Comment 34172

By Meredith (registered) - website | Posted September 27, 2009 at 15:25:22

I'm really, really not interested in refuting prooftexting. Unless you see the whole picture and the totality of what's written, you can pull any line out and use it to prove a point. One must take the whole context.

Generosity is a principle anyone money can practice, but it only has efficacy if the rich practice it as well, and there's a great deal about avoiding greed, being generous, and providing for others - addressed to the "haves." And let's not forget the many areas regarding laziness leading to poverty and that those able (but not willing) to work shouldn't be expecting to eat either. There's lots of complicated situations, and it's silly to reduce it to a black-and-white "poor good, rich bad" or vice versa.

Yes, the poor should be provded for. But it takes the wealthy and the employed to do that. You can't feed people if no one has any bread.

My point has always been that the poor and the rich are morally EQUAL. NEITHER the poor NOR the rich are inherently better. (sorry about the caps lock, but I can't bold the important parts).

There is no inherent moral goodness to being poor, unless you're talking about the very few who uncomplainingly hold to a vow of voluntary poverty. Neither is there any great virtue in being rich, although there may be accompanying character traits that helped people get there.

There are generally different problems that face different economic classes - of course, with exceptions in every case. That's not an opinion, that's statistically demonstrated over and over.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds