(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.
