Unconventional Religion

[genkaus]

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

You mean "in the name of religion" part? That should've been obvious.

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?

Didn't I already reply to this? Yeah, I remember saying "That, and yes" and you replying "great". If you didn't understand my reply, you should've said so.

What I meant by that is yes, you are right - Bible is full of examples of Jesus and co. not practicing what they preached and contradicting themselves. That's perfectly in line with the bible being a tool for controlling the masses.

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?

I never said that the manipulation was done by the Nazis. Here are a few facts for consideration:
-Nietzsche did not enjoy wide readership during his active writing career.
1888 - Readership starts increasing due to lectures by a critic.
1889 - Nietzsche suffers a mental breakdown.
1893 - Elisabeth Forster-Nietzsche - his sister who happens to be a raging anti-semitic bitch - returns from a failed "pure Aryan" colony to take control of his estate.
1894 - Nietzsche-Archiv is founded where Elisabeth collected and republished her brother's work with a bit of doctoring.
1900 - Nietzsche dies. His sister is now the leading promoter of his work with her personal flair thrown in.
1930-33 - The sister joins the Nazi party and the archive receives government funding and publicity.
1950's - Mazzino Montineri reviews Nietzsche's works and his research figures out which parts are doctored or forged.

And that is why an ordinary citizen could not have simply gone home and double-checked for mis-quotations.

Now, are you saying that something similar happened with Jesus?

Because bad things never happen to atheists.

Bad things don't necessarily lead to suffering - especially if you prepare for them.

You didn't share that view a while ago…

This has been my view all along - give something if it'll benefit you.

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

You don't. I do.

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

You know what a combination lock means right? If you don't have them, you will be sad - if you do, then you still need the rest of the keys.

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

Not at all. Like I said - I've no problem with helping others without any benefit if there is no sacrifice involved. For example, giving my old clothes to charity.

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

Its not the same virtue - that's my point. And besides, we are talking about what Christ argued for - not what Catholic Church names.

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

I don't defy it. My relationship with them is a valuable element to be considered within the rational morality.

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

"If you are suffering for someone else, that does not make you a better person than someone not suffering for someone else."
And specifically in this regards, Christians and atheists are equally moral.