|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why is poverty good?
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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 ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
It will take all my self-control, restraint and tolerance not to dance at her funeral.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
In the UK I do believe that you can claim bus fare for travelling to interviews when you're on JSA
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think this is relevant.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
@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?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
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?...
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
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. ]
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
the Pookah
Shipmate
# 9186
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 926 | From: the Northern colonies | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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!!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
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 .
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
