@alcom

I hear you shinyblurry, but I feel that your argument meanders back to the original appeal to authority that most believers resort to when justifying their positions. I also find that the related video links provided by TheGenk provide a valid refutation of the idea that God is The One who put values of good and evil inside each of us.

There is always an appeal to authority, either to God or to men. There are either objective moral values which are imposed by God, or morality is relative and determined by men. If morality is relative then there is no good or evil, and what is considered good today may be evil tomorrow. If it isn't absolutely wrong to murder indiscriminately, for instance, then if enough people agreed that it was right, it would be. Yet, this does not cohere with reality because we all know that murdering indiscriminately is absolutely wrong. The true test of a worldview is its coherence to reality and atheism is incoherent with our experience, whereas Christian theism describes it perfectly.

If you feel the videos provide a valid refutation, could you articulate the argument that they are using so we can discuss them here?

In my mind, Zacharias' incoherence with the atheist's ability to love and live morally is influenced by his own understanding of the source of moral truth. Because he defines the origin of pure love as Jesus' sacrifice on behalf of mankind, it is unfathomable to him that love could be found as a result of human survival/selection based of traits of cooperation, peace and mutual benefits of our social structure. His logic is therefore coloured and his mind is closed to certain ideas and possibilities.

The idea of agape love is a Christian idea, and agape love is unconditional love. You do not get agape love out of natural selection because it is sacrificial and sacrificing your well being or your life has a very negative impact on your chance to survive and pass on your genes. However, Christ provided the perfect example of agape love by sacrificing His life not only for His friends and family, but for people who hate and despise Him. In the natural sense, since Jesus failed to pass on His genes His traits should be selected out of the gene pool. Christ demonstrated a higher love that transcends the worldly idea of love. Often when the world speaks of love, it is speaking of eros love, which is love based on physical attraction, or philial love, which is brotherly love. The world knows very little of agape love outside of Christ. Christ taught agape love as the universal duty of men towards God:

Luke 6:27 "But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
Luke 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.
Luke 6:29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.
Luke 6:30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back.
Luke 6:31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
Luke 6:32 "If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.
Luke 6:33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
Luke 6:34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount.
Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.
Luke 6:36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

Indeed, moral foundations can and must change with the times. As our understanding of empathy, personal freedoms and the greater good of mankind develops with our societal and cultural evolution, so too must our standards of morality. This is most evident when concepts such as slavery and revenge (an eye for an eye) are seen as commonplace and acceptable throughout old scripture where modern society has evolved a greater understanding of the need for equality and basic human rights and policing and corrections as a measure of deterrence and rehabilitation for those individuals that stray from the path of greatest utility.

This is why slavery is no more, why racism is in decline and why eventually gay rights and green thought will be universal and our struggle to stifle the rights of gays and exploit the planet's resources to the point of our own self-extinction simply will be seen by future historians as sheer ignorance. Leviticus still pops up when people try to brand gays as deviant, even though most it is itself incoherent by today's standards. Remember that "defecating within the camp was unacceptable lest God step in it while walking in the evening." Well, today we just call that sewage management.

Some people, like Richard Dawkins, see infanticide as being the greatest utility. Some believe that to save the planet around 70 percent of the population must be exterminated. Green thought is to value the health of the planet above individual lives; to basically say that human lives are expendable to preserve the collective. This is why abortion is not questionable to many who hold these ideals; because human life isn't that valuable to them. I see many who have green thoughts contrast human beings to cattle or cockroaches. Utility is an insufficient moral standard because it is in the eye of the beholder.

In regards to the Levitical laws, those were given to the Jews and not the world, and for that time and place. God made a covenant with the Jewish people which they agreed to follow. The covenant God made with the world through Christ is different than the Mosaic law, and it makes those older laws irrelevant. If you would like to understand why God would give laws regarding slavery, or homosexuality, I can elucidate further.

In regards to your paraphrasing of Deuteronomy 23:13-14, this is really a classic example of how the scripture can be made to look like it is saying one thing, when it is actually saying something completely different. Did you read this scripture? It does not say that:

Deuteronomy 23:13 And you shall have a trowel with your tools, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up your excrement.

Deuteronomy 23:14 Because the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.

Gods home on Earth was in the tabernacle, and because God dwelled with His people, He exorted them to keep the camp holy out of reverence for Him.

The rules that God gave for cleanliness were 2500 years ahead of their time:

"In the Bible greater stress was placed upon prevention of disease than was given to the treatment of bodily ailments, and in this no race of people, before or since, has left us such a wealth of LAWS RELATIVE TO HYGIENE AND SANITATION as the Hebrews. These important laws, coming down through the ages, are still used to a marked degree in every country in the world sufficiently enlightened to observe them. One has but to read the book of Leviticus carefully and thoughtfully to conclude that the admonitions of Moses contained therein are, in fact, the groundwork of most of today's sanitary laws. As one closes the book, he must, regardless of his spiritual leanings, feel that the wisdom therein expressed regarding the rules to protect health are superior to any which then existed in the world and that to this day they have been little improved upon" (Magic, Myth and Medicine, Atkinson, p. 20). Dr. D. T. Atkinson

What's interesting about that is that Moses was trained in the knowledge of the Egyptians, the most advanced civilization in the world at that time. Yet you will not find even a shred of it in the bible. Their understanding of medicine at that time led to them doing things like rubbing feces into wounds; ie, it was completely primitive in comparison to the commands that God gave to Moses about cleanliness. Moses didn't know about germs but God did.

Paedophilia will never emerge as acceptable because it violates our basic understanding of human rights and the acceptable age of sexual consent. I know this is a common warning about the "slippery slope of a Godless definition of morality," but it's really a red herring. Do you honestly think society would someday deem that it carries a benefit to society? I just can't see it happening.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_Ancient_Greece

Cloaked Klingon bird of prey?

Agreed. Who is this Sir John Harrington motherfucker anyhow?
Hey, just because someone uses scatological humor cloaked in relatively unoffensive verbiage doesn't mean he doesn't enjoy the smell his own farts. Activism from the comfort of a residential mega-structure..with money to burn??

Stars are bored and their art provides little solace for their lack of real worth or intrinsic benefit to society as a whole...their activisms' a window into their ineffectual delusions of grandeur.

It's just as easy to cloak insults in devisive speech, your forte VooDooV-Your stance is clear, and yes, I launch into whatever the fuck I please (insults inferred) ,in the face of bullshit. Simpleton? Tell your mommy, have a dissenting opinion banned because your feelings were hurt??

Pussified.

It is an insult and a personal affront to me (the same to me as being called a cunt, prick, asshole,etc) to be accused of having no self-awareness. DO YOU??!! Do you even know what the fuck self-awareness is??

Your opinion noted, go fuck yourself.
How about for the cheap seats, you tell this retarded redneck what the goddamn "topic at hand" is.

Look man. I ain't no hater, and I recognize the dynamics of this issue and the passion of both camps. The infamous history I enjoy as a member here is fluid and tenuous and should this escalate into yet another, torch and pitchfork party for my ass, well....Go for it. Make it your fucking new project and more power to ya. Pick a violation of policy and run with it like a champ-

Isn't that the Negative Zone? I'm fairly certain it works like however Marvel wants it to work. Sort of like the Power Cosmic. Stupid review judging it as a movie outside the bounds of comic book conventions.

Comics are silly, convoluted, and prefer form over function:

1. Thor and Iron Man are required to have pissing contests.
2. Sunglasses and eye patches make people without super powers look badass.
3. Banner on a motorcycle is a good juxtaposition against his Hulky-jump-through-the-air travel form.
4. Loki is a conceited god so the Iron Man delay works -- didn't this reviewer. already assess that Loki was there to convert and not kill?
5. Of course CAPTAIN AMERICA just jumped from a plane. Idiot.
6. Did he just judge the movie according the Captain America's silly costume? Idiot.
7. No lap dance? He wants to watch the Russian dude give Black Widow a lap dance? I'm confused.
8. Bad guys running laps happens in... most action films with bad guys that need to fill in some time and guide direction visually. Reeeaaaally dumb criticism.
9. Plasma screens? You'd prefer to see a cell phone and then a split screen with 4 other people on cell phones? WTF
10. Loki's scepter is also a space phone??? My phone is also a camera, GPS, medical adviser, blogging tool, gaming device, and if I could download an app that performed mind control, I would. Loki is a god so he can.
11. The hellicarrier was created by Jack Kirby. Fuck you, this is an Avengers movie.
12. Sweeping cameras may sound silly, but comic book logic dictates that this is fine. Why not?
13. His criticism of little girls being able to find Bruce Banner is a criticism of our emotional attachment to the Gavroche, not the Avengers. Is the mystique of a street smart urchin gone from our collective unconscious?
14. Hawkeye's virus arrow is perfectly executed and makes sense according to his abilities.
15. Thor being easily tricked by Loki using low brow tactics is true even in Norse mythology. What exactly are we critiquing here?
16. Loki's objective in being captured is partly him being an overly confidant asshole god. He's just sort of going around half cocked because he can and likes to do so. The gods aren't smarter than us, just more powerful and with magical abilities that trump technology. In fact, this means they don't need to try as hard and would definitely be candidates in the personality disorder department. Hell, for all we know they could suffer from intellectual disorders that would never have become an issue (aside from making them stupidly violent) considering their power.
17. Hawkeye versus Black Widow is not cool? Damn.
18. Fury also gave an intimidating death stare in Jurassic Park when Nedry's "Ah ah ah, you didn't say the magic word" security screen pops up. HOLD ONTO YOUR BUTTS. I liked the half reference.
19. If you have trouble understanding the powers of Mjölnir, why do you also complain about the plodding exposition?! These things require exposition and it's so arbitrary that it becomes plodding. Comics are FILLED with plodding exposition because of this and there's a point where you just have to know the characters. Do they explain superman's laser eyes in the movies? Actually... do they?
20. Black Widow is a weapons expert, including theoretical weaponry.
21. In the comics Hulk learns to control his powers and can even be intellectual in said form.
22. The alien invasion would do more damage than a nuclear bomb. These villains enslave entire worlds.
23. The ending requires homework??? THE ENTIRE SERIES OF MOVIES REQUIRES HOMEWORK.


That being said, I agree with a good number of the points:

1. The tesseract was a rebranding of the Cosmic Cube which has a long history in the Marvel universe. (So I guess this movie was made for comic book fans?)
2. Well lit facility. There should have been some sort of cloaking shield around it, which is perfectly acceptable in a comic book world, if not the real.
3. Cap's bet. I don't believe Cap would have done that because it isn't just.
4. Speaking in English to Germans. It would have been cool to hear him speak in German. Damn!
5. Hawkeye's arrow fucking up the hellicarrier. However, I could see this happening in a comic book, I just don't like it.
6. Captain America's ear piece and bad aim.
7. Tesseract mind control wearing off after blunt trauma.
8. Cap's super powers are kinda lame in these movies, but I'm sure if they weren't, then this review would contain criticism about how his human fists can smash through metal.
9. The aliens are a pretty shitty replacement for the Skrulls. This is what makes me the saddest.
10. Imiatating transformers... this bugged the crap out of me when I first saw the trailer. UGH!
11. Thor's lightning must have a long cooldown.
12. Yeah, it was pretty lame when the aliens died after they were cut off from the mother ship. Inferior to the Skrulls fo sho.

Milkens' worthy of derision not for his ethnicity, but for his abject sliminess cloaked in a measly veil of philanthropy.
98 counts of racketeering and fraud back in 89'?? He's a chump who gives fuck-all for humanity.

Still on the Forbes 500 list which comprises mostly douchebag fucks.

I believe this topic is about downvoting and the purposes behind it.

I'm making my point and @shinyblurry is helping me prove it. The main thrust of zappa's post is about downvoting for ideological reasons and shiny is wrapping himself in the idea that he's "picked on" because sifters hate religion.

This is an untrue statement. regardless of the topic, people downvote you if you make a comment that's full of shit.

Shiny's own post makes the claim that he perceived that this site was full of anti-christian videos. I'd argue that this is yet another fallacy and probably just him projecting his own insecurities. Sure there are people here that are very anti-religion. But I'd argue that most people just want to call out the bullshit when they see it. I've argued on a few occasions that religion is not inherently good or bad, it's what you do with it that is good or bad.

I get that the sift wants to bring in a more diverse group, but make sure you're doing it for the right reasons. If you're just trying to be diverse for diversity's sake. Then it's already a failed venture. Because bringing in "token" groups just so you can cloak yourself in the veil of diversity has not played out well over the years in various venues and basically insults the people in those token groups because you're not bringing them in because they have something valid to say or because they can debate and communicate their viewpoints well, you're bringing them in just to fulfill a demographic.

We've had plenty of sifts where religious people DO have valid and thoughtful things to say that contribute to debate and discourse. Pick just about any topic and you'll find a sift both pro and con for it.

Doesn't matter if you're religious, atheist, liberal, conservative, X, Y, or Z. If you make shitty arguments that don't hold up, regardless of topic, you're going to get called out...period. This is the nature of the internet. As @Boise_Lib alluded to earlier, we've all been downvoted at some point and probably for good reason. Logic and reason doesn't discriminate

>> ^BoneRemake:

At least demand money or such from Zappa if you are going to rob his thread. Shiny has the right idea, take it elsewhere.

Leftest Raciest cloaked in the guise of comedy.

Stephen Colbert said it best in a video bit that I'll leave it to you to find, if you care, but I'll paraphrase.

The difference between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party is that the Tea Party has representation. OWS is a collection of individuals with no representation; individuals acting of their own accord.

Now as far as you saying the Tea Party not being offensive, well... I can look at the last minute of this video and see the list of things that I absolutely can show linked to the Tea Party and I find that extremely offensive and racist and even condoning violence -- close enough without actually pulling the trigger.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The simple fact is that neolibs want a bad guy to demonize. Neolibs and leftists in general are simple, shallow, and vapid - very much like Sorkin and his on-air wet dream that he calls a 'show'. To these narrow-minded creatures, it is unacceptable to see honest, well-intentioned, reasonable everyday citizens opposing their radical agenda items. The Tea Party as a whole has been inoffensive and has as simple, basic message: cut spending. They aren't racists, or violent. They aren't anything close to the Taliban. But truth and reality don't matter to blinkered neolibs who NEED... who desperately CRAVE a man in a cloak with a twirling moustache to hate

You're simple, vapid, and shallow. Are we having a dialog yet?>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Here's a quick quiz... Two activist groups are accused of being "astroturf". One is the Tea Party - which is accused of being a bought & paid for astroturf campaign of the right. The other is Occupy Wall Street - which is accused of being a bought & paid for astroturf campaign of the left.
Occupy Wall Street is guilty of documented cases of arson, assault, drug use, drug dealing, fraud, murder, public disturbance, rape, sexual assault, sedition, suicide, theft, vandalism, property destruction, bigotry, police harassment, and various other felonies and misdemeanors. The Tea Party is guilty of ZERO documented cases of any crime. Sounds like OWS is far more similar to the Taliban than the Tea Party.
The simple fact is that neolibs want a bad guy to demonize. Neolibs and leftists in general are simple, shallow, and vapid - very much like Sorkin and his on-air wet dream that he calls a 'show'. To these narrow-minded creatures, it is unacceptable to see honest, well-intentioned, reasonable everyday citizens opposing their radical agenda items. The Tea Party as a whole has been inoffensive and has as simple, basic message: cut spending. They aren't racists, or violent. They aren't anything close to the Taliban. But truth and reality don't matter to blinkered neolibs who NEED... who desperately CRAVE a man in a cloak with a twirling moustache to hate...
Can't these 20 million disenfranchised voters just pay 10 bucks or so to go get a photo ID that would allow them to vote?
That's not the point. A large portion of the so-called 'disenfranchised' are illegal aliens who should not be allowed to vote. Voter ID laws prevent illegal aliens from voting. Such a simple, common-sense law cannot be allowed by the liberal left as they'd lose out on literally millions of illegal alien votes. Protesting voter ID laws has nothing to do with "disenfranchisement". It has everything to do with preventing illegal voting activity - which all civilized nations do rigorously. I have to have a voter ID card to vote, and display an ID. It in no way disenfranchises ANYONE except those who shouldn't be voting in the first place. Everyone who should legally be allowed to vote already has all the ID that any ID law requires.

Here's a quick quiz... Two activist groups are accused of being "astroturf". One is the Tea Party - which is accused of being a bought & paid for astroturf campaign of the right. The other is Occupy Wall Street - which is accused of being a bought & paid for astroturf campaign of the left.

Occupy Wall Street is guilty of documented cases of arson, assault, drug use, drug dealing, fraud, murder, public disturbance, rape, sexual assault, sedition, suicide, theft, vandalism, property destruction, bigotry, police harassment, and various other felonies and misdemeanors. The Tea Party is guilty of ZERO documented cases of any crime. Sounds like OWS is far more similar to the Taliban than the Tea Party.

The simple fact is that neolibs want a bad guy to demonize. Neolibs and leftists in general are simple, shallow, and vapid - very much like Sorkin and his on-air wet dream that he calls a 'show'. To these narrow-minded creatures, it is unacceptable to see honest, well-intentioned, reasonable everyday citizens opposing their radical agenda items. The Tea Party as a whole has been inoffensive and has as simple, basic message: cut spending. They aren't racists, or violent. They aren't anything close to the Taliban. But truth and reality don't matter to blinkered neolibs who NEED... who desperately CRAVE a man in a cloak with a twirling moustache to hate...

Can't these 20 million disenfranchised voters just pay 10 bucks or so to go get a photo ID that would allow them to vote?

That's not the point. A large portion of the so-called 'disenfranchised' are illegal aliens who should not be allowed to vote. Voter ID laws prevent illegal aliens from voting. Such a simple, common-sense law cannot be allowed by the liberal left as they'd lose out on literally millions of illegal alien votes. Protesting voter ID laws has nothing to do with "disenfranchisement". It has everything to do with preventing illegal voting activity - which all civilized nations do rigorously. I have to have a voter ID card to vote, and display an ID. It in no way disenfranchises ANYONE except those who shouldn't be voting in the first place. Everyone who should legally be allowed to vote already has all the ID that any ID law requires.

Oh and yes, "vapid"...Facebook is nothing if not vapid....and apparent.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/investors-sold-stock-facebook-ipo-17049466#.UDS5bKNWIa4

Facebook phenomena has its roots in what sells to the masses.
Defend it against its detractors, oh user and supporter, and you may cloak some denial in the realization of its hold on you.
Support it, and you may indulge in a diversion which gives incredible power over your life to others, some anonymous, to many aspects and influences in your robotic existence.

Play well with others, and discover a brand new world of someone parked in a cubicle in Langley, Virginia knowing what brand of baby powder you like to use on Wednesdays for that special date....
THIIINK ABOUT IT!!??

It would be interesting to see if the authorities dared to arrest Assange if he was declared a diplomatic courier under Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Of if they dared to search a vehicle with diplomatic plates under the assumption that Assange is transported within.

We haven't had any decent cloak and dagger entertainment since the Iron Curtain went down. Better get some popcorn. >> ^Hybrid:

He still has to physically get out of the UK >> ^radx:
Small country, big cojones -- asylum granted.

>> ^kymbos:

This is fascinating. Is the fundamental religious critique of presidents focussed on their interpersonal behaviour because God is deciding on their policies and those aren't up for debate?
Maybe God is making Obama 'rude' to people too - should you be judging that?


The policies are up to debate, especially those which contradict Gods word, however the man himself should be respected. I don't have to agree with him, but I respect him because God put him there (and also because he is a human being made in the image of God). There is a good example of that from scripture regarding Daniels friends..you can see that even though they did not agree with the Kings policy, and were sentenced to death, they still treated him with honor and humility (because his authority was ordained by God):

Daniel 3:14-30

Nebuchadnezzar answered and said to them, “Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the golden image that I have set up? Now if you are ready when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, to fall down and worship the image that I have made, well and good.c But if you do not worship, you shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace. And who is the god who will deliver you out of my hands?”

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king.d But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.”

Then Nebuchadnezzar was filled with fury, and the expression of his face was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. He ordered the furnace heated seven times more than it was usually heated. And he ordered some of the mighty men of his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to cast them into the burning fiery furnace. Then these men were bound in their cloaks, their tunics,e their hats, and their other garments, and they were thrown into the burning fiery furnace. Because the king’s order was urgent and the furnace overheated, the flame of the fire killed those men who took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell bound into the burning fiery furnace.

Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished and rose up in haste. He declared to his counselors, “Did we not cast three men bound into the fire?” They answered and said to the king, “True, O king.” He answered and said, “But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”

Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the door of the burning fiery furnace; he declared, “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, servants of the Most High God, come out, and come here!” Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego came out from the fire. And the satraps, the prefects, the governors, and the king’s counselors gathered together and saw that the fire had not had any power over the bodies of those men. The hair of their heads was not singed, their cloaks were not harmed, and no smell of fire had come upon them. Nebuchadnezzar answered and said, “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent his angel and delivered his servants, who trusted in him, and set asidef the king’s command, and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except their own God. Therefore I make a decree: Any people, nation, or language that speaks anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins, for there is no other god who is able to rescue in this way.” Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the province of Babylon.

According to what Christ taught, a Christian who lives for his own selfish desires isnt a follower of His. Jesus made it clear:

Matthew 16:24

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me

The key words in this context being "deny himself". Christians are to die to self, and put God and other people above their own needs. There are many teachings on this:

Matthew 5:40-42 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well

If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles

Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Luke 6:35

But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked

Luke 6:28

bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you

James 2:14-18

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead

1 Thessalonians 5:15

See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone

Galatians 5:14

For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Hebrews 13:5

Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”

There are many such scriptures. Jesus wants us to live a life of service, to have a servants heart towards all people. He wants us to bear good fruit for His Kingdom.

I must admit though that I have borne some bad fruit on these boards, and specifically towards you. I made some comments towards you that I regret. I said some things which were extremely insensitive and uncalled for, and I am sorry for saying them. I hope that you can accept my apology.
In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
Oh shinyblurry, I actually agree with you there. I still dislike you intensely, but I must concede on this point. It is utter hypocrisy for people to claim to be Christian when they never engage in altruism.
In reply to this comment by shinyblurry:
>> ^Ryjkyj:
That really feels like the point to me. It could be argued that most of the scripture says it's OK to be rich as long as you are also godly. And I think THAT's what people really use as an excuse, while they brush aside the fact that Jesus repeatedly tells people to give their wealth away. Which a truly godly person would do without thinking. And not just 15% so they can feel good.

If you love the Lord and know that your providence is from Him, then I really don't see how you could sit on your wealth and not want to do things like, help the poor, house the homeless, dig water wells in Africa, etc. You should naturally want to do those things, and you would know that the Lord gave you the things you have so you could use them to benefit others. Scripture is clear that everything on the Earth belongs to the Father, and that no one can receive even one thing if it hasn't been given to him from above. I don't think a rich person who doesn't use His money to serve others could love God. It's okay to have nice things and everything, so long as you aren't putting them before the Lord:

1 John 2:15

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.