[scaredyclassic]

“Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, 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.”

i dont know, this seems kind of vague to me. he never defines “rich”. probably he should have put in some minimum income level. he doesn’t separate the truly “rich” who possess assets, from people who are currently rich based on income, but whose income can vary from year to year. Frankly, I have no idea even if “rich” here means rich in terms of money, cattle, knowledge, social capital, o r whatever.

this passage definitely wasn’t run through legal.

he says rich people cannot “enter” heaven, but it’s not clear whether there are other ways to get into heaven other than “entering” into it. maybe you can be transported, maybe you can ride under an angel’s wing throught the walls.

although he states it’s hard to enter heaven for the rich, perhaps rich people are actually better people, more blessed by G-d obviously, since they have all this stuff, so blessed, , so thoroughly blessed, unlike the unblessed unrich, , so it should actually be harder for the rich to get into heaven, because they’re up to the challenge, being betterly blessed. He gives man no cross he cannot bear, including a slightly increased difficulty level of getting into heaven..

nowadays, when we are christian and rich, we just say, man, we are so blessed, and move on to the consumption. i think the above quote isinterpreted as, well, as long as you love G-d, you get to keep your loot, just dont focus ont he loot too much or act too grubby. act like you dont care too much about cash, as that is bad form.

. which seems not unreaosnable an inerpretation for nowadays, since we aall attend the church of consumption and mammon in the USA, but an interpretation not all that super christian in the context of the entire text. you know, the love your neighbor as yourself junk, which kind of implies not hoarding monies and properties and such but instead kinda spreading the wealth and not getting too attached to your own goods. or family even….

maybe the quote should ahve been, love your neighbor as you love your own children, since people generally subconsciously loathe themselves.

so keep it all nice and secure, unless we are superrich, in which case it all gets meaningless and you have to work hard to give it away.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=CA renter][quote=rockingtime]Well said CAR. I kind of falls in this category at least I think I do

The info overload because of the explosion of all kinds of media makes people worry more and more.
Not sure if it is for better or worse.

I’d rather live a simple/just having-enough life worry-less than a life full of abundance of material wealth.[/quote]

The introduction of non-stop electronic media probably adds a LOT to our stress levels. That just adds to the regular old stress that people had before the 24/7 negative news feeds. Good post rockingtime. Enjoy your life! :)[/quote]

hold on. i would definitely accept some money for some worries.

in fact, i do…

[scaredyclassic]

did i ever report here about the time i tried to attend a local catholic church barefoot?

it didnt go well…

[scaredyclassic]

maybe im not expressing myself well. i want police to fight crime.

EXAMPLE

true story; my brother was walking in NYC in the early 90s where we lived and was chased by 3 guys who he later found out were cops. they were yelling it to him but he thought he was gonna be mugged so he ran like hell. Im sure he looked superguilty at that time from running. they chased him and tackled him because he fit the description of a perp in the area. they roughed him up a little but not too bad. he was innocent, cops realized that after a couple hour investigation and detention.

that is OK in my book. they had a reasonable basis for the chase and stop and they didnt beat the living shit out of him, just tackled and subdued, probably a little rougher than necessary because my brothers not a big fighter. . they had a valid police purpose.

CONTRAST THAT TO;

cop pulls up on some kids on the corner. talks to them. they tell him to go fuck himself. cop pulls a gun and other squad cars pull upand search everyone.finds drug contraband on one of them, a weapon onanother arrests them all. a few lose their jobs from the detention. others have records that preclude financial aid due to federal laws. cop lies in police report about stop, claims search was “consensual.

NOT OK..

i would say the 2nd incident is normal. the first incident is our fantasy of police work and rare, but constitutionally valid. it was a reasonable search and seizure….

the 2nd grossly erodes the social contract.

you can stop people for “suspicious” activity, but you ahve to havefacts to support it. nowadays everyone is suspicious of everything, including a brown indian gramapa walking down the street. when we are too suspicious, and th e net is cast too wide, we are not safer. we are ensnared ina polic e state.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=CA renter][quote=scaredyclassic]

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. B. Franklin.

we could do all sorts of things to catch more criminals. We could strip search anyone who looks shady on the street. Hell, at this point I’m sure gramps would’ve greatly preferred a vigorous anal cavity search in broad daylight than the treatment he got. He’d probably give all his money to wind back the clock and just be subjected to that.

You can call the police. You can watch out. But you can’t detain someone just because a crime might occur and you have a bad feeling about someone. And definitely please don’t slam that person on the ground if they try to walk away when they’ve done nothing wrong and you have no cause to stop them.

Thank goodness for the dashcam.[/quote]

Yes, I totally get that — it’s a great quote that often pops into my head, especially when discussing the Patriot Act, the militarization of our police departments, etc.

But we do need to try prevent crimes before they occur, IMHO. What would you suggest we do? Or, as queried before, should we rely on police departments to simply take notes after the crimes have been committed?

If we don’t profile in some way, and that includes reporting “suspicious persons,” what do you think we should do?

If cops can’t detain people and question them, how do you think that would affect crime rates?

Like it or not, Three Strikes has reduced crime in almost every category. And many of those criminals who jet jail time for drugs are really there for bigger crimes, but the cops might not have been able to get them on those crimes because of technicalities, lack of evidence, luck, etc., so they take what they can get.

——–

As for the story about your wife’s carjacker, I don’t think that criminals are beat up because cops are trying to get revenge; it’s more about making sure they are apprehended. Cops really don’t like to let criminals get away, and I applaud them for this, as do most law-abiding citizens. Most criminals are not beaten up if they calmly surrender. If anyone is beaten up, it’s almost always because they try to resist and/or assault the officer(s). Big difference between that and revenge.[/quote]

If we hasnt preemptively arrested all those disproportionate number of black kids for Marijuana charges, particularly in nyc, we would be in increased danger? Maybe injustice INCREASES danger. Like preemptive arrests, maybe preemptive war in Iraq for “SAFETY” Actually made the world a much less safe place.

I’m pretty sure it did.

nearly 90 prrc. Of arrests for pot in nyc. We’re for minorities. Think that engenders trust in that population? Or creates a mini iraq? can the police ever truly be effective in a community where they are ruining lives with criminal records in a grossly racist disproportionate manner?

http://m.huffpost.com/us/news/new-york-city-marijuana-arrests/

this isn’t a question of coddling criminals. It’s about justice for all. Or we can go on pretending that the superpowers of the police are able to detect and predict who the future criminals are..

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=CA renter][quote=scaredyclassic]

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. B. Franklin.

we could do all sorts of things to catch more criminals. We could strip search anyone who looks shady on the street. Hell, at this point I’m sure gramps would’ve greatly preferred a vigorous anal cavity search in broad daylight than the treatment he got. He’d probably give all his money to wind back the clock and just be subjected to that.

You can call the police. You can watch out. But you can’t detain someone just because a crime might occur and you have a bad feeling about someone. And definitely please don’t slam that person on the ground if they try to walk away when they’ve done nothing wrong and you have no cause to stop them.

Thank goodness for the dashcam.[/quote]

Yes, I totally get that — it’s a great quote that often pops into my head, especially when discussing the Patriot Act, the militarization of our police departments, etc.

But we do need to try prevent crimes before they occur, IMHO. What would you suggest we do? Or, as queried before, should we rely on police departments to simply take notes after the crimes have been committed?

If we don’t profile in some way, and that includes reporting “suspicious persons,” what do you think we should do?

If cops can’t detain people and question them, how do you think that would affect crime rates?

Like it or not, Three Strikes has reduced crime in almost every category. And many of those criminals who jet jail time for drugs are really there for bigger crimes, but the cops might not have been able to get them on those crimes because of technicalities, lack of evidence, luck, etc., so they take what they can get.

——–

As for the story about your wife’s carjacker, I don’t think that criminals are beat up because cops are trying to get revenge; it’s more about making sure they are apprehended. Cops really don’t like to let criminals get away, and I applaud them for this, as do most law-abiding citizens. Most criminals are not beaten up if they calmly surrender. If anyone is beaten up, it’s almost always because they try to resist and/or assault the officer(s). Big difference between that and revenge.[/quote]

bs. Revenge. See horseback tape.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=zk][quote=scaredyclassic]

On the other hand, i think religion is a useful andgood thing, and that it’s worthwhile to try to have people, particularly young people, participate in it and to get some of them to believe for at least as long as we can. It has some good effects. it’s calming. It kind of gives a sense of meaning and purpose. it explains reality for people in interesting, layered, resonant stories.. it specializes in boundaries. it lays down rules. it provides tradition, ritual and fellowship. it’s GOOD….i like em all. muslims, christians, jews, mormons, miscellany, whatever ya got…

[/quote]

I get what you’re saying. Parts of it can be good. But it allows people to claim things that are completely irrational and have no basis in fact. And once you allow people to do that, they stop having to show any common sense or rational reason for what they’re doing. And they can claim anything they want and say it’s in the name of their god. And they can delude themselves into thinking that homosexuality is an abomination or that their neighbors should be murdered in some situations. And when you say to them, “but…” they can say, “my god told me this. I don’t need to listen to any logical arguments. I don’t need a common sense approach. I only need to follow the word of my god.”

Granted, common sense and logic are not perfect. But, using them, things can be debated and honed. Arguments can be kept up to date with the latest knowledge. Evidence is free to be scrutinized. All the facts can be considered.[/quote]

Yeah. But it’s good to have a plan. Like, should we eat this? If you were kosher you’d know. Done. Stuff like that

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=Blogstar]I always wondered why so many Christians go on and get rich. I was so scared that I’d never get to heaven if I made any money. Now I realize that the people preaching that were hoarding it all. And now, it really wasn’t supposed to be that the meek should inherit the earth….proven that G-d meant geeks. So many people so desperate to be meek and poor all these years when the should have been dabbling in semi conductors.[/quote]

most institutions in life are based on saying one thing and doing another. I thought religion might be good for them in that sense.

really it was my wife’s thing but I was on board for various reasons…. She was a super hard core catholic until about 10 years ago.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=flyer]Read recently that there are around 1,645 billionaires in the world now,
and–per some of the posts–it’s nice to know we have some on this forum.

Although many of us have posted that we are in the multiple 7 figure and other net worth categories, I think it’s still possible to enjoy the few short years we have on earth (as eternity goes) in whatever financial category we find ourselves, and it is nice to have something to pass onto the kids if we can.[/quote]

my dad liked the song DONT WORRY BE HAPPY by bobby mferrin. I still have his cd and play it in my car and for some reason, it makes me happy.

Here’s a little song I wrote
You might want to sing it note for note
Don’t worry, be happy
In every life we have some trouble
But when you worry you make it double
Don’t worry, be happy
Don’t worry, be happy now

[Chorus]
Don’t worry, be happy
Don’t worry, be happy
Don’t worry, be happy
Don’t worry, be happy

Ain’t got no place to lay your head
Somebody came and took your bed
Don’t worry, be happy
The landlord say your rent is late
He may have to litigate
Don’t worry, be happy

[Chorus]

(Look at me, I’m happy, don’t worry, be happy
Here I give you my phone number, when you worry, call me,
I make you happy, don’t worry, be happy)
Ain’t got no cash, ain’t got no style
Ain’t got no gal to make you smile
Don’t worry, be happy
‘Cause when you worry your face will frown
And that will bring everybody down
Don’t worry, be happy

[Chorus]

(Don’t worry, don’t worry, don’t do it
Be happy, put a smile on your face
Don’t bring everybody down
Don’t worry, it will soon pass, whatever it is
Don’t worry, be happy
I’m not worried, I’m happy)

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I know the HOA people. Not their problem
The problem is fthe absentee owner upstairs and her property manager. Bitchy people hang out together. It’s all a game an entertainment for me…

I am never verbally threatening. I was just dismissive and rude. I said m’am in a way that meant bitch. But I don’t use the word bitch why I talk to people[/quote]

yes but…there is no way to know if people are willing to lie about what words you used to law enforcement.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=flu]Anyone else find the irony that often times (not always, but often times) you hear a person that doesn’t believe in God also gives you a nice lecture about “karma”?

It usually goes something like. “You better be nice to others otherwise karma is going to pay you back” or something along the line….

I don’t get people that don’t believe in God but believe in karma. It’s just funny imho.[/quote]

true dat. i guess its the secular religion nowadays. i definitely dont beleive in karma or cosmic justice or what goes around comes around.

but it sure does seem like people are often responsible for their own downfalls.

[scaredyclassic]

personally i would never be mean verbally in any way to anyone. too easy for it to be perceived as a criminal threat.

that doesn’t mean I don’t think you shoudln’t be prepared to kill someone with your bare hands when necessary.

[scaredyclassic]

ps. when we die, neither your dog nor you go to heaven or continues in any spirit form. but it might be useful to believe you and your dog and your cat do. but…you don’t…i acknowledge i could be deluded in this actual, firm, completely certain belief. But I know beyond all doubts I am capable of conceiving that you do not. I dont have “faith” that this is a true stetment. I know it, in the sense that i know i am awake and eating yogurt.

[scaredyclassic]

are there things we don’t know?

almost certainly.

Most religions are not about that. They define G-d in a way in which G-d directly relates to human affairs in a personally interested way.

what’s the point o f worshipping something that is unaware you exist in any sort of interested way? you get nothing.

perhaps justa religion based on sheer wonder, humbless and a sense of our own enormous ignorance. But that wouldnt be very exicting and i bet the ecollection plate wouldnt fill up quick you could just take a walk and stare at the sky for the same effect.

all the religions we think of where people gather to worship someone who can change the courseof human events, based on all available historical evidence, is delusional. i dont mean that in a bad way. i think it’s useful to have all sorts of delusions, as some level of deludedness helps one get through life. might help build successful empires … i’m sure i am riddled through with delusions myself.

[scaredyclassic]

i guess it depends on what is appropriate. it does involve child rape by an african waroord and other touchy sexual issues, but all in a tasteful, menaingful way. I’d say it’s ok for 13 and up. but…i wouldnt rely on my opinion, becaus ei may be way out of the mainstream here. ive only read the script, and it was howlingly funny.

[Author]

Posts