(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.