Unconventional Religion

[Consilius]

The fact is, "detrimenting yourself and your standard of living" is precisely what your religion calls for. Its not "self-sacrifice" if there isn't any damage to yourself.

A significant detriment of oneself is uncalled for.

But if I give away all of my worldly possessions - that would be considered self-sacrifice. And that is precisely what your religion holds as its core value.

And yet the streets aren't lined with Christians in rags.

Consider the nuns - those who are regarded as unequivocally good and moral within your religion - are the ones who are required to take a vow of poverty and give up their worldly possessions.

Nuns are the elite of humanity?

The simple truth is, the greater the damage to oneself, the greater the "detriment to yourself and your standard of living", the more that person is regarded as the symbol of "good" and "holy".

If that was true, religion would be a meritocracy. Something exclusive to your worldview. You don't become a better person by the stuff you give away—a precept Christ specifically treated.

Less valuable to whom? For the murderer, your life is of lesser value than your money - soon to be his money. And he might end up using that money to feed his starving children, so you giving your life would save someone else. But that's irrelevant. If you believe self-sacrifice to be good then you have to put yourself, your life and your possessions below anyone else's benefit.

Human life is objectively valuable, unless relativism objects to that too.
My death is not instrumental to feeding the hypothetical children you brought into the scenario neither to me or to a third party—only to the murderer, who had plenty of different ways to solve his problem, and even get money from myself, without murder.

In order to make the humanity grow and to add to it, you have to do the opposite - make sure what you've given gives you greater return. Its a simple economic principle - if I give a certain amount and get back lesser amount, then I'm working at a loss. If I keep doing it, then pretty soon I'd be bankrupt. And if I keep taking more than I give back then that difference is lost to humanity.

Lost. To the billions of poor and starving. Do people burn your financial losses, or do they circulate?

And if more and more people do it, more and more would be lost to us. Doing the reverse - giving with expectation of greater return and taking with a promise of greater return - is how humanity grows and adds to itself.

That is a description of how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
To make humanity grow is to strike a balance between rich and poor, which is to take a loss and let someone else get the profit every once in a while.