Ship of Fools: Why is poverty good?

Thread: Why is poverty good? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025212

Posted by the Pookah (# 9186) on :

I've read that Pope Francis is close to the poor and frankly as a long term Buddhist and someone who is ethnically Jewish I cannot understand the Christian culture and attitudes to poverty and suffering.
To me they are unaccountable as if being uneducated is good too.. It just doesn't make sense to me religiously and culturally; poverty and illness etc are things to be overcome not embraced. Can you explain this to me please?

[ 27. March 2013, 14:37: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Admittedly not an expert here, but my limited understanding of some Liberation theology is that, by consciously and deliberately embracing poverty (which so many cannot escape), people develop a better understanding of how poverty works, what its causes and effects are, and may also be better able to assist those imprisoned in their poverty to begin creating collective approaches to ameliorating their misery.

I will say this from experience: the simple fact is that poverty comes at high cost.

Poverty means late charge on various bills, so basic services end up costing the poor more.

Poverty often means having no personal transport, while finding public transport both unaffordable or unavailable or extremely costly in terms of time. This in turn means having no ability to take advantage of sales, or of being unable to stock up on some staple when you've got cash (you can't get large quantities home).

Poverty means living in undesirable and poorly-maintained shelter, so you spend more on heat, electricity, etc (using the stove to heat the kitchen, while the heat escapes cracked windows and uninsulated walls, etc.)

Poverty is expensive -- and that's well before we get to all the other costs -- social, nutritional, emotional, and on and on.

Those capable of embracing both the poor and the poverty they struggle with may be admirable -- I don't know. What I do know is that few people really "grasp" what poverty is like until or unless they find themselves trapped in it.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Humanity's relationship to God is ultimately one of poverty. God is everything, we are nothing without him. Therefore it is in the poor that one sees the most fundamentally human, and to the poor that the grace of God is most liberal. The Kingdom of God is the hope of the poor, because they are the least invested in the sinful course of human events.

On the other hand, God is the God that hears the poor. It goes back to the identity of the Hebrews- God hears the cry of oppression of an enslaved nation and acts to deliver them.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

As a Franciscan tertiary, I guess I ought to be able to answer this.* Francis, il poverello, took Lady Poverty as his bride. He gave up the family wealth, very publicly, and went about preaching the Gospel. The

*Though I am reminded of the banner some of the first order had on Jubilee 2000 marches proclaiming "Franciscans against Poverty". website of the European province of the Anglican third order gives a life of St Francis.

Biblically, key texts are the story of the rich young ruler where Jesus calls him to sell all he has and give the money to the poor; the beatitudes (blessed are the poor in spirit), the rich man and Lazarus and perhaps the parade of the Pharisee and the tax collector.

We all are dependent on God for all we have and riches can actually get in the way of our seeing that. Also the world's resources need to be shared. Though there is a difference between forced poverty and chosen poverty

Carys

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

Is the problem really not that poverty is good but that the desire for wealth is bad?

Posted by the Pookah (# 9186) on :

HCH; I understand about 'desire' in Buddhism we call that attachment and yes it's a source of misery to be attached to things.

So if I've understood correctly according to what Carys and the rest are saying, poverty is good as it reinforces this idea of total dependence on a deity?

But doesn't this kind of mental passivity and sense of total dependence reinfoce material poverty? Who will rescue you if not you?

As a Buddhist I see my circumstances as a result of past karma, but I can overcome them if I practice hard and apply myself to the teachings of the Buddha. I'm grateful but it's more like a teacher-student relationship where someday I'll be the teacher. I wonder if our pov's are just too radically different....

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

I think some of my take on this has been tinged by my encounters with Buddhism as I think what it says about attachment is valuable and applies to life.

For me poverty in the Christian sense isn't about deliberately putting oneself in a position where you will need ask God to rescue you. It's more about 'stuff' being a distraction and a cause of temptation and stress as in the more you have the more you want. Someone (and I am not this holy) might earn a decent professional salary but cut back their living expenses and live very simply and donate the rest.

I think for me poverty equates with simplicity and living life with the least material possessions that you can manage with as it reminds you that this life is transient and encourages focus on God rather than on accumulating wealth and being focussed on preserving or increasing that.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

For poverty to be a blessing, it has to be taken on voluntarily. There's no blessing in enforced poverty, either for those who endure it or those who enforce it. It destroys community, and breeds resentment of the rich and disrespect of the poor.

But we are encouraged to become poor, for the reasons others have said: attachment to wealth is a dangerous thing. A key gospel text is, "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also".

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I don't know how the Pope sees it, but to me, the point isn't that poverty is 'good', but that the most effective way of serving people is to be where they are, living as they live, experiencing what they experience.

The Church often seems like a group of middle class people claiming to stand alongside and to speak on behalf of the poor, rather than actually belonging to the poor (as well as to everyone else in the community), and being the place where the poor can speak out for themselves. This is problematic.

On the other hand, I often reflect on these verses from Proverbs 30:

7 Two things I ask of you, Lord;
do not refuse me before I die:
8 Keep falsehood and lies far from me;
give me neither poverty nor riches,
but give me only my daily bread.
9 Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you
and say, ‘Who is the Lord?’
Or I may become poor and steal,
and so dishonor the name of my God.

This suggests that to be utterly destitute can be destructive to faith. A person in that situation needs someone (or an organisation) with more money to help them with the basics of life.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

I think at the heart of the Christian message on poverty is not that poverty in and of itself is good but that accumulating riches is bad. If you hoard material goods and/or overindulge yourself when other people don't have enough to eat or drink then you're not being Christlike. You need to be able to give away your worldly wealth so as to help others. THe virtue of embracing poverty is that you have given away your wealth to help others. There is no virtue in simply being poor, but neither is there disgrace in being poor.

In biblical times it was often thought that if you were poor(or sick) it was because God was punishing you for sin. Jesus' message of love and compassion was trying to teach people that this isn't so and that we should do all we can to help alleviate poverty and to share with justice the resources of the world. The Kingdom of God, which Christians should be trying to bring about on Earth is that there will be no poverty because everyone will share resources equally.

Posted by the Pookah (# 9186) on :

Okay, so then would Christians espouse socialism and communism, ideally as they believe that that's the most Christian way to be, to share resources? I know a buddhist philanthropist whose funded orphanages and factories in India and teaches people to be self-reliant.But that's so different...

I think wealth is great as you can support printing Buddhist texts, sharing the teachings, building temples all kinds of good things which result in good karma. Wealth itself isn't good or bad, it's your attitude to it.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

I like that, Evangeline.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:
I think wealth is great as you can support printing Buddhist texts, sharing the teachings, building temples all kinds of good things which result in good karma. Wealth itself isn't good or bad, it's your attitude to it.

That's a common Christian perspective, too - wealth is a premoral good. The actual biblical phrase is that "the love of money is the root of all evil," because the love of money is a disordered affection. We behave according to what we love, so to love something that is properly not an end in itself but a means to other ends is a messed-up approach to life, from a spiritual perspective, anyway.

Giving things up, as one does in a vow of poverty, is never meant to be seen as the good in itself, but rather a means to something more desirable. As others have said, you might give up wealth because it can be a distraction, or because it creates a burden, or because the pursuit of wealth can involve you in systems of oppression and you want to, as the saying goes, "live simply so others may simply live."

But the idea of being close to the poor is one of siding with the people who are poor, not of admiring or celebrating poverty. One who is close to the poor is pretty much the opposite of one who is so wealthy they are out of touch with ordinary people - definitely one of the charges leveled at many past Popes. In order to get to be Pope, one has to be well-educated, among other things; anyone who gets to be Pope is in some way a person of privilege. People admire Pope Francis because he's willing to lay aside his own privilege to the extent he can - such as eschewing limo drivers or paid cooks - in order to basically stay grounded and accountable to the people. It at least shows he doesn't love money more than people.

Liberation Theologians have made the idea of "God's preferential option for the poor" nearly a household phrase. It is a Christian understanding that God is deeply concerned with the poor, but, as others have said here, the point is to liberate them, not perpetuate their state of poverty as a good in itself.

Don't some Buddhist monks essentially do the same? The Buddha certainly did - he gave up his status as a prince, and relied on the generosity of others as he sought enlightenment; he gave up worldly goods - and they are goods - in order to attain something even better. Then he continued in that path in order to help others attain that something better. As I understand it, anyway.

And even with Christians, doing that sort of thing is seen as a saintly thing, something only a few people seem to succeed in doing. It also seems to be a calling - something not everyone should attempt, but definitely something we can all learn something from and at least emulate on some small level. It's not supposed to be the norm.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

There is a famous "so that" associated with poverty that we can find in the New Testament.

"For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich."

There is material poverty, which we see Jesus joining in the manner of his birth. And Porridge is right. It comes at a high price.

There is material wealth, which we also see pictured in the gospels. That also exacts a high price when it is accompanied by indifference to the suffering of the poor. "Give it up" says Jesus to the rich man" come and follow me, and you will have an eternal treasure as a result". And he also tells us the story of Lazarus and the beggar, pointing to eternal consequences of materialism and indifference to suffering. Material wealth brings a different kind of poverty. A different "lack", if you like. We get a reminder of it in the letter to the church in Laodicea.

"17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked."

The message of the incarnation in Christianity, the "God with us", the "becoming flesh and moving into the neighbourhood" which Francis of Assissi took on board, is that people need to be helped away from both the crushing power of material poverty and the destructive power of material wealth. I think we are, rather, encouraged to share and be generous. It is good for us, good for others, to live this way.

[ 18. March 2013, 07:21: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
People admire Pope Francis because he's willing to lay aside his own privilege to the extent he can - such as eschewing limo drivers or paid cooks - in order to basically stay grounded and accountable to the people. It at least shows he doesn't love money more than people.

One wonders what the drivers and cooks who have just lost their jobs because of his desire to stay grounded would say about it...

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

It is the business of the wealthy man
To give employment to the artisan

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Think I identify this as the "Downton Abbey" defence.

It has a point of course. However, this current pope seems set on being demonstrably "incarnational". I doubt whether he is personally a wealthy man. If he wishes to change the trappings of the office to reflect that rather more than current custom and practice do, then I think he's right.

The disappearance of a job does not prevent the employer from looking after the job holder, either by employment elsewhere, or generous settlement etc. There can be "both/and" solutions.

[ 18. March 2013, 09:59: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:
Okay, so then would Christians espouse socialism and communism, ideally as they believe that that's the most Christian way to be, to share resources? I know a buddhist philanthropist whose funded orphanages and factories in India and teaches people to be self-reliant.But that's so different...

I think wealth is great as you can support printing Buddhist texts, sharing the teachings, building temples all kinds of good things which result in good karma. Wealth itself isn't good or bad, it's your attitude to it.

Not all Christians are socialists, obviously. They ought to be in my opinion, but they aren't.

I don't really see what's so different about your indian philanthropist. Christians have funded orphanages too. But generally, the world economy is not set up so that everyone can become self-reliant. Just because the system works in a way to let ten people out of a thousand work their way out doesn't mean that it's fair for the other nine hundred and ninety.
In general, the rich are more likely to have false and harmful ideas about the common good than the poor are. That's because it's in the self-interest of the rich to believe that their wealth is deserved or earned and that the poor aren't doing so badly really.

Wealth may not be good or bad in itself. But it's much harder to be non-attached to wealth that you actually have.

As other people have said, Christianity doesn't think being poor is a good thing in itself. Yes, there is a history of rich Christians saying that the poor are better off poor, and therefore oughtn't to improve the situation, but that's an abuse. Christianity is, or ought to be, more than a bit suspicious of the self-justifications of the rich.

[ 18. March 2013, 09:55: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

My son lives a very simple life. He works as a carer for disabled adults and gets a very low wage. So he lives in a one bedroom flat with shared showers and kitchen (pretty much student accommodation - he's 27). He never buys clothes and only has one pair of shoes. When I offer to buy him new shoes he says 'no thanks, I have a pair'. He always gets around by bike and has no computer/TV/gadgets of any kind. His mobile phone is twelve years old and he rarely uses it.

He's an atheist and passionate about keeping his environmental footprint small. His MSc is in ecology, though he's never worked in that field - he prefers to care for people. He is due to begin training as a nurse in October.

But he's not poor! I have worked in The Kibera, Kenya (so has he) THEY are poor.

No one who has enough food, clean water and shelter is poor.

Posted by Trickydicky (# 16550) on :

Jesus said, 'You'll always have the poor with you'. But that is a call to action to act to relieve poverty, not a weary giving up and saying we just have to accept it. Quite a few churches I know of in the UK either run or support Food Banks. Then there are christian Developement Charities such as Christian Aid and CAFOD. The Joint Public Issues Team (of the Methodist, URC, baptist and C of S) have produced an excellent report 'Truth and Lies About Poverty'. Link here (I hope) http://www.jointpublicissues.org.uk/truthandliesaboutpoverty/

The original post by the Pookah musunderstands the Christian attitude to poverty. It isn't good. We try to work to relieve it.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trickydicky:

The original post by the Pookah musunderstands the Christian attitude to poverty. It isn't good. We try to work to relieve it.

This.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:
I think wealth is great as you can support printing Buddhist texts, sharing the teachings, building temples all kinds of good things which result in good karma. Wealth itself isn't good or bad, it's your attitude to it.

I think you are failing to distinguish between personal wealth and wealth in general.

AIUI, those religious orders whose members are sworn to poverty may still handle large volumes of wealth, but that wealth is supposed to go towards charitable endeavours rather than to be used as personal pocket money by the members of the order.

Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:

I think for me poverty equates with simplicity and living life with the least material possessions that you can manage with as it reminds you that this life is transient and encourages focus on God rather than on accumulating wealth and being focussed on preserving or increasing that.

I think there's something in that and perhaps simplicity would be a better way of talking about it. ISTM that simplicity is a chosen way of life which can be lived joyfully (see Boogie's comment above) whereas poverty is being forced to go without basics because of your circumstances.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:

I think for me poverty equates with simplicity and living life with the least material possessions that you can manage with as it reminds you that this life is transient and encourages focus on God rather than on accumulating wealth and being focussed on preserving or increasing that.
I think there's something in that and perhaps simplicity would be a better way of talking about it. ISTM that simplicity is a chosen way of life which can be lived joyfully (see Boogie's comment above) whereas poverty is being forced to go without basics because of your circumstances.

Yes - and my point was also that you don't need religion to do this.

[Smile]

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Some interesting points. I am a small business owner and unreconstructed capitalist “in tooth and claw”.

On reflecting upon many of the posts I do wonder how many people who “give away” their wealth, or deliberately live in a low-income manner, have families to support.

I earn a decent salary and I make no apologies for that. It provides for a good lifestyle for my family.

Were it just me I could get away with far less, but what right do I have to force poverty on my wife and children. It would be selfish. I work hard for them, so deliberately reducing the income that goes along with my efforts and God-granted good fortune for some self-righteous “principle” is just not realistic.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Another factor is that being rich changes you. By rich, I mean richer than the people around you, because wealth and poverty are mainly relative matters. It is hard to become rich and not start to justify it to yourself or others. It is hard not to develop attitudes that distance yourself from poorer people. Many who are rich go on to justify the poverty of others.

I think it's mainly because money is power, and power is power over others.

Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Some interesting points. I am a small business owner and unreconstructed capitalist “in tooth and claw”.

On reflecting upon many of the posts I do wonder how many people who “give away” their wealth, or deliberately live in a low-income manner, have families to support.

I earn a decent salary and I make no apologies for that. It provides for a good lifestyle for my family.

Were it just me I could get away with far less, but what right do I have to force poverty on my wife and children. It would be selfish. I work hard for them, so deliberately reducing the income that goes along with my efforts and God-granted good fortune for some self-righteous “principle” is just not realistic.

I think that's very honest & raises a point of genuine tension namely the impact of our choices on others near to us. I can't make any claim to live in poverty or simplicity (I earn below the Btitish national average but easily enough to be comfortable) but a cursory glance around the world shows a desparate lack of equality between my standard of living and people in real poverty. So do I sell the house & give the money away? (and face the wrath of Mrs Gextvedde?)

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:
I've read that Pope Francis is close to the poor and frankly as a long term Buddhist and someone who is ethnically Jewish I cannot understand the Christian culture and attitudes to poverty and suffering.
To me they are unaccountable as if being uneducated is good too. It just doesn't make sense to me religiously and culturally; poverty and illness etc are things to be overcome not embraced. Can you explain this to me please?

As said, it's simplicity that is "embraced," by Christians not poverty. We think it's good that Pope Francis is close to the poor, because we think that means he cares about them and understands their problems. That could mean, like the Buddhists you mentioned, that he understands that a village may need a well more than bags of rice. He might understand that a poor family, living in an expensive hotel room may need a lump sum that would enable them to pay two months rent plus deposit on an apartment, rather than weekly help with the hotel bill.

It all comes back to Jesus' command to his disciples to love our neighbors as ourselves. If we have a freezer full of steaks and 4000 sq ft house while another family is hungry and living in a shack then we should love them enough to want to share. One of the last things Jesus said to his followers was, "Feed the poor." We can barely call ourselves Christian if we don't do a thing about poverty.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

On the other hand, I often reflect on these verses from Proverbs 30:

7 Two things I ask of you, Lord;
do not refuse me before I die:
8 Keep falsehood and lies far from me;
give me neither poverty nor riches,
but give me only my daily bread.
9 Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you
and say, ‘Who is the Lord?’
Or I may become poor and steal,
and so dishonor the name of my God.

I was thinking of the same passage and it has reminded me that I've been wanting to read Neither Poverty nor Riches by Criag Blomberg for a while now. (Some sections of the book found here apparently)

It seems to me that there is a distinction to be made between the abject poverty that is cultivated throughout much of the world and a deliberate choice to avoid the material trappings of the world or at least not be controlled by them. In this regard, Pookah, I respectfully suggest that perhaps you are not understanding what Christianity says about poverty. Indeed, even if we only had the OT one of its themes is protecting the poor.

All this aside, I guess the theory is that out of privation and suffering can come good. Such a view would stand in contradistinction to somebody like Rabbi Kushner who sees suffering as meaningless, without any redeeming consequences and God as a helpless bystander.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

The early Church wasn't quite so equivocal about wealth and poverty as the contemporary Church tends to be. This blog entry contains a selection of texts.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

If I may say so, Adeodatus, "rich" pickings!

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If I may say so, Adeodatus, "rich" pickings!

Bloody hell. What a load of pinko commie bastards!

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

There are three kinds of material lack that I can think of;

One is good: the voluntary relinquishing of things one doesn't need in order to live a simple life, to give to others, for companionship, for prayer or any other positive reason.

Two is bad: the involuntary deprivation of things one needs such as education, clean water, or family time.

Three is bad but insidious: the belief that one is being deprived of a need which is in fact a want. For instance, the belief that one is being deprived by an inability to afford a larger plasma-screen TV.

(By the way I thought Buddhist monks took various vows of renouncing material wealth? Also the latter sentiment strikes me as in line with the Buddhist view about suffering being relieved by freedom from desire)

[ 18. March 2013, 14:22: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Another factor is that being rich changes you. By rich, I mean richer than the people around you, because wealth and poverty are mainly relative matters. It is hard to become rich and not start to justify it to yourself or others. It is hard not to develop attitudes that distance yourself from poorer people. Many who are rich go on to justify the poverty of others.

I think it's mainly because money is power, and power is power over others.

Aren’t you begging the question there? How do you know wealth changes you?

Even if there are changes in someone from when they were poor to when they are rich, you cannot put any or all of those changes down to their increased wealth. We all change as we grow older and in most cases, becoming wealthy is a long process.

I also find fault with your conclusion that wealth isolates people from the poor. I suspect that Bill Gates has more contact with the issues that affect the world’s poorest people now than when he was a student working out of a garage.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Originally posted by churchgeek:

quote:
Don't some Buddhist monks essentially do the same? The Buddha certainly did - he gave up his status as a prince, and relied on the generosity of others as he sought enlightenment; he gave up worldly goods - and they are goods - in order to attain something even better. Then he continued in that path in order to help others attain that something better. As I understand it, anyway.

Initially he was searching. In so he did try austerity to the point of extreme. However, the middle way avoids extremes. As the Pookah stated; it is not wealth or poverty, but how one lives with these conditions.
The problem with wealth is that it is too easy to become enamored of its comforts. The problem with poverty is the pain can be too much a distraction. Neither is inherently a bar to enlightenment, but both can cause difficulty.
ISTM, the Buddha and Jesus agree muchly on this.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Poverty isn't good. That's why some good people get involved in it, to help get people out of it.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The early Church wasn't quite so equivocal about wealth and poverty as the contemporary Church tends to be. This blog entry contains a selection of texts.

ISTM that if one is going to take all those quotes seriously, one certainly shouldn't be retaining enough private wealth to be able to afford expensive trivialities like a personal computer.

Of course, in global terms anyone who shits into a bowl of perfectly drinkable water every single day while other people are dying for the lack of it is rich...

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The early Church wasn't quite so equivocal about wealth and poverty as the contemporary Church tends to be. This blog entry contains a selection of texts.
ISTM that if one is going to take all those quotes seriously, one certainly shouldn't be retaining enough private wealth to be able to afford expensive trivialities like a personal computer.

Of course, in global terms anyone who shits into a bowl of perfectly drinkable water every single day while other people are dying for the lack of it is rich...

Did I say I was good?

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Another factor is that being rich changes you. By rich, I mean richer than the people around you, because wealth and poverty are mainly relative matters. It is hard to become rich and not start to justify it to yourself or others. It is hard not to develop attitudes that distance yourself from poorer people. Many who are rich go on to justify the poverty of others.

I think it's mainly because money is power, and power is power over others.
Aren’t you begging the question there? How do you know wealth changes you?

Even if there are changes in someone from when they were poor to when they are rich, you cannot put any or all of those changes down to their increased wealth. We all change as we grow older and in most cases, becoming wealthy is a long process.

I also find fault with your conclusion that wealth isolates people from the poor. I suspect that Bill Gates has more contact with the issues that affect the world’s poorest people now than when he was a student working out of a garage.

Sure, everything is complicated where we humans are concerned. Single, simple cause and effect relationships are rare.

I suppose I know that wealth changes us partly from introspection. I know that I simply forget the realities I lived with when I was poor(ish). I can, with an effort, remember the facts, but I no longer feel what it was like, I no longer think that way. When I spend time with someone who is poor, it reminds me of what I once knew.

Then there's observation. I can think of examples of people who moved onwards and upwards in their careers and who changed, who left their colleagues behind in more sense than one. There are attitudes that we all associate with the rich, and you can sometimes see someone acquire them when they get rich. Not everyone, I must admit, but I think the general observation is supported by the fact that there are people I know who have become rich and not changed and who often speak of the great effort it takes to keep their feet on the ground.

Finally, you can deduce some of it. If you are rich enough to afford private education and health, it not only changes your options, it affects how you receive news about the NHS or the local school. It certainly makes a difference when you speak to your neighbour whose children attend the local school about the change of headteacher there. One of you is stuck with the new head, the other has options. You will almost inevitably feel differently, and that will tend to change your thinking in all sorts of subtle ways.

Bill Gates is not a very typical rich man. It looks to me as if he has a pretty good idea of how hard it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If I may say so, Adeodatus, "rich" pickings!
Bloody hell. What a load of pinko commie bastards!

I always knew Marx was a plagiarist; I just didn't know his sources included St John Chrystostom.

Seriously, Karl, that's a pretty impressive set of quotes. Revolutionary, really ..

Posted by the Pookah (# 9186) on :

Those quotes were what I was talking about; the voluntary embrace of poverty as a good thing. I guess I don't see how Christianity or even Jesus empowers the poor person.

As to the Buddha & Buddhist monks, he actually had tons of lay followers and early buddhism wasn't dominated by monks. Western scholarship has focused on things in buddhism that seem familiar and equivalent to Christianity. The latest scholarship focuses on lay Buddhists and there is evidence from the earliest times.

If buddhists become monks feeling that they have to give up things to practice, that's what suits, them, I don't. And I don't respect them more than a householder with many responsabilities....

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:
I don't see how Christianity or even Jesus empowers the poor person...

Probably because you don't believe that Jesus was God and therefore have no particular reason to trust anything that he said.

Anyway, quotes from church fathers aside, Proverbs 30 comes back to me.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:
I understand about 'desire' in Buddhism we call that attachment and yes it's a source of misery to be attached to things.

John Climacus speaks of Poverty later in his Ladder, but right off the jump, in step 2, he has this to say:

quote:
If you truly love God and long to reach the kingdom that is to come, if you are truly pained by your failings and are mindful of punishment and of the eternal judgment, if you are truly afraid to die, then it will not be possible to have an attachment, or anxiety, or concern for money, for possessions, for family relationships, for worldly glory, for love and brotherhood, indeed for anything of earth. All worry about one’s condition, even for one’s body, will be pushed aside as hateful. Stripped of all thought of these, caring nothing about them, one will turn freely to Christ. One will look to heaven and to the help coming from there, as in the scriptural sayings: “I will cling close to you” (Ps. 62:9) and “I have not grown tired of following you nor have I longed for the day or the rest that man gives” ( Jer. 17:16).

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Sorry for the rushed post. The above comes from this link, On Detachment.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:
Those quotes were what I was talking about; the voluntary embrace of poverty as a good thing. I guess I don't see how Christianity or even Jesus empowers the poor person.

As to the Buddha & Buddhist monks, he actually had tons of lay followers and early buddhism wasn't dominated by monks. Western scholarship has focused on things in buddhism that seem familiar and equivalent to Christianity. The latest scholarship focuses on lay Buddhists and there is evidence from the earliest times.

If buddhists become monks feeling that they have to give up things to practice, that's what suits, them, I don't. And I don't respect them more than a householder with many responsabilities....

Jesus empowers the poor person because He is God Almighty, walking beside them in poverty.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:

I guess I don't see how Christianity or even Jesus empowers the poor person.

What keeps people poor is indifference to their worth as people. There is, very often, a lack of self-worth.

There are various aspects of the Christian message which speak to that. I suppose if you want a modern illustration of how that works, there is no better example than this.

There is power to uplift and change the plight of those trapped by poverty (and the injustice which goes hand with it) in a righteous proclamation. Everyone knows the climax to this speech, but it is worth listening to the remarks which set the scene for that. And reflecting on the struggles and confrontations which preceded the whole speech - and followed it.

The Civil Rights movement was led by a Christian. Here you have a statement of the values and beliefs which drove him on.

It is a proclamation by a Christian who was not just a great wordsmith (though he certainly was that). It was a proclamation by a man incarnationally engaged in the struggle, using his profound understanding of how the Christian message speaks to poverty and injustice. He didn't "move into the neighbourhood". He was born there. Like Jesus before him, the poor heard him gladly.

We say of Jesus that he came to comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable. Martin Luther King was following in those steps. We say doing that can make a difference to the plight of the poor and oppressed. Do you believe we are mistaken in that?

Anyway, if MLK is insufficent evidence for you, I could say very similar things about Desmond Tutu.

[ 19. March 2013, 08:14: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

From Rev William Booth, Founder and first General of The Salvation Army:

quote:
"While there is no doubt that extreme poverty is an evil...it is also evident that to be poor, when there is not actual want of the necessities of life, is not an unmixed evil."

In some cases, to some people, and in the context of the definition of 'poverty' in the UK, it seems that what is publicised as poverty is actually envy or at least the perceived 'right' to own and possess and enjoy non-essential goods and services that have not been worked for.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
From Rev William Booth, Founder and first General of The Salvation Army:

quote:
"While there is no doubt that extreme poverty is an evil...it is also evident that to be poor, when there is not actual want of the necessities of life, is not an unmixed evil."
In some cases, to some people, and in the context of the definition of 'poverty' in the UK, it seems that what is publicised as poverty is actually envy or at least the perceived 'right' to own and possess and enjoy non-essential goods and services that have not been worked for.

People need more than the essentials to live life to the full. The idea that poor people should get bread and water and be grateful for it is hugely patronising and classist. That's why it's right for employers to pay a living wage and not a minimum wage - people should be able to live, not just survive. As it stands, people currently not working and in receipt of benefits (whether unemployment or disability benefit or other benefits such as carer's allowance) do not even get the equivalent of minimum wage. The problem with your statement is framing things around worked for v not worked for - but when there are people who CANNOT work, that comparison is not fair.

Why not share joy equally, as well as wealth?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

It's also patronising and 'classist' to make a list of all those nice things that 'we' who are middle-class enjoy and tell those who don't earn enough that they are deficient in life if they don't have what we have. There is nothing wrong with saying 'We can't afford that so we'll not have it.'

A question: Have you ever been 'poor' yourself?

I speak from personal experience of poverty as a teenager.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In some cases, to some people, and in the context of the definition of 'poverty' in the UK, it seems that what is publicised as poverty is actually envy or at least the perceived 'right' to own and possess and enjoy non-essential goods and services that have not been worked for.

How about those who inherit and enjoy non-essential goods and services that they never work for?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's also patronising and 'classist' to make a list of all those nice things that 'we' who are middle-class enjoy and tell those who don't earn enough that they are deficient in life if they don't have what we have. There is nothing wrong with saying 'We can't afford that so we'll not have it.'

A question: Have you ever been 'poor' yourself?

I speak from personal experience of poverty as a teenager.

Erm, yes, I was homeless at age 17 and lived on less than £3k a year for 5 years. And why do you assume that I am middle class? I'm not. I'm not saying that people are deficient in life because they can't afford certain things, just that people need to be able to live, not just survive.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Sure, but I wouldn't point the finger at the Salvation Army myself. Within that movement there has always been a recognition of the injustices inflicted on the poor as well as the lack of basic needs.

Where I think a lot of this gets lost these days is the parallel recognition within Christianity that wealth can very easily bring a different kind of impoverishment; arrogance, indifference, complacency or all signs of a poverty of compassion.

I grew up hearing my dad sing, from time to time, these words to the tune of "The Red Flag".

"The working class can kiss my ass
I've got the foreman's job at last".

(Perhaps I should add that he was not a foreman; it was a critical comment on some "high and mighty" foreman he had the misfortune to work for. And other "high and mighty" as well)

The indifference may not just be found amongst those who have been born better off. The doleful characteristics described as "nouveau riche" also demonstrate a lack of compassion. A condition described in the letter to Laodicea (Rev 3) as an unawareness that there may be a horrible poverty in riches.

I think this is the sort of thing William Booth was addressing. But it is easily misconstrued as patronising, or discounting, what it is like to be materially poor. Booth's whole life is a statement that he understood both the poverty of poverty, and the poverty of wealth.

[ 19. March 2013, 09:12: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In some cases, to some people, and in the context of the definition of 'poverty' in the UK, it seems that what is publicised as poverty is actually envy or at least the perceived 'right' to own and possess and enjoy non-essential goods and services that have not been worked for.
How about those who inherit and enjoy non-essential goods and services that they never work for?

That's just the way it is. Would you rather that everyone's estate went to the government when they die?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In some cases, to some people, and in the context of the definition of 'poverty' in the UK, it seems that what is publicised as poverty is actually envy or at least the perceived 'right' to own and possess and enjoy non-essential goods and services that have not been worked for.
How about those who inherit and enjoy non-essential goods and services that they never work for?
That's just the way it is. Would you rather that everyone's estate went to the government when they die?

So why is that acceptable, but the poor being given non-essential goods and services isn't? One rule for the rich...

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Not so! Merely giving the poor what they 'need' (or what the middle-classes think they need in order to 'be like us') will not work.

It breeds dependency and is ultimately soul-destroying.

What 'the poor'* need is opportunity and the removal of barriers so that they can succeed.

For example - someone on a very low income due to unemployment should, like a pensioner, get free bus travel because the proportion of their income spent on public transport is much higher than someone who is earning.

Another example is that most low-income people do not pay their fuel bills by direct debit but instead pay by prepaid meter. This is more expensive per unit of gas/electricity than if paid by direct debit. That's not fair. All fuel should be the same price.

Just 2 examples

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Jesus empowers the poor person because He is God Almighty, walking beside them in poverty.

Yeah, that and a couple of bucks (which, of course, they don't have) will buy them a coffee.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Not so! Merely giving the poor what they 'need' (or what the middle-classes think they need in order to 'be like us') will not work.

It breeds dependency and is ultimately soul-destroying.

What 'the poor'* need is opportunity and the removal of barriers so that they can succeed.

For example - someone on a very low income due to unemployment should, like a pensioner, get free bus travel because the proportion of their income spent on public transport is much higher than someone who is earning.

Another example is that most low-income people do not pay their fuel bills by direct debit but instead pay by prepaid meter. This is more expensive per unit of gas/electricity than if paid by direct debit. That's not fair. All fuel should be the same price.

Just 2 examples

Now you're starting to make sense.

But there's more.

They need childcare arrangements that doesn't cost them more than the increase in base income from working.

They need jobs that actually pay a living wage.

Just for starters.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

For example - someone on a very low income due to unemployment should, like a pensioner, get free bus travel because the proportion of their income spent on public transport is much higher than someone who is earning.

Yes - (as I said upthread) my son is a carer for disabled adults in Germany and on minimum wage. He gets a bus/tram/rail pass for all his work-related travel, or he couldn't do his job.

If there, why not here? It would help thousands (millions?) back into work.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

If there, why not here? [/QB]

££££££££££££

It'd also be less effective here when quite often the major barrier to using public transport is it doesn't go where you need, when you need it. I use the train for work quite often (would have today had my boss not rung me at 7.45am asking me to do a site visit) but I have to have a 2 and 3.5 mile bike ride at each end to do it in reasonable time.

You'd need to couple the free bus pass with an integrated transport policy to really make it work. Don't hold your breath; successive governments have been agin' that sort of thing ever since the Wicked Witch of Grantham deregulated the buses.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Don't hold your breath; successive governments have been agin' that sort of thing ever since the Wicked Witch of Grantham deregulated the buses.

I know

It will take all my self-control, restraint and tolerance not to dance at her funeral.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I think it's mainly because money is power, and power is power over others.

Yes. Power over others. And also power over ourselves. And while being in control of yourself is not inherently a bad thing, it does no harm - and maybe some good - to be reminded how fragile that veneer of self-control is.

I think this is one of the reasons we fast - to experience, as much as we dare, desperation, and, in desperation, to fail and be humbled. And in our failure and humility to be raised up by our loving saviour.

Poverty is an antidote to pride. With material wealth, you can easily start to kid yourself that your goodness and decency are all a product of your own effort, or even innate superiority, rather than the fact that you are have insulated yourself against desperation.

We're all never more than 6 feet away from a rat.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It will take all my self-control, restraint and tolerance not to dance at her funeral.

Out of interest, is there anybody else's funeral (past, present or future) that you have had or will have the urge to dance at?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

In the UK I do believe that you can claim bus fare for travelling to interviews when you're on JSA

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In the UK I do believe that you can claim bus fare for travelling to interviews when you're on JSA

Yes, but this only applies to public transport. If someone lives in a rural area (and increasingly, in towns too), public transport provision can be extremely erratic and might not actually get someone anywhere near where they want to go.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Mudfrog:

quote:
it seems that what is publicised as poverty is actually envy or at least the perceived 'right' to own and possess and enjoy non-essential goods and services...

So who gets to decide what's essential and what's non-essential, then? Do I get extra Piety Points for not envying my neighbour's Porsche - even though I have absolutely no desire to own a Porsche?

What is and isn't essential varies depending on your situation, anyway. Most people in rural areas would find it very difficult, if not impossible, to manage without a car (thanks to the Wicked Witch of Grantham's deregulation of public transport). Parents of small children need nappies and other baby-related supplies. Jobseekers need a mobile phone and probably also a computer with Internet access. Pensioners need to spend more on heating than people who are at work all day do.

[ 20. March 2013, 14:02: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Don't hold your breath; successive governments have been agin' that sort of thing ever since the Wicked Witch of Grantham deregulated the buses.
I know

It will take all my self-control, restraint and tolerance not to dance at her funeral.

Give way to your righteous urges.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Don't hold your breath; successive governments have been agin' that sort of thing ever since the Wicked Witch of Grantham deregulated the buses.
I know

It will take all my self-control, restraint and tolerance not to dance at her funeral.
Give way to your righteous urges.

Same question to you, then, Leo:

Out of interest, is there anybody else's funeral (past, present or future) that you have had or will have the urge to dance at?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

Out of interest, is there anybody else's funeral (past, present or future) that you have had or will have the urge to dance at?

Interestingly, no there isn't.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Ok.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I think this is relevant.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

No one has yet tackled my question...

what right do I have to force poverty on my wife and children. It would be selfish. I work hard for them, so is it right to deliberately reduce my the income that goes along with my efforts and God-granted good fortune for some self-righteous “principle”?

Would anyone out there who maintains that we should "give away", or "do with less" maintain that stance if they had families to support AND THAT THEY HAD THE WHEREWITHALL TO EARN THAT KIND OF WEALTH.

The capitalised part is the most important part, if you CAN or DO have a good income, would you stop it IN SPITE of having a family to support for the sake of your fellow man or whatever?

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Deano, if someone ran a profitable business and paid their workers a very low wage, but justified it by saying that she had no right to make her husband and children poor, wouldn't you object that she was making her family rich at the expense of her workers and their families?

People may favour themselves over their neighbours, and may prefer money to come to their families and friends than go to strangers and others, but there's no very high morality in this. There has to be some concept of fairness to balance the tendency to look after ourselves and our own rather than others.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Deano, if someone ran a profitable business and paid their workers a very low wage, but justified it by saying that she had no right to make her husband and children poor, wouldn't you object that she was making her family rich at the expense of her workers and their families?

People may favour themselves over their neighbours, and may prefer money to come to their families and friends than go to strangers and others, but there's no very high morality in this. There has to be some concept of fairness to balance the tendency to look after ourselves and our own rather than others.

Of course your are forgetting the reward from taking the risk, the low pay to get the business running and so on.

But a decent income can be EARNED. That's my point! Forget business owners, what about employee's who earn a good salary and can afford a decent lifestyle. What about those people? Do those reduce their families lifestyle?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
No one has yet tackled my question...

what right do I have to force poverty on my wife and children. It would be selfish. I work hard for them, so is it right to deliberately reduce my the income that goes along with my efforts and God-granted good fortune for some self-righteous “principle”?

I realise that this is easy to say for those of us who haven't committed matrimony, but if you're a Christian married to a non-Christian, then I'd be very surprised if your "principles" weren't in conflict with your spouse's, sooner or later.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

@Mudfrog, I'm in favour of a 95% inheritance tax for all inheritance above a threshold of the median annual income. End inherited wealth creating dependency. And enable the wealth to be shared so everyone has sufficient.

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
No one has yet tackled my question...

what right do I have to force poverty on my wife and children. It would be selfish. I work hard for them, so is it right to deliberately reduce my the income that goes along with my efforts and God-granted good fortune for some self-righteous “principle”?

OK. Are you a Christian?

If you are you are a strong heretic who needs to go back and re-read The Book of Job and Jesus and the wealthy man. Your good fortune is not God-granted or even sign of blessing from God. It simply is what it is.

As for selfishness, the selfish part is thinking that a small marginal gain for your family is worth more than a massive marginal gain for someone in Africa. Of course without a degree of selfishness, nothing will get done - at least not in my philosophy. (Which doesn't mean giving way to selfishness, or that altruism is anything other than a good thing).

Why do you work hard for your wife and kids, rather than working hard for the world of which your wife and kids are a part?

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Of course your are forgetting the reward from taking the risk, the low pay to get the business running and so on.

But a decent income can be EARNED. That's my point! Forget business owners, what about employee's who earn a good salary and can afford a decent lifestyle. What about those people? Do those reduce their families lifestyle?

You're asking a different question, now. Our responsibility to our family and friends does not override our duty to behave morally. That was my point, and I made it to counter your suggestion that having a family somehow entitles you to ignore the claims of justice. It doesn't.

'A decent income can be earned' you say. There are many levels of income that can be earned. Some may be too low or too high to be decent, but everyone I know who works for a salary accepts in full what they are offered (though I know some who give away significant amounts).

An employee isn't usually in a position to exploit others. They don't fix their salary (unless they are on the board). If there is too much inequality between wages, as I think there is, asking the high paid worker to do something about it is asking the wrong person. It's a problem that has to be solved at a higher level. It's about company policy, about markets and their regulation, and I don't think anyone knows how to fix it.

I would be careful about the word 'earned' as well. It is close to 'deserved', and there are plenty of people whose work deserves to be better rewarded than it is, and plenty who are paid more than they deserve. There are fashions and anomalies of the markets at work in wages.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

deano:

quote:
But a decent income can be EARNED.

I attended a staff training session once where the speaker started telling us about a survey conducted by the Post Office which showed that from the customer's point of view, the most important employees were the postmen and the counter staff - not the managers. He said that as a result of this, the Post Office changed their corporate culture (I don't have a reference for this report; the staff training session was years ago and he didn't do handouts).

My question about whether the changes included turning the pay structure upside-down, so that the 'more important' employees were paid a salary that reflected their value to the business, was not well received.

Most employees' salaries are the lowest figure an employer can get away with paying and depend mainly on how difficult it will be to find someone else to do the job. The intrinsic value of the work has very little to do with it; that is why bankers and footballers get paid more than teachers and nurses.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I think it was a fellow Shipmate (I forget who, exactly) once pointed out that no employee is paid according to what they're worth: they're paid according to how hard they'd be to replace.

[ 21. March 2013, 13:53: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Sorry, even after editing I seemed to lose half of my post.

I just wanted to point out that it's not only Christianity, or Buddhism, that recommends poverty. There is a principle in Taoism (I don't have the exact source; I don't think it's in the Tao Te Ching) that says "those who are not satisfied with a little will never be satisfied with anything".

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

One of the hardest things about being a parent and trying to live the Gospels is accepting that your own child's life is not intrinsically more valuable than anyone else's child's life.

Even if you accept this intellectually, how do you - practically - act on it? My children have their own rooms; perhaps we should move to a smaller house and donate the funds released by down-sizing to Kids Company (a south east London charity supporting children in poverty).

If that is part of the answer, then I haven't the courage to do it. There's sufficient uncertainty over whether I'll be able to continue to work and earn for me not to give away our surplus. But I can't see any way to argue my own case that doesn't involve me accepting that I don't trust God enough.

So I do what I have got the courage to do, which is much less than I could do, if I were prepared to take the risk.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think it was a fellow Shipmate (I forget who, exactly) once pointed out that no employee is paid according to what they're worth: they're paid according to how hard they'd be to replace.

I have said that in the past, whether I'm the specific Shipmate you're thinking of I couldn't possibly say.

It's true, though.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

This is not completely true. Oft times ones pay is related to some sort of proximity to ones payer. I am not simply speaking nepotism.
One example is skilled labor vs lower/middle management. The manager's pay is more a reflection of another manager setting the priority than any issue of replaceablity.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

I think the big companies pay their CEOs millions because they want their company to be headed up by a big beast who costs millions. It's a macho symbol. Prestigious head office, unbelievably well paid boss, company jet.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Don't hold your breath; successive governments have been agin' that sort of thing ever since the Wicked Witch of Grantham deregulated the buses.
I know

It will take all my self-control, restraint and tolerance not to dance at her funeral.
Give way to your righteous urges.
Same question to you, then, Leo:

Out of interest, is there anybody else's funeral (past, present or future) that you have had or will have the urge to dance at?

Probably none - mainly because the homilies is likely to tell us something about the whole life of a person which puts any obnoxious views e.g. racism, into context - so we can understand why they thought/did nasty things to oppress and harass others.

The previous Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, comes to mind.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

So I belive the general trend around here is veering toward hard socialism/communism coupled with an absolute determination to wealth "redistribution".

Fair enough. I do not agree.

The best way to take people out of poverty is to have a dynamic, driving economy that provides jobs by encouraging wealth-makers to invest.

You can't charge more for your labour than the market will stand. As an employee you are seeling your labour to the highest bidder. When you start to cost more than you make then you are out of a job.

Under no circumstances will I reduce my families lifestyle for some altruistic principles.

Christ atre with tax-collectors. Rich men will get into heaven because for God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.

Attacking someone's faith because they don't agree with you is the sign of a lost debate in my opinion.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
How about those who inherit and enjoy non-essential goods and services that they never work for?
That's just the way it is.

"The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate;
He made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate"

...or something like that?...

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Christ ate with tax-collectors. Rich men will get into heaven because for God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.

And those tax collectors changed their lives. They also weren't exactly paragons of free enterprise. And if it took a statement of that magnitude to make salvation even possible for one such as this. And what does that salvation entail?

[ 21. March 2013, 23:56: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

Posted by the Pookah (# 9186) on :

Hmm it looks like most here would argue that Christianity is incompatible with capitalism.

The Silent Acolyte explained it best for me & the other poster who pointed out that I don't believe in god.

Detachment for Christians is all about God, fear of death etc...So it stands it's pretty incomprehensible as I don't fear god (don't believe in one god, nor do I fear death). How does it feel to have such a high ideal and for the majority be unable to fulfill it? Buddhists have multiple lives so I'll get to being a bodhisattva after some tries. No problem, no guilt. But you have one life to be saintly. Is there lots of tension or pressure?

[ 23. March 2013, 02:28: Message edited by: the Pookah ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:
But you have one life to be saintly. Is there lots of tension or pressure?

You do the best you can, and God is merciful.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
So I belive the general trend around here is veering toward hard socialism/communism coupled with an absolute determination to wealth "redistribution".

Fair enough. I do not agree.

The best way to take people out of poverty is to have a dynamic, driving economy that provides jobs by encouraging wealth-makers to invest.

And the best way to do get your dynamic economy is to destroy rent-seeking behaviour and keep the money in circulation. Both of which are best done by a socialist system.

quote:
Under no circumstances will I reduce my families lifestyle for some altruistic principles.

In what sense do you call yourself a Christian?

quote:
Attacking someone's faith because they don't agree with you is the sign of a lost debate in my opinion.

It's not a sign of a lost debate. It's a sign of complete non-comprehension. Most of the bible's dictates are about wealth. And a lot of what Jesus said is about giving away your posessions and quite literally lowering your and your family's standards of living to feed the hungry and visit those in prison. What you are advocating seems to me to be the literal opposite of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Has anyone mentioned the Protestant work ethic further up the thread? Clean living, devout working class families are able to earn more and save more than their less religious neighbours. The sociologists say that as these people grow more affluent their piety and eventually their religious allegiance slackens because they begin to rely more and more on the money they've made and are less concerned about salvation and Christian service. For that reason alone the impact of increasing wealth is something to be concerned about.

On the other hand, there's something a little distasteful about relatively well-off Christians who criticise less well-off ones (or those with recent family or cultural memories of poverty) for eagerly trying to improve their standard of living. Blunt criticisms of 'prosperity doctrines', often practised by people from poorer countries, can come across as somewhat neo-colonialist. Plus, I wonder if preaching against wealth actually serves capitalist interests, because it never seems to have any effect upon the truly rich, and only serves to make working class and lower middle class people feel guilty for enjoying their pleasures, even though they give a higher proportion of their money to charity than those who are far wealthier than they are!!

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Originally posted by the Pookah:
Hmm it looks like most here would argue that Christianity is incompatible with capitalism.

Which strikes a bit odd when considering that Christianity has been an integral part of Imperialism and Capitalism for a goodly while.
Though Capitalism continues quite happily in a mainly secular environment nowadays.

What a very different ,(and lovely), place the world would be if homo-sapiens had only ever practised Buddhism since the dawn of civilization.
Sadly not so .
We have served our 'wants' since that time , the world we have created for ourselves is a reflection of that. Poverty will always exist in this world in one form or another.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

I know I'm a Christian because...

"We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen..."

And so on.

I don't think that there is anything in there about anyone's financial arrangements, nor about macro-economic principles.

In fact, I think that setting up a business and making it so successful that you can give people jobs and make a good return for the investors is a very Christian thing to do.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

I presume you also take seriously the challenge of Matthew 6:24. If we are saying in the creeds that God is Lord then where is money because Jesus seems to think that is relevant to the seriousness of the first statement.

Jengie

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I presume you also take seriously the challenge of Matthew 6:24. If we are saying in the creeds that God is Lord then where is money because Jesus seems to think that is relevant to the seriousness of the first statement.

Jengie

No, I agree with Matthew 6:24. We shouldn't SERVE money.

There is a middle-ground between despising it and worshipping it. I like it. Really like it. But I don't worship it. I don't SERVE it. I use it.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Under no circumstances will I reduce my families lifestyle for some altruistic principles.

Deano - your profile says you are Anglican. Do you provide the church with any of your time, your effort or your money (capital or revenue)?

If you do then you are reducing your family's lifestyle (real and/or potential) and if you don't - should you claim membership of the club if you don't pay your subs?

I am, of course, assuming that any gift to the church qualifies as altruism - the alternative would be that you think your god is susceptible to bribery.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

In fact, I think that setting up a business and making it so successful that you can give people jobs and make a good return for the investors is a very Christian thing to do.

Can't really dispute that . Provided we're not talking about the type of worker exploitation which existed here in the 19th Century , and still goes on in other parts of the world today .

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I know I'm a Christian because...

"We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen..."

And so on.

I don't think that there is anything in there about anyone's financial arrangements, nor about macro-economic principles.

In fact, I think that setting up a business and making it so successful that you can give people jobs and make a good return for the investors is a very Christian thing to do.

In short you're a Christian because you say the Nicene Creed and utterly ignore the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth?

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I know I'm a Christian because...

"We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen..."

And so on.

I don't think that there is anything in there about anyone's financial arrangements, nor about macro-economic principles.

In fact, I think that setting up a business and making it so successful that you can give people jobs and make a good return for the investors is a very Christian thing to do.

Wesley's talk of "orthodox devils" comes to mind. Also his lament on the general failure of Christians to apply his third rule of financial stewardship.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

NOT addressing any specific person here, but I think some of the preaching/teaching I have heard makes the family a kind of idol, highest value in actual daily life is devotion to family, family happiness is the goal, anything for my kids to make them happy and help them "get ahead." I don't hear outward orientation, "what can this family do for the world" only inward "what can the family members do for the family members."

Charity begins at home, starving your kids is failure to fulfill your appointment to care and nurture them.

But teaching them by deed or word that wealth is of high importance is teaching soul damaging values. It's one thing to accidentally be rich, it's another to cling to wealth "it's mine, get out of my way beggars, it's mine, I earned it and I'm keeping it." So we have gated communities to keep the poor away and we have police to move the beggars away from the places rich people work and play.

I used to work in a job where the bosses earned a quarter to half million a year and they would say "I deserve it, I work hard." As if the single mom with two waitressing jobs doesn't work just as hard or more?

Having wealth is not wrong but it is dangerous, real danger of thinking you deserve it more than others do, of thinking your security is in money instead of God, of thinking money is essential to happiness. And that means fear and hoarding it to protect your happiness and security. The focus is on money (with God on the margins) instead of on God (with money on the margins). Money easily displaces God's centrality, in our lives and in what we focus on teaching our kids.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:
Hmm it looks like most here would argue that Christianity is incompatible with capitalism.

As a point of order, I should observe that capitalism is not the same as free-market economics, and neither are the same as 'me-first wealth-at-all-costs' Randian objectivism.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I know I'm a Christian because...

"We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen..."

And so on.

I don't think that there is anything in there about anyone's financial arrangements, nor about macro-economic principles.

In fact, I think that setting up a business and making it so successful that you can give people jobs and make a good return for the investors is a very Christian thing to do.
In short you're a Christian because you say the Nicene Creed and utterly ignore the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth?

Wooah! Black/white, either/or, on/off, true/false, 0/1.

You are taking an extreme position and it is ridiculous. I spend a fair amount of my own time working for the church, web-site maintenance, PCC meetings, MMA meeting, serving, reading and so forth.

I spend money as well.

But none of what I spend on the church cuts into my own family’s lifestyle. I don’t believe I have the right to impoverish my own wife and children.

I’m not going to play your proof-texting games about what Christ said. It’s an irrelevance because for every rich man and eye of needle you come up with, I will come up with a countering but for God everything is possible.

Being a Christian doesn’t mean being a socialist nor in poverty, and anyone who believes that it does has their own agenda that is more related to the secular, political world than the way of God.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Isn't there, for many of us, a huge range of difference between "affecting the family lifestyle" and "impoverishing the family"? Any giving of time or money or attention to God or church reduces the amount that goes to the family, affects their lifestyle.

Maybe the word "poverty" is the problem. If it means give away everything including regular eating, and move under a bridge -- no I don't think Christianity teaches that as a virtue.

Some people "talk" as of they have done it - some nuns and monks for example claim they own nothing but a toothbrush, but they also have a steady expectation of shelter, clothing, food, companionship, meaningful work, recreation, and care in their old age, so their "I embrace poverty, I own only a toothbrush" is not at all like one of us owning nothing but a toothbrush - and having no shelter clothes food friends or medical care!

Jesus supposedly owned nothing - but he kept his clothes! The people in early Acts sold everything - and then met in their houses, so they didn't sell their houses! We live in a mathematically literal era and can too easily read "everything" as meaning the house too, the cooking pans, the winter coat. That's not what they described "everything" as.

I think it far more accurate to refer to simple living.

Being uncluttered by possessions that aren't really doing anything for you except sentimental or showing off or habit or "might come in handy sometime" security clinging. See the decluttering thread. I suspect the stuffed closets of the middle class could furnish the homes of the poor, and both would be better off.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

Deano is your wife a Christian? What if she felt that you as a couple should give more to charity? Or doesn't she get a say? I know couples where both are tertiaries and so have both vowed to live simply. Others are married to non-tertiaries but must have discussed the implications.

Values affect how we live. It's not just about money, what if you or your wife felt you were called to full-time Christian ministry or to change career in another way so you went back to college?

Carys

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Those of us who attend institutional churches have to recognise that without a steady supply of money, these churches wouldn't exist. If you're lucky, your particular church will be flush with money all the time. Otherwise, in my experience, there will be regular (and, to me, quite tedious) calls for increased financial giving. Where is that money to come from if all of the congregants are poor?

Recently, a Baptist minister told me openly that his church's extensive ministry was largely funded by a handful of doctors in a mainly working class congregation. If these doctors gave up their lucrative jobs in order to work for the minimum wage, the church would suffer. Maybe doctors are acceptable because theirs is a caring profession; but if they were businessmen or famous broadcasters or bestselling novelists rather than doctors, would their money be any less helpful to a church that desperately needs it to keep the roof up, the doors open and the church's mission prospering?

The financial problems of countless congregations would be lessened by a reduced reliance on the model of church as institution, but that's a matter for another thread.

[ 27. March 2013, 00:46: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Jesus supposedly owned nothing - but he kept his clothes! The people in early Acts sold everything - and then met in their houses, so they didn't sell their houses! We live in a mathematically literal era and can too easily read "everything" as meaning the house too, the cooking pans, the winter coat. That's not what they described "everything" as.

That is a very good point, which had never occurred to me before.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

The Pookah said:

quote:
Detachment for Christians is all about God, fear of death etc..

Well, as a Christian I don't go with the 'fear of death' bit. My inspiration (see my sig) is to bring about the Kingdom of God, as shown by Jesus, on earth, not to earn myself a spot in a hypothetical heaven.

Deano said

quote:
Under no circumstances will I reduce my families lifestyle for some altruistic principles.

Do you work for your family's needs or for their wants? I have as much as I need, and enough to share some; my salvation is from the desire to have unnecessary extras. My wardrobe is limited, my car an aging second-hand vehicle and so on, but I'm happy with what I can have.

It was a widespread first century belief that God had provided goods, health, status etc for everybody equally, and hence the rich had effectively stolen from the poor. The story of the Talents has been reinterpreted as a cautionary tale with the rich man as the evil example.

GG

[ 27. March 2013, 02:40: Message edited by: Galloping Granny ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

I think it far more accurate to refer to simple living.

It is amazing, though, what qualifies as simple in the philosophy of some.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
The Pookah said:
quote:
Detachment for Christians is all about God, fear of death etc..
Well, as a Christian I don't go with the 'fear of death' bit. My inspiration (see my sig) is to bring about the Kingdom of God, as shown by Jesus, on earth, not to earn myself a spot in a hypothetical heaven.

Deano said
quote:
Under no circumstances will I reduce my families lifestyle for some altruistic principles.
Do you work for your family's needs or for their wants? I have as much as I need, and enough to share some; my salvation is from the desire to have unnecessary extras. My wardrobe is limited, my car an aging second-hand vehicle and so on, but I'm happy with what I can have.

It was a widespread first century belief that God had provided goods, health, status etc for everybody equally, and hence the rich had effectively stolen from the poor. The story of the Talents has been reinterpreted as a cautionary tale with the rich man as the evil example.

GG

When does a "want" become a "need"?

My children "need" the private education they have both received in my view, in order to give them the best possible start in life. That isn't a want, it's a need.

If we are talkign about "need" only, then we merely NEED food, water and shelter. That's the lot.

But we've progressed on quite a way since then.

It is no longer a simple choice between "need" and "want" in 21st century western countries. We have moved on and our culture - whilst some of you may not like it - is here to stay.

Of course someone will now post examples of extreme poverty in 21st western countries, to which I will counter with examples of people born into poverty becoming quite wealthy in 21st Century western countries.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

But none of what I spend on the church cuts into my own family’s lifestyle.

I don't think it's charity if it costs you nothing. You can't love someone without consequences for yourself.

Of course, the "cost" of giving means different things to different people. It "pains" me considerably less to give away what is, in quantitative amounts, a relatively large sum of money if all I am sacrificing is, say, a second holiday for my family. It would pain me a great deal more to give away a much smaller amount if that amount required me to sacrifice something I regarded as essential.

But I think that's all dealt with in the widow's mite.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

Maybe deano doesn't see the money or time he gives to his church as charity. I assume that he values or even enjoys what his church offers him and feels that he gets benefits out of it. In which case maybe he views that money and time as effectively, even if indirectly, spent on himself. Any charitable effects are incidental to furthering his own self-interest.

I would be more impressed by "charitable" giving where neither he nor his family is in line to be a beneficiary.

[ 27. March 2013, 14:00: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0