Obama's America," is facing scrutiny for his relationship with a woman whom he has introduced to some as his fiancée. D'Souza is currently married but has filed for divorce.
The Indian American, who was raised Catholic and now identifies himself as a nondenominational Christian, stayed at a hotel with Denise Odie Joseph II during an apologetics conference last month in South Carolina, according to World Magazine.
D'Souza told conference organizer Alex McFarland that nothing happened that night though they shared the same hotel room, the magazine reported.
Though still married to his wife of 20 years, Dixie, D'Souza had also introduced the young woman as his fiancée to a few people at the two-day conference that took place at First Baptist North Church.

So, here's this self-righteous spokesman for Christianity who not only can't keep his own marriage together, but is apparently looking for wife #2 while still married to wife #1. Of course, he's head and shoulders above Hal Lindsey, who got rich off selling books saying the world would end: Lindsey is on wife #4. What I don't understand is this: Why don't evangelical Christians instantly and eternally revile such icons once they've proven themselves to be hypocrits?

Expecting the god botherers to actually practice what they preach?

 

[ponderingturtle]

The thing is I don't think this is wrong. Sure it ignores Christs teaching about divorce but no one takes that seriously anyway, it was Jesus putting one over on his followers.

But if he is in the process of getting divorced I see no issue with even the most monogamous people dating then.

What is his personal stance on sex and marriage as publicly stated? I am not sure this even goes against that. I certainly don't think the average american thinks dating during a divorce is cheating.

 

[Craig B]

Didn't God punish David by not having him build the Temple?

Yes, and not building temples really hurts! I know because I'm a non-temple builder too. No free mutton for me!

 

[Wildy]

Didn't God punish David by not having him build the Temple?

No. He was forbidden from building the Temple because he killed too many people. Al least that's what it says in 1 Kings 5:3 and 1 Chronicles 22:8.

David basically gets off scot free for the adultery and murder of Uriah.

 

[Wildy]

The thing is I don't think this is wrong. Sure it ignores Christs teaching about divorce but no one takes that seriously anyway, it was Jesus putting one over on his followers.

Also there's the problem of the massive contradiction between the Gospels on that matter.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Also there's the problem of the massive contradiction between the Gospels on that matter.

Sure just like letting women attend kings college. But like all christians he ignores the parts of the bible he does not agree with. I suspect he has rather more money than jesus would approve of as well.

But is it against the principles he professes?

 

[hgc]

David basically gets off scot free for the adultery and murder of Uriah.

That Uriah guy was a real dick to David Copperfield, I'll admit, but I don't remember in the story where young Master Copperfield offed him.

 

[Resume]

All have fallen short and sinned. But it looks like if you sincerely repent of your sins, all is not lost, and God can still use you.

With all of the killing and flooding and smiting god did, all of the raping and pillaging and slave owning he commanded or recommended, just how frikken picky can he be now?

 

[Wildy]

With all of the killing and flooding and smiting god did, all of the raping and pillaging and slave owning he commanded or recommended, just how frikken picky can he be now?

Extremely.

If God says "go and commit genocide" then that's good. If God doesn't tell you to commit genocide, that's bad.

 

[TimCallahan]

And according to the Bible King David committed adultery and had the woman's husband sent to the front lines of a battle, and St. Peter, Christ's right hand man, denied Christ to a woman 3 times shortly before the Crucifixion.

All have fallen short and sinned. But it looks like if you sincerely repent of your sins, all is not lost, and God can still use you.

Of course, the big difference between Peter on one hand, and the likes of Hal Lindsey and Dinesh D'Souza on the other is that Peter shortly repented. In the end, according to Christian tradition, he was crucified upside down, a martyr to his faith. I don't see a lot of televangelists repenting once they've been caught in sex scandals.

As for Hal Lindsey, had he shred of honesty or any spirit of repentance, he would have admitted after 1988 that the end-times scenario he predicted in The Late Great Planet Earth was a failed prophecy. Yet, even after the fall of the Soviet Union in the late 1990s, he was still trying to make his original scenario work. Of course, it's out of the question that he would even consider repenting by giving the millions of dollars he made off his bogus books to charity.

Dinesh D'Souza is not only smug and self-righteous, but uses dishonest debating tactics. You let me know if you see or hear anything of about him repenting.

ETA: This quote is from the Wikipedia article on D'Souza:

Dinesh has argued that the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal was a result of “the sexual immodesty of liberal America”. He further asserted that the conditions of prisoners at Abu Ghraib “are comparable to the accommodations in midlevel Middle Eastern hotels”.

What else is the fault of us evil liberals? Here's a quote from his 2007 book, The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 (emphasis added):

In faulting the cultural left, I am not making the absurd accusation that this group blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I am saying that the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the nonprofit sector and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world. The Muslims who carried out the 9/11 attacks were the product of this visceral rage—some of it based on legitimate concerns, some of it based on wrongful prejudice—but all of it fueled and encouraged by the cultural left. Thus without the cultural left, 9/11 would not have happened. …

No, 9/11 was caused by people who hate America for being capitalist, a representative democracy, affluent and powerful, for supporting Israel and being essentially secular, rather than a theocracy. Should I ever see D'Souza retract this abominable assertion about the left being the cause of 9/11, if I ever see or hear him say that it's just possible he might be wrong on something, if I ever notice in him even faint signs of humility, then and only then will I believe he has any capacity for repentance.

 

[Dog Breakfast]

This is a common story among people like Mr. D'Souza, but what does it mean?

I always wondered that question. Does it mean that thinking lustfully about someone other than your spouse isn't adultery after all? I think that is true anyway, but is D'Souza's behavior evidence of that? I don't think so. I think it just means he's a hypocrite. But extremely religious people being hypocrites isn't news. Nothing about his behavior affects the truth or falsehood of anything he says about sexual immodesty. His views are nuts for completely urelated reasons is all I'm saying.

 

[Merton]

ETA: This quote is from the Wikipedia article on D'Souza:

Dinesh has argued that the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal was a result of “the sexual immodesty of liberal America”. He further asserted that the conditions of prisoners at Abu Ghraib “are comparable to the accommodations in midlevel Middle Eastern hotels”.

Which mid-level Middle Eastern hotels has he visited?!

 

[Foster Zygote]

Douche D'Souza

 

[TimCallahan]

Lest we forget, D'Souza started out nasty, even when he was in college at Dartmouth:

As editor of the Dartmouth Review, D'Souza stole correspondence from the school's Gay Student Alliance and published it, outing several gay students to friends and family and driving one to consider suicide. When The Nation published an article claiming that D'Souza had stolen the correspondence, D'Souza wrote asking for a retraction, calling the piece "lies from the loony left", and sending articles which he said would clear his name. But bizarrely, the articles he included showed that the claim was true - they included a piece written under his byline that featured excerpts from gay students' correspondence.

 

[ddt]

Which mid-level Middle Eastern hotels has he visited?!

Hotels with BDSM cellar?