Prosperity vs. Poverty

[Bubba_Switzler]

How am I usually mistaken?

Usually by making absurd and unchariable assumptions.

 

[JRKH]

Usually by making absurd and unchariable assumptions.

Bubba - with all due respect…I think you made an assumption as well. You assumed that stinkat’s post was absurd and uncharitable when in reality it was most likely simply an observation. You placed and emotion and intent on it that was very likely not there.

Just an observation.

Peace
James

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Bubba - with all due respect…I think you made an assumption as well. You assumed that stinkat’s post was absurd and uncharitable when in reality it was most likely simply an observation. You placed and emotion and intent on it that was very likely not there.

Just out of curiosity, how did he observe that I had “lost interest in the thread”? How does one simply observe such a thing as interest?

 

[JRKH]

I was reflecting on the discussion so far. I’ll make comment specifically on some of the posts later.

JRKH made a very good contribution to the thread early on by asking what was meant by prosperity. On definition is narrowly financial success. Another is general worldly success. I think both are valid and useful.

Financial success has the advantage of being easy to observe and measure. It’s not as simple as some seem to believe but it’s certainly eaiser to measure financial success than happiness or even good health.

But financial success has absolutely no bearing on true success and prosperity from the Christian viewpoint. A lot of money or very little money - in itself means nothing in the eyes of God.

Worldly success, which I think includes JRKH’s full list, is arguably a more important definition. But the problem measuring it makes it hard to draw solid conclusions and it’s so tempting to get caught up in the various tradeoffs involved.

What need is there to draw any conclusions at all?

One question to consider is this: is it possible to use financial success as a proxy for worldly success for the purpose of considering these hypotheses?

Only if one considers “worldly success” to be something worthy of measuring. Even then I would maintain that it is not the best measure…or even the most accurate. How many “worldly successful” people are there who are not “financially successful”.

If, for example, we were to focus solely on financial success we might come to a conclusion about the hypotheses which is still valid when more general worldly success is considered.

Would anyone argue that one of the hypotheses is true about worldly success and not financial success or vice versa?

Success can only come about from endeavor. Therefore inheriting money cannot equal success for there was no endeavor. Likewise, if the endeavors that produce this financial success are not morally sound, no amount of money will change the fact that one is spiritually bankrupt.
On the other hand, worldly success can be attained by deliberately NOT attaining financial success. Mother Theresa for example headed up a world wide organization and was awarded the peace prize - yet had nothing and wanted nothing (for herself).
Similarly I would say that 99% of all clergy of whatever faith tradition - are likewise “worldly successful” in that they are highly regarded in their communities - and yet have little in the way of financial success.

Just some thoughts…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Just out of curiosity, how did he observe that I had “lost interest in the thread”? How does one simply observe such a thing as interest?

Well my guess would be that the most common way would be the length of time that elapses between posts.

All I am saying is that when I read stinkcat’s post, I did not see “uncharitable” or “absurd”…I simply saw an observation.
So - how is it that two people read the same thing and draw different conclusions? Could it be that each person is reading something it?
I could be wrong in my reading and the intent could have been snarky - - and thus uncharitable. You could be wrong in your reading and the intent could have been nothing more than an observation.

I would ask - just for the sake of clarity - that you go back and read the post again and, for my own edification, tell me what was written (the only thing we have to go by) what was uncharitable.

Of course - We could also just let it drop and get on with the original conversation.

Peace
James

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

But financial success has absolutely no bearing on true success and prosperity from the Christian viewpoint. A lot of money or very little money - in itself means nothing in the eyes of God.

I am very skeptical of this but it is not the primary focus of this thread. It is relevant, however, to H1 and H3.

What need is there to draw any conclusions at all?

The question is interesting. Even someone taking the position that you have ought to be interested in H1 and H3.

Only if one considers “worldly success” to be something worthy of measuring. Even then I would maintain that it is not the best measure…or even the most accurate. How many “worldly successful” people are there who are not “financially successful”.
I would call someone who living a happy and fulfilling life as a monk or a nun as worldly success irrespective of their salvation though I don’t think that is how most people do or should pursue worldy success.

Success can only come about from endeavor. Therefore inheriting money cannot equal success for there was no endeavor.

Now this, again, is a substantive contribution to the discussion.

Without committing either way at the moment, it depends on how one measures success, even purely financial success. Financial success could be measured by how you increase your wealth above that which was given you at the start. Or it could be the absolute measure including inheritance. Or you could treat inheritance as an acquistion of weath (obviously not requiring any endevor beyond not getting disinherited).

Likewise, if the endeavors that produce this financial success are not morally sound, no amount of money will change the fact that one is spiritually bankrupt.

This is essentially the question of whether one can become rich through sin. (Which is not the same as saying all wealth is sinful.) This is not as obvious as some claim.

On the other hand, worldly success can be attained by deliberately NOT attaining financial success. Mother Theresa for example headed up a world wide organization and was awarded the peace prize - yet had nothing and wanted nothing (for herself).
Similarly I would say that 99% of all clergy of whatever faith tradition - are likewise “worldly successful” in that they are highly regarded in their communities - and yet have little in the way of financial success.

And this is precisely why I am skeptical of your first claim above. One can always give away one’s wealth but to eschew industriousness altogether is not saintly.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Well my guess would be that the most common way would be the length of time that elapses between posts.

The length of time that elapses between posts might be explained by a lack of interest. But I could think of a very long list of other possible explanations for that; and I’ll bet you can too. So, no, interest is not simply observed.

 

[JRKH]

I am very skeptical of this but it is not the primary focus of this thread. It is relevant, however, to H1 and H3.

OK - that helps me…It seems that you are primarily focused on those things by which the world measures success and less interested in what things God uses to measure success.

I would call someone who living a happy and fulfilling life as a monk or a nun as worldly success irrespective of their salvation though I don’t think that is how most people do or should pursue worldly success.

True - the monastic life is a special calling. Yet I do think that there are a number of non-monastics, including many non-Catholics, who pursue a similar course. They are focused on a simple life of God, family, work, community and give much from their time and energy to help their neighbors.

Success can only come about from endeavor. Therefore inheriting money cannot equal success for there was no endeavor.

Now this, again, is a substantive contribution to the discussion.

Thanks.

Without committing either way at the moment, it depends on how one measures success, even purely financial success. Financial success could be measured by how you increase your wealth above that which was given you at the start. Or it could be the absolute measure including inheritance. Or you could treat inheritance as an acquistion of weath (obviously not requiring any endevor beyond not getting disinherited).

I think you are confusing “net worth” with success. One can measure “net worth” in this way, but “success” requires a goal and efforts to reach the goal…so success still requires endeavor.

This is essentially the question of whether one can become rich through sin. (Which is not the same as saying all wealth is sinful.) This is not as obvious as some claim.

Well - I never said that all wealth is sinful. Far from it. However - when measuring “success” from a Christian perspective one must consider the methods used to attain the wealth.

And this is precisely why I am skeptical of your first claim above. One can always give away one’s wealth but to eschew industriousness altogether is not saintly.

Well said…
So one can rightly ask, what is the better measure of success, net worth and or the acquisition of money or industriousness in a good cause?

Lets’ consider a somewhat extreme case. Suppose I live my life simply and industriously. I work hard, make a lot of money each month, but live in the simplest of ways and I give away nearly all of the rest of what I earn. For the sake of discussion let’s say that I make
$300,000 year after taxes and am able to give away $280,000 year - thus I live on $20,000 year.
How do you measure my financial success?
The government will know how much I make - but “the world” won’t.
My net worth will be continually low. Nothing in my appearance or lifestyle will say “money and success”.
In fact, if I am quiet about my giving, to the world I will look like a miser…Most will assume that I am squirreling money away.

Am I a “worldly success” and by what measure?

Peace
James

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

OK - that helps me…It seems that you are primarily focused on those things by which the world measures success and less interested in what things God uses to measure success.

I am interested in how worldly success relates to salvation (e.g. H1 and H3) but as with finance vs. general success, it’s easier to observe worldy success than salvation.

True - the monastic life is a special calling. Yet I do think that there are a number of non-monastics, including many non-Catholics, who pursue a similar course. They are focused on a simple life of God, family, work, community and give much from their time and energy to help their neighbors.

I was also thinking about budhist monks and Hindu gurus and the like in regards to wordly spirituality.

I think you are confusing “net worth” with success. One can measure “net worth” in this way, but “success” requires a goal and efforts to reach the goal…so success still requires endeavor.

I am not disagreeing with you, but look back through this thead and you will find plenty who take exactly the position that financial success equals net worth (and, hence, can be principally explained by individual or national inheritance). So be aware that you are arguing with a lot of people here.

Well - I never said that all wealth is sinful. Far from it. However - when measuring “success” from a Christian perspective one must consider the methods used to attain the wealth.

This is the tip of a very interesting discussion. One thing I have noticed as a result of what you are proposing is a bias toward inheritance over endeavor. People who inherit their wealth cannot possilby have acted sinfully to acquire it whereas there is a suspicion placed on those who endeavor to create wealth since they may have used sinful methods.

So one can rightly ask, what is the better measure of success, net worth and or the acquisition of money or industriousness in a good cause?

Lets’ consider a somewhat extreme case. Suppose I live my life simply and industriously. I work hard, make a lot of money each month, but live in the simplest of ways and I give away nearly all of the rest of what I earn. For the sake of discussion let’s say that I make
$300,000 year after taxes and am able to give away $280,000 year - thus I live on $20,000 year.
How do you measure my financial success?
The government will know how much I make - but “the world” won’t.
My net worth will be continually low. Nothing in my appearance or lifestyle will say “money and success”.
In fact, if I am quiet about my giving, to the world I will look like a miser…Most will assume that I am squirreling money away.

Am I a “worldly success” and by what measure?

Right, this is one reason why I noted that even focusing on just financial success is not as simple as some assume. Maybe you gave it away, maybe you raised a family of 15, maybe you worked hard but never took a salary. Maybe you are a politician who can get anything you want without ever having a dime in your bank account. (Or maybe you spend it as fast as you earn it like some music and movie stars.)

Also, what is financial wealth? Big house and car? Money in the bank? Ownershp of productive assets?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Usually by making absurd and unchariable assumptions.

Now, you are the one who is being absurd and uncharitable. First of all, I said it seems that you have lost interest in the thread. Do you understand what the word seems means?

You posted a bunch of supposed hypotheses and your only response has been to respond to one poster. So yes, if you start a thread and don’t contribute anything to the discussion, it would seem that you have lost interest.

So the only person being absurd here is you. Second, what did I say that uncharitable? And since you claim a pattern here, please bring up some other uncharitable and absurd assumptions.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Part of the problem is a measurement bias. People who are financially successful (i.e. have a large income or a high net worth) are usually doing things that are valued by the market. So if I am an investment banker, I might get a $1 million bonus, which would make me look prosperous. On the other hand, if I spend the same amount of time visiting lonely people in nursing homes, that is something that is at least as highly valued in the eyes of God as investment banking, yet I would appear to be less prosperous.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I am not disagreeing with you, but look back through this thead and you will find plenty who take exactly the position that financial success equals net worth (and, hence, can be principally explained by individual or national inheritance). So be aware that you are arguing with a lot of people here.

While I wouldn’t measure financial success solely by net worth, it is certainly a reasonable starting point until someone comes up with a better definition. How do you define a financial success?

One of the most financially successful people I know never made more than $12 an hour in their life. They didn’t have a big net worth, but in retirement they have everything they need and are not a burden on anyone. I know millionaires who drive lexuses and own vacation homes who I would consider less successful.

 

[JRKH]

I am interested in how worldly success relates to salvation (e.g. H1 and H3) but as with finance vs. general success, it’s easier to observe worldly success than salvation.

Yes it is easier to observe worldly success than the state of one’s soul (salvation). However - I would contend that there is no correlation between the appearance of “Worldly success” (as defined by monetary status) and the state of one’s soul.

As to your reference to H1 and H3…
H1 - - Poverty is in no way a sign of God’s displeasure.
H3 - - This might be closer to the mark…but is a very nuanced issue. Hoarding money to the exclusion of helping others is indeed sinful behavior. However, using one’s assets to invest in others, help businesses get started and other things that provide benefits to your neighbor is not sinful. So one can have a high net worth on paper…and still be living a very Christian life.

I am not disagreeing with you, but look back through this thread and you will find plenty who take exactly the position that financial success equals net worth (and, hence, can be principally explained by individual or national inheritance). So be aware that you are arguing with a lot of people here.

I am not arguing with anyone. Since you have not strictly defined the terms - everyone is free to approach and address the matter in their own way. I have the impression that this is what you want…a lot of different perspectives.

This is the tip of a very interesting discussion. One thing I have noticed as a result of what you are proposing is a bias toward inheritance over endeavor. People who inherit their wealth cannot possilby have acted sinfully to acquire it whereas there is a suspicion placed on those who endeavor to create wealth since they may have used sinful methods.

I think you have read into my comments more than I intended. I have placed no suspicion on anyone in regards to how they obtain their prosperity.
However, since the possibility exists that one can obtain worldly success through sinful means as well as through righteous means, your original proposals H1, H2 and H3 collapse. H4 is the only one that remains…

Now the above speaks to “Worldly success” as defined by financial measures…

In addressing the other, more important measures of success, personal integrity, the respect of your fellow man, happiness in life - whatever your station, and treasure in heaven…then H2 is the best - and only - really true hypothesis.

Peace
James

Right, this is one reason why I noted that even focusing on just financial success is not as simple as some assume. Maybe you gave it away, maybe you raised a family of 15, maybe you worked hard but never took a salary. Maybe you are a politician who can get anything you want without ever having a dime in your bank account. (Or maybe you spend it as fast as you earn it like some music and movie stars.)

Also, what is financial wealth? Big house and car? Money in the bank? Ownershp of productive assets?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

H7: Prosperity is the result of having a lot of money, poverty is the result of not having a lot of money.

So what is meant by this?

I could imagine that it means having money is the result of having money (a tautology).

Or it could imply that money buys happiness and fulfillment.

This does seem to be one of the examples that takes net worth to be a measure of financial success.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Yes it is easier to observe worldly success than the state of one’s soul (salvation). However - I would contend that there is no correlation between the appearance of “Worldly success” (as defined by monetary status) and the state of one’s soul.

As to your reference to H1 and H3…
H1 - - Poverty is in no way a sign of God’s displeasure.
H3 - - This might be closer to the mark…but is a very nuanced issue. Hoarding money to the exclusion of helping others is indeed sinful behavior. However, using one’s assets to invest in others, help businesses get started and other things that provide benefits to your neighbor is not sinful. So one can have a high net worth on paper…and still be living a very Christian life.

I want to come back to the discussion of specific Hs later after we’ve worked through some of the definitional issues but just to raise one point for further discussion: Would you say that, say, Bill Gates or any other billionaire is “hoarding money”? As I noted at the end of my previous reply, the defintion even of net worth can be tricky. Most billionairs do not have their net worth in the form of money in a safe. Rather, their net worth consists of ownership of productive assets (e.g. stocks) that are held. The alterntive to hold them is, what? Selling them to someone else? Liquidating them to turn factories into consumables? A factory, just to take a simple example, exists and serves its purpose. Who owns it is secondary but someone will own it. Is the owner hoarding it by owning it? Does ownership become hoarding when the value of it passes some level of valuation?

I am not arguing with anyone. Since you have not strictly defined the terms - everyone is free to approach and address the matter in their own way. I have the impression that this is what you want…a lot of different perspectives.

Yes, at this point I think a discussion of definitions is best. I’m hoping that we can eventually make some simplifying assumptions that won’t diminish the generality of the conclusions. For example, we could assume that financial succes can serve as a proxy for worldly success and define financial success as either net worth or change in net worth (growth) or change in net worth above the general rate of economic growth (since even a robot can invest in bonds and earn the prevailing rate of return).

I think you have read into my comments more than I intended. I have placed no suspicion on anyone in regards to how they obtain their prosperity.
However, since the possibility exists that one can obtain worldly success through sinful means as well as through righteous means, your original proposals H1, H2 and H3 collapse. H4 is the only one that remains…

Please don’t take my comments personally, I was referring generally to the comments here and things I’ve heard elsewhere.

Now the above speaks to “Worldly success” as defined by financial measures…In addressing the other, more important measures of success, personal integrity, the respect of your fellow man, happiness in life - whatever your station, and treasure in heaven…then H2 is the best - and only - really true hypothesis.

But isn’t it possible that someone could be happy through sin? I know there are some studies that suggest that religious people are happier than nonreligious but while the difference might be statistically significant it is not very big. And it’s pretty easy to imagine other ways this might be true.

 

[JRKH]

I want to come back to the discussion of specific Hs later after we’ve worked through some of the definitional issues

Great - It’s your thread so just tell us which definition of “Worldly success” you want to use.

but just to raise one point for further discussion: Would you say that, say, Bill Gates or any other billionaire is “hoarding money”?

I have no idea. I cannot see into Bill Gate’s heart.

As I noted at the end of my previous reply, the defintion even of net worth can be tricky.

Yup

Most billionaires do not have their net worth in the form of money in a safe. Rather, their net worth consists of ownership of productive assets (e.g. stocks) that are held. The alternative to hold them is, what? Selling them to someone else? Liquidating them to turn factories into consumables? A factory, just to take a simple example, exists and serves its purpose. Who owns it is secondary but someone will own it. Is the owner hoarding it by owning it? Does ownership become hoarding when the value of it passes some level of valuation?

If a factory is owned and operated on the Christian principle of Agape…There will be no hoarding. If, however, Greed becomes the predominant motive and driving force then hoarding can very quickly come into play.

Yes, at this point I think a discussion of definitions is best. I’m hoping that we can eventually make some simplifying assumptions that won’t diminish the generality of the conclusions. For example, we could assume that financial success can serve as a proxy for worldly success and define financial success as either net worth or change in net worth (growth) or change in net worth above the general rate of economic growth (since even a robot can invest in bonds and earn the prevailing rate of return).

Yes we can do this - and using this definition - none of the H’s that relate to God will be valid. God is not concerned with “worldly success”.

Please don’t take my comments personally, I was referring generally to the comments here and things I’ve heard elsewhere.

No problem…your reply was made directly to my comments so that is pretty personal. I just wanted to clarify.

But isn’t it possible that someone could be happy through sin? I know there are some studies that suggest that religious people are happier than nonreligious but while the difference might be statistically significant it is not very big. And it’s pretty easy to imagine other ways this might be true.

Yes some people can seen to be quite happy in their sin and so long as they surround themselves with other sinners they can go a long time without recognizing the falsity of that form of happiness. However - since sin by it’s very nature is hurtful to others - it is inevitable that sinners will hurt one another and whoops there goes their happiness…now their hurt and probably angry and set out to hurt someone else…that too is natural to the sinful life.

Peace
James

 

[stinkcat_14]

So what is meant by this?

I could imagine that it means having money is the result of having money (a tautology).

Or it could imply that money buys happiness and fulfillment.

This does seem to be one of the examples that takes net worth to be a measure of financial success.

What would you propose instead of net worth as a measure of financial success?

 

[stinkcat_14]

I want to come back to the discussion of specific Hs later after we’ve worked through some of the definitional issues but just to raise one point for further discussion: Would you say that, say, Bill Gates or any other billionaire is “hoarding money”?

What do you mean by hording money? If you mean that he is acquiring wealth for the sake of acquiring wealth then spiritually that is not a good thing to do. Economically, as long as he is working honestly and being fair in his dealings then nobody is probably harmed.

As I noted at the end of my previous reply, the defintion even of net worth can be tricky. Most billionairs do not have their net worth in the form of money in a safe. Rather, their net worth consists of ownership of productive assets (e.g. stocks) that are held.

The definition of net worth is not tricky at all, it is: Net Worth = Assets - Liabilities.

The alterntive to hold them is, what? Selling them to someone else? Liquidating them to turn factories into consumables? A factory, just to take a simple example, exists and serves its purpose. Who owns it is secondary but someone will own it. Is the owner hoarding it by owning it? Does ownership become hoarding when the value of it passes some level of valuation?

Who owns the factory is of little consequence. That is a distributional issue. For example, Bill Gates owns a constantly decreasing share of microsoft, he is divesting from microsoft and investing in other assets. His changing his allocation of assets has no real effect on anyone. Now, Bill Gates stopped running microsoft and works more on his foundation. Is that a good thing? Warren Buffett is worth billions, but keeps working at Berkshire Hathaway even though he doesn’t need the money. Is that good or bad? I would say that it depends on what he is after. If he is using his gifts as a humble servant, then that is good. On the other hand, if his focus is to show the world how great he is, then that is not good. Not knowing him or his heart I could not pretend to know his motivation.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Great - It’s your thread so just tell us which definition of “Worldly success” you want to use.

I have no idea. I cannot see into Bill Gate’s heart.

Yup

If a factory is owned and operated on the Christian principle of Agape…There will be no hoarding. If, however, Greed becomes the predominant motive and driving force then hoarding can very quickly come into play.

The issue is not what someone’s net worth is, it is whether or not they are doing what they are called to do. For Mother Teresa, a $10,000 net worth is too much.

Yes we can do this - and using this definition - none of the H’s that relate to God will be valid. God is not concerned with “worldly success”.

The scriptures are very clear, if wealth is a stumbling block to your relationship with God and doing his will, then you need to get rid of your wealth.

No problem…your reply was made directly to my comments so that is pretty personal. I just wanted to clarify.

Yes some people can seen to be quite happy in their sin and so long as they surround themselves with other sinners they can go a long time without recognizing the falsity of that form of happiness. However - since sin by it’s very nature is hurtful to others - it is inevitable that sinners will hurt one another and whoops there goes their happiness…now their hurt and probably angry and set out to hurt someone else…that too is natural to the sinful life.

Peace
James

If sin brought immediate unhappiness, we would do a lot less of it.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

What do you mean by hording money?

More later but a just FYI, this was a phrase that used:

Hoarding money to the exclusion of helping others is indeed sinful behavior.

Of course, many use this phrase too.