Mocking The Poor

[Ahab]

To me, whether the intent is equal success or progress (I favor the later since that it how I view God's plan), people have a greater chance of eating fish, and continuing to eat fish, and feeling much better about how they got the fish, through developing skills of self-sufficiency rather than dependency.

If someone has 10 talents, and another 5, and another 1, does Christ advise taking 4.6 talents for the first and giving .3 talents to the second and 4.3 talents to the third, so that all three have 5.3 talents?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The best solution for all would be for everyone to pool their talents to do the most good for all, so in this case all 3 would have 16 talents amongst them, which might be used to gain even more talents. Maybe the one who had only 1 talent before just didn't feel confident about how to gain more and the one with 10 talents could show how he got 10, with the two or all three sharing in all of the profits as they worked together.

In truth we're all dependent on others for any success we might have, because all of us require others who will accept what we offer and people eho will give to us too.

[Calm]

So instead of throwing money at problem what other solution is there that might alleviate poverty? What if jobs were created were people could fend for themsleves? You know teach a man to fish instead of just throwing him a fish.

I had a handicapped friend who lived on welfare up in Canada.  He also had a job...not much of one since he was wheelchaired bound as well as mentally limited, but he was required to go every day and put in his hours and he was very, very proud of the fact that he was 'paying his own way'.

 

I think that most people prefer that situation unless they have been taught that their work is of no value.  Maybe what they do wouldn't meet minimum wage efforts, but if it contributed to the betterment of their community they could take great pride in it.  

 

Between having work projects and training required for welfare recipients no matter how long they have been on welfare (even for single mothers as that could be one of the training projects...day care specialists with the mothers and other mothers involved in other training or work projects making use of that day care for their own children), not only do I think it would help contribute to a sense of worth making it easier for them to become motivated to do more, the surrounding community seeing the improvement of their environment would be happier about giving out welfare.

[Ahab]

Remember Ahab this is not a 0 sum game. Meaning that if I have mine, I took it from some one else and now they have no oppterunity to get theirs.

I think it import to note that weath redistribution is a part of getting rid of poverty but it is but a small part. Wade asked a nice question about MW. If MW really did help the poor and it really did help lower poverty why not increase the MW to 100 dollars an hour. Serious question BTW.

Right, it is not a zero sum game. We're talking about how to divide all that we have. Some want to be selfish, while some want everything to be shared amongst all. I'm one of the ones who thinks all of us should share all that we have.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Right, it is not a zero sum game. We're talking about how to divide all that we have. Some want to be selfish, while some want everything to be shared amongst all. I'm one of the ones who thinks all of us should share all that we have.

But you were treating it as a 0 sum game. Even if some one is selfish there is still away for poor people to get out of poverty. IOW they are not poor because some dude hordes his billions. Those 2 things are not related. And I am talking about the poor in a general sense there are always exceptions to those general rules.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[The Nehor]

But you were treating it as a 0 sum game. Even if some one is selfish there is still away for poor people to get out of poverty. IOW they are not poor because some dude hordes his billions. Those 2 things are not related. And I am talking about the poor in a general sense there are always exceptions to those general rules.

 

Actually there is a correlation. As wealth gaps increase economic mobility also drops.

[Ahab]

But you were treating it as a 0 sum game. Even if some one is selfish there is still away for poor people to get out of poverty. IOW they are not poor because some dude hordes his billions. Those 2 things are not related. And I am talking about the poor in a general sense there are always exceptions to those general rules.

Right that it's not just one person messing up the system. The problem is when people, in general, hold onto their money instead of distributing it, because there is then that much less going around. Like how people saving their money slows things down because people are saving instead of spending. It works the same way with gifts, too. More people holding onto their money means there is less going around. So how does a poor person get more money with less money going around to buy things? Poor people don't have the best stuff there is to buy, ya know, and if people aren't even buying the labor of poor people what do they have that is even worth buying? They're in need of charity at that point but with people holding onto their money how will they get it? What the system needs is more people who will give to or at least buy from the poor people. Poor people can't even get a job unless someone is willing to let go of some money to pay the poor person. But that's not even mentioning the fact that everything on this planet is for all of us to share with none of us having any more moral right to it than someone else.

[wenglund]

The best solution for all would be for everyone to pool their talents to do the most good for all, so in this case all 3 would have 16 talents amongst them, which might be used to gain even more talents.

 

That isn't what Christ suggested.

 

Maybe the one who had only 1 talent before just didn't feel confident about how to gain more and the one with 10 talents could show how he got 10, with the two or all three sharing in all of the profits as they worked together.

 

You are dancing around my point and the point of the parable.

In truth we're all dependent on others for any success we might have, because all of us require others who will accept what we offer and people eho will give to us too.

 

Fine. You agree with Obama when he said, "You didn't build that." But, this is beside the point I was exploring.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually there is a correlation. As wealth gaps increase economic mobility also drops.

So you are saying that solely because some people in an area have money that is the sole reason others are poor?

[Ahab]

Our Lord has never taught that we can't work together as one to do the most good for all. Instead of trying to do everything by ourselves like a 2-year old it is better when we all work together to benefit each other.

[wenglund]

Our Lord has never taught that we can't work together as one to do the most good for all. Instead of trying to do everything by ourselves like a 2-year old it is better when we all work together to benefit each other.

 

Okay...but not relevant to what I have been speaking to or the point of the parable of the talents.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I didn't set my expectations very high that the plethora of statistics would change anyone's mind, but instead I have contented myself with the distinct prospect that we, as a nation, will continue to do the same things over and over again while expecting different results.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 15, 2014 by wenglund

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So you are saying that solely because some people in an area have money that is the sole reason others are poor?

I should point out that wealth gaps have nothing to do with any of the points I am making. That seems to be a distraction.

[Ahab]

Okay...but not relevant to what I have been speaking to or the point of the parable of the talents.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

...in your opinion.

Our Lord didn't say those who gained more talents did it all by themselves, and everyone who gets more money gets it by other people giving it to them whether they call it the purchase price or a gift.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I didn't set my expectations very high that the plethora of statistics would change anyone's mind, but instead I have contented myself with the distinct prospect that we, as a nation, will continue to do the same things over and over again while expecting different results.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, the problem is, and it is a cultrual issue, that many think they know what they are talking about when they don't. So they don't even bother reading your links. I have read some of them and have not time to read them all. I think they are quite relevant and I think people should understand the reason for your questions.

 

I think this video is relevant to this thread. Who will watch and give me specifics of were Milton is wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RWsx1X8PV_A

Edited January 16, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Ahab]

Wade, the problem is, and it is a cultrual issue, that many think they know what they are talking about when they don't. So they don't even bother reading your links. I have read some of them and have not time to read them all. I think they are quite relevant and I think people should understand the reason for your questions.

Yes, and it's also a common problem for people to think they know how wealth should be gained based on how they are gaining it or have gained it. I'm sure the economic system in heaven will be a lot different than the ones popular on this planet now. Edited January 16, 2014 by Ahab

[The Nehor]

So you are saying that solely because some people in an area have money that is the sole reason others are poor?

 

No, I am saying it is a contributing factor. As wealth amasses in the hands of the few there are less opportunities for the poor. This is pretty basic economics. When the capital concentrates itself into fewer hands (unless labor is in scarce supply) wages fall and there is less economic opportunity. There are of course a host of other factors involved.

 

 

Yes, and it's also a common problem for people to think they know how wealth should be gained based on how they are gaining it or have gained it. I'm sure the economic system in heaven will be a lot different than the ones popular on this planet now.

 

I can't see how their will be an economic system at all.

 

 

I didn't set my expectations very high that the plethora of statistics would change anyone's mind, but instead I have contented myself with the distinct prospect that we, as a nation, will continue to do the same things over and over again while expecting different results.

 

Actually things were going quite well. Then we decided to cut tax rates to the bone expecting massive growth. It never came. I would gladly go back to the days of Reagan.

[The Nehor]

Okay...but not relevant to what I have been speaking to or the point of the parable of the talents.

 

The parable of the talents (according to Jesus) was about the coming of the Kingdom of God (look at the context). It was also directed to the Apostles who were definitely NOT hard at work building their businesses and watching their profit margins. Wrenching it to being about material things and the economy is an abuse of scripture.

[Ahab]

Economics is all about an exchange of goods and services, and even in heaven we'll want to exchange goods and services with each other. I'm just expecting a much better way than what we usually see on this planet.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The parable of the talents (according to Jesus) was about the coming of the Kingdom of God (look at the context). It was also directed to the Apostles who were definitely NOT hard at work building their businesses and watching their profit margins. Wrenching it to being about material things and the economy is an abuse of scripture.

Gonna go out on a limb and suggest that Wade never suggest that it was about " building their businesses and watching their profit margins" nor did he suggest that was about "material things and the economy" . Carry on.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[wenglund]

Actually things were going quite well. Then we decided to cut tax rates to the bone expecting massive growth. It never came. I would gladly go back to the days of Reagan.

 

I am sure we all agree that we have been way under taxed for years.

 

Seriously, though, I am all for going back to the days of Reagan when government entitlement spending averaged around 7 % of GDP, whereas today it is honing in on 15%, and will climb much higher now that Obamacare has kicked in.

 

Sadly, we couldn't entirely pay for entitlements during the Reagan era even given the higher tax rates, but we certainly can't afford them now nor as entitlements continue to explode in the future regardless of taxing at the Reagan level.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

The parable of the talents (according to Jesus) was about the coming of the Kingdom of God (look at the context). It was also directed to the Apostles who were definitely NOT hard at work building their businesses and watching their profit margins. Wrenching it to being about material things and the economy is an abuse of scripture.

 

The parable of the talent used economic principles to teach spiritual principles. How is it "wrenching the scriptures" to acknowledge the economic principles? Would it make sense for Christ to use an economic principle he didn't believe in to convey a spiritual principle he did believe in?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Nehor]

The parable of the talent used economic principles to teach spiritual principles. How is it "wrenching the scriptures" to acknowledge the economic principles? Would it make sense for Christ to use an economic principle he didn't believe in to convey a spiritual principle he did believe in?-

Yes, it would make sense. Many of Christ's parables use situations that are morally questionable and even morally reprehensible to convey a point. The parable of the Unjust Judge is not an endorsement for judges to not hear the cases of the disadvantaged unless they are really annoying and the Parable of the Unjust Steward is not an endorsement of people having power of attorney ripping off the owner to their own advantage.

[Ahab]

Yes, it would make sense. Many of Christ's parables use situations that are morally questionable and even morally reprehensible to convey a point. The parable of the Unjust Judge is not an endorsement for judges to not hear the cases of the disadvantaged unless they are really annoying and the Parable of the Unjust Steward is not an endorsement of people having power of attorney ripping off the owner to their own advantage.

I've always wondered how the guy who was GIVEN 10 talents knew what to do to gain 10 more, and why the main point seemed to be about the fact that he got more money (talents in this case being a reference to money) instead of the emphasis being on what he did with what he was given. A lot of the good things we do in this world cost money to do them and don't generate more money as a return, so is the main point of the parable illustrating that we should make sure that we make more money? I don't think so. If I was given 10 talents (or the equivalent in modern currency) I would just want to make sure that I did something good with it, even if that would be just giving it to someone else who needs it more than I do. Edited January 16, 2014 by Ahab

[wenglund]

Yes, it would make sense. Many of Christ's parables use situations that are morally questionable and even morally reprehensible to convey a point. The parable of the Unjust Judge is not an endorsement for judges to not hear the cases of the disadvantaged unless they are really annoying and the Parable of the Unjust Steward is not an endorsement of people having power of attorney ripping off the owner to their own advantage.

 

If the reason Christ brought up the parable of the Unjust Judge was because he wished to convey the spiritual principle that his followers should not to give heed to the disadvantaged unless they are really annoying, and if the reason he mentioned the parable of the Unjust Steward was because he wanted the saints to rip people off to their own advantage, then you make a good point.

 

I don't happen to see it that way, I figure there were other principles present within the two parables (as well as the other parables) that applied to the gospel, otherwise there would have been no basis for analogy and no reason for Christ to use secular examples to instruct his followers about the gospel. 

 

It was the shared principles that I had in mind and had asked about. I would have thought that was obvious.

 

With as intelligent a person as you are, I suspect that if you really put your mind to it when reading the parable of the talent, you may well figure out which principles of economics also apply to the gospel (or to artistic endeavors, or to human relationships, or to life in general).

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 17, 2014 by wenglund

[The Nehor]

If the reason Christ brought up the parable of the Unjust Judge was because he wished to convey the spiritual principle that his followers should not to give heed to the disadvantaged unless they are really annoying, and if the reason he mentioned the parable of the Unjust Steward was because he wanted the saints to rip people off to their own advantage, then you make a good point.

 

I don't happen to see it that way, I figure there were other principles present within the two parables (as well as the other parables) that applied to the gospel, otherwise there would have been no basis for analogy and no reason for Christ to use secular examples to instruct his followers about the gospel. 

 

It was the shared principles that I had in mind and had asked about. I would have thought that was obvious.

 

My point was that Jesus was not endorsing the original story as a model to live by but the hidden meaning behind it. To use the parable of the talents to teach economics is to take the original story. If you want to draw morals from that story you are of course welcome to do so but I would be very wary of teaching from them. If the parable of the Unjust Steward is not to be taken literally as a guide for life why would the parable of the talents somehow be?

 

 

With as intelligent a person as you are, I suspect that if you really put your mind to it when reading the parable of the talent, you may well figure out which principles of economics also apply to the gospel (or to artistic endeavors, or to human relationships, or to life in general).

 

You are getting patronizing again and I disagree.

 

"I have a key by which I understand the scripture. I inquire, what was the question that drew out the answers?" - Joseph Smith

 

The Lord was not teaching about economics or art. He was talking about the coming of the Kingdom of God. The parable should be read in that light. Reading it in any other light is dangerous without direct spiritual revelation. Reading into it support for views you already hold is even more dangerous.