(August 8, 2013 at 9:12 am)genkaus Wrote: There are many other ways - like starting crusades.

St. Thomas More was rich, and he was martyred by the English King. And Pope Urban II, who instigated the Crusades, wasn't canonized.

(August 8, 2013 at 4:26 am)Consilius Wrote: The Nazis used writings from 40 years ago. Either they misinterpreted them or Friedrich Nietzsche advocated for the Holocaust.

Quote:Or, the third option - someone deliberately edited and censored his work to make it appear anti-semitic. Are you suggesting that the bible does not depict your Jesus accurately?

We're pretty sure Neitzsche wrote all that we have from him, and we don't label his works as antisemitic. They are fine as they are. Neitzsche's writings also had 40 years to circulate, so any misquotation could easily be sniffed out.

(August 8, 2013 at 4:26 am)Consilius Wrote: It was written down clearly to the Mediterranean society of the first century AD, genkaus.

Quote:Prove it.

All of the New Testament was addressed to first century Christians. That's why it was written in Greek.

Quote:That's the point of being rational - of any sort of suffering does happen, it'd be minimal.

Like the loss of a spouse. Or a car accident. Like I said, suffering finds you when you're not looking for it. When you don't live life hiding from it, you are able to take on more.

(August 8, 2013 at 4:26 am)Consilius Wrote: I don't see what you are are trying to say. Are you trying to tell me that a human being is worth approximately 120,000 dollars?

Quote:I read it was $50,000, per year of quality life.

So a human life is worth $50,000.

(August 8, 2013 at 4:26 am)Consilius Wrote: And the giving water to villages, that's moving backwards?

Quote:Not if it benefits you in the end.

Which it doesn't. So we shouldn't give water to villages.

Quote:No, if you have to eat crappy food and sleep on hard beds - that's suffering too.

The key to happiness is in food and sleep?

Quote:Except, I never said that nothing is right or wrong.

It depends on the situation? That means that, if certain criteria are met, an action is always right or wrong. Which is exactly what I am saying.

(August 8, 2013 at 4:26 am)Consilius Wrote: That's all right. It's okay to be a condescending asshole as long as your belief system is true.

Quote:Glad we agree on something.

I thought you'd figure this out on your own, but THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR BEING AN ASSHOLE.

(August 7, 2013 at 6:55 pm)Consilius Wrote: As hard as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle? In that case, it is not impossible.

Quote:Except, you are talking about something I said - something I clarified as impossible.

Are you not reading this?

Quote:(Today 05:00)Consilius Wrote:  
I believe you are wrong: 
Because you had three isolated Bible verses on doctrine and not practice, which tends to be metaphor-free. 
Because the examples of "them not practicing what they preached" in the Bible are far too overwhelming. Jesus didn't put a Bible in our hands, it was compiled by Christians, who supposedly went against the teachings they wrote in their own book. After that, their books were reviewed and selected to be put in the Christian Bible by Christians. Jesus handled money. He wasn't caught hiding it, he gave it to Peter so he could pay the Temple tax in Matthew 17:27. The disciples had a treasury Judas was in charge of in John 12:6. This information was written down by the people who you say believed you couldn't get to heaven with money. So either Jesus and his disciples all went to hell, the Bible writers told stories of how Jesus contradicted himself and how what they believed was false, or, maybe, you got the doctrine of another religion wrong. 
Finally, I can send down a rain of Bible verses telling you what the Bible thinks about money. Here's a preview: 75% of 'good' Bible characters owned possessions. Did none of them heed God's instructions in your three Bible verses?

(August 7, 2013 at 6:55 pm)Consilius Wrote: Quick, you see a woman dangling from a bridge. What do you do?

Quote:Call 911.

What? Waste your perfectly good phone battery and spend 60 seconds you could have used to get home faster on another human being?
She's paying you for this, right?

(August 7, 2013 at 6:55 pm)Consilius Wrote: Tell me one time I did. Ever.

Quote:Don't you know what you said?

Apparently YOU do, possibly another misinterpretation you derived from pulling things out of context.

(August 7, 2013 at 6:55 pm)Consilius Wrote: The two needs I bolded were extreme degrees of need. A lesser degree of need is the kind at which giving away a thing would be an act of kindness. Anything more would not be prudent, in violation of a cardinal Catholic virtue.

Quote:And here come the rationalizations and the equivocations - "when i said need, I didn't mean need need, I meant neeeed - that is real extreme need. Doing it when there is only need and no neeeeed is not right"

You are filling up a blank space with humor. Any logical fallacies you would like to point out? Because certainly weren't apparent enough to appear in your first response to my post.
If a self-sacrifice is done unnecessarily, it defies prudence. Therefore, self-sacrifice needs to happen between greed (giving too little) and imprudence (giving too much).

(August 7, 2013 at 6:55 pm)Consilius Wrote: The heroes of Ancient Rome earned their prestige, and looked down on the weak. No one should look down on anyone because they did something better. I learnt that in kindergarten.

Quote:That's not an example of class discrimination and are you still following kindergarten morality?

The war heroes were of the upper class. Why is it not class discrimination to have them treated better than commoners?
And if a kindergartener can tell you that something is wrong, you have to be pretty messed up to think otherwise.

Quote:I don't know you, therefore, you don't deserve my unconditional help - the kind I would give to family and friends. If you want my help, prove that you deserve it.

The members of your family get a special treatment, in direct contradiction of the morals you've been justifying. Why should someone provoke such an irrational response from you because you share DNA?
All people are related, and therefore, we should treat each other as family.

(August 7, 2013 at 6:55 pm)Consilius Wrote: If it's so bad, why don't you do something about it? Because you don't care. You can criticize my theory, but I think you action, which speaks louder than your words, is repulsive.

Quote:I do care - about my own poverty. And I do do something about it - make sure I don't become poor.

Did that have a single thing to do with what I said there?
Do you hate suffering? Yes.
Do you help other people who are suffering? No. Do Christians help other people who are suffering? Yes.
Now imagine we were both atheists. Who is moral? The one who fights child abuse, or the one who doesn't care?

Quote:If an unemployed person stops looking for a job then he is no longer unemployed? That's ridiculous.

It's just the teriminology used by the government.

Quote:And like I said, wanting to find work and actually trying for it are different things.

The mom who comes home from a failed interview to her starving kids isn't trying hard enough?

(August 7, 2013 at 6:55 pm)Consilius Wrote: What political or social comment did Jesus make that was wrong?

Quote:Look to the discussion above.

You said, "Jesus made some irrational comments about society."
I said, "Like speaking out for the poor and oppressed?"
You told me to think of something else.
I said, "So that philosophy of Christ was good. Which one was bad?"
Are you going to answer me?

(August 8, 2013 at 10:47 am)Consilius Wrote: St. Thomas More was rich, and he was martyred by the English King. And Pope Urban II, who instigated the Crusades, wasn't canonized.

Do you understand how logic works? My argument was "Only people who cause suffering or undergo suffering in name of their religion are canonized". To disprove my point, you've to point out to someone who was canonized without causing or undergoing suffering in name of religion. Both the examples here are inapplicable.

(August 8, 2013 at 10:47 am)Consilius Wrote: We're pretty sure Neitzsche wrote all that we have from him, and we don't label his works as antisemitic. They are fine as they are. Neitzsche's writings also had 40 years to circulate, so any misquotation could easily be sniffed out.

That was not the case when his writings were being misrepresented to the Nazi party. We know that his writings were not anti-semitic because we have already sniffed out the misquotations.

(August 8, 2013 at 10:47 am)Consilius Wrote: All of the New Testament was addressed to first century Christians. That's why it was written in Greek.

And how does that prove that they understood it correctly?

(August 8, 2013 at 10:47 am)Consilius Wrote: Like the loss of a spouse. Or a car accident. Like I said, suffering finds you when you're not looking for it. When you don't live life hiding from it, you are able to take on more.

That's the view I reject - that suffering will find me.

(August 8, 2013 at 10:47 am)Consilius Wrote: So a human life is worth $50,000.

Per year.

(August 8, 2013 at 10:47 am)Consilius Wrote: Which it doesn't. So we shouldn't give water to villages.

Who says it doesn't benefit me in the end? Water given to the villages is used for growing crops. More crops means lower prices. I've to pay less for food as a result.

(August 8, 2013 at 10:47 am)Consilius Wrote: The key to happiness is in food and sleep?

One of the keys. Its a combination lock.

(August 8, 2013 at 10:47 am)Consilius Wrote: It depends on the situation? That means that, if certain criteria are met, an action is always right or wrong. Which is exactly what I am saying.

But that is not what your religion says.

(August 8, 2013 at 10:47 am)Consilius Wrote: I thought you'd figure this out on your own, but THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR BEING AN ASSHOLE.

You are wrong. Being right is ample justification.

(August 8, 2013 at 10:47 am)Consilius Wrote: Are you not reading this?

Quote:(Today 05:00)Consilius Wrote:  
I believe you are wrong: 
Because you had three isolated Bible verses on doctrine and not practice, which tends to be metaphor-free. 
Because the examples of "them not practicing what they preached" in the Bible are far too overwhelming. Jesus didn't put a Bible in our hands, it was compiled by Christians, who supposedly went against the teachings they wrote in their own book. After that, their books were reviewed and selected to be put in the Christian Bible by Christians. Jesus handled money. He wasn't caught hiding it, he gave it to Peter so he could pay the Temple tax in Matthew 17:27. The disciples had a treasury Judas was in charge of in John 12:6. This information was written down by the people who you say believed you couldn't get to heaven with money. So either Jesus and his disciples all went to hell, the Bible writers told stories of how Jesus contradicted himself and how what they believed was false, or, maybe, you got the doctrine of another religion wrong. 
Finally, I can send down a rain of Bible verses telling you what the Bible thinks about money. Here's a preview: 75% of 'good' Bible characters owned possessions. Did none of them heed God's instructions in your three Bible verses?

Relevance?

(August 8, 2013 at 10:47 am)Consilius Wrote: What? Waste your perfectly good phone battery and spend 60 seconds you could have used to get home faster on another human being?
She's paying you for this, right?

That much wastage wouldn't make much of a difference in my life.

(August 8, 2013 at 10:47 am)Consilius Wrote: You are filling up a blank space with humor. Any logical fallacies you would like to point out? Because certainly weren't apparent enough to appear in your first response to my post.
If a self-sacrifice is done unnecessarily, it defies prudence. Therefore, self-sacrifice needs to happen between greed (giving too little) and imprudence (giving too much).

I already pointed it out - its the fallacy of equivocation. "Prudence" as used here comes from Greek philosophers - not the Christian idea of prudence.

(August 8, 2013 at 10:47 am)Consilius Wrote: The war heroes were of the upper class. Why is it not class discrimination to have them treated better than commoners?

Only the upper class could become war heroes - that would be class discrimination. Treating war heroes better than others would not be.

(August 8, 2013 at 10:47 am)Consilius Wrote: And if a kindergartener can tell you that something is wrong, you have to be pretty messed up to think otherwise.

Kindergartners have a very simplistic and childlike view of morality - and apparently, so do you.

(August 8, 2013 at 10:47 am)Consilius Wrote: The members of your family get a special treatment, in direct contradiction of the morals you've been justifying. Why should someone provoke such an irrational response from you because you share DNA?
All people are related, and therefore, we should treat each other as family.

I said family and friends - so obviously, its not about DNA, its about the my personal relationship with them.

(August 8, 2013 at 10:47 am)Consilius Wrote: Did that have a single thing to do with what I said there?
Do you hate suffering? Yes.
Do you help other people who are suffering? No. Do Christians help other people who are suffering? Yes.
Now imagine we were both atheists. Who is moral? The one who fights child abuse, or the one who doesn't care?

Yes.
Yes.
Yes, as long as there is something in it for me.
And in doing so, increase their own suffering.
Equally moral.

(August 8, 2013 at 10:47 am)Consilius Wrote: It's just the teriminology used by the government.

No, it isn't.

(August 8, 2013 at 10:47 am)Consilius Wrote: The mom who comes home from a failed interview to her starving kids isn't trying hard enough?

Give example of one.

(August 8, 2013 at 10:47 am)Consilius Wrote: You said, "Jesus made some irrational comments about society."
I said, "Like speaking out for the poor and oppressed?"
You told me to think of something else.
I said, "So that philosophy of Christ was good. Which one was bad?"
Are you going to answer me?

I have been answering you. This whole discussion is about the bad philosophies of your Christ.

(August 8, 2013 at 11:26 am)genkaus Wrote: My argument was "Only people who cause suffering or undergo suffering in name of their religion are canonized".

Don't forget the other option you added based on necessity:

Quote:(Today 01:18)genkaus Wrote:
No, I said, people are canonized because either they underwent suffering or caused it. Many canonized kings would qualify for latter.

And PLEASE don't ignore, for the third time, as I prove that Jesus didn't preach against money, the entire point of this argument:

Quote:Quote:
(Today 05:00)Consilius Wrote:  
I believe you are wrong: 
Because you had three isolated Bible verses on doctrine and not practice, which tends to be metaphor-free. 
Because the examples of "them not practicing what they preached" in the Bible are far too overwhelming. Jesus didn't put a Bible in our hands, it was compiled by Christians, who supposedly went against the teachings they wrote in their own book. After that, their books were reviewed and selected to be put in the Christian Bible by Christians. Jesus handled money. He wasn't caught hiding it, he gave it to Peter so he could pay the Temple tax in Matthew 17:27. The disciples had a treasury Judas was in charge of in John 12:6. This information was written down by the people who you say believed you couldn't get to heaven with money. So either Jesus and his disciples all went to hell, the Bible writers told stories of how Jesus contradicted himself and how what they believed was false, or, maybe, you got the doctrine of another religion wrong. 
Finally, I can send down a rain of Bible verses telling you what the Bible thinks about money. Here's a preview: 75% of 'good' Bible characters owned possessions. Did none of them heed God's instructions in your three Bible verses?

Quote:We know that his writings were not anti-semitic because we have already sniffed out the misquotations.

Implying there was an original that the Nazis didn't manipulate. This original was in circulation for around 40 years, before there were Nazis. So why would there be misquotations when the ordinary citizen can go home and double-check?

Quote:That's the view I reject - that suffering will find me.

Because bad things never happen to atheists.

(August 8, 2013 at 10:47 am)Consilius Wrote: So we shouldn't give water to villages.

Quote:Who says it doesn't benefit me in the end? Water given to the villages is used for growing crops. More crops means lower prices. I've to pay less for food as a result.

You didn't share that view a while ago…

Quote:Quote:
And why exactly should I bother with the kids in Africa?

And if the land does not produce crops, we let them die, don't we?

(August 8, 2013 at 10:47 am)Consilius Wrote: The key to happiness is in food and sleep?

Quote:One of the keys. Its a combination lock.

Food and sleep and sponge baths are finite comforts. You can be sad when you have them and when you don't.

(August 8, 2013 at 10:47 am)Consilius Wrote: What? Waste your perfectly good phone battery and spend 60 seconds you could have used to get home faster on another human being?

Quote:That much wastage wouldn't make much of a difference in my life.

You're going back on what you said. Wastage is wastage.

Quote:I already pointed it out - its the fallacy of equivocation. "Prudence" as used here comes from Greek philosophers - not the Christian idea of prudence.

A virtue is a virtue—no matter who said it first.
The Catholic Church names prudence as one of the four cardinal virtues.

Quote:I said family and friends - so obviously, its not about DNA, its about the my personal relationship with them.

Then why do you defy your rational morality because you know someone?

Quote:Yes, as long as there is something in it for me.
And in doing so, increase their own suffering.
Equally moral.

"If you are suffering for someone else, that means you are a bad person."
Christians and atheists are equally moral?

(August 9, 2013 at 2:20 am)Consilius Wrote: Don't forget the other option you added based on necessity:

You mean "in the name of religion" part? That should've been obvious.

(August 9, 2013 at 2:20 am)Consilius Wrote: And PLEASE don't ignore, for the third time, as I prove that Jesus didn't preach against money, the entire point of this argument:

Quote:Quote:
(Today 05:00)Consilius Wrote:  
I believe you are wrong: 
Because you had three isolated Bible verses on doctrine and not practice, which tends to be metaphor-free. 
Because the examples of "them not practicing what they preached" in the Bible are far too overwhelming. Jesus didn't put a Bible in our hands, it was compiled by Christians, who supposedly went against the teachings they wrote in their own book. After that, their books were reviewed and selected to be put in the Christian Bible by Christians. Jesus handled money. He wasn't caught hiding it, he gave it to Peter so he could pay the Temple tax in Matthew 17:27. The disciples had a treasury Judas was in charge of in John 12:6. This information was written down by the people who you say believed you couldn't get to heaven with money. So either Jesus and his disciples all went to hell, the Bible writers told stories of how Jesus contradicted himself and how what they believed was false, or, maybe, you got the doctrine of another religion wrong. 
Finally, I can send down a rain of Bible verses telling you what the Bible thinks about money. Here's a preview: 75% of 'good' Bible characters owned possessions. Did none of them heed God's instructions in your three Bible verses?

Didn't I already reply to this? Yeah, I remember saying "That, and yes" and you replying "great". If you didn't understand my reply, you should've said so.

What I meant by that is yes, you are right - Bible is full of examples of Jesus and co. not practicing what they preached and contradicting themselves. That's perfectly in line with the bible being a tool for controlling the masses.

(August 9, 2013 at 2:20 am)Consilius Wrote: Implying there was an original that the Nazis didn't manipulate. This original was in circulation for around 40 years, before there were Nazis. So why would there be misquotations when the ordinary citizen can go home and double-check?

I never said that the manipulation was done by the Nazis. Here are a few facts for consideration:
-Nietzsche did not enjoy wide readership during his active writing career.
1888 - Readership starts increasing due to lectures by a critic.
1889 - Nietzsche suffers a mental breakdown.
1893 - Elisabeth Forster-Nietzsche - his sister who happens to be a raging anti-semitic bitch - returns from a failed "pure Aryan" colony to take control of his estate.
1894 - Nietzsche-Archiv is founded where Elisabeth collected and republished her brother's work with a bit of doctoring.
1900 - Nietzsche dies. His sister is now the leading promoter of his work with her personal flair thrown in.
1930-33 - The sister joins the Nazi party and the archive receives government funding and publicity.
1950's - Mazzino Montineri reviews Nietzsche's works and his research figures out which parts are doctored or forged.

And that is why an ordinary citizen could not have simply gone home and double-checked for mis-quotations.

Now, are you saying that something similar happened with Jesus?

(August 9, 2013 at 2:20 am)Consilius Wrote: Because bad things never happen to atheists.

Bad things don't necessarily lead to suffering - especially if you prepare for them.

(August 9, 2013 at 2:20 am)Consilius Wrote: You didn't share that view a while ago…

This has been my view all along - give something if it'll benefit you.

(August 9, 2013 at 2:20 am)Consilius Wrote: And if the land does not produce crops, we let them die, don't we?

You don't. I do.

(August 9, 2013 at 2:20 am)Consilius Wrote: Food and sleep and sponge baths are finite comforts. You can be sad when you have them and when you don't.

You know what a combination lock means right? If you don't have them, you will be sad - if you do, then you still need the rest of the keys.

(August 9, 2013 at 2:20 am)Consilius Wrote: You're going back on what you said. Wastage is wastage.

Not at all. Like I said - I've no problem with helping others without any benefit if there is no sacrifice involved. For example, giving my old clothes to charity.

(August 9, 2013 at 2:20 am)Consilius Wrote: A virtue is a virtue—no matter who said it first.
The Catholic Church names prudence as one of the four cardinal virtues.

Its not the same virtue - that's my point. And besides, we are talking about what Christ argued for - not what Catholic Church names.

(August 9, 2013 at 2:20 am)Consilius Wrote: Then why do you defy your rational morality because you know someone?

I don't defy it. My relationship with them is a valuable element to be considered within the rational morality.

(August 9, 2013 at 2:20 am)Consilius Wrote: "If you are suffering for someone else, that means you are a bad person."
Christians and atheists are equally moral?

"If you are suffering for someone else, that does not make you a better person than someone not suffering for someone else."
And specifically in this regards, Christians and atheists are equally moral.

(August 9, 2013 at 9:21 am)genkaus Wrote: You mean "in the name of religion" part? That should've been obvious.

I mean the "inflicting suffering on others" part, which you added out of necessity:

Quote:(Today 01:18)genkaus Wrote:
No, I said, people are canonized because either they underwent suffering or caused it. Many canonized kings would qualify for latter.

Quote:What I meant by that is yes, you are right - Bible is full of examples of Jesus and co. not practicing what they preached and contradicting themselves. That's perfectly in line with the bible being a tool for controlling the masses.

The entire Bible, as written by Christians, has a 50% chance of being intentionally written in contradiction to your one verse.
What are your motives for taking that chance?

Quote:I never said that the manipulation was done by the Nazis.

Was the public aware of this manipulation?

Quote:Bad things don't necessarily lead to suffering - especially if you prepare for them.

Like poverty?

(August 9, 2013 at 2:20 am)Consilius Wrote: You're going back on what you said. Wastage is wastage.

Quote:Not at all. Like I said - I've no problem with helping others without any benefit if there is no sacrifice involved.

To lose something without getting it back is a sacrifice.

(August 9, 2013 at 2:20 am)Consilius Wrote: The Catholic Church names prudence as one of the four cardinal virtues.

Quote:Its not the same virtue - that's my point. And besides, we are talking about what Christ argued for - not what Catholic Church names.

The Church actually agrees with Aristotle's teaching on virtue. It goes on to say in the Cathechism:
"It is prudence that immediately guides the judgement of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgement. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid." (CCC 1806)
The Catholic Church, being a Christian church, derives its doctrine from the Bible.
"The prudent give thought to their steps." Proverbs 14:15
"The wisdom of the prudent is to give thought to their ways, but the folly of fools is deception." Proverbs 14:8
"The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and pay the penalty." Proverbs 22:3

Quote:My relationship with them is a valuable element to be considered within the rational morality.

Knowing someone doesn't automatically make them worthy of you sacrificing anything for them.

Quote:"If you are suffering for someone else, that does not make you a better person than someone not suffering for someone else."

Both people have the means to save a life.
One uses them. The other doesn't.

(August 9, 2013 at 4:18 pm)Consilius Wrote: I mean the "inflicting suffering on others" part, which you added out of necessity

Thus proving that suffering is an integral element of your religion.

(August 9, 2013 at 4:18 pm)Consilius Wrote: The entire Bible, as written by Christians, has a 50% chance of being intentionally written in contradiction to your one verse.
What are your motives for taking that chance?

Is it just one verse? I seem to recall many other verses preaching against money and for sacrificing your belongings.

(August 9, 2013 at 4:18 pm)Consilius Wrote: Was the public aware of this manipulation?

Unlikely.

(August 9, 2013 at 4:18 pm)Consilius Wrote: Like poverty?

Like loss of money. Which doesn't necessarily lead to poverty.

(August 9, 2013 at 4:18 pm)Consilius Wrote: To lose something without getting it back is a sacrifice.

Wrong. Sacrifice requires losing something valuable to you. Losing something that you don't value is not a sacrifice.

(August 9, 2013 at 2:20 am)Consilius Wrote: The Church actually agrees with Aristotle's teaching on virtue. It goes on to say in the Cathechism:
"It is prudence that immediately guides the judgement of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgement. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid." (CCC 1806)
The Catholic Church, being a Christian church, derives its doctrine from the Bible.
"The prudent give thought to their steps." Proverbs 14:15
"The wisdom of the prudent is to give thought to their ways, but the folly of fools is deception." Proverbs 14:8
"The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and pay the penalty." Proverbs 22:3

Fantastic. Two errors in one argument.

The Church may have hijacked Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics but it replaced their metaphysical basis, thus corrupting those principles in the process. An example of that would be what used to be translated as prudence within Nicomachean Ethics (Phronesis) is now referred to as practical wisdom, thus indicating that the Church's interpretation of prudence is different from Aristotle's.

Secondly, the point of this discussion is not what the Church hijacke form Greek Philosophers later on and how they were able to "derive" it from the bible, its about what your Jesus supposedly taught. And given his and his disciples' eagerness to "martyr" themselves, prudence was not advocated in practice, even if it tentatively was preached.

(August 9, 2013 at 2:20 am)Consilius Wrote: Knowing someone doesn't automatically make them worthy of you sacrificing anything for them.

Which is why I said "my relationship" with them - not just "my acquaintance" with them.

(August 9, 2013 at 2:20 am)Consilius Wrote: Both people have the means to save a life.
One uses them. The other doesn't.

And neither action makes either party more or less moral than the other.

(August 10, 2013 at 1:14 am)genkaus Wrote: Is it just one verse? I seem to recall many other verses preaching against money and for sacrificing your belongings.

You had three, and the other two were talking about the lower class, and not telling anyone to give their possessions away.

(August 9, 2013 at 4:18 pm)Consilius Wrote: Was the public aware of this manipulation?

Quote:Unlikely.

Then how did anyone find out Neitzche's writings were changed?

Quote:Bad things don't necessarily lead to suffering - especially if you prepare for them.

(August 9, 2013 at 4:18 pm)Consilius Wrote: Like poverty?

Quote:Like loss of money.

Losing money doesn't necessarily lead to suffering?

Quote:Sacrifice requires losing something valuable to you. Losing something that you don't value is not a sacrifice.

Why give anything to the woman dangling from the bridge at all—valuable or not? She's an independent agent in her own right who you are not responsible for.

Quote:The Church may have hijacked Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics but it replaced their metaphysical basis, thus corrupting those principles in the process.

I didn't say they put Aristotle into the Bible. The Catholic Church simply took his writings and selected the good in them, diversifying sources to put a universal virtue into words.

Quote:An example of that would be what used to be translated as prudence within Nicomachean Ethics (Phronesis) is now referred to as practical wisdom, thus indicating that the Church's interpretation of prudence is different from Aristotle's.

Because we use a different word for it (which, as you said, used to be the same word) doesn't change what it is.

Quote:And given his and his disciples' eagerness to "martyr" themselves, prudence was not advocated in practice, even if it tentatively was preached.

The reason that the Bible isn't a list of quotes is because practice is equated with preaching.

(August 9, 2013 at 2:20 am)Consilius Wrote: Knowing someone doesn't automatically make them worthy of you sacrificing anything for them.

Quote:Which is why I said "my relationship" with them - not just "my acquaintance" with them.

Loving someone doesn't automatically make them worthy of you sacrificing anything for them.

(August 9, 2013 at 2:20 am)Consilius Wrote: Both people have the means to save a life.
One uses them. The other doesn't.

Quote:And neither action makes either party more or less moral than the other.

But say neither person sacrificed anything to do so.

(August 10, 2013 at 4:08 am)Consilius Wrote: You had three, and the other two were talking about the lower class, and not telling anyone to give their possessions away.

I gave three and the point was to show that your morality promotes poverty and self-sacrifice.

(August 10, 2013 at 4:08 am)Consilius Wrote: Then how did anyone find out Neitzche's writings were changed?

I told you that already - certain philosophers, such as Mazzino Montineri looked into it and figured it out.

(August 10, 2013 at 4:08 am)Consilius Wrote: Losing money doesn't necessarily lead to suffering?

Not if you prepare for it.

(August 10, 2013 at 4:08 am)Consilius Wrote: Why give anything to the woman dangling from the bridge at all—valuable or not? She's an independent agent in her own right who you are not responsible for.

Precisely - there is no universal moral reason in play here by which you are obligated to do anything. On the other hand, if you are doing anything for a personal reason, that's fine as well - but don't pretend it has some great moral dimension attached to it.

(August 10, 2013 at 4:08 am)Consilius Wrote: I didn't say they put Aristotle into the Bible. The Catholic Church simply took his writings and selected the good in them, diversifying sources to put a universal virtue into words.

And in doing so, turned Aristotle's 'good' into something twisted.

(August 10, 2013 at 4:08 am)Consilius Wrote: Because we use a different word for it (which, as you said, used to be the same word) doesn't change what it is.

No, its the opposite - its because you have changed what it was that we now use different words for it.

(August 10, 2013 at 4:08 am)Consilius Wrote: The reason that the Bible isn't a list of quotes is because practice is equated with preaching.

Then why are they so contradictory?

(August 10, 2013 at 4:08 am)Consilius Wrote: Loving someone doesn't automatically make them worthy of you sacrificing anything for them.

Yes, it does.

(August 10, 2013 at 4:08 am)Consilius Wrote: But say neither person sacrificed anything to do so.

Which is why they are equally moral.

(August 10, 2013 at 4:21 am)genkaus Wrote: I gave three and the point was to show that your morality promotes poverty and self-sacrifice.

I know. But not only are there few of them, they are of poor quality. Only the camel verse is an instruction to be poor.

Quote:I told you that already - certain philosophers, such as Mazzino Montineri looked into it and figured it out.

Did he figure it out as a philosopher or as a historian? Did he logically deduce it or did he find physical evidence for it?

(August 10, 2013 at 4:08 am)Consilius Wrote: Losing money doesn't necessarily lead to suffering?

Quote:Not if you prepare for it.

So taking a vow of voluntary poverty doesn't necessarily lead to suffering.

Quote:Precisely - there is no universal moral reason in play here by which you are obligated to do anything.

So you can just walk by, if you wanted to, and leave the woman to die.

Quote:No, its the opposite - its because you have changed what it was that we now use different words for it.

It's not changed, we've simply drawn on it. Aristotle's writings are still in circulation, untouched by the Catholic Church. And the virtue of prudence, as preached by the Church from the Bible, still regulates self-sacrifice.

(August 10, 2013 at 4:08 am)Consilius Wrote: Loving someone doesn't automatically make them worthy of you sacrificing anything for them.

Quote:Yes, it does.

Love is irrelevant to productivity. It is an unnecessary waste to give without getting back just because you love someone.

(August 10, 2013 at 4:08 am)Consilius Wrote: But say neither person sacrificed anything to do so.

Quote:Which is why they are equally moral.

You forgot the situation. Neither man suffered a loss, but one let the poor people die, and the other didn't.

(August 10, 2013 at 7:09 am)Consilius Wrote: I know. But not only are there few of them, they are of poor quality. Only the camel verse is an instruction to be poor.

If you think your biblical instructions are of poor quality, why do you follow them?

(August 10, 2013 at 7:09 am)Consilius Wrote: Did he figure it out as a philosopher or as a historian? Did he logically deduce it or did he find physical evidence for it?

How is that relevant to this discussion? Look it up.

(August 10, 2013 at 7:09 am)Consilius Wrote: So taking a vow of voluntary poverty doesn't necessarily lead to suffering.

No, that one would lead to suffering.

(August 10, 2013 at 7:09 am)Consilius Wrote: So you can just walk by, if you wanted to, and leave the woman to die.

Yes.

(August 10, 2013 at 7:09 am)Consilius Wrote: It's not changed, we've simply drawn on it. Aristotle's writings are still in circulation, untouched by the Catholic Church. And the virtue of prudence, as preached by the Church from the Bible, still regulates self-sacrifice.

We are going in circles here. Aristotle's writings are still in circulation, but now they are translated to indicate "practical wisdom" indicating that the word prudence no longer applies there. That's because his teachings don't match the Catholic virtue of prudence. Further, the catholic virtue of prudence was not taught in the bible but was hijacked from earlier Greek philosophers as evidenced by the fact that characters in the bible and the early followers did not practice prudence.

(August 10, 2013 at 7:09 am)Consilius Wrote: Love is irrelevant to productivity. It is an unnecessary waste to give without getting back just because you love someone.

Who says you are not getting anything back? Not all value is monetary in nature.

(August 10, 2013 at 7:09 am)Consilius Wrote: You forgot the situation. Neither man suffered a loss, but one let the poor people die, and the other didn't.

Yes, that is the situation I'm talking about - both are equally moral.