Originally posted by Rajk999If you are speaking of material wealth in todays world,
You need to define the terms 'bad' and 'good'.
I would guess that it is probably better to be rich than poor.
However, I don't think good and bad is determined by wealth
or lack of it. I must leave that up to God to decide.
Originally posted by KellyJayPoor and rich are relative terms. In order for one to be rich, others must be poor. Both are bad in their own way. Eliminating the social conditions which breed inequality, so that there are no rich and no poor - that is what is at the heart of being 'good.'
Just asking
Kelly
Originally posted by rwingettI disagree, I think being content with what you have is the greater good. Some
Poor and rich are relative terms. In order for one to be rich, others must be poor. Both are bad in their own way. Eliminating the social conditions which breed inequality, so that there are no rich and no poor - that is what is at the heart of being 'good.'
cannot handle riches, some cannot handle being poor, but people find
themselves in both states.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThat is true up to a point. One should content enough with what they have so as not to aspire toward riches. But one should never be content with being destitute while others wallow in opulence. At that point, "being content with what you have" is just a platitude that the rich tell to the poor in order to keep them in place. It becomes nothing more than a slogan designed to help solidify existing inequalities. And those who help perpetuate an unjust world are doing the work of evil.
I disagree, I think being content with what you have is the greater good. Some
cannot handle riches, some cannot handle being poor, but people find
themselves in both states.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI disagree, I think being content with what you have is the greater good.
I disagree, I think being content with what you have is the greater good. Some
cannot handle riches, some cannot handle being poor, but people find
themselves in both states.
Kelly
Do you believe that an individual who is content in being rich while others are destitute truly good? After all, he IS content with what he has.
Originally posted by rwingettI agree that not having enough to live on one should and strive for more,
That is true up to a point. One should content enough with what they have so as not to aspire toward riches. But one should never be content with being destitute while others wallow in opulence. At that point, "being content with what you have" is just a platitude that the rich tell to the poor in order to keep them in place. It becomes nothing more than a ...[text shortened]... isting inequalities. And those who help perpetuate an unjust world are doing the work of evil.
I disagree that having to much is bad just because one has more, because
one can do more with it makes it a useful tool. If one squanders wealth upon
one's self it is just as bad as not having enough, because there is more one can
or could do with it. I doubt very seriously the rich conspire to keep the poor,
poor just because they don't want the poor to have anything. I do believe
that there are those that want the power to control the poor, and keeping
them that way keeps them powerlessly dependent.
Kelly
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI don't think your wealth or lack there of adds to or takes away from being
[b]I disagree, I think being content with what you have is the greater good.
Do you believe that an individual who is content in being rich while others are destitute truly good? After all, he IS content with what he has.[/b]
good or bad! I think what you do with what you have defines that. No matter
what income level you are at people can always help those that need it, those
that have more can do more, that is simple math. There are some poor no
matter how much you give them they will remain poor, and there are some
that give great wealth away that will remain rich, because what they do is
done wisely.
Kelly