kay, and to quickly deal with some of the other tangential topics that interest me:
I'm very aware that Jesus was tempted by the same things as every other man, but he also happened to be God incarnate. He could read other peoples minds. He knew what they had done before and he knew what they planned to do. This gave him a much better ability to do what needed to be done.
Real purity, much like real perfection, is completely unattainable. If you really believe you, or anyone else, can attain real purity, then I'm sorry for you. Jesus was perfection. God is perfection. No one else can hope to come close. Purity of mind, body, and soul is a daily exercise. We can hope to come close to it in our lifetime, but we will likely never reach it. I don't think Mother Theresa ever reached real purity either.
According to Christian orthodoxy, Jesus did not use any of his powers as God to make the moral work of his life on this earth any easier. If Jesus had done that then his life of moral perfection would have meant nothing as a sacrifice. Jesus did not use his power as God to make morality easy for himself. Every version of Christianity that I know of keeps Christ's perfect life as a sole work of his human nature (which would therefore be distinct from his divine nature).
First, I never said he used his power to make his work easier. I said he could read peoples minds and know their thoughts. That allowed him to convince people that he was the Messiah. He also used the power of God to heal people and drive out demons. Obviously he never used the power of God to fight back against his scourging or the crucifixion. He also prophesied what was going to happen. How else would you explain all that other than the power of God.
See Matthew 9:1-7, specifically verse 4. How else does he know what they're thinking? I was looking for another entry, where a woman asks about her husband and Jesus asks which one (she'd been married 3 times), but I can't find it. However, there are plenty of places in the Bible where Jesus reads peoples minds in order to convince them that he is the Son of God.
Otherwise, I see no reason for you to express the point your second paragraph there is making. Are you trying to say that because we can't be perfect in this life, human beings should not bother to seek moral purity?
Not at all. What I'm saying is that it's unattainable. We should seek to do good and be good people. But we also need to understand that we can never be perfect or achieve complete moral purity. Complete moral purity would be never having an evil or impure thought. So if you see a woman on the street who is not your wife (or gf or whatever) and you think about her boobs or having sex with her, that is morally impure. I don't claim to be morally pure either.
As for Mother Teresa, yeah (yuck), she was not anywhere near moral purity.
I also don't know where you've read the accounts that you're giving on Mother Teresa. When I said he probably never reached moral purity, I was simply referring to the fact that no matter how pure one attempts to be, that they can never reach moral purity.
Just as we talk about the 911 attacks, or the death of an actor, or George Lucas destroying Star Wars, there can be good things that come of those actions. As such, I personally believe I should have expressed concern about the Mumbai attacks. I don't know if that's something you should have done, and if you believe that talking about Mumbai on the internet or in real life is worthless for you then that's not for me to judge. I just find it odd you think there was nothing you could have possibly done to have acted a little better and wanted you to clarify if that's what you actually believed (since I'd find that a very interesting insight into how you see yourself).
I did express concern about the Mumbai attacks, I just didn't do it here. I did it at home with my wife and my mother, to the tune of "Bunch of assholes!" I saw no reason to discuss it here, just like I see no reason to discuss the myriad of terrorist attacks that take place all over the place everyday. Just because this one was carried by the mainstream media does not mean it's any more worthy of discussion than any other attack.
Why are the Mumbai attacks more worthy of discussion than any of those? Because more people died? Are their lives worth more discussion than any of the other lives in any of the other attacks? Do you see my point now? Why don't we discuss all of these attacks? Because we'll have pages and pages of posts that all say the same basic thing "Yeah, these guys are jerks/assholes/dicks".
A question for either C3PX or lordjedi: do you believe every ruler in the world should be living in the same poverty as their poorest subjects?
No. I believe every "ruler", as you put it, should do everything they can to make sure their citizens have every opportunity for advancement with as little interference as possible. But since most "rulers" are assholes, they typically want to retain their power at everyone elses expense.
Also: would you rather people were given jobs where they can work for their own sustenance while simultaneously benefiting those who gave them the job, or would you rather people were just given straight charity?
Why does it have to be either or? I think people should be able to either work for themselves or work for others in order to get ahead, but I also don't have a problem with people in need seeking charity. "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he'll eat for the rest of his life". But again, not everyone is raised the same way, so some people have a harder time than others. That doesn't mean they deserve charity more than anyone else, it just means they have to work harder to get ahead than other people.
So yeah, I most certainly think discussing things on the internet can make a difference and increase awareness. BUT, I don't think most of our discussions would make a difference to anyone, it is just mindless speculation and considerations spiced up with a heated argument here and there. I don't think anyone could go into our politics thread, read through all the pages, and come out the other end saying, "you know what, these guys are right, modern liberalism is stupid, I am going to be a libritarian or a conservative from now on." Our methods simple do not promote this sort of a conversion. Had we spent time discussing Mumbaj, it wouldn't have given anyone out there anymore information on the matter, they could easily read yahoo news and get more information than we would provide here, all they would get would be our views and opinions on the matter, which would not be likely to sway their own views regarding the matter.
This. This is why I saw no point in discussing it. If you want to send money, there's plenty of places out there to do it. I'm sure a Google search will turn up something.
Also, since none of the discussions around here are ever simple, someone would have to read through pages and pages of crap to find the real nuggets. It'd be easier to walk up to someone on the street and ask them what their position on something is then it would be to try to wade through all the posts on here. And to be perfectly honest, I don't care that much what your guys opinions are on the Mumbai attacks. I'm not saying they aren't valid opinions, I just have no desire to know what they are. If I wanted opinions on a subject, I'd post a link to something and ask what everyone thought (just like I did with the liberals not liking Obama story I read). That is why I didn't bring up Mumbai, that is why I didn't discuss Mumbai.
Some discussions can be helpful. A discussion on terrorism in general can probably be helpful. In my mind, a discussion on Mumbai is to specific to be helpful (in this case). If it were terrorists attacks made by citizens against their own government, that would be a completely different story and that, in my mind, would be worth discussing at great length.