BRACE YOURSELF - invasion on November, 2020

[corrector]

What is lust, do you think? The dictionary simply lists it as strong sexual desire, but I think it's more like sexual desire without taking into account the target as a person. Wanting to use someone for your own sexual pleasure without regard to them or their feelings.

Lust is also not necessarily sexual. You can lust after material things.

The Bible defines lust in terms of desiring the world, and what it has to offer you to gratify yourself, outside the boundaries of God's commandments, in a nutshell. It says to love not the world, nor the things that are in the world, that if anyone loves the world, then the love of the Father is not in him. (1 John 2:15-17). I would suggest to do a google search into it to contrast the world vs Jesus to go into more detail. Some sects would interpret even watching movies as "lust", especially those with actual "lustful content" in them.

It is too myopic to just define lust in terms of sexual pleasure. However, the other poster, @bat soup soup, did, on the face of his post, describe exactly what YOU would define as lust. His idea is so way off base that I had to reply and I think most people understand that what he wrote is irrational to any religious standard that is out there.

My experience is that lust impairs my passion to God and makes me more of a lukewarm Christian. I've been warned by God not to rent movies (which I really do sparingly now and am trying to purchase or borrow them instead if renting is wrong because renting FORCES you to watch a movie within a specified time, but if its purchased you can park it and like not ever watch it), and I feel indirectly not to lust after escort pics because its making me more of a lukewarm Christian, whether I like that fact or not. So, yeah, lust is sort of a problem with me in this regard.

 

[SW15]

Some people struggle with religion due to the fact that non-marital sex is banned in certain religions.

 

[corrector]

Some people struggle with religion due to the fact that non-marital sex is banned in certain religions.

That's a chad problem. But for the rest of us, marriage is more of a security that most guys get a woman to build a family with. Most people on here are against what feminism has wrecked upon society and how unequal the playing field is. So, its actually a good thing unless you are a chad/chad-lite, which is in the minority in society. So on that basis, maybe very few people struggle with that.

If anything it's the ultimate blackpill. Even if you win at the end of the day (ie. build yourself up to get plates, etc..) you'll lose your soul and ultimately lose. It's like the Cube Zero (2004) movie when someone who gets out of the Cube ends up getting incinerated because they lost their faith in God.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Lust is also not necessarily sexual. You can lust after material things.

That's greed.

 

[zekko]

My experience is that lust impairs my passion to God and makes me more of a lukewarm Christian. I've been warned by God not to rent movies (which I really do sparingly now and am trying to purchase or borrow them instead if renting is wrong because renting FORCES you to watch a movie within a specified time

My main objection to fapping, and more especially porn, is that it is a waste of time. Our time here is limited, and one of my biggest struggles is to be as productive as I'd like to be. I always feel better and more positive when I am productive, and that can relate to being a good Christian in my view.

I don't care for buying films anymore, I used to. As I said before, if you want to watch Force Majeure it's free right now on Tubi. Tubi is also where I watched Whiplash this last time. Tubi is great because not only is it free, you don't even have to sign up or register for it, you just go to their site and watch it. I also have an app on my TV where I can watch it. They have a lot of movies, not the best selection honestly, but they have the occasional gem.

 

[corrector]

My main objection to fapping, and more especially porn, is that it is a waste of time. Our time here is limited, and one of my biggest struggles is to be as productive as I'd like to be. I always feel better and more positive when I am productive, and that can relate to being a good Christian in my view.

Watching movies could be argued to be a waste of time too. If that is your only objection then its a rather weak one for me to get especially if this is done during downtime or while you are in bed (if you cant sleep or wake up too early then you cant control that). Again it depends on when and to what extent based on your argument. Otherwise you cant have fun and have to do everything because you have to do them. The point of fun is its not productive in any objective way and its.productivity, if any, is entirely subjective. What may be a waste of time to someone may he a good time or well.needed break to another.

The biblical argument is that it is an aspect of darkness that takes focus away from just looking to Jesus. This is apart from the objective fact the content is an abomination to God in and of itself even though the intent of heart of the viewer is more layered or nuanced. If God sees the heart then what is done in mind is the same to God then if it is actually done. So its is not just a waste of time but an actual sin in the heart of fornication is being committed undermining everything. Looking at escort pics vs actually visiting an escort is almost the same thing and that to me is the only reason its wrong.

Suppose trajedy happens in life and I lose my head to act our of character. Then what is to stop me from actually visiting an escort again if I keep planting seeds of visiting escorts in the mind? This is why looking at escort pics to fantasize about visiting one is always just plain wrong.

I don't care for buying films anymore, I used to. As I said before, if you want to watch Force Majeure it's free right now on Tubi. Tubi is also where I watched Whiplash this last time. Tubi is great because not only is it free, you don't even have to sign up or register for it, you just go to their site and watch it. I also have an app on my TV where I can watch it. They have a lot of movies, not the best selection honestly, but they have the occasional gem.

Its probably American only. Again I like to choose content and dont like watching movies because its a movie and thst requires access to a larger selection so I need only watch gems with my time. Like you I too believe time important.

 

[SW15]

Some people struggle with religion due to the fact that non-marital sex is banned in certain religions.

That's a chad problem. But for the rest of us, marriage is more of a security that most guys get a woman to build a family with. Most people on here are against what feminism has wrecked upon society and how unequal the playing field is. So, its actually a good thing unless you are a chad/chad-lite, which is in the minority in society. So on that basis, maybe very few people struggle with that.

If anything it's the ultimate blackpill. Even if you win at the end of the day (ie. build yourself up to get plates, etc..) you'll lose your soul and ultimately lose. It's like the Cube Zero (2004) movie when someone who gets out of the Cube ends up getting incinerated because they lost their faith in God.

I don't think this is a Chad/Chad-Lite problem. BTW, I dislike using those terms. Let's say the upper 20% of men.

The upper 10% of men are getting a good amount of sex. They receive physical satiation from the quantity of sex that they are receiving. The next 10% of men are doing reasonably as well.

After the top 20% of men, there are plenty of men not receiving a sufficient quantity of sex. Some of these men are unattached betas. Some are married men. There are plenty of married men in sexless relationships.

My hypothesis is that there are a lot of men who are not Top 20% men not getting sufficient sex who want to be getting sufficient sex who are not in marital relationships and are not attracted to religion interfering with their sex lives. I base this on 3 data points.

1. Increase in sexlessness among males, especially 18-29 males.
2. Decrease in weekly church attendance across Judeo-Christian faiths
3. Decrease in marriage within the Millennial generation (1981-1996)

 

[corrector]

I don't think this is a Chad/Chad-Lite problem. BTW, I dislike using those terms. Let's say the upper 20% of men.

The upper 10% of men are getting a good amount of sex. They receive physical satiation from the quantity of sex that they are receiving. The next 10% of men are doing reasonably as well.

After the top 20% of men, there are plenty of men not receiving a sufficient quantity of sex. Some of these men are unattached betas. Some are married men. There are plenty of married men in sexless relationships.

My hypothesis is that there are a lot of men who are not Top 20% men not getting sufficient sex who want to be getting sufficient sex who are not in marital relationships and are not attracted to religion interfering with their sex lives. I base this on 3 data points.

1. Increase in sexlessness among males, especially 18-29 males.
2. Decrease in weekly church attendance across Judeo-Christian faiths
3. Decrease in marriage within the Millennial generation (1981-1996)

So in the 1950s, most married men were sexless? The question is if guys were better off in the 50s in terms of societal norms in that more guys were accounted for compared to today when there is a larger amount of guys shut out? Why would people look back and think certain aspects of society were better off in the past? Do you agree with this or think we are better off today? It feels like men knew their place, women knew their place and it worked. Was society more religious and less secular back then? Was it part of leftist communist countries goal to undermine the US by the moral collapse of their soceity so they can take it over? Those are more focused question than the three statistics that can mean anything? Allot of yonge people may stop attending church because they are disgusted by how the white evangelical church supported Trump not because of the reasons you suggested.

 

[SW15]

So in the 1950s, most married men were sexless? The question is if guys were better off in the 50s in terms of societal norms in that more guys were accounted for compared to today when there is a larger amount of guys shut out? Why would people look back and think certain aspects of society were better off in the past? Do you agree with this or think we are better off today? It feels like men knew their place, women knew their place and it worked. Was society more religious and less secular back then? Was it part of leftist communist countries goal to undermine the US by the moral collapse of their soceity so they can take it over? Those are more focused question than the three statistics that can mean anything? Allot of yonge people may stop attending church because they are disgusted by how the white evangelical church supported Trump not because of the reasons you suggested.

The sexless marriage seems to be a more recent phenomenon.

I would say that the typical guy was better off in the 1950s-1960s than 1990-present.

There was more practice of religion in the 1950s-1960s than today.

I think more people are concerned with getting laid than politics. Catholic doctrine is clear on no sex before marriage. Various other Christian faiths have that doctrine. When people are getting married at 18-20, as was common before 1970, it is feasible to follow that doctrine. It gets way more difficult to follow that as a 25 or 35 year old.

A lot of guys are chasing the dream of being able to have a lot of sex with hot women, either in a serial monogamy sense (changing out girlfriends every 1-5 years) or as a player with a constant rotation of them. A lot of men outside the Top 20% are falling short on that, especially when that goal is combined with rampant female hypergamy due to endless options. A lack of control over lust and a lack of sex is causing societal problems such as simping, porn addiction, OnlyFans, thirst, etc.

 

[corrector]

The sexless marriage seems to be a more recent phenomenon.

I would say that the typical guy was better off in the 1950s-1960s than 1990-present.

There was more practice of religion in the 1950s-1960s than today.

So, more religion in society means more sex, not less sex. Even you can get that. If more women are having sex, but with 20% of the guys, then as a net that means less people as a whole are having sex numerically.

I think more people are concerned with getting laid than politics. Catholic doctrine is clear on no sex before marriage. Various other Christian faiths have that doctrine. When people are getting married at 18-20, as was common before 1970, it is feasible to follow that doctrine. It gets way more difficult to follow that as a 25 or 35 year old.

If guys are sexless between 18-29 years old, and are sexless beyond that, then what point are you even trying to make? It still sounds better off with that doctrine because most guys are eventually going to get consistent sex, as opposed to being completely shut out.

A lot of guys are chasing the dream of being able to have a lot of sex with hot women, either in a serial monogamy sense (changing out girlfriends every 1-5 years) or as a player with a constant rotation of them. A lot of men outside the Top 20% are falling short on that, especially when that goal is combined with rampant female hypergamy due to endless options. A lack of control over lust and a lack of sex is causing societal problems such as simping, porn addiction, OnlyFans, thirst, etc.

We are not talking about those types of guys in this thread. We are talking about the 80%. You sound like you are agreeing with me that more religious society seems that more guys had access to sex. You can't blame lack of control over lust for societal problems if there is no outlet period except for the artificial outlets you put there, you can only really blame lack of sex. Lack of sex is caused by extreme female hypergamy where a large percentage of guys are simply left out. If there is no outlet to have sex then a religious society where everyone gets married unless they choose to remain celibate for religious reasons sounds way better than today.

Unless you are in the top 20% of guys, nobody is signing up for this and would not struggle with religion because of a doctrine that guarantees they will get laid as opposed to being thirsty, simping, porn addiciton, or whatever else you want to add to the list. You just have to read @MatureDJ to see how terrible things are today for most guys and how badly we are worst off without religion in society on the level of guys getting (matrimonially) laid.

 

[SW15]

So, more religion in society means more sex, not less sex. Even you can get that. If more women are having sex, but with 20% of the guys, then as a net that means less people as a whole are having sex numerically.

If guys are sexless between 18-29 years old, and are sexless beyond that, then what point are you even trying to make? It still sounds better off with that doctrine because most guys are eventually going to get consistent sex, as opposed to being completely shut out.

We are not talking about those types of guys in this thread. We are talking about the 80%. You sound like you are agreeing with me that more religious society seems that more guys had access to sex. You can't blame lack of control over lust for societal problems if there is no outlet period except for the artificial outlets you put there, you can only really blame lack of sex. Lack of sex is caused by extreme female hypergamy where a large percentage of guys are simply left out. If there is no outlet to have sex then a religious society where everyone gets married unless they choose to remain celibate for religious reasons sounds way better than today.

Unless you are in the top 20% of guys, nobody is signing up for this and would not struggle with religion because of a doctrine that guarantees they will get laid as opposed to being thirsty, simping, porn addiciton, or whatever else you want to add to the list. You just have to read @MatureDJ to see how terrible things are today for most guys and how badly we are worst off without religion in society on the level of guys getting (matrimonially) laid.

We agree on the idea that the 50th percentile man has been worse off in the 21st Century than he was many decades ago. We agree that bottom 80% of men are worse off now.

People as a whole are having less sex. The Sex Recession in The Atlantic from 2018 is a commonly cited article about that.

Where we disagree is the reaction to changes in the landscape.

In 1965, the 50th percentile guy was some married guy having sex with his normal weight wife about twice a week and having 2-3 children while practicing some Judeo-Christian religion by attending a Saturday or Sunday service weekly.

In the past decade, the 50th percentile guy is probably some late Gen X'er (1976-1980) or early Millennial (1981-1986). There is a good chance that he is either divorced or never married. If he's a Millennial, he's likely never married. There's a decent chance he doesn't have kids. If by some chance he's married, he was married civilly, and not in a church, and his marriage has less sex in it than a few decades ago.

The 50th percentile guy of 2010-today does at least one of the following things.

-Is a sexual scavenger, primarily operating on swipe apps. He's swiping and texting like a maniac. He's having a lot of first dates that don't result in sex or a 2nd date. When he succeeds, he's often having sex with an overweight woman, who might also be a single mom. So he's having less frequent sex and with a lower quality woman.
-Frequently watches content from pornno tube sites, and furiously masturbates to them.
-Orbits attractive women on Instagram and simps for women on OnlyFans
-Has to find ways to cope with long sexual droughts

The 50th percentile guy is thinking more about the next time he is going to get laid as compared to practicing a religion and adhering to its strict doctrine.

 

[corrector]

Where we disagree is the reaction to changes in the landscape.

In 1965, the 50th percentile guy was some married guy having sex with his normal weight wife about twice a week and having 2-3 children while practicing some Judeo-Christian religion by attending a Saturday or Sunday service weekly.

In the past decade, the 50th percentile guy is probably some late Gen X'er (1976-1980) or early Millennial (1981-1986). There is a good chance that he is either divorced or never married. If he's a Millennial, he's likely never married. There's a decent chance he doesn't have kids. If by some chance he's married, he was married civilly, and not in a church, and his marriage has less sex in it than a few decades ago.

The 50th percentile guy of 2010-today does at least one of the following things.

-Is a sexual scavenger, primarily operating on swipe apps. He's swiping and texting like a maniac. He's having a lot of first dates that don't result in sex or a 2nd date. When he succeeds, he's often having sex with an overweight woman, who might also be a single mom. So he's having less frequent sex and with a lower quality woman.
-Frequently watches content from pornno tube sites, and furiously masturbates to them.
-Orbits attractive women on Instagram and simps for women on OnlyFans
-Has to find ways to cope with long sexual droughts

The 50th percentile guy is thinking more about the next time he is going to get laid as compared to practicing a religion and adhering to its strict doctrine.

The focus of discussion was religion and the culture within society as a whole when religion was a more dominant force. Churches do not care or cater for single guys or incel guys unless you are a chad or something and running church game. For it to work, the whole society outside the church has subscribe to it or a woman can just pair up with anyone outside the church. You think their options are just limited to that church? Lots of women flip their smartphones on while service is going on or just before it ends and probably have gigantic virtual social bubbles.

The 50th percentile guy is in a society where the lack of religion within it has condemned him to live a substandard life. For the record, there aren't that many strong churches out there. Allot of them are lukewarm and weak or are getting political and focusing on Trump and it throws allot of people off. I think, at least in my past, church offered a venue to at least talk to women. I can't even see that today and even my mother has lost interest in evening encouraging me to go to church because its just hopeless in that department as well. Lets see what happens next month...whatever it is, can't be worst than this sh1tty state of affairs.

 

[Bible_Belt]

For the record, there aren't that many strong churches out there.

I blame the rise of the mega churches. They are one big sales pitch to make themselves money. The key is to only tell people happy, feel good stuff and never challenge any of their decision making or present them with any sort of intellectual or moral difficulty from faith. None of these people actually read the bible, so they will believe anything about what it says. A friend of mine went to a local mega church. The pastor said in the sermon that the most common word spoken by jesus was "money" and that jesus said to give money to the church, because that is how one gets to heaven.

 

[corrector]

I blame the rise of the mega churches. They are one big sales pitch to make themselves money. The key is to only tell people happy, feel good stuff and never challenge any of their decision making or present them with any sort of intellectual or moral difficulty from faith. None of these people actually read the bible, so they will believe anything about what it says. A friend of mine went to a local mega church. The pastor said in the sermon that the most common word spoken by jesus was "money" and that jesus said to give money to the church, because that is how one gets to heaven.

Agreed, with qualifications. As a teenager growing up in 1993, with a different spiritual landscape than it is today, I'm not sure how I'd be as a teenager in 2020. If I were 17 years old today then I'd have been born in 2003, or 10 years after I got "saved". So you feel churches are in general not as anointed or spiritual compared to the 90s? You can even look at Hillsong church worship music in the 90s and early 00s and compare it with today's music and it's like totally different.

However, I do tune into word-of-faith/prosperity gospel teachers and agree with what they are saying. It makes sense to believe in God for a breakthrough if everything is going wrong in your life and you are not seeing your way. Like look at my case, I'm 44 years old, live at home, don't have a penny to my name and no gf to save my life. I can see that working for me. As a teenager there is allot of potential. It's different when you are a middle-age adult and everything has been a fail. So I guess I'm just attracted to listen to different things depending on my own phase of life.

 

[SW15]

The focus of discussion was religion and the culture within society as a whole when religion was a more dominant force. Churches do not care or cater for single guys or incel guys unless you are a chad or something and running church game. For it to work, the whole society outside the church has subscribe to it or a woman can just pair up with anyone outside the church. You think their options are just limited to that church? Lots of women flip their smartphones on while service is going on or just before it ends and probably have gigantic virtual social bubbles.

The 50th percentile guy is in a society where the lack of religion within it has condemned him to live a substandard life. For the record, there aren't that many strong churches out there. Allot of them are lukewarm and weak or are getting political and focusing on Trump and it throws allot of people off. I think, at least in my past, church offered a venue to at least talk to women. I can't even see that today and even my mother has lost interest in evening encouraging me to go to church because its just hopeless in that department as well. Lets see what happens next month...whatever it is, can't be worst than this sh1tty state of affairs.

The most important thing that you said is that churches do not care for single or incel men. If you go to nearly any Judeo-Christian church, there is almost no one there between the ages of 21 and 40 who are single. That goes for both single men and single women. A lot of younger singles do not feel welcome in churches. The only time you see people between 21 and 40 in church services is when they are married and have families. It's like a lot of children drop the practice of religion around age 18 and do not return until they are marrying and/or have a family.

This is an older article but still valuable. Look at how few singles meet through church in the graph. It has probably gotten worse since 2009-2010.

Almost all the Judeo-Christian religions are having issues.

Mainstream Protestantism is dying off. The Catholic Church has been having an identity crisis for decades. There are hardline practitioners of Catholicism. Amy Coney Barrett would be an example. Then there are more liberal practitioners of Catholicism. Many Hispanics, though culturally conservative, tend to vote for Democrats, particularly if Mexican-American. Hispanics are becoming a larger share of Catholics, as the GI Generation (1910-1926 births) and Silent Generation (1927-1945 births) are dying off. The Catholics from the pre-Boomer generation were mainly white, and had Irish or Italian ancestry. Some white Boomer Catholics remain, but their white Millennial children are not ardent Catholics. Some of the non-denominational Protestants (Evangelicals) are strong, but they tend to be more conservative. I don't think there are as many practicing Jews anymore, though I haven't seen much data on that. Mormonism still seems strong because they have a lot of children. However, Mormonism is mainly confined to Utah, Idaho, parts of Arizona, and parts of Nevada. I was recently in Utah and had to make a pit stop while traveling. I was in Provo, the home of Brigham Young University and my pit stop was at a Walgreens. I checked the condom aisle at this Walgreens and there was a robust condom selection there despite the big Mormon influence.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Like look at my case, I'm 44 years old, live at home, don't have a penny to my name and no gf to save my life. I can see that working for me. As a teenager there is allot of potential. It's different when you are a middle-age adult and everything has been a fail.

Humility is a virtue, but defining yourself by the criteria of this world is not very Christian. The first will be last, remember?

And whatever reasons that guys on this site list as why they don't have a woman, the complex you have about it is a much bigger inhibitor than the reason itself. Being broke and living with your parents does not mean that you can't be fun to hang around to a woman, but viewing yourself as a failure certainly does take the fun out of it.

 

[corrector]

Humility is a virtue, but defining yourself by the criteria of this world is not very Christian. The first will be last, remember?

And whatever reasons that guys on this site list as why they don't have a woman, the complex you have about it is a much bigger inhibitor than the reason itself. Being broke and living with your parents does not mean that you can't be fun to hang around to a woman, but viewing yourself as a failure certainly does take the fun out of it.

I don't think so. I just paint a portrait of an aspect. I didn't say I'm pissed-off or depressed, I merely said that word-of-faith or prosperity theology messages SHOULD be helpful to people like me because if they are not, then what are they good for? Has it helped me? I think it is very helpful because it helps train my mind to see positives and to bring Jesus into everything so that despite how my situation might objectively be, it may not be that way in the 'spiritual' side of things, and that realm is very bright with Jesus and confessing out words that reflect that. So in an unseen realm I'm a winner and everything is just great. Again the dichotomy of the spiritual and natural realm is a hallmark of word-of-faith teaching.

The natural is the body and the environment. The spiritual, is the spirit and the word of God and what the Bible says about you and who you are in Christ. I didn't define this dichotomy initially but, I see where you may have come to that logical sequence of thought without clarifying that position. This is how word of faith teachers, like Andrew Wommack, will teach and provide examples where people who are diagnosed as cancer simply cancel their diagnosis and claim out loud that Jesus blood has healed them from all diseases so it's not real despite the diagnoses being there but miraculous healings are known to have occurred this way. This is also applied to finances and other areas of life. The dichotomy is stronger the more extreme the difference is between the natural and the spiritual. I feel in my case its strong and therefore it should be more apparent that if anything happens in my life that it is because of this word-of-faith teaching and a work of God rather than anything that I can possibly do to life myself out of this.

There is no discussion where I didn't say I'm not fun to hang around to a woman. I have not been rejected by any woman on my situation since my ex-wife. That means any rejection has to be no-verbal and based on my looks or I didn't get any buying indicators that would encourage me to pursue anyone further than the social interaction allows. So, it's certainly another aspect that isn't working out, that would add to what would seem like a hard situation, not necessarily be because of it. But they, I don't really need a woman if I am to be content with Jesus alone anyway.

 

[zekko]

I blame the rise of the mega churches. They are one big sales pitch to make themselves money.

There were also all the televangelists.
Does anyone remember Dr. Gene Scott? He was a minister based in LA, he was on TV for awhile, we used to watch him out of curiousity. He would mostly sit with a scowl on his face, smoking a cigar and drinking whiskey demanding that people send money in to him before he would start preaching.

 

[7onriverI f]

and that jesus said to give money to the church, because that is how one gets to heaven. ]

That is lordship salvation relying on your own efforts in order to get to heaven. It's commonly taught. Other teachers teach you have to stop sinning in order to get to heaven. Others say you have to turn up to church to get to heaven. All the same thing.

Even unbelievers who haven't read the bible believe in lordship salvation as identifying someone as a christian. There's a whole of deception out there. Hardly anyone is actually saved just by talking to them and finding out what they believe. Some people who don't even identify as christian do more good works than people who identify as christian and may or may not believe/teach lordship salvation. Wealthier muslims do give to poor people (I think it's at least 2.5% of their income each year) which is a good work. Other people who identify as atheist give a lot of money to charity's or maybe not a lot of money but compared to their amount of money they got it's a lot. However giving money to poorer people I think should be encouraged more in general but not done in order to go to heaven which that is just a flat out lie.

 

[corrector]

That is lordship salvation relying on your own efforts in order to get to heaven. It's commonly taught. Other teachers teach you have to stop sinning in order to get to heaven. Others say you have to turn up to church to get to heaven. All the same thing.

Even unbelievers who haven't read the bible believe in lordship salvation as identifying someone as a christian. There's a whole of deception out there. Hardly anyone is actually saved just by talking to them and finding out what they believe. Some people who don't even identify as christian do more good works than people who identify as christian and may or may not believe/teach lordship salvation. Wealthier muslims do give to poor people (I think it's at least 2.5% of their income each year) which is a good work. Other people who identify as atheist give a lot of money to charity's or maybe not a lot of money but compared to their amount of money they got it's a lot. However giving money to poorer people I think should be encouraged more in general but not done in order to go to heaven which that is just a flat out lie.

The bible does talk about Christians, as evidenced by the fact they are saved, woukd be zealous for good works rather than buring their talents in the ground for the Lord to say "you wicked and slothful servant" and cast him out to outer darkness. You read Rev 2-3 and Jesus first statement is "I know thy works..." and goes on. I dont know what bible you are reading from but I think you are out to lunch. Works and fruit are talked about everywhere. The book of James says faith without works is dead and people who refuse to help someone in need do not possess the love of God and are not saved despite their cheap profession.