Wealth

[MoreCoffee]

If most of it is then it would not be held onto. Just imagine how much good and how much suffering could be alleviated by 1 billion dollars

Not very much, but more than nothing.

 

[Ruth]

Not very much, but more than nothing.

What? A billion dollars wouldn't do very much? I disagree and think it would do a heck of a lot.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What? A billion dollars wouldn't do very much? I disagree and think it would do a heck of a lot.

The world already spends hundreds of billions on poverty aid and it hasn't ended poverty so what would one more billion do? Not a lot but more than nothing.

 

[Josiah]

By far the longest, most costly, and least successful war in American history was one declared by President Johnson in the 1960's - "The War on Poverty."

One thing seems CERTAIN: throwing money at the issue, and developing countless federal programs hasn't done a thing to win that war.... it even seems that government can't do ANYTHING to win this war (a point government will NEVER, EVER admit). It may be that it can only be won by those who are in poverty; a self-liberation (and that DOES seem to happen, occasionally).

THAT said, I AM a supporter of one government program: free trade education. Many areas (California being one) have LOTS of community colleges.... free to cheap to attend, easy to get into, with LOTS of vocational training/certifying programs designed to get good paying jobs that are needed in that community. I even would support free childcare for students participating in these. True - I see no evidence that this has done much at all to reduce poverty, but I DO support society offering this for the very few that take advantage of it.


Yeah.... obviously.... we can't have people dying in the streets. For PURELY humanitarian reasons, we HAVE to have some aid for housing, food, health (WHAT and HOW much is a different issue) - we have no choice. But sadly, the "fruit" of this is that it often just perpetuates the problems, enables the poverty since they thus have no reason to liberate themselves. Government REALLY likes this - it makes an ever growing population dependent on them (and voting for the libs who promote this) and makes the government feel good (and that's what liberalism is all about, government FEELING good) but all these billions do nothing to end poverty, it often just perpetuates it and expands it (even though, in RARE cases, people do choose to escape this government entrapment).



- Josiah

 

[tango]

Is possessing wealth a bad thing? Theologically speaking?

I don't think we can argue that possessing wealth can be a bad thing - there are many people in Scripture who were wealthy, not least Joseph of Arimathea (who was recorded as being "a rich man" in Matt 27:57, and in whose tomb the body of Jesus was lain). What matters is what we do with whatever wealth we have.

 

[tango]

By far the longest, most costly, and least successful war in American history was one declared by President Johnson in the 1960's - "The War on Poverty."

One thing seems CERTAIN: throwing money at the issue, and developing countless federal programs hasn't done a thing to win that war.... it even seems that government can't do ANYTHING to win this war (a point government will NEVER, EVER admit). It may be that it can only be won by those who are in poverty; a self-liberation (and that DOES seem to happen, occasionally).

THAT said, I AM a supporter of one government program: free trade education. Many areas (California being one) have LOTS of community colleges.... free to cheap to attend, easy to get into, with LOTS of vocational training/certifying programs designed to get good paying jobs that are needed in that community. I even would support free childcare for students participating in these. True - I see no evidence that this has done much at all to reduce poverty, but I DO support society offering this for the very few that take advantage of it.


Yeah.... obviously.... we can't have people dying in the streets. For PURELY humanitarian reasons, we HAVE to have some aid for housing, food, health (WHAT and HOW much is a different issue) - we have no choice. But sadly, the "fruit" of this is that it often just perpetuates the problems, enables the poverty since they thus have no reason to liberate themselves. Government REALLY likes this - it makes an ever growing population dependent on them (and voting for the libs who promote this) and makes the government feel good (and that's what liberalism is all about, government FEELING good) but all these billions do nothing to end poverty, it often just perpetuates it and expands it (even though, in RARE cases, people do choose to escape this government entrapment).



- Josiah

The problem is the whole issue of "give a man a fish" and "teach a man to fish". When vast sums of money are spent on little more than handing out free fish the problem will never go away, and if anything will become more entrenched. Why would someone bother to go and catch their own fish, when free fish are handed out regardless of whether or not they make an effort?

Once people are well and truly caught up in the benefits trap it's all but guaranteed they will never work for themselves. The government body administering the program may pat themselves on the back and describe such a person as having been "lifted out of poverty" (although government figures where poverty is concerned are often absurd anyway), but that person will almost certainly face a life devoid of hope of bettering themselves through their own efforts.

Many years ago one of the UK newspapers compared the life of a person living in an inner city council estate in the UK (I think the US equivalent would be called "the projects" - we're talking social housing where few if any of the residents routinely work and many are long-term unemployed), and a person living in the slums of places like India and Pakistan. As it noted, the person in the UK council estate has a roof over their head and is given free money but the slums of Pakistan don't have anything like the drug problems ravaging the community. If you don't have a job and can't afford to take a job because it pays less than you get on welfare (or it pays more but by a margin so small it's not worth going to work) there comes a point where people feel no purpose in getting up in the morning, long term depression sets in and people turn to drugs and alcohol to escape the brutal reality that their life has become. In the slums if you're climbing over mountains of trash looking for something to salvage and sell you have to get up and get on with it, or you don't eat. You can't afford to get drunk and get high and do nothing all day because if you follow that path you don't eat. So even though life is arguably more brutal, each person has a purpose.

I know things aren't always quite as simple as "welfare bad" or "welfare good", but I think as far as possible welfare has to focus on "teach a man to fish" rather than just handing out free fish. Perhaps we would do well encouraging people to run their own enterprises. So many think that "employment" means "get a job" which means "clock on at 8am, clock off at 5pm, work for the same employer every day" when there's no reason someone couldn't employ themselves doing anything from mowing lawns to washing cars to whatever else needs doing in their area.

 

[Rens]

I don't think we can argue that possessing wealth can be a bad thing - there are many people in Scripture who were wealthy, not least Joseph of Arimathea (who was recorded as being "a rich man" in Matt 27:57, and in whose tomb the body of Jesus was lain). What matters is what we do with whatever wealth we have.

Yes, Jesus had all those wealthy women who followed Him and gave them money.

 

[psalms 91]

Possessing is not sin but greed and hoarding money is

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I was curious why some folk say that the Vatican's alleged billions ought be sold and given to the poor if they think wealth is not a bad thing? But I guess some folk have their own kinds of double standards ...

Which is strange, given that 'Catholic Charities USA' ranks #15 on the Forbes list of the largest charities in the U.S.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Which is strange, given that 'Catholic Charities USA' ranks #15 on the Forbes list of the largest charities in the U.S.

That is not what the critic wants to hear.

 

[psalms 91]

Actually I am glad that is the xase, however any church that has billions that could be used to alleviate some conditions in the world such as clean water, vacinnations, medical care etc it does make one wonder

 

[MoreCoffee]

Actually I am glad that is the xase, however any church that has billions that could be used to alleviate some conditions in the world such as clean water, vacinnations, medical care etc it does make one wonder

Why billions and not thousands? Surely everybody in CH has thousands or hundreds or tens that could save somebody from starvation for a day or two ...

 

[psalms 91]

I agree I and others do not do enough although with me I am broke before the end of the month every month but I do tithe. When it comes to a church, a institution that has always tried to alleviate suffering in whatever form it just seems a sin to store so much money. Now if that value is spread over many churchs and really doesnt amount to that much then that is one thing but if it is accumulated in one spot and not being used in that way then that dioes raise concern

 

[Josiah]

I'd like to try being wealthy. Not sure how I'll feel about that if I was, but I'd like to try it out sometime.

 

[tango]

I agree I and others do not do enough although with me I am broke before the end of the month every month but I do tithe. When it comes to a church, a institution that has always tried to alleviate suffering in whatever form it just seems a sin to store so much money. Now if that value is spread over many churchs and really doesnt amount to that much then that is one thing but if it is accumulated in one spot and not being used in that way then that dioes raise concern

This is where I think the whole concept of giving needs to come under closer scrutiny. In many ways this whole concept of tithing is an easy option. We dutifully hand over 10% to "the church" (whatever that means) and figure we've done our bit. Sometimes that seems like such a soft option, just write a check and let someone else do the dirty work of loving the unlovely and looking after the people who smell bad and we'd rather not get too close to.

Just to be clear, this isn't intended as a comment against you personally Bill because I struggle with this exact thing - my inclination is to write a check and let someone else do the dirty work - and for all I know you may do far more for the needy than I do.

I think MC has hit on a really good point here. It's easy to look at Someone Else who has More Than We Have and figure that they should be doing more for the needy. Hey, they've got a lot of money, they can afford it. And along the way we overlook the fact that maybe we have a spare bedroom that might get a homeless person off the streets, even if only for a few days. Maybe we have some spare time that we could volunteer to teach basic life skills to those who can't get a job because they can't read or write, or home economics to someone who lost their home because they didn't understand the concept of a budget and didn't pay their rent. Maybe we could spend half an hour with an elderly person who is financially just fine but who lives on their own and never has any visitors and gets desperately lonely. But for as long as we're focusing on what we think Someone Else should be doing, we're not focusing on what we might be doing.

What Jesus said about the widow's mite strikes true today as much as any other time. We'll never get "the rich" (whoever they may be in the context of any given rant) to pay "their fair share" (another vague term useful for rabble rousing but otherwise utterly meaningless), but we can lead by example. It may take billions of dollars to fund research into malaria to save however many children in Africa but it might only take $50 to make a huge difference to the single mother down the road who is doing the best she can but who desperately needs a new tire for her car so she can continue to go to work.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I agree I and others do not do enough although with me I am broke before the end of the month every month but I do tithe. When it comes to a church, a institution that has always tried to alleviate suffering in whatever form it just seems a sin to store so much money. Now if that value is spread over many churchs and really doesnt amount to that much then that is one thing but if it is accumulated in one spot and not being used in that way then that dioes raise concern

Sell the church building, sell the electronic signs of affluence, send your money directly to the poor and avoid the overheads of organised charity, stop tithing to church and tithe to the poor ... if you really think that sacrificial giving is the way to go. Be like the monks and nuns who work for and with the poor take an oath of poverty ... it may be what is needed, right?

 

[popsthebuilder]

I don't know about selling the church buildings... That seems a little extreme.... But the excessive lavish decor of the Catholic churches could be used in a more fitting, universally beneficial way for those in need.

As far as personal finances are concerned; if I see someone in need I don't care if I'm down to ten bucks, I'll gladly give them half.

We aren't to judge, we are to help those in need, and we are to depend on GOD for sustenance.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

I don't know about selling the church buildings... That seems a little extreme.... But the excessive lavish decor of the Catholic churches could be used in a more fitting, universally beneficial way for those in need.

As far as personal finances are concerned; if I see someone in need I don't care if I'm down to ten bucks, I'll gladly give me half.

We aren't to judge, we are to help those in need, and we are to depend on GOD for sustenance.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Isn't selling the Vatican, disposing of art works, ancient monuments, ancient manuscripts, and everything else that the Catholic Church is alleged to have that makes up its legendary wealth the target of the cheap shot advice offered? After all, isn't the bulk of the legendary wealth of the Catholic Church tied up in ancient buildings, ancient art work, ancient manuscripts - things donated over the last 2,000 years which were not at the time they were donated so extraordinary and valuable as they may be now? If the sauce is good for the goose why would it not be good for the gander too? Let the advocates of divesting the Vatican divest themselves as an act of good faith. Or is this a case of the sauce being good only for the Vatican and Catholics but no good at all for upright work-ethic oriented chaps who want to vote for more tax cuts (for themselves) and less foreign aid?

I do not advocate divestment of any denomination as proof of their right to the name "Christian".

 

[popsthebuilder]

Isn't selling the Vatican, disposing of art works, ancient monuments, ancient manuscripts, and everything else that the Catholic Church is alleged to have that makes up its legendary wealth the target of the cheap shot advice offered? After all, isn't the bulk of the legendary wealth of the Catholic Church tied up in ancient buildings, ancient art work, ancient manuscripts - things donated over the last 2,000 years which were not at the time they were donated so extraordinary and valuable as they may be now? If the sauce is good for the goose why would it not be good for the gander too? Let the advocates of divesting the Vatican divest themselves as an act of good faith. Or is this a case of the sauce being good only for the Vatican and Catholics but no good at all for upright work-ethic oriented chaps who want to vote for more tax cuts (for themselves) and less foreign aid?

I do not advocate divestment of any denomination as proof of their right to the name "Christian".

You seem to be trying to move this into politics or defending from angle that I'm not attacking. I clearly stated that excess is excessive and as such somewhat wasteful. I speak of giving to those in need from a wholly Christian perspective; that is to say, not a political one. I clearly stated too that I, regardless of my own financial situation, will happily and quietly give to any I perceive as being in need or even want. I don't mean to talk about it, I bring it up because you mentioned it.

The artwork and architecture are magnificent in most cases, and beautiful, but not the substance of faith or even accurately or amply guide one towards such, nor does the hoarding of potential of any sort.

Of course I do not condone the destruction of any artwork and most definitely not any manuscripts as you called them. I was initially speaking of a surplus in assets without resorting to destruction of precious artifacts. Those gold castings, moldings and carvings should in no way be worshiped though, to me personally. It seems to me that some works of man's hands are held in too high a reverence.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[tango]

Isn't selling the Vatican, disposing of art works, ancient monuments, ancient manuscripts, and everything else that the Catholic Church is alleged to have that makes up its legendary wealth the target of the cheap shot advice offered? After all, isn't the bulk of the legendary wealth of the Catholic Church tied up in ancient buildings, ancient art work, ancient manuscripts - things donated over the last 2,000 years which were not at the time they were donated so extraordinary and valuable as they may be now? If the sauce is good for the goose why would it not be good for the gander too? Let the advocates of divesting the Vatican divest themselves as an act of good faith. Or is this a case of the sauce being good only for the Vatican and Catholics but no good at all for upright work-ethic oriented chaps who want to vote for more tax cuts (for themselves) and less foreign aid?

I do not advocate divestment of any denomination as proof of their right to the name "Christian".

You also make good points here. Sometimes an entity either sets up, or is given, something that subsequently rises tremendously in value - witness the Salvation Army offices in London EC4, within sight of St Paul's Cathedral and just on the edge of the financial district. That office must be worth a fortune (in fairness I don't know if they own it or rent it). Assuming they own it, in theory they could sell it to raise money for their cause, but then they'd have to find another office (hugely expensive), move all their staff out (also an expensive process) and potentially end up not actually liberating a whole lot of cash.

It would be a tragedy to destroy ancient artwork just for the sake of box ticking. At the same time the church does seem to be in a curious position of being wealthy yet apparently impoverished. I don't know about the Catholic Church but in the UK at least it seems the Anglican church is reckoned to be very wealthy and yet church buildings struggle to raise money for repairs. I don't know if the perception of wealth is wrong, if the wealth is largely illiquid, or if there really is some kind of system that sucks wealth upwards and seldom lets it trickle back down again.

One thing I've often found is that the people who shout the loudest about not having luxuries because the money could be used to help the poor totally miss the irony in doing their shouting on the luxury that is an internet forum and ultimately usually fall back on arguments like the fact they use the library, or (more usually) mummy and daddy are paying for the internet because little Jimmy hasn't left home yet. Apparently for him the internet is a necessity whereas for everyone else it's a luxury. Even using the library fails because if you really want to take the line that luxuries are bad and should be sacrificed for the sake of the poor then you might as well be consistent and accept that luxury use of free time is equally bad, given the free time could be used to help those less fortunate.

But going back to your point MC, it does sometimes seem like another case of people expecting Someone Else to give before they give, merely because Someone Else has more to give. That didn't hold the widow back in Mark 12, and Jesus noticed what she did and gave her greater recognition than those who put in incomparably more money.