the so fallible Bible

[Fidel_Castronaut]

It just doesn't make sense.

'Give to the poor' is a mantra that means very little if we're talking in purely fiscal terms, here.

It's about advancement, socially, economically, politically, even culturally. It's about teaching longevity in production, and ensuring we advance to a position of a decent standard of living for all and not just a few.

All you get if you give all your money and possessions to a poor person (relative to you) is two more poor people. Yourself, who has just given up everything, and the person you've given it to, who will be unlikely to either keep it or make it last.

It doesn't make sense. Saying 'just give to the poor' is a good statement only prima facie. Beneath the service it's just a feel good statement that actually causes more harm than good when the logistics of such an action are examined at minimal depth.

Sure, you need to have food and shelter for yourself, and you may need to keep a car and a certain level of clothing in order to earn the most and be able to reduce the most suffering.

This answer still does not address the point I raised.

How, exactly, does donating all you earn/have assist in alleviating the suffering of the poor without dealing with the contextual issues that encompass those issues? It seems like you've just placed an arbitrary level of what constitutes 'enough' to live on whilst assisting in combating 'suffering'. I see no working out. Please show your figures?

1 dimensional thinking regarding poverty and the gaps that exist between the haves and have nots will serve only to exacerbate the issue.

There are much more productive ways to combat poverty and the issues it creates than simply throwing money and possessions at it and those that it affects.