the so fallible Bible

[John V]

you clearly didn't read what I have written. Where did I post that not giving to the poor is/should be a default? Also, define 'poor'. 'wealth', as I'm sure you'll agree, is relative. Also, define 'giving'. Money? Time? All? something else? Knowledge? What?

Sure - money and time that is currently devoted to personal pleasure.

Again, I ask you, did you read/understand anything about the comment I made indicating that context is just as, if not more, important than the individual case study?

Don't assume that disagreement is misunderstanding.

It is illogical to look at the little picture and paint with a broad brush. "Give a man a fish" and all that.

You can't teach him to fish if he starves to death before the lessons.

show your working out. I see no tangible numbers on this,

Figured anyone could work it out, but since you can't, here's an example.

Scenario 1: Man sells his clothes and car for $20,000 and gives it to the poor. Since he can't get to his job as a banker, he loses his income and becomes homeless.

Scenario 2: Man keeps his clothes, car, and job. After expenses, man is able to give $40,000 to the poor from his salary each year.

Is 'giving' money to the poor the best way to combat and alleviate poverty, in your mind?

For most individuals, yes, that's probably the best thing. but even if it isn't the best, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, unless you're setting up a dichotomy, which you claim isn't your intent.

I'm curious because I take issue with the notion of throwing money at an issue in hope of eliminating it. Naturally, money helps, but in tandem with other methodologies which have proven, in many cases, to be increase the effectiveness of other strategies undertaken in tandem.

OK, if money helps, than those who think it's evil to allow suffering are evil if they don't give money that they otherwise just use for pleasure.

Let me stop you here. For one, you know absolutely nothing about any of the posters' on this forum and their contributions to alleviating poverty and helping their fellow man.

Sure I do. Plenty of members post about spending money on booze and pot. I know that, if they really cared about suffering, they could give that money to suffering people.

I can say, almost for certain, that I have contributed through academic research more to the cause of poorer neighborhoods in inner-city communities throughout England and Wales than you have through my doctoral research. And yet, I'm not pointing the finger at others (you) accusing them of wanting to live a life of decadence at the expense of others.

Wow, research - good for you!

Nonsense. Where, exactly, is the false dichotomy? Did I ever say there was method x and method y and you can only chose one?

Cite your sources, using page number, threat title, post number, and the exact words.

I look forward to reading where I have said this.

If you're agreeing with me that people giving money to the poor would be helpful, then we're on the same page. However, I don't really understand why you're going on about context and best methods in that case.

It becomes painfully clear, John, that you are talking about a subject to which you have little real world experience beyond the tunnel vision your biblical beliefs have imparted. That you seem unaware of any other methodologies to assisting the fostering of equality in societies (people and societies are variable, but poverty is the same) I think paints a picture that your words can never gloss over.

See? If you're not making a dichotomy here, what's your point? Sure, maybe there's plenty of other things that can be done in addition to direct charity. So what? Shouldn't people still give, if they think that it's evil to allow suffering? You seem to be making implications while trying to leave some wiggle room. Give a straight answer - if someone says it's evil to allow suffering, yet spends money on recreational drugs while others are starving, is that person a hypocrite?