the so fallible Bible

[John V]

This answer still does not address the point I raised.

Your point was mostly just a bullshit excuse for not giving to the poor.

How, exactly, does donating all you earn/have assist in alleviating the suffering of the poor without dealing with the contextual issues that encompass those issues?

It buys the kids in that picture some food.

It seems like you've just placed an arbitrary level of what constitutes 'enough' to live on whilst assisting in combating 'suffering'. I see no working out. Please show your figures?

It's not arbitrary. You keep as much as you need to maximize the amount you can give away. For instance, many professionals would need to maintain a certain wardrobe in order to keep their jobs and continue giving to the poor.

1 dimensional thinking regarding poverty and the gaps that exist between the haves and have nots will serve only to exacerbate the issue.

You can think in as many dimensions as you like - but give up your pleasures to help out in the meantime if those people really mean anything to you. Damn, there's starving people in the world here and now and you guys just go on about the Amelikites, like you give a rat's ass about them.

There are much more productive ways to combat poverty and the issues it creates than simply throwing money and possessions at it and those that it affects.

Again, false dichotomy - utilize other ways as well, but if you care about those people, you'll feed them in the meantime.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

This answer still does not address the point I raised.

Your point was mostly just a bullshit excuse for not giving to the poor.

you clearly didn't read what I have written. Where did I post that not giving to the poor is/should be a default? Also, define 'poor'. 'wealth', as I'm sure you'll agree, is relative. Also, define 'giving'. Money? Time? All? something else? Knowledge? What?

Also, you're using emotional reasoning to dismiss a counter-argument/thesis based on an alternative view.

So I can dismiss your comment as irrelevant.

How, exactly, does donating all you earn/have assist in alleviating the suffering of the poor without dealing with the contextual issues that encompass those issues?

It buys the kids in that picture some food.

*sigh*

Again, I ask you, did you read/understand anything about the comment I made indicating that context is just as, if not more, important than the individual case study?

It is illogical to look at the little picture and paint with a broad brush. "Give a man a fish" and all that.

It seems like you've just placed an arbitrary level of what constitutes 'enough' to live on whilst assisting in combating 'suffering'. I see no working out. Please show your figures?

It's not arbitrary. You keep as much as you need to maximize the amount you can give away. For instance, many professionals would need to maintain a certain wardrobe in order to keep their jobs and continue giving to the poor.

show your working out. I see no tangible numbers on this, nor an attempt to analyse both the contexts of the recipient and provider.

Is 'giving' money to the poor the best way to combat and alleviate poverty, in your mind? I'm curious because I take issue with the notion of throwing money at an issue in hope of eliminating it. Naturally, money helps, but in tandem with other methodologies which have proven, in many cases, to be increase the effectiveness of other strategies undertaken in tandem.

1 dimensional thinking regarding poverty and the gaps that exist between the haves and have nots will serve only to exacerbate the issue.

You can think in as many dimensions as you like - but give up your pleasures to help out in the meantime if those people really mean anything to you. Damn, there's starving people in the world here and now and you guys just go on about the Amelikites, like you give a rat's ass about them.

Let me stop you here. For one, you know absolutely nothing about any of the posters' on this forum and their contributions to alleviating poverty and helping their fellow man.

I can say, almost for certain, that I have contributed through academic research more to the cause of poorer neighborhoods in inner-city communities throughout England and Wales than you have through my doctoral research. And yet, I'm not pointing the finger at others (you) accusing them of wanting to live a life of decadence at the expense of others.

Isn't it bad in your religion to be judgmental of others?

"You know nothing, John"

There are much more productive ways to combat poverty and the issues it creates than simply throwing money and possessions at it and those that it affects.

Again, false dichotomy - utilize other ways as well, but if you care about those people, you'll feed them in the meantime.

Nonsense. Where, exactly, is the false dichotomy? Did I ever say there was method x and method y and you can only chose one?

Cite your sources, using page number, threat title, post number, and the exact words.

I look forward to reading where I have said this.

It becomes painfully clear, John, that you are talking about a subject to which you have little real world experience beyond the tunnel vision your biblical beliefs have imparted. That you seem unaware of any other methodologies to assisting the fostering of equality in societies (people and societies are variable, but poverty is the same) I think paints a picture that your words can never gloss over.

[Cyberman]

I've also never seen Min claim that he has godlike powers; in fact I'm sure he'd be the first to acknowledge his own limitations.

What's your god's excuse?

[Drich]

Well, we quickly saw how the canon of scripture is determined: the Word of God consists of those writings which are used in your own church. Now I'd like to move along to my next question.

Why is the God of the Bible such an evil bastard?

Evil by who's standard?
Soceity has a standard of Good and evil and God has a different one. God's standard was first, and is well established. Soceity/man does not want to live as God has asked so they create 'morality' and seek to vilify what God has done making it nessary to discard God's standard and to adopt their own.

I'll give just three examples, but I could multiply them many times over.

What ever examples you give will only further my point. You have abandoned God's standard and subsitiuted your own.

You will note that the first two examples involve what today we would call war crimes and genocide.

Exactly! and because of this war crime it is possiable to deem God a war criminal, and if God is a war criminal then he is not worthy of being God correct? after all Hitler was a war criminal and he and God share similar acts... Or can their be circumstances that would warrant the death of an entire people? What if a people brought a plague into being that wiped out all life? or was responsiable for destroying the line of Christ that would deny the salvation of man? Remember every moment in man's history has brought use to this point in time this reality, which afford you the opportunity to judge everything you may find distasteful, but without all those things whos to say any of us would be here to make or defend those judgements?

All the women are killed and the children right down to nursing infants. In the first case from Numbers young women who are still virgins are spared to be used sexually by the Israelite warriors. Fundamentalists, please do not demean your own intelligence by telling us that they wanted virgins just to help their wives with the spinning and cooking. The third example is so horrible, so reminiscent of the Taliban, that it needs no comment.

No they were kept to supply Israel with breeding stock.

Since my deconversion the thought has often occurred to me that the ancient Israelites appear to have invented genocide. Such horrors are described among other ancient peoples. Homer, for instance, mentions infants being killed at the sack of Troy, but not nearly so often, and here is the big difference: Other ancient peoples certainly looted, raped and murdered in their wars, but so far as I know the Israelites were the only ones to present it as right and proper and pleasing to God. Today when a modern military commander orders what God is supposed to have ordered, he is arrested and brought before the International Criminal Court.

why is there a difference? Because only an omniscient God can discern who/which people would contribute to how He wanted the course of History to unfold and who could potentialy bring the world to a premature end. a 'general' could not do this.

The argument is easily countered by noting that the Americans gave no orders to kill everyone including even infants, so presumably if the ancient Israelites had had modern technology, they would have murdered far more. However, that does not go to the heart of the matter. The Old Testament represents God, supposedly the standard of all morality, as a genocidal monster.

Wow how soon we forget the past. What of the Native American who were hunted down to the last member of a people/tribe? Who do you think Hitler got his inspiration from with the Jews?

Those who do not know history are doomed....

Why do so many of the Old Testament writers present God as an evil bloodthirsty tyrant?

God is simply presented. The title of blood thirsty was awarded by you when you choose to adopt the morality of your society over your God.

I used to say the reason was that the Bible was written by barbarians, for barbarians, about barbarians. There's an element of truth there, but it is not the whole story.

wow. how many in your church?

[Doubting Thomas]

Oh, I'm sure you would. But if it means you need to reduce some pleasures, the kids can starve for all you care. But you will use them in pictures to insult a being which you don't believe exists.

You have no idea what charitable things I've done, so until you can prove that I want to sit on my ass watching pay per view instead of helping people, you should retract that statement.

Why don't you complain about your Republican buddies who claim to be the party of Christian values on one hand while cutting $40 billion in aid to the poor in this country?

[Searching4truth]

Ouch

[xpastor]

Drich, I am quite sure that you understand in your heart that it is wrong and evil to cut a baby's throat. If you want to insult your own intelligence by claiming that it used to be OK when a god commanded it, I will not waste my time debating with you.

xpastor: I used to say the reason was that the Bible was written by barbarians, for barbarians, about barbarians. There's an element of truth there, but it is not the whole story.

Drich: wow. how many in your church?

That was said AFTER I left the church. However, I revised my opinion still further when I read the kind of biblical scholarship they kept away from us in my seminary, and I learned that the supposed massacres of Israel's enemies were nothing but propaganda written hundreds of years after the supposed events.

---

The argument is easily countered by noting that the Americans gave no orders to kill everyone including even infants, so presumably if the ancient Israelites had had modern technology, they would have murdered far more. However, that does not go to the heart of the matter. The Old Testament represents God, supposedly the standard of all morality, as a genocidal monster.

Wow how soon we forget the past. What of the Native American who were hunted down to the last member of a people/tribe? Who do you think Hitler got his inspiration from with the Jews?

Right. The genocide of the Native Americans was terrible and despicable. And weren't those Christian Americans who killed them off?

[Minimalist]

Drich, I am quite sure that you understand in your heart that it is wrong and evil to cut a baby's throat.

Don't ever make the mistake of giving Drippy too much credit, XP.

[John V]

you clearly didn't read what I have written. Where did I post that not giving to the poor is/should be a default? Also, define 'poor'. 'wealth', as I'm sure you'll agree, is relative. Also, define 'giving'. Money? Time? All? something else? Knowledge? What?

Sure - money and time that is currently devoted to personal pleasure.

Again, I ask you, did you read/understand anything about the comment I made indicating that context is just as, if not more, important than the individual case study?

Don't assume that disagreement is misunderstanding.

It is illogical to look at the little picture and paint with a broad brush. "Give a man a fish" and all that.

You can't teach him to fish if he starves to death before the lessons.

show your working out. I see no tangible numbers on this,

Figured anyone could work it out, but since you can't, here's an example.

Scenario 1: Man sells his clothes and car for $20,000 and gives it to the poor. Since he can't get to his job as a banker, he loses his income and becomes homeless.

Scenario 2: Man keeps his clothes, car, and job. After expenses, man is able to give $40,000 to the poor from his salary each year.

Is 'giving' money to the poor the best way to combat and alleviate poverty, in your mind?

For most individuals, yes, that's probably the best thing. but even if it isn't the best, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, unless you're setting up a dichotomy, which you claim isn't your intent.

I'm curious because I take issue with the notion of throwing money at an issue in hope of eliminating it. Naturally, money helps, but in tandem with other methodologies which have proven, in many cases, to be increase the effectiveness of other strategies undertaken in tandem.

OK, if money helps, than those who think it's evil to allow suffering are evil if they don't give money that they otherwise just use for pleasure.

Let me stop you here. For one, you know absolutely nothing about any of the posters' on this forum and their contributions to alleviating poverty and helping their fellow man.

Sure I do. Plenty of members post about spending money on booze and pot. I know that, if they really cared about suffering, they could give that money to suffering people.

I can say, almost for certain, that I have contributed through academic research more to the cause of poorer neighborhoods in inner-city communities throughout England and Wales than you have through my doctoral research. And yet, I'm not pointing the finger at others (you) accusing them of wanting to live a life of decadence at the expense of others.

Wow, research - good for you!

Nonsense. Where, exactly, is the false dichotomy? Did I ever say there was method x and method y and you can only chose one?

Cite your sources, using page number, threat title, post number, and the exact words.

I look forward to reading where I have said this.

If you're agreeing with me that people giving money to the poor would be helpful, then we're on the same page. However, I don't really understand why you're going on about context and best methods in that case.

It becomes painfully clear, John, that you are talking about a subject to which you have little real world experience beyond the tunnel vision your biblical beliefs have imparted. That you seem unaware of any other methodologies to assisting the fostering of equality in societies (people and societies are variable, but poverty is the same) I think paints a picture that your words can never gloss over.

See? If you're not making a dichotomy here, what's your point? Sure, maybe there's plenty of other things that can be done in addition to direct charity. So what? Shouldn't people still give, if they think that it's evil to allow suffering? You seem to be making implications while trying to leave some wiggle room. Give a straight answer - if someone says it's evil to allow suffering, yet spends money on recreational drugs while others are starving, is that person a hypocrite?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

you clearly didn't read what I have written. Where did I post that not giving to the poor is/should be a default? Also, define 'poor'. 'wealth', as I'm sure you'll agree, is relative. Also, define 'giving'. Money? Time? All? something else? Knowledge? What?

Sure - money and time that is currently devoted to personal pleasure.

So you think it is wrong to have pleasure as well? It really tells. I suspect this will be a debate where you disagree with me based on the fact I do not think as you do.

Again, I ask you, did you read/understand anything about the comment I made indicating that context is just as, if not more, important than the individual case study?

Don't assume that disagreement is misunderstanding.

Then explain and expand on your posts and don't just post one liners that lead to dead-ends. Until you do, I will assume you misunderstand.

It is illogical to look at the little picture and paint with a broad brush. "Give a man a fish" and all that.

You can't teach him to fish if he starves to death before the lessons.

You continue to miss the point and instead retort with irrelevancies. This comes down to me one of us looking at the bigger (contextual) picture, and the other looking seemingly to massage one's ego by claiming to act where others stand and stare.

I call that nonsense.

show your working out. I see no tangible numbers on this,

Figured anyone could work it out, but since you can't, here's an example.

Scenario 1: Man sells his clothes and car for $20,000 and gives it to the poor. Since he can't get to his job as a banker, he loses his income and becomes homeless.

Scenario 2: Man keeps his clothes, car, and job. After expenses, man is able to give $40,000 to the poor from his salary each year.

*sigh*

You know that's not what I meant. you've just made up a scenario that has no reflection on reality.

Scenario 1: I win a million pounds and give it all to charity.

Scenario 2: I win a gazillion pounds and fly into a space on a starship I've invented.

Tangible, evidence based figures, please. I understand your notion of a person keeping what is relevant to live their life. I make the claim that one's live is not simply about living day to day. It is not wrong to want pleasure. But that doesn't also equate to doing nothing about man's plight, and its own inhumanity to itself.

Is 'giving' money to the poor the best way to combat and alleviate poverty, in your mind?

For most individuals, yes, that's probably the best thing. but even if it isn't the best, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, unless you're setting up a dichotomy, which you claim isn't your intent.

No, I'm not. I'm saying there are multiple 'outs', and multiple methodologies that can be employed. simply throwing money at an issue with no attempt to remedy the context of said issue is not solving the issue. In fact in many times it's exacerbating it.

This is what's known as basic logic. If you simply cut back the leaves of a weed without cutting it out at the root, it will continue to grow. Same applies to poverty. You look at a person and they are starving. You then feed that man, and the next day he is starving, and he has told his friend you can give food. Now you have two men in the same situation, and you have doubled the logistical problems of continuing the methodology employed.

Far better to examine the root causes of the issue. Which are almost always sociological, political, economical, and often, religious (though not exclusively, naturally).

No dichotomy.

I'm curious because I take issue with the notion of throwing money at an issue in hope of eliminating it. Naturally, money helps, but in tandem with other methodologies which have proven, in many cases, to be increase the effectiveness of other strategies undertaken in tandem.

OK, if money helps, than those who think it's evil to allow suffering are evil if they don't give money that they otherwise just use for pleasure.

Nonsense. Irreverent point utilizing emotional reasoning and bias against 'pleasure' (whatever that means).

Ignored.

Let me stop you here. For one, you know absolutely nothing about any of the posters' on this forum and their contributions to alleviating poverty and helping their fellow man.

Sure I do. Plenty of members post about spending money on booze and pot. I know that, if they really cared about suffering, they could give that money to suffering people.

Irrelevant. Ignored.

I can say, almost for certain, that I have contributed through academic research more to the cause of poorer neighborhoods in inner-city communities throughout England and Wales than you have through my doctoral research. And yet, I'm not pointing the finger at others (you) accusing them of wanting to live a life of decadence at the expense of others.

Wow, research - good for you!

Nothing to say?

Good for you! Research leads the way to tangible, real benefits that actually affect people for the common good. Understanding why a Sikh religious organisation turned one of Birmingham's poorest inner-city areas into a thriving multicultural haven of prosperity and how their MO might be utilised in other communities is one way to alleviate and one day maybe eliminate poverty. I don't expect you to understand.

Nonsense. Where, exactly, is the false dichotomy? Did I ever say there was method x and method y and you can only chose one?

Cite your sources, using page number, threat title, post number, and the exact words.

I look forward to reading where I have said this.

If you're agreeing with me that people giving money to the poor would be helpful, then we're on the same page. However, I don't really understand why you're going on about context and best methods in that case.

CONTEXT. Everything has a context. A diachronic analysis of a subject (whatever it is) is the first rule of basic inquiry when looking at the cause and/or effect of a phenomenon unless the situation demands otherwise (say, for a synchronic analysis).

Giving money to the poor can be helpful, but it is not always so, and can be very damaging. Putting money in education, infrastructure, and specifically shaping societal structures to be fluid (like human society has and always will be) is by far a better way of alleviating poverty than giving a man some bread. All you're solving is the immediate problem, the case as it is presented to you in the immediate. You are doing nothing to combat the causes of why he is there in front of you in the first place. And money isn't always the way to combat this. A simple 'idea' can often be just as effective, especially if it is planted into the minds of leaders and those who influence and shape those structures.

Now if you can just cite where I indicated a false dichotomy we can carry on.

Cite your sources, using page number, threat title, post number, and the exact words.

thanks in advance.

It becomes painfully clear, John, that you are talking about a subject to which you have little real world experience beyond the tunnel vision your biblical beliefs have imparted. That you seem unaware of any other methodologies to assisting the fostering of equality in societies (people and societies are variable, but poverty is the same) I think paints a picture that your words can never gloss over.

See? If you're not making a dichotomy here, what's your point? Sure, maybe there's plenty of other things that can be done in addition to direct charity. So what? Shouldn't people still give, if they think that it's evil to allow suffering? You seem to be making implications while trying to leave some wiggle room. Give a straight answer - if someone says it's evil to allow suffering, yet spends money on recreational drugs while others are starving, is that person a hypocrite?

You need to define suffering, and then explain in reasons other than emotional, biblical based notions (if you can) why having 'pleasure' suddenly makes you a bad person.

So I do give to charity, but cancer charities, not poverty charities (not everyone who has cancer is poor, obviously). I also enjoy playing some video games and reading great works of fiction on an evening. This gives me pleasure. I also enjoy fucking my fiancé and buying her things. that, too, gives me pleasure. By your standard I am a hypocrite, and I reject that based on your faulty reasoning.

You may simply say that yes, I am. If so, that is why you are derided, and why you will never understand the actual meaning behind giving to the poor, why they are poor, and how to stop them from being poor.

I am not going to kotow and accept your 1 dimensional box of what is and isn't acceptable. Deal with it.