Unconventional Religion

[genkaus]

The Virgin Mary. St. Thomas More. St. Maria Goretti. St. Louis IX, King of France. St. Margaret, Queen of Scotland.
According to whatever YOU heard, a saint is a priest or a nun.

What I've actually heard is that your religion celebrates and reveres misery and suffering - and nowhere did I say that saints are only priests or nuns. Let me present my argument step-by-step so that it is easier to understand:

1. Your religion reveres suffering and misery as good.

Ist line of evidence:
- Suffering and misery in their lives (whether as a part of it or the effect) is a common element for all saints.
- Only people who cause or undergo suffering are canonized

2nd line of evidence
- Giving up the worldly possessions is one way to live in misery.
- Nuns have to give up their possessions.
- Nuns are considered holy and good within your religion.

Dismissing formerly given evidence to find a counter-example. I can only assume this is because it proved you wrong.
I can't tell if you are being serious or just trying to trip me up. That Bible verse is famous.
Jesus never said the rich couldn't enter God's kingdom. He did not calculate the probability of a landowner successfully looping camel guts through a needle and set up an equation. He said being rich and good is hard. The rich have to struggle with putting morals over money. They have to learn to control their wealth or it controls them.

The fact that I have given a counter-example shows that you haven't proven me wrong.
Unlike you, I don't go around twisting words into something more "acceptable". I take them at their face-value. And what I see here is Jesus saying that the rich cannot enter god's kingdom. Your pathetic rationalization does nothing to change that.

And while we are on the subject - thanks for proving my point. Your biblical morality is irrational and tells you to be poor and the only way you can make it say otherwise is by doing what you did here - by saying that it doesn't 'actually' mean that but it means something opposite.

Human life has a constant value. It can never be less valuable than money, no matter what anyone thinks. A judge and a jury will enforce that.

Wrong. Once again. If life had a constant value, then every loss of life would incur the same cost irrespective of the manner of that loss.

For example, a vase in a store has a constant value. So whether you break it accidentally or on purpose, you have to pay that value to the owner.

But the value of human life - that is not constant. Its estimate changes on a case by case basis and that is what the judge and the jury enforce. Right now, the most commonly accepted estimate is $50,000 per year of quality life.

Placing me in a fake scenario based off a conclusion you jumped into as a subterfuge.
"It's good to give away ice cream," I said. Therefore, I should exhaust my bank account giving every man, woman, and child I happen to come across a fudge pop.
Why?

Because of what you just said - that it's good to give away ice-cream. If you believe that giving away ice-cream is good and you want to be good, then exhausting your bank account to give fudge pop to everyone is precisely what you should be doing.

Because Jesus said that if I don't walk down the street looking for people to kill me, I am going to burn in hell.
"All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way." Luke 4:28-30
"At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds." John 8:59
"Again they tried to seize [Jesus], but he escaped their grasp." John 10:39
"No one hates his own body but feeds and cares for it." Ephesians 5:29

All you are doing here is proving that Jesus did not practice what he preached.

Every man for himself? Why didn't we think of this before? I mean, why don't the poor just go get more money?

Because of the crazy Christian morals they've taken to heart.

Humanity has grown how far? Of course, if you're rich and white, you've made huge advancements, and you live under the illusion that all humanity is moving forward. Everyone else? There is little difference between the poor now and those of ancient Babylon. That's why the OT admonishes the rich to take care of the poor. They were apparently more progressive than you.

Now you are just showing your ignorance. The poor today - even in third world countries - are much better off that those in ancient Babylon. Even for the poorest the life expectancy is longer, the food security is higher, the health concerns are smaller and the expectation of a better life is more realistic. So yes, there is a big difference between the poor now and the poor of ancient Babylon.

Apparently the goat-herders did better math than you, too. There are people who are extremely rich, while others are extremely poor. The gap is enormous. When everyone gets their paycheck (the amount of which varies according to your race or gender), the gap gets even wider. If you don't agree with that, you'll need a math problem.

You know what else is enormous - the gap between the paycheck of a poor person now and the one in ancient Babylon. As a matter of fact, income of a poor person today would be greater than that of someone from Babylonian middle-class. If you don't agree with that, you'll need a history lesson.

And what exactly is WRONG with being a Jewish goat-herder or a carpenter?! Does their message become more reliable when it comes from a diplomat and a multibillionaire?

If they were the ones sending that message - yes, it'd be more reliable. There is a tacit assumption that a multi-billionaire or a diplomat would have a better understanding of politics, history and economics than a Jewish goat-herder and a carpenter. So, any statement regarding growth and development of humanity would be more reliable coming from them. And there is nothing wrong with being a Jewish goat-herder or a carpenter as long as they stick to their day-jobs. But when they start making comments on cosmology or anthropology, all they are doing is putting their ignorance on display.