(January 27, 2013 at 12:13 am)Minimalist Wrote: Maybe you can explain what your fucking kid was talking about here.

Quote:24 Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

Perhaps he was misquoted? Luke may have been a bit deaf? If so, why did your kid not fix his hearing?

Bit of a wanker, that jesus?

Not at all.

He was just telling us to liquidate our camels. Literally. They pass through quite easily once you've turned them into camel soup.

Better to liquidate rich cocksuckers.

(January 27, 2013 at 12:47 am)Minimalist Wrote: Better to liquidate rich cocksuckers.

I don't think rich cocksucker would make a very tasty soup.

I bet the homeless would enjoy a few spoonfuls.

(January 26, 2013 at 3:29 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Couldn't agree more Cinjin. The way I see it, one should endeavor to earn enough to look after themselves and their family (and to ensure they are able to look after themselves after you're gone). Whatever is left over should be given away to those who need it more.

Or preferably taken by a government agency to help where it is really needed.

Charity by itself, does not really work.

Only when governments get involved does real change occur.

In the victorian era there was the tradition of the rich people to give money to help the poor.
The result. The poor still starved and froze. Only when a real solution like unemployment benefit came in did the poor people have a relatively decent existence.

It is obvious from reading this thread, there are a number of people like me that are resentful about the amount of wealth a very few people hold and feel that certainly a part of this should be used for others. I can only see this resentment building which I think could be deleterious to those people.

I remembered last night an old adage that used to be said by traders in the London stock Market-

'Always leave a little profit for the next guy.'

The meaning of this statement was that you should not constantly sell at the top price, which is about to fall. Why; you may ask, surly a trader is motivated to get the best price possible? The stock market was a tight business with all the traders on the floor knowing each other. If you consistently trade so you have taken all the profit from the shares you are trading in, who would buy from you? Yes you have made a little bit extra profit from a few deals, but as nobody now will buy from you, you are out of business.

There are only a few super rich it is known who they are, their behaviour although understandable, has to make one wonder if they are going to be able to continue to trade. This is not even a moral question; just an observation on how the world works.

Money doesn't remove violence from a country- the main reason why countries are in poverty is due to violence, wars, and all sorts. Throwing money in their general direction has historically shown to be unsuccessful.

I am happy many of western society are interested in helping the poor, but the only long term way to solve it is by reducing violence and increasing job opportunities in that area. Which is why I want to employ people in African Industries some time in my life.

(January 27, 2013 at 9:49 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: In the victorian era there was the tradition of the rich people to give money to help the poor.
The result. The poor still starved and froze. Only when a real solution like unemployment benefit came in did the poor people have a relatively decent existence.

There was also a tradition in America about churches helping the poor, in the traditions set by Jesus. Prior to the second World War, it was good Christians following the instructions of Jesus who took care of the needy. It all worked fine until that Big Government came along with that hippy liberal organization called the US Army and said, "hey, all our recruits are suffering from rickets and other signs of malnutrition, blah blah blah whine whine whine." And then Big Government comes along with a socialist program of school lunches and opens the door for all manner of Big Government intrusion.

That's why good conservative Christians like me (True ™ and otherwise) all push for the Big Government to abolish its spendy interference and let churches handle the needs of the poor. After all, it worked so well back then.

---

(January 27, 2013 at 2:10 am)Minimalist Wrote: I bet the homeless would enjoy a few spoonfuls.

Disregard what I said earlier. I've figured it out!

Jesus also said (Mark 14:6) "Fuck the poor! I'm going to live it up while I'm here!" I'm paraphrasing but that's the jist.

Click here for the story of Jesus and the Poor.

So, Jesus talked a good game of how OTHER people should give all their money away to the poor but then when indulging in the worldly pleasures thought it best to forget about how all that should apply to him.

"Austerity for thee, not for me!"

As True Christians ™ we're just following his example. Preach the right! Do the wrong! Fuck it, Jesus will forgive us anyway!

---

(January 27, 2013 at 12:29 pm)BGChuckLee Wrote: Money doesn't remove violence from a country- the main reason why countries are in poverty is due to violence, wars, and all sorts.

Amen brother! That's why America doesn't have poverty!

Quote:Throwing money in their general direction has historically shown to be unsuccessful.

Absolutely! Those arrogant liberals with all their facts and logic will say otherwise but reality has a known liberal bias.

Mark 14:6

Quote:"Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me.

Was that the holy blowjob?

(January 27, 2013 at 12:55 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Mark 14:6

Quote:"Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me.

Was that the holy blowjob?

Did Jesus have any other kind?

She was just receiving the love of Jesus.