I usually only lurk, but I felt Lucas' facebook post tirade from yesterday needs to be archived.
Luke 12:15 is a specific warning against putting a love of possessions (earthly wealth, material wealth, not necessarily money) above your fellows and before God. Luke 12 was when Jesus had gathered a bunch of people and was ministering to them in the tradition of parables and "aesops". there is nothing here that has anything to do with cars (unless someone has like 20 of them or something and that car enthusiasm somehow takes precedence over living a pious life) or credit cards (a tool used to evaluate credit worthiness, or your consistent ability to repay debts).
Lucas' draws on "this is why i'm atheist" for this passage is nonsensical, as it's advice for living life in a pious way, it doesn't speak about any of His works or various articles of faith. i guess because at first sniff it says to be on guard against greed and he sees hypocrisy in Christians because many have a vehicle or a credit card and these are artifacts of greed (somehow)? did he not read the
rest of the sentence? it distinctly says that life is not measured by the possessions you have. that right there is the essence of the parable: don't sacrifice yourself (principles, beliefs, et c) in favor of material wealth, because material wealth has no value against your soul.
John 13:34 is where Jesus predicts that after his death (this is before the Last Supper) that Peter would deny being a follower of Jesus out of fear or something. Jesus basically reminds them that their lives should reflect His teachings and by living a pious life in emulation of Jesus, then new people will know of Christ even without having heard of Him or been taught anything about Him. it means to lead by example and in this, Christ will never die, but be eternally alive in word and deed.
this is not erotic or romantic love, but the platonic love that dear friends and family have for each other, and in that, Jesus' memory and teachings are preserved in example and people will know that they are disciples of Christ.
the only possible way that this could be interpreted by Lucas as an atheist argument, is again his skewed perspective of hypocrisy where Christians are apparently not giving Lucas everything he demands and so do not "love" him. Christ never asked his disciples to love others by giving into their wishes - he told them to love each other and their fellows to illustrate a living example of Christ so that others can know Christ through their word and deed.
this means to live a pious life, one where the greedy who does not seek to improve himself (as made in God's image) would burden others unjustly.
Proverbs 21:25-26
"The desire of the sluggard puts him to death, For his hands refuse to work; All day long he is craving, While the righteous gives and does not hold back."
or since he seems to like quoting the Gospels rather than the other books:
John 6:26-27
"Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed."
We aren't property, nor are we gifts to be handed to you on silver platters.
Lucas, like many fake feminists and (unfortunately) many otherwise mediocre men feel entitled to women in whole or in part. because they don't see women as people - they are objects and vending machines. look at how he phrases everything related to a possible relationship or what he desires to share with someone - it's almost always in terms of possession or a demand of obsequiousness. saying he just wants a nubile mother figure to fertilize i think misses that aspect. it's a critical part, in my opinion, of what tickles an alarm bell when trying to interpret Lucas' ramblings.
...if he were to somehow get a woman, that she would logically have a place of her own which since she was now his girlfriend, would mean he would naturally move in with her and live there.
i'm not sure about Washington, but i would imagine there aren't too many 18-24 year olds today that have their own place that isn't a dormitory or some sort of roommate situation (barring single motherhood as there are group homes and shelters that can set up apartments in short order for women with small children, a benefit that men aren't welcome to). WA can be an expensive place and with unemployment fairly high right now, on top of student loan debt, or being tied to a minimum wage job, it would be fairly difficult to be completely independent and have even just an efficiency apartment for a typical early 20 something.
no doubt Lucas would also expect the prospective girlfriend to literally baby him as well: cook, clean, earn money, purchase gifts, et c. Lucas has shown no meaningful ability or interest in maintaining to contributing to a household. if i recall correctly, he wasn't doing anything to assist Suzanne, either.
offering to sometimes provide a meal or something from welfare benefits is a pretty miserable contribution compared to fixed living expenses and the need to maintain income for sundries and consumables. maybe he expects the girlfriend to also be a welfare recipient? women tend to want to marry "upwards" so that's probably a tall ask.
.
