(September 15, 2012 at 1:08 am)Undeceived Wrote: This is the dividing line, then. Jesus rebuked the pharisees for doing all the right things without their heart in it. Abel's sacrifice was accepted over Cain's because he gave out of love instead of duty. The widow who gave two mites was praised for her sacrifice, not her wealth given.What a pile of tripe that is. We already know that religious people (like pharisees) are apt to do the right thing for form rather than from thinking, and to do the wrong thing for exactly the same crude reason (or lack of it).
It is extraordinary that you avoid that the tale of the widow is praising precisely her proportionate action, her giving in relation to her wealth, nothing to do with intent. Read Mark 12:42-43 or Luke 21:2-4 and show me the word "intent" rather than proportional behaviour, or do you like to make it all up?
As for Cain and Abel, read Genesis 4:2-7 and show me the word "intent"? Show me "love" or "duty" in reference to either of those two (I am reading the KJV). Rather, littered over the OT is the fact that the smell of burning flesh is a sweet savour to your primitive tribal god. In the relevant Genesis passage Cain commits no wrong until he kills Abel, after Cain's sacrifice of what he had developed in agriculture is judged by your tribal god to be less creditable than an idle shepherd burning a sheep for the stench of burning flesh. This has something to do with morality?
The questions of the basis of moral decisions have already been covered several times over in this thread, matched only by incomprehension from theists who say "but, but, ..." before objectively disappearing up their own fundaments. Perhaps you would like to address some of the questions at which your colleagues have failed instead of preaching made-up nonsense.
