Unconventional Religion

[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?