Unconventional Religion

[Consilius]

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.

Was the public aware of this manipulation?

Unlikely.

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

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

Like poverty?

Like loss of money.

Losing money doesn't necessarily lead to suffering?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

But say neither person sacrificed anything to do so.