Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Poverty and Theology

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Poverty and Theology

    This thread is inspired by the conversation in the recently-revived thread on the implications of Christian ethics for designer clothing. It struck me that there were a number of interesting points raised that were not being discussed or even acknowledged; I hope this will present an opportunity to look more closely at theological explanations or explorations of poverty. What is poverty? What does God think of it? Why does God allow us to experience it? Should we embrace it? Struggle against it? What about when others experience it?

    There were a lot of interesting little tidbits in the thread, but the one that sticks out to me right now comes from Catholicity:
    http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post284289

    But I can assure you that God would NOT call anyone to be an illegal panhandler.
    The obvious counterexample is the long tradition of mendicant orders like Franciscans, Dominicans, etc (St. Francis, according to legend, spoke extensively about "lady poverty" as a woman whom he was courting). These religious orders were supposed to own nothing and live only on what others gave them. It would seem odd to say that God would not call people to panhandle (legally or not) when so many people throughout history have felt called by God to enter into vows of poverty and utter dependence on others for their material needs.

    One definition of poverty that I find potentially useful comes from liberation theologian Gustavo Guttierez, who allowed several different understandings of poverty, but the understanding that sticks out to me is that poverty, ultimately, means suffering an "unjust and early death".

    In case y'all couldn't tell by the time-stamp on this post, it's late at night when I type this, meaning my inhibitions are low enough that I'll post a new thread, but that also means that my capacity to provide useful insights is even more diminished than my inhibitions. I nonetheless hope we can all get some interesting thoughts out there.
    Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

  • #2
    I would make a sharp distinction between poverty as an unfortunate and even tragic condition in which many people find themselves in (eg, an illegal panhandler) and voluntary poverty chosen (eg, by St Francis) as a form of faithful dependence upon God as a prophetic witness against elements in the church that have embraced worldly standards of ostentatious wealth, economic power, and even military acquisition and defense of property.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
      This thread is inspired by the conversation in the recently-revived thread on the implications of Christian ethics for designer clothing. It struck me that there were a number of interesting points raised that were not being discussed or even acknowledged; I hope this will present an opportunity to look more closely at theological explanations or explorations of poverty. What is poverty? What does God think of it? Why does God allow us to experience it? Should we embrace it? Struggle against it? What about when others experience it?

      There were a lot of interesting little tidbits in the thread, but the one that sticks out to me right now comes from Catholicity:
      http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post284289



      The obvious counterexample is the long tradition of mendicant orders like Franciscans, Dominicans, etc (St. Francis, according to legend, spoke extensively about "lady poverty" as a woman whom he was courting). These religious orders were supposed to own nothing and live only on what others gave them. It would seem odd to say that God would not call people to panhandle (legally or not) when so many people throughout history have felt called by God to enter into vows of poverty and utter dependence on others for their material needs.

      One definition of poverty that I find potentially useful comes from liberation theologian Gustavo Guttierez, who allowed several different understandings of poverty, but the understanding that sticks out to me is that poverty, ultimately, means suffering an "unjust and early death".

      In case y'all couldn't tell by the time-stamp on this post, it's late at night when I type this, meaning my inhibitions are low enough that I'll post a new thread, but that also means that my capacity to provide useful insights is even more diminished than my inhibitions. I nonetheless hope we can all get some interesting thoughts out there.
      I failed to point out selling all for the service old God and the Church which missionaries and religious orders are known for however those who do so are not necessarily beggars but have their needs met via the Church or other religious organizations. This kind of poverty is a special calling specifically designed for those who exclusively spread the gospel to others. My point about panhandling was more of an emphasis on the idea that if we live in a country where we have means and resources to be out of an impoverished situation and legally provide for in my case a family of five God would not ask us to do something illegal to provide for them. Not to mention its also immoral by cultural standards.
      A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
      George Bernard Shaw

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
        I failed to point out selling all for the service old God and the Church which missionaries and religious orders are known for however those who do so are not necessarily beggars but have their needs met via the Church or other religious organizations.
        That's not how they were founded. They didn't have endowments, and they didn't rely on church funds. They relied on the charity of everyday people.

        This kind of poverty is a special calling specifically designed for those who exclusively spread the gospel to others.
        I don't think that applies to cloistered or contemplative orders that ultimately depend on charity even if many of them produce goods (that aren't enough to support the entire community), but we could try to argue that they nonetheless contribute to our salvation through their prayers.

        My point about panhandling was more of an emphasis on the idea that if we live in a country where we have means and resources to be out of an impoverished situation and legally provide for in my case a family of five God would not ask us to do something illegal to provide for them. Not to mention its also immoral by cultural standards.
        I'll concede that God does not call us to do immoral things. However, something that is illegal or culturally frowned upon is not necessarily immoral. The question you've begged is why panhandling is illegal or frowned upon in our society. In biblical times all the way up to the present day, begging was the only way people who could not work and did not have some other means of support could survive.

        What is the moral difference between a person who is disabled such that they cannot work, but who lives in modest comfort with their family, and one who gets by through begging on the streets?
        Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

        Comment


        • #5
          What is poverty? What does God think of it? Why does God allow us to experience it? Should we embrace it? Struggle against it? What about when others experience it?
          What is the moral difference between a person who is disabled such that they cannot work, but who lives in modest comfort with their family, and one who gets by through begging on the streets?

          What is poverty---If one defines this as lack of assets, monetary and otherwise, then one might classify this state into two types,...1) Circumstantial (by God) by birth or due to unforeseen situations in which wealth is lost. 2)Greed (by man) in which exploitation, theft, foolishness in the pursuit of greed, or the abuse of power and privilege to unfairly accumulate wealth, can cause a state of poverty to oneself or to others.

          What does God think of it?---If we understand that our purpose for being on earth is as a Trustee (for the benefit of all of God's creation), then it is obvious that it is our responsibility to remove or reduce those affairs that cause harm or injustice to any of God's creations including our brothers in humanity.

          Why does God allow us to experience it?---So that we can have the opportunity to fulfill the responsibility which we were given. Both poverty and wealth are tests. One tests the responsibility of those who have and the other tests the patience of those who do not have---the purpose of the tests is to promote the building of society founded on compassion and mercy that encourages the fulfillment of our obligations and allows the benefit of God-given rights for all.

          Embrace or struggle?---We should struggle (Jihad) against all circumstances that deprive others of God-given rights, and cause injustice---the right to happiness is a God-given right....and this includes a sustainable living standard. In a society in which there is poverty because of exploitation, privilege, theft of resources and assets, ...etc, then rich and poor alike have to strive to correct such injustice and harm. In those societies in which circumstances prevail in which some members do not have the means or ability to provide for themselves---then it is the obligation of the members of that society to provide adequate conditions and care. That is how we can build just and compassionate societies.

          The moral difference----It reflects the state of the society---One is a society that takes care of those in need, the other is a society that has not yet accomplished its obligation of Trusteeship.

          "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government"---Thomas Jefferson.
          Surah 107
          Do you see him who calls the reckoning a lie?
          He is the one who casts the orphan away
          Who fails to urge the feeding of one in need
          Cursed are those who perform the prayers unmindfully
          Who make of themselves a big show but hold back small kindnesses.

          Comment

          widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
          Working...
          X