Unconventional Religion

[Consilius]

No, I said, people are canonized because either they underwent suffering or caused it. Many canonized kings would qualify for latter.

What do you think the canonized things did? Did they cause suffering by giving to charity?

I also said that Christianity was never 'good'. Which is why it needed to be 'interpreted'.

I see you missed my Nietzsche example.

By the way I believe the Nazis misinterpreted what Nietzsche actually meant in his writings, with catastrophic results.

This isn't about you, Justtristo. I'm quoting you to make a point.  
The Nazis used writings from 40 years ago. Either they misinterpreted them or Friedrich Nietzsche advocated for the Holocaust.  

Not buying he whole "everyone their understood what he meant". If they had, they'd have written it down clearly and then you wouldn't have to keep "interpreting".

It was written down clearly to the Mediterranean society of the first century AD, genkaus.

And how do you know it was a hyperbole and not a metaphor? One indicates difficulty, the other impossibility.

Good question. As I said before, there are too many counterexamples of your theory for that one spoken phrase to stand up against.
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?

Its not something one should cope with - its what one should try to eradicate from one's life. Teaching you to cope means giving it tacit acceptance - and that I find disgusting.

And when it happens, what do you do?
You are taking a true statement and stretching it too far. No, I don't walk in front of moving cars. But yes, I should if it saves a life, and if it happens by accident, I needn't be resentful.
No one has any reason to fear suffering because it can be overcome. To fear suffering is to live life with a cast. It hurts at first, but one day, you'll be able to stand.

Except, it can be attached and has been attached.

I don't see what you are are trying to say. Are you trying to tell me that a human being is worth approximately 120,000 dollars?

I disagree. Giving it out without getting something back won't allow society to develop at all.

And the giving water to villages, that's moving backwards?

The Christian society which most closely follows its morals would be the nuns, who live in suffering.

It's only suffering when you can't find happiness in anything besides money.

No, I didn't.

But I get to look down at them right now. So, I win.

"For now," they will tell you.
And it's good to know that you approve of looking down on others because you're better than them.

I do not like the sound of a morality that tells you that you are not worth shit.

I'm "not worth shit" in respect to how angelic I am personally. I don't need a religion to figure that out.
Or maybe I do. You see, when nothing is right or wrong, I can always shift the goalposts in to make myself think I'm wonderfully virtuous person. "From now on, sleeping, eating, and procrastinating are my cardinal virtues. Aren't I great?"

Fine. I'll stand here and criticize the Law of genekaus.

And which law would that be?

Yours.

I do not accept that I sound like an irrational Christian, because I give rational justification for my view.

That's all right. It's okay to be a condescending asshole as long as your belief system is true.

As hard as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle? In that case, it is not impossible.

No, it is impossible.

According to what you said earlier, there is only a 50% chance it is impossible:

And how do you know it was a hyperbole and not a metaphor? One indicates difficulty, the other impossibility.

Or, at least, there was before I proved it was much lower.

The law of genekaus, which I'm sure promises to be as progressive as atheism, seems to be moving in the wrong direction, which I can tell by your statements.

Prove it.

You recently said it was OK to talk like a Christian if your views are correct.

I do not accept that I sound like an irrational Christian, because I give rational justification for my view.

However, the annoying attributes of Christian-talk exist independent of the belief. An example of one would be condescending assholism.

I am an atheist, so you are wrong there.

Congratulations on your conversion!

As for the rest of your comments - let's make one thing clear. I do not label my belief system as 'atheism'. Atheism is just one aspect of my personal philosophy - which I do not share with other atheists here. My views on logic and rationality as well as my morality derive from that not from atheism. 

I am following my rational morality when I don't kill people.

Quick, you see a woman dangling from a bridge. What do you do?

So I DID tell you that my beliefs were superior to yours? Or claimed to have a monopoly on a virtue?

Isn't that what you just said?

Tell me one time I did. Ever.

By giving things to people who actually need them, and when they don't need them themselves.

That isn't self-sacrifice. If you give away something you no longer need - what kind of sacrifice is that?

The two needs I bolded were extreme degrees of need. A lesser degree of need is the kind at which giving away a thing would be an act of kindness. Anything more would not be prudent, in violation of a cardinal Catholic virtue.

You just advocated for the class discrimination of the caste system, the Roman Empire, and medieval Europe,

Nope. That class discrimination was based on birth. This one is based on one's merit and ability.

The heroes of Ancient Rome earned their prestige, and looked down on the weak. No one should look down on anyone because they did something better. I learnt that in kindergarten.

And then walked into the ethics prehistoric tribalism with the them-us faction. Me and my loved ones. Me and my loved ones. Nobody else.

No, the ethics of tribalism saw everyone else as enemies. I see them as independent agents in their own right.

I don't know you, therefore, you don't deserve my help. This is why I say you are moving backwards.
If all tribes hated all others, they would have been at an incessant war with each other. They simply didn't care for other tribes as much as their own.

Christians say that their conditions are good and help make them better. You say that they are bad and do let them become worse.

The bolded part indicates the kind of complacency about poverty that I find repulsive. They shouldn't accept it, they shouldn't try to get through it and they shouldn't regard it as good.

I'm only speaking in your language. If it's so bad, why don't you do something about it? Because you don't care. You can criticize my theory, but I think you action, which speaks louder than your words, is repulsive.

Opportunities are not what is lacking here. Not everyone can expect overnight success stories, but as a general rule, enough opportunities are available to people to live a reasonably secure life.

Open your eyes. In America, the unemployment rate is around 7%. An unemployed person is defined as someone actively seeking a job. When they don't find a substantial one, they sink into joblessness, and stop looking for one. They become homeless and starving.
Do you think that the homeless don't WANT to find work and support their starving families?

What do you think we are discussing here?

What political or social comment did Jesus make that was wrong?