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.
There are more obese people in the world than starving people.
Then the solution is obvious. The starving people should be given the obese people to eat. That would solve both problems in one go...
But more seriously, in the developed world, it is often the poorer people who are obese, because they can only afford rubbish, junk food, and unhealthy lifestyles.
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.
Splash, you are long on bluster and short on logic.
To the best of my knowledge, no one on this thread, or even this forum, has proposed an alternative to resolve the scandalous state of the poor, the marginal, the vulnerable and the dispossessed of the world. So, I have set down a first approximation. You may not like it, but that does not mean it to be nonsense. Often the moral is unpopular; generally, people prefer to be comfortable and complacent than face inconvenient truths.
You take care, too.
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.
This whole "1%" vs "99%" is nothing more than a tiresome attempt to divide people and it fails miserably. To make wealth you have to work. The greater the wealth, the more work.
truth-b-known, this is a fairy story, like santa claus. Fact is, the poor tend to work longer hours, in adverse conditions, for subsistence reward or less, with more inconvenience, than the rich, many of whom do not actually work at all, and when they do, occasionally and for a few hours, in air conditioned offices, furnished with antiques and ridiculously expensive artworks, and never even raise a sweat. I am not attempting to divide the rich from the poor; they do that perfectly effectively by themselves.
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, I meant in terms of the actual logistics of such a redistribution.
For instance, how do you redistribute real estate property equally? Do houses bigger than what can be afforded by a $16k salary get demolished so that everyone live in an equally sized living unit?
What about other material possessions such as electronics. Is it fair that some have an iPhone X while others have only a flip phone?
It's voluntary, Sanchy. Everyone makes their own decisions on how to deploy their excess of wealth, and how to deploy the equitable allowance of wealth they are morally entitled to keep, according to their own circumstances and priorities.
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.
In case no-one has pointed it out to you, your superior, patronising tone is on par with the WT. You may be impressing yourself but noone here is impressed by it.
Splash, I am not here to be nice. Just to save the world.
I am particularly not here to repeat myself to those have have not read, or have not understood, what I have expressed in perfectly clear, plain English. That would not move the conversation forward, and risk boring those who have read, and have understood.
Doesn't this already happen? What's different about your "commendation" compared to people already giving voluntarily according to the promptings of each individual's conscience?
Indeed it does. But obviously not to a sufficient extent, or we would not have 2 billion absolutely poor, of whom 36 million a year die of preventable starvation, and countless others from other poverty related aspects of want. So, I have specified what an equitable distribution of wealth would be, in the OP, for everybody's ease of reference.
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, I would not like to say that any Christian, who considers themselves a Christian, from whatever denomination, is not a Christian.
Really sounds a bit nonsensical of a statement. ........ again
Unless of course your Jesus Christ and therefore you can be that judgemental ?
Finkelstein, if you cogitate a little, you will find the statement neither nonsensical nor judgmental. I mean exactly what I say, and I do not immediately conceive of how I might be clearer.
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.
SecondRate, I scanned through most of the comments but im not sure I understood one thing: How exactly do you propose this redistribution of wealth be carried out?
Sanchy, when you have the time and inclination to scan in more depth, you will find that I commend that this redistribution to occur voluntarily and charitably, according to the promptings of each individual's conscience, and with the encouragement of society in general.
Specifically, I do not propose, as I have severally pointed out, but still many here have misunderstood me to mean, any form of compulsion around this.
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.
Cofty, no one is claiming all Christians are good and moral. But, without Christianity, for all I know, we might still be crucifying politically and theologically inconvenient itinerant rabbis. Christianity, as best I construe history, has been responsible for atrocities. But also for much social progress.
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.
One of the problems with the JWS is that they are instructed and regulated to only give to the WTS. Corporation, out outside charities or helping out the needy and disadvantaged if demeaned and frowned upon.
Interesting. I didn't know that.
Not really true practicing Christians are they ?
As you may have gathered from my previous post, I think some Christians further advanced on their life's pilgrim journey than other Christians. But, I would not like to say that any Christian, who considers themselves a Christian, from whatever denomination, is not a Christian.
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.
What you see as an ad hominem, I see as questioning you the way you are questioning others
Dubstepped, I don't recall questioning your integrity. Or that of any other individual contributor to this thread. Perhaps you will oblige by quoting me, where I did?
Best wishes, 2RM.
