How Wealthy Are You? Are You Rich or Poor?
It’s easy to make hasty, incorrect generalizations about people if you lump them all together without considering their unique motivations, behaviors, and life circumstances.
Rich or Poor? Mindset,
This is our mindset which makes us rich or poor? What we want to become is our decision and our selection of way of life. If you desire to become rich, but your actions do not resemble them, it means you are poor. Your mindset planning and steps are all flawed. So bring change. A great quote will clear my point” if you want to eat an elephant make sure what parts you want to eat.”
You can observe that many people who have money but are poor look poor or never become rich. Also, many people who do not have enough money but will look rich or near in the future become wealthy. Why? This is the difference between mindset and attitude. What we like in actual behavior represents it.
Do you have any feelings for people living in poverty?
Most of the population has been conditioned to respond positively to that question.
Is it not something that makes you feel better?
So it’s only the wealthy, then?
Most people will answer “no” to that question without thinking about it.
Does that make you feel better too?
If you answered “yes” or “no” to either question, you have shown an astounding lack of consideration. The underlying bias or ignorance is exposed. The best answer to any question can be summed up in a single word: “Depends.”
If you indulge me, I’ll elaborate so that our responses are more considered and well-informed. What if we rephrased the question to ask whether we should help the unemployed poor with a history of making poor choices, such as by engaging in destructive behaviors or showing a lack of respect for others?
Let’s rephrase the second question to see if we can get an answer: Do you back the wealthy who got there by treating their customers fairly and ensuring their satisfaction?
After reading the new information, you might find that you no longer agree with your previous “yes” or “no” answers.
So, Tell Me, What Exactly Is the Difference?
The initial questions were too broad, inviting, hasty, illogical, and uninformed answers.
A position of “for” or “against” millions of people based solely on their wealth is both meaningless and inconsiderate.
The second set of questions served to make the previous ones more tangible.
To continue in this vein, suppose I were to ask, “Do you care about people If one is poor what do you think is no fault of their own?” Possibly, you’d say “Yes.”
And what if I were to ask, “Do you support the wealthy who acquire their wealth through dishonest means, such as fraud, theft, improper use of government resources, or other unfair means?” You’ll likely say “No.”
Suppose you despise the wealthy as a class. In that case, I challenge you to answer this question: If your parent or child became prosperous due to making good decisions, creating new wealth, and making others’ lives better, would you make an exception for them?
Imagine, instead, that one million of your most devoted fans forked over the cash to see you play live. The moral obligation to refund everyone could cause you to lose everything. As Socrates would say, “sometimes it takes just a few to get us thinking more clearly,” so please forgive my barrage of questions.
Just laying out some facts that we all have access to regularly is all I did. We risk making hasty and incorrect generalizations about people when we group them into categories without considering the unique circumstances surrounding each case.
People in Need Cannot be Lumped Together
Treated as a homogenous mass. Neither the affluent nor the middle class are represented. We’re a diverse group of seven with a wide range of individual traits.
This is essentially what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Basically, he was saying that we should base our opinions of people on who they are as a person, not just the color of their skin. A person’s character is quite a matter of vital importance. Not all poor people are indeed wrong. In addition, the affluent.
We call that bigotry when someone makes sweeping, negative assumptions about an entire group based on their race, religion, or country. I take it, then, that you’re biased based on your financial status. If you apply the same broad-brush absurdity to “the rich” as you do to “the poor,” then yes, you are.
Ideologists Who Invent “Facts”
To back up their argument often claim that the wealthy maintain their high standard of living by keeping the poor in abject poverty. If you want to call it thinking, that’s lazy because real-life experience proves otherwise.
You know that part in the Bible where Jesus talks about how the poor are blessed? Some Christians really take that to heart. .” Marxist-leaning liberation theologians use this to justify a “preferential option for the poor” and even mandatory welfare state programs.
This verse in Matthew (Matthew 5:3) is often misquoted and misunderstood.
Change “blessed” to “poor in spirit.” What Jesus meant by “wealth” was not material things but rather a mentality. As opposed to coming across as superior, condescending, hubristic, or conceited, this attitude is humble and appreciative.
According to Luke 6:20, Jesus Declares the Poor to be Blessed.
From the surrounding verses, we can infer that Jesus was not addressing the masses but his inner circle of disciples. The phrase “Blessed are the poor among my disciples” was a figure of speech. If money is tight for you, at least know that God has blessed you abundantly in other ways.
It is appropriate to call Peruvian philosopher Gustavo Gutierrez the “Father of Liberation Theology.” The religious and economic ideas in his 1971 book, A Theology of Liberation, are well-intentioned but poorly implemented. But even he cautioned against canonizing a whole group of people as saints based on a perverted interpretation of “Blessed are the poor.”
Questions About Liberation Theology,
(Check out Michael Novak’s classic, Will It Liberate: Questions About Liberation Theology, for a thoughtful critique of Gutierrez and his philosophy. Most of us practice “preferential option for the poor” in the form of charitable work. Our food, money, and clothing donations go neither to Jeff Bezos nor the United States government. That is entirely reasonable and consistent with Jesus’ teachings.
On the other hand, he did not support government-mandated welfare programs and instead advocated for charitable giving by individuals. In his well-known allegory, “The Good Samaritan,” Jesus portrayed a man who helped a needy person without appealing to the government for assistance, but rather out of his own free will and resources.
“Preferential Option For the Poor
Despite what some may think, Jesus’ apparent sympathy for the “preferential option for the poor” does not constitute approval of dishonest or impoverishing conduct. No instances of “robbing Peter to pay Paul” were ever necessary. His Parable of the Talents was highly favorable toward amassing wealth.
He argued for the importance of the private property. He never called for any kind of redistributing to be done by the government. Still, he did warn against putting material possessions ahead of intangibles like moral fiber.
A person’s race, gender, or socioeconomic status were not criteria that Jesus used to judge them. A person’s chances of entering Heaven have nothing to do with their race or socioeconomic status. Not answering “for the poor” or “for the rich” when asked where you stand politically could be a fatal mistake.
We live in a complex world.
All individuals possess unique qualities.
for more details click here,