Unconventional Religion

[genkaus]

I agree. What we consider right and wrong is not independent of our nature. When we DO do things wrong, it is therefore a perversion of the natural order, a derailment from perfection. Perfectly consistent with the Bible, which is just a different way of saying what we already know.

Except for the fact that it is in human nature to go above and beyond the natural order - to subvert and at times pervert it. Which becomes especially obvious and desirable when we see that the natural order is far from perfect. As for your Bible, it is neither consistent with the natural order nor the human nature.

The essence of evolutionary altruism is that we all work together. Rape does not produce a productive environment for raising a human child.

And why should I choose to follow evolutionary altruism over evolutionary predatism, evolutionary territorialism or evolutionary rapism. Especially since the latter does produce a productive environment for conceiving a human child.

I don't remember saying that. I can value something more than another and still enjoy both.

Your bible said it. It also says that you don't get to enjoy both - you must give up one for the other.

The love of it is "the root of all evil". Nobody said that liking money was inherently evil. It depends on what you do with it. Simple truth.

Your 'interpretation'. What it says actually is "Money is evil and therefore, so is the love for it".

I do share my possessions with the poor. Of course, I will never have enough to give everybody. The early Christian church gave the poor anything they needed, so all of them were equally satisfied. No one said that everyone owned the same stuff.

If you claim to follow the early Christian church, then you should be giving until your satisfaction level drops to the level of the poor. Only then you'll be "equally" satisfied. It doesn't matter is you don't have enough for everybody, you should give away what you have until you have no more than they do.

Restating what you said earlier without any further mention of my argument because you really, really, want it to say that, so you get to tell me how much better you are.

In absence of any actual argument, a restatement should suffice. You said that it was a misquotation and then proceeded to give your biased subjective interpretation - I corrected you - there is no misquotation and its not what I want your Bible to say, its what it really, actually says.

So you only loved your parents while they were in the position to take care of you.

No - but if they hadn't taken care of me, I wouldn't have loved them. And what was the relevance of this argument?

"Life" is the state of being alive. "Survival" is the practice of staying alive. I'm not seeing how this is relevant to your claim.

You don't see it because you fail to realize that for a rational human being, life means more than the state of being alive.

So your parents only loved you while you didn't hinder their financial ambitions.

Read it again.

Do the parents of the mentally challenged not love their children?

I wouldn't know. Why don't you ask your parents?

Materialism. Selfishness. Greed.

Those aren't consequences - they are the motives for straying from your biological roots.