This bible principle the remedy for poverty?

[OldWiseGuy]

People aren't in poverty unless they're homeless and their children are dying of infection, disease, and hypothermia?

Actually that is partly true. Poverty, regardless of the PC definition, means impoverished.

A symptom isn't a remedy. When I have strep throat, I cough. It doesn't cure my infection, it just eases the itch in the back of my throat for a bit.

Crime isn't a symptom of poverty, it's a symptom of mental and social disfunction.

 

[Moral Orel]

Actually that is partly true. Poverty, regardless of the PC definition, means impoverished.

And "impoverished" just means "poor". Dictionary Link
What did you think it means?

So people are only worth helping if they are homeless, starving, and dying of disease. Sounds very calloused.

Crime isn't a symptom of poverty, it's a symptom of mental and social disfunction.

So that form of mental and social disfunction just happens to fall along economic lines?

Poor people are more likely to commit crimes. Rich people are less likely to commit crimes. I wouldn't think such a thing would need evidence since I thought it was common knowledge, but here you go.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And "impoverished" just means "poor". Dictionary Link
What did you think it means?

So people are only worth helping if they are homeless, starving, and dying of disease. Sounds very calloused.

So that form of mental and social disfunction just happens to fall along economic lines?

Poor people are more likely to commit crimes. Rich people are less likely to commit crimes. I wouldn't think such a thing would need evidence since I thought it was common knowledge, but here you go.

Your "here you go" link is meaningless to this argument. Domestic violence, cited widely in the study, is not a 'fix' for family money troubles although it may spark violence. Robbery of others is in the minds of the criminal poor. Also domestic violence among the poor has other reasons besides the lack of money. Infidelity is a major reason.

 

[Moral Orel]

Your "here you go" link is meaningless to this argument.

It is one of billions of such studies. It shows that crime is higher amongst the poor. IE crime is a symptom of poverty.

Maybe you're thinking that I mean crime causes poverty, which I in no way said. So if you're assuming that is my argument, or that I am using poverty as an excuse for criminal behavior, know that I am not. I never said any such thing, but I know that is a common misconception about the argument that alleviating poverty lowers crime.

Robbery of others is in the minds of the criminal poor.

What in the world does this mean?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What in the world does this mean?

Robbery of others is in most people's mind, according to Ephesians and Galatians, but this thread is about the poor.

 

[Moral Orel]

Robbery of others is in most people's mind, according to Ephesians and Galatians, but this thread is about the poor.

Still doesn't clarify. When people say something is "in their mind" they mean it is imaginary. Robbery is real, so I still don't know what either of you mean.

 

[GQ Chris]

The Bible says that we will "always" have the poor with us.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Still doesn't clarify. When people say something is "in their mind" they mean it is imaginary. Robbery is real, so I still don't know what either of you mean.

Scripture says several times what is in men (rich and poor) (it's not good) (nor is what men do, as all Scripture shows clearly)
and
Jesus said sometimes what would happen to the rich if they didn't repent (specifically the rich; yet also all men - so much so the disciples were flabbergasted and asked "How then can WE (the disciples with Jesus) be saved !?) ... And Jesus explained.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It is one of billions of such studies. It shows that crime is higher amongst the poor. IE crime is a symptom of poverty.

Maybe you're thinking that I mean crime causes poverty, which I in no way said. So if you're assuming that is my argument, or that I am using poverty as an excuse for criminal behavior, know that I am not. I never said any such thing, but I know that is a common misconception about the argument that alleviating poverty lowers crime.


What in the world does this mean?

Crime and violence occur at all levels of society. I'm talking about crime as it relates directly to poverty. Theft is a viable solution for the wants and needs of the poor person who is criminally inclined. If crime were a symptom of poverty among the truly poor there would be a lot more crime. Crime is a symptom of greed, laziness, ignorance, frustration, anger, etc. Poverty is way down on the list. What is true is that these attitudes and behaviors often lead to poverty long before any crime has been committed.

 

[Moral Orel]

Crime and violence occur at all levels of society.

True. And it occurs disproportionately more amongst the poor.

I'm talking about crime as it relates directly to poverty. Theft is a viable solution for the wants and needs of the poor person who is criminally inclined.

But more than just theft occurs disproportionately amongst the poor. I don't know why, for certain. Maybe if you're already accustomed to subverting the law for theft other crimes seem more normal to you as well. Doesn't really matter why.

If crime were a symptom of poverty among the truly poor there would be a lot more crime.

Symptom doesn't mean a necessity. Not everyone coughs when they have strep throat, but you're much more likely to. Of course your definition of what constitutes "poor" I believe is far too narrow. You can have a house, food, and clothes and be poor. You don't seem to think so though.

Crime is a symptom of greed, laziness, ignorance, frustration, anger, etc. Poverty is way down on the list. What is true is that these attitudes and behaviors often lead to poverty long before any crime has been committed.

A person doesn't commit a crime for just one reason though. You make it sound as though only one factor goes into any given one crime. It's more nuanced than that. If you're poor, you're more likely to steal something. If you're also angry, you're more likely to be involved in a violent robbery.

And what is true is that the most likely thing to cause someone to become poor is for them to be born poor. Generational poverty (that you mentioned before) is the leading cause of poverty. Not crime.

If you alleviate some poverty, you have less crime. If you alleviate some crime, you don't see people start gaining wealth.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

True. And it occurs disproportionately more amongst the poor.

But more than just theft occurs disproportionately amongst the poor. I don't know why, for certain. Maybe if you're already accustomed to subverting the law for theft other crimes seem more normal to you as well. Doesn't really matter why.

Symptom doesn't mean a necessity. Not everyone coughs when they have strep throat, but you're much more likely to. Of course your definition of what constitutes "poor" I believe is far too narrow. You can have a house, food, and clothes and be poor. You don't seem to think so though.

A person doesn't commit a crime for just one reason though. You make it sound as though only one factor goes into any given one crime. It's more nuanced than that. If you're poor, you're more likely to steal something. If you're also angry, you're more likely to be involved in a violent robbery.

And what is true is that the most likely thing to cause someone to become poor is for them to be born poor. Generational poverty (that you mentioned before) is the leading cause of poverty. Not crime.

If you alleviate some poverty, you have less crime. If you alleviate some crime, you don't see people start gaining wealth.

Being poor and being impoverished are not the same thing. Most poor people do have basic needs met. Those in poverty (impoverished) don't. There is a difference. Most generational poor have most of their needs met through government programs and other charities. Many of the truly impoverished have serious mental problems, drugs, etc. They prefer their cardboard boxes and their privacy, thus we cannot help them.

 

[Strivax]

Being poor and being impoverished are not the same thing. Most poor people do have basic needs met. Those in poverty (impoverished) don't. There is a difference. Most generational poor have most of their needs met through government programs and other charities. Many of the truly impoverished have serious mental problems, drugs, etc. They prefer their cardboard boxes and their privacy, thus we cannot help them.

So, there are so many convenient, sweeping generalisations in this short passage, I scarce know where to begin. But let me try. You know of this information, how? Is this just in the US of America, or throughout the world? Are you sure this is not just what you want to believe, so that your assistance is neither required nor wanted, as opposed to the real state of affairs, where your assistance might be a moral imperative?

Cheers, Strivax,

 

[FireDragon76]

I go to a Lutheran church, I'm no Biblicist. in terms of how we should govern ourselves in the world, the Bible only provides general guidelines. It is not "God's answer book" on how to live a happy life. Indeed, Luther said the true mark of the Church, and presumably the Christian, is suffering. If so, then the poor person is closer to God's heart than the self-satisfied moralist who has answers for the poor, we should be listening to the poor's experience of poverty to find how to be their good neighbor.

I don't believe there is an easy answer for poverty. More democratic control of economic regulations would be the most obvious step. I talked with this with my pastor last week- German and Scandinavian style social democracy is probably the most Lutheran or Catholic response. But, we live in a country, the US, with many different ideologies and backgrounds and we all have to work together for the common good in practical ways we can all agree on.

Most poor people I know in the US at times struggle with basic needs, particularly healthcare, but also sometimes good quality food.

 

[Moral Orel]

Being poor and being impoverished are not the same thing. Most poor people do have basic needs met. Those in poverty (impoverished) don't. There is a difference.

Being poor and being impoverished are the same thing. I already linked the dictionary definition (not some wacky PC definition). They are synonyms. You should just say "homeless" when you want to say "impoverished" since that seems to be where you decided to redefine the definition based on the rest of this post.

Most generational poor have most of their needs met through government programs and other charities.

And by "need" you mean enough food to survive. Whereas I would define "need" as enough food to not be malnourished.

And since most people who receive government aid of some kind actually work and simply supplement their income with government assistance, I would say most of their needs are met by themselves. The trouble is when all the jobs available are garbage jobs like minimum wage Walmart and McDonalds.

Many of the truly impoverished have serious mental problems, drugs, etc. They prefer their cardboard boxes and their privacy, thus we cannot help them.

The vast majority of homeless people have debilitating mental illness. Not drug addiction. Not alcohol addiction. Some have these, yes, but a minority of them. They don't "prefer" to live on the streets. They were failed by our mental health system in one form or another and ended up on the streets. Once there, and without medication, it is impossible for them to find their own way out of the streets.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So, there are so many convenient, sweeping generalisations in this short passage, I scarce know where to begin. But let me try. You know of this information, how? Is this just in the US of America, or throughout the world? Are you sure this is not just what you want to believe, so that your assistance is neither required nor wanted, as opposed to the real state of affairs, where your assistance might be a moral imperative?

Cheers, Strivax,

Why are you arguing with me about this?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

[

Being poor and being impoverished are the same thing. I already linked the dictionary definition (not some wacky PC definition). They are synonyms. You should just say "homeless" when you want to say "impoverished" since that seems to be where you decided to redefine the definition based on the rest of this post.

I reject your definition.

And by "need" you mean enough food to survive. Whereas I would define "need" as enough food to not be malnourished.

The SNAP program provides all that is needed for a balanced diet. I spent several months earlier this year proving that.

And since most people who receive government aid of some kind actually work and simply supplement their income with government assistance, I would say most of their needs are met by themselves. The trouble is when all the jobs available are garbage jobs like minimum wage Walmart and McDonalds.

Most generational poor subsist largely on the assistance of others.

The vast majority of homeless people have debilitating mental illness. Not drug addiction. Not alcohol addiction. Some have these, yes, but a minority of them. They don't "prefer" to live on the streets. They were failed by our mental health system in one form or another and ended up on the streets. Once there, and without medication, it is impossible for them to find their own way out of the streets.

Well then, my answer to that is this. Round up all the unemployed (there are millions, of all skill levels), and fund them to build additional buildings and train staff to provide the needed help. Let's marshal our resources. We can also insist on some work from those receiving aid, even from those laid off workers receiving unemployment compensation.

Of course to accomplish this we might have to shoot or imprison several thousand lawyers who "advocate" for the poor.

 

[Moral Orel]

Well then, my answer to that is this. Round up all the unemployed (there are millions, of all skill levels), and fund them to build additional buildings and train staff to provide the needed help. Let's marshal our resources. We can also insist on some work from those receiving aid, even from those laid off workers receiving unemployment compensation.

Of course to accomplish this we might have to shoot or imprison several thousand lawyers who "advocate" for the poor.

I like that solution. We just need to tax a lot more. There are a lot of jobs that should exist but don't. More teachers, more police, more daycare so that people can go to work when they have kids, etc. I don't think you'd receive backlash from the direction you think it would come from with a plan like that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I like that solution. We just need to tax a lot more. There are a lot of jobs that should exist but don't. More teachers, more police, more daycare so that people can go to work when they have kids, etc. I don't think you'd receive backlash from the direction you think it would come from with a plan like that.

I think the lawyers would fight it tooth and nail. They live to litigate.

No need to tax, just print the money needed. We'd be funding a large new addition to the economy, with new money.

 

[joshua 1 9]

That's no guarantee against poverty. People in solid jobs can lose them without warning. People have accidents and become disabled, corporations and businesses go bankrupt or go through restructuring, people get divorced...and there are a whole host of other reasons people end up in poverty. Those born in poverty are likely to also stay in poverty - and it is no fault of their own. Rags to riches stories are not the norm. There are also people who are not intelligent enough to go and make huge dollars. In fact, if everyone made good money - above the poverty line - then "poverty" would end up with a new line and a new definition.

In a family there are going to be people that can get out and get a job and help their family to survive. My wife put off getting married for 9 years because she wanted to help out her family. I have seen people in a family work to put each other through school. They just take turns working and going to school.

"Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." 1 Tim 5:8

 

[ValleyGal]

That is true, Joshua, people should work when they can. But that does not account for those who self-medicate (addictions and the financial woes use can get them into), those who have disabilities or suffer a disability or debilitating disorder, or those who lose their jobs through no fault of their own but are very limited in their transferable skills, those who have little or no education, etc. There is a whole host of reasons some people live in poverty, often through no fault of their own. I don't think anyone of us goes through high school thinking "I want to be poor when I grow up and graduate and stay in that poorhouse and raise my children there."

You bring up things like spouses putting each other through school. That is exactly what I've been doing for five years - supporting my husband while he gets his degree. I am going to work and put myself through a post-degree diploma starting in September. Believe me, I know that some people do what they need to do in order to make a living. But we are fortunate. How many are not in the same situation I am - those with untreated or undiagnosed mental illness, those who are developmentally delayed, those with disabilities (and the other things I've already mentioned). Not everyone has the luxuries of attending college like we do. I have much compassion for those who struggle in their poverty.