*quality RIP national treasure

Matthew 6:19 "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal,
Matthew 6:20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.
Matthew 6:21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Let's look at the scripture in a little more detail:

Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

This scripture is at the tail end of a conversation Jesus had with a young rich man. The young man had inquired of the Lord how he could have eternal life. The answer Jesus gave was simple, "sell your possesions and follow me." In the rest of the scripture we see that the only requirements for salvation is a confession of Jesus as Lord and a belief that He was raised from the dead. So, why did the Lord give the additional requirement to the rich young man of selling all of his possessions? We see why in the next verse:

Matthew 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

This man, even knowing that Jesus could instruct him on how to attain eternal life, could not follow after the Lord because he loved his wealth more than God. This is what Jesus said in Matthew 6:24

"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

His riches were the stumbling block preventing him from following the Lord, and that is why the Lord dealt with it there. The Lord knew He was a slave to his wealth and could not bear to be parted from it, even at the expense of his eternal life. This is a reason why the Lord warned us in Matthew 16:26

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

Which is to say, that if someone laid all the wealth of the world at your feet, and you traded your soul for it, you would have made an unprofitable deal. The wealth of this world is perishing and will pass away, and we along with it, but those who do the will abide with Him forever. So, let's look on to what Jesus said to His disciples after the young rich man parted:

Matthew 19:23-26 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

You'll notice that Jesus only said it was impossible for men, but with God all things are possible. The problem with the young rich man was not his wealth but his heart condition before God. He wanted the gift more than he wanted the giver of the gift. When Jesus put his loyalties to the test, the true condition of his heart was exposed. There is nothing inherently bad about money, but there is something inherently bad about putting it before God. That is the sin of idolatry, and that is what Jesus is condemning, not money itself. Take Joseph of Arimethea for example:

Matthew 27:57-60 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus.
He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him.

And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb and went away.

Joseph was a disciple of Jesus yet He did not require Joseph to sell all of his possessions. Indeed, if he had Joseph would not have been able to provide the tomb that Jesus was buried in, ultimately fulfilling the prophecy about Jesus in Isaiah 53:9.

So, to conclude, what God is most concerned about is the heart. If your love for your possesions is what is keeping you from the Lord, He may ultimately require you to sacrifice them. I think is especially difficult for the rich man to realize his need for salvation because he is so self-sufficient. He believes he is in control of his life because his money insulates him from many of the cares of this world. He does not realize that his very breath rests in the hands of the Lord. He may not confess, as Job did, that his riches are all blessings from on High, and at the disposal of the Almighty to do with them what He may.

Job 1:21 And he said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD."

Not to defend the study which could be flawed as any study (and many are) but your analysis ignored a part that they did emphasize in this and the original experiment with children...strangeness.

They're not at home and they introduce the aspect of a stranger intentionally to play on the social constructs that we as humans use and are thus trying to understand in the animals we keep as pets.

Being in a foreign environment with strangers present is an automatic trigger for social animals (even adult humans will tend to cling to a familiar face at a foreign social gathering) and so if that social connection exists in a similar way between cats and humans one would hope to see it manifest itself as well.

I imagine if you did this with kittens and their mothers or vice versa you would likely see the results they were looking for. Which would beg the question: how different is the relationship between the cat family and the relationship of that cat to its human owner?

In the end I don't think people are arguing that cats don't care at all but instead when compared to the relationship between human/human and human/dog perhaps it is just not the same.

Would you argue that a horse, bird, fish, or snake can "love" a human as deeply as a cat? I've seen all of those show affection towards human owners. If not then what is the scale with which we measure an animals affinity for us relative to each other if not their intense desire to associate with us specifically as their owner?

I also find it interesting that I can't recall hearing cat owners point out a showing of affection by cats that we don't find in dogs although I HAVE heard of uniquely cat methods of revenge (jaws and claws being equal I've never heard of dogs using table tops to terrify cell phones and other treasured human items). So you could almost argue that if cats don't love humans more than dogs they may dislike us more than dogs in their efforts to devise methods of inflicting pain on us.

I'd also like to point out on a personal note that even in an adult human, if I took them somewhere and they walked away, watched me leave, then come back, all the while never knowing why we were there, with whom they're now left with, or if I was ever coming back....and the person didn't even care to greet me upon my return then I wouldn't exactly say that person cared about me at all much less liked me or loved me....just saying.
.

via Wikipedia:

Der Fuehrer's Face (originally titled Donald Duck in Nutzi Land) is a 1943 American animated propaganda short film produced by Walt Disney Productions and released in 1943 by RKO Radio Pictures. The cartoon, which features Donald Duck in a nightmare setting working at a factory in Nazi Germany, was made in an effort to sell war bonds and is an example of American propaganda during World War II. The film was directed by Jack Kinney and written by Joe Grant and Dick Huemer from the original music by Oliver Wallace. The film is well known for Wallace's original song "Der Fuehrer's Face", which was actually released earlier by Spike Jones.

Der Fuehrer's Face won the Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film at the 15th Academy Awards. It was the only Donald Duck film to receive the honor, although eight other films were also nominated. In 1994, it was voted Number 22 of "the 50 Greatest Cartoons" of all time by members of the animation field. However, because of the propagandistic nature of the short, and the depiction of Donald Duck as a Nazi (albeit a reluctant one), Disney kept the film out of general circulation after its original release. Its first home video release came in 2004 with the release of the third wave of the Walt Disney Treasures DVD sets.

You know what really annoys me? So-called theists that trample over the idea that "we don't know what happens when we die", as if it were something never before considered in western philosophy. Shadows on a wall. That's all any human can know. Oh, but the voices (or "feeling" of a holy/unholy spirit) of "god" in your head confirmed that they're real because they said so..!? K...

Does anyone else not see the inherent security risk here? How does a god truly interface with a human mind and authenticate its validity beyond all shadows of doubt? Oh, you just know right? As if you're the expert on human perception. If the concept of demons or Satan be real, perhaps there is only that. Have you considered? Of course not, devout theist, the clause exists for a reason -- do not tempt. Never question. Does this sound like freedom... or tyranny at work?

Maybe the voice of "good" is in reality bad. Perhaps all voices from other realms (should you wish to believe such a concept) are the voices and feelings from another world bent on conquering our own. You don't know and you're better off ignoring ALL of this bullshit. One man's god is another man's demon and thus it's safe to just assume they're all demons, should you even fucking ignorantly consider believing this nonsense.

It's the only rational conclusion that I can imagine which takes into account the inherent security risks between potential "linked" worlds, and in which relinquishes fearful self interest and acquisition of "treasures" in the after life (afterlife class war much?). It's like clicking on an insane URL in an email from Sender: "God" h__p:/godisreal.com/eternity?reward=/script%3E%123.45.69%mansion%in%the%sky/script%3E!YOURMINDSASLAVENOW. Would you seriously do that? You have no idea and you didn't even consider that belief could lead to damnation. It's just too easy. And what do we say about things that are too easy? I know what that means in this life, thank you very much.

Now you're hacked. Idiot. And you call unbelievers stupid and sad. For fuck's sake you can't even control your own mind's will to sync with the known patterns of security that we use for survival in this world. You think you're going to be safe in the next? You're ensnared and if you have an eternal soul, I HAVE PITY FOR YOU.

All we really know is that we don't know. It's not a revolutionary idea and in my honest opinion, if there is a life after death, then facing the ultimate fear of your own mortality is a challenge for true fulfillment of an undeserving eternity.

To believe in an after life without question is not to admit ones mortality. Admitting your mortality is a sobering and freeing concept. Again, I continue to feel pity for those whose minds are not free to process this.

That is truly great. Who knew beneath a kitchen floor one could find such a treasure?

Not as good as:



He rode through the streets of the city,

down from his hill of high,

O’er the wynds and the steps and the cobbles,

he rode to a woman’s sigh.


For she was his secret treasure,

she was his shame and his bliss.

And a chain and a keep are nothing,

compared to a woman’s kiss.


For hands of gold are always cold,

but a woman’s hands are warm.

Worldstarhiphop is a national treasure.

A TREASURE!

You and me both. To say i adore him wouldn't do justice to the depth of my admiration. He was a national treasure. I always wanted to own a piece of his artwork as well ... such a talent.

PS thanks for the promote [again] my friend

"HOLY CRACKPIPE, SMACKMAN!??"-To what does we owe such a generous importation of treasure particles? S'not like I hang out after startin' fires chasin' thrills....

✨ I thank thee from the bottom of my breeches for the energy skittles-You gotta real
heart o' golden. ✨

I think there is some definite hyperbole in your statement but I agree with what you've said on the main. Christians are called to be good stewards and we have largely ignored that command. As a former hardcore environmentalist I have a first hand understanding of what the tension is on either side. On one hand, the thought process behind the environmental movement is that this is the only Earth we have, and we must zealously protect its treasures because they cannot be replaced. Once they're gone, they are gone forever. On the other hand, the thought process behind more than a few Christians is that this Earth was given to us by God, and we have dominion over it. There is no reason to worry about destroying it because God Himself will be destroying it upon the second coming of Christ. The Earth will then be recreated and it will be overseen by God going into eternity.

These points of view are exactly contrary to one another and can hardly be reconciled. For the Christian, the tension the bible gives us is between steward and subdue. We are not only instructed to be good stewards, but also to subdue the Earth. Environmentalists hate the very thought of that and would prefer that human interference in natural affairs would approach zero. In the extreme of environmentalist thought, human beings are entirely expendable and should be culled until they do not significantly impact the biosphere. This is of course is entirely foreign to the mind of the Christian, who understands that the very point of the Earth is to be a habitation for human kind. Christians on the main are much more interested in the welfare of other human beings rather than animals and see animals as expendable. An animal has no eternal destiny spoken of in the bible, but human beings do.

As to where I stand, I care about animals and the environment. The issue of global warming is irrelevant to me; it's a doomsday scenario with no teeth. Even if it is somewhat true, it is not how the world is going to end. But I do care and so do many Christians. I don't think we should just run roughshod over this world and inflict undue suffering on creatures to exact some kind of profit. Rather, I think we should intelligently manage our resources and distribute them equitably. I think we could probably learn a lot from the Indians who managed to live harmoniously with their environment. On the other hand, I am not against drilling or logging or anything else that environmentalists hate, within reason. Unfortunately, human beings are not reasonable creatures; they are sinful and greedy to exploit anything they can for personal benefit. There is irrational hatred on both sides, and they are both being played by the adversary. I know people on the inside of the environmental movement and the infighting that goes on because of the gigantic egos and hypersensitivity is almost comical. Most seem to be in it for their own glory and they get in the way of anyone who actually wants to make a difference.

Christians should be setting the example but some of what you're dealing with isn't born again, spirit filled people, but apostate, carnal Christianity. Around 80 percent of the country professes to follow the Savior, but when you ask very specific questions like are you born again, justified by grace, etc the number goes down into the 30's. This isn't an excuse but it is the reality.

She'll tire of them soon enough then the owners may wish they'd parceled out the bounty one treasure at a time by gum!

Jenna Marbles is a National fucking treasure.

National treasure this fellow.