[MD] MOQ and some interesting a-theology quotes about non-gods

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Peter]
If so, where do you draw the line? How come you are not out there 
helping the poor now, instead of reading all this self-indulgent 
philosophizing?

[Arlo]
First off, let me say that I don't (and I'm not saying you do) see 
this as an option between hedonism and asceticism. And in criticizing 
the uncompassionate materialism of "assembly-of-god" brand 
christianity, I am not suggesting that everyone should embrace 
austerity. Clearly, no matter you or I stand on this spectrum there 
will be people more hedonistic than us on one side, and more austere 
on the other. I recognize that I am somewhere in the middle, although 
I try to keep my lean towards the simple, compassionate and 
Buddhistic side. My overarching concern is not that Western culture 
makes hedonism or materialism alluring, but that the forces that are 
supposed to balance this are actively legitimizing it instead. Thus 
for someone like Hall, who would argue that the majority will always 
be "selfish" (as opposed to "selfless"), the legitimacy to "theology" 
was in constraining the selfish desires of man and channeling (or 
trying to) human energy towards selfless enlightenment. What we are 
seeing today is the complete opposite, the forces operating  under 
the guise of "theology" are leading men away from selfless 
enlightenment and towards selfish desire. And they do so by pandering 
to materialism, xenophobia and power. And in doing so they have 
usurped the names and words of christianity while leaving all its 
meaning to vanish into dust. (Many could argue, of course, that this 
has been the case since the Roman Empire appropriated Christianity 
from the Jews. (its a strong argument I'd generally agree with))

[Peter]
but your: In "the old view" (of Christianity), you were tasked to 
help the poor, feed the hungry and shelter the homeless.Do you think 
that is our responsibility?

[Arlo]
I think that (mostly) all of our historical spiritual messengers 
brought a message of compassion. And yes, I think it is our 
responsibility to alleviate the suffering of all living beings as 
much as possible. And no, I don't think saying "I suffer because I 
don't own a Ferrari, so you have to buy me one" counts as 
"suffering". It does not take much empathy to look at the condition 
of another living creature and feel compassion for its pain (I say 
living creature, not "only humans", to emphasize the Buddha's 
teachings of compassion for all living things). How we respond, of 
course, points again to the spectrum above. I could do more, sure. 
But I try. And that's really all I'd expect from most people. But 
when the dialogue challenges empathy from the start, begins with the 
orientation that the creature who suffers does so because God is 
punishing it, and your lack of suffering is evidence of God's favor, 
you preempt the entire encounter. You are no longer asking "are you 
doing enough" but saying "I should do nothing". This is not merely 
turning a blind eye, it is staring at those who suffer with contempt 
and derision.