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, any voluntary system is already in place - people can give whatever they want to whoever they want.
Indeed so. But as I have pointed out previously, current charitable donations are insufficient, or we would not have 36 million people a year dieing of starvation. So I advocate a massive charitable effort, to rid the world of absolute poverty, once and for all. And, far from changing like the wind, this is exactly what I have advocated, throughout this thread.
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 theory, if it's voluntary, every rich person could decide to give exactly no money each and every month.
Yup. That's exactly my position. If you don't want to help save the world, then there is absolutely no obligation enforced upon you to do so.
Just don't expect anyone else to consider you in any way, moral.
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.
Something like 90% of output is down to 10% of people, the rest are along for the ride.
Evidence, please, Simon. And while you are about it, consider that half the world, male and female, are unable to get their businesses off the ground, because they lack the access to funding. How wasteful of human resource is that?
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.
Simon, I think you are becoming a little over-excited, and a little less than rational. And, if you had read the whole thread through (which, I admit, is by now becoming quite some task) you would know that I am not a communist, and do not advocate communism. Just a voluntary, charitable, redistribution of the world's wealth.
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.
The way to help people is to actually help them to stand on their feet, not throw food into the gutter.
Then, Simon, do it. And encourage others likewise. No one, least of all me, is preventing you.
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.
Capitalism does more for people in poverty than charity
Actually, Simon, capitalism does nothing for people in absolute poverty. If you haven't got money, you can't buy anything. Not the food you need to eat, nor the tools you need to work with. Charity can, at least, put these basics in place.
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.
She also points out that aid money props up African dictators and argues instead for Western countries to stop this so that African leaders can be responsible for their respective countries.
LoveUniHateExams, no one mistakes Mugabe's responsibility for trashing Zimbabwe. But the people there still need to eat.
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, 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.
