Love ludicrously lost: literacy lacking louts liberally lambasted... lol

[stray]

I think you're wrong, but I'm not going to have a religious argument.

It's not a religious argument. Just think of it as an argument concerning the contents of a book. Because that's what it is. It could an argument like one concerning any book -- it just so happens that it's the bible this time. I give a shit about a religious argument as well.

That being said, so far, I've pointed out some things that are actually in that book (paraphrasing aside). Just saying I'm wrong without saying why isn't good enough. The 10% tithe rule? All very true. The perfume story - it's in there. I could go further and point out that Jewish patriarches like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, Solomon were not just rich men. They were ridiculously wealthy. Jesus might have been poor himself, but if the gospels are to be believed, then he had rich followers by his side (Lazarus, Nicodemus, the wife of Pilate supposedly). There wasn't anything written where he condemned them. He just condemned greed and prejudice.

[lamaros]

Where's the bit where you work for the oil companies and roll around in an overpriced car? I must have missed that bit. (The Bible is a long read, it's hard to remember everything).

[stray]

I'm not concerned so much about what is or should supposedly be in the bible. Just what isn't.

[lamaros]

Just so we're absolutely clear here: If it's not explicitly in the Bible then it's okay, right?

[stray]

I never said anything was okay or wasn't. I'm just talking about what isn't the bible.

[Phildo]

You know what else isn't in the bible?  Lo Pan.

[stray]

Yeah, but there is that Methuselah guy.

[lamaros]

I'm not concerned so much about what is or should supposedly be in the bible. Just what isn't.

Actually you were going on about how there's nothing in the Bible against being materialistic. You defence being that:

a. The Bible doesn't say we should give away all our earnings.
b. Jesus doesn't hate a woman for perfuming his feet.

Clearly these two examples are proof that the Bible loves people who spend their money on expensive cars. I don't know how Tale ever managed to get confused.

I could go further and point out that Jewish patriarches like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, Solomon were not just rich men. They were ridiculously wealthy. Jesus might have been poor himself, but if the gospels are to be believed, then he had rich followers by his side (Lazarus, Nicodemus, the wife of Pilate supposedly). There wasn't anything written where he condemned them.

Cain (who is in the bible) was a murderer, therefore the Bible doesn't have anything against murder, right?

(PSA: This is not trolling, this is making a point: Something being in the Bible cannot be construed as an argument whatever way you want to take it, picking isolated examples out of the overall context and message of the book can be used to serve a wide variety of disparate purposes. The fact is when someone lists their favourite book as the Bible people make assumptions about their religion. Assuming they are Christian we then assume they have certain value and beliefs, or are hypocrites. This might not be true, they might list the Bible as a favourite book for more secular reasons, and thus not be a hypocrite, but we're assuming this isn't the case here. Thus there is a reasonable expectation that a materialistic oil-defending Bible loving Christian is a hypocrite, or at the very least an idiot.)

If you want to defend materialism as being consistent with Christianity (as idealy presented in the Bible, not as flawedly practiced in reality) you have to go a lot further than pointing out the existence of rich people (do note the example raised earlier of Buffet -- rich doesn't not have to imply one is a materialist. Also note that the lack of explicit condemnation does not argue against implicit criticism).

[stray]

I'm not concerned so much about what is or should supposedly be in the bible. Just what isn't.

Actually you were going on about how there's nothing in the Bible against being materialistic.

Wait start over. You came here out of nowhere saying I was saying that it was "OK" to be materialistic. I never talked about that one way or the other. I was only addressing whether the Bible, as Tale said, was against enjoying material things. I provided examples that said it wasn't. He said I was plainly wrong, as if by fiat declarations solve everything.

This has nothing to do with whether it's "OK" just because it's "in the Bible" though. People can decide for themselves what's OK, or whether they think they need the Bible to tell them so.

Cain (who is in the bible) was a murderer, therefore the Bible doesn't have anything against murder, right?

That's not at all like the examples I gave. Cain was condemned for being a murderer in the Bible -- none of the examples I gave of rich men were condemned for being rich. You don't just stop at the instance that Cain murdered and say "Well, it's in the Bible, so it approves murder". What is that? The whole point of his and Abel's story is that murder was frowned upon. On the flipside, the whole point of Abraham's story wasn't that rich men were frowned upon. In fact, his story is about being "blessed" with enough land to qualify as his own nation, and to be given enough descendents to "match the stars" themselves. Secondly, the whole point of that tithe "tax" law in the Torah was that you didn't have to give all of your money away. It set a specific limit. You could, in fact, enjoy the fruits of your labor. You weren't under any obligation to take the advice of or constantly give to people who had nothing to do with how you made your money. It praises those who do, but it doesn't condemn those who don't. No one's being a "hypocrite" just because they're not shaving their heads and walking in sackcloth like St. Francis. Rich Jews or Christians (or Muslims) could in fact give 10% of their earnings, profess belief in the Bible as their moral compass, and still manage to be following it -- even if they remain in luxury. Whether this woman I know is giving 10% herself -- I don't know, nor do I care. More than likely, she probably does. She works part-time in a church, and most people like that probably couldn't escape giving tithes even if they wanted to.

[edit] As for the "oil company" thing.. She's just a corporate lawyer. Y'know, reviews contracts and shit like that. She could very well be working for the Keebler fucking elves and have the same nature of work. Does that make it less "evil" really? I mean, she's not some nemesis of Erin Brockovich, cockblocking lawsuits and shit. Different type of lawyer.

[Abagadro]

She's just a corporate lawyer. Y'know, reviews contracts and shit like that.

You know who else just reviewed documents and helped an entity to do its thing?  Nazis.   

[cmlancas]

Hi, my name's Stray and I looooooooove being trolled! 


Hard to resist him, I know. 

Edit: Doesn't matter if you hold up the "I'm not trolling!" sign. The shade of green of your skin gives it away!

[stray]

 

[lamaros]

Edit: Doesn't matter if you hold up the "I'm not trolling!" sign. The shade of green of your skin gives it away!

What you doing here involving yourself (besides.. trolling... me)? Don't you have an ego inflating book club to resuscitate?

[lamaros]

She's just a corporate lawyer. Y'know, reviews contracts and shit like that.

You know who else just reviewed documents and helped an entity to do its thing?  Nazis.   

I thought the fun could continue for a little bit longer. You're mean.

On the slightly more serious points:

You could, in fact, enjoy the fruits of your labor. You weren't under any obligation to take the advice of or constantly give to people who had nothing to do with how you made your money. It praises those who do, but it doesn't condemn those who don't.

So everyone who enjoys "the fruits of their labour" is now classed as being a materialist?

When someone says "that is good behaviour, but you don't have to do it" they are now saying "I think that is good to do and you should do it... but you don't have to, and if you don't do it's really no different to me". Praise is just an incidental thing and doesn't carry an implicit urge to said behaviour?

Or to put it a more fun way:

A: Hey Jesus, here's 100k. Do with it what you want.
B: Sweet man. I really need a car, so I think I'll buy one that's far far more expensive than my needs and give the rest to charity.

Or do you think he'd get something a little more economical?

But hell, what would Jesus know. Christians base their value and beliefs off how the incidental characters in the Bible lead their lives, not the J-man.

[NowhereMan]

In fairness his point was that there are rich people in the bible who spend money on stuff that's not absolutely necessary and clearly aren't giving their fortune to charity but aren't condemned by Jesus. This therefore means that people who spend more than may be necessary on themselves can still label themselves as Christians.

Unless of course in order to be a Christian you need to be ready and willing to get nailed to some wood (and not in the good way, amirite?!) because if you can't swap your name for Jesus in the bible you can't be calling yourself a Christian.

[lamaros]

In fairness his point was that there are rich people in the bible who spend money on stuff that's not absolutely necessary and clearly aren't giving their fortune to charity but aren't condemned by Jesus. This therefore means that people who spend more than may be necessary on themselves can still label themselves as Christians.

Unless of course in order to be a Christian you need to be ready and willing to get nailed to some wood (and not in the good way, amirite?!) because if you can't swap your name for Jesus in the bible you can't be calling yourself a Christian.

I'm not disagreeing with that, nor trying to imply the later. But there you would assume that Christianity strives for the values and ideals expounded by Jesus. Trying to follow them doesn't require you follow them slavishly, but it would suggest you follow them more closely than the non-christian.

I would also suggest (I thought I have, but I'll repeat myself) that there is a difference between the average person who spends money on stuff they don't exactly need and the over the top expression of such behaviour. In the context of this conversation I'm referring to the later as being materialistic, not the former (though, to be strict you can just say it is a matter of degree).

[Tale]

Skinning a bear should aggro every bears

We're no strangers to love
You know the rules and so do I
A full commitment's what I'm thinking of
You wouldn't get this from any other guy

I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling
Gotta make you understand

CHORUS:
Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down
Never gonna run around and desert you
Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye
Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you

We've known each other for so long
Your heart's been aching but you're too shy to say it
Inside we both know what's been going on
We know the game and we're gonna play it

And if you ask me how I'm feeling
Don't tell me you're too blind to see

CHORUS
CHORUS

(Ooh give you up)
(Ooh give you up)
(Ooh) never gonna give, never gonna give (give you up)
(Ooh) never gonna give, never gonna give (give you up)

We've known each other for so long
Your heart's been aching but you're too shy to say it
Inside we both know what's been going on
We know the game and we're gonna play it

I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling
Gotta make you understand

CHORUS

[Llava]

Ooo, we're lyric-locking threads again?

This should be fun!

[Tale]

It's my reaction to the religious argument I refused to have, being carried out by self-appointed proxy.

If lyrics are now frowned on, I'll change it to a Jesus vs Mercedes-Benz chart.

[lamaros]

It's a friendly conversation, not an argument.  (Also: Chart=Yes please)

[stray]

I'll clarify some things here... I won't address it any further afterwards.

Yes, I don't see any texts condemning "materialism" in the Bible.

That being said, this could also depend on your definition of "materialism" too. To me, that simply means liking/enjoying/valuing material things -- whether they are things or the physical traits of people. It doesn't mean that just by simply valuing that stuff that means that that's all a materialist can value, or that in order to acquire material things, then one must necessarily walk on the backs of the poor. I don't live in a black and white world, and don't define things that way.

And again, as far as "donating" is concerned, the texts state that the obligation of a "believer" is to donate a portion of their earnings (10%) to tithes/charity/what have you. You could very well be a materialist, and still accomplish that. I don't see what the confusion is here. It's a simple point.

If you're under the impression that straight up materialist thinking, under any circumstances, no matter what you donate, is flat out wrong according to Christianity, then it's an incorrect understanding. There are plenty of examples that state otherwise. More than just the narrative examples that I posted above too. There are entire proverbs and psalm passages that say prosperity can be a blessing. There are passages acknowledging not only this or that guy's cool vineyard, but his beautiful wife as well. And his kickass flock of goats to boot. It is a very human and a very dualistic (spiritual and material) text when it comes down to it. It'll always condemn the abuse of wealth and power, but it doesn't say that you have to give more just because you're rich. It doesn't say you can't have nice things. It doesn't teach communism.

[edit] Slimmed it down a bit. Even I didn't want to read that. 

[Paelos]

There is a parable about the woman who gave her last two coppers to the church while other man gave much more even though it was a mere fraction of what they had, and they were doing it publically.

Pride. Money is a thing; it is not a state of mind. It is merely a multiplier effect of your own personality.

[stray]

Yes (I know I said I wouldn't address more, but it's interesting). I said somewhere above that going further than that "10%" is encouraged. It's just not the rule. He never condemned the other people there. Not as far as I can read..

It says (Mark 12.41-44):

Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."

It's a passage that praises her, but not one that necessarily condemns them.

[Roac]

Yes (I know I said I wouldn't address more, but it's interesting). I said somewhere above that going further than that "10%" is encouraged. It's just not the rule. He never condemned the other people there. Not as far as I can read..

What may be confusing some of the others here is that Jesus does go on later to comment on how it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than the rich to get into Heaven, or similar passages.  There is a whole series of stuff like that though - that anyone who even thinks about other women is committing adultery, for example.  All of that is commenting on the impossibility of holiness, of godly perfection.  Doing anything for yourself is a bit selfish.  That's not the same as saying "don't do that" - it's just casting a harsh light on what people do.  Last night I watched a movie, while someone somewhere is starving to death.  Forget religion here, this is social commentary.  How do you justify that, or come to terms with that?  How do you come to terms with that relative to your take on morality?  For everyone - think about every argument, here or even just in your head, about the morality of the Iraq war, abortion, gay marriage, religious freedom, or whatever else.  Then think about someone who can't eat, vs how much you spend on luxury even before talking about lottery winnings.

I'm sure you and Paelos know of how Jesus managed that riddle (hint for those not as read up: it does not include living in poverty), but it's a good question to pose to people anyway.  Again, it's not even a religious question beyond that it's one Jesus (among many others) indirectly asked.  It's one that can make a hypocrite out of anyone who even tries to interject "human rights" or similar ideas into any conversation.  As soon as non-Christians try to lay claim to virtue or morality, they also pick up the baggage of Tate's comment.  Anyone who is materialistic and argues for morality, whether they be Christian, Agnostic, Atheist, or whatever else, is stuck here and may not have been paying attention.

[Jeff Kelly]

I never got why people seem always to be looking for partners that are like them. Why does a potential partner do have to like the same things I do? Some of my more close friends are not at all like me that's part of what makes the friendship interesting.

And to be frank a girl who is exactly like me would most probably be rather boring ;-)

[Nebu]

The truth is that people have no idea what they want in a partner.  Don't believe me?  Look at the divorce rate. 

[schild]

The truth is that people have no idea what they want in a partner.  Don't believe me?  Look at the divorce rate. 

I just want a girl that isn't ugly or crazy.

Slim pickings.

[Nebu]

In my twenties I wanted a woman that was hot.  Now, I want a woman that's happy and emotionally stable. 

I'm not sure which was easier to find. 

Granted, the same could be said for women looking for a good man. 

[WayAbvPar]

The truth is that people have no idea what they want in a partner.  Don't believe me?  Look at the divorce rate. 

I just want a girl that isn't ugly or crazy.

Slim pickings.

Hot, smart, or sane. Pick two. 

[cmlancas]

I'm not going to lie, sane is probably the most important. If you're just going for hot and smart, uh.... 

[schild]

I'm not going to lie, sane is probably the most important. If you're just going for hot and smart, uh.... 

What the fuck? All the hot and smart ones are children?

Did we forget what pedobear was again?

[IainC]

Steven Seagal famously said that he wouldn't bother getting married, he'd just find a woman he didn't like and give her a house.

[cmlancas]

I'm not going to lie, sane is probably the most important. If you're just going for hot and smart, uh.... 

What the fuck? All the hot and smart ones are children?

Did we forget what pedobear was again?

I clearly know what pedobear is/what it is used for, asshat. 

So feisty at work today, schildy :P

[Yegolev]

Steven Seagal famously said that he wouldn't bother getting married, he'd just find a woman he didn't like and give her a house.

Did he attribute Groucho Marx afterward?

[Miasma]

Ahhhh, thank you.  I knew there was something terribly wrong there but couldn't quite put my finger on it.