Harlot

sooooooooo, what exactly did that have to do with anything? thanks for proving my point once again, buddy...

My point is that your post is nothing more than harassment rather than an attempt at serious discussion, and your have no point, just personal attacks and bigotry. Your attempt to save face by saying "you proved my point" is a failure and everyone in this community can see that your conduct is idiotic. You have destroyed your creditability..again.

This is the non sense that everyone see in your recent statement..."sooooo, what exactly did my personal attacks have to do with anything? thanks for proving my point once again". You responses is completely non-sense. In addition you act like you have an emotion attachment to me, since you obviously have taken my views personally enough to follow me thread to thread like a online stalker. You have already derailed this thread by throwing around personal attacks and trying to prove a point that don't exist. Maybe you should disappear now and save whats left of your chewed up repetition.

that is sooooo true and i am so glad not many think like you....oh.....even though i can see your logic. yea, the bare necessitites. food, and water. homeless people survive without even a solid roof over their head. heck, even the africans i was talking about in the other thread who lived in mud houses connected by black and darkened corridors live better than your perspective of what is actually needed.
you see, while other people have a realistic perspective, you have an unrealistic perspective. it's funny though. in the travel thread, you talked about how you would have liked to go to europe but your parents couldn't afford it. in this thread, you talk about how it would be wrong to accept any luxuries that would affect another person or nation negatively. that's ironic that you would say those two things and it's also a little hypocritical because ofcourse, you would state your racist viewpoints whever you travel and that would obviously impact other people negatively. not only do you give blacks a bad name, you would give americans a bad name if you were to ever travel to europe. but you have your comback that you used for the other guy to save you from any arguement. "we all have different perspectives". so as long as the majority believes in something, and you believe in something else, you would give yourself either the same credit or more credit for your own unrealistic opinions.

a pro ball player had the luxury of buying himself a ball when he was a kid. a priest had the luxury of attending a private school so he can learn more about religion. warren buffet had the luxury of saving the little money he had and turning it in to billions....later to becoming someone who would give his money away.

you know, i like to preach about something sometimes that other people aren't aware of. we are all born different and in a different way. what is in one person's nature, is not in another person's nature. when we don't do what is in our individual nature, we become unfullfilled and unmotivated. life doesn't see like it's worth living. we aren't born equal. we are born unique and DIFFERENT so to have ONE perspective that has to relate to every different and unique individual is a pointless arguement. so when i hear you say that the necessities are only only food, water and shelter and not even giving a second thought in to what is in someone's nature, i have to again say that your views are rubbish.

and while we are at it, can you more clearly define shelter and food? i mean, what kind of food? bread and water? or something to satisfy the basic food groups we learn in school? what about meat? i guess meat isn't a necessity since we can survive without it. do you eat meat? you know meat is one of the most expensive foods you can buy. are you willing to give that up for a cows life or are you not up for discussing animal rights and what is necessary for them without the thought of being plumped up and slughtered. and what is shelter to you? a house? an apartment? a cardboard box? please be more clear in your unrealistic perspectives so i can REALLY get a better sense of what you so strongly believe in.

i will be breaking this statement down in another post because all you stated for the basic needs is food, water, and shelter. not only that, you didn't include ANYTHING that even related to giving back the the general good or greater good. i am going to have fun with that statement. your viewpoints seem to change whenever you are in another topic.

It would be nice if you could stop harassing me. Your current conduct reflect that of a racially enraged bigot. Your reply is for the most part (except for the few parts pertaining to this thread) bigotry and reveals your childish irrationality, and you destroy your creditability with each and every post. You are an old man, and you should try to learn how to act your age. You sincerely remind me of a 15 year old girl who can't control her emotions, no offense. Perhaps this is why you were let go from the moderation team. You appear to have no self control, which is apparent by the way you have dragged conversations from else where (including other threads/chatroom) into this thread in order to formulate a personal attack. In a sense, you have derailed this thread completely. Get over my views and stop clinging to them as if you are emotionally attached to me (kinda like a stalker). It may be helpful for you to get off the computer for a while and work more on your own life.

I would continue and reply to the valid areas of your post, however, I will deprive you of that pleasure due to fact that you have not displayed enough maturity for me to believe that such a dialogue would be productive and void of further personal attacks (your attacks being motivated by views I recently expressed in other threads). In addition, as of now, I find it extremely difficult to care or even consider what you, an online person that I don't know, have to say. This is especially true due to what seems to be temper tantrums and inappropriate behavior that forces me, unfortunately, to take you less seriously.

your words speak for themselves thank you for proving my point

Great, we can leave it at that.

that is exactly what i am calling you because that is exactly what you are when you can generalize about whites and group them all together only stating the bad things about them. it's called racism buddy.
what is also suprising is that you don't have the religious views to even talk about who will be getting in to heaven and that is what you call a hypocrite.

also, half of what you even talk about isn't even about the topic title. i don't know what you call that person, but it ain't good.

I call it racist when a white individual refuse to realize the atrocities that some people of their race have committed. As Bikerman stated, it is undeniable, but yet we have some closet racists who deny it and hide behind the lie of progress. They not only hid behind the lie of progress, but they also toss accusations of racism at minorities (or coloreds) who point out the historical fact that minorities (or coloreds) have been oppressed and continue to be oppressed by a segment of white society today. This does not go without saying that some of the oppression lies with minority (or colored) leaders and segments of colored society. However, if it is racist to say that whites oppressed colored people and still do today, than I guess every knowledgeable black in the world is racist by your standards. If you want to hear all the good that white society has done, than maybe you should seriously consider joining StormFront (the white nationalist community).

As for my religious views, the definition of heaven is not static and differs based on belief systems. Although I am not religious, I am a spiritual individual. My definition of heaven is your soul being content with how you lived life upon death. Nevertheless, your actions of bringing my belief into this argument represents your childishness and bigotry. It would be like me pointing out your alcohol problem and how that relates to christian lifestyle. This should serve as a warning to any individual on this board dealing with you and your hypocrisy.

After watching a few of his videos, he seem a little crazy. He never shows his face or talks in the videos. Now that is alright when he is filming nature, but its kinda spooky when he video tapes his food or follows someone walking down the street without talking. He also video taped his kitchen with trash all over the floor, while in an earlier video it was clean with his tasty looking food on the counter. Kinda strange. It doesn't seem like he is doing it for popularity, but he only has two subscribers despite posting over 100 videos. However, maybe he just like video taping things. He may just be super creative.

That is not true, in my opinion.In today's world, especially in business and offices, cell-phones, laptops, cars, air travel, etc. are all necessitates.
I can't even reach my university if I didn't have a car (public transport isn't that good here).
But whether I use a Corolla or a Mercedes makes a difference (as I gave the example above).
Also, I need a cell-phone. So does my father. Whether we buy a Nokia N97 or a Nokia 5230 makes a difference. They are almost similar in terms of functionality but there is a huge price difference. So, if we buy a Nokia 5230 instead of a Nokia N97, we are limiting our luxury and still fulfilling our need.

We all have different perspectives and I can definitely see the logic within your argument. You seem to take an individualistic position. Meaning that different people require different necessities. While one person may not require a cell phone or lap top, such as a janitor, others do. However, I maintain the universal position. The idea that everyone can live with only food, water, and shelter, while everything else is a luxury. You can live without all those things. Even if your job requires you to have such devices, you can find another job. In fact, you can have no job at all and still survive as long as you have a tent and a way to garner food and water from nature. I understand that such a view is atypical in modern day society where no one imagine themselves surviving off the wilderness, but I guess that is just my take. But yours view does make a lot of sense in regards to a modern society I must say. It is logically well put together.

I find that the best way to learn is an hand on approach. Try starting your own website and fiddling around with an html templates. That is pretty much how I learned basic HTML. I found reading through page after page of html tutorials as pointless. Many didn't explain how to structure a website anyway. So I suggest that you just jump right into it, and try to figure it out first hand. Maybe you can use the tutorial sites as a guide. Html is so easy that pretty much anyone can learn the basics in a short amount of time. Its all about getting started. I use to use free builder websites and I was deadly afraid of HTML. One day I enabled HTML and ditched the free builder, and it was the best thing that I had ever done.

Nationalism is fine, but Nazi Germany was...well racist quite frankly. They believe in white superiority, blond hair and blue eyes (despite the fact that Hitler didn't have either). The Aryan race, you know. That kind of stuff. Its find to believe in nationalism and pride in ones country, but when it comes to believing one race is superior to another, that is dangerous. One race may be more advantaged then another based on social circumstances and historical events, but not based on genetics. As for the Jews, that had a lot to do with economics. Before Hitler came to power Germans were living in slums, must like the people of many African countries to day. Just like whites own the majority in African countries today, the Jews were a minority in Germany, but yet they owned everything. You know...Germany just couldn't have that, so they took the land and wealth from the Jews and pretty much killed them off slow but steadily. I wouldn't say that Nazi politics were good. I will say that the Nazi Party came to power at a time when the people of Germany, besides the Jews, were poor and ready for revolution against the rich (which were the Jews). Hitler came to power because of economic and social circumstances. He did fix those circumstances, but he went way too far. He attempted to wipe an entire group of people off the face of the earth and then proceeded to invade all of Europe. So to conclude, I will say that the Nazi Party served as a benefit to poor Germans in the short term, but that doesn't mean that he was good for Germany overall. Someone who would have been willing to make the economic changes, while not resorting to militarism and genocide would have been much better.

me too. i hate racism and i hate the people that promote it. yes. hate is a strong word but well deserving.... i am sorry you coulnd't provide any sources for your "facts". but like all racists, they don't have any. just a mind that was shaped and formed by their parents and other adults who want to pass on their demented thoughts before they die to the younger generation of lost causes.
you sure do write a lot for someone who was through with the conversation....

Are you accusing me of being a racist? Well I guess this is becoming more common in America so its not a surprise. After undeniably oppressing minorities for hundreds of years, and still today viewing them as subhuman, while at the same time exploiting colored countries of their resources, you can't really expect anything different other than minorities being accused of being the racists

The thing is that many individuals, such as yourself, wish to believe that race is no longer relevant when reality says different. You can even look over in Arizona and see how the illegal immigrants over there are being treated. Its not because they are illegal, but because they are colored. You don't see anyone putting a fence on Canada's border, which is where the border being used to smuggle drugs and terrorist into this country.

Even if you look at who the U.S. wages war on. Name one country, other than Nazi Germany, that the U.S. has bombed in the last 100 years that consisted of a white population. In fact, why did the U.S. drop a nuclear bomb on Japan but not Nazi Germany? It is widely known that it was become the Japanese were unfortunately not white. And still day, when I point out the exploitation taking place of colored people in third world countries, I am accused of being a racist. Its easy to people like you to accept the fact that colored people were oppressed by this country and in fact all white countries, but it goes against your belief to believe that colored people outside of the U.S. are still being economically and socially oppressed today by majority white countries. Since you accuse me of being a racist and making everything I say up, why have you not directly denied any of the things that I have said? Does telling the truth make me racist? Or does the truth simply hurt?

Racism is being prejudice against a particular race. What prejudgment of any race have I displayed? Everything I posted was based on an "action" that whites took. That is not a prejudgment. Racism also means seeing your race as superior. Where in this forum or thread have I expressed thoughts of racial superiority? If anything, you display signs of racism because obviously in your eyes your race can do no wrong and it is impossible (and you dare not research it) for whites still be oppressing colored people in the world today. However, even if I was unknowingly racist. What would be the cause of that racism? What would be the source of my hate? Could it possibly be hundreds of years of oppression placed on my colored people? Maybe it could possibly be the lynchings? Maybe the rape and pillage of my ancestors? Maybe the assassination of black leaders? However, according to you, the fact that I know these things mean that I am brainwashing by my parents to hate whites (who are in fact uneducated and rarely comprehend issues of race or politics). No I don't hate whites, but if one day I decided to, I would have a lot to use as a justification. Truth, not hate.

But that goes back to the "angry black man" belief. If a white person comes out and tell the historical truth about race (which every white teacher I have ever had did), its simply the truth or at most its a misunderstanding. If a black person comes out and tell the truth, he is angry, racist, and want to take down white society ...I can't stop laughing at the hypocrisy. Whenever blacks tell the truth about history they are looked at as some black version of Hitler (lol). I had this white teacher, who I came to strongly love, and she really broke racial issues down and told the truth. I hated when she moved away, she is now teaching in Georgia. But, she was right when she pushed forth her "angry black man" theory and discussed how blacks have to be careful when discussing sensitive aspects of history (they may look angry and be perceived as a deadly threat to white society lol).

But yeah, this has really turned into the typical denial of history and a game of throwing around the race card. Its kinda sad that a truthful and honest racial discussion can't take place in the 21st century. The white guilt has yet to vanish. That is no surprise though, the KKK and Black Panthers are still roaming around spreading messages of racial superiority and "my race can do no wrong" rather than truth. Yeah...the truth can sometimes move mountains and every now and then make them roar or fall.

But honestly, I should be talking about class rather than race. Poor whites are being exploited by the rich too (and the rich tend to be white). Although not nearly as bad, exploitation is exploitation.

HOWEVER, African countries need to start taking responsibility for themselves. The West is to blame for much, no denying that, but it is NOT entirely to blame for the massive levels of corruption in many African states. Neither is it entirely to blame for Mugabe's suicidal land-reform program that has essentially turned his country from a relatively prosperous country producing enough food for export, into a basket-case.

I agree. Too many opportunist filling their pockets with money and neglecting the poor. Their are many African politicians who have thrown the people of their country under the bus and they don't intend on dragging them out from under there any time soon. People tend to worship money rather than humanity. Sad shame.

I have absolutely no respect for anyone who thinks their lack of success depends on anyone other than themselves. If you aren't making $100 million a year that's your own fault -- nobody else's.


Edit : To take it further. Let's make an earning cap on resources.

Now we have no cars. We have no computers. We have no electricity. We have no beds. We have no (insert item here).

The whole point of inventing new things is to earn money -- otherwise what drive is there?

Instead of complaining about those who earn a lot, thank them for allowing you to live life the way YOU do.

It seems that you have little or no knowledge of economics. It is not "your fault" because you do not make $100 million a year. Based on your logic, anyone can do it when it is in fact economically impossible for everyone to do it or even for the majority to do it. It is a pyramid, and people remind wealthy by keeping others poor. If everyone had $100 million, then the rich would have $1 trillion, and the $100 millionaire would be equivalent to $10,000 a year in today's money. It is a pyramid, it is impossible for everyone to be on top without it collapsing.

So I am telling you that it is scientifically impossible for everyone to be rich. It is also scientifically impossible to have rich people, to the extend that we have them in the world today, without having poor people. The richer one person is, the poorer someone else is. If there is only $100 million in the world, and you have all of it, you are making me poor. I have no chance to have a $100 million, it is impossible because another $100 million does not exist.

As for the "no electricity" and "no cars" crap, who are you kidding? If all the wealthy people in the world disappear tomorrow, the world would go on. The only way there will be "no electricity" and "no cars" is if the poor disappear. You need to get it through your head that the rich don't give you electricity or cars. The poor people build the cars and maintain electrical lines, the rich just get paid for the work of the poor.

I agree, monotony surely does play a big role in the end of long term relationships and even short term relationships. I have found myself tired of a particular girl many times. Its like...its a fun ride at first but now the ride is getting kind of old if you know what I mean. I know that sounds cruel, but its reality. If I had to give advice to a female on keeping a guy and only use one word, that word would be "change". Don't do the same old thing. I can't speak from a female point of view because I am not a female, so don't take my comments as blaming the female. I am not a female so I don't know what causes them to end relationships. However, for males, we definitely get bored (or at least I do). It may not even be that he is bored of activities or events, but rather bored of you. Sorry, but it happens. This is especially true when it comes to sex (I am not speaking from experience, just the obvious ). Men have fantasies, and some of us will go to other women for our sexual fantasy to be lived out. That's why most women are given advice to get more creative with sex. Like acting like you're the teacher and hes the student, or like you're the girl next door (lol). Its more about thought than the physical aspect, at least as far as I can tell. A guy could be having sex with a girl and acting like you are someone else in his head (I know, sounds sick right lol).

I don't think the name "John" would go extinct simply because it is banned. What about those studying genealogy, who may run into thousands of "Johns" who are dead and gone. Will they just simply ban those people from being mentioned? Maybe your great great grandfather, which your family takes pride in, name is John. You can't ban a name, as names are not dictated by the government. For example, what about nick names? I know many people who are nicknamed "John". Do you think they will give up their nickname simply because there is a ban or law against using it. What will be the punishment for disobeying the law? Will you be fined for saying "John" or put to death? Even though I understand you were speaking hypothetical, I don't even see how the hypothetical you presented makes a point in regards to a name going extinct. As for your question on would I change my name to "John"...I sure would consider it if I could go back to when I was first born in change it. I have no problem with my own name, but I have a difficult time announcing it sometimes. People think that I am saying a completely different name. My name is simply, but I don't know why I don't articulate it like it is suppose to be articulated unless I really pay attention every time I say my name. I really wouldn't like being called anything else based on the fact that I have been called my name for almost two decades, but if I could go back to childhood, I would consider it.

Data entry workers are increasing in number everyday. It is estimated that a at least 40 million individuals work at home. Experts believe that prospect for data entry homework will be sunny in the years to come.The increases in number of data entry workers are credited largely to the Internet. The World Wide Web has created vast opportunities for many individuals, including professionals, to stay at home and work at the same time. http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Fifty million people is not a large number when you take into account that there are about 7 billion people in the world. On top of that, all 40 million are not working in data entry. The ones that are working in data entry tend to be living in third world countries and work for very low wages, which means that the field is limited for those living in industrialized countries. You have people doing data entry these days for $1 an hour, and in some places that is more than you would get paid at a real job, so that works out fine for them. As for me, an individual who live in an industrialized nation with inflated cost, I would rather keep my day time job until I can find a more sustainable way to work from home rather than competing with people accepting $1 wages or less.

First you may want to submit your website to Google in order to speed up the process of you being listed. You can submit your site to Google by clicking here. Most likely, your website will eventually be picked up whether you submit it or not, but it is definitely easier for newly opened sites to simply submit it and therefore there is no guessing about when your website is going to be listed. I would also have to suggest that you read up on SEO and keywords. The primary thing that you should be focusing on is content. Instead of just focusing on guides, transform your website into a place that writes on a wide range of tips, hints, and strategies that can be used to succeed at the game. Write post on effectively trading or building skills. You know, cover every aspect of the game and brainstorm on particular problems that you faced when you first started playing.

The thing is that you need to write good content and have them keyword solid. From visiting the site, there are great guides, but it still looks like the site just began. I see only a few guides, and you could literally write hundreds of guides regarding Runescape. Assuming that you started the site not too long ago, don't expect to be high up on the Google search engine any time soon. Give your site time to move up through the SEO world. Good Luck.

Most of the users here are getting 2$ mycents no matter how lengthy or short they post. Plus it's general observation that you can check that only number of posts are checked here and that shows it's manual update. Why will new mycent will reward less for longer posts if it's running right now (or working as most of people are saying)?

Not sure if this observation is true, and I sure hope you don't get less MyCentos or none at all for speaking out (lol). It sure seems like the updates have been slow. I am not sure about the last few days or part of this week because I have not been posting and active. I bought my domain and I am tasked with posting in two communities now, this one and my own. I do usually post pretty long post, but since I am new here I am not sure if I am being given my fair share or not. The first two payments I received were $2, and then I received $11 on the third payment, and then about another $2 on my most recent payment. The latest payment I received, I only posted about two or three lengthy post. This is opposed to posting about 10 short to medium length post when I got my first payment of $2. So I am pretty sure that post are being judged on more than just the fact that its a post. Its possible that it is being done manually, but value of the post can still be determined when doing it manually. It just means a person is using their judgment rather than a software basing it off of characters.

Firstly, I disagree with the definition all together. If you say that luxury comes after needs & wants, there would be no such thing as luxury. If you want fifty billion dollars, under your definition, that would not be a luxury. I will copy the definition from Princeton University's online dictionary in order to start this reply off as unbias.

 

Luxury: something that is an indulgence rather than a necessity

 

So, by my definition a luxury, and I am speaking from a materialistic stand point, is anything that is not necessary for you to have in order to live. The only thing that you really need to live is food, water, and basic shelter. Everything else in life, believe it or not, is a luxury. Everything else that we have is based on our desire to be comfortable rather than our need to survive. I am the first person to support a limitation on luxury. My position is that whenever your luxury effect someone else basic needs, than your luxury need to be limited. My position applies on an international scale, meaning that if the people in one country have luxury that effects the basic needs of the people in another country, than that luxury ought to be limited. However, I will speak from a more understandable and apolitical perceptive in order to keep from unintentionally derailing the conversation. If you are a parent, you have the right to go out for entertainment, buy alcohol, and blow your money on women as long as the kids are feed, the bills are paid, and any other cost that effect the family are covered (toilet tissue, soap, etc). If the kids are not being feed and the bills are not paid, then your luxury need to be limited or done away with all together.

 

Luxury should be the result of excess time and resources. If there are not excess time and resources, than there is no luxury (or ought not to be). You would have to be a sociopath to go out and buy an expensive new sports car despite having nothing in the house for your children to eat, and having a foreclosure notice on the door. I tend to believe that the same should apply on the international level in regards to taking exploiting resources from other countries (even though we can survive without them).

 

Nevertheless, I always turn to the serenity prayer, which goes, "God give me the serenity to accept the things that I can not change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference". We have to accept that fact that people tend to care about their own pocketbook and well being rather than the well being of others. It applies to everyone, so as much as I usually throw the blame on the rich, I can't do that and still maintain logic. Even some of the poorest people on earth have the goal of getting all they can get. People are sociopaths when it come to money. For example, Bayers, the company that make the drug aspirin, knowingly sold an HIV infected drug to hemophiliacs patients in Asia & South America after it was rejected by the U.S. FDA for that very reason. Bayers not wanting to lose money, dumps it on the poor Asians and Hispanics, which resulted in many deaths by HIV/AIDS virus.

 

Here is the source:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bayer-sold-hiv-risky-meds/

 

People will do the most immoral and unethical things for the sake of money. A person once told me that they think I would sell them out for $100,000. That let me know a lot about them. It means that they would sell me out for $100,000 and assume that I think the same way that they do or cherish the same things. Perhaps I could be misinterpreting this person because they didn't tell me directly, but they answer a series of questions about online friends and then the online friends could view the answers (This was a RL friend though, who I happen to talk to online too). They could have been making a rational determination based on society's love for money and the actions that they have taken in the past out of their love for money. Anyway, You can also look at the guy who is running for President of Haiti, Wyclef Jean. I don't know a lot about his character or personality, but he has been accused of embezzling $400,000 which had suppose to go to Haiti's relief efforts.

 

The fact is that it is likely that greed will always exist and effect the lives of society. We simply have to have the wisdom to know if it is something that can or can not be changed in our lifetime. I am currently approaching the conclusion that it is a problem that we will have to live with.

I would choose college, but that's just me. I mean, if you enlist and join the army it sounds quite exciting, I just wouldn't want people to die. It's a sad thought but then again soilders help our country, so it's basically their job. Your story seems pretty sad and I'm sorry you went through all of that. Referring to your second paragraph, I would also feel weird in that situation. I mean, living with your friend's family? Well, good luck.

You don't necessarily have to die if you join the military. There are positions behind the front lines, and even if you're on the frontlines, the U.S. is not currently in a military to military war. There are deaths, but its not like WII or Vietnam where the war against against a government or organized, government back militia rather than scattered terrorist (supposedly). I think the military is a fantastic option if its for you. Especially if you are joining the army or air force, you have to know how and be willing to kill. I don't think the military is for me, not because I am not willing to kill, but rather I may forget whose side I'm on.

I usually speak openly about most issues despite it being politically incorrect, but I have a like of sensitivity for the military and I try not to say anything negative. Not because I support the institution, but rather the soldiers (even if I disagree with the purpose). Its probably more of a sympathy thing rather than national pride or governmental support. Because the fact is that the majority of soldiers don't know what or who they are fighting for, although many think that they know. I will leave it at that. But yes, I believe the military is a great route if you learn your way through the ropes and you believe it is in your best interest. People usually say that college isn't for everyone. Although I disagree and believe that if you can graduate high school, you can graduate college, some people simply have no desire to go to college and their decision shouldn't be the business of anyone else. You can find success in the military, just as you can find success in college. You simply have to play your cards right and have a long term plan. If someone enter the military, they should know how long they are going to be there and what they intend to do after they leave. If someone doesn't plan to retire from the military (meaning you plan to stay less than 20 years), you need to save your money and get ready to invest it in a business or something that can sustain you after-wards. Since soldiers don't have to pay any cost of living (at least for the most part), it shouldn't be that difficult.

You may have to simply create a new twitter account. I have never found the need to use twitter, but I don't discourage others from using it. I just never really needed a place simply to post short messages on what I am doing. I do post messages on facebook, but facebook can be used for more than just thats. But anything, I suggest that you delete the account and start another.

well you just got under my skin now because that thinking is part of the problem in the united states you know...the racist comments? it's not so much that you think everything your read or hear is true, it's the fact that you can talk specifically about all the negativity of white people without being 1 bit objective. you might as well talk about the whites in the united states who pay mexicans from minimum wage to below minimum wage to work in the hot sun picking strawberries or apples all day or how we surpressed blacks so much that we leave them no choice to rob a liquer store to feed their suppressed families. asians own a large portian of the united states but you don't see me saying that asians are going to have a hard time getting in to heaven....hahaha
so you don't need to travel to know what is going on in the world? you know, i really didn't expect a better answer from someone who is so biased in their thinking. now you are comparing kenya to south africa??? come on you can do better than that. but i am sure glad your true colors came out before i was being mislead in to thinking something different about you.

continue on with your anti white talk. i have very few words for racism here...especially for someone who doesn't think he needs to travel and experience to have an original opinion.... especially in a thread that is talking about who is going to have it hard getting in to heaven.

one last thing. i just commented on a friends facebook about "live aid". you don't even know what it is without googling it. and even if you google it, you wouldn't be able to know what it really was because it was before you were born. i saw a couple black people contribute to the cause, but the majority was ALL WHITE. you wont be reading any of that in your history books but it doesn't mean it didn't happen. i guess if what your saying is true, that whites control 70% of a whole continent where the only whites you usually see are tourists, then i guess we are giving people a pretty good education and putting money in to a country that wouldn't normally be there.

maybe you can have a discussion with rpg about how the poor are too lazy to better themselves. but in my opinion, you both are fools and let's be honest....if white money wasn't flowing through african contries, africans would not only be dying of starvation because they don't believe in any sort of birth control, but they would still be living in their tribes in mud houses and mud corridoors that some still live in today because they CHOOSE to. not becuse they are being surpressed by the whites haha

you keep talking about how negative the whites have been on a whole continent. it's not the first time a black man blames the whites for so much control and destruction of their race.

also, you posted again without giving sources for your racist comments. i will still be waiting for your sources of information....

I am pretty much finished with this thread because it has degenerated into nothing more than denial and the discussion of things that are irrelevant such as travel and Google. What you thought of me. And all this other crap that has nothing to do with the topic. Its actually becoming insulting to my intelligence. You have refuted none of my claim, which are all true, except for accusing me of being negative towards white. It is either the truth or a lie. If the truth happens to be negative than that is something that white society should work on. If someone says something about black on black violence or hip hop, it may be negative, but its true.

As for "live aid", why would someone want crumbs when they can get the whole cake? They don't want your aid and pity, they want their land. Its amusing how someone can take the lands of a people and then try to relieve their guilt back starting some aid program to provide them with food, water, and health care. How about getting off their land so that they can provide for themselves and not have to rely on your handouts. I have nothing against "live aid", especially if its a provide organization. A lot of people have good intentions, but their efforts should not be used to justify what has been done to people over in third world countries, particularly Africa.

You say that if white money was not flowing through Africa they would be staring. No, if white would give them back their land they wouldn't be starving. If I put a gun to your head and take all your money, your home, and every thing you own, then you should not praise me if I visit you while you're living in a box and buy you dinner. I will say that I can buy my own dinner if you give my money, home, and every thing I owned back.

As for birth control that is a cultural thing. That is one problem that Western culture tend to have. They (or we) refuse to accept the cultures of others, and anything that differs from their culture is considered primitive. Lastly, you have to ask yourself why every continent on this earth, except for that big piece of ice called Antarctica, have been colonized by whites (if you have not ordered the invasion of a country, I am not talking about you)...literally occupied by military force. Do I need a source for that too? North America, South America, Africa, Asia, and Australia. In fact, Australia was actually occupied by blacks and they were almost wiped out completely (like Native Americans).

In conclusion. The biggest problem I have is people refusing to accept the truth and blaming the victim. I don't care how uncomfortable or "racist" the truth is. If a particular race has committed atrocities, then you need to try to improve that race, not blame me because I spoke up about it. Also a lot of times comment are mistaken for generalization, but I really don't have the energy to speak in a racially sensitive or politically correct tone. If you are not oppressing third world countries, then I am not talking about you, just the country that you live in and some of your people. If someone says that a lot of blacks are in jail, I would be ignorant to accuse them of making racist comments or generalizing. A lot of blacks are in jail and they are referring not to all blacks, but blacks who are in jail. If someone get bent all out of shapes about that, its because they refuse to accept the truth and cast blame on the individual telling it.

wow. according to your statistics and assumtions along with truefusion's beliefs.....it's not the rich that will have a hard time getting in to heaven. now it's the whites? hahahahahaha! this conversation is getting funnier and funnier. where are you getting those statistics and where are you getting information that whites are corrupting other countries so harshly that the natives have to dig in garbage cans? i want your resources.
that's like me saying blacks will have it easy finding their way in heaven if it's true people find god in jail. because when you look at the percentage of blacks in american compared to whites and compare the percentages of whites and blacks in jail, you'll notice an imbalance. but see....again....if i were to state that, i would only be showing my own ignorance. i just used those statistics as an example of how people can be so blinded by the truth.

First I would like to point out that what I state is not an assumption, it is fact. The idea that the vast majority of Americans don't know that European decedents and western corporations own the majority of the land not only in South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Zimbabwe, but in fact all of Africa. That truth is in no way absurd or funny. If there is a hell, yes, I believe that those who are pillaging third world countries of their resources will be some of the first people there. The majority of those pillagers happen to be white, if not all of them. However, this is nothing new, Europeans & white Americans have a long history of exploiting third world countries so this should be no surprise to you. People act all shocked when they find out that this stuff is still going on in the 21st century. As I state before, about 73% of the land in Zimbabwe is owned by whites, but yet whites account for only .03 percent of the population. When the leader of Zimbabwe attempted to redistribute the land, which was in fact stolen by the ancestors of those who currently possess it, the U.S. and Britain placed economic sanctions on Zimbabwe which only lead to further suffering. There is no way that we can have it both ways. If an individual or group of individuals do something wrong, it should be pointed out no matter what their race is. If it makes someone else of their race uncomfortable then that is just too bad.

Despite my discomfort regarding the status of my race in many areas of society, the facts are the facts. If someone says that prisons are packed with blacks, that is a fact. If someone say that blacks have by far the highest rate of STDs, that is a fact. I don't attempt to hide the flaws of my people or distort history. I may point out social and economic inequalities that could be a contributing factor, but the fact still remain that the end of the colonization of Africa consisted of pulling out militarily while maintaining ownership of the land. Therefore colonization never really ended. Military occupation ended, but not colonization. Kinda like when we pull out of Iraq, our companies will still own Iraqi oil fields despite the fact that the oil fields were taken by military force and never really owned by the U.S. and British corporations that are not pumping oil from them. Therefore if 30 years from now those oil fields in Iraq are passed down to the grandsons of the current stock holders of Exxon Mobile, BP, and Shell, they really have no legal basis to argue ownership of those oil fields if the Iraqi government decides to nationalize them and turn them back over to Iraqi owned companies. This is because they truly never owned it in the first place, it was stolen.

also, you claimed in anothe thread that you haven't even traveled out of the south or even past the borders of your own state. how much can you really possibly know first hand about things unless you believe in everything you hear or read? i have been to africa btw. they don't seem to be hurting or "poor" unless by their own choices. they have universities there and they have places where the small schools would be lucky enough to have enough pencils to go around and who live in mud huts and caverns they built themselves. your statistics may be correct. i don't know, but when i went to kenya and tansania, if those two countries are 70% white owned, it was SURELY not shown in the population. believe me. blacks are the majority as far as population. that was clearly shown. in fact, white people were scarce or they were hiding somewhere where i surely didn't see the abundance.
i know maybe three weeks in two countries isn't much time to know exactly what goes on, but i do know that countries like give GREAT credit for their gains through tourism. something you failed to mention in your statistics because your thinking is not balanced. and why is it that when i went there and would get personal with the locals, they actually claim to love whites? i know the answer to that as to why. do you? i wont answer right now only because i see it pointless to make this topic in to some sort of racial argument about who is getting in to heaven easier. also, i am smart enough to know that problems aren't due to any ONE thing.

First I will make clear that I could never leave my city and still know what is going on around the world. I don't have to fly to Africa when I have a massive amount of resources right in front of me and two libraries close by in order to research these issues. Secondly, I never stated that whites were a prevalent in Kenya or any other African country. I said that they own the majority of the land. The fact that whites own the majority of land in places such as Kenya, South Africa, and Zimbabwe can't be too much of a shock to you since less than 20 years ago a small minority of whites controlled South African political, economically and socially. I am sure that you know about the South African apartheid. People still don't understand how a small minority of whites were able to oppress a large majority of South Africans. I guess they also don't know how one white slave master was able to control hundreds of black slaves.

As for them loving whites, I am sure that they do. They allow them to control 73% of the land when there are barely any of them living in the country. They must love them a whole lot to allow such an atrocity. However, at the same time, a person can never justify hating all people of a particular race because of the actions of a few. So despite the fact that they are currently being oppressed by whites, that doesn't mean that they have to drink from the fountain of bitter hate. But they should know the truth and speak it when necessary. Just like the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, why didn't Martin Luther King hate whites? People tend to think that when ever someone points out wrongdoings, they must have hate in their hearts. I speak the truth based on my love for my people, not out of hate towards others. Neither do I speak the truth in order to persuade you or anyone else, but rather to defend those who are not here to defend and speak up for themselves (or are simply too ignorant of the truth to speak up). So whenever the lowly and poor is spoken down upon, I will tell you why they are lowly and poor. And that includes poor whites, Hispanics, Asians, blacks, Africans, and all the other poor people of the world that I can relate to and that are being exploited by the rich elites.

Insensitive no. True, yes.

Granted, in some instances when you are down and out, it is a lot harder to find ways to pull yourself up out of the hole you've fallen into, but it is possible and can happen if a person has the will power, and the determined spirit to improve their lot in life.

 

And I do get rather tired of hearing how the rich are exploiting the poor people in third world countries. If I was to become rich, (not likely, but always a possibility) it would be because I worked my very own little butt off to become that way. My rise to the top would not be because I sold baseball gloves sewn together by some poor starving child. I exploite no one in the raising of dogs. And for those children that are sewing up ball gloves. Are they ot getting paid? Is someone holding a gun to their heads and making them work? Can they not find a way to use the money they do make to better themselves? I would certainly think they would be better off than those who did not have a job at all.

 

But anyway, to the original topic, I suppose it depend on how you got rich. What you have in possesions doens't have a single thing to do with whether or not you go to heaven or hell. It all depends on how you got rich. If you did it cheating people or stealing it or commiting other crimes like drug dealing I figure your pretty much out of luck. I'm not even sure if what you do with the money you make plays a huge roll either. Even if you give to charities and anti up when your churches collection plate passes by you, that's no great guarantee. I don't think you can buy your way into heaven. If you donate, but still act like a jerk, hurt people, are mean and unfair in your dealings with others, all the money on earth isn't going to make you a saint or buy you a ticket to heaven.

 

Will power and determination has nothing to do with it. What family you are born into has everything to do with it. I don't understand why the concept is so hard to grasp. If you are born poor, you usually die poor. If you are born rich, you usually die rich. These are simple statistics. People tend to dismiss truths that are uncomfortable for them to accept. Furthermore, you rise to the top has everything to do with little kids making baseball glove in sweatshops. You have the opportunity that you have based on the suffering of others. That is a fact.

 

And as for someone putting a gun to their head to force them to work, they have to eat, that is why they work. If you live in a country where all the resource are hoarded by white western capitalistic, who deprive the people living in those areas control of their land and resources, you would be working for $10 a week also. Furthermore, your children wouldn't be able to go to school because they have to work in order to keep food on the table. You don't have to live under those conditions, so you refuse to understand. You rather believe the lie that you have more because you work hard and smarter, but as I said, the truth uncomfortable and inconvenient. You don't know what hard work is, seriously. There are people who work 15-16 hours a day and still barely can afford to eat. By your reasoning, perhaps they should work harder.

 

The money that they do make is spent on living. You seriously don't understand how things work in third world countries, and their are actually racial undertones in those operations. The fact is that Western whites own the majority of land and resources in third world countries and they wish for it to stay that way. In Africa for example, when the armies pulled out, the whites kept the land and they still have it today.

 

South Africa - Whites own 90% of the land (As of 2007)

 

Kenya - Whites own 73% of the land (As of 2003)

 

Zimbabwe - Whites own 73% of the land (As of 2003)

 

Lets note that some if the figures may be a little different now since the first link is from 2007, and the other two from 2003. Its now 2010, so the numbers may be slightly higher or lower based on land reform and other factors that may have taken place since. In Zimbawae, whites make up about .03% of the population, but yet they own 73% of the land. That is insanity. Imagine if Africans owned 73% of the land and resources in the United States and they gained it through colonization. It simply wouldn't be tolerated, especially if the resources from those lands are being shipped back to Africa instead of fueling the economy in the United States. Eventually the children within the U.S. would be digging through trash and working in sweatshops ran by Africans if such was tolerated.

 

Every country should have control of their own resources, and use those resources to feed their own people. It should not be used to give you or any other outsider advantages and unequal opportunity. You can deny the facts all you want, but the facts stand alone and all the rhetoric about people being about to achieve based on determination is nothing more than baseless propaganda and denial. I will leave you with a quote.

Man has always sacrificed truth to his vanity, comfort and advantage. He lives by make-believe.

~W. Somerset Maugham

 

Thanks for the heads up, however, I am kind of dumbfound on why anyone would want to phish Xisto accounts. It doesn't really make much sense, what are you going to do with the account? It seems pretty pointless to me. I could understand the idea behind phishing paypal, ebay, or rapidshare accounts. You know, accounts that are materialistically valuable. People are getting more and more ruthless everyday it seems, and are phishing accounts simply to cause destruction. Its not about the money anymore, its about simply being devilish and vandalizing without logical cause or reason.

ah it's good to be back here after a long time and the main reason i left was because of the mycent system. i recently heard that its back and now when i see this thread with people doubting its return, i'm not entirely sure whether or not i should relax yet i will try to stick around, though. the new forum looks much better than the old one and it seems to be more friendly too. so i'll go and fire away some replies and hope that my account is credited soon

H.O.D, welcome back. The MyCent system is working, but it updates extremely slow. So far it has not updated in like an entire week or at least it has felt like an entire week. Someone suggested, I can't remember who, that the MyCent is currently being updated manually based on post count due to the small number of dedicated users that at currently at Xisto. I don't know if there is any truth to that, but admin has not really updated us on anything. There is definitely a lack of communication. I understand that the admin have really worked hard, even though this one issue continues to plague this community, so I am really indifferent on where to direct my feelings and frustrations on the current situation. However, I can only imagine how those who have spend hours upon hours, posting hundreds of thousands of post may feel. Anyhow, I how you stick around and once again welcome back

This may be very insensitive but I feel 99.9% of the poor are there because they don't want to do what's required to rise above it.
I know WAY too many people who went from having so little that they were BELOW the poor class, where they had to work 3 full-time jobs just to even live in a house with no electricity or water. Yet all of them ended up rising above it due to WANTING to and almost all of them at the peaks in their careers were making over $100k a year on their own (not including spousal income).

I've yet to see anyone who wanted to succeed that didn't. The problem is people are too happy living their lives without change.

You can dispute the above all you want. I've seen it true in every single case so far so I'm not looking for reinforcement or acceptance of the fact.

I hope someday you'll stop believing such a outright and blunt lie. It is indeed a lie and it is a lie that has been pushed forth for quite a while. People are not poor because they want to be poor, or because they are too lazy to work hard enough. Who do you think are the hardest workers in any country? It is poor people. Poor people are the ones who have the jobs that are the most physically hard and stressful. The poor work the longest hardest, but the least pay. Who wants to work harder to less pay? To say that poor people want to be poor is an insult, as I live in the inner city and I see people working hard every day trying to make ends meet and yet they are financially at a stand still. To say that these people want to be poor, or are not working hard enough to uplift themselves is a delusional lie that is pushed forth by those who have no understanding of poverty and have never lived in poverty a day in their life. For every person you know who went from poor to making $100,000 a year, I know 20,000 that didn't and it was not based on them being happy with their status. No one is happy being poor, that is the same lie that slave owners push forth. That slaves were happy being slaves. The same lies with different names.

If you have never seen anyone who wanted to succeed and didn't, I wanna know what world you live in. Earth is not the place where everyone who wants to succeed accomplish that goal. Certain people are born with social disadvantage that prevents them from succeeding. It is easy to see why someone would think the way you do, as our educational system is modeled to push forth the "American Dream" lie. After 12 years of being instilled with that lie, its depressing to find out that the American Dream is nothing more than an American Nightmare for most.

Then we have to look outside of America, which is even worst. Do you believe those kids on TV digging through trash want to be poor? That they can't rise above poverty because they are not willing to do what it takes? They are poor because of corporate colonization and the exploitation of their natural resources by countries such as the United States and Britain. Therefore instead of their natural resources being used to generate wealth in their country, it generates wealth for Americans and the British. When an American or British corporation own all the oil fields and gold mines in a third world country, who do you think will be rich and who do you think will be poor? Why do you think America was so much against Communism? It was because Communism means that American companies would lose control of the massive resources in third world countries, as those resources would be naturalized by that country's government and used to feed the people within those nations.

I did say 99.9% because there are a few, very few, who are unable to care for themselves. Those people I agree we should help.
As for other countries having less than the U.S. I have no idea how that's possible. Most countries have been here longer than us (not even 250 years) and yet we've surpassed almost all of them and become a world leader. There is nothing that was keeping any other country from doing the same. So again, we should not be dragged down because *we* wanted to succeed and they didn't. Everyone makes their own choices; being lazy should not be rewarded.

You have to ask yourself why the United States has surpassed those nations in 250 years. It sure isn't because we are better, smarter, or superior. However, of course this is what the propaganda placed in the average history book tell you. The truth is that it is possible because we are willing to use military force in order to advance our economic welfare. Well not even "our" economic welfare, but rather the economic welfare of rich capitalistic. The same capitalistic who run sweatshops in Thailand.

You have to understand the country that you live in and not be blinded by lies. The United State and European countries have a long history of oppressing other nations by taking over the nation through military force, place all the resources in the hand of Western companies, and then withdrawing the military force and keeping those resources in the hands of U.S. and European companies by threat of force. Even after the colonization of African and South American ended, U.S. and European companies maintained control over the resources of those countries and used them in order to increase their own wealth. Therefore these countries can not use their own resources for their own development and enrichment. Even if you look at Vietnam, it was not about Communist alone (although Communism did end U.S. and European control of Vietnam's resources). It was about the natural resources within Vietnam, particular rubber. Look at Iraq, we invaded with the excuse of nuclear weapons and terrorism. Whose companies are in control of Iraq oil fields? It sure as hell isn't Iraqi companies. People need to pull the wools from over their eyes and understand the truth behind wealth distribution and poverty.

So the quick answer is that U.S. is richer because it controls other nations resources through capitalism, and uses force to maintain that control.

Finally, I have been thinking of books that I could suggest that you read so that you can better understand the truth. You should start with a book called "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James W. Loewen. It is well sourced (pretty much every paragraph is sourced). This way you can read researchable fact rather than take my word for it.

Also, just for clarification, I do not believe in the idea that rich people can't go to heaven (if in fact there is a heaven). I have no problem with people being rich, as long as they recognize the truth and stop putting blame on the poor in order to relieve their own guilt. It is also fine to have two legs, but don't say that the guy with one leg doesn't want two or that he has one leg because he won't work hard enough.

There is something named pride. If a guy hits you in the face you have to attack him, less you have no opportunity or you life will have risk. But you don´t have to treat to the bad guys well, I think you are totally bad with this declaration because we can´t accept abuses from another person and respond to these abuses with "good treating" you are totally wrong. We all have pride and we are no dogs to be the slaves of somebody. I think that you are some "abused-guy" the nerd who supports all the abuse in the classroom or the guy who support all the abuse in the neighborhood. The cristian religion said that you have to put the another cheek but you are maybe wrong to let to other people to abuse you in this way. You have to attack and you don´t to be the sheep who is abused by all the world.
Please don´t fall in those mistakes dont treat the bad guys well. Treat them like they deserves.

I don't know about pride, but I think its called being a man. I know many people will disagree, but I am a strong support of self defense. In order words, violence should be met with violence. A lot of the educated and liberal minded (not that I am or am not liberally minded) people within my community disagree with my stance, but I don't believe in turning the other cheek when you're under attack. If someone knocks you over the head with a bottle, you find a bottle and knock him back over the head. I do agree that there are circumstances where non violence is necessary, but that is usually only so when you are leading others and encouraging violence will lead to more than just your own bloodshed. If you are leading people, you have to take their welfare into consideration and ask yourself if taking the violence route would be worth the cost.

However, I strongly believe in self defense...yes armed self defense. I truly believe that non-violence is only effective when the cameras are rolling and the oppressor is a radical segment of society. It encourages the centrist and non-radical pacifist to get stop being pacifist and speak out. However, if there are no camera around, non-violence is not going to stop you from getting beat down in the streets. You can sing negro spiritual all day, change won't come until you are willing to strike back and pose a threat to the individual or group attacking you. There are two ways to create peace if I am beating you down everyday.

1) You can be non-violence in full view of my friends, family, and associates, and thus persuading them to put pressure me to stop.

2) You can strike back to the extent that I believe that you are willing to die and take me with you.

The quickest way is obviously number two. And in many case your family, friends, and associates will turn a blind eye even when you are doing wrong. They will just say, "hey that's not my business". This is why you have so many women being abused, but yet their boyfriend or husband's friends and family don't say anything about it despite the fact that they know. During the Civil Rights Movement, there were two different efforts going on at once. There was the non-violent movement and the self defense movement. The fact is that people were calling Dr.Luther King a Communist and accused him of attempting to overthrown American until people Malcolm X came along. The black militancy and counter-racist tone coming back black America scared a lot of people. You had people such as Malcolm X talking about "if America doesn't come around, we gonna burn it down" and he had the following to carry that out to a certain extend, even if it would have ended in defeat and slaughter.

The same applies to someone individually harassing you. The more you fight back, the less likely you are to be targeted. When I was in 4th grade, I use to get into fights every week with the same guy. However, I noticed that people respected me for standing up for myself. He didn't just target me, he picked on everyone in the class who he thought was weak. Eventually he stopped messing with me because he knew he was in for a fight...win, lose, or draw. I have always held that mentality. As I grew older I attempted more so to avoid conflict through diplomacy, but once it turned physical then I defended myself by any and all means. When you are defending yourself go on the offensive until the threat is neutralized and don't be afraid to lose and be just as quick to fight the same person again. The person you are defending yourself again can only respect that, you eventually you'll be left along. Every person I have ever fought, as far as I can remember, has befriended me after the conflict.

I am not downing non-violence, I believe people have to decide their own approach. It is something that someone else can't decide for you. Every situation is unique, and you have to make the decision on what is the best strategy to solve the conflict and bring down tensions. There have been times when diplomacy has worked and has been effective, however, every time diplomacy worked the person knew that I was willing to fight. It was more like I am willing to take peace, but I don't mind going to war. The smaller you are, the more you have to make it known that you are capable of defending yourself and that everything is a weapon. Diplomacy is even a weapon. It gives you time to examine your surroundings and see what can be quickly picked up and used to turn the tides, while positioning yourself to get to it unnoticed.

I want to be rich, because almost only the rich people can make the great changes in the world. And all the people who actually are no rich and make great changes in the world end up being rich. So this phrase exposed by Jesus said that is a sin work a lot in something because for example, if you work a lot seeking the cure for the AIDS and you discover it, you will not be poor never, because the world will be in doubt with you and you will be rich.
So what do you think the rich people can go to the heaven or not???

You don't have to be rich to do great things. I will have to disagree with that. In fact, I believe that being rich works toward preventing you from doing great things. People are rich because the poor, especially those within third world countries, are exploited and denied of their livelihood in order for someone living thousands of miles away can drive a nice car and live in a house bigger than they need. So what happens is that the rich create a false image of greatness, such as singers, celebrities, rich politicians, and etc, who in actuality did little or nothing for the good of mankind. On the other hand, those who really stand up for justice, and for equality are shot down in the streets or thrown into a shabby prison cell. Greatness if being willing to give up your life for a cause, not exploiting the poor and then contributing a small percentage back in order to make yourself look like a humanitarian. If you take my cake from me, and then leave me a few crumbs, I am not suppose to be happy or grateful because the whole cake was suppose to be mine. That is pretty much why you see children in third world countries on your television digging through trash. It is because 1% of the population has hoarded 90% of the wealth. This means that everyone could have a middle class life if it wasn't for the billionaires, both public and private (known and unknown), who have in their possession more money then they can spend in a lifetime.

I think you're taking it out of context. Keep in mind that in biblical days there was no "money." Riches were made by enslaving others and forcing them to do your work for you, or by killing others and taking everything they have.
Being rich in todays' times is nothing like that. Now you can be rich from thousands of different jobs. You can even become a multi-millionaire if you have a $45k a year job (such as a police officer). So claiming people who are rich won't make it into Heaven doesn't really make sense.

Now in the terms of those days, I completely understand where it's coming from. It would be comparable to drug dealers today. Stealing from others and killing others to take all of their stuff is definitely not condoned by the Lord.

I don't know if it is taken out of context of not, however, people have a history of removing or putting forth their own interpretation of parts of the bible that threatens their lifestyle or the way of their society. If this one verse applies only to the 500AD, then what other parts of the bible does not apply to us today? Could this mean that the entire Bible could in fact not apply to modern day society? I simply don't believe in having it both ways. You either believe in the Bible and its entirety of you don't. If I believe that a section of a book is inaccurate, then I tend to question the credibility of other parts of that book. However, it seems that it has been made alright to ignore one part of the Bible and then condemn sinners for violating another part. If you are rich and the Bible says that you are going to have a hard time going to heaven, well now you know how homosexuals feel, as you are on the same boat now...plain and simple.

As for being rich honesty, it is not about how to get it, its about why and how you have the opportunity to get it. How does it effect the lives of others that you have a disproportionate amount of wealth? Lets image that this forum was a real community, meaning in real life. We are the only people in existence. There are 20 of us. In total, there is $20,000 worth of wealth (meaning goods, resources, etc). If 2 people have $19,000 out of the $20,000...the other 18 are going to have a hard time eating. In fact, eventually, the bottom 18 are going to be working as cheap laborers for the top 2 and therefore making them richer and themselves poorer. If you apply that ideology to billions of people who live on earth, you can see clearly why children are digging through trash over in Africa, South American, and Asia. You will also see why Communist countries rose and the working class revolted against the top 1%, taking their wealth away and putting it into the hands of the people.

I just find it a little ridiculous that rich people would have harder times. *anyone* can become rich by not wasting money. So the religious meaning behind the scripture quoted before means "if you don't spend all of your money you'll have a harder time getting into Heaven than someone who saves up for things they want instead of wasting it?"
It just doesn't make sense.

Not to mention look at the leader of any major church. They are *all* rich, with mansions and nice cars. Yet they do nothing but preach about Jesus/God all day, everyday. Again, I find it hard to believe that they are punished for their money.

I guess I'm clearly missing something here. I feel if a job offers you $1 million a year to work for them you shouldn't be punished for accepting it. If you spend the time and effort learning the trade (think about those who go to school 16 years for their profession) it shows they are outgoing and persistent. I highly doubt God sees that as negative.

My first comment will be that a lot of religious beliefs don't fully make sense, however, it is insincere to accept part of it as true, and then discard what goes against your lifestyle. People tend to do that these days. They ignore parts of the Bible that are depressing and they dismiss it as a mistake, misinterpretation, or a deeper message that can't be understood. Secondly, "anyone" can not become rich, that clearly displays a lack of understanding for the lower class of society and the people that the Bible claimed that Jesus represented (the poor, oppressed, and lowly). There are people who work their entire life, save every dime that they can spare, and are still poor at death. This especially applies to those living outside of Western countries. However, it also applies to the poor within Western countries who are technically poor by birth. And despite popular belief, the majority of people on earth die in the same social class that they were born. The majority who are born poor, die poor. The majority who are born rich, die rich. The majority who are born middle class, die middle class. There are exceptions, but the exceptions are irrelevant.

Also, I believe that you have a very narrow view of the historical causes of poverty. In fact, I actually know that you do based on your comments here. If you get a job offer for $1 million dollars, you are not the average poor individual who finished college. In fact, it is almost certain that you have a rich family who were able to send you to the best schools and give you the best education from birth. The million dollar offers are given to Harvard and Yale grads, not affordable universities. And although rich children have an educational advantage, they don't typically go to these wonderfully expensive schools because they are smarter, but because of their wealth. Many have bribed their way to a 4.0, believe it or not. Then they bribe their way through admissions if necessary. As for the hard working 16 year old, what makes him any more hard working than a janitor who has worked sun up to sun down for forty years? How is that 16 year old contributing anything more to society? Why does he deserve a better life than the hard working janitor? Simple because he has been trained in a skilled profession he should make more in 1 year than a janitor makes in his entire lifetime? Seriously, who really worked the hardest here? Did Warren Buffet or the Walmart Family work harder than the single parent mother who has to hold down two jobs simply to make ends meet, and has been doing so for 7 days a week for the last 20 years? Serious, people put brain power too far above hard work, and that is a bad bill of goods. The working class, which is the majority, contributes more to society than the rich who claim that they deserve so much. It is the labor of the working class that creates wealth. We can send all of the rich people of the world to Mars and society would go on. Try to send every working class citizen to Mars, the economy would collapse and the rich would have to get off their butts and do real work.

As for the religious leaders, they are exploiters. I have nothing against religion, but in many cases it is used to exploit the poor. I've heard pastors tell the congregation, consisting of very poor people, to give to God (the church) even if it means not paying their bills and God will make a way for them to pay their bills. The pastor stuffs his pocket with money and continue to praise God at the alter. People don't think the same, we have to understand that. Some people wouldn't dare insincerely praise God and use it as a way to scam people, while others, many who don't even truly believe in God, can't find any other profession so they become a pastor. And anyone can become a pastor, really. I have seen prisoners become pastors and then use their life story as a way to show God's power (God turned my around blah blah), and then stuff their pockets with money on the way out of the church.

Thin about it. If you go to New York, you will see churches with ceiling trimmed in gold while outside of the church there is nothing more than poverty and slum. Why is that church spending money on gold ceiling when they could be feeding and clothing the poor? Why do they need to build a church that takes up the whole block when people are nearly starving? The culture of corruption. That is your answer. Even the pope, why does he have all this luxury when people in Africa, Asia, and South America are digging through trash? Why does he need all that if he is a man of God and is here on earth to do the work of God? I have no problem with religion, but it should do what it promise to do. I am very much in touch and support the teachings of Christ even if I differ on certain fundamental beliefs, however, if you say that you are doing the work of Christ than you should do it.