Unconventional Religion

[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.