search results matching tag: Plunder

» channel: nordic

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (19)     Sift Talk (1)     Blogs (0)     Comments (76)   

David Attenborough on how to save the planet

cosmovitelli says...

Unfortunately in an individualistic capitalist system the guy who's feeding his family by pouring shit in the river will fight you tooth and nail irrespective of what it means for the planet. Every other asshole is doing it why should he starve? This is why the more socially minded countries are the ones who can control themselves, as everyone feels they have a stake in it and they know they won't starve.. unfortunately the big rich countries are by definition plunderers running on greed and desperation.

newtboy said:

I have always contended that the issue/problem is not a technical one, we've had the technology to stop polluting the atmosphere since before I was born, it's the will of humanity to address the problem before it's too late that's the insurmountable issue.

I grew up in the Westboro Baptist Church.

newtboy says...

Don't most of you know that Christians are required to murder you if you don't worship properly, or try to leave Christianity?

How about Deuteronomy 17:
Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
Or Deuteronomy 13:
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.
Or Numbers 31, where God commands the Israelites to attack Midian and kill all the men, all the married women and all the male children but to keep the virgin females as the spoils of war and distribute them among the soldiers. The reason offered for that barbarism? Two Midianite women had allegedly “tempted” two Israelite men to worship other gods.

Christians consistently ignore the inconvenient parts unless they work to further their current prejudices. I've never heard of a Red Lobster or Gap being firebombed for selling shellfish or mixed fabrics, but gays..stone em, burn em, bomb em, and stone them some more over the same instructions they otherwise ignore. Mowing your lawn on Sunday is actually worse than homosexuality by my reading, but no one gets harassed for that.

shinyblurry said:

Don't most of you know,.....

paul4dirt (Member Profile)

Apple is the Patriot

Trancecoach says...

Au contraire, a patriot would not enable the State by funding its superfluous wars, banksters, and State cronies.

A patriot would do what he can to starve the Leviathan monster, not continue to feed it.

A patriot would help productive fellow citizens avoid the State's plunder altogether.

A patriot doesn't define "fair share" by whatever random numbers some self-serving politician and other government kleptocrats come up with. And only victims of the "public" education would think that patriotism is somehow equated with the desire to subject fellow citizens to such arbitrary theft extorted through violence or the threat thereof.

Daldain said:

A patriot would pay its fair share of taxes.

Connie Britton's Hair Secret. It's not just for Women!

gorillaman says...

@newtboy

I don't think I'm much in danger of contradiction in suggesting that you yourself have yet to crack a book of feminist theory or engage with a feminist activist making no more extravagant sex/gender claims that the one you quote from that unimpeachable source, dictionary.com (and when did dictionaries move from being an aid to understanding obscure words to the ultimate arbiters of political thought?).

There is no separating the movement from the ideology; this is an ancient truism. Without the movement, the idea dies. Without the idea, the movement doesn't exist. My unfollowable second paragraph comprises only examples of actual, nasty feminist doctrine which I have encountered in the real world, and could probably even document with a few google searches. I can hardly be blamed that this group is so dissolute, so indiscriminately inclusive of maniacs and criminal fanatics that no single representative feminist can be found, no central text can answer for the whole.

But for the sake of increasingly and inexplicably divisive argument, let's attempt to isolate just that 'small-f' feminism in the definition you give: "feminism: noun: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men", which I will unconditionally repudiate and abjure, for the following reasons.

i) Let's be boring and start with the name. A name that has rightly attracted much criticism, and which Virginia Woolf - not a feminist, merely a devastatingly intelligent and talented woman - called "a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete".* Anyone can see the defect here, an implicitly sexist term that apparently calls for the advancement of one sex at the expense of - whom? Well, whom do you think? A special politics for women only and exclusionary of those other incidental members of the human species, once allies and comrades and now relegated to the other side of what has become a literally unending antagonism.

You may say, "it's only a name", but how little else your dictionary leaves me to examine. No, were there no other social or intellectual harm in feminism, I would reject it on the ground of its name alone.

ii, sailor) Would that there were a known equivalent for the term 'racialism' that could relate to the cultural fiction of gender. The demand for women's rights necessarily requires that such a category 'women' exists, and is in need of special protection. Well what virtue is there in any woman that exists in no man? What mannish fault that finds no womanly echo? Then how is this distinction maintained except through supernatural thinking?

There are no women; and if there are no women, then there is nothing for feminism to accomplish. You may sign me up at any time for the doctrine of 'anti-sexism' or of 'individualism', but I will spit on anyone who advocates for 'women's rights'.

iii) This has been touched on before, and praise satan for that time saving mercy, but I reject the implicit assumption that there is a natural societal opposition to the principle of sex equality and that those who fail to declare for this, again, historically very recent dogma fall by default into that opposing force.



*The quote is worth taking in its fuller context, written in a time when the word 'feminist' was a slur on those heroes whose suffering and idealism has been so ghoulishly plundered for the tawdry use of @bareboards2 and her cohort:

"What more fitting than to destroy an old word, a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete? The word ‘feminist’ is the word indicated. That word, according to the dictionary, means ‘one who champions the rights of women’. Since the only right, the right to earn a living, has been won, the word no longer has a meaning. And a word without a meaning is a dead word, a corrupt word. Let us therefore celebrate this occasion by cremating the corpse. Let us write that word in large black letters on a sheet of foolscap; then solemnly apply a match to the paper. Look, how it burns! What a light dances over the world! Now let us bray the ashes in a mortar with a goose-feather pen, and declare in unison singing together that anyone who uses that word in future is a ring-the-bell-and-run-away-man, a mischief maker, a groper among old bones, the proof of whose defilement is written in a smudge of dirty water upon his face. The smoke has died down; the word is destroyed. Observe, Sir, what has happened as the result of our celebration. The word ‘feminist’ is destroyed; the air is cleared; and in that clearer air what do we see? Men and women working together for the same cause. The cloud has lifted from the past too. What were they working for in the nineteenth century — those queer dead women in their poke bonnets and shawls? The very same cause for which we are working now. ‘Our claim was no claim of women’s rights only;’— it is Josephine Butler who speaks —‘it was larger and deeper; it was a claim for the rights of all — all men and women — to the respect in their persons of the great principles of Justice and Equality and Liberty.’"

"Stupidity of American Voter," critical to passing Obamacare

enoch says...

so you agree with me yet still downvote my comment?
i thought i was being respectful by explaining my downvote,something i am under zero compulsion to do,at all.

and yet you go off on a childish tantrum and systematically downvote about 3 hours of content in my pque...in FIVE minutes! which can lead me to only one conclusion:
emotional reflex response to a negative analysis to a useless and irrelevant video you posted.

you do not understand why this is irrelevant?
i have to admit a certain embarrassment for you that i have to point this out,but ok,take my hand and i will walk you through it so you can better understand:

1.air contains oxygen
2.water is wet
3.everybody poops
4.politicians and governments lie

you had an opportunity here to reveal just how convoluted and deceptive the process had been perverted and corrupted.how back door deals and the greased palms of certain politicians helped fascillitate the passing of obamacare.

how big pharma and the health insurance industry spent 300 million in the first week alone to kill this bill.or how those very same politicians allowed a tax on that health care bill to remain in the bill.

you could have added context to what really transpired and the mafia principle was in full effect.government gets their slice and the health industry continues to be allowed to plunder the american people treasure.

but no.
you posted a 53 second video of a politician caught in a moment of truth.
a truth WE ALREADY KNOW,with the sole purpose of "look!see! governments are bad!

no context.
no backstory.
no nuanced information to give people a clearer picture on just how badly we are all being fucked.
just a 53 second prop so you can get on your soapbox.

so yeah..the video is irrelevant.

unless of course...you think everybody around you is a stupid child and needs you to hold their hands to reveal the underlying truth.if that is the case you have failed miserably.

well,i dont need you to hold my hand.i am quite capable of coming to my own conclusions.

i am becoming quite tired of your temper tantrums.so if my words have angered your tender sensibilities then feel free to go on another targeted downvoting spree..i really dont care.

@blankfist is a die hard libertarian.thoughtful and precise in his arguments (sans the farting cats),and you sir..are no blankfist.

Trancecoach said:

<agrees with everything enoch said>

Muslims Interrogate Comedian

Asmo says...

And in the same breath you could say that rampant military conquest created the modern world and drove scientific advances etc, but while the Muslims were pottering around the the Middle East, Spain/England/France etc were plundering the entire world. Lead by militants and the religious. Oh gee...

Your conclusion that the majority of Muslim's is as factually bankrupt as the assertion that "playing video games makes people violent". Millions of people are Muslims, but extremist attacks are relatively minor on the grand scale of things. Your casual causality is not born out by what actually happens in the real world.

coolhund said:

The vast majority of Muslims are Sunnites. Sunnites are the most militant ones with extreme standpoints. I am not saying that they all run out and blow themselves up, but they are ok with what their extremists do. Alevites and Shiites are much more moderate and what I would call peaceful Muslims, but they are only very few.

So it is factually ok to call Islam unhealthy. There was a time when it was not, for example when the Arabic world was leading in mathematics and medical science, but those times are LONG LONG gone, after the militants took over.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Climate Change Debate

Trancecoach says...

"But I also like to snowboard and camp and lots of other things where I need a 4wd."

Sure everyone has their "exceptions."

"The fact that it's less of a net negative effect than others in my socio-economic bracket is irrelevant."

Yes, totally irrelevant.

"business will continue a race to the bottom."

As well as all the individuals with their particular "exceptions."

"Unlike your holier than thou stance, I recognise that I am a part of the problem"

Haha, that doesn't sound like real contrition to me!

"If we are going to fix this, it will only be fixed by efficiencies of scale."

Good luck with that. In the meantime, enjoy traveling the world and outdoors activities. I do too.


EDIT: "I recognise that there is a problem, and I recognise that the solution is going to be incredibly hard work either way."

You're not going to do anything about it. This is all an abstraction to you. But, then, the rest of us already know that.

"I am probably among the worst in the world in terms of resource consumption. Unless you're dirt poor and living in the third world, you are too."

Yep. More reasons why those who most protest global warming are the least likely to do anything about it.

These debates are just "entertainment," to keep you occupied with nothing of consequence while you get plundered and beg for more. But, as you recognize, there are no "victims" but only willing participants. So maybe "plunder" is too strong a word. "The people" seem to actually like it. And that's their right.

ChaosEngine said:

<snip>

The Real News: Chris Hedges on The Pathology of the Rich

alcom says...

I don't think you're grumpy, radx. Granted, my posts tend to have that same ominous tone, in general so I guess I'm a grump too. If you really think about the scale of inequality today, the absolute plundering the ultra-rich enjoyed during the recent recession and the efforts to keep money in politics to perpetuate this cycle with brilliant tools like Citizens United, it's hard not to be bleak.

Unfortunately, what we like to call democracy simply does not have the teeth to affect meaningful change. I am encouraged by the relative economic performance from the list of countries that have scrapped first past the post (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation ) except for maybe Portugal, but even with more effective elections there is still an extra seat for the rich in every government.

Even more unfortunate will be the painful revolution the world will endure to either change from capitalism to some other form of economics (maybe resourced-based, a-la Peter Joseph.) If we don't simply slide obediently into greater and greater concentrations of wealth for the ultra-rich, we get closer and closer to revolution. But all it will take will be one upheaval to spur the revolution into action, be it:
- another, even more severe recession (maybe the EU will implode, taking the world economy down with it)
- severe global warming positive feedback loop from the arctic methane stores
- nuclear war

And who the hell knows what else might set people off. Maybe a solar flare will fry all the satellites in orbit and the lack of new tweets will create a world-wide frenzy of irate twats. And who knows when it will happen. Maybe 5 years, maybe 50 years. Since money pulls the strings, I think we're doomed to guess as to the source of VoodooV's "tipping point."

radx said:

Also, keep an eye on the island of bliss(ful ignorance) within Europe: Germany. We're heading straight for a grand coalition that would control ~80% of parliament, rendering all instruments at the opposition's disposal inert. Did I mention they also have the neccessary 2/3 majority to institute changes to our constitution? Fucking awesome!

George Carlin Segments ~ Real Time

chingalera says...

Here's the long-list from a famous -hacked-to-bits and otherwise forgotten document's grievance rider which seems a poignantly appropriate reason enough to want to shove a vote up someone's ass and rotate it:

Of King George:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Someone needs perhaps to revise the list and start hoarding ammunition and conscripting, because methinks the "vote" be fast-resembling, fuck-all. I don't vote and I am damn sure not going to be quiet any time soon...Average Joe and Jane voters have already effectively been "opted out."

A10anis said:

I have always said to those who say they do not vote because; "my vote doesn't count," or "what difference does it make," that they, like Carlin, should keep quiet. As good, or as bad, as our system is, "opting out" is childish, naive and dangerous.

noam chomsky-can civilisation survive capitalism?

enoch says...

@lantern53
your comment is so full of ignorance you should feel shame for even posting it.
disagree with chomsky is a fine position,many do,but to imply that he is not one of the most quoted and respected intellectuals on the planet is just plain stupid.

are you suggesting what america has is capitalism?
well then i submit that what america has in NOT capitalism but rather state-run capitalism or to be more accurate:corporate socialism

the problems with capitalism are well known,well understood and well documented.the problems america is experiencing now are only a mystery to those who are ignorant and rely on the sensationalist,propagandized corporate media which does nothing to inform them but rather everything to obfuscate the reality.
why? because the very corporations who steal and plunder the american working class are the very ones who bring them their daily dose of propagandized bullshit.
lap it up doggy boy...it will help ya grow into a proud and clueless corporate slave.

chomsky is a libertarian socialist.a position he has stated over and over.the problem arises when people do not even understand the terms he is speaking about,because you are correct lantern,words have meaning and one the precepts of successful propaganda is to change the meanings of words.

we need more people like chomsky who challenge the propaganda and indotcrination.people such as chomsky are not only vital but necessary.

disagree with chomsky's premise all you like but a ad hominems and straw man do not an argument break.

he could be a full blown anarchist who dabbled in black magic but it would not make his words any less true.
just because you do not LIKE what somebody is saying does not make those statements untrue.

where is the flaw in his argument?
what inaccurate statements has he made?
what historical references did he embellish?

please understand lantern i am not attacking you in any fashion.i am simply pointing out that chomsky's work has been rigorously combed over,his sources checked and vetted and found to be exceptional in their execution.

disagree with his conclusions but do so with facts,sources and a well thought out response.
knee jerk emotional arguments make you look ill-informed.

dr richard wolff-occupy the mind-challenging capitalism

shagen454 says...

I really do wish people would start talking about labor movements, communism, socialism or whatever. Just whatever. I'm so sick of the main dividing political issues being abortion, gay rights and shit that matters but are mute points in getting a real system that works for the people... the fucking working class. If the working class were empowered again you know that it'd vote pro-choice and pro gay marriage. Fuck the media owned by billionares. They are in power and they control the message and they want their conservative fantasy vision to be beheld by everyone so they can plunder every last penny under these bible belters... and you I included in that downfall with them. Fuck Democracy Now... SOCIALISM NOW.

Mourdock gets his ass handed to him by Righteous Woman

robbersdog49 says...

>> ^Payback:

This fucktard is OK with the idea of a God that forces someone to rape another?
Can someone look up the chapter and verse of at least one instance of God calling on an Apostle to "teach that skanky little whore a thing or two about respect"?


(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.


The language is a little different, but it's pretty much exactly what you asked for!

There are plenty more where that came from.

The Rape of Europa

legacy0100 says...

I may have to contest with that argument. Germans were the first modern nation to fully conquer and plunder its fellow imperial European power. But they weren't the first to be plundering in any exceptional level. I mean what qualifies as exceptional, really, when plundering basically means killing everyone and taking whatever you want? India and Egypt were considered non-white non-European nations, therefore safe to be exploited without much guilt. China and India were exploited to an industrial level too, but the Brits were focused on land ownership more than the artworks at the time. The artworks they just took from China without documenting anything because it was the 'conquer's right' to take from these uncultured savages without having to ask for it or give proper document. But France and Britain were of 'equal-stature' amongst European powers. They were 'SPECIAL'.

And there's also the definition of 'industrial'. Germans were highly organized and documented everything they did, which gives the impression that they were absolutely thorough and milked their subjects dry. But other European powers did the same exact shit to their conquered people, except they never provided evidence of their plunders simply because they were dealing with non-Europeans, hence they did not have to treat them fairly and take whatever they wanted without signing anything. They all did the same thing. There is no difference when it comes to looting.

The reason why there's such huge backlash against Nazi Germany is not only because of the holocaust, but because Germans were the first to break the invisible rule between the European imperial powers, in that they were n't suppose to treat each other like they did with 'foreign non-equals'. Nazis took European racism to another level and self-proclaimed themselves to be the 'best-white-people-of-all' and started treating their neighbors as inferiors. Nazis were 'exceptional' in the way that they were the first to break the unspoken rule between 'European superiors' by fully subjugating France. Germany fully CONQUERED France like they did with their colonies, and that was the main difference.

That's when all of Europe knew for sure that "okay, these guys aren't playing by the rules anymore." So I cannot accept the argument saying Germans were the first to loot in an industrial level, but rather the first to do it to a fellow traditionally 'superior' European people. Britain and France didn't do shit about the holocaust before the war. They sat and watched. It was when Germany treated France like a inferior colony nation that got Britain and France pissed off the most.

Mitt Romney caught with millions stashed in offshore banks

shinyblurry says...

Did you even read what I said? I said people should use their wealth to do the Lords work and help the poor. God gives people material blessings to do those things, but many are enslaved to their love of money and don't do them. I know exactly what the word says about money, and my statement matches it precisely. I am not a republican nor am I a gung-ho capitalist. The early church was very socialist, in that the members all sold what they had and shared the proceeds with eachother as they needed. I support that, but I also recognize that in a fallen world, without the hand of God directly involved, socialism can very easily become totalitarian.

>> ^Asmo:
>> ^shinyblurry:
That isn't an indictment against money, it is an indictment against greed. God doesn't care if you have money, but He does care what you use it for. He made Solomon the richest person on the planet. I think those who are rich should be using their money for the Lords work and giving heartily to the poor, so I do not support the aquisition of wealth for wealths sake. I think that is sinful. However, that is their choice, and it is not up to me, but it is between them and God.

Typical christian, thinks he knows what his god wants but ignores what he says... Just think about how much good works those stashed millions could be doing for the poor. Dare I say it, the 'God' conservatives put so much stock in is a gasp socialist...
"If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered."
-Proverbs 21:13
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."
-Proverbs 31:8-9
"No one can serve two masters. 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 both God and Money."
-Matthew 6:24
"Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'"
-Matthew 19:23-24
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'"
-Matthew 25:41-45
"He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker; whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished."
-Proverbs 17:5
"He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich--both come to poverty."
-Proverbs 22:16
"Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'"
-Matthew 19:21
"He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses."
-Proverbs 28:27
"People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."
-1 Timothy 6:9-10
"Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life."
-1 Timothy 6:17-19
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
-Ezekiel 16:49
"Rich and poor have this in common: The LORD is the Maker of them all."
-Proverbs 22:2
"He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God."
-Proverbs 14:31
"A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor."
-Proverbs 22:9
"Better a poor man whose walk is blameless than a rich man whose ways are perverse."
-Proverbs 28:6
"A faithful man will be richly blessed, but one eager to get rich will not go unpunished."
-Proverbs 28:20
"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern."
-Proverbs 29:7
"Wealth is worthless in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death."
-Proverbs 11:4
"Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court, for the LORD will take up their case and will plunder those who plunder them."
-Proverbs 22:22-23
"Do not wear yourself out to get rich; have the wisdom to show restraint. Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone, for they will surely sprout wings and fly off to the sky like an eagle."
-Proverbs 23:4-5
"Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless."
-Ecclesiastes 5:10
"A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold."
-Proverbs 22:1
"There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land."
-Deuteronomy 15:11
"Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have."
-Hebrews 13:5
"You evildoers frustrate the plans of the poor, but the Lord is their refuge."
-Psalm 14:6
"He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and He will reward him for what he has done."
-Proverbs 19:17
"A rich man may be wise in his own eyes, but a poor man who has discernment sees through him."
-Proverbs 28:11
"A fortune made by a lying tongue is a fleeting vapor and a deadly snare."
-Proverbs 21:6
"The wealth of the rich is their fortified city; they imagine it an unscalable wall."
-Proverbs 18:11



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon