Unconventional Religion

[genkaus]

If it took suffering to be a saint, we would all be canonized.

Obviously it has to be suffering in the name of your religion.

It's misery if you can't find joy in anything but your bank account.

For a rational person, the size of the bank account is a cause for joy.

So the nuns are good people while the rest of us are damned. You'd think that a priest might have given us sinners a heads-up of some sort. They do any other time.

They do. They keep telling you that giving up stuff makes you better. The more you give up, the better person you are. You give up everything - like the nuns - and you are the best.

For reasons known to you alone, if there are any.

You'd know it too - if you knew how logic works.

Because that's the only way you can maintain your Christian caricature?

Its not a caricature if its twisted and grotesque at its core.

You know that my interpretation, as well as pretty much any interpretation from any Christian anywhere in regards to THEIR OWN HOLY BOOK sets the record straight. It makes Christians look less than crazy. You can't have that. No aspect of Christianity can appear slightly OK because if it does, we fit in. Atheism shares its glow with another belief system. But atheists alone are good, and no one else is. The bigotry that started the Crusades.

That's very amusing - coming from you. You started this thread with the intention of showing that Christian morality - in its original and pure form - was something good and it was the constant reinterpretation that made it twisted and grotesque. And here your argument is that it needs to be interpreted in a different way to make it less crazy. The irony here is simply delicious.

You are literally interpreting a simile, a device ancient literature is riddled with. If you wouldn't do it while reading the Aeneid, why do it with a Bible?

That's because nobody is telling me that the Aeneid is anything but a piece of fiction. If you present the bible in the same light and I'll consider all the 'interpretations' you care to provide.

All bums go to heaven. You know you can't prove that. A Bible verse that says you need to be poor to be good, in the Bible, please. Not a supposed condemnation of the rich.
That a complete lack of ownership of goods is inherently good, in any way.

According to your bible:

Luke 6:20-21. Blessed are you who are poor, for yours in the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.

James 2:5. Did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

Let the rationalizations begin.

I did not say that murder had a fixed gravity as an offense. The loss of a life is a fixed loss. However much of the loss needs to be paid back depends on how it was lost.
And the murderer didn't kill me by accident. I don't know where this claim even came from.

That's where you are wrong - once again. If loss of life was a fixed loss then the re-compensation would be fixed as well. The factor of how it was lost would be irrelevant. The fact that the recompensation is not fixed indicates absence of any fixed value for life.

Isn't giving away ice cream good already? Don't you want to be a good person? But are you a bad person whenever you don't show up at a friend's house with an ice cream cone?

That's your morality - not mine. I don't think of giving anybody an icecream as good - so even if I want to be good, I'm not going to go around handing out the ice-cream.

Christ's life was a sermon. Which is why he did not list the theological implications of his death while hanging from a cross.
Christ did practice what he preached. He didn't practice what YOU preached. The morals you are criticizing are the ones you invented, not mine.
You are winning a fight against a dummy that you truly believe is your challenger, who is watching you and telling you why the dummy can't beat you or him.

Hey, you are the one giving examples of him not practicing what he preached. You keep telling me that Jesus preached self-sacrifice as being universally good and then you are giving examples of times when he didn't practice it - so either you are lying about the first or about the second. If its about the first then you should accept that self-sacrifice is not universally good - which means that in many cases, it is bad. So, which one is it?

What an extraordinary assertion. It's not a lack of opportunities or financial resources, nope, it's THE CHRISTIANS! The little boy without a lunch threw his quarters into a garbage dump after a Sunday Mass. The solution to the world's problems is atheism. How coincidentally favorable to your views!
Now you just sound Christian, nearly WBC Christian. "The gays are responsible for pedophilia! 9/11 happened because of abortion! Gay marriage is why soldiers are dying! Atheism caused the Holocaust!"

I'm sorry - I was being too narrow. Its not just the Christians - its all the corrupt religious philosophies. Christianity just happens to be one of them. The reasoning is simple - once you give up the crazy irrational religious morality - such as Christian morality - you open yourself up to reason and logic and the opportunities to make your own lot better become much more apparent and available.

But what's really amusing here is that you are trying to insult me by saying that I sound like a Christian.

Um, can you explain why Christians donate money to the poor?

I told you already - their bible tells them to.

It's OK, guys, the poor aren't THAT bad. They all have homes and jobs, and all they get are common colds.
And guess what? The RICH are also doing a whole lot better, making the relative improvement of poor lifestyles zero, to be optimistic.

Except, we are not talking about their improvement relative to the rich, we are talking about their actual improvement. Which is huge. When you measure the height of a building, you don't say "relative to the middle, there is as much above the middle as there is below - the same as in a shorter building - so there is no actual height difference".

This is evidence for how much humanity has grown - the rich are doing much better compared to the past, the poor are doing much better compared to the passed - therefore, humanity as a whole is doing much better compared to the past.

Of course. The poor don't REALLY know how poor they are, or how bad they have it, they need prime ministers and stock investors to punch their calculators in ties on leather armchairs in air-conditioned rooms to tell them.

Oh they know how poor they are - what they don't know is how to solve the poverty problem. If they did, they wouldn't be poor. So yeah, they need prime-ministers and stock investors for that.

I don't think Jesus came to preach Creation Theory.

No, that was the goat-herders. Jesus tried his hand a anthropology and made a complete pig-shit of it.

[Consilius]

Obviously it has to be suffering in the name of your religion.

Oh, now there's a qualifier.

For a rational person, the size of the bank account is a cause for joy.

Good to know, considering I never said that.

They do. They keep telling you that giving up stuff makes you better. The more you give up, the better person you are. You give up everything - like the nuns - and you are the best.

I really can't see why you are still doing this. I don't believe that, and I'm not preaching it. But you want me to look like I do.
And it isn't holding up. Why is it that the priests don't make us give everything away, and kings are canonized? Why don't we shun people who wear clean clothes to church?

Its not a caricature if its twisted and grotesque at its core.

No matter how sassy you are, it doesn't change anything. Your comments aren't any different from those of a medieval Christian on a polytheist.

That's very amusing - coming from you. You started this thread with the intention of showing that Christian morality - in its original and pure form - was something good and it was the constant reinterpretation that made it twisted and grotesque.

Nothing is wrong with interpretation. Sometimes its done rightly, and other times its done wrongly, and out of context with everything else. Hitler ran afoul of Christianity by taking the Crucifixion out of context.
Jesus Christ led a compaign against worship that comprised only of outward signs. Like burning down your condo and shouting, "Jesus."

That's because nobody is telling me that the Aeneid is anything but a piece of fiction. If you present the bible in the same light and I'll consider all the 'interpretations' you care to provide.

So metaphors aren't allowed in historical narratives.

According to your bible:

Luke 6:20-21. Blessed are you who are poor, for yours in the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.

James 2:5. Did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

Let the rationalizations begin.

So you can ignore them? Fine. Unless you can prove what I said wrong, you have no reason to dismiss my words unless you don't want them to be true.
Just because the poor are favored doesn't mean God doesn't like the rich.
"Blessed are the poor in spirit."
The qualifier you introduced for being 'good' comes into play here. Poor people have the tendency to put morals over money because they don't have the latter. They have a clearer view of the world and realize that morals are more important than money because they don't have luxury to distract them. Their revelation is not exclusive to them: we can all share it; we just have the added task of letting go, mentally and, for some, physically, of what we have.
That's what all suffering is: a way of weaning us from the material so we can realize the immaterial.

That's where you are wrong - once again. If loss of life was a fixed loss then the re-compensation would be fixed as well. The factor of how it was lost would be irrelevant. The fact that the recompensation is not fixed indicates absence of any fixed value for life.

The extra compensation murderers have to pay is punishment for what they did.

I don't think of giving anybody an icecream as good - so even if I want to be good, I'm not going to go around handing out the ice-cream.

Fine. Think of a good deed. Now ask yourself why you wouldn't perform it for just any reason.

Hey, you are the one giving examples of him not practicing what he preached.

You can't have too much of a good thing.

I'm sorry - I was being too narrow. Its not just the Christians - its all the corrupt religious philosophies. Christianity just happens to be one of them.

The starving communities Christian charities are feeding? Yeah, we build schools for them so we can burn them down later.
This should seem like an obvious question-what happened to all the poor atheists?

The reasoning is simple - once you give up the crazy irrational religious morality - such as Christian morality - you open yourself up to reason and logic and the opportunities to make your own lot better become much more apparent and available.

The reasoning is simple - once you give up violent immoral heathenism, - such as polytheism - (you sound like a preacher here) you can OPEN YOURSELF UP to GOD and JESUS and the opportunities to make your own personal relationship with Jesus Christ a lot better.
The response to something as condescending and insulting as this would be: "I know how to be a good person, dumbass. I'm not buying what you're selling."

In the same way, I know how reason and logic work. I am not closed up in a shell that I desperately need you to crack. You don't need your soul to be saved, and I don't need you talking to me like a caveman. And yet you insist on condemning my beliefs, something you can't do without first misrepresenting them, like a bearded Presbyterian with a pitchfork and a Bible going after a Native American.

But what's really amusing here is that you are trying to insult me by saying that I sound like a Christian.

That's no mistake. You are being the door-to-door evangelist no one likes. The person who comes to your mind when I say the word, "Christian."

I told you already - their bible tells them to.

The Bible told us to give our money to the poor. Then it told us God will strike you down if you're caught with legal tender. Either Christianity is an ongoing game of hot potato, or you need to choose which sermon to stop preaching.

Except, we are not talking about their improvement relative to the rich, we are talking about their actual improvement. Which is huge. When you measure the height of a building, you don't say "relative to the middle, there is as much above the middle as there is below - the same as in a shorter building - so there is no actual height difference".

The gap between the poor and the rich shouldn't exist, period. The king of Babylon didn't have indoor plumbing. Kids in Africa do. But they are underprivileged, and we are not. And we haven't stopped helping them. And the only way to help them is giving money to charity and not getting it back.

This is evidence for how much humanity has grown - the rich are doing much better compared to the past, the poor are doing much better compared to the passed - therefore, humanity as a whole is doing much better compared to the past.

The poor of Babylon were unemployed. People today are unemployed. Having a toilet in Babylon would be prestigious. Having a toilet today isn't impressive.

Oh they know how poor they are - what they don't know is how to solve the poverty problem. If they did, they wouldn't be poor. So yeah, they need prime-ministers and stock investors for that.

A poor person knows that he needs help to accomplish his goals. When a stock investor or a prime minister doesn't step up to help, he remains poor.

Jesus tried his hand a anthropology and made a complete pig-shit of it.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[genkaus]

Oh, now there's a qualifier.

That qualifier was always there. I just thought it was so obvious that it didn't need spelling out. After all, you never see them canonizing someone from a different religion.

I really can't see why you are still doing this. I don't believe that, and I'm not preaching it. But you want me to look like I do.

This discussion isn't about what you preach - its about what your religion preaches in its unadulterated form. I have said this before - your religion in its original form is twisted, irrational and immoral - you and the other Christians realize it and that is why you rationalize - I'm sorry - 'interpret' it into something more acceptable.

And it isn't holding up. Why is it that the priests don't make us give everything away, and kings are canonized? Why don't we shun people who wear clean clothes to church?

Because they want to have their cake while eating it. Because those kings cause or undergo suffering in name of religon. And because they want the money that's in those clean pockets.

No matter how sassy you are, it doesn't change anything. Your comments aren't any different from those of a medieval Christian on a polytheist.

To that extent, I agree with your medieval Christian. Polytheistic religions are insane and irrational and so is yours.

Nothing is wrong with interpretation. Sometimes its done rightly, and other times its done wrongly, and out of context with everything else. Hitler ran afoul of Christianity by taking the Crucifixion out of context.
Jesus Christ led a compaign against worship that comprised only of outward signs. Like burning down your condo and shouting, "Jesus."

If it was something good to begin with then it wouldn't need to be 'interpreted'.

So metaphors aren't allowed in historical narratives.

Not unless they are clearly indicated as such.

So you can ignore them? Fine. Unless you can prove what I said wrong, you have no reason to dismiss my words unless you don't want them to be true.
Just because the poor are favored doesn't mean God doesn't like the rich.
"Blessed are the poor in spirit."
The qualifier you introduced for being 'good' comes into play here. Poor people have the tendency to put morals over money because they don't have the latter. They have a clearer view of the world and realize that morals are more important than money because they don't have luxury to distract them. Their revelation is not exclusive to them: we can all share it; we just have the added task of letting go, mentally and, for some, physically, of what we have.
That's what all suffering is: a way of weaning us from the material so we can realize the immaterial.

I don't need to prove you wrong if you are doing such a great job of it yourself.

First of all, my statement was in reply to your claim "All bums go to heaven? The bible doesn't say that" - well, it does. It literally says precisely that.

Secondly, even in your rationalization, you accept that your religion preaches that you should sacrifice your material belongings. That suffering is an integral element of your religion.

Thirdly, I don't have to prove you wrong when you haven't been proven right in the first place. All you have given is your interpretation - you have given no reason as to why anyone should consider it the correct one while disregarding the literal interpretation.

The extra compensation murderers have to pay is punishment for what they did.

But if the value of loss was the same, why would there need to be an extra compensation?

Fine. Think of a good deed. Now ask yourself why you wouldn't perform it for just any reason.

Given that I believe in rational morality - nothing I consider good would be without a specific reason.

You can't have too much of a good thing.

Why not?

The starving communities Christian charities are feeding? Yeah, we build schools for them so we can burn them down later.
This should seem like an obvious question-what happened to all the poor atheists?

You are not making any sense.

The reasoning is simple - once you give up violent immoral heathenism, - such as polytheism - (you sound like a preacher here) you can OPEN YOURSELF UP to GOD and JESUS and the opportunities to make your own personal relationship with Jesus Christ a lot better.

Except, Christianity is no more rational or logical than "heathenism". Any rational and logical philosophy, however, is.

The response to something as condescending and insulting as this would be: "I know how to be a good person, dumbass. I'm not buying what you're selling."

And the response to that would be - do you, really? How?

In the same way, I know how reason and logic work. I am not closed up in a shell that I desperately need you to crack. You don't need your soul to be saved, and I don't need you talking to me like a caveman. And yet you insist on condemning my beliefs, something you can't do without first misrepresenting them, like a bearded Presbyterian with a pitchfork and a Bible going after a Native American.

Do you know how reason and logic works? Because it sure doesn't seem like it.

You start the discussion defending Christianity in its original form and then go on about having to 'interpret' it to make it seem less crazy.

You talk about people using interpretations to twist Christian morals, but me taking it at its face-value is misrepresenting it.

You resort to ad-hominems by saying I sound like a Christian - without addressing the arguments themselves.

You talk about how Christian morals are universal and then try to rationalize away that situations where they are not applicable.

It does not seem like you know much about a rational debate.

That's no mistake. You are being the door-to-door evangelist no one likes. The person who comes to your mind when I say the word, "Christian."

You are the person that comes to my mind when you say "Christian". Are you insulting me by saying that I act like you?

The Bible told us to give our money to the poor. Then it told us God will strike you down if you're caught with legal tender. Either Christianity is an ongoing game of hot potato, or you need to choose which sermon to stop preaching.

I'm not the one preaching any sermons - but you are right, it is an ongoing game of hot potato. Which is why, rather than trying to juggle it, you should drop it altogether.

The gap between the poor and the rich shouldn't exist, period. The king of Babylon didn't have indoor plumbing. Kids in Africa do. But they are underprivileged, and we are not. And we haven't stopped helping them. And the only way to help them is giving money to charity and not getting it back.

Ofcourse there should be a gap between the poor and rich. How else are we going to know which people are better than others? And why exactly should I bother with the kids in Africa?

The poor of Babylon were unemployed. People today are unemployed. Having a toilet in Babylon would be prestigious. Having a toilet today isn't impressive.

Thus proving that humanity has grown by leaps and bounds since that time.

A poor person knows that he needs help to accomplish his goals. When a stock investor or a prime minister doesn't step up to help, he remains poor.

And if the poor person had the right idea about it, the investor or PM would step in - because there would be a profit in it for them as well.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

He made comments about the nature of society and human behavior - comments that were unscientific and irrational.

[Consilius]

Because those kings cause or undergo suffering in name of religon.

Because being generous to the poor is suffering.

To that extent, I agree with your medieval Christian. Polytheistic religions are insane and irrational and so is yours.

"My belief is the only true belief. I am therefore better than everyone else because of my belief system." That's what caused the Crusades and the 9/11 bombing.
Not all atheists are like you. But to see statements like this coming from a member of a belief system that promises to bring us forward, corrupts a little part of atheism from the inside out. What happened to Christianity is happening in atheism, and in you.

If it was something good to begin with then it wouldn't need to be 'interpreted'.

What you are saying is that Jesus preached the Holocaust.

So metaphors aren't allowed in historical narratives.

Not unless they are clearly indicated as such.

Because Jesus paused during his sermons to say 'metaphor', 'simile', 'allegory', 'hyperbole'.
The Jews of the first century were used to Jesus' language. Many rabbis talked the same way. As time goes on, language changes, along with culture and environment. That's why the Bible needs to be spelled out in light of all these changes. If it isn't, we get Hitler.

Secondly, even in your rationalization, you accept that your religion preaches that you should sacrifice your material belongings.

When I mentioned the kings who were saints, SUDDENLY being poor didn't matter as much any more.

That suffering is an integral element of your religion.

Suffering is an integral element of life. It's what makes the world less than perfect. Jesus dealt with this issue by telling people to embrace morals in times of suffering and find hope. That suffering was nothing, a mere flu shot. The same with death.
As for some, judging by the way they talk about suffering and death, they can't tolerate it. They are inconveniences to the perfect life they are looking for in an imperfect world, so these people condemn them. But they have no control over their luck, and so they live in fear of things going wrong.
You talk about suffering the way one would about heads on sticks.

Thirdly, I don't have to prove you wrong when you haven't been proven right in the first place. All you have given is your interpretation - you have given no reason as to why anyone should consider it the correct one while disregarding the literal interpretation.

You're right. I believe you are wrong:
Because you had three isolated Bible verses on doctrine and not practice, which tends to be metaphor-free.
Because the examples of "them not practicing what they preached" in the Bible are far too overwhelming. Jesus didn't put a Bible in our hands, it was compiled by Christians, who supposedly went against the teachings they wrote in their own book. After that, their books were reviewed and selected to be put in the Christian Bible by Christians. Jesus handled money. He wasn't caught hiding it, he gave it to Peter so he could pay the Temple tax in Matthew 17:27. The disciples had a treasury Judas was in charge of in John 12:6. This information was written down by the people who you say believed you couldn't get to heaven with money. So either Jesus and his disciples all went to hell, the Bible writers told stories of how Jesus contradicted himself and how what they believed was false, or, maybe, you got the doctrine of another religion wrong.
Finally, I can send down a rain of Bible verses telling you what the Bible thinks about money. Here's a preview: 75% of 'good' Bible characters owned possessions. Did none of them heed God's instructions in your three Bible verses?

But if the value of loss was the same, why would there need to be an extra compensation?

Punishment for offense. Like attempted murder. No one died, and yet a penalty is paid, usually less than it would have been had the murder been successful.

You can't have too much of a good thing.

Why not?

You run out of resources needlessly, the good thing being giving things to other people. You only have so much, and it should all be spent wisely.
Hmm, I sound like you. Maybe your 'rational morality' isn't as exclusive as you think. Maybe a Christian and an atheist can agree on something for once.

You are not making any sense.

Why are there poor atheists if Christianity is responsible for poverty?

Except, Christianity is no more rational or logical than "heathenism". Any rational and logical philosophy, however, is.

This is a personalized version of: "The difference between me and them is that I'm right and they're wrong."
However rational or faithful one may be is not an excuse for anyone to be a condescending ass.

And the response to that would be - do you, really? How?

Oh, great, now it's sarcasm. Atheism suddenly has a monopoly on logic. "No logic exists outside of my religion. If you do not share my particular belief, you can't possibly be logical. Atheism is a light to the world in a land of cavemen. The world is so lucky to have me and my fellow believers." I'll reserve my language to describing that as, 'supremacist'.

You resort to ad-hominems by saying I sound like a Christian - without addressing the arguments themselves.

Oh, I'M the one offending YOUR person?
Your Christian-talk is actually quite relevant to the discussion; I said that Christianity was corrupted by its followers, and you are proof that the same thing is happening with atheism, sprinkled with different terminologies. The belief that you are right and everyone else is wrong is strong in you, just like it was in the Crusaders.

You talk about how Christian morals are universal and then try to rationalize away that situations where they are not applicable.

What does 'universal' mean to you? To me, it means that they go for all people. The word you are looking for is 'versatile', handy in all situations. For example:
"Does this man need a dollar? Yes. Now let's hand out quarters to everyone."

You are the person that comes to my mind when you say "Christian". Are you insulting me by saying that I act like you?

Yes, genekaus, I just spent my last three posts asserting that my belief is superior to yours.

I'm not the one preaching any sermons - but you are right, it is an ongoing game of hot potato.

Yes, when poor Christians get food donations, they don't eat them. They just send them back to the retailers.

Ofcourse there should be a gap between the poor and rich. How else are we going to know which people are better than others? And why exactly should I bother with the kids in Africa?

I'm not going to believe you just said that. Confirm these:
Rich people are better people than poor people.
You don't care about the poor.

Thus proving that humanity has grown by leaps and bounds since that time.

The way I see it is this: the day I can happily live the life of a poor child in Paraguay, I will know that they don't need anything from me.

And if the poor person had the right idea about it, the investor or PM would step in - because there would be a profit in it for them as well.

What exactly is "the right idea"?

He made comments about the nature of society and human behavior - comments that were unscientific and irrational.

That the poor were being oppressed at the hands of the rich?

[Justtristo]

I agree fully with Friedrich Nietzsche that Christianity is a religion for "slaves" and Jesus is the ultimate "slave". You really need to read Nietzsche works to understand what he meant by "slaves" and "master".

In Nietzschean terms, I consider myself a "master" and "Übermensch", in meaning that I embrace the freedom I have in my existence. While acknowledging I have responsible with come with that freedom. Christianity's ideal of one being a slave to Jesus Christ is morally repugnant to me and others who are "masters" and "Übermensch".

By the way I believe the Nazis misinterpreted what Nietzsche actually meant in his writings, with catastrophic results.

[genkaus]

Because being generous to the poor is suffering.

What are you babbling about?

"My belief is the only true belief. I am therefore better than everyone else because of my belief system." That's what caused the Crusades and the 9/11 bombing.
Not all atheists are like you. But to see statements like this coming from a member of a belief system that promises to bring us forward, corrupts a little part of atheism from the inside out. What happened to Christianity is happening in atheism, and in you.

"My beliefs are rational and logical, which is what makes them better than yours - though not everyone else's". The key difference here is that I don't try to impose my beliefs onto you by force. That's what caused the Crusades and 9/11 and that's why my belief system (which is not atheism, btw) would not get corrupted or end up like Christianity (which was corrupted from the beginning).

What you are saying is that Jesus preached the Holocaust.

Is that a question?

Because Jesus paused during his sermons to say 'metaphor', 'simile', 'allegory', 'hyperbole'.

He should have.

The Jews of the first century were used to Jesus' language. Many rabbis talked the same way. As time goes on, language changes, along with culture and environment. That's why the Bible needs to be spelled out in light of all these changes. If it isn't, we get Hitler.

That's a very poor excuse. Change in language has nothing to do with 'interpretation'. Language may have changed but the use of literary devices hasn't. A simple translation without alternate interpretation should suffice - if he was talking any sense then.

When I mentioned the kings who were saints, SUDDENLY being poor didn't matter as much any more.

Like you said, the point has always been suffering. Poverty is just one aspect of that.

Suffering is an integral element of life. It's what makes the world less than perfect. Jesus dealt with this issue by telling people to embrace morals in times of suffering and find hope. That suffering was nothing, a mere flu shot. The same with death.
As for some, judging by the way they talk about suffering and death, they can't tolerate it. They are inconveniences to the perfect life they are looking for in an imperfect world, so these people condemn them. But they have no control over their luck, and so they live in fear of things going wrong.
You talk about suffering the way one would about heads on sticks.

That's what is so disgusting about your religion - that it treats suffering an integral element of life. I threw up a little just reading about this. This is why suffering is an integral part of your religion.

You're right. I believe you are wrong:
Because you had three isolated Bible verses on doctrine and not practice, which tends to be metaphor-free.
Because the examples of "them not practicing what they preached" in the Bible are far too overwhelming. Jesus didn't put a Bible in our hands, it was compiled by Christians, who supposedly went against the teachings they wrote in their own book. After that, their books were reviewed and selected to be put in the Christian Bible by Christians. Jesus handled money. He wasn't caught hiding it, he gave it to Peter so he could pay the Temple tax in Matthew 17:27. The disciples had a treasury Judas was in charge of in John 12:6. This information was written down by the people who you say believed you couldn't get to heaven with money. So either Jesus and his disciples all went to hell, the Bible writers told stories of how Jesus contradicted himself and how what they believed was false, or, maybe, you got the doctrine of another religion wrong.
Finally, I can send down a rain of Bible verses telling you what the Bible thinks about money. Here's a preview: 75% of 'good' Bible characters owned possessions. Did none of them heed God's instructions in your three Bible verses?

That and yes.

Punishment for offense. Like attempted murder. No one died, and yet a penalty is paid, usually less than it would have been had the murder been successful.

Who's talking about just punishment? You know that there is a monetary value attached to life, right?

You run out of resources needlessly, the good thing being giving things to other people. You only have so much, and it should all be spent wisely.
Hmm, I sound like you. Maybe your 'rational morality' isn't as exclusive as you think. Maybe a Christian and an atheist can agree on something for once.

Why should you give it out at all?

As for the exclusivity of my rational morality - I never said it was exclusively mine. I consider it to be within every person to the extent they think rationally. Its the part of you telling you that these Christian morals are insane and you should dump them - change them to the extent they don't make you miserable.

Why are there poor atheists if Christianity is responsible for poverty?

Being an atheist does not automatically make you a rational person.

This is a personalized version of: "The difference between me and them is that I'm right and they're wrong."
However rational or faithful one may be is not an excuse for anyone to be a condescending ass.

Actually, that's a very good excuse for being condescending. The joy of being condescending is one of the reasons why I try so hard to be right in the first place.

Oh, great, now it's sarcasm. Atheism suddenly has a monopoly on logic. "No logic exists outside of my religion. If you do not share my particular belief, you can't possibly be logical. Atheism is a light to the world in a land of cavemen. The world is so lucky to have me and my fellow believers." I'll reserve my language to describing that as, 'supremacist'.

I wasn't being sarcastic- you need to justify your belief that you are a good person. Which means you need to show that you are acting according to a certain morality and justify that morality as well.

As for the rest of your comments - let's make one thing clear. I do not label my belief system as 'atheism'. Atheism is just one aspect of my personal philosophy - which I do not share with other atheists here. My views on logic and rationality as well as my morality derive from that not from atheism.

Oh, I'M the one offending YOUR person?

I'm not offended. I'm simply pointing out your overuse of that particular logical fallacy.

Your Christian-talk is actually quite relevant to the discussion; I said that Christianity was corrupted by its followers, and you are proof that the same thing is happening with atheism, sprinkled with different terminologies. The belief that you are right and everyone else is wrong is strong in you, just like it was in the Crusaders.

I feel like I'm repeating myself:
No, I'm not a follower of atheism.
No, atheism cannot be corrupted by my statements - its pretty hard to corrupt a single statement of "I don't believe in a god".
No, the same thing is not happening to atheism.
And no, the same thing is not happening with my belief system either because unlike the crusaders, I don't go about killing people for being wrong.

What does 'universal' mean to you? To me, it means that they go for all people. The word you are looking for is 'versatile', handy in all situations. For example:
"Does this man need a dollar? Yes. Now let's hand out quarters to everyone."

That sounds like a universal application - what you apply to one person, apply to all of them.

Yes, genekaus, I just spent my last three posts asserting that my belief is superior to yours.

And you are wrong.

Yes, when poor Christians get food donations, they don't eat them. They just send them back to the retailers.

How else are they going to practice self-sacrifice?

I'm not going to believe you just said that. Confirm these:
Rich people are better people than poor people.
You don't care about the poor.

Contextually yes - specifically referring to the rich who have earned their money.

And I only care about those poor whom I personally know. And the same goes for the rich as well.

The way I see it is this: the day I can happily live the life of a poor child in Paraguay, I will know that they don't need anything from me.

How is that relevant?

What exactly is "the right idea"?

The one that would actually make them rich, obviously.

That the poor were being oppressed at the hands of the rich?

That the only comment that comes to your mind?

[Consilius]

What are you babbling about?

You said kings are canonized because of their suffering. Their "suffering" was their generosity to the poor.

The key difference here is that I don't try to impose my beliefs onto you by force. That's what caused the Crusades and 9/11.

The Crusaders didn't ride into the Holy Land on horses with swords to go baptize Muslims. They attacked the city and slaughtered everyone inside it because they weren't Christians already.
Al-Quaida doesn't go door-to-door telling us about Allah. They kill you if you're not on their side. They don't have any 'message' for the rest of us to hear. They want to stand alone because everyone else is dead.

Is that a question?

"Good things don't need to be interpreted," you said.
The Holocaust, therefore, was a correct interpretation of Christianity. Christianity does not require interpretation, and the Nazis were right to have taken a section of the Bible and make it mean what they wanted it to mean.

By the way I believe the Nazis misinterpreted what Nietzsche actually meant in his writings, with catastrophic results.

This isn't about you, Justtristo. I'm quoting you to make a point.
The Nazis used writings from 40 years ago. Either they misinterpreted them or Friedrich Nietzsche advocated for the Holocaust.

He should have.

The crowd understood what he meant, and the recipients of the Gospels understood what they meant. The only problem is that a western society from 2000 years later didn't get it, and the apostles would have had no idea that this would be a problem.

That's a very poor excuse. Change in language has nothing to do with 'interpretation'.

It's not just language. It's a change in the way we talk to each other. First-century Jews would have understood that something as hard as passing a camel through the eye of a needle is a hyperbole and not necessarily that hard.
"I'm so hungry I could eat a horse." Therefore, Jesus was a glutton who went against Jewish food laws.

That's what is so disgusting about your religion - that it treats suffering an integral element of life.

So suffering is not one of the things we live with everyday? That I stubbed by toe? That I have to go to work in the morning? That spouses die? That the Taliban abuses women? It's there, and having a sponge bath thinking about a construction project isn't going to take it away.
The difference is that I realize it's there, and cope with it personally, helping others with it inter-personally. Some people can't, and so they fear it.

That and yes.

Great.

Who's talking about just punishment? You know that there is a monetary value attached to life, right?

No monetary value can be truly attached to life, but the best we can do is establish a finite penalty for finite people.

Why should you give it out at all?

So society can develop together. No man is an island. Therefore, we should help our fellow human beings when we can.

As for the exclusivity of my rational morality - I never said it was exclusively mine. I consider it to be within every person to the extent they think rationally.

We're all rational people. Unless you're a Christian. Or a Muslim. Or a Jew. Or a Buddhist. In fact, if you have a religion, you can't possibly be a rational person. That narrows it down a little.

Its the part of you telling you that these Christian morals are insane and you should dump them - change them to the extent they don't make you miserable.

And how has Christian society suffered from helping other people?

Being an atheist does not automatically make you a rational person.

Whoa, I thought an atheist is someone who embraces rational morality due to his newfound freedom from divine tyranny.
And you just said that the poor are irrational people, while the rich are rational people.
Some Christians have a similar belief: happy people are good people, and sad people are bad people.

Actually, that's a very good excuse for being condescending. The joy of being condescending is one of the reasons why I try so hard to be right in the first place.

You enjoy rubbing things in other people's faces.
Many Christians have a similar interest: "When you go to hell, I'll be looking down on you, and I'll say that I told you so."

I wasn't being sarcastic- you need to justify your belief that you are a good person.

I was referring to some Christians I see on the Internet. The ones atheists talk about. I'm not worth shit. And I don't tell other people I am otherwise, or how my religion has transformed me into a Gandhi.

Which means you need to show that you are acting according to a certain morality and justify that morality as well.

This is not a personal debate. I'm justifying the morality of myself and of many. I could be an drug dealer for all you know, and that wouldn't reduce the validity of anything I say.

As for the rest of your comments - let's make one thing clear. I do not label my belief system as 'atheism'. Atheism is just one aspect of my personal philosophy - which I do not share with other atheists here. My views on logic and rationality as well as my morality derive from that not from atheism.

Fine. I'll stand here and criticize the Law of genekaus.

I'm simply pointing out your overuse of that particular logical fallacy.

And I'm pointing out how the law of genekaus, of which you are the only representative, sounds like a fundamentalist Christian who picked up 'The God Delusion'.
If you were to accept that you DID, in fact, sound like you were spreading irrational Chrisitian babble yourself, you would see that you are being as irrational as the people you are criticizing.

No, atheism cannot be corrupted by my statements - its pretty hard to corrupt a single statement of "I don't believe in a god".

As hard as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle? In that case, it is not impossible.
The law of genekaus, which I'm sure promises to be as progressive as atheism, seems to be moving in the wrong direction, which I can tell by your statements.

No, the same thing is not happening to atheism.

Only because you are not an atheist. Even if you were, you'd just be a WBC Christian in the eyes of everyone else—an embarrassment, not a corruption. I don't think I will ever find an atheist who says something like this.

And no, the same thing is not happening with my belief system either because unlike the crusaders, I don't go about killing people for being wrong.

The distinction you are making is that you haven't gone outside and stabbed a theist. That was probably the same case with a few moderate Catholics in the years before the Crusades.
How many people have I, a Christian, killed? Therefore, my religion is perfect.

That sounds like a universal application - what you apply to one person, apply to all of them.

It means that everyone should follow the moral, and that everyone deserves to be at the receiving end. Universality ends with people. The circumstances under which someone should deserve the receiving end are defined.
Universal means having to do with every person.
Versatile means having to do with every situation.

Yes, genekaus, I just spent my last three posts asserting that my belief is superior to yours.

And you are wrong.

So I DID tell you that my beliefs were superior to yours? Or claimed to have a monopoly on a virtue?

Yes, when poor Christians get food donations, they don't eat them. They just send them back to the retailers.

How else are they going to practice self-sacrifice?

By giving things to people who actually need them, and when they don't need them themselves.

I'm not going to believe you just said that. Confirm these:
Rich people are better people than poor people.
You don't care about the poor.

Contextually yes - specifically referring to the rich who have earned their money.

You just advocated for the class discrimination of the caste system, the Roman Empire, and medieval Europe,

And I only care about those poor whom I personally know. And the same goes for the rich as well.

And then walked into the ethics prehistoric tribalism with the them-us faction. Me and my loved ones. Me and my loved ones. Nobody else.

The way I see it is this: the day I can happily live the life of a poor child in Paraguay, I will know that they don't need anything from me.

How is that relevant?

Because that is when we should stop caring, not when the poor catch up to the middle class of 5000 years ago. That is what it means to be backwards in a so-called "progressive" society.

What exactly is "the right idea"?

The one that would actually make them rich, obviously.

It's not like the poor are suffering from a lack of opportunities or something. They're just stupid.
Because there aren't nursing mothers who clean floors for pennies. People who try and get nowhere. You are angry because Jesus said they could live through it. What do you suggest? Do nothing, of course!
Christians say that their conditions are good and help make them better. You say that they are bad and do let them become worse.

That the poor were being oppressed at the hands of the rich?

That the only comment that comes to your mind?

Oh, so he got that one right. Which one did the law of genekaus not agree with?

[genkaus]

You said kings are canonized because of their suffering. Their "suffering" was their generosity to the poor.

No, I said, people are canonized because either they underwent suffering or caused it. Many canonized kings would qualify for latter.

The Crusaders didn't ride into the Holy Land on horses with swords to go baptize Muslims. They attacked the city and slaughtered everyone inside it because they weren't Christians already.
Al-Quaida doesn't go door-to-door telling us about Allah. They kill you if you're not on their side. They don't have any 'message' for the rest of us to hear. They want to stand alone because everyone else is dead.

And that is just one of the irrational characteristics of religion that I do not share.

"Good things don't need to be interpreted," you said.
The Holocaust, therefore, was a correct interpretation of Christianity. Christianity does not require interpretation, and the Nazis were right to have taken a section of the Bible and make it mean what they wanted it to mean.

I also said that Christianity was never 'good'. Which is why it needed to be 'interpreted'. The problem is, some interpretations made it a bit saner, other made it even crazier.

The crowd understood what he meant, and the recipients of the Gospels understood what they meant. The only problem is that a western society from 2000 years later didn't get it, and the apostles would have had no idea that this would be a problem.

Yeah, not buying it. Not buying he whole "everyone their understood what he meant". If they had, they'd have written it down clearly and then you wouldn't have to keep "interpreting".

It's not just language. It's a change in the way we talk to each other. First-century Jews would have understood that something as hard as passing a camel through the eye of a needle is a hyperbole and not necessarily that hard.
"I'm so hungry I could eat a horse." Therefore, Jesus was a glutton who went against Jewish food laws.

And how do you know it was a hyperbole and not a metaphor? One indicates difficulty, the other impossibility.

So suffering is not one of the things we live with everyday? That I stubbed by toe? That I have to go to work in the morning? That spouses die? That the Taliban abuses women? It's there, and having a sponge bath thinking about a construction project isn't going to take it away.
The difference is that I realize it's there, and cope with it personally, helping others with it inter-personally. Some people can't, and so they fear it.

Its not something one should cope with - its what one should try to eradicate from one's life. Teaching you to cope means giving it tacit acceptance - and that I find disgusting.

No monetary value can be truly attached to life, but the best we can do is establish a finite penalty for finite people.

Except, it can be attached and has been attached.

So society can develop together. No man is an island. Therefore, we should help our fellow human beings when we can.

I disagree. Giving it out without getting something back won't allow society to develop at all.

We're all rational people. Unless you're a Christian. Or a Muslim. Or a Jew. Or a Buddhist. In fact, if you have a religion, you can't possibly be a rational person. That narrows it down a little.

Wrong. We are neither fully rational nor fully irrational. We are all rational to different extent in different aspects. Where one's worldview and morality are concerned, certain categories of atheists are more rational than Christians or Muslims etc.

And how has Christian society suffered from helping other people?

It hasn't because it never fully commits to practicing the Christian morals. The Christian society which most closely follows its morals would be the nuns, who live in suffering.

Whoa, I thought an atheist is someone who embraces rational morality due to his newfound freedom from divine tyranny.

No, that's just me.

And you just said that the poor are irrational people, while the rich are rational people.

No, I didn't.

Some Christians have a similar belief: happy people are good people, and sad people are bad people.

That doesn't sound in line with their morality, since it requires them to be miserable.

You enjoy rubbing things in other people's faces.
Many Christians have a similar interest: "When you go to hell, I'll be looking down on you, and I'll say that I told you so."

But I get to look down at them right now. So, I win.

I was referring to some Christians I see on the Internet. The ones atheists talk about. I'm not worth shit. And I don't tell other people I am otherwise, or how my religion has transformed me into a Gandhi.

I do not like the sound of a morality that tells you that you are not worth shit. FYI, I don't consider Gandhi to be the paragon of virtue everyone seems to think he is.

This is not a personal debate. I'm justifying the morality of myself and of many. I could be an drug dealer for all you know, and that wouldn't reduce the validity of anything I say.

Actually, you are not even justifying your morality. You are trying to justify the original Christian morality.

Fine. I'll stand here and criticize the Law of genekaus.

And which law would that be?

And I'm pointing out how the law of genekaus, of which you are the only representative, sounds like a fundamentalist Christian who picked up 'The God Delusion'.
If you were to accept that you DID, in fact, sound like you were spreading irrational Chrisitian babble yourself, you would see that you are being as irrational as the people you are criticizing.

I do not accept that I sound like an irrational Christian, because I give rational justification for my view.

As hard as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle? In that case, it is not impossible.

No, it is impossible.

The law of genekaus, which I'm sure promises to be as progressive as atheism, seems to be moving in the wrong direction, which I can tell by your statements.

Prove it.

Only because you are not an atheist. Even if you were, you'd just be a WBC Christian in the eyes of everyone else—an embarrassment, not a corruption. I don't think I will ever find an atheist who says something like this.

I am an atheist, so you are wrong there. And your assumption that anyone else would find me embarrassing hasn't been justified either.

The distinction you are making is that you haven't gone outside and stabbed a theist. That was probably the same case with a few moderate Catholics in the years before the Crusades.
How many people have I, a Christian, killed? Therefore, my religion is perfect.

But you are not following your biblical morality when you are not out killing people. Whereas, I am following my rational morality when I don't kill people.

It means that everyone should follow the moral, and that everyone deserves to be at the receiving end. Universality ends with people. The circumstances under which someone should deserve the receiving end are defined.
Universal means having to do with every person.
Versatile means having to do with every situation.

And there are a lot of people who qualify for the receiving end. Which means, you should keep giving out money until you become a qualified receiver.

So I DID tell you that my beliefs were superior to yours? Or claimed to have a monopoly on a virtue?

Isn't that what you just said?

By giving things to people who actually need them, and when they don't need them themselves.

That isn't self-sacrifice. If you give away something you no longer need - what kind of sacrifice is that? I'm not being very sacrificial if I donate trash to charity. Sacrifice means you have to give up something despite your own need - something you still value.

You just advocated for the class discrimination of the caste system, the Roman Empire, and medieval Europe,

Nope. That class discrimination was based on birth. This one is based on one's merit and ability.

And then walked into the ethics prehistoric tribalism with the them-us faction. Me and my loved ones. Me and my loved ones. Nobody else.

No, the ethics of tribalism saw everyone else as enemies. I see them as independent agents in their own right.

Because that is when we should stop caring, not when the poor catch up to the middle class of 5000 years ago. That is what it means to be backwards in a so-called "progressive" society.

And why "shouldn't" I stop caring right now? Rather, given that I've already stopped caring, why should I start caring?

It's not like the poor are suffering from a lack of opportunities or something. They're just stupid.
Because there aren't nursing mothers who clean floors for pennies. People who try and get nowhere. You are angry because Jesus said they could live through it. What do you suggest? Do nothing, of course!
Christians say that their conditions are good and help make them better. You say that they are bad and do let them become worse.

The bolded part indicates the kind of complacency about poverty that I find repulsive. They shouldn't accept it, they shouldn't try to get through it and they shouldn't regard it as good. Opportunities are not what is lacking here. Not everyone can expect overnight success stories, but as a general rule, enough opportunities are available to people to live a reasonably secure life. And no, this does not mean that its always their fault that they become poor - but not even trying to avert poverty, that would be their fault.

Oh, so he got that one right. Which one did the law of genekaus not agree with?

What do you think we are discussing here? And please try to spell my name correctly.

[Consilius]

No, I said, people are canonized because either they underwent suffering or caused it. Many canonized kings would qualify for latter.

What do you think the canonized things did? Did they cause suffering by giving to charity?

I also said that Christianity was never 'good'. Which is why it needed to be 'interpreted'.

I see you missed my Nietzsche example.

By the way I believe the Nazis misinterpreted what Nietzsche actually meant in his writings, with catastrophic results.

This isn't about you, Justtristo. I'm quoting you to make a point.  
The Nazis used writings from 40 years ago. Either they misinterpreted them or Friedrich Nietzsche advocated for the Holocaust.  

Not buying he whole "everyone their understood what he meant". If they had, they'd have written it down clearly and then you wouldn't have to keep "interpreting".

It was written down clearly to the Mediterranean society of the first century AD, genkaus.

And how do you know it was a hyperbole and not a metaphor? One indicates difficulty, the other impossibility.

Good question. As I said before, there are too many counterexamples of your theory for that one spoken phrase to stand up against.
I believe you are wrong: 
Because you had three isolated Bible verses on doctrine and not practice, which tends to be metaphor-free. 
Because the examples of "them not practicing what they preached" in the Bible are far too overwhelming. Jesus didn't put a Bible in our hands, it was compiled by Christians, who supposedly went against the teachings they wrote in their own book. After that, their books were reviewed and selected to be put in the Christian Bible by Christians. Jesus handled money. He wasn't caught hiding it, he gave it to Peter so he could pay the Temple tax in Matthew 17:27. The disciples had a treasury Judas was in charge of in John 12:6. This information was written down by the people who you say believed you couldn't get to heaven with money. So either Jesus and his disciples all went to hell, the Bible writers told stories of how Jesus contradicted himself and how what they believed was false, or, maybe, you got the doctrine of another religion wrong. 
Finally, I can send down a rain of Bible verses telling you what the Bible thinks about money. Here's a preview: 75% of 'good' Bible characters owned possessions. Did none of them heed God's instructions in your three Bible verses?

Its not something one should cope with - its what one should try to eradicate from one's life. Teaching you to cope means giving it tacit acceptance - and that I find disgusting.

And when it happens, what do you do?
You are taking a true statement and stretching it too far. No, I don't walk in front of moving cars. But yes, I should if it saves a life, and if it happens by accident, I needn't be resentful.
No one has any reason to fear suffering because it can be overcome. To fear suffering is to live life with a cast. It hurts at first, but one day, you'll be able to stand.

Except, it can be attached and has been attached.

I don't see what you are are trying to say. Are you trying to tell me that a human being is worth approximately 120,000 dollars?

I disagree. Giving it out without getting something back won't allow society to develop at all.

And the giving water to villages, that's moving backwards?

The Christian society which most closely follows its morals would be the nuns, who live in suffering.

It's only suffering when you can't find happiness in anything besides money.

No, I didn't.

But I get to look down at them right now. So, I win.

"For now," they will tell you.
And it's good to know that you approve of looking down on others because you're better than them.

I do not like the sound of a morality that tells you that you are not worth shit.

I'm "not worth shit" in respect to how angelic I am personally. I don't need a religion to figure that out.
Or maybe I do. You see, when nothing is right or wrong, I can always shift the goalposts in to make myself think I'm wonderfully virtuous person. "From now on, sleeping, eating, and procrastinating are my cardinal virtues. Aren't I great?"

Fine. I'll stand here and criticize the Law of genekaus.

And which law would that be?

Yours.

I do not accept that I sound like an irrational Christian, because I give rational justification for my view.

That's all right. It's okay to be a condescending asshole as long as your belief system is true.

As hard as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle? In that case, it is not impossible.

No, it is impossible.

According to what you said earlier, there is only a 50% chance it is impossible:

And how do you know it was a hyperbole and not a metaphor? One indicates difficulty, the other impossibility.

Or, at least, there was before I proved it was much lower.

The law of genekaus, which I'm sure promises to be as progressive as atheism, seems to be moving in the wrong direction, which I can tell by your statements.

Prove it.

You recently said it was OK to talk like a Christian if your views are correct.

I do not accept that I sound like an irrational Christian, because I give rational justification for my view.

However, the annoying attributes of Christian-talk exist independent of the belief. An example of one would be condescending assholism.

I am an atheist, so you are wrong there.

Congratulations on your conversion!

As for the rest of your comments - let's make one thing clear. I do not label my belief system as 'atheism'. Atheism is just one aspect of my personal philosophy - which I do not share with other atheists here. My views on logic and rationality as well as my morality derive from that not from atheism. 

I am following my rational morality when I don't kill people.

Quick, you see a woman dangling from a bridge. What do you do?

So I DID tell you that my beliefs were superior to yours? Or claimed to have a monopoly on a virtue?

Isn't that what you just said?

Tell me one time I did. Ever.

By giving things to people who actually need them, and when they don't need them themselves.

That isn't self-sacrifice. If you give away something you no longer need - what kind of sacrifice is that?

The two needs I bolded were extreme degrees of need. A lesser degree of need is the kind at which giving away a thing would be an act of kindness. Anything more would not be prudent, in violation of a cardinal Catholic virtue.

You just advocated for the class discrimination of the caste system, the Roman Empire, and medieval Europe,

Nope. That class discrimination was based on birth. This one is based on one's merit and ability.

The heroes of Ancient Rome earned their prestige, and looked down on the weak. No one should look down on anyone because they did something better. I learnt that in kindergarten.

And then walked into the ethics prehistoric tribalism with the them-us faction. Me and my loved ones. Me and my loved ones. Nobody else.

No, the ethics of tribalism saw everyone else as enemies. I see them as independent agents in their own right.

I don't know you, therefore, you don't deserve my help. This is why I say you are moving backwards.
If all tribes hated all others, they would have been at an incessant war with each other. They simply didn't care for other tribes as much as their own.

Christians say that their conditions are good and help make them better. You say that they are bad and do let them become worse.

The bolded part indicates the kind of complacency about poverty that I find repulsive. They shouldn't accept it, they shouldn't try to get through it and they shouldn't regard it as good.

I'm only speaking in your language. If it's so bad, why don't you do something about it? Because you don't care. You can criticize my theory, but I think you action, which speaks louder than your words, is repulsive.

Opportunities are not what is lacking here. Not everyone can expect overnight success stories, but as a general rule, enough opportunities are available to people to live a reasonably secure life.

Open your eyes. In America, the unemployment rate is around 7%. An unemployed person is defined as someone actively seeking a job. When they don't find a substantial one, they sink into joblessness, and stop looking for one. They become homeless and starving.
Do you think that the homeless don't WANT to find work and support their starving families?

What do you think we are discussing here?

What political or social comment did Jesus make that was wrong?

[genkaus]

What do you think the canonized things did? Did they cause suffering by giving to charity?

There are many other ways - like starting crusades.

I see you missed my Nietzsche example.

By the way I believe the Nazis misinterpreted what Nietzsche actually meant in his writings, with catastrophic results.

This isn't about you, Justtristo. I'm quoting you to make a point.  
The Nazis used writings from 40 years ago. Either they misinterpreted them or Friedrich Nietzsche advocated for the Holocaust.

Or, the third option - someone deliberately edited and censored his work to make it appear anti-semitic. Are you suggesting that the bible does not depict your Jesus accurately?
 

It was written down clearly to the Mediterranean society of the first century AD, genkaus.

Prove it.

And when it happens, what do you do?
You are taking a true statement and stretching it too far. No, I don't walk in front of moving cars. But yes, I should if it saves a life, and if it happens by accident, I needn't be resentful.
No one has any reason to fear suffering because it can be overcome. To fear suffering is to live life with a cast. It hurts at first, but one day, you'll be able to stand.

That's the point of being rational - of any sort of suffering does happen, it'd be minimal.

I don't see what you are are trying to say. Are you trying to tell me that a human being is worth approximately 120,000 dollars?

I read it was $50,000, per year of quality life.

And the giving water to villages, that's moving backwards?

Not if it benefits you in the end.

It's only suffering when you can't find happiness in anything besides money.

No, if you have to eat crappy food and sleep on hard beds - that's suffering too.

"For now," they will tell you.
And it's good to know that you approve of looking down on others because you're better than them.

"And now is all there is" I will tell them.
As long as we can agree that I am better than them.

I'm "not worth shit" in respect to how angelic I am personally. I don't need a religion to figure that out.
Or maybe I do. You see, when nothing is right or wrong, I can always shift the goalposts in to make myself think I'm wonderfully virtuous person. "From now on, sleeping, eating, and procrastinating are my cardinal virtues. Aren't I great?"

Except, I never said that nothing is right or wrong.

Yours.

Tautology fail - can you tell me what it says?

That's all right. It's okay to be a condescending asshole as long as your belief system is true.

Glad we agree on something.

As hard as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle? In that case, it is not impossible.

No, it is impossible.

According to what you said earlier, there is only a 50% chance it is impossible:

And how do you know it was a hyperbole and not a metaphor? One indicates difficulty, the other impossibility.

Or, at least, there was before I proved it was much lower.[/quote]

Except, you are talking about something I said - something I clarified as impossible.

You recently said it was OK to talk like a Christian if your views are correct.

No, I didn't. In fact, I'd say that if your views are correct, then you are, by definition, not talking like a Christian, because Christian views are not correct.

However, the annoying attributes of Christian-talk exist independent of the belief. An example of one would be condescending assholism.

Oh, that. Well, once again the difference is that here it is justified.

Congratulations on your conversion!

A bit late to the party.

Quick, you see a woman dangling from a bridge. What do you do?

Call 911.

Tell me one time I did. Ever.

Why do you need me to tell you? Don't you know what you said?

The two needs I bolded were extreme degrees of need. A lesser degree of need is the kind at which giving away a thing would be an act of kindness. Anything more would not be prudent, in violation of a cardinal Catholic virtue.

And here come the rationalizations and the equivocations - "when i said need, I didn't mean need need, I meant neeeed - that is real extreme need. Doing it when there is only need and no neeeeed is not right"

The heroes of Ancient Rome earned their prestige, and looked down on the weak. No one should look down on anyone because they did something better. I learnt that in kindergarten.

That's not an example of class discrimination and are you still following kindergarten morality?

I don't know you, therefore, you don't deserve my help. This is why I say you are moving backwards.

Wrong. I don't know you, therefore, you don't deserve my unconditional help - the kind I would give to family and friends. If you want my help, prove that you deserve it.

If all tribes hated all others, they would have been at an incessant war with each other. They simply didn't care for other tribes as much as their own.

They were at incessant war with each-other.

I'm only speaking in your language. If it's so bad, why don't you do something about it? Because you don't care. You can criticize my theory, but I think you action, which speaks louder than your words, is repulsive.

I do care - about my own poverty. And I do do something about it - make sure I don't become poor.

Open your eyes. In America, the unemployment rate is around 7%. An unemployed person is defined as someone actively seeking a job. When they don't find a substantial one, they sink into joblessness, and stop looking for one. They become homeless and starving.
Do you think that the homeless don't WANT to find work and support their starving families?

If an unemployed person stops looking for a job then he is no longer unemployed? That's ridiculous. And like I said, wanting to find work and actually trying for it are different things.

What political or social comment did Jesus make that was wrong?

Look to the discussion above.