What Really Matters in Life?

Hmm, I an Canadian, but I certainly haven't gotten any of this free money lately. Or are you just making baseless generalisations?

---
Your mantra has been your opinions are stifled due to their contrary nature, when they are actually stifled for being without perceivable foundation.

My cmmments are that you present an interesting parable.

Any commments on this?

To further emphasize this fact Jesus continued, "Children how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 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.' And they were even more astonished and said to Him, 'Then who can be saved?" (v. 24). How hard is it for a rich person to enter into heaven? Well, how hard is it to get a camel through the eye of an needle? It is impossible isn't it. We too might ask, "Lord if that is the case who can be saved? Who then can ever enter into heaven?"

You can find out his answer for yourselves.

From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonbat">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonbat</a> : 
 
"This term has long been used to describe protesters on the political Left, but was originally coined to also describe commentators on the political Right as well as certain libertarians." 
 
"Lately the term has come into wider use appearing in political cartoons, political forums, and web-logs. In some instances 'Moonbat' is used, quite incorrectly, to classify anyone who disagrees with the Bush White House." 
 
Oh no, it's the pandemic we've all been dreading! See, I've got this minor case of skepticitis that often causes a mild rash when I come in contact with information from official sources like the aforementioned. I guess oughta get that checked out.

Can you please define the word 'rich' in today's context, seeing as how a rich person in Jesus time was not as rich as a rich person today (King Solomon excepted, even though he didn't live in the 1st. century).

From : Judith Moriarty <[email protected]>
Sent : January 9, 2006 4:29:58 PM
To : <[email protected]>
Subject : (RESPONSE ON RACHEL) I AM REALLY SORRY FOR YOUR LIFE - AWASH WITH HATRED

| | | Inbox

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment : THROUGHVIOLENCEYOUMURDERTHEHATER.jpg (0.02 MB)

Per your response to article written on Rachel Corrie:

Brian: I regret to inform you that, your obviously deeply entrenched; bias, prejudice, venom, and hatred towards greater mankind – mankind, that is, who do not share your embittered view of those you identify as “animals” – “damn Jews”- “socialist dupe”-“racist Palestinians”- “dimwitted progeny”; appears to be a condition of upbringing – programming by like minded haters – narcissist self – centered arrogance/superiority – a chemical imbalance, or undue influence by those you’ve chosen as ‘friends or acquaintances’? There’s an old saying, “Lie down with dogs and you get up with fleas”. Men aren’t born hating! A man suffering hardness of heart, and a seared conscience; due to his deliberate ‘choices’ of disassociating himself, with greater mankind is, in my opinion, indicative of the times. The Palestinian and Israeli citizen, are equal victims, as I perceive it; in the policies, objectives, and politics, of those far outside the public forum. They (we) are all victims (if we so choose), in just following orders; and perpetuating this carnage, slaughter, and vindictiveness, by those sitting in bunkers, gilded board rooms, barricaded summits etc; ordering the mayhem of the day – for their own unique purposes. I have no misapprehensions, that you will not continue on, in your venomous hatred, as it appears to be of long – standing? Rachel in her youth – ah youth, so idealistic in its commitment and beliefs – I am sure, never considered, that mindless - blind obedience; would see the end of her brief life – in trying to make a difference. Armchair critics, far from the front lines; of despair, degradation, chaos, poisoned wells, bulldozed homes, a walled land, checkpoints, bulldozed olive groves, and daily violence are hardly the persons, to stand in judgment and critique, of a whole people! Mockery, criticism, advice, insults, ridicule, and damnation are easy from a distance; most especially, if you have never suffered (Jew or Palestinian), days of blood – gore – and continual, oppressive brutal barbarism! You Brian, are the one person (thankfully – as this gives me hope), out of the numerous responses from Canada, the UK, U.S., Germany, France, Thailand, the Philippines, Switzerland, and Ireland; who has responded ( of all religions – non – religious - party affiliations – race) with such an annihilating attitude. Perhaps, just perhaps Brian, hatred of the ‘other’ is not the answer? At least, to date, with centuries of an earth, soaked with the blood, of those who’ve died for various causes, or suffered genocide – has brought us no closer to peace? Brian – it is never the man with one book who will be the catalyst for change. I may disagree with your observations, but I fully support your right to speak them – and think none the lesser of you. In fact – I feel a profound sadness for you – in that you have missed (thus far) the greater gifts of unconditional love, compassion, kindness, gentleness, joy, understanding and tolerance. But there’s still time - After all John Newton – one time slave trader, ended his days speaking out vehemently against slavery; and wrote the song, Amazing Grace. This could be you – let’s hope eh? JM

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Goulstone [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:44 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Rachel Corrie's Song Is In The Land
Importance: High

Judith,

Your simplistic veneration of that socialist dupe Rachel Corrie is asinine.

The fascist and racist Palestinians stand counter to everything the American

Left supports domestically: Freedom of (or from) Religion, Reproductive

Rights, and Universal Suffrage to name but a few.

I read Rachel's parents were nearly kidnapped in Palestine last week by

those same animals she, you, and they laud. I assume that was also the

fault of those damn Jews? Perhaps the Corries can sue the PA like they did

with Caterpillar.

I do agree in general with your assertion that their dimwitted progeny stood

up for her activist beliefs; however, her beliefs are nothing to be

commended and rather should be ridiculed. The real tragedy of Rachel Corrie

is that her parents, Evergreen College, and the "activist" Leftist community

let Rachel down with their lack of intellectual continuity and failure to

make clear that words and deeds have consequences. Rachel Corrie is no

hero; she died foolishly protecting a terrorist tunnel and a people that

would never tolerate her "activism" were it directed toward Palestinian

misdeeds. She is a propaganda machination.

---
Your mantra has been your opinions are stifled due to their contrary nature, when they are actually stifled for being without perceivable foundation

With all the money of the rich guy, you can have made a very huge needle. If it is big enough, the camel will fit in the eye of that needle. Then the rich guy will have no money left and he will be able to get in heaven and be saved.

Being rich defined by the sole possession of money and things is really shallow and does not at all represent a valid definition of what it means to be rich. The vast majority of people in this world are either poor or don't have any money. But most of those people have a happy life according to their definition. Like one said, being happy is not being up to your neck in deep shit.

There are lots of people in history that were rich (with money) and really unhappy. For some that lead to suicide... how happy can you be when you commit suicide. Lots of rich people commit suicide because they cannot think of living without money. How stupid are they? They should really lean from the third world and from those people living in remote areas.

If you are just being pedantic, then I will have to ask you to "define" the word "define" before I can "define" it.

Being "rich" in this context is defined as having great material wealth. How does is that different in today's context?

jessica is correct...she gladly, unselfishly donates her money to the feral government of Canduh which then decides upon a proper percentage to return to him and those who surround him. After paying for all the scandals, the inneffective health care system that covers no one for anything important, and furnishing the Desmarais/Chretien fam's estates, Martini's ships and the rest to La Francophonie, and a few upstart communist rebel groups and terrorist groups around the globe, tthen Jessica gets to have a percentage of what's left over (if anything) of her Communist/Socialist feral government's lavish personal/political/familial spending spree each year of her OWN money (eh)...damned straight she is...it's not anything more than HER OWN MONEY she gets back if she gets any back at all!!!

it just you...and me too...and it has ALSO gone waaaaaaAAAAAaaaayyy off course as well, lol!

>>>With all the money of the rich guy, you can have made a very huge needle. If it is big enough, the camel will fit in the eye of that needle.<<<

Simple: big needle, squashed camel, open those pearly gates babe...

It could be different, because today's common first world citizens, like Europeans, Canadians and Americans, for example, could have much more in the way of material comfort and resources than a rich person in Jesus time. So then, does that exclude one from the 'Kingdom of God"?

Way to "think outside of the box".

But how would you be able to share your material possessions of today with people of the past?

That was not what I meant. I meant that Jesus gave the illustration about the rich man having a slight or no chance, but some of us who are not considered 'rich' today, are rich by 1st. century standards. Does that mean that we cannot enter the kingdom of God?