i am interested in the approach this forum takes to money.
apart from sex, (which i am quite relaxed about) it seems to me that wealth is the surest divider between those who are moral, and those who are not.. it seems jesus thought so, also.
luke 16:19-31 kjv describes well enough his dusty attitude to the rich who do not succour the poor.. and this world has many poor: so many, it might seem that we can do nothing about it, and twist his words; 'the poor ye shall have always with you, but me, ye shall not have always.
Well, everyone, I am pleased to note that the climate of the thread seems to have altered from whether the rich should succour the poor, towards how, and what is the most effective method, for the rich to succour the poor. As you may have gathered from my previous posts, I think this to be in everybody's best interests.
Best wishes, 2RM.
i am interested in the approach this forum takes to money.
apart from sex, (which i am quite relaxed about) it seems to me that wealth is the surest divider between those who are moral, and those who are not.. it seems jesus thought so, also.
luke 16:19-31 kjv describes well enough his dusty attitude to the rich who do not succour the poor.. and this world has many poor: so many, it might seem that we can do nothing about it, and twist his words; 'the poor ye shall have always with you, but me, ye shall not have always.
So, if they starve, to the extent of 36 million per year, so the rich can be rich, its ok. But if we starve, it's not ok?
Free market capitalism is neither moral nor immoral. It's just the default system of organising our economics. Maybe it is conducive to prosperity. But until that prosperity is equitably distributed, I will continue to be a critic.
Best wishes, 2RM.
i am interested in the approach this forum takes to money.
apart from sex, (which i am quite relaxed about) it seems to me that wealth is the surest divider between those who are moral, and those who are not.. it seems jesus thought so, also.
luke 16:19-31 kjv describes well enough his dusty attitude to the rich who do not succour the poor.. and this world has many poor: so many, it might seem that we can do nothing about it, and twist his words; 'the poor ye shall have always with you, but me, ye shall not have always.
Interesting. Let's turn this question around. Do you think that if someone has a large amount of money, and decides not to use it to rescue our poorer brethren from starvation, they can consider themselves moral?
Yes, they are perfectly moral.
Then we have no common ground. If you would rather see people starve, than for the rich to become less rich, I have to wonder what your criteria far morality actually are.
Best wishes, 2RM.
i am interested in the approach this forum takes to money.
apart from sex, (which i am quite relaxed about) it seems to me that wealth is the surest divider between those who are moral, and those who are not.. it seems jesus thought so, also.
luke 16:19-31 kjv describes well enough his dusty attitude to the rich who do not succour the poor.. and this world has many poor: so many, it might seem that we can do nothing about it, and twist his words; 'the poor ye shall have always with you, but me, ye shall not have always.
No. One is free to believe what one wants to believe. One is free to think the injustice of this life demands a balancing justice in some after-life, or not, as one chooses. One is free to love, as widely and as deeply, as one prefers. None of this amounts to compulsion.
Best wishes, 2RM.
i am interested in the approach this forum takes to money.
apart from sex, (which i am quite relaxed about) it seems to me that wealth is the surest divider between those who are moral, and those who are not.. it seems jesus thought so, also.
luke 16:19-31 kjv describes well enough his dusty attitude to the rich who do not succour the poor.. and this world has many poor: so many, it might seem that we can do nothing about it, and twist his words; 'the poor ye shall have always with you, but me, ye shall not have always.
Also, if someone has a large amount of money, do you view that person as immoral if he/she refuses to divide it equally among the world’s population?
Interesting. Let's turn this question around. Do you think that if someone has a large amount of money, and decides not to use it to rescue our poorer brethren from starvation, they can consider themselves moral?
As I recall, I referred to a massive charitable exercise on behalf of the rich, to succour the poor. By which, at the time, I meant by the rich, for the poor. But, I also think that a voluntary devestment of the assets of the rich would not do them any spiritual harm, and might even, come judgment day, do them some favours.
Best wishes, 2RM.
i am interested in the approach this forum takes to money.
apart from sex, (which i am quite relaxed about) it seems to me that wealth is the surest divider between those who are moral, and those who are not.. it seems jesus thought so, also.
luke 16:19-31 kjv describes well enough his dusty attitude to the rich who do not succour the poor.. and this world has many poor: so many, it might seem that we can do nothing about it, and twist his words; 'the poor ye shall have always with you, but me, ye shall not have always.
And, if you read to the end of the OP, you will also discover I said:
And let us do this voluntarily, because we think it good and right and just. And, for those of the rich who cannot bring themselves to part with their money, let us pity them the fate that Jesus warned of in the parable of Lazarus, and try to save them from the consequences of their avarice.
Best wishes, 2RM
i am interested in the approach this forum takes to money.
apart from sex, (which i am quite relaxed about) it seems to me that wealth is the surest divider between those who are moral, and those who are not.. it seems jesus thought so, also.
luke 16:19-31 kjv describes well enough his dusty attitude to the rich who do not succour the poor.. and this world has many poor: so many, it might seem that we can do nothing about it, and twist his words; 'the poor ye shall have always with you, but me, ye shall not have always.
But if your “charity” is taking the money of the rich, then it is theft and you are back to our original problem.
A sacrifice is not a sacrifice unless it is voluntary. Charity, caritas, is always motivated by love, and never by compulsion.
Best wishes, 2RM.
i am interested in the approach this forum takes to money.
apart from sex, (which i am quite relaxed about) it seems to me that wealth is the surest divider between those who are moral, and those who are not.. it seems jesus thought so, also.
luke 16:19-31 kjv describes well enough his dusty attitude to the rich who do not succour the poor.. and this world has many poor: so many, it might seem that we can do nothing about it, and twist his words; 'the poor ye shall have always with you, but me, ye shall not have always.
Sounds like Peter Singer,the Australian philosophy professor.
Yes, I have read some Singer. But at root, he is a utilitarian. Despite my quotes from scripture, (which may suggest a deontological bias) I tend to lean more towards virtue ethics. For me, life is a (good) character building exercise. Nevertheless, I think all three academically respectable attitudes to ethics important, and look forward to the time when some philosopher genius combines all these three approaches into a single, unified, system of morality.
Best wishes, 2RM.
i am interested in the approach this forum takes to money.
apart from sex, (which i am quite relaxed about) it seems to me that wealth is the surest divider between those who are moral, and those who are not.. it seems jesus thought so, also.
luke 16:19-31 kjv describes well enough his dusty attitude to the rich who do not succour the poor.. and this world has many poor: so many, it might seem that we can do nothing about it, and twist his words; 'the poor ye shall have always with you, but me, ye shall not have always.
Well, thank you all for your best wishes concerning my father's health. No doubt you will be pleased to learn that he was not badly hurt, just, perhaps, a little shaken. Anyway, I'm back now.
And perhaps it was a timely interruption, anyway. The thread was becoming a little, shall we say, overheated?
So, I have had a little time to regain perspective. Perhaps you all have, also.
My central contention is, of course, that the rich, by saving the poor in this life, save themselves in the next. Clearly, if one does not believe in the next life, then this is a position that will not persuade. And even if one does believe in the next life, then there is a further necessary qualification. One also has to love the world, and love the people in it. If one does so love, no sacrifice is too great. If one doesn't, no sacrifice makes any kind of sense.
Best wishes, 2RM.
i am interested in the approach this forum takes to money.
apart from sex, (which i am quite relaxed about) it seems to me that wealth is the surest divider between those who are moral, and those who are not.. it seems jesus thought so, also.
luke 16:19-31 kjv describes well enough his dusty attitude to the rich who do not succour the poor.. and this world has many poor: so many, it might seem that we can do nothing about it, and twist his words; 'the poor ye shall have always with you, but me, ye shall not have always.
Guy and gals, I'm so sorry. I've just had an emergency call from my aged parent, who has had a fall. It seems I shall need to be away for a few days, maybe a few weeks. Whatever, it's been fascinating discussing with you all, even if you generally seem to thoroughly disagree with everything I say.
Best wishes, and take care, everyone. 2RM.
