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.
why would you consider a rich man, who chooses not to give to charity, immoral?
It's quite simple, really. The rich man has more than he needs, and the starving have less than they need. Morality, in this scenario, is simply a matter of ensuring both have adequate for their needs.
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.
How much of your money have you given to the poor? Tell us your net worth and if it's over $33k we expect a cheque to be sent ...
I've already described my circumstances, Simon, on this thread. You trawl for it, if it interests you so much.
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.
If you have to resort to attacks on the person you are admitting defeat
So hoser, so far on this thread I have been accused of being a troll, being mentally ill, being a fool, being a communist, being a fantasist, and many other epithets I cannot be bothered to recall. Have I won the argument then?
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, 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
