Trump's prosperity gospel evangelist adviser

So, it seems one Paula White is to take up a position in Trump's White House as his adviser on religion. Seems further Ms White is an advocate of the prosperity gospel; which broadly runs as follows: 'Be good, give all your spare cash to your pastor, and God will reward you with more cash, later'. The corollary to this doctrine would also be conveniently true for the wealthy parson; if you are poor, it is your own fault, you deserve it, and I need not succour you in your want.

I despise this kind of preaching. It is so obviously corrupt, and so obviously selfishly self-serving for those who preach it, that I wonder why anybody might be taken in by it. But then, Trump isn't the brightest spark amongst individuals. He isn't even intelligent enough to realise he isn't intelligent, as witness his mantra: 'I am a very stable genius'.

From what I can make out, the Christian belief is that God loves us each and all completely and without restraint, and asks of us only that we should love Him, and each other, similarly and similarly freely. Transactions such as: 'I (God) will pay you cash to be good' are just no part of the religion, or the philosophy of the religion. Just as God gives abundantly of His love and His providence, so I think and wish that all humanity should emulate Him in this respect, with no thought of reward. And if the world's wealth may seem somewhat inequitably distributed, that is the result of human failings, rather than a divine one.

It is said that we can tell the character of the man from the company he keeps. I think, in Trump's case, there is a certain degree of truth to this ancient adage.

Best wishes, 2RM.
«1

Comments

  • ... It is so obviously corrupt, and so obviously selfishly self-serving...
    And, therefore, exactly what anyone would expect Trump to go for.


  • I would think Paula White has not been appointed to advise Trump but rather to try and secure a certain caucus of evangelical Christian voter.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    I would think Paula White has not been appointed to advise Trump but rather to try and secure a certain caucus of evangelical Christian voter.

    Cynical, but I think in this present administration, probably also accurate. What bugs me, mainly, is the co-option of my religion, to serve transient rather than eternal concerns.

    Best wishes, 2RM
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Yeah, like that doesn't happen every damn day of the week.
  • Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    ... It is so obviously corrupt, and so obviously selfishly self-serving...
    And, therefore, exactly what anyone would expect Trump to go for.


    You may very well think that, but I could not possibly comment.

    Best wishes, 2RM.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Is she the one who was reported praying against the Witchcraft of the Democratic Party?
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Is she the one who was reported praying against the Witchcraft of the Democratic Party?

    No idea. But it would not seem inconsistent. However, if we are to assassinate characters, I tend to the idea that it would help to have the evidence, first.

    Best wishes, 2RM.
  • So, it seems one Paula White is to take up a position in Trump's White House as his adviser on religion. Seems further Ms White is an advocate of the prosperity gospel; which broadly runs as follows: 'Be good, give all your spare cash to your pastor, and God will reward you with more cash, later'. The corollary to this doctrine would also be conveniently true for the wealthy parson; if you are poor, it is your own fault, you deserve it, and I need not succour you in your want.

    As a side note, on some of her earlier material, she appears to be doing whatever the preaching equivalent of blackface is.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Telling the truth about someone's statements is not character assassination.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Is she the one who was reported praying against the Witchcraft of the Democratic Party?

    No idea. But it would not seem inconsistent. However, if we are to assassinate characters, I tend to the idea that it would help to have the evidence, first.

    Best wishes, 2RM.

    Newsweek's summary looks pretty comprehensive to me.
  • Trump himself will not be a mark for prosperity preachers. He's too much of a tight-arse. I think this is more about the preachers clothing themselves in Presidential glamour and authenticity than Trump clothing himself in religion. He gets that for free from people like that bloke who paid off a pool-boy. I would not be surprised if Trump is getting a kickback for appointing White as his adviser.
  • She is a Satanist.
  • She is a Satanist.

    A strong claim. What is your evidence?
  • She is an American prophet of Mammon who supports Trump.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    I don't think it's fair to call people from other religious traditions names just because you disagree with them. What have the Satanists done to be so insulted?
  • The Satanic Temple Arizona does good works.

    I think they're the ones I heard about a few years ago. Blew my mind, a little bit.
  • Re the OP:

    Her "gospel" sounds like a pyramid scheme.

    Trump might listen to a prosperity preacher. Positive thinking guru Dr. Norman Vincent Peale was pastor to 3 generations of his family. (Grandad, dad, T.) That's part of why T tries to aggrandize himself and create his own reality.

    However, I want to have A Stern Talk with any woman who takes a job with T. Not remotely safe.
  • My folks were into positive thinking, but also into not parting with their hard-earneds. Well, they were in it to the extent that when a horse named Think Big won the Melbourne Cup, and Dad had 50c each way on it, it was taken as a talisman and adopted as the family motto.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Is she the one who was reported praying against the Witchcraft of the Democratic Party?

    No idea. But it would not seem inconsistent. However, if we are to assassinate characters, I tend to the idea that it would help to have the evidence, first.

    Best wishes, 2RM.

    Newsweek's summary looks pretty comprehensive to me.

    Interesting. Thanks for the link.

    Best wishes, 2RM.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Trump himself will not be a mark for prosperity preachers...

    I wish! There would no more poetic justice than the bully Trump being persuaded, in the pursuit of heavenly reward, to give his billions to the alleviation of world poverty. However, God is not to be bribed, and justice will eventually be done. So I believe.

    Best wishes, 2RM.

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Trump himself will not be a mark for prosperity preachers...

    I wish! There would no more poetic justice than the bully Trump being persuaded, in the pursuit of heavenly reward, to give his billions to the alleviation of world poverty. However, God is not to be bribed, and justice will eventually be done. So I believe.

    Best wishes, 2RM.

    Anyone seriously think Trump has billions? His lies about his wealth go back decades, and that's at least 50% of the reason he doesn't want to disclose his tax returns.
  • Schroedingers CatSchroedingers Cat Shipmate, Waving not Drowning Host
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Trump himself will not be a mark for prosperity preachers...

    I wish! There would no more poetic justice than the bully Trump being persuaded, in the pursuit of heavenly reward, to give his billions to the alleviation of world poverty. However, God is not to be bribed, and justice will eventually be done. So I believe.

    Best wishes, 2RM.

    Anyone seriously think Trump has billions? His lies about his wealth go back decades, and that's at least 50% of the reason he doesn't want to disclose his tax returns.

    No - I think he is financially bankrupt.

    Morally, there is no question.

    Paula seems to fit perfectly into his presidency - corrupt, immoral, and without the slightest real connection with the Divine, while using the language of the church.

    They will rot in hell together.
  • Her plastic surgery is as bad as his syrup.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Trump himself will not be a mark for prosperity preachers...

    I wish! There would no more poetic justice than the bully Trump being persuaded, in the pursuit of heavenly reward, to give his billions to the alleviation of world poverty. However, God is not to be bribed, and justice will eventually be done. So I believe.

    Best wishes, 2RM.

    Anyone seriously think Trump has billions? His lies about his wealth go back decades, and that's at least 50% of the reason he doesn't want to disclose his tax returns.

    No - I think he is financially bankrupt.

    Morally, there is no question.

    Paula seems to fit perfectly into his presidency - corrupt, immoral, and without the slightest real connection with the Divine, while using the language of the church.

    They will rot in hell together.

    That seems a trifle strict. I have no desire that anyone should rot in hell. I merely wish that they should grace the world with their talents and virtues, and heaven thereafter.

    Best wishes, 2RM.
  • This type of "Christianity" just looks crass and corrupt in the US but it has deadly applications elsewhere.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Trump himself will not be a mark for prosperity preachers...

    I wish! There would no more poetic justice than the bully Trump being persuaded, in the pursuit of heavenly reward, to give his billions to the alleviation of world poverty. However, God is not to be bribed, and justice will eventually be done. So I believe.

    Best wishes, 2RM.

    Anyone seriously think Trump has billions? His lies about his wealth go back decades, and that's at least 50% of the reason he doesn't want to disclose his tax returns.

    No - I think he is financially bankrupt.

    Morally, there is no question.

    Paula seems to fit perfectly into his presidency - corrupt, immoral, and without the slightest real connection with the Divine, while using the language of the church.

    They will rot in hell together.

    That seems a trifle strict. I have no desire that anyone should rot in hell. I merely wish that they should grace the world with their talents and virtues, and heaven thereafter.

    Best wishes, 2RM.

    What if they have no talents, and/or virtues?

    Yes, yes - I know. Only god(s) can decide, but empirical evidence...

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Trump himself will not be a mark for prosperity preachers...

    I wish! There would no more poetic justice than the bully Trump being persuaded, in the pursuit of heavenly reward, to give his billions to the alleviation of world poverty. However, God is not to be bribed, and justice will eventually be done. So I believe.

    Best wishes, 2RM.

    Anyone seriously think Trump has billions? His lies about his wealth go back decades, and that's at least 50% of the reason he doesn't want to disclose his tax returns.

    No - I think he is financially bankrupt.

    Morally, there is no question.

    Paula seems to fit perfectly into his presidency - corrupt, immoral, and without the slightest real connection with the Divine, while using the language of the church.

    They will rot in hell together.

    That seems a trifle strict. I have no desire that anyone should rot in hell. I merely wish that they should grace the world with their talents and virtues, and heaven thereafter.

    Best wishes, 2RM.

    What if they have no talents, and/or virtues?

    Yes, yes - I know. Only god(s) can decide, but empirical evidence...

    We all have talents and virtues. The issues are, do we choose to express them, and on what basis do we we choose to evaluate them? The idea here here is to distinguish between qualitative, as opposed to quantitative, evidence. Quantitative evidence is what we count or measure. Qualitative evidence, by contrast, is a matter of what we can appreciate. Whereas quantitative evidence is somewhat objective, qualitative evidence is inevitably subjective. Empiricism applies only to the objective realm, and not the subjective.

    Best wishes, 2RM.
  • I know nothing about Trump's $piritual guru, but when I briefly looked at PGospel when it was a subject of rucus at my then chari-baptist church, I became a bit conflicted.

    Mainly because most of the loud and clear condemners sort of lived that life. So you had the bizarre sight of someone delivering themselves of a jeremiads on all PGospellers, then driving back in his executive car, to his executive house (he was a bona fide executive) and cracking open bottle of fine wine, of which he was quite a connoisseur (note to self: avoid words you're not sure how to spell).

    As I understood it, the PGosp was saying that ethical behaviour in business and generosity in giving invites God's blessing, and I think this is a view shared by devout Muslims and Jews. Plus building a good standard of living for your family was A Good Thing, not to be ashamed of. I also understood it made room for exceptions in times of persecutions and just goold old sods law. PGospellers mostly had read the book of Job.

    I'm not saying I believe it, and I am currently reading a book by Bish Richard Harries about whether there is a gospel for the rich. And David Jenkings wrote an interesting book on how to adapt christian ethics to a modern society with social provision and sufficient stability that WITH EXCEPTIONS dilligence in business, and generosity will lead to a good life.

    Trump's advisor may well be a loony, but I don't see it as that simplistic.
  • I despise this kind of preaching. It is so obviously corrupt, and so obviously selfishly self-serving for those who preach it, that I wonder why anybody might be taken in by it.
    Hope. At least for those who are poor. And justification for those who are rich.
    The mechanisms by which people might invest their faith into this sort of interpretation are fairly rudimentary.
    However, God is not to be bribed, and justice will eventually be done. So I believe.
    Except God is to be bribed. Or at least placated, this is bog-standard Christian theology.* So adopting a different transactional model is not completely of the map. Whilst I do not think placation or transaction are a good reading of Jesus' words, neither are uncommon within the panoply of Christianity.

    *No, not every Christian nor every sect.
  • Anteater wrote: »
    As I understood it, the PGosp was saying that ethical behaviour in business and generosity in giving invites God's blessing, and I think this is a view shared by devout Muslims and Jews.

    A bit more than that. God wants you to be wealthy and "successful" and if you have faith in him, you will be. Ethics are great too, but let's not get bogged down in works-righteousness, okay?

    And if you stay poor you didn't believe/pray hard enough.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Trump himself will not be a mark for prosperity preachers...

    I wish! There would no more poetic justice than the bully Trump being persuaded, in the pursuit of heavenly reward, to give his billions to the alleviation of world poverty. However, God is not to be bribed, and justice will eventually be done. So I believe.

    Best wishes, 2RM.

    Anyone seriously think Trump has billions? His lies about his wealth go back decades, and that's at least 50% of the reason he doesn't want to disclose his tax returns.

    No - I think he is financially bankrupt.

    Morally, there is no question.

    Paula seems to fit perfectly into his presidency - corrupt, immoral, and without the slightest real connection with the Divine, while using the language of the church.

    They will rot in hell together.

    That seems a trifle strict. I have no desire that anyone should rot in hell. I merely wish that they should grace the world with their talents and virtues, and heaven thereafter.

    Best wishes, 2RM.

    What if they have no talents, and/or virtues?

    Yes, yes - I know. Only god(s) can decide, but empirical evidence...

    We all have talents and virtues. The issues are, do we choose to express them, and on what basis do we we choose to evaluate them? The idea here here is to distinguish between qualitative, as opposed to quantitative, evidence. Quantitative evidence is what we count or measure. Qualitative evidence, by contrast, is a matter of what we can appreciate. Whereas quantitative evidence is somewhat objective, qualitative evidence is inevitably subjective. Empiricism applies only to the objective realm, and not the subjective.

    Best wishes, 2RM.

    I did say, speculatively, 'what if...?', but thank you for enlightening me.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    I despise this kind of preaching. It is so obviously corrupt, and so obviously selfishly self-serving for those who preach it, that I wonder why anybody might be taken in by it.
    Hope. At least for those who are poor. And justification for those who are rich.
    The mechanisms by which people might invest their faith into this sort of interpretation are fairly rudimentary.

    I think that is quite right. The rich preying on the poor, and to add insult to injury, insisting that they are good and virtuous, and the poor bad and poor because of their vices.

    Best wishes, 2RM.

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Trump himself will not be a mark for prosperity preachers...

    I wish! There would no more poetic justice than the bully Trump being persuaded, in the pursuit of heavenly reward, to give his billions to the alleviation of world poverty. However, God is not to be bribed, and justice will eventually be done. So I believe.

    Best wishes, 2RM.

    Anyone seriously think Trump has billions? His lies about his wealth go back decades, and that's at least 50% of the reason he doesn't want to disclose his tax returns.

    No - I think he is financially bankrupt.

    Morally, there is no question.

    Paula seems to fit perfectly into his presidency - corrupt, immoral, and without the slightest real connection with the Divine, while using the language of the church.

    They will rot in hell together.

    That seems a trifle strict. I have no desire that anyone should rot in hell. I merely wish that they should grace the world with their talents and virtues, and heaven thereafter.

    Best wishes, 2RM.

    What if they have no talents, and/or virtues?

    Yes, yes - I know. Only god(s) can decide, but empirical evidence...

    We all have talents and virtues. The issues are, do we choose to express them, and on what basis do we we choose to evaluate them? The idea here here is to distinguish between qualitative, as opposed to quantitative, evidence. Quantitative evidence is what we count or measure. Qualitative evidence, by contrast, is a matter of what we can appreciate. Whereas quantitative evidence is somewhat objective, qualitative evidence is inevitably subjective. Empiricism applies only to the objective realm, and not the subjective.

    Best wishes, 2RM.

    I did say, speculatively, 'what if...?', but thank you for enlightening me.

    I did not mean to insult you, just state my position for analysis and discussion among the forum, so that I may learn from it. From what I can make out this forum and it's contributors are at least 10 IQ points ahead of me, and probably have university qualifications as well.

    Best wishes, 2RM.
  • Anteater wrote: »
    As I understood it, the PGosp was saying that ethical behaviour in business and generosity in giving invites God's blessing, and I think this is a view shared by devout Muslims and Jews.

    A bit more than that. God wants you to be wealthy and "successful" and if you have faith in him, you will be. Ethics are great too, but let's not get bogged down in works-righteousness, okay?

    And if you stay poor you didn't believe/pray hard enough.

    Or, which is the sucker punch of this travesty of my religion, give enough money to your pastor.

    Best wishes, 2RM.

  • Anteater wrote: »
    As I understood it, the PGosp was saying that ethical behaviour in business and generosity in giving invites God's blessing, and I think this is a view shared by devout Muslims and Jews.

    A bit more than that. God wants you to be wealthy and "successful" and if you have faith in him, you will be...

    Yes. God loves us all, and therefore wants everyone wealthy and successful. Which implies a somewhat more egalitarian distribution of wealth and 'success' than currently pertains to the world.

    Best wishes, 2RM.


  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Anteater wrote: »
    As I understood it, the PGosp was saying that ethical behaviour in business and generosity in giving invites God's blessing, and I think this is a view shared by devout Muslims and Jews.

    A bit more than that. God wants you to be wealthy and "successful" and if you have faith in him, you will be...

    Yes. God loves us all, and therefore wants everyone wealthy and successful. Which implies a somewhat more egalitarian distribution of wealth and 'success' than currently pertains to the world.

    Of course, it depends what is meant by wealthy and successful. But if everyone were very wealthy then the planet would be stripped of its resources very rapidly. Without even looking at global warming.

    We all (in the wealthy nations) need to learn to consume less, not more.

  • Boogie wrote: »
    Anteater wrote: »
    As I understood it, the PGosp was saying that ethical behaviour in business and generosity in giving invites God's blessing, and I think this is a view shared by devout Muslims and Jews.

    A bit more than that. God wants you to be wealthy and "successful" and if you have faith in him, you will be...

    Yes. God loves us all, and therefore wants everyone wealthy and successful. Which implies a somewhat more egalitarian distribution of wealth and 'success' than currently pertains to the world.

    Of course, it depends what is meant by wealthy and successful. But if everyone were very wealthy then the planet would be stripped of its resources very rapidly. Without even looking at global warming.

    We all (in the wealthy nations) need to learn to consume less, not more.

    That partly depends on how well we can close our resource-use cycles, surely? Consuming something isn't in itself a problem so long as the waste products can be re-used to produce more of that item. We're a long way from closing those loops right now, but that doesn't automatically have to be the case in the long term.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Anteater wrote: »
    As I understood it, the PGosp was saying that ethical behaviour in business and generosity in giving invites God's blessing, and I think this is a view shared by devout Muslims and Jews.

    A bit more than that. God wants you to be wealthy and "successful" and if you have faith in him, you will be...

    Yes. God loves us all, and therefore wants everyone wealthy and successful. Which implies a somewhat more egalitarian distribution of wealth and 'success' than currently pertains to the world.

    Of course, it depends what is meant by wealthy and successful. But if everyone were very wealthy then the planet would be stripped of its resources very rapidly. Without even looking at global warming.

    We all (in the wealthy nations) need to learn to consume less, not more.

    Exactly.

    Best wishes, 2RM.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Anteater wrote: »
    As I understood it, the PGosp was saying that ethical behaviour in business and generosity in giving invites God's blessing, and I think this is a view shared by devout Muslims and Jews.

    A bit more than that. God wants you to be wealthy and "successful" and if you have faith in him, you will be...

    Yes. God loves us all, and therefore wants everyone wealthy and successful. Which implies a somewhat more egalitarian distribution of wealth and 'success' than currently pertains to the world.

    Of course, it depends what is meant by wealthy and successful. But if everyone were very wealthy then the planet would be stripped of its resources very rapidly. Without even looking at global warming.

    We all (in the wealthy nations) need to learn to consume less, not more.

    Exactly.

    Best wishes, 2RM.

    I thought it might be useful, for the purposes of discussion, to lay out what an egalitarian distribution of global wealth might mean. I did some back-of-an-envelope calculations a couple of years ago, based on some numbers provided by Credit Suisse. It seems that if all the world's income, and all the world's wealth, were to be divided equally among us, we would each have a net worth of some $33,000 and an annual income of some $17,000.

    Multiply by 4 for the the assessment of the conventional nuclear family, comprised of mum, dad, and two children. I am inclined to the view that any excess of these numbers strips others of their entitlement to their just degree of wealth.

    Best wishes, 2RM.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Having sat seething through several P Gospel sermons and known several people who subscribe, in true P Gospel if you don’t have what you want it is your fault for not believing hard enough. There is no let off for poor people and people in developing countries only have themselves to blame for not believing hard enough. The ones with should not give to those who don’t have because then they will not believe for themselves.
    This is so against the teaching of Jesus it is untrue. There are variations such as you get you give, you get, but basically it is as the above.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Having sat seething through several P Gospel sermons ...

    I also think that there should be some scope, in sermons, to register one's disagreements. I have never 'sat seething', being more inclined simply to walk out, and never return, when the preaching takes this direction. But it would be nice to have some less drastic course of action available to me.

    Best wishes, 2RM.
  • I don't know. The Sunday before last I was sputtering in my seat in a church in Osaka (due not to prosperity gospel but Israelocentric dispensationalism) and very nearly interrupted, but it seemed a bit rude as a visitor.

    Mrs Eutychus tells me it was audible sputter, though. Perhaps that's why they hid the after-service coffee in a back room three floors up; we never did find it.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    I don't know. The Sunday before last I was sputtering in my seat in a church in Osaka (due not to prosperity gospel but Israelocentric dispensationalism) and very nearly interrupted, but it seemed a bit rude as a visitor.

    Mrs Eutychus tells me it was audible sputter, though. Perhaps that's why they hid the after-service coffee in a back room three floors up; we never did find it.

    Yes. Seems to me that when sermons were first established as part of the Christian service, the clergy were the moral experts. These days, I am not so sure that holds as an indisputable truth.

    Best wishes, 2RM
  • Yes. Seems to me that when sermons were first established as part of the Christian service, the clergy were the moral experts. These days, I am not so sure that holds as an indisputable truth.

    For more on this, you could always visit this thread.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Anteater wrote: »
    As I understood it, the PGosp was saying that ethical behaviour in business and generosity in giving invites God's blessing, and I think this is a view shared by devout Muslims and Jews.

    A bit more than that. God wants you to be wealthy and "successful" and if you have faith in him, you will be...

    Yes. God loves us all, and therefore wants everyone wealthy and successful. Which implies a somewhat more egalitarian distribution of wealth and 'success' than currently pertains to the world.

    Of course, it depends what is meant by wealthy and successful. But if everyone were very wealthy then the planet would be stripped of its resources very rapidly. Without even looking at global warming.

    We all (in the wealthy nations) need to learn to consume less, not more.

    That partly depends on how well we can close our resource-use cycles, surely? Consuming something isn't in itself a problem so long as the waste products can be re-used to produce more of that item. We're a long way from closing those loops right now, but that doesn't automatically have to be the case in the long term.
    Reduce, reuse, recycle is the proper order. Not using the resources because of what it takes to produce goods is the most important step. Reuse is second because it uses no further resource(other than transportation and maintenance) and recycle is last because it takes resources to recycle. Recycle by itself is not a solution.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Anteater wrote: »
    As I understood it, the PGosp was saying that ethical behaviour in business and generosity in giving invites God's blessing, and I think this is a view shared by devout Muslims and Jews.

    A bit more than that. God wants you to be wealthy and "successful" and if you have faith in him, you will be...

    Yes. God loves us all, and therefore wants everyone wealthy and successful. Which implies a somewhat more egalitarian distribution of wealth and 'success' than currently pertains to the world.

    Of course, it depends what is meant by wealthy and successful. But if everyone were very wealthy then the planet would be stripped of its resources very rapidly. Without even looking at global warming.

    We all (in the wealthy nations) need to learn to consume less, not more.

    That partly depends on how well we can close our resource-use cycles, surely? Consuming something isn't in itself a problem so long as the waste products can be re-used to produce more of that item. We're a long way from closing those loops right now, but that doesn't automatically have to be the case in the long term.
    Reduce, reuse, recycle is the proper order. Not using the resources because of what it takes to produce goods is the most important step. Reuse is second because it uses no further resource(other than transportation and maintenance) and recycle is last because it takes resources to recycle. Recycle by itself is not a solution.

    At the moment, sure. It's not a universal truism for the reasons I outlined.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Anteater wrote: »
    As I understood it, the PGosp was saying that ethical behaviour in business and generosity in giving invites God's blessing, and I think this is a view shared by devout Muslims and Jews.

    A bit more than that. God wants you to be wealthy and "successful" and if you have faith in him, you will be...

    Yes. God loves us all, and therefore wants everyone wealthy and successful. Which implies a somewhat more egalitarian distribution of wealth and 'success' than currently pertains to the world.

    Of course, it depends what is meant by wealthy and successful. But if everyone were very wealthy then the planet would be stripped of its resources very rapidly. Without even looking at global warming.

    We all (in the wealthy nations) need to learn to consume less, not more.

    That partly depends on how well we can close our resource-use cycles, surely? Consuming something isn't in itself a problem so long as the waste products can be re-used to produce more of that item. We're a long way from closing those loops right now, but that doesn't automatically have to be the case in the long term.
    Reduce, reuse, recycle is the proper order. Not using the resources because of what it takes to produce goods is the most important step. Reuse is second because it uses no further resource(other than transportation and maintenance) and recycle is last because it takes resources to recycle. Recycle by itself is not a solution.

    At the moment, sure. It's not a universal truism for the reasons I outlined.
    The loops cannot be closed, that idea goes against the laws of physics.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Anteater wrote: »
    As I understood it, the PGosp was saying that ethical behaviour in business and generosity in giving invites God's blessing, and I think this is a view shared by devout Muslims and Jews.

    A bit more than that. God wants you to be wealthy and "successful" and if you have faith in him, you will be...

    Yes. God loves us all, and therefore wants everyone wealthy and successful. Which implies a somewhat more egalitarian distribution of wealth and 'success' than currently pertains to the world.

    Of course, it depends what is meant by wealthy and successful. But if everyone were very wealthy then the planet would be stripped of its resources very rapidly. Without even looking at global warming.

    We all (in the wealthy nations) need to learn to consume less, not more.

    Exactly.

    Best wishes, 2RM.

    I thought it might be useful, for the purposes of discussion, to lay out what an egalitarian distribution of global wealth might mean. I did some back-of-an-envelope calculations a couple of years ago, based on some numbers provided by Credit Suisse. It seems that if all the world's income, and all the world's wealth, were to be divided equally among us, we would each have a net worth of some $33,000 and an annual income of some $17,000.

    Multiply by 4 for the the assessment of the conventional nuclear family, comprised of mum, dad, and two children. I am inclined to the view that any excess of these numbers strips others of their entitlement to their just degree of wealth.

    Best wishes, 2RM.

    Dang, that high? I begin to feel much better about my spot on the ladder!

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Reduce, reuse, recycle is the proper order.

    Depends on what substance is under discussion. Where I live, the mantra has long been "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, do without."

    In other words, don't acquire the new improved version of X until the current version's kaput. There's no good reason to use up all the petroleum, though, or the potable water. Reducing the use of drinking water poses challenges, especially as our population keeps expanding . . . and so it goes. Slogans, regardless of order, rarely work.
  • Your mantra is part of the reduce and reuse. I do not think it is that slogans do not work, but that life can be a bit more complex. A slogan is meant to encapsulate the idea more than be a complete blueprint.
    Regardless, reducing consumption is a bigger part of the answer than recycle, which was the point I was making to Arethosemyfeet.
Sign In or Register to comment.