Sell all that you have, give to the poor, and follow me

[rjs330]

As if the story of the rich man is the only time the Bible talks about helping the needy. Jesus didn't say it would be easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than to get that man into Heaven, did He? He said "a rich man" as in all rich men.

Sodom was destroyed because they had the means and chose not to help the needy. See my signature for the verse.

What about the rich man that ignored Lazarus? He went to Hell because he didn't help the needy.

What about the lady who poured oil on Jesus' head? His disciples knew what to do with anything expensive and unnecessary, and only because the Son of God was about to die did Jesus say they had good enough reason to not sell that oil and give the money to the poor like they wanted to.

Where does the Bible (particularly the NT) give people license to put their own earthly comforts before the needs of others? I've heard of no such passage. What is a good reason to not help the poor? Is "I do enough" really good enough? And sure, no one is ever good "enough" but you're still supposed to try. That isn't reason to rationalize away any good deed you ought to be doing.

And no, giving to the needy isn't how you get to Heaven but the Bible is full of "oughts". And if you aren't doing what you know you ought to do, then you're doing something wrong. And having the means to help the needy, and claiming your own personal comfort is more important isn't exactly emulating Jesus is it? And if you aren't even trying to emulate Him, and you're rationalizing why your earthly comforts are more important than other people's needs then you must be doing something wrong.

If someone back then gave Jesus a million pieces of silver, would He say, "I deserve this. I'm a great guy. I honor God, so He must want me to have this."? Seems to me that excess money isn't ever a blessing from God, it's a test.

You do have a point. But take a look at the Talents parable Jesus gave. Which is the servant he punished? It was the one that hoarded the stuff he was given only for himself. The others did things with their money. They did not give it all away and live like paupers. They used the money they had to help others and do things for the kingdom. Yes, the Lord does want us to give to the poor and help the needy. But again, no where in scripture does it say that he demands you give all you have to the poor and needy. There is a scripture that states that if a man does not provide for his own family he is worse than an infidel. Yes, we could do more for those in need. But God also does not want us to be foolish with our money either. What good would it do to sell all I have and give it to feed people in Somalia when I know that the Somali government would just take it all and not feed anyone. Thats not being a good steward. Like I said the parable of the talents cover this quite well. The good servants used what they had, but did not give it all away. They used it wisely. The one that didn't do anything was punished. Its not a sin for believers to own stuff. Its a blessing. But we are to give when we can and when people ask. Quite frankly I would give a lot more if the government quit taking all my money. But thats a different topic for a different time.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You do have a point. But take a look at the Talents parable Jesus gave. Which is the servant he punished? It was the one that hoarded the stuff he was given only for himself. The others did things with their money. They did not give it all away and live like paupers. They used the money they had to help others and do things for the kingdom. Yes, the Lord does want us to give to the poor and help the needy. But again, no where in scripture does it say that he demands you give all you have to the poor and needy.

I think the parable is equating talents (money) to talents (ability). If God gives you, say, an extraordinary voice, then he expects you to use it to glorify him. The one who did nothing with his talent was the offending party.

There is a scripture that states that if a man does not provide for his own family he is worse than an infidel.

So this is what it feels like when someone uses scripture against you! Normally I bend the Bible to my whim, but you've got me on this point. The verse you're referring to is 1 Timothy 5:8. So then we can conclude that if you are married, then you ought not give away all possessions. However, there's 1 Corinthians 7:1-9, which says that it's best if you don't get married but you can if you must. Also recall that Jesus promises the rich young ruler riches in heaven if he gives away all possessions, but of course Jesus mentioned something else entirely when it comes to salvation itself. So we see the consistency as follows:

It is optional to devote your life to God as a celibate and give all you have to the poor. Such actions will yield treasure in heaven. If you prefer treasure on earth, you may marry and hoard your wealth.

The question, obviously, is "Why do people not care about riches in heaven?" I think it's because of faithlessness. For a group of people claiming to be in constant communication with God, this is quite telling indeed.

Yes, we could do more for those in need. But God also does not want us to be foolish with our money either. What good would it do to sell all I have and give it to feed people in Somalia when I know that the Somali government would just take it all and not feed anyone. Thats not being a good steward.

Then give your money away elsewhere and wander Somalia doing good works and preaching the gospel. Dig wells and build hospitals. Noah apparently built an ark that withstood a flood of more water than even exists on earth, so why can't you, with modern tools, build wells and hospitals? Do you not do this because you somehow find these things to be immoral or do you simply not care enough to do it because you don't think you'll be sufficiently rewarded in heaven?

Like I said the parable of the talents cover this quite well.

No, that was a swing and a miss. You had just the one thing.

The good servants used what they had, but did not give it all away. They used it wisely. The one that didn't do anything was punished. Its not a sin for believers to own stuff. Its a blessing. But we are to give when we can and when people ask. Quite frankly I would give a lot more if the government quit taking all my money. But thats a different topic for a different time.

So hold on, let's just go with your interpretation here. Still, why do you need a TV? A house, car, job, stuff you need I get. Maybe a computer to talk to heathens like me. But what Godly function does a TV serve in your home?

 

[Moral Orel]

You do have a point. But take a look at the Talents parable Jesus gave. Which is the servant he punished? It was the one that hoarded the stuff he was given only for himself. The others did things with their money. They did not give it all away and live like paupers. They used the money they had to help others and do things for the kingdom.

You're remembering that parable a bit wrong. They didn't do good deeds with the money. They invested it to make more money for their master. The master scolded the one who hid it and told him he should have invested with bankers.

But it's all a metaphor for God's glory anyways, and isn't about how we should handle our money except to the extent that we can glorify God via the use of money. Opening a soup kitchen and giving credit to Him for it glorifies God. Buying a new TV (since NV loves that example) does not.

Yes, the Lord does want us to give to the poor and help the needy. But again, no where in scripture does it say that he demands you give all you have to the poor and needy.

It says not to ignore other people's suffering. It doesn't have to explicitly state all the different ways you must help people. If you can, and you don't, you're ignoring.

There is a scripture that states that if a man does not provide for his own family he is worse than an infidel. Yes, we could do more for those in need. But God also does not want us to be foolish with our money either. What good would it do to sell all I have and give it to feed people in Somalia when I know that the Somali government would just take it all and not feed anyone. Thats not being a good steward.

True. We should provide food, shelter, and clothing for our families. If we provide earthly comforts for our kids then we're just teaching them it is okay to buy these things for themselves later in life too. And you could be stupid and give money to phony charities, or you can be smart and give money to worthwhile charities. You should still be doing all you can and not rationalizing that God wants you to have some stuff.

Like I said the parable of the talents cover this quite well. The good servants used what they had, but did not give it all away. They used it wisely. The one that didn't do anything was punished.

They did give it all away. Back to their master. It wasn't their money to begin with, and it was entrusted in them but it wasn't given to them. That's an important distinction.

Its not a sin for believers to own stuff. Its a blessing. But we are to give when we can and when people ask. Quite frankly I would give a lot more if the government quit taking all my money. But thats a different topic for a different time.

This whole argument depends on what you think "stuff" is. God wants you to have food, clothing, and shelter, I'm sure. Does God want you to have things that aren't required for survival and don't glorify Him? If you own something that doesn't fit this criteria, you shouldn't have bought it in the first place. You should sell it and give the money to the poor. Even if the best you can do is get 20 bucks for an old TV at a pawn shop, that's a meal for a family of four that they would have to do with out because watching TV is more important for you than them eating.

There are arguments for everything that it could be used to glorify God. Even TVs can be used to watch religious programming exclusively. The point is, though, does God want you to have stuff that makes you happy because you like that stuff, or does He only want you to have the stuff that you need and stuff that you actually use to glorify Him?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

They did give it all away. Back to their master. It wasn't their money to begin with, and it was entrusted in them but it wasn't given to them. That's an important distinction.

God wants you to have food, clothing, and shelter, I'm sure.

I'm not so sure of that. Jesus lays it on pretty thick in Matthew 6.

25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes?
26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?
27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?
28 “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin.
29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these.
30 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith?
31 So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’
32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them.
33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

So I would think that this is saying you can keep your cloak, tunic, sandals, and staff, but you don't really need anything else. God will provide you with shelter and food.

Is this too extreme? Well, was it extreme for God to send his son to his death? I'd say that was an extreme solution to a problem.

But of course no one is going to buy into this idea this from a couple unbelievers. At the very least they'd need to see a Christian example actually living the correct lifestyle before they'd even consider it.

As far as I see things, the extremes to which modern Christians aspire could barely even be thought of as lukewarm by early Christian standards. You go on to address the lukewarm sheep in the same way I do (questioning the validity of owning a TV) so I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in my interpretations of the words of Jesus.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm not so sure of that. Jesus lays it on pretty thick in Matthew 6.

25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes?
26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?
27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?
28 “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin.
29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these.
30 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith?
31 So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’
32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them.
33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

So I would think that this is saying you can keep your cloak, tunic, sandals, and staff, but you don't really need anything else. God will provide you with shelter and food.

Nah. All He says is "don't worry" about it. It's a zen type of thing. He's just saying don't be stressed if you don't know where your next meal is coming from, He's not saying to put yourself in that position.

As far as I see things, the extremes to which modern Christians aspire could barely even be thought of as lukewarm by early Christian standards.

QFT. We're not a rational species, we're a rationalizing species, and we have gotten much much better at rationalizing bad behavior over the last 2000 years.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Nah. All He says is "don't worry" about it. It's a zen type of thing. He's just saying don't be stressed if you don't know where your next meal is coming from, He's not saying to put yourself in that position.

OK, so I'm guessing you interpret the "Sell everything you have..." to mean that Christians should sell away all of their luxury items and give that money to the poor. Christians of today can own a car and a home, but not a TV?

I can see that as a sensible interpretation, but it is all the more damning because I really see no excuse for Christians to fail to live up to a standard that many participants of other religions willfully live up to (many of whom are less motivated in terms of rewards). And I know that selling your luxury items is not a requirement for salvation, but it will yield more treasure in the afterlife and Christians just don't seem to care. I don't comprehend that. It's like you just found out that you won the lottery, but you would rather hold onto the ticket for the value of the paper it's printed on.

The only reasonable conclusion is that they don't really believe it.

QFT. We're not a rational species, we're a rationalizing species, and we have gotten much much better at rationalizing bad behavior over the last 2000 years.

I have to agree with this. The brutal behavior of the church in the past was due largely to ignorant humanity grappling with itself. Nowadays we are much more aware of morality and ethics. Also, many people in the past might've never been aware that Jesus mentioned giving away all possessions since most people were illiterate. They only knew what the priests wanted them to know, which may or may not have included that verse (or perhaps some twisted version of it). But now with universal literacy, you really do have to rationalize if you want to keep your TV.

 

[rjs330]

Yes the talents isn't s olely about money, but it applies to many things including money. What do we do for God's kingdom with what we have? Is our stuff more important than God's kingdom. Again they didn't give everything away. But they did use what they had.

I think Paul helped pull,it all together when he says:
Tell people who are rich at this time not to become egotistical and not to place their hope on their finances, which are uncertain. Instead, they need to hope in God, who richly provides everything for our enjoyment. Tell them to do good, to be rich in the good things they do, to be generous, and to share with others. When they do these things, they will save a treasure for themselves that is a good foundation for the future. That way they can take hold of what is truly life.
1 Timothy 6:17‭-‬19 CEB
http://bible.com/37/1ti.6.17-19.CEB

He doesn't say tell,them,to sell all their stuff. He said use what you have. Be generous. Look at the people Jesus visited that were his friends. He never told them to sell all their stuff. He didn't tell Nicodemus to sell his or the woman at the well to sell hers. He met them where they were and helped them deal with the things,they understood.

If you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him.
Matthew 7:11 CEB
http://bible.com/37/mat.7.11.CEB

Paul also told the Corinthians to share with others. He never said give it all away and live,like paupers. God gives us wealth and he expects us to,share it, but not necessarily get rid,of,all of it.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes the talents isn't s olely about money, but it applies to many things including money. What do we do for God's kingdom with what we have? Is our stuff more important than God's kingdom. Again they didn't give everything away. But they did use what they had.

I think Paul helped pull,it all together when he says:
Tell people who are rich at this time not to become egotistical and not to place their hope on their finances, which are uncertain. Instead, they need to hope in God, who richly provides everything for our enjoyment. Tell them to do good, to be rich in the good things they do, to be generous, and to share with others. When they do these things, they will save a treasure for themselves that is a good foundation for the future. That way they can take hold of what is truly life.
1 Timothy 6:17‭-‬19 CEB
http://bible.com/37/1ti.6.17-19.CEB

He doesn't say tell,them,to sell all their stuff. He said use what you have. Be generous. Look at the people Jesus visited that were his friends. He never told them to sell all their stuff. He didn't tell Nicodemus to sell his or the woman at the well to sell hers. He met them where they were and helped them deal with the things,they understood.

If you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him.
Matthew 7:11 CEB
http://bible.com/37/mat.7.11.CEB

Paul also told the Corinthians to share with others. He never said give it all away and live,like paupers. God gives us wealth and he expects us to,share it, but not necessarily get rid,of,all of it.

And when have you shared enough? How much should you give away to those that need it more? When should you stop giving? When you feel like it? When you reach a level of earthly comfortability that you like? When are your wants more important than other people's needs?

Like I said, I don't know what you mean by "stuff". I also don't know what you mean by "pauper". I'm sure God is okay with living in a modest home, with a reliable, fuel efficient car, comfortable and durable clothes on your back, and three square meals a day. You can't raise you children and care for your family in anything less, and I think that's spelled out just fine in the NT. Is having that and nothing more being a "pauper"? How many more earthly possessions do you think you need?

 

[rjs330]

And when have you shared enough? How much should you give away to those that need it more? When should you stop giving? When you feel like it? When you reach a level of earthly comfortability that you like? When are your wants more important than other people's needs?

Like I said, I don't know what you mean by "stuff". I also don't know what you mean by "pauper". I'm sure God is okay with living in a modest home, with a reliable, fuel efficient car, comfortable and durable clothes on your back, and three square meals a day. You can't raise you children and care for your family in anything less, and I think that's spelled out just fine in the NT. Is having that and nothing more being a "pauper"? How many more earthly possessions do you think you need?

There are,principles and requirements in the scriptures. Giving all you have is not a requirement. Giving is. However how much you give is between you and God and is a matter of personal conviction.

Everyone should give whatever they have decided in their heart. They shouldn’t give with hesitation or because of pressure. God loves a cheerful giver.
2 Corinthians 9:7 CEB
http://bible.com/37/2co.9.7.CEB

What we purpose in our own heart not because of,pressure or demands on how much. To give nothing is not acceptable. To give begrudgingly is not good either. Look at the situation and give what you can. Sometimes it is a matter of faith, and just like all humans we all have different amounts of faith. Some less some more.

 

[Moral Orel]

There are,principles and requirements in the scriptures. Giving all you have is not a requirement. Giving is. However how much you give is between you and God and is a matter of personal conviction.

Everyone should give whatever they have decided in their heart. They shouldn’t give with hesitation or because of pressure. God loves a cheerful giver.
2 Corinthians 9:7 CEB
http://bible.com/37/2co.9.7.CEB

What we purpose in our own heart not because of,pressure or demands on how much. To give nothing is not acceptable. To give begrudgingly is not good either. Look at the situation and give what you can. Sometimes it is a matter of faith, and just like all humans we all have different amounts of faith. Some less some more.

I agree that giving because you think you have to, and not because you want to, isn't going to count for much.

But when you mention principles and requirements, you keep glazing over the principle to not ignore the suffering of others. If you can help, then you should. If you have worldly possessions that you don't need, then you can help. If you can help, and you choose not to, you're ignoring.

Why don't you apply this same level of scrutiny to our other conversation about extra-marital sex? If Jesus was only talking to the rich man, then Paul was only talking to the Corinthians in their specific situation. If we can't infer that "don't ignore" means "do everything you can" then we can't infer that Paul's writing to the Corinthians about remaining celibate for a lifetime applies to all forms of extra-marital relations. There is no explicit verse that says, "all people should give every penny they have" and there is no explicit verse that says, "no person should ever have relations outside of marriage".

 

[rjs330]

I agree that giving because you think you have to, and not because you want to, isn't going to count for much.

But when you mention principles and requirements, you keep glazing over the principle to not ignore the suffering of others. If you can help, then you should. If you have worldly possessions that you don't need, then you can help. If you can help, and you choose not to, you're ignoring.

Why don't you apply this same level of scrutiny to our other conversation about extra-marital sex? If Jesus was only talking to the rich man, then Paul was only talking to the Corinthians in their specific situation. If we can't infer that "don't ignore" means "do everything you can" then we can't infer that Paul's writing to the Corinthians about remaining celibate for a lifetime applies to all forms of extra-marital relations. There is no explicit verse that says, "all people should give every penny they have" and there is no explicit verse that says, "no person should ever have relations outside of marriage".

Yes there is. One of the definitions of porniea is fornication which is defined as sex outside of marriage. I Corinthians 7 covers that.

Now, about what you wrote: "It’s good for a man not to have sex with a woman." Each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband because of sexual immorality.
1 Corinthians 7:1‭-‬2 CEB
http://bible.com/37/1co.7.1-2.CEB

Combine it with what Paul,wrote that it is better to marry than to burn with passion and I think the picture is clear. Sex outside of marriage is wrong. Remember this does not apply to the unbeliever. This applies to the believer. The unbeliever is condemned already. Having sex outside of marriage does,not make the unbeliever more condemned than he,is already. The unbeliever is,more and cannot get to heaven and will be judged by God. We as believers need to stay away from sinful lust and unmarried sex. It's written to the church on how not to behave.

 

[Moral Orel]

Combine it with what Paul,wrote that it is better to marry than to burn with passion and I think the picture is clear.

Look at the other things he says in that chapter. He also says it's better to remain single so you can stay focused on God and not lose focus to your spouse. Burning with passion is the thing to be avoided because burning with passion takes focus away from God. That does not mean explicitly "no sex until marriage". You may think it is the most likely interpretation, but I don't think it requires being interpreted that way. "It's good" does not equal "you must". The best person in the world would give everything they have to the poor, but you wouldn't say "you must" because of that.

So if 1 Corinthians 7 states new things to add to the OT list of sexual immorality (porneia) then what can be added, explicitly, is "burning with passion". And prostitution was added as being sexually immoral in the NT too in other parts, so I'll give that one to you. He doesn't even mention sex before marriage explicitly, just "burning with passion" which isn't sex.

 

[LostMarbels]

Well you made a,lot of assumptions there. The bible says nothing about stuff having to glorify God. My shoes don't glorify God and neither does my radio in my car. So to assume he needs to get rid of his tv is not the issue. Does his tv generally lead him to sin? I didn't remember if he said it did. But you made the assumption that it does.

Again you are basing your thoughts on the rich man. Which is not appropriate since Jesus direction was to him not to everyone on the,planet. Maybe you really believe that is what he was saying. To,follow your logic here the only way to get saved is to sell all your stuff and give it to the poor. Nothing else is needed. But then you have to deal with John 3:16 where Jesus says nothing of the sort.

I don't even remember the entire conversation. I thought this thread was dead.

Guess I'll re read it and get ready for the next round.

 

[LostMarbels]

*

 

[Moral Orel]

I re-read the thread since it came back up and I found some interesting Tidbits from our friend:
Nihilist VirusInfectious idea

That's a pretty cool name.... I wonder where he got it?

ni·hil·ism
[ˈnīəˌlizəm, ˈnēəˌlizəm]
NOUN

1. 
   
   
   • the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.

vi·rus
[ˈvīrəs]
NOUN

1. 
   
   
   • an infective agent
   • a piece of code that is capable of copying itself and typically has a detrimental effect, such as corrupting the system or destroying data.

So what we have here in name is: the rejection of all religious, and moral principles, that is infectious in nature with the intent to destroy, and corrupt.

quotes from Nihilist VirusInfectious idea:

"Assuming God exists,"

"So this is what it feels like when someone uses scripture against you! Normally I bend the Bible to my whim,"

"Belief in God is not rational."

"An atheist does not say God does not exist, but that they are simply not convinced that God exists."
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1474449713049-1'); });
"I see no reason to even bother reading anything beyond Acts, other than maybe Revelation."

"Do any of you take communion? Why? Jesus wasn't talking to you. He told his disciples to do it in remembrance of him. You don't remember Christ because no one here is 2000 years old. You only know of him."


"My purpose here on these forums is to be the fire. I feel I've failed quite badly but what I'm trying to do is either burn up your faith or purify it. What I cannot stand is lukewarm Christianity. I much prefer that you are either hot or cold. I prefer that you wander the world doing good works in the name of Christ or else just live a sinful, indulgent life."

"Why am I here, though? Or why do I care? I am appalled at the idea of lukewarm Christians shuffling to the voting polls and trying to impose Christian ideals on this nation such as the repugnant thought that churches should receive emergency 911 aid despite not paying a cent of taxes while those same Christians do not exercise the love of Christ in their lives but instead are hateful and spiteful."

Brethren? Sisters? Who is the deceiver? The accuser of the faith? Who is it that sows discord, and doubt amoungst the faithful?

This is not even an honest question in the OP. The intent here is to convince you that your God is false because you will not even give up your worldly possessions, and that deep down you actually know God will not provide for you. Reconise our adversary, and understand what we are actually discussing here, and with whom.

Wow! A 100% ad hominem post! 0% content.

You're in the apologetics section, bro. People like NV were invited here to challenge your faith. Read the SOP which doesn't condemn him, but does condemn posts like this.

 

[LostMarbels]

Wow! A 100% ad hominem post! 0% content.

You're in the apologetics section, bro. People like NV were invited here to challenge your faith. Read the SOP which doesn't condemn him, but does condemn posts like this.

This is not challenging my belief about giving to the poor:
"Why am I here, though? Or why do I care? I am appalled at the idea of lukewarm Christians shuffling to the voting polls and trying to impose Christian ideals on this nation such as the repugnant thought that churches should receive emergency 911 aid despite not paying a cent of taxes while those same Christians do not exercise the love of Christ in their lives but instead are hateful and spiteful."

That among others, are a statements of purposeful intent.

Ok... so if he is here because he is appalled by lukewarm Christians shuffling to the voting polls and imposing Christian ideals, despite not paying a cent of taxes; how does that tie into the OP? What am I supposed to take from that? How do I dare challenge his statements without stepping on his toes?

My biggest problem is I am not scared to be as offensive to their stance than they are to my own. If your going to make comments "Belief in God is not rational," That none of us are 2000 years old so we shouldn't take Communion, and somehow tie that into a thread about giving to the poor; I want to know how that relates. I mean to point it out, not judge him as a person. I don't click the report button. I want to know what the relevance of his statements are. I am not yet convinced he has a valid point, and he may just be bouncing around like a rubber ball.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The concept of my name is apparently lost on him entirely. Does he not notice the light bulb in my avatar? I replaced the genetic material of a virus with a light bulb. Light bulbs represent ideas. And I'm saying I'm an infectious idea. But no, let's just roll with the least favorable interpretation possible.

Also if he's digging up old stuff, he missed the explanation of the "Nihilist" part. I've explained that I'm a logical nihilist, that is, I acknowledge that epistemology is vacuous.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

This is not challenging my belief about giving to the poor:
"Why am I here, though? Or why do I care? I am appalled at the idea of lukewarm Christians shuffling to the voting polls and trying to impose Christian ideals on this nation such as the repugnant thought that churches should receive emergency 911 aid despite not paying a cent of taxes while those same Christians do not exercise the love of Christ in their lives but instead are hateful and spiteful."

That among others, are a statements of purposeful intent.

Ok... so if he is here because he is appalled by lukewarm Christians shuffling to the voting polls and imposing Christian ideals, despite not paying a cent of taxes; how does that tie into the OP? What am I supposed to take from that? How do I dare challenge his statements without stepping on his toes?

My biggest problem is I am not scared to be as offensive to their stance than they are to my own. If your going to make comments "Belief in God is not rational," That none of us are 2000 years old so we shouldn't take Communion, and somehow tie that into a thread about giving to the poor; I want to know how that relates. I mean to point it out, not judge him as a person. I don't click the report button. I want to know what the relevance of his statements are. I am not yet convinced he has a valid point, and he may just be bouncing around like a rubber ball.

You omit the things I'm responding to and then act like you just want to know what my point is?

Yeah, you're right, because I just tend to foam at the mouth and say these random things without prompt.

 

[Moral Orel]

That among others, are a statements of purposeful intent.

And that purposeful intent you're picking up is the purpose he's supposed to have according to this section's SOP. I'm not going to lie and say I don't interject in others' exchanges often, but I can never resist pointing out Christians complaining that atheists are fulfilling the SOP of this section. Anywhere else on these forums, you might have a point. But in this section, he's the guest who's doing exactly what he was invited to do. This is the second time today I've pointed this out.

If you have a problem with people trying to prove Christianity is false, you're in the wrong place, bro. Your job, as the Christian, is to prove him foolish with actual scriptural evidence that his claims are false.

NV doesn't need me sticking up for him, and he might not want me to, but I can't keep my mouth shut when people pull this stunt.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

NV doesn't need me sticking up for him, and he might not want me to, but I can't keep my mouth shut when people pull this stunt.

Actually I think you're doing a terrific job.