Unconventional Religion

[genkaus]

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

Do you understand how logic works? My argument was "Only people who cause suffering or undergo suffering in name of their religion are canonized". To disprove my point, you've to point out to someone who was canonized without causing or undergoing suffering in name of religion. Both the examples here are inapplicable.

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.

That was not the case when his writings were being misrepresented to the Nazi party. We know that his writings were not anti-semitic because we have already sniffed out the misquotations.

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

And how does that prove that they understood it correctly?

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.

That's the view I reject - that suffering will find me.

So a human life is worth $50,000.

Per year.

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

Who says it doesn't benefit me in the end? Water given to the villages is used for growing crops. More crops means lower prices. I've to pay less for food as a result.

The key to happiness is in food and sleep?

One of the keys. Its a combination lock.

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.

But that is not what your religion says.

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

You are wrong. Being right is ample justification.

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?

Relevance?

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?

That much wastage wouldn't make much of a difference in my life.

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).

I already pointed it out - its the fallacy of equivocation. "Prudence" as used here comes from Greek philosophers - not the Christian idea of prudence.

The war heroes were of the upper class. Why is it not class discrimination to have them treated better than commoners?

Only the upper class could become war heroes - that would be class discrimination. Treating war heroes better than others would not be.

And if a kindergartener can tell you that something is wrong, you have to be pretty messed up to think otherwise.

Kindergartners have a very simplistic and childlike view of morality - and apparently, so do you.

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.

I said family and friends - so obviously, its not about DNA, its about the my personal relationship with them.

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?

Yes.
Yes.
Yes, as long as there is something in it for me.
And in doing so, increase their own suffering.
Equally moral.

It's just the teriminology used by the government.

No, it isn't.

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

Give example of one.

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?

I have been answering you. This whole discussion is about the bad philosophies of your Christ.