Unconventional Religion

[genkaus]

It seems that the line between rape and no rape is formed by a enitrely human institutions. Why would we send someone to jail for simply trying to perpetuate his genetic code?

Because that's the rule created by the human institutions.

Then why are humans altruistic? Surely we didn't need a Jesus to know when to defend a child being beaten up in an alley.

Because altruism can be conducive to the survival of the species.

The progression of humanity has always been about taking care of the rest of the herd.

No, the survival of humanity has been about that. The progression is the result of rational thought.

Jesus didn't tell me to give up my money—he told a rich young man to.

Are you saying that what applied to that man does not apply to you? That sounds like moral relativity.

A rich young man who asked for him for heaven's free pass. Jesus was never a fan of making religion a one-stop shop, which is why he criticized the Judaism of his day.

All evidence to the contrary. The whole "accept Jesus to get into heaven" schtick is the free-pass as well as a one-stop shop. And the rich young man was not asking for a free-pass given his inquiry about what he must do.

Oh, does it now? Another Christian stereotype.

If the shoe fits....

It tells me not to practice what YOU preach.

But you do practice what I preach.

Salvation cannot be earned. Earning salvation IS the easy way out.

So, earning something is the easy way out and getting it for free is the difficult way out? Are you insane? Or do you simply not understand what 'easy' means?

If salvation cannot be earned, then trying to earn salvation would be the most difficult thing one could attempt.

Nobody is perfect, and nobody can achieve perfection. Only God is perfect. This isn't a very hidden concept of Christian theology, and this discrepancy is Jesus' answer to the rich man should tell you that he wasn't laying out a road map to heaven.

Then that means he was lying to the rich man. That your Jesus was a hypocrite and a liar. If you tell someone that he has to do X in order to become Y which would result in Z, all the while knowing that doing X will not result in him becoming Y, that would make you a liar and hypocrite. I wonder what else he lied about?

The rest of this reply I will not comment on. You may be a materialist if you like. I draw the line when you refuse to tolerate people who don't want to be materialists.

Except, I'm not a materialist.

What I find funny is that the website administrators are soliciting donations at the top of this page. Are they not "rational" enough for you?

Why would soliciting donations be irrational?

[Consilius]

[quote='Consilius' pid='497770' dateline='1377397758']
Why would we send someone to jail for simply trying to perpetuate his genetic code?

Because that's the rule created by the human institutions.

So rape is bad because they said so. Why doesn't the poplulace revoke this extraneous law? Why was it created in the first place? Was it that darn Jesus again?

Because altruism can be conducive to the survival of the species.

I thought altruism was dangerous and irrational.

No, the survival of humanity has been about that. The progression is the result of rational thought.

To acheive progress, the rich and powerful need to advance themselves and leave everyone else in the dust. I'm not going to attack that. You have the right to hold a selfish philosophy.

Are you saying that what applied to that man does not apply to you? That sounds like moral relativity.

I would be if Jesus had pulled the rich man out of a crowd. He approached Jesus and presented his own simplistic view of religion. He needed his understanding to be shaken up so he could think differently.

The whole "accept Jesus to get into heaven" schtick is the free-pass as well as a one-stop shop.

And what exactly is "accepting Jesus" to you?

And the rich young man was not asking for a free-pass given his inquiry about what he must do.

Guess what? The whole concept of 'doing' anything to deserve anything is the definition of the "free pass".

If the shoe fits....

Oh, so you are NOT building up walls to fuel your hatred of Christianity?

So, earning something is the easy way out and getting it for free is the difficult way out?

If salvation was a dollar given to a bum, we'd all get it, and at the same time not all of us would be in the circumstances to do so. Which is why salvation is a universal gift waiting to be recieved. The reception of salvation lies in who you are as a person, but the offer was freely made before you made any action to take it. Salvation is a possession that must be claimed, but how easy is it to make that claim? To become something that can possess it?

If salvation cannot be earned, then trying to earn salvation would be the most difficult thing one could attempt.

More than that—it is futile.

Then that means he was lying to the rich man. That your Jesus was a hypocrite and a liar.

What false statement did he make? The sentence begins…"If you want to be perfect". Christ's reaction to the rich man's plea was for the purpose of establishing a truth.

Except, I'm not a materialist.

Whatever the term for your morals may be. How about 'rationality'? When your every action is so restricted to the greatest net profit that any sense of "we are the world" becomes nothing more than sentiment.

Why would soliciting donations be irrational?

Because they are tempting other forum members into irrationality.

[genkaus]

So rape is bad because they said so. Why doesn't the poplulace revoke this extraneous law? Why was it created in the first place? Was it that darn Jesus again?

One of the reasons - yes. Why would the populace revoke this law? Nobody wants their wives and daughters to be raped. It was created to stop rape in society. And no, it wasn't that darn Jesus again - that darn Jesus had nothing to say on the subject and his daddy apparently approved.

I thought altruism was dangerous and irrational.

To the person practicing it. Not to the ones on the receiving end.

To acheive progress, the rich and powerful need to advance themselves and leave everyone else in the dust. I'm not going to attack that. You have the right to hold a selfish philosophy.

To achieve progress, the rich and powerful need to advance - period. Some may advance with them. Some may get left behind. On the whole, humanity is advancing.

I would be if Jesus had pulled the rich man out of a crowd. He approached Jesus and presented his own simplistic view of religion. He needed his understanding to be shaken up so he could think differently.

Even as rationalizations go - that is a pretty pathetic one. The young man didn't present any views. He asked a question. If the question was wrong, then Jesus need not have handed out his corrupt advice. Jesus didn't attack his understanding - he simply listed things to be done. In the end, the young man's understanding didn't change at all. And then Jesus reconfirmed what he said to that man by repeating the gist to his other followers. Which means, if you don't accept what he said applied to that man and his own followers applies to you, then you believe in moral relativism.

And what exactly is "accepting Jesus" to you?

I just told you - a free pass as well as a one-stop shop.

Guess what? The whole concept of 'doing' anything to deserve anything is the definition of the "free pass".

Guess what? The whole concept of 'doing' anything to deserve anything is the opposite of the definition of free-pass. You get a free-pass if you've done nothing to deserve that something. If I've worked and slaved to get a lot of money then I don't have a free-pass to an rich life. If I get all that money for nothing, then I have a free-pass.

Oh, so you are NOT building up walls to fuel your hatred of Christianity?

Don't need to. Christianity has done that for me.

If salvation was a dollar given to a bum, we'd all get it, and at the same time not all of us would be in the circumstances to do so. Which is why salvation is a universal gift waiting to be recieved. The reception of salvation lies in who you are as a person, but the offer was freely made before you made any action to take it. Salvation is a possession that must be claimed, but how easy is it to make that claim? To become something that can possess it?

You are not making any sense - at all. Everything you say here falls perfectly in line with what Jesus told that rich man - except for the part where you call it a 'gift'.

If I freely make the bum an offer - "I'll give you a dollar if you become sober" - then that dollar is not a gift. The bum has to earn it. So, there is this offer being made (salvation), but to get that I have to change myself (change into someone who keeps the commandments, has given up his belongings and follows Jesus) - then I have earned that "offer". That is precisely what your Jesus is saying and that is precisely what you are saying here.

More than that—it is futile.

And therefore, not the easy way out - by any stretch of imagination.

What false statement did he make? The sentence begins…"If you want to be perfect". Christ's reaction to the rich man's plea was for the purpose of establishing a truth.

That would be the false statement.
Statement A (made by your Christ to the rich man): If you want to be perfect you must do X, Y and Z.

Statement B (made by you): It was never possible for the rich man to be perfect.

These two statements are mutually contradictory. One assumes the possibility of the rich man's perfection, the other denies it outright. So either you are lying or your Christ is. Which one is it?

Whatever the term for your morals may be. How about 'rationality'? When your every action is so restricted to the greatest net profit that any sense of "we are the world" becomes nothing more than sentiment.

Exactly.

Because they are tempting other forum members into irrationality.

How so?

[Consilius]

Why would the populace revoke this law? Nobody wants their wives and daughters to be raped.

Why should the men care what the women think? And why is rape punished by the government, a third party?

To achieve progress, the rich and powerful need to advance - period. Some may advance with them. Some may get left behind. On the whole, humanity is advancing.

What I said exactly. To leave someone in the dust is not an active verb. It's apathy towards the suffering of others. You hid that concept at the bottom of your explanation, but its still there. And humanity is not advancing. The people who fall upon opportunity in a society where birth, race, money, and power are the currency are advancing. They are not humanity. We all are humanity, and each one of us deserves what the person next to him has.

The young man didn't present any views. He asked a question.

His question spelled out his views for him. That God gives salvation to those who do stuff.

If the question was wrong, then Jesus need not have handed out his corrupt advice.

What advice? Did Jesus have any intention of him following it? Why do you think a blatant contradiction was placed at the beginning? And since when are you Jesus' speechwriter? Jesus had his own style of preaching, and he didn't need you filling in the blanks for him. If the Gospels' wording doesn't suit your style, you are free to write your own.

In the end, the young man's understanding didn't change at all.

And he went away sad. What do you mean his understanding didn't change? He would have had time to think over his conversation and see that the disciples didn't take moneybags from passerby and burn them.

And then Jesus reconfirmed what he said to that man by repeating the gist to his other followers.

Haven't we been over how this was a hyperbole, and the entire Bible comes down on your ideas like a hammer?

Which means, if you don't accept what he said applied to that man and his own followers applies to you, then you believe in moral relativism.

I don't even want to know what hurdles you jumped through to arrive at this conclusion. Just stop. I'm not buying your evangelical message.

I just told you - a free pass as well as a one-stop shop.

I know that; I'm not stupid—oh, wait, I'm a Christian, therefore I must be, like you and your cronies would claim all non-atheists to be.
How does one "accept Jesus"?

Guess what? The whole concept of 'doing' anything to deserve anything is the opposite of the definition of free-pass.

Earning salvation is a free-pass because it means that a concrete action entitles you to salvation, like swiping a card through a slot. Life is more than that.

Don't need to. Christianity has done that for me.

said genkaus, in the middle of a thread in which he told me that I'm not following my religion unless I'm hitting him with a cross and burning dollar bills. I hope that image of me fuels your self-victimization.

If I freely make the bum an offer - "I'll give you a dollar if you become sober" - then that dollar is not a gift. The bum has to earn it. So, there is this offer being made (salvation), but to get that I have to change myself (change into someone who keeps the commandments, has given up his belongings and follows Jesus) - then I have earned that "offer".

You are equating such "change" with its physical manifestation. Changing does not make me worthy of anything. It only makes it possible that I can recieve something. Salvation fits into place when a heart is open to it. I can only breathe when I inhale. I do not inhale to earn air, and it is physically impossible not to get air when I inhale.

These two statements are mutually contradictory. One assumes the possibility of the rich man's perfection, the other denies it outright.

The rich man's perfection was never possible, which is why the fake roadmap was drawn up and then flung into the rich man's face. Christ knew no man was perfect, and the rich man was made to realize that his question revealed his belief in this fallacy, him already knowing it was false. The powerful dissuasion tore down his old beliefs so he could plant something new.

Because they are tempting other forum members into irrationality.

How so?

By asking them to do the most despicable thing known to man—give away money.
Without getting it back.
Or getting a medal and a pat on the back.
To the benefit of another human being.
No refunds.
Terrible, isn't it?

[genkaus]

Why should the men care what the women think? And why is rape punished by the government, a third party?

I told you already - men care because they don't want their wives/daughters/sisters to be raped. And the government is not a third party - it is made up of mean and women.

What I said exactly. To leave someone in the dust is not an active verb. It's apathy towards the suffering of others. You hid that concept at the bottom of your explanation, but its still there. And humanity is not advancing. The people who fall upon opportunity in a society where birth, race, money, and power are the currency are advancing. They are not humanity. We all are humanity, and each one of us deserves what the person next to him has.

Not hiding anything. I'm saying that apathy towards the suffering of others is as irrelevant to human progress as empathy towards the suffering. And humanity is advancing. Look at the past and look at the present and see how much it has advanced. And simply "falling upon opportunity" is not sufficient for advancement - you need to be able to use it. Which is why each person does not deserve whatever happens to the next guy.

His question spelled out his views for him. That God gives salvation to those who do stuff.

Something that was never denied.

What advice? Did Jesus have any intention of him following it? Why do you think a blatant contradiction was placed at the beginning? And since when are you Jesus' speechwriter? Jesus had his own style of preaching, and he didn't need you filling in the blanks for him. If the Gospels' wording doesn't suit your style, you are free to write your own.

Unless your Jesus' style of preaching was lying - yes, he fully intended that the man should follow his advice. As evidenced by his acceptance of all the other guys who did the same. As for being his 'speechwriter' - you are the one taking on that role. You are the one creating imaginary blanks and trying to fill them in. I'm just taking him at his word.

And he went away sad. What do you mean his understanding didn't change? He would have had time to think over his conversation and see that the disciples didn't take moneybags from passerby and burn them.

He was sad because he'd just been told that he can either have material wealth here or he can have his salvation. Even if he reviews the conversation, all he'll see is that disciples all chose to give up money for salvation. That's all he'll see because that's all the conversation actually says.

Haven't we been over how this was a hyperbole, and the entire Bible comes down on your ideas like a hammer?

What we've been through is your abject failure to demonstrate that it was a hyperbole or that the Bible actually opposes my literal interpretation.

I don't even want to know what hurdles you jumped through to arrive at this conclusion. Just stop. I'm not buying your evangelical message.

No hurdles. Simple logic.

Morals not apply to everyone = moral relativism.

Jesus gave morals.
Said morals apply to rich man and followers.
Said moral don't apply to you.
Therefore, moral relativism.

I know that; I'm not stupid—oh, wait, I'm a Christian, therefore I must be, like you and your cronies would claim all non-atheists to be.

Not all Christians are stupid - only Christians like you.

How does one "accept Jesus"?

How is that relevant?

Earning salvation is a free-pass because it means that a concrete action entitles you to salvation, like swiping a card through a slot. Life is more than that.

Even if there is a concrete action that entitles you to salvation, it still wouldn't be a free pass. Look up the meaning of the word, you moron.

Secondly, are you telling me there is no concrete action available to achieve salvation? The what the hell is your christianity good for if it can't even guarantee that?

said genkaus, in the middle of a thread in which he told me that I'm not following my religion unless I'm hitting him with a cross and burning dollar bills. I hope that image of me fuels your self-victimization.

I'm not the victim here - you are.

You are equating such "change" with its physical manifestation. Changing does not make me worthy of anything. It only makes it possible that I can recieve something. Salvation fits into place when a heart is open to it. I can only breathe when I inhale. I do not inhale to earn air, and it is physically impossible not to get air when I inhale.

So, basically, what you are saying is that a rich guy can give up all his money, believe in Jesus and follow his teachings all his life and even then he hasn't actually 'earned' the bullshit your religion is peddling - and that is something your bible actually teaches.

The rich man's perfection was never possible, which is why the fake roadmap was drawn up and then flung into the rich man's face. Christ knew no man was perfect, and the rich man was made to realize that his question revealed his belief in this fallacy, him already knowing it was false. The powerful dissuasion tore down his old beliefs so he could plant something new.

Except, he was never made to realize that it was false. There is no evidence of that. In fact, there is no evidence that even Jesus' own followers realized that that was false. Which means your Jesus was a liar and a conman.

By asking them to do the most despicable thing known to man—give away money.
Without getting it back.
Or getting a medal and a pat on the back.
To the benefit of another human being.
No refunds.
Terrible, isn't it?

On the contrary, these donations go to the upkeep and maintenance of the forum.
Which means they are not giving the money away.
Which means they are being paid back by the continued existence of the forum.
And getting a pat on the back in form of recognition - as indicated by a differently colored username and status symbol.
This donation benefits all members involved, including themselves.
Therefore, not terrible at all.

[Consilius]

Waving around the word 'lying' isn't going to hold me back.
"Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up."
This is a parable Jesus told. A farmer didn't sow his seed that day in Galilee to anyone's knowledge. Is it a lie, too?
A simplistic definition of truth limits one from indentifying ultimate truths by trapping oneself in hard fact, which should stay in the lab and has no place in life's bigger questions.
That said, salvation, Epicurus' pleasure, is found beyond simply doing what your told and naturally acquiring it.

[genkaus]

Waving around the word 'lying' isn't going to hold me back.

It seems to have held you back by a week.

"Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up."
This is a parable Jesus told. A farmer didn't sow his seed that day in Galilee to anyone's knowledge. Is it a lie, too?

I don't see the words today and here in the 'parable' - so no, it may not be a lie. A person lies in if he knowingly contradicts what he believes to be true without indicating any intention of speaking hypothetically. Which is why, in that case, your Jesus lied.

A simplistic definition of truth limits one from indentifying ultimate truths by trapping oneself in hard fact, which should stay in the lab and has no place in life's bigger questions.

This kind of bullshit doesn't work here. Go teach your mind-corruptig faith somewhere else. The same truth that's useful in labs is useful for answering life's bigger questions.

That said, salvation, Epicurus' pleasure, is found beyond simply doing what your told and naturally acquiring it.

Salvation and Epicurus' pleasure are two very different things - opposite in fact, given that Epicurus was a materialist. The latter has no conditions of acquirement and the former cannot be acquired naturally - according to your theory.

[MindForgedManacle]

Well this is entertaining. :3

[Consilius]

19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores." Luke 16:19-21
Jesus didn't say this was a story. And yet no one seems as eager to scream at me that it is a lie.

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." Guess who said that.

And guess who said this:
"When we say, then, that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice, or willful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul. It is not an unbroken succession of drinking-bouts and of revelry, not sexual lust, not the enjoyment of the fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul. Of all this the beginning and the greatest good is wisdom."

[genkaus]

19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores." Luke 16:19-21
Jesus didn't say this was a story. And yet no one seems as eager to scream at me that it is a lie.

Is there evidence in your bible that this event did not happen and your Jesus knew it did not happen? In which case, I'll happily scream at you that it is a lie. I can only tell you about the lies I know about.

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." Guess who said that.

And guess who said this:
"When we say, then, that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice, or willful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul. It is not an unbroken succession of drinking-bouts and of revelry, not sexual lust, not the enjoyment of the fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul. Of all this the beginning and the greatest good is wisdom."
[/quote]

Pretty sure it wasn't your Jesus.