Unconventional Religion

[genkaus]

The Bible verses you used as evidence are poor quality support for your view.

Only according to your subjective 'interpretation'. Objectively, they literally support my point.

I needed you to tell me that Montinari studied Neitzche's work and dismissed some of it as forgery as a scholar, not a historian, possibly because he noticed contradictions.

To my knowledge, he did it as a historian. Why is that relevant?

You lost money, and you were prepared for it. Especially if you wanted to lose the money, there should be no suffering at all.

Preparing for loss of money and actually losing money are two different things. The kind of difference between fire-insurance and arson.

I referenced the Bible's take on prudence, written long before Aristotle was supposedly born.

Where it is not regarded in the same light as Aristotle's

And you regard the disciples of Christ as imprudent because of your disbelief in self-sacrifice. If you took your personal views out of it, this wouldn't be a problem.

This established the corruption of the concept. Only a twisted morality would result in self-sacrifice being regarded as "prudent".

Why not go back and help the woman on the bridge then?

Like I said, if there is something in it for me, I will.

Allowing the loss of a life you have the means to save is the same as murder.

No, its not.