Is it possible to become filthy rich without losing your soul?

[rlg94086]

and if you have something more substantial to post than “look at me…I did it” please post…

I didn’t just give my own example. I mentioned my mother, other classmates and people in my neighborhood. You apparently didn’t read what I wrote. If you base your prejudices on ride-alongs with a police officer, you will have a very skewed view of the poor. There are a lot of virtuous people who don’t have a lot of money. Despite the odds being “stacked against them,” they persevere and live non-criminal lives.

Again, the desire for wealth is what can lead to sin, and the desire for wealth exists in every strata of society.

 

[para8888]

Indeed. That’s why I said you are “partially correct.” Vern and I have been debating the original poster ad nauseum about the possibility of becoming “filthy rich” without losing your soul. My answer has been a definite “yes” they can. IMO the possibility of losing your soul is equal, regardless of one’s financial or social standing.

I think it is just as inane to assume that the rich are more prone to immorality as it is to asssume that the poor are more prone to immorality. On a person-by-person basis, we are all fallen human beings and therefore all equally likely to sin.

Partially agree.

Partially disagree…Poverty presents much more obstacles. Some people will overcome them, a larger percentage won’t.

Throw in a couple hundred years of discrimination, mix in drug abuse, alcohol addiction, more single parent homes, more foster kids and every other social dysfunction you can think of…then send them off to a lower quality school (because many of the schools get their funding from local property taxes–the nicer the neighborhood, the more money there is for better schools).

 

[para8888]

I didn’t just give my own example. I mentioned my mother, other classmates and people in my neighborhood. You apparently didn’t read what I wrote. If you base your prejudices on ride-alongs with a police officer, you will have a very skewed view of the poor. There are a lot of virtuous people who don’t have a lot of money. Despite the odds being “stacked against them,” they persevere and live non-criminal lives.

Again, the desire for wealth is what can lead to sin, and the desire for wealth exists in every strata of society.

The desire for just about anything can lead to “sin”…

The desire to have enough food in your cabinet can lead to sin.

The desire to have your kids grow up in a better neighborhood and get out of a crime infested school might convince a mother to turn a few tricks for some extra cash.

The desire to make enough money to pay for medical bills, insurance for $4 a gallon gas might be the tipping point for some people

 

[para8888]

Bye bye

 

[mapleoak]

Oh Yeah, and I guess you’re the self-proclaimed poster child for poverty now…

Maybe you could run for mayor and clean it all up?

Oh Ya! By George you are right!

Since your assertion didn’t hold up in my case, its not cause your assertion is fataly flawed, but because in my case it doesn’t count, cause I’m special. Cool!

 

[rlg94086]

Partially agree.

Partially disagree…Poverty presents much more obstacles. Some people will overcome them, a larger percentage won’t.

So, you are saying that a “larger percentage” of people in poverty don’t rise out of it? I doubt that you have data to back that statement up.
townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/01/04/the_poverty_hype

The authors analyzed University of Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics data that tracked more than 50,000 individual families since 1968. Cox and Alms found: Only five percent of families in the bottom income quintile (lowest 20 percent) in 1975 were still there in 1991. Three-quarters of these families had moved into the three highest income quintiles. During the same period, 70 percent of those in the second lowest income quintile moved to a higher quintile, with 25 percent of them moving to the top income quintile. When the Bureau of Census reports, for example, that the poverty rate in 1980 was 15 percent and a decade later still 15 percent, for the most part they are referring to different people.

Cox and Alm’s findings were supported by a U.S. Treasury Department study that used an entirely different data base, income tax returns. The U.S. Treasury found that 85.8 percent of tax filers in the bottom income quintile in 1979 had moved on to a higher quintile by 1988 – 66 percent to second and third quintiles and 15 percent to the top quintile. Income mobility goes in the other direction as well. Of the people who were in the top one percent of income earners in 1979, over half, or 52.7 percent, were gone by 1988. Throughout history and probably in most places today, there are whole classes of people who remain permanently poor or permanently rich, but not in the United States. The percentages of Americans who are permanently poor or rich don’t exceed single digits.

 

[mapleoak]

and if you have something more substantial to post than “look at me…I did it” please post…

Read the whole thread first, rather than post something at the end of the thread which you consider to be a novel idea. Then when you develop something substantial to add, post away.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Bye bye

On behalf of the others, I have been asked to advise you to exercise caution upon departure to avoid being impacted posteriorly by the protuberance on the portal.

 

[rlg94086]

On behalf of the others, I have been asked to advise you to exercise caution upon departure to avoid being impacted posteriorly by the protuberance on the portal.

Thanks Vern! You saved me a post search and cut/paste.

 

[mapleoak]

On behalf of the others, I have been asked to advise you to exercise caution upon departure to avoid being impacted posteriorly by the protuberance on the portal.

Translation not necessary in this case.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I think it is just as inane to assume that the rich are more prone to immorality as it is to asssume that the poor are more prone to immorality. On a person-by-person basis, we are all fallen human beings and therefore all equally likely to sin.

I think there are a couple of issues here. First of all, we are not all equally likely to commit all sins, nor do I think that we are all equally likely to sin in the first place. For example, some may have more of a struggle with greed, some may have more of a struggle with lust, etc. In addition, while we may have the access to the grace we need not to sin, some of us may be more likely to ignore that grace. While immorality accross the board may not vary with income, some types of immorality does seem to vary with income. I gave the example of the negative relationship between income and church attendance. If there is no link between income and immorality, then how do you explain this?

Second, I was not focussing on the wealth itself, but the pursuit of the wealth. That is, if someone is out to acquire extremely large amounts of wealth, is someone like that more likely to run into grave sin? Now, I am asking the question, I haven’t come up with the answer yet. I could be wrong. You say no, but you don’t have any evidence on your side either. I admit that it is not an easy question to answer, so the real answer may elude us.

 

[stinkcat_14]

So, you are saying that a “larger percentage” of people in poverty don’t rise out of it? I doubt that you have data to back that statement up.
townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/01/04/the_poverty_hype

Perhaps our welfare system doesn’t lock people in poverty after all?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think there are a couple of issues here. First of all, we are not all equally likely to commit all sins, nor do I think that we are all equally likely to sin in the first place. For example, some may have more of a struggle with greed, some may have more of a struggle with lust, etc. In addition, while we may have the access to the grace we need not to sin, some of us may be more likely to ignore that grace. While immorality accross the board may not vary with income, some types of immorality does seem to vary with income. I gave the example of the negative relationship between income and church attendance. If there is no link between income and immorality, then how do you explain this?

Second, I was not focussing on the wealth itself, but the pursuit of the wealth. That is, if someone is out to acquire extremely large amounts of wealth, is someone like that more likely to run into grave sin? Now, I am asking the question, I haven’t come up with the answer yet. I could be wrong. You say no, but you don’t have any evidence on your side either. I admit that it is not an easy question to answer, so the real answer may elude us.

The answer eludes us because you are asking the wrong question.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Perhaps our welfare system doesn’t lock people in poverty after all?

Except that it does – you have only to look for the multi-generational families in poverty. They are the “Hard core” of poverty.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Except that it does – you have only to look for the multi-generational families in poverty. They are the “Hard core” of poverty.

My guess is that the number quoted is low because the PSID does suffer from attrition bias. Those at the bottom are more likely to fall out of the survey.

 

[rlg94086]

I think there are a couple of issues here. First of all, we are not all equally likely to commit all sins,

…which is not what I said…

stinkcat_14:

nor do I think that we are all equally likely to sin in the first place.

…really? What percentage of us do you believe are sinless?

stinkcat_14:

For example, some may have more of a struggle with greed, some may have more of a struggle with lust, etc. In addition, while we may have the access to the grace we need not to sin, some of us may be more likely to ignore that grace.

…no argument here, but we all (a couple of notable exceptions) sin…at least that is what I understand. As the joke I heard once on an apologetics tape (Curtis Martin?) “…let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” (rock whizzes by the Messiah’s head)…“Mother!”

stinkcat_14:

While immorality accross the board may not vary with income, some types of immorality does seem to vary with income. I gave the example of the negative relationship between income and church attendance. If there is no link between income and immorality, then how do you explain this?

I don’t remember the data/information, so I will have to go back and find that post. Ergo…no comment. But, really, if people can all “lose their souls” regardless of income level, why does the variation in types of sin really matter?

stinkcat_14:

Second, I was not focussing on the wealth itself, but the pursuit of the wealth. That is, if **someone is out to acquire extremely large amounts of wealth, is someone like that more likely to run into grave sin? **Now, I am asking the question, I haven’t come up with the answer yet. I could be wrong. You say no, but you don’t have any evidence on your side either. I admit that it is not an easy question to answer, so the real answer may elude us.

…which I already addressed in my posts. I agree that it isn’t the wealth but the desire. However, that is not what your OP asked. You asked if it is “possible to become filthy rich without losing your soul.” Your question, and some of your other posts, assumes that becoming “filthy rich” is only possible by way of greed. It is a false assumption, so your question was flawed from the get-go IMO.

 

[rlg94086]

Perhaps our welfare system doesn’t lock people in poverty after all?

Not everyone obviously…perhaps the 5% that didn’t move up?

As Vern says, there are multi-generational poor. My argument against para8888 had to do with his false statement that poverty is not overcome by the “majority.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

My guess is that the number quoted is low because the PSID does suffer from attrition bias. Those at the bottom are more likely to fall out of the survey.

That’s correct. While there is upward mobility in America, there is also a hard core underclass, under-educated and acculturated to failure by generations of poverty.

This area is a good example. Stone County was one of the poorest counties in America, until Jimmy Driftwood got the Ozark Folk Society on the map and attracted tourists. Following the tourists, people from “off” moved in. If you go through the county, you find most of the businesses are run by people from “off.” And slowly but surely, many of those whose families have been here for a century are either moving up, or staying stagnant – usually with the meth culture.

 

[estesbob]

Um…sorry, you’re wrong…and contradicting scripture.

“The love of money is the root of all evil.” St. Paul in his first letter to St. Timothy, chapter 6, verse 10.

Correct-and the love of money is resposible for most of the rampant crime in todays inner-cities.

 

[estesbob]

You’ve got this mental imagery of poverty and crime as the guy wearing his gold chain dog collar and acting like a pimp in the hood.
The effects of poverty are far more complex that your simplistic view. It’s far more complicated than your view of “they just need to act right”

I thought we were all supposed to act right?