Unconventional Religion

[genkaus]

Because God said he cares for the poor because of the reasons I stated doesn't mean anyone should seek out poverty.

Except for the part where he tells you to seek out poverty.

Loss is still loss. Bad things don't necessarily lead to suffering, you said. What I am adding is that if one doesn't need money to be happy, like most people do, a bad thing (like loss of money) shouldn't launch you into depression.

But one does need money to be happy. Which is why we should insure ourselves against the bad thing - such as loss of money.

I thought you were going to call 911 and expect nothing in return.

No, I just said I was going to call 911.

But, anyway, this standard should also apply to your family and friends.

The very fact that they are my family and friends means this standard does not apply. Loss of a stranger's life is unlikely to affect my own. Loss of a loved one's life necessarily would.

The love they have for you can't compensate for any loss you suffer from because of them. And if it can compensate, then the woman on the bridge should also get your help.

The love they have for me can and does compensate for any loss I suffer (though it'd have limits depending upon the degree of that love). Since the woman on the bridge has no love for me, there is no reason for me suffer a loss because there is no expectation of compensation.

You denied someone the resources they needed to survive when you could have provided them at no great cost to you. A murderer willingly takes a life, and you took something that could have given a life.

Except, I didn't 'take' anything. Taking implies what I took was not mine in the first place. The resources I'm denying them happen to be mine to begin with - not theirs. Even if I had given it to them, they'd be the ones doing the taking. A murderer takes life - I did not take anything. Do you see the difference?