Unconventional Religion

[Consilius]

There are many other ways - like starting crusades.

St. Thomas More was rich, and he was martyred by the English King. And Pope Urban II, who instigated the Crusades, wasn't canonized.

The Nazis used writings from 40 years ago. Either they misinterpreted them or Friedrich Nietzsche advocated for the Holocaust.

Or, the third option - someone deliberately edited and censored his work to make it appear anti-semitic. Are you suggesting that the bible does not depict your Jesus accurately?

We're pretty sure Neitzsche wrote all that we have from him, and we don't label his works as antisemitic. They are fine as they are. Neitzsche's writings also had 40 years to circulate, so any misquotation could easily be sniffed out.

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

Prove it.

All of the New Testament was addressed to first century Christians. That's why it was written in Greek.

That's the point of being rational - of any sort of suffering does happen, it'd be minimal.

Like the loss of a spouse. Or a car accident. Like I said, suffering finds you when you're not looking for it. When you don't live life hiding from it, you are able to take on more.

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 read it was $50,000, per year of quality life.

So a human life is worth $50,000.

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

Not if it benefits you in the end.

Which it doesn't. So we shouldn't give water to villages.

No, if you have to eat crappy food and sleep on hard beds - that's suffering too.

The key to happiness is in food and sleep?

Except, I never said that nothing is right or wrong.

It depends on the situation? That means that, if certain criteria are met, an action is always right or wrong. Which is exactly what I am saying.

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

Glad we agree on something.

I thought you'd figure this out on your own, but THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR BEING AN ASSHOLE.

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

Except, you are talking about something I said - something I clarified as impossible.

Are you not reading this?

(Today 05:00)Consilius Wrote:  
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?

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

Call 911.

What? Waste your perfectly good phone battery and spend 60 seconds you could have used to get home faster on another human being?
She's paying you for this, right?

Tell me one time I did. Ever.

Don't you know what you said?

Apparently YOU do, possibly another misinterpretation you derived from pulling things out of context.

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.

And here come the rationalizations and the equivocations - "when i said need, I didn't mean need need, I meant neeeed - that is real extreme need. Doing it when there is only need and no neeeeed is not right"

You are filling up a blank space with humor. Any logical fallacies you would like to point out? Because certainly weren't apparent enough to appear in your first response to my post.
If a self-sacrifice is done unnecessarily, it defies prudence. Therefore, self-sacrifice needs to happen between greed (giving too little) and imprudence (giving too much).

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.

That's not an example of class discrimination and are you still following kindergarten morality?

The war heroes were of the upper class. Why is it not class discrimination to have them treated better than commoners?
And if a kindergartener can tell you that something is wrong, you have to be pretty messed up to think otherwise.

I don't know you, therefore, you don't deserve my unconditional help - the kind I would give to family and friends. If you want my help, prove that you deserve it.

The members of your family get a special treatment, in direct contradiction of the morals you've been justifying. Why should someone provoke such an irrational response from you because you share DNA?
All people are related, and therefore, we should treat each other as family.

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.

I do care - about my own poverty. And I do do something about it - make sure I don't become poor.

Did that have a single thing to do with what I said there?
Do you hate suffering? Yes.
Do you help other people who are suffering? No. Do Christians help other people who are suffering? Yes.
Now imagine we were both atheists. Who is moral? The one who fights child abuse, or the one who doesn't care?

If an unemployed person stops looking for a job then he is no longer unemployed? That's ridiculous.

It's just the teriminology used by the government.

And like I said, wanting to find work and actually trying for it are different things.

The mom who comes home from a failed interview to her starving kids isn't trying hard enough?

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

Look to the discussion above.

You said, "Jesus made some irrational comments about society."
I said, "Like speaking out for the poor and oppressed?"
You told me to think of something else.
I said, "So that philosophy of Christ was good. Which one was bad?"
Are you going to answer me?