Unconventional Religion

[Consilius]

My argument was "Only people who cause suffering or undergo suffering in name of their religion are canonized".

Don't forget the other option you added based on necessity:

(Today 01:18)genkaus Wrote:
No, I said, people are canonized because either they underwent suffering or caused it. Many canonized kings would qualify for latter.

And PLEASE don't ignore, for the third time, as I prove that Jesus didn't preach against money, the entire point of this argument:

Quote:
(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?

We know that his writings were not anti-semitic because we have already sniffed out the misquotations.

Implying there was an original that the Nazis didn't manipulate. This original was in circulation for around 40 years, before there were Nazis. So why would there be misquotations when the ordinary citizen can go home and double-check?

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

Because bad things never happen to atheists.

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.

You didn't share that view a while ago…

Quote:
And why exactly should I bother with the kids in Africa?

And if the land does not produce crops, we let them die, don't we?

The key to happiness is in food and sleep?

One of the keys. Its a combination lock.

Food and sleep and sponge baths are finite comforts. You can be sad when you have them and when you don't.

What? Waste your perfectly good phone battery and spend 60 seconds you could have used to get home faster on another human being?

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

You're going back on what you said. Wastage is wastage.

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

A virtue is a virtue—no matter who said it first.
The Catholic Church names prudence as one of the four cardinal virtues.

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

Then why do you defy your rational morality because you know someone?

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

"If you are suffering for someone else, that means you are a bad person."
Christians and atheists are equally moral?