(August 18, 2013 at 3:04 pm)Consilius Wrote: This is the part where you give me evidence. A fatherless child will not recieve adequate parental support. Rape also is an offense to the woman.
Evidence for what? The only point of evolutionary instinct is to ensure passing on your genes. Providing adequate parental support or not offending women is unnecessary for "evolutionary morals".
(August 18, 2013 at 3:04 pm)Consilius Wrote: This is the part where you give me evidence. The regulations you impose in your own Christianity are completely yours.
I've already given the evidence - those verses that literally say you have to give up your money in order to be good.
(August 18, 2013 at 3:04 pm)Consilius Wrote: You aren't very creative. You're supposed to disprove my argument, not give me your opinion. Again.
No need to disprove what has never been proven. All you've given me is your opinion of what the bible means, without any actual evidence to support that claim.
(August 18, 2013 at 3:04 pm)Consilius Wrote: You don't tell me what to do.
No, the bible does. I'm simply pointing out that you are not doing as you've been told.
(August 18, 2013 at 3:04 pm)Consilius Wrote: Besides, you're not making sense. If we make all make ourselves poor, we can't help anybody else.
That's what the bible tells you - not me. And you are right, it doesn't make any sense. But then you are the one claiming to follow it, not me.
(August 18, 2013 at 3:04 pm)Consilius Wrote: Didn't I quote where the Bible specifically says NOT to do something as stupid as follow the doctrine you are preaching? Because it is YOURS.
I don't think so - but that's interesting nonetheless. So, the bible specifically tells you not to practice what you preach, huh? How's that for hypocrisy.
(August 18, 2013 at 3:04 pm)Consilius Wrote: I think I might know a little more about the religion I follow than someone who doesn't.
Knowledge does not equal understanding, obviously.
(August 18, 2013 at 3:04 pm)Consilius Wrote: Well, we can't all own the Bible version you picked out. Shall I explain what I had considered a misquotation?
"If you want to be perfect…"
"If" makes the sentence conditional. It only need be followed in the case that…
"YOU." Earning salvation was the rich man's idea entirely. He was looking for an easy way through life.
"want to be perfect." No one can make anything perfect but God. The rich man couldn't find it in him to do what the apostles were doing simply because the apostles hadn't been recruited in this "all you gotta do" sort of manner. God calls people to be evangelists, he doesn't give out the position as the easy way out.
First, your 'interpretation' of the verse does not make the original verse a misquote.
Second, nowhere does it state that salvation = easy way through life. So, there is no reason to assume that the rich guy was looking for an easy way through life, though he was looking for salvation.
Third, your 'interpretation' of "want to be perfect" is way, way off the mark. The statement was pretty clear on that regard - of he gave up his wealth and followed Jesus, he'd be perfect. Sorry, but your rationalization here doesn't work.
(August 18, 2013 at 3:04 pm)Consilius Wrote: Even if they had been unable to?
Yes.
(August 18, 2013 at 3:04 pm)Consilius Wrote: Educate me, then, Mr. Rational.
Being a thinking human being entails a bunch of psychological needs, the fulfillment which is necessary for having a life beyond mere survival.
(August 18, 2013 at 3:04 pm)Consilius Wrote: Your parents raised you so they could earn profit.
Yes.
(August 18, 2013 at 3:04 pm)Consilius Wrote: Insults only tell me how insecure your position is.
What they should tell you is how idiotic your question was.