(August 5, 2013 at 11:13 am)Consilius Wrote: Every Christian in the world forgot that you get a free pass into heaven when you live below the poverty line. Martin Luther King must feel pretty stupid now. We probably should have checked that part before we put it into our Bible.
If you say so. And Martin Luther King is dead - he can't feel stupid.
(August 5, 2013 at 11:13 am)Consilius Wrote: Show me the evidence.
Those revered as saints are often the ones who give up their "worldlt possessions".
(August 5, 2013 at 11:13 am)Consilius Wrote: According to my religion:
"If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing." 1 Corinthians 13:3
Also, according to your religion:
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.
" Matthew 19:24
(August 5, 2013 at 11:13 am)Consilius Wrote: I'm sorry, I meant human life is inherently valuable. And it's value is not open to opinion.
There is no such thing as an "inherent" value. Value, by definition, is a conceptual property assigned to the object by the observer. It does not exist without the observer and therefore cannot be inherent.
(August 5, 2013 at 11:13 am)Consilius Wrote: You haven't created a scenario where I can possibly imagine my death being the only solution to giving someone else the value of a life. I shouldn't have to give you a twenty if you need five bucks.
I don't need to create such a scenario, because according to you, self-sacrifice is not a contextual moral principle , i.e. its application changes from one scenario to the next. If you believe it to be universally "good", then you shouldn't need a scenario where it is the only option. Even if it is one of the many options, you should take it.
(August 5, 2013 at 11:13 am)Consilius Wrote: Not my point.
Doesn't change the fact that it is wrong.
(August 5, 2013 at 11:13 am)Consilius Wrote: The wealthy and the poor are balanced?
Nope.
Quote:The way to make it grow is by making everyone richer than they are - including yourself.
(August 5, 2013 at 11:13 am)Consilius Wrote: If you mean that the individual should try to make everyone richer, that's perfectly fine.
No, I'm saying that every individual should try simply try to make himself richer. And since doing so at someone else's expense would result in a greater chance of his becoming poorer, every individual should try to make himself richer without making anyone else poorer.
[quote='Consilius' pid='488495' dateline='1375715610']There's nothing wrong with seeking profit.
According to your religion - there is.
(August 5, 2013 at 11:13 am)Consilius Wrote: But in your doing that, you are giving people money you could have used on yourself and you probably won't get it back.
That's not seeking profit.
(August 5, 2013 at 11:13 am)Consilius Wrote: If you mean that we should ALL become richer, that won't accomplish anything. Pay an oil tycoon and a gardener 20% of his or her income, and nothing changes.
Wrong. Everyone becoming richer is precisely why humanity has grown so far. It is precisely why we are no longer the moronic goat-herders listening to a delusional carpenter.