Is there a correlation between religion and poverty?

reply to post by WakeUpRiseUp


Dear WakeUpRiseUp,

Problem is we can all do our bit to feed a few or something like that but it wont solve the big problems that see things like poverty increase rapidly despite people like you. I highly doubt that you help others because you believe in god, and if you really need a god to make you do that then your only a good person on the exterior.

Doubt what you will, I do what I do. I do what I can. I did not say I agreed with things as they are, I said and say do what you can; but, do real things that actually help others. How dare you say that because I believe in God that you doubt I actually help people, check out how many hospitals were built by Christians and how many were built by atheists. I respect the people sleeping on the streets to protest how we all are getting taken advantage of; but, not the people who just complain. Do something everyday to help others. It is not much to ask. Instead you tell me that the issues are bigger; but, they are not. It is a way of thinking, the little things do add up. When we stop doing the little things we have given up.

All change starts with you, all change starts with little things. The world is unfair, I agree. What can you do to make it better even when the system is fixed? You can help one, at least. I tell you what I will do, I will put you in contact with people who can help you to turn your $2,000 into $20,000 of help to others. All you need to do is tell me the city that you live in, not even who you are. Then tell me how belittling Christians who give to others, unites us all or helps anyone.

Get past winning. Think and do helping.

Originally posted by WakeUpRiseUp
reply to post by halfoldman

 

Well in regards to the vatican, they are part of the 1%. A group that helps enforce the monetary system and subsequently poverty. I think the correliation would be the fact that people who follow a religion are being brainwashed and not able to look at the big picture; ie they care that people are in poverty but not why.

Deciphering exactly how a person or society fuses economic philosophy with religious philosophy is very complicated. In nations known to be strongly influenced by "christianity" for example, there is not one overriding christian philosophy that governs all men in their prusuit of "daily bread" but rather schools of thought. Each school focusing on "maxiums" lifted from scripture and then spun and woven into what often becomes a myopia that drives, defines and justifies basic economic action to one end or another.

Originally posted by NoRegretsEver

The thought of having to suffer to get into any kingdom, is a man-made system, so that many can suffer quietly.

Amazingly its not just the quiet sufferers that believe this but those that cause them to suffer are often true believers as well.

Originally posted by HangTheTraitors
In the U.S., the least educated states are the most religous states!!

People who educate themselves see right thru that nonsense called religion.

This is a common myth. There are as many churches on street corners in educated and relatively affluent areas as there are in "poverty" stricken areas. In most cases the diffrence is found in the local religious and economic philosophy not in the numbers.

Originally posted by WakeUpRiseUp
reply to post by AQuestion

 

Dear WakeUpRiseUp,
...
...
I highly doubt that you help others because you believe in god, and if you really need a god to make you do that then your only a good person on the exterior.

You are correct, but remember that the inverse is also true.

Bad atheists exists, good atheists exist :: bad religious exist and good religious exist.

I have spent more time and effort than most, and less time and effort than many, in what would be called "works of compassion." My perception is that I have given a lot more than I have been offered when I needed compassion.

That drives me-- at least as much as my belief in God. That I have known what it is to be cast away, and none was there to offer a hand up.

BUT! If I lost my faith, with it goes my hope that things can be better. If I lost my faith, I would embrace (or try to) the doctrine of "He who dies with the most toys, wins." I am dangerous already, but disciplined. If I cast off my compassion, I am just dangerous-- like most everyone else.

If I lose hope, I believe I would try very hard to cast off my old ways- and embrace whatever is necessary to make up for my losses-- lie, cheat, steal-- treat everyone else as a resource to be exploited.

I have countless examples of the possibilities for wealth and easy living when no conscience stands in the way-- I have those examples daily before my eyes-- but I have hope, and so far, I have always chosen hope. I do not yet resent it; but I sure am angry about the cost.

Originally posted by NoRegretsEver
I think that at some point when people were taught about jesus, and realized that though he was the son of god, he was a man, and suffered, that the church found a way to actually make suffering seem like a privilege.

Mr.Ms.X: Pastor/Father I am suffering.

Pastor/Father: Well so did christ and now he sits on the right hand of god.

People live as martyrs by choice.

OR... People try and do the right thing and know that others will exploit them because of- their choices- yet they do it even so.

In no way was any "real" belief system based on suffering, dying, killing, lack of knowledge, etc,.

Then, what good is any system-- belief system or , civil polity or even family... if it does NOT address suffering, dying, killing, lack of knowledge?

The thought of having to suffer to get into any kingdom, is a man-made system, so that many can suffer quietly.

Peace, NRE.

Too many live life avoiding suffering-- and accomplish that by allowing others to suffer for them. They are called "predators."

But for most persons, religious and non-religious, suffering happens.

There is a difference between someone coming to a Priest, beaten down with suffering and being reminded that Christ Jesus had lived such a life (which a Priest will likely do), and someone coming to a Priest because they are overjoyed with their delight in life and being told they are going to Hell (which a Priest would not likely do).

I use the example of the homeless often on these threads because of my work with them, so allow me again, please?

Two people walk down the street and see a homeless man sitting against a wall and holding a cardboard sign which says "Please help."

The hard working one who has never known significant suffering may grumble, "Get a job!" and walk on in disgust.

The other hard working one who has suffered much stops, and says, "I know you have no clean clothes, no bathroom, no kitchen, and no closet-- so I understand that you have little chance of gaining employment, so let me buy you a meal?"

Suffering enhances empathy, and poverty negates ease. The first man knows only that hard work allows him comfort and security. The suffering man knows that hard work allows existence. It has always been so.

Religion and faith serve as a method or technique for endurance in circumstances which are difficult and in where one is powerless to change them. It provides a way to fight off depression and save energy......yes I guess stress relief is one way of putting it.

The thing I have found is that though it can be helpful and useful in such times, like any coping method, one needs to be able to recognize when the time has come in which is no longer effective or needed, and has instead become an obstacle or source of continued powerlessness unecessarily.

Just to add: I noticed that Beazley's book has a confusing typo error.
My OP quote was meant to be longer, but I couldn't bend my mind round the sentence following the quote in my opening post.

I do get a meaning, but I just could not quote this.
The longer quote was meant to be (and I quote here as it stands in the book):

A correlation between strong faith and economic hardship, observable in many parts of the world, is often explained in terms of religious beliefs providing solace against stress. aliving (sic) are relatively high in the USA (and the more affluent Arab countries) requires a different explanation - perhaps that poverty is not the sole source of stress.

(p.59)

So Beazley sticks to his theory that religion is stress-relief, but poverty is not the only source of stress in some countries.
So he poses more questions on what other stresses in the USA or Arab countries could be (possibly the uneasy feeling the rest of the world hates your guts could also contribute towards stress. It could also explain why in South Africa so many white men that are daily hammered with apartheid guilt are turning to pseudo-militaristic men's ministries, like Angus Buchan's Mighty Men).

Anyway, I'm a bit disappointed in the typo and grammatical error in a book that presents itself as smart and clear.
There are many unemployed English graduates with editing skills, and the people who do land these jobs should do a proper job.
I think the editor should just apologize and chop off his pinkie with a samurai sword, and all is forgiven.

What is interesting and encouraging is that many issues that were once conspiracy or fringe arguments are now at the center of global issues.
So countries are now now rated for their level of surveillance via the Internet, for example.

Originally posted by Bluesma
Religion and faith serve as a method or technique for endurance in circumstances which are difficult and in where one is powerless to change them. It provides a way to fight off depression and save energy......yes I guess stress relief is one way of putting it.

The thing I have found is that though it can be helpful and useful in such times, like any coping method, one needs to be able to recognize when the time has come in which is no longer effective or needed, and has instead become an obstacle or source of continued powerlessness unecessarily.

I would agree with your conclusion if only religion could be explained so easily.

Originally posted by Frira

I use the example of the homeless often on these threads because of my work with them, so allow me again, please?

Two people walk down the street and see a homeless man sitting against a wall and holding a cardboard sign which says "Please help."

The hard working one who has never known significant suffering may grumble, "Get a job!" and walk on in disgust.

The other hard working one who has suffered much stops, and says, "I know you have no clean clothes, no bathroom, no kitchen, and no closet-- so I understand that you have little chance of gaining employment, so let me buy you a meal?"

Like the man said "there is a sucker born every minute".

reply to post by jeramie

To be a true Christian means to be Christ-like. So, someone who is not Christ-like is not a true Christian, no matter what they claim, or what people say they are. One of the best sayings that has come out in recent years (though sometimes used in a mocking tone against our Lord) is WWJD- or, "What Would Jesus Do?" If one is not doing their best to live and love like Jesus, and if they embrace sin, then they are not a true Christian.

So there are no true christians then.
They are all living a lie.....they are all athiests in disguise

"make not my fathers house a house of merchandise".............so even the Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, Popes are all athiests then???

Glad we cleared that up....in other words...there is no such thing as a true Christian ANYWHERE in the world.

How many christians are christ like?? NONE

So whats the point in christianity?? If no one is a true follower, a true christian...kinda makes it redundant as a religion wouldnt you say??

Most christian countries are poor...because the poor give their last bit of money to the church in the hope they will go to heaven and live an eternity of bliss...but you have to pay for it here on earth....despite what the bible says.

A true christian would stone their child to death for talking back to their parents?? This is also in the bible....but fortunately it doesnt happen all that often anymore. But these that do it are the REAL christians.
You have to be a vile human being to be a true christian.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Frira

I use the example of the homeless often on these threads because of my work with them, so allow me again, please?

Two people walk down the street and see a homeless man sitting against a wall and holding a cardboard sign which says "Please help."

The hard working one who has never known significant suffering may grumble, "Get a job!" and walk on in disgust.

The other hard working one who has suffered much stops, and says, "I know you have no clean clothes, no bathroom, no kitchen, and no closet-- so I understand that you have little chance of gaining employment, so let me buy you a meal?"

Like the man said "there is a sucker born every minute".

If a "sucker" means someone who will spend the time to learn about another with a real human need-- walk a mile in their shoes? No-- not every minute. Far more rare than that.

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
reply to post by jeramie

 

To be a true Christian means to be Christ-like. So, someone who is not Christ-like is not a true Christian, no matter what they claim, or what people say they are. One of the best sayings that has come out in recent years (though sometimes used in a mocking tone against our Lord) is WWJD- or, "What Would Jesus Do?" If one is not doing their best to live and love like Jesus, and if they embrace sin, then they are not a true Christian.

So there are no true christians then.
They are all living a lie.....they are all athiests in disguise

"make not my fathers house a house of merchandise".............so even the Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, Popes are all athiests then???

Glad we cleared that up....in other words...there is no such thing as a true Christian ANYWHERE in the world.

How many christians are christ like?? NONE

So whats the point in christianity?? If no one is a true follower, a true christian...kinda makes it redundant as a religion wouldnt you say??

Most christian countries are poor...because the poor give their last bit of money to the church in the hope they will go to heaven and live an eternity of bliss...but you have to pay for it here on earth....despite what the bible says.

A true christian would stone their child to death for talking back to their parents?? This is also in the bible....but fortunately it doesnt happen all that often anymore. But these that do it are the REAL christians.
You have to be a vile human being to be a true christian.

It is an interesting study in human thought when I see non-Christians telling Christians how they are to live by their faith.

Just to correct:

Tithe
The Church asks for a tithe (10%) as the standard model to be striven for-- as a recognition of ones abundance.

In my experience, that money is used to keep the Church operating-- and includes at least 10% of what is received given back to those in greatest needs.

Those who are in need are not expected to be in a position to tithe, but encouraged to do so when able for merely spiritual reasons.

Stoning
Old Testament Law is often presented in extremes.

The Christian teachings (from Christ) both and at once sharpen the importance of the law as well as essentially nullifies the punishment. For example, "Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man."

There is great punishment in the law for transgressing the Sabbath; but also available, even in the law, was a means for compassion. The purpose of the law was to insure that each person had time to rest and recreate-- an essential of human need. If the punishment was not severe, then the law was not seen as important; but (and obviously) the punishment did not fit the crime.

We are to be appalled if someone were actually stoned for talking back to a parent. The Law was and remains to show us what is good and what is right-- not to oppress.

The vast majority of spiritual persons "get" that right away, but there are those in and outside of the Church who do not.

Who teaches and by what authority?
The Bible also says that not all are called, or gifted, to teach. From that, we can easily see why not every Christian or non-Christian should be trying to explain to others what the Bible says and what it means.

I am such a person, but not by my doing. It is not to my credit-- it just is. Not because I say so, or claim it of myself, but because the Church said so of me, sent me to be trained at a high level in academics of theology, read the most ancient texts in and out of the Bible, discuss, debate, mark and inwardly digest the great works of other theologians-- and then teach others.

How I was selected to be a theologian and teacher by the Church was an amazing thing to see-- I was carried along for the ride-- and becoming a theologian was not in my own plans. I protested and was certain that it was a mistake; but was asked to trust and to obey my spiritual superiors, and so I did.

And half I time, when I do teach, I want to do a face palm at what others have taught my students and wish I had a means of stopping those arrogant teachers from speaking again. That is my emotional reaction. But it is not how the Church works-- we do not silence; but we do try to persuade.

In the history of the Church force has been used against and then force was tried to be used by it. The Church survived and even thrived when force was used against it/Her. The Church has faltered and strayed every time it/She has tried to use force. The Church learned from that. It is now the 21st Century. And I am 21st Century theologian.

You have a complaint about the medieval Church? Go complain to a medieval bishop. I am not he.

You have a complain of charlatans? So do I-- I have known too many.

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Frira

I use the example of the homeless often on these threads because of my work with them, so allow me again, please?

Two people walk down the street and see a homeless man sitting against a wall and holding a cardboard sign which says "Please help."

The hard working one who has never known significant suffering may grumble, "Get a job!" and walk on in disgust.

The other hard working one who has suffered much stops, and says, "I know you have no clean clothes, no bathroom, no kitchen, and no closet-- so I understand that you have little chance of gaining employment, so let me buy you a meal?"

Like the man said "there is a sucker born every minute".

If a "sucker" means someone who will spend the time to learn about another with a real human need-- walk a mile in their shoes? No-- not every minute. Far more rare than that.

You mean like letting a homeless man live in my home for 6 years? Letting him use my car to drive to work and then finally just giving him the car? Yes, very rare.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Frira

I use the example of the homeless often on these threads because of my work with them, so allow me again, please?

Two people walk down the street and see a homeless man sitting against a wall and holding a cardboard sign which says "Please help."

The hard working one who has never known significant suffering may grumble, "Get a job!" and walk on in disgust.

The other hard working one who has suffered much stops, and says, "I know you have no clean clothes, no bathroom, no kitchen, and no closet-- so I understand that you have little chance of gaining employment, so let me buy you a meal?"

Like the man said "there is a sucker born every minute".

If a "sucker" means someone who will spend the time to learn about another with a real human need-- walk a mile in their shoes? No-- not every minute. Far more rare than that.

You mean like letting a homeless man live in my home for 6 years? Letting him use my car to drive to work and then finally just giving him the car? Yes, very rare.

I mean exactly that!

Yes there is, there is no doubt about it. However it is not necassarily religion that causes economic hardship, but rather economic hardship causes religous belief.

Here is why. In a poor economy, the size of the educated middle class is rather high. As such they follow a traditional/religous social structure. Conservatism is more widespread and religous values have far greater emphasis in such a society. If a poor country see's economic growth, coming from widepread capital investment, an increase in outlays and exports, resulting in more capital being funneled into the country, which is in-turn spread to a degree of equity (it could only be a very small degree of equity as is the case with China), this may see the enlargment of the educated middle class. The educated middle class, in many cases, pushes for freer and more democratic governance, they also place far less emphasis on religous/traditional values (in fact many of the new generation of the prospering middle class may be athiests/agnostics). However, in order for economic change to bring forth political change, it must first change the peoples social perspectives. None-the-less historically there is a correlation between poverty and religion.

Take fore example a case study of a few countries. Afghanistan, America and Australia. By far the most equitable country with the highest living standards, education levels, lowest mortality rate and the most happiest of these 3 countries is Australia (it is the 2nd best country to live in after Norway). Only under 30% of Australians are actually religous. Many are christains and catholics, but many are also new immigrants (often refugees) who have come from more conservative societies. America is also on this list, it has almost 10% unemployment, rampant drug abuse problems, a problematic financial system, terrible health care and social secutiry, but it is rather wealthy, equitable to a degree and most people are provided with the basic necessities. It is a good country to live in. In America, however, over 80% of people are religous. This is due to a) economic conditions and b) the social structure and normalities of American society (i.e. in Australia, the primeminister never says God Bless Australia, but in America after many speeches, the president says God Bless America). Now take Afghanistan for example. To sum it up, it is probably -along with somalia- the worst country in the world to live in. In Afghanistan the level of religous people cannot be defined, because it is such a disfunctional country, but without a doubt, once can estimate it is atleast oover 95%.

Now to sum it up, Australia has great living conditions, less that 30% of people are religous, and it is the most liberal of the 3 societies (brothels for example are legal in most states and prostitution if far more socially acceptable). America has ok living conditions, it is conservative compared to Australia, but none-the-less it is a liberal democracy. Afghanistan has terrible living conditions and it is a deeply religous/traditional society.