Unconventional Religion

[Faith No More]

I would guess you had no answer to my question: Who, and what is God's Messiah, promised by Him?

Maybe you need a month to find an answer?

Maybe you need a month to go fuck yourself?

He's taking a month off for personal reasons. Don't be a dick about it.

[Consilius]

Letting your murderer kill you is bad.
Blocking a bullet with your body is bad.
Blindly dying for your country or your religion is bad.
Engaging in charity when you have no reason to is bad.

Its just that you don't consider them 'bad' because your irrational Christian morality has warped your mind into thinking of them as 'good'.

I didn't advocate for being killed by a murderer.
How do you 'blindly' die for a country?
And since when do you need a 'reason' to be nice to someone else?

---

Christ, therefore, had every attribute of God and every attribute of a human.

Not possible, as many of their attributes contradict each other. A god is omniscient while a human's mental faculties are constrained by the limits of their physical brain. Those constraints are an attribute of being human.

You have a good point. But limited and unlimited knowledge do not contradict each other. An omniscient being simply knows much more than a human being does, considering there is a limited amount of information in the universe.

[genkaus]

I didn't advocate for being killed by a murderer.

You advocated self-sacrifice. Letting your murderer kill you is a form of self-sacrifice. Res ipsa....

How do you 'blindly' die for a country?

By choosing to follow orders without actually considering them.

And since when do you need a 'reason' to be nice to someone else?

Since I chose to be 'rational'.

[Consilius]

Allowing yourself to be killed by a murderer does not benefit the murderer.

In being rational, where is room for forgiveness or empathy?

[Minimalist]

I would guess you had no answer to my question: Who, and what is God's Messiah, promised by Him?

Maybe you need a month to find an answer?

Maybe you need a month to go fuck yourself?

He's taking a month off for personal reasons. Don't be a dick about it.

Xtians can't help being dicks...they get it from their book.

Meanwhile...while we're on your book...

Before the time of the mashiach, there shall be war and suffering (Ezekiel 38:16)

The mashiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). no points for jesus

He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). no points for jesus

He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). no points for jesus

He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15). no points for jesus

The fucker didn't do too well, did he?

[genkaus]

Allowing yourself to be killed by a murderer does not benefit the murderer.

Ofcourse it does. That benefit is what's called a "motive" in a murder trial.

In being rational, where is room for forgiveness or empathy?

Wherever they pay rent.

[Consilius]

The word 'murder' does not imply anything is needed other than your death. In another case, self-sacrifice would only be virtuous when the thing is freely given.

What rationality says is that you should be nice when there's something in it for you. What about standing up for the rights of others? Giving to charity?

[genkaus]

The word 'murder' does not imply anything is needed other than your death.

Wrong again. There needs to be an element of "malice aforethought" to distinguish between murder and accidental manslaughter. So yes, it implies more than just one's death - it implies intent on the killer's part.

In another case, self-sacrifice would only be virtuous when the thing is freely given.

Oh, but you would be freely allowing the murderer to murder you.

What rationality says is that you should be nice when there's something in it for you. What about standing up for the rights of others? Giving to charity?

Agreed.

If you live in a society that would easily trample on a person's rights, then your own rights are that much less secure. Standing up for someone else's rights makes your own more secure and ensures future support should they be at risk.

Giving to charity may result in emotional gratification of satisfying your empathetic instincts, better reputation in the society, people owing you one and tax breaks. So, rationality says, there is something in it for you.

[Anomalocaris]

One of the greatest grievances against religion is that it is used by the powerful to keep the masses in line.

Does Christianity fit this description? By Christianity, I mean its early followers, and not the sad imitation of the church that we see today.

Christ and his disciples had a thing for being the hipsters of the ancient world.
They lived and died poor.
They willingly suffered public humiliation.
They did not found an independent state, unlike Judaism and Islam.
Their were relatively inclusive with low standards.

In the shadow of distorted vision of Christianity born from the Middle Ages, could it be possible that the problem with Christianity lies with Christians themselves?

If so, Christian morality is being misrepresented by Christians.

Christian morality is the morality of Christians. "the Christ" is a deceitful myth perpetrated by the Christians to disguise the fundamentally disgusting nature of their disgraceful "morality"

The inumerable problem with Christianity would be much reduced but for the moronic and deceitful concept of "the Christ".

Simple enough for you?

[Consilius]

Oh, but you would be freely allowing the murderer to murder you.

Something is 'freely given' when it is not demanded.

If you live in a society that would easily trample on a person's rights, then your own rights are that much less secure. Standing up for someone else's rights makes your own more secure and ensures future support should they be at risk.

Not necessary. The rich stand up for the poor. Straight men and women fight for gay rights. Adults fight for the rights of children. Why would one support another demographic when he or she could simply fight for his own?

Giving to charity may result in emotional gratification of satisfying your empathetic instincts, better reputation in the society, people owing you one and tax breaks. So, rationality says, there is something in it for you.

This is the bottom of the well. This answer can apply to any other instance I present.
Therefore, I do not actually care about my fellow members of society, I only help them to ease my own guilty conscience and in the hope that they help me later.

How does the word selfish NOT apply to this view of morality?