Unconventional Religion

[Consilius]

- Suffering and misery in their lives (whether as a part of it or the effect) is a common element for all saints.
- Only people who cause or undergo suffering are canonized

If it took suffering to be a saint, we would all be canonized.

2nd line of evidence
- Giving up the worldly possessions is one way to live in misery.

It's misery if you can't find joy in anything but your bank account.

- Nuns have to give up their possessions.
- Nuns are considered holy and good within your religion.

So the nuns are good people while the rest of us are damned. You'd think that a priest might have given us sinners a heads-up of some sort. They do any other time.

The fact that I have given a counter-example shows that you haven't proven me wrong.

For reasons known to you alone, if there are any.

Unlike you, I don't go around twisting words into something more "acceptable". I take them at their face-value.

Because that's the only way you can maintain your Christian caricature?
You know that my interpretation, as well as pretty much any interpretation from any Christian anywhere in regards to THEIR OWN HOLY BOOK sets the record straight. It makes Christians look less than crazy. You can't have that. No aspect of Christianity can appear slightly OK because if it does, we fit in. Atheism shares its glow with another belief system. But atheists alone are good, and no one else is. The bigotry that started the Crusades.
You are literally interpreting a simile, a device ancient literature is riddled with. If you wouldn't do it while reading the Aeneid, why do it with a Bible?

And while we are on the subject - thanks for proving my point. Your biblical morality is irrational and tells you to be poor and the only way you can make it say otherwise is by doing what you did here - by saying that it doesn't 'actually' mean that but it means something opposite.

All bums go to heaven. You know you can't prove that. A Bible verse that says you need to be poor to be good, in the Bible, please. Not a supposed condemnation of the rich.
That a complete lack of ownership of goods is inherently good, in any way.

Wrong. Once again. If life had a constant value, then every loss of life would incur the same cost irrespective of the manner of that loss.

I did not say that murder had a fixed gravity as an offense. The loss of a life is a fixed loss. However much of the loss needs to be paid back depends on how it was lost.
And the murderer didn't kill me by accident. I don't know where this claim even came from.

Because of what you just said - that it's good to give away ice-cream. If you believe that giving away ice-cream is good and you want to be good, then exhausting your bank account to give fudge pop to everyone is precisely what you should be doing.

Isn't giving away ice cream good already? Don't you want to be a good person? But are you a bad person whenever you don't show up at a friend's house with an ice cream cone?

All you are doing here is proving that Jesus did not practice what he preached.

Christ's life was a sermon. Which is why he did not list the theological implications of his death while hanging from a cross.
Christ did practice what he preached. He didn't practice what YOU preached. The morals you are criticizing are the ones you invented, not mine.
You are winning a fight against a dummy that you truly believe is your challenger, who is watching you and telling you why the dummy can't beat you or him.

Because of the crazy Christian morals they've taken to heart.

What an extraordinary assertion. It's not a lack of opportunities or financial resources, nope, it's THE CHRISTIANS! The little boy without a lunch threw his quarters into a garbage dump after a Sunday Mass. The solution to the world's problems is atheism. How coincidentally favorable to your views!
Now you just sound Christian, nearly WBC Christian. "The gays are responsible for pedophilia! 9/11 happened because of abortion! Gay marriage is why soldiers are dying! Atheism caused the Holocaust!"
Um, can you explain why Christians donate money to the poor?

Now you are just showing your ignorance. The poor today - even in third world countries - are much better off that those in ancient Babylon. Even for the poorest the life expectancy is longer, the food security is higher, the health concerns are smaller and the expectation of a better life is more realistic. So yes, there is a big difference between the poor now and the poor of ancient Babylon.

It's OK, guys, the poor aren't THAT bad. They all have homes and jobs, and all they get are common colds.
And guess what? The RICH are also doing a whole lot better, making the relative improvement of poor lifestyles zero, to be optimistic.

If they were the ones sending that message - yes, it'd be more reliable. There is a tacit assumption that a multi-billionaire or a diplomat would have a better understanding of politics, history and economics than a Jewish goat-herder and a carpenter. So, any statement regarding growth and development of humanity would be more reliable coming from them.

Of course. The poor don't REALLY know how poor they are, or how bad they have it, they need prime ministers and stock investors to punch their calculators in ties on leather armchairs in air-conditioned rooms to tell them.

And there is nothing wrong with being a Jewish goat-herder or a carpenter as long as they stick to their day-jobs. But when they start making comments on cosmology or anthropology, all they are doing is putting their ignorance on display.

I don't think Jesus came to preach Creation Theory.