Unconventional Religion

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think most Christians behave like everyone else does. More passionate believers just tend to use the word "Jesus" a lot, irrespective of the beliefs of those around them.
Many of us can enjoy video games and not stand out in society, but if you can't help but enlighten those around you on gamer stats and trivia, you become annoying, even though there may be nothing wrong with what you do.

Right enough as far as it goes, but the closer someone adheres to the purported 'word of Jesus' the more annoying and dangerous they tend to be.

Boru

[Consilius]

Notice "part" does not mean "verse". All the verses advocating poverty would be categorized as ONE part.

I consider a part to be a series of verses in succession, where it is impossible not to get what the writer is trying to say. If Matthew said one thing and James another, their quotes should be considered in the context of what they were writing about.

All the verses advocating poverty would be categorized as ONE part.

This part would still be one verse long, regardless of anything I said before. Nowhere are we instructed to become poor.
Notice how those who DO give up their belongings in the Bible are traveling preachers who decide to spend the rest of their lives moving from place to place, diminishing the value of their material sacrifice to them.

Poor, yes. Children - not so much.

Why not? Didn't someone sit them down and tell them that they're not allowed to be happy until they're bank accounts are overflowing (regardless of the means)?

Exactly. I would expect something in return.

And if the woman has nothing to give you, do you push her back over the ledge?

And how does the loss of the life of a friend or a child affect your own?

Negatively.

Your bank account retains its size and you continue breathing. What's the problem? Do you need love to survive?

You took what was yours away from you.

It is impossible to take what is mine away from myself, you moron.

Oh, I'm sorry. I meant "away WITH you".

You are not deserving of anything or everything you may need to survive simply due to being a human being.

I was referring to a single resource given to another in a fatal condition. Does a dying person not deserve to have his life restored with a resource you don't need?

---

Right enough as far as it goes, but the closer someone adheres to the purported 'word of Jesus' the more annoying and dangerous they tend to be.

Boru

How so? The ultimate virtue Christ preached was altruism.

[genkaus]

I consider a part to be a series of verses in succession, where it is impossible not to get what the writer is trying to say. If Matthew said one thing and James another, their quotes should be considered in the context of what they were writing about.

And since I'm the one who used the word, what you consider it is irrelevant.

This part would still be one verse long, regardless of anything I said before.

Regardless of what you say here, no, it won't be.

Nowhere are we instructed to become poor.

Didn't I give examples of this instructions already?

Notice how those who DO give up their belongings in the Bible are traveling preachers who decide to spend the rest of their lives moving from place to place, diminishing the value of their material sacrifice to them.

Notice how for any traveling businessman, the value of material possessions would be greater. Also notice how these people are glorified within the bible, indicating their example is to be emulated.

Why not? Didn't someone sit them down and tell them that they're not allowed to be happy until they're bank accounts are overflowing (regardless of the means)?

They seem to know it without anyone telling them. Their rationality - however limited it might be - has not yet been corrupted by the teaching of your Christ.

And if the woman has nothing to give you, do you push her back over the ledge?

Firstly, my expectation of getting something doesn't necessarily mean getting something from her.
Secondly, not all investments may pay out - that's not an argument against sensible investments.

Your bank account retains its size and you continue breathing. What's the problem? Do you need love to survive?

No, I need love to live.

I was referring to a single resource given to another in a fatal condition. Does a dying person not deserve to have his life restored with a resource you don't need?

No. You deserve what you earn. If you have not earned that resource, you do not deserve it. Dying does not make you more deserving.

How so? The ultimate virtue Christ preached was altruism.

That would be the dangerous and annoying thing.

[Consilius]

Nowhere are we instructed to become poor.

Didn't I give examples of this instructions already?

Give me whatever you consider a Biblical instruction not to own possessions. All you have is a quote about a camel.

Notice how for any traveling businessman, the value of material possessions would be greater.

Traveling businessmen eventually go to their homes.
They also have credit cards.

Also notice how these people are glorified within the bible, indicating their example is to be emulated.

Bill Gates is a good person. Do I need a software company to be good as well?

Their rationality - however limited it might be - has not yet been corrupted by the teaching of your Christ.

Children don't need money to be happy, regardless of their religion. Is their rationality corrupted later when someone tells them that Jesus said the same thing they already knew before?

Firstly, my expectation of getting something doesn't necessarily mean getting something from her.

You want a medal from the fire department because you called their number?

No, I need love to live.

What a Christian-sounding precept, no negative connotation added. Can you explain how you need to be appreciated by someone to keep your heart beating?

No. You deserve what you earn. If you have not earned that resource, you do not deserve it.

Why wasn't this an issue when your parents raised you from childhood?

How so? The ultimate virtue Christ preached was altruism.

That would be the dangerous and annoying thing.

Yes. When we share our resources with one another, humanity cannot survive.
Altruism is found in animals and is in our human nature. Who's to say that your 'rational morality' isn't a perversion of the natural order?

[Whateverist]

Altruism is found in animals and is in our human nature. Who's to say that your 'rational morality' isn't a perversion of the natural order?

Coming in late here but I pretty much agree with you. If 'rational morality' is not a perversion of the natural order it may at least be a case of tits on a boar.

But as a theist aren't you pushing the superiority of an objective basis for morality? (Sorry, I haven't been following this discussion or I would probably already know the answer to this question.)

[genkaus]

Give me whatever you consider a Biblical instruction not to own possessions. All you have is a quote about a camel.

Fully expecting you to start rationalizing with with cries of "but these are not instructions not to own":

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

Timothy 6:10 - For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils.

Acts 4:32-35 - Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.

Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Traveling businessmen eventually go to their homes.
They also have credit cards.

Thus indicating their need for material possessions.

Bill Gates is a good person. Do I need a software company to be good as well?

If you believe that it is his software company that makes him good, then yeah.

Children don't need money to be happy, regardless of their religion. Is their rationality corrupted later when someone tells them that Jesus said the same thing they already knew before?

Children nee a lot of material possessions to be happy - three meals a day, comfort and security of home, things to play with etc. Money is required for all those. Their rationality is corrupted because someone tells them that Jesus said the opposite of what they already knew.

You want a medal from the fire department because you called their number?

I'm not telling you what kind of profit I personally expect from such a venture.

What a Christian-sounding precept, no negative connotation added. Can you explain how you need to be appreciated by someone to keep your heart beating?

I didn't say I needed love to survive - I said I need love to live, a distinction that I knew would escape you. As for the concept being "Christian" - no, its not. I do not love everyone or everything equally - I love myself the most and my family and friends and possessions come next. That does not sound very Christian to me.

Why wasn't this an issue when your parents raised you from childhood?

Because they never pretended that I was deserving simply due to being alive.

Yes. When we share our resources with one another, humanity cannot survive.

Sharing is not altruism - it's trade.

Altruism is found in animals and is in our human nature. Who's to say that your 'rational morality' isn't a perversion of the natural order?

Where quite a few biological instincts are concerned, ofcourse it goes against the 'natural order'. Why is that a problem?

[Consilius]

But as a theist aren't you pushing the superiority of an objective basis for morality? (Sorry, I haven't been following this discussion or I would probably already know the answer to this question.)

An objective moral standard doesn't mean that "my God told us what to do when he wrote it on a mountain." Many morals have evolutionary bases. We cannot survive as a species unless we follow them. They are as much a part of us as the laws of physics.

---

Fully expecting you to start rationalizing with with cries of "but these are not instructions not to own":

I prefer to call it 'tearing it down with regards to the unity of the Bible'.

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

If you treat wealth as your 'treasure' (the kind of treasure in the bolded phrase, of which you can only have one, your primary treasure), your heart is in the wrong place. Morals first, money second.

Timothy 6:10 - For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils.

Money is good. It should not be admired in itself. There is no inherent virtue in material possessions or in having them.

Acts 4:32-35 - Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.

This is a description of an early church community that shared its possessions equally, physically and mentally, striking a balance between the poor and the rich, who were not better people than the poor were.

Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

I underlined your misquotation.
The rich young man thought he could earn heaven by doing stuff. “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” He forgot that salvation was a gift he needed to get from God. Since he was bent on doing things, Jesus offered him a much harder vocation. Jesus proved that he wasn't DOING as much as he thought he was. The life of an evangelist just wasn't for him, and his shame taught him that no amount of work is superior to any other, and there's nothing you can do to earn salvation.

Bill Gates is a good person. Do I need a software company to be good as well?

If you believe that it is his software company that makes him good, then yeah.

I know it doesn't. The same way I know that the extreme religious life is a road some people just choose to take. Their calling and not mine. We both get to the same place if we try hard enough.

Children nee a lot of material possessions to be happy.

That's not what you said a while ago:

So all children and the poor and are sad?

Poor, yes. Children - not so much.

What a child needs is love, like you said, and, even though life becomes difficult, a meal won't prevent him or her from taking joy in it's mother's arms.

I didn't say I needed love to survive - I said I need love to live.

Fine. Why do you need love to live, if not to survive?

Because they never pretended that I was deserving simply due to being alive.

Then why DID you recieve those years of care? You didn't get a medal for being born, and, in fact, your existence was most likely disadvantageous to a family. Why not send you to an orphanage?

Where quite a few biological instincts are concerned, ofcourse it goes against the 'natural order'. Why is that a problem?

The slippery slope. When you stray to far from the roots, you lose sight of the consequences.

[Whateverist]

But as a theist aren't you pushing the superiority of an objective basis for morality? (Sorry, I haven't been following this discussion or I would probably already know the answer to this question.)

An objective moral standard doesn't mean that "my God told us what to do when he wrote it on a mountain." Many morals have evolutionary bases. We cannot survive as a species unless we follow them. They are as much a part of us as the laws of physics.

This sounds very reasonable to me. I wonder if you would agree that, except for purposes of laws and justice, it is not crucial to articulate with the intent to follow what you think are the gist of the morals which we have come to see as part of our nature? The project of writing out a moral decision tree to guide all action seems pretty pointless to me. You need to instill some things in childhood, but then weighing the claim which various moral inclinations place on an action probably should ultimately become something dynamic rather than merely rote rule following. Leastwise that seems more adaptive to me.

I think a formal understanding of morals is no more necessary to moral activity than a formal understanding of grammar is to being an expert speaker of a language. One aspect of morality is simply buying some time free of emotive responses to act on moral inclinations. But then I don't see

[genkaus]

An objective moral standard doesn't mean that "my God told us what to do when he wrote it on a mountain." Many morals have evolutionary bases. We cannot survive as a species unless we follow them. They are as much a part of us as the laws of physics.

Excellent. So the next time I see a suspicious stranger on my street, I should feel free to attack him or if I see a particularly curvacious chick, I should feel free to jump her - since those morals have an evolutionary basis.

I prefer to call it 'tearing it down with regards to the unity of the Bible'.

Justify it in whatever way you want - we both know that you are just rationalizing your rationalization.

If you treat wealth as your 'treasure' (the kind of treasure in the bolded phrase, of which you can only have one, your primary treasure), your heart is in the wrong place. Morals first, money second.

An example of the corrupt morality taught by your bible. The lesson here is obvious - give up money for morals.

Money is good. It should not be admired in itself. There is no inherent virtue in material possessions or in having them.

Your 'interpretation'. What it says actually is "Money is evil and therefore, so is the love for it".

This is a description of an early church community that shared its possessions equally, physically and mentally, striking a balance between the poor and the rich, who were not better people than the poor were.

Yes - an example of the immoral principles of your religion in practice. Tell me, if you consider the early church to be "truly" Christian, why don't you share your possessions with the poor "equally"?

I underlined your misquotation.
The rich young man thought he could earn heaven by doing stuff. “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” He forgot that salvation was a gift he needed to get from God. Since he was bent on doing things, Jesus offered him a much harder vocation. Jesus proved that he wasn't DOING as much as he thought he was. The life of an evangelist just wasn't for him, and his shame taught him that no amount of work is superior to any other, and there's nothing you can do to earn salvation.

There is no misquotation - that's precisely what your bible says. The man was asking what he will have to do to get that imaginary gift and your Jesus told him in no uncertain terms. Unless you believe that your Christ was lying to this guy and sending him on a fool's errand, the answer is pretty clear - give up your money to get into heaven. Your rationalization doesn't change that.

I know it doesn't. The same way I know that the extreme religious life is a road some people just choose to take. Their calling and not mine. We both get to the same place if we try hard enough.

And how do you know that? Because your religion tells you so?

That's not what you said a while ago:

So all children and the poor and are sad?

Poor, yes. Children - not so much.

That's precisely what I said. Children and poor alike need material possessions to be happy. Poor don't have them - children do, unless we are talking about poor children. Therefore, poor are sad, children - not so much.

What a child needs is love, like you said, and, even though life becomes difficult, a meal won't prevent him or her from taking joy in it's mother's arms.

Test your hypothesis. Give your children lots of love and free hugs instead of food and toys and see how happy and joyful they'd be.

Fine. Why do you need love to live, if not to survive?

Firstly, do you understand the difference between life and survival?

Then why DID you recieve those years of care? You didn't get a medal for being born, and, in fact, your existence was most likely disadvantageous to a family. Why not send you to an orphanage?

Because it wasn't disadvantageous to them. Their investment in me is paying off quite well.

The slippery slope. When you stray to far from the roots, you lose sight of the consequences.

Ah, the slippery slope fallacy. Do you even know what are the "consequences" that we might lose sight of?

---

I think a formal understanding of morals is no more necessary to moral activity than a formal understanding of grammar is to being an expert speaker of a language.

An excellent analogy. Especially given the fact that a formal understanding of grammar is required to be an expert speaker of a language.

[Consilius]

I think a formal understanding of morals is no more necessary to moral activity than a formal understanding of grammar is to being an expert speaker of a language.

I agree. What we consider right and wrong is not independent of our nature. When we DO do things wrong, it is therefore a perversion of the natural order, a derailment from perfection. Perfectly consistent with the Bible, which is just a different way of saying what we already know.

---

So the next time I see a suspicious stranger on my street, I should feel free to attack him or if I see a particularly curvacious chick, I should feel free to jump her - since those morals have an evolutionary basis.

The essence of evolutionary altruism is that we all work together. Rape does not produce a productive environment for raising a human child.

The lesson here is obvious - give up money for morals.

I don't remember saying that. I can value something more than another and still enjoy both.

What it says actually is "Money is evil and therefore, so is the love for it".

The love of it is "the root of all evil". Nobody said that liking money was inherently evil. It depends on what you do with it. Simple truth.

Tell me, if you consider the early church to be "truly" Christian, why don't you share your possessions with the poor "equally"?

I do share my possessions with the poor. Of course, I will never have enough to give everybody. The early Christian church gave the poor anything they needed, so all of them were equally satisfied. No one said that everyone owned the same stuff.

Unless you believe that your Christ was lying to this guy and sending him on a fool's errand, the answer is pretty clear - give up your money to get into heaven.

Restating what you said earlier without any further mention of my argument because you really, really, want it to say that, so you get to tell me how much better you are.

Give your children lots of love and free hugs instead of food and toys and see how happy and joyful they'd be.

So you only loved your parents while they were in the position to take care of you.

Firstly, do you understand the difference between life and survival?

"Life" is the state of being alive. "Survival" is the practice of staying alive. I'm not seeing how this is relevant to your claim.

Because it wasn't disadvantageous to them. Their investment in me is paying off quite well.

So your parents only loved you while you didn't hinder their financial ambitions. Do the parents of the mentally challenged not love their children?

Do you even know what are the "consequences" that we might lose sight of?

Materialism. Selfishness. Greed.