Unconventional Religion

[Consilius]

If you think your biblical instructions are of poor quality, why do you follow them?

The Bible verses you used as evidence are poor quality support for your view.

How is that relevant to this discussion? Look it up.

I needed you to tell me that Montinari studied Neitzche's work and dismissed some of it as forgery as a scholar, not a historian, possibly because he noticed contradictions.

So taking a vow of voluntary poverty doesn't necessarily lead to suffering.

No, that one would lead to suffering.

You lost money, and you were prepared for it. Especially if you wanted to lose the money, there should be no suffering at all.

And the virtue of prudence, as preached by the Church from the Bible, still regulates self-sacrifice.

Further, the catholic virtue of prudence was not taught in the bible but was hijacked from earlier Greek philosophers as evidenced by the fact that characters in the bible and the early followers did not practice prudence.

I referenced the Bible's take on prudence, written long before Aristotle was supposedly born.
And you regard the disciples of Christ as imprudent because of your disbelief in self-sacrifice. If you took your personal views out of it, this wouldn't be a problem.

Who says you are not getting anything back? Not all value is monetary in nature.

Why not go back and help the woman on the bridge then?

Yes, that is the situation I'm talking about - both are equally moral.

Allowing the loss of a life you have the means to save is the same as murder.

[genkaus]

The Bible verses you used as evidence are poor quality support for your view.

Only according to your subjective 'interpretation'. Objectively, they literally support my point.

I needed you to tell me that Montinari studied Neitzche's work and dismissed some of it as forgery as a scholar, not a historian, possibly because he noticed contradictions.

To my knowledge, he did it as a historian. Why is that relevant?

You lost money, and you were prepared for it. Especially if you wanted to lose the money, there should be no suffering at all.

Preparing for loss of money and actually losing money are two different things. The kind of difference between fire-insurance and arson.

I referenced the Bible's take on prudence, written long before Aristotle was supposedly born.

Where it is not regarded in the same light as Aristotle's

And you regard the disciples of Christ as imprudent because of your disbelief in self-sacrifice. If you took your personal views out of it, this wouldn't be a problem.

This established the corruption of the concept. Only a twisted morality would result in self-sacrifice being regarded as "prudent".

Why not go back and help the woman on the bridge then?

Like I said, if there is something in it for me, I will.

Allowing the loss of a life you have the means to save is the same as murder.

No, its not.

[Consilius]

The Bible verses you used as evidence are poor quality support for your view.

Only according to your subjective 'interpretation'. Objectively, they literally support my point.

Because God said he cares for the poor because of the reasons I stated doesn't mean anyone should seek out poverty.

Preparing for loss of money and actually losing money are two different things. The kind of difference between fire-insurance and arson.

Loss is still loss. Bad things don't necessarily lead to suffering, you said. What I am adding is that if one doesn't need money to be happy, like most people do, a bad thing (like loss of money) shouldn't launch you into depression.

Why not go back and help the woman on the bridge then?

Like I said, if there is something in it for me, I will.

I thought you were going to call 911 and expect nothing in return.
But, anyway, this standard should also apply to your family and friends. The love they have for you can't compensate for any loss you suffer from because of them. And if it can compensate, then the woman on the bridge should also get your help.

Allowing the loss of a life you have the means to save is the same as murder.

No, its not.

You denied someone the resources they needed to survive when you could have provided them at no great cost to you. A murderer willingly takes a life, and you took something that could have given a life.

[genkaus]

Because God said he cares for the poor because of the reasons I stated doesn't mean anyone should seek out poverty.

Except for the part where he tells you to seek out poverty.

Loss is still loss. Bad things don't necessarily lead to suffering, you said. What I am adding is that if one doesn't need money to be happy, like most people do, a bad thing (like loss of money) shouldn't launch you into depression.

But one does need money to be happy. Which is why we should insure ourselves against the bad thing - such as loss of money.

I thought you were going to call 911 and expect nothing in return.

No, I just said I was going to call 911.

But, anyway, this standard should also apply to your family and friends.

The very fact that they are my family and friends means this standard does not apply. Loss of a stranger's life is unlikely to affect my own. Loss of a loved one's life necessarily would.

The love they have for you can't compensate for any loss you suffer from because of them. And if it can compensate, then the woman on the bridge should also get your help.

The love they have for me can and does compensate for any loss I suffer (though it'd have limits depending upon the degree of that love). Since the woman on the bridge has no love for me, there is no reason for me suffer a loss because there is no expectation of compensation.

You denied someone the resources they needed to survive when you could have provided them at no great cost to you. A murderer willingly takes a life, and you took something that could have given a life.

Except, I didn't 'take' anything. Taking implies what I took was not mine in the first place. The resources I'm denying them happen to be mine to begin with - not theirs. Even if I had given it to them, they'd be the ones doing the taking. A murderer takes life - I did not take anything. Do you see the difference?

[Consilius]

Except for the part where he tells you to seek out poverty.

Notice the singular: PART. You have one verse as evidence for your view. I have a hundred.

But one does need money to be happy.

So all children and the poor and are sad?

I thought you were going to call 911 and expect nothing in return.

No, I just said I was going to call 911.

The question remains: Why did you stop in the first place, no matter how little the loss you may suffer? You WOULD have expected something in return?

Loss of a stranger's life is unlikely to affect my own. Loss of a loved one's life necessarily would.

And how does the loss of the life of a friend or a child affect your own?

Except, I didn't 'take' anything.

You took what was yours away from you. But, in the conditions, whoever you take your resource from SHOULD have it in his or her condition by merit needing it to survive and being deserving of it as another human being.

[Chas]

[quote='Consilius' pid='491578' dateline='1376245540']

Loss of a stranger's life is unlikely to affect my own. Loss of a loved one's life necessarily would.

And how does the loss of the life of a friend or a child affect your own?

Nominated for Stupidest Fucking Question of the Week.

[Consilius]

The thing here, Chas, is that genkaus deals on very physical terms. From what I've gathered here, genkaus' bank account remains the same size and he continues to breathe even after all of his loved ones are gone, which should be good enough for him.

[genkaus]

Notice the singular: PART. You have one verse as evidence for your view. I have a hundred.

Notice "part" does not mean "verse". All the verses advocating poverty would be categorized as ONE part.

So all children and the poor and are sad?

Poor, yes. Children - not so much.

The question remains: Why did you stop in the first place, no matter how little the loss you may suffer? You WOULD have expected something in return?

Exactly. I would expect something in return.

And how does the loss of the life of a friend or a child affect your own?

Negatively.

You took what was yours away from you.

It is impossible to take what is mine away from myself, you moron.

But, in the conditions, whoever you take your resource from SHOULD have it in his or her condition by merit needing it to survive and being deserving of it as another human being.

If its my resource then I'm not taking it from them. Needing something survive does not give you any merit to it. You are not deserving of anything or everything you may need to survive simply due to being a human being.

---

The thing here, Chas, is that genkaus deals on very physical terms.

Emotions are a part of physical reality

From what I've gathered here, genkaus' bank account remains the same size and he continues to breathe even after all of his loved ones are gone, which should be good enough for him.

If that's what you've gathered, then you've understood nothing.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Regarding the opening poll, I think Christ is the problem. Gandhi had it exactly wrong when he said, 'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.'

Most of the people I know are Christians, and the overwhelming majority of them are perfectly wonderful people - kind, funny, hardworking, good to be around and so on. But what I've noticed is that the more nominal a Christian someone is, the better I get on with them. In other words, the closer they hold themselves to the 'words' of Christ, the more of a toothache they are.

This leads to the inescapable conclusion that the people are good not because of their religion, but in spite of it.

Boru

[Consilius]

I think most Christians behave like everyone else does. More passionate believers just tend to use the word "Jesus" a lot, irrespective of the beliefs of those around them.
Many of us can enjoy video games and not stand out in society, but if you can't help but enlighten those around you on gamer stats and trivia, you become annoying, even though there may be nothing wrong with what you do.