Hi,

Another important point was the attention of the liberation theologians, who stand by the poor and the marginalized, and support every weak person who can not defend himself. But before discussing this point we must first answer a very important question: Who are the poor? The Bible includes a set of words describing poverty, derived from six major Hebrew roots that are more than 200 times, and John Stott has classified it into a tripartite division. [28]

First, from the economic point of view, there are the destitute poor who are deprived of the basic necessities of life.

Second: From a social point of view, there are the oppressed, the oppressed, the victims of human injustice.

Thirdly: From the spiritual point of view, there are the humble, the humble, who acknowledge their helplessness and look to God alone, seeking salvation.

The image of God is presented to us in every case that comes to them and to their cause, a commitment of its nature, "He lives the poor from the dust. He brings the poor from the dustbin to sit with the honorable "(1 Samuel 2: 8). But by looking at the principles of liberation theology above, his attention was focused on the poor, the first and second categories (the destitute and the oppressed), and no mention of the third category. This was due to the difficult economic and social conditions of Latin American society in particular and the marginalized In the world in general ... So the question arises here: Does the Bible speak about the category of the destitute and the oppressed ?? And what is the role of believers from them ??

Under the law, the people of God were commanded not to cut their hearts or to hold their hands from giving their poor brother or poor sister, but to spend generously on those who were unable to support themselves by taking them to their homes and feeding them free of charge. : 7, 14: 29; not 25: 35, 26: 12) [29]. And the farmers, when they were harvested, should not reap the corners of their fields, nor return to pick up fallen or forgotten beams, for the corners of the field, and the droppings, and the fallen fruit should be left to the poor, the stranger, the widow and the orphan (Exodus 23:10; 19:13; Deuteronomy 24:14). The law of Moses emphasized justice that is far from favoritism in the courts, especially for the poor and helpless. Wisdom is as clear as the books of the law in its demand for justice for the weak. Psalm 82 orders the judges: "Judge the poor and the orphan. Do justice to the poor and the miserable "(Psalm 82: 3), and in (31: 9)" Open your mouth. Judge justice and protect the poor and the needy "[31].

In the New Testament, we see that Jesus himself followed this tradition of caring for the poor and applied it in practice. He made friends with those in need and fed the hungry. He ordered his disciples to sell their possessions and offer charity to the poor, and if they made a feast they should call the poor, paralyzed, In a position that allows them to call them in return, as his disciples promised that when they feed the hungry and drink nudity, welcome homeless people and visit the sick, they offer all these services to Him (Luke 12: 33,14,12). Jesus gave up the riches of heaven (2: 7) and was born in a poor house. When Joseph and Mary came to the temple, they sacrificed a pair of yamam, the offering of the poor in the Law (Luke 2:24). In his public service as a traveling messenger, Jesus did not have a home. He once said, "Foxes have an ocher and birds of the sky have idols; but the Son of man has no place to rest his head" (Matthew 8:20).

But this does not mean that Christianity is an invitation to poverty, and that all Christians must be poor and destitute. For example, in the New Testament Joseph, who is from Ramah, who mentions when he was rich and was a disciple of Jesus (Matthew 27: 57) After Jesus' death, and buried him in his own tomb. The balanced view of the Bible teaches that he warns the rich of love of money because they are the root of all evils (1 Timothy 6:10), noting that Paul used the term "love of money" rather than "money" itself; money itself is not evil, but love at the expense of love Others are the ones who create evils. Thus, we find the book of the Acts of the Apostles, which tells us about the relations between the faithful in the First Church, especially as he describes the physical dealings he explains to us, saying, "No one said that there was anything of his own money; they had everything in common" (Acts 4:32) "There was no one in need of them, for all those who owned fields or houses were selling them, and they came at the price of sales, and put them at the feet of the Apostles, was distributed to each one as it has Yag "(Acts 4: 34-35).

The balanced view of the relationship between the poor and the rich in the Bible shows us that the origin of the Lord's call to serve the poor, the needy, and the Aryan is the testimony and proclamation of the person of Christ to these people, but at a practical level; Christ is given to people by the act of love, for love is able to transfer Christ from heart to heart. [34] The giving in Christianity is not based on moral motives or on social motives. This is a misguidance. Giving and serving the poor in Christianity is an act of faith in Christ, and they are explained only in the limits of the divine. The Church serves Christ in the people of these people, the idols and the homeless.

Christianity, in essence, believes that man, whether rich or poor, is in need of the salvation of Christ; for all human beings are sinners before God: "Everyone has sinned and lack the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). And Christ

Yes, poverty is not just injustice but it may be infidelity

Islam spoke about it a lot

Greetings

Yes, I totally agree with Gutierrez, but what about poor parents (or poor people) who bring lots of kids to this world to live in poverty. If a man/women can’t afford to pay for his/her own expenses, how can they support their kids and raise them!? There should be a childbearing policy, especially in poor countries.

I am not saying that poor people are bad, there are great human beings came from extreme poverty and many monsters came from wealthy families.

Yes, because poverty is a difficult problem for all people

Philadelphia, PA

Dear MacGregor,

I'd say that poverty is sometimes a matter of imposition and injustice; and sometimes it is just bad luck or a matter of a poor sense of self development or of contrary personal disposition. Sometimes poverty is even chosen as a way of life --and on religious grounds.

When poverty is a matter of injustice, then it will be ordinarily possible to identity the groups effected and the ways in which the effect is produced. Individual cases, however, may still retain their opacity.

Dealing effectively with problems of poverty generally requires that people accept basic responsibility for their own economic conditions, though, of course, that is not the end of the story. Without self-restraint, there is no virtue.

H.G.Callaway

Hi,

Poverty is a diificult problem. But some peoples find social or theological solutions.

Best regards!

Hi,

Another important point was the attention of the liberation theologians, who stand by the poor and the marginalized, and support every weak person who can not defend himself. But before discussing this point we must first answer a very important question: Who are the poor? The Bible includes a set of words describing poverty, derived from six major Hebrew roots that are more than 200 times, and John Stott has classified it into a tripartite division. [28]

First, from the economic point of view, there are the destitute poor who are deprived of the basic necessities of life.

Second: From a social point of view, there are the oppressed, the oppressed, the victims of human injustice.

Thirdly: From the spiritual point of view, there are the humble, the humble, who acknowledge their helplessness and look to God alone, seeking salvation.

The image of God is presented to us in every case that comes to them and to their cause, a commitment of its nature, "He lives the poor from the dust. He brings the poor from the dustbin to sit with the honorable "(1 Samuel 2: 8). But by looking at the principles of liberation theology above, his attention was focused on the poor, the first and second categories (the destitute and the oppressed), and no mention of the third category. This was due to the difficult economic and social conditions of Latin American society in particular and the marginalized In the world in general ... So the question arises here: Does the Bible speak about the category of the destitute and the oppressed ?? And what is the role of believers from them ??

Under the law, the people of God were commanded not to cut their hearts or to hold their hands from giving their poor brother or poor sister, but to spend generously on those who were unable to support themselves by taking them to their homes and feeding them free of charge. : 7, 14: 29; not 25: 35, 26: 12) [29]. And the farmers, when they were harvested, should not reap the corners of their fields, nor return to pick up fallen or forgotten beams, for the corners of the field, and the droppings, and the fallen fruit should be left to the poor, the stranger, the widow and the orphan (Exodus 23:10; 19:13; Deuteronomy 24:14). The law of Moses emphasized justice that is far from favoritism in the courts, especially for the poor and helpless. Wisdom is as clear as the books of the law in its demand for justice for the weak. Psalm 82 orders the judges: "Judge the poor and the orphan. Do justice to the poor and the miserable "(Psalm 82: 3), and in (31: 9)" Open your mouth. Judge justice and protect the poor and the needy "[31].

In the New Testament, we see that Jesus himself followed this tradition of caring for the poor and applied it in practice. He made friends with those in need and fed the hungry. He ordered his disciples to sell their possessions and offer charity to the poor, and if they made a feast they should call the poor, paralyzed, In a position that allows them to call them in return, as his disciples promised that when they feed the hungry and drink nudity, welcome homeless people and visit the sick, they offer all these services to Him (Luke 12: 33,14,12). Jesus gave up the riches of heaven (2: 7) and was born in a poor house. When Joseph and Mary came to the temple, they sacrificed a pair of yamam, the offering of the poor in the Law (Luke 2:24). In his public service as a traveling messenger, Jesus did not have a home. He once said, "Foxes have an ocher and birds of the sky have idols; but the Son of man has no place to rest his head" (Matthew 8:20).

But this does not mean that Christianity is an invitation to poverty, and that all Christians must be poor and destitute. For example, in the New Testament Joseph, who is from Ramah, who mentions when he was rich and was a disciple of Jesus (Matthew 27: 57) After Jesus' death, and buried him in his own tomb. The balanced view of the Bible teaches that he warns the rich of love of money because they are the root of all evils (1 Timothy 6:10), noting that Paul used the term "love of money" rather than "money" itself; money itself is not evil, but love at the expense of love Others are the ones who create evils. Thus, we find the book of the Acts of the Apostles, which tells us about the relations between the faithful in the First Church, especially as he describes the physical dealings he explains to us, saying, "No one said that there was anything of his own money; they had everything in common" (Acts 4:32) "There was no one in need of them, for all those who owned fields or houses were selling them, and they came at the price of sales, and put them at the feet of the Apostles, was distributed to each one as it has Yag "(Acts 4: 34-35).

The balanced view of the relationship between the poor and the rich in the Bible shows us that the origin of the Lord's call to serve the poor, the needy, and the Aryan is the testimony and proclamation of the person of Christ to these people, but at a practical level; Christ is given to people by the act of love, for love is able to transfer Christ from heart to heart. [34] The giving in Christianity is not based on moral motives or on social motives. This is a misguidance. Giving and serving the poor in Christianity is an act of faith in Christ, and they are explained only in the limits of the divine. The Church serves Christ in the people of these people, the idols and the homeless.

Christianity, in essence, believes that man, whether rich or poor, is in need of the salvation of Christ; for all human beings are sinners before God: "Everyone has sinned and lack the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). And Christ

Partly agree with him. Sometimes, social structures and cultural categories can fan the fire of poverty. However, I strongly believe that with hard work and determination, one can disentangle himself/herself from the strings of poverty. I am a classic example!

In this case it may be helpful to consider the context. Gutierrez wrote out of a specific social context, namely 1960's Latin America. I had the opportunity to live in Bolivia in the late 1960's. Although I was a young adolescent I was struck by the presence of many economic and social injustices that were clearly a result of social structures (e.g., colonialism, international business). So, I understand how Gutierrez came to state the proposition we are discussing. That being said, there is another question that his comment merits considering. Namely, "What is the relationship between prophetically confronting systemic inequality and the mission of the Gospel?"

This is true if the system does not try to adjust and remediate the injustices.. This seems to be the common case in today's world major dominant systems.

I am sorry !!!! Poverty and justices are not related ...

Nobody took my money to be rich , all of them have to work for quality of life .

Now, better education is a matter of social structure . e.g In Canada , education till 12th grade is free (so in Europe) that is an equalizer . Now , what someone does with education if left to them say harass others or lie or abuse the privilege given to them !!!

I do not know what books say , but I do know society has many aspects of growth and religion is not one of them ...

All levels in society are there through particular forces, sometimes not easily manipulated or understood. Although helping homeless and poor is a necessity, economic situations are not morally bound. Religion, which tends towards conservative concepts, has, in its radical manifestations-Quakers, nonconformists in Britain-established methods of dealing with poverty but by and large (Church of England, Islam in many areas of the world) sanctified excessive wealth.

The patrimonial, physical and spiritual poverty; it is an injustice that is often psychological, economic and social:

• The social and family context influence the psychological, economic and social development of an individual.
• They often identify in them, in their families and in their socioeconomic level, the so-called "Social and Psychological Traps of Poverty", which are obstacles for people to be considered human beings, and that they consider themselves to be people and not things. Also, that they have the means and facilities to develop in all the senses.

La pobreza patrimonial, física y espiritual; es una injusticia frecuentemente de índole psicológica, económica y social:

• El contexto social y seno familiar influyen en el desarrollo psicológico, económico y social de un individuo.
• Con frecuencia se identifica en ellos, en su familia y en su nivel socioeconómico, las llamadas "Trampas Sociales y Psicológicas de Pobreza", que son obstáculos para que las personas sean consideradas seres humanos, y que ellos mismos, se consideren personas y no cosas. Además, que tengan los medios y facilidades para desarrollarse en todos los sentidos.

I almost agree with Gutierrez. The extreme difference between the rich and the poor is the result of social structures or the economic system.

The nature of poverty has worried (give or take) urban societies from the establishment of the initial large urban centres, expressed as debtors in ancient Mesopotamia and therefore reconstituted through social justice once a new king assumed the throne, or as a matter of social balance seen through The Eloquent Peasant where injustice is viewed through the inadequacies of individual authority and agency. Poverty did not occur in the manner of today, extremes were not common, except as understood through different ways of life-such as nomadism.

The nature of money itself, attached to properties outside of community, has created the considerable differences we now experience. That difference is then expressed through personality and class tropes in order to cover-up the contingent aspects of wealth.

Dear All,

I propose to read a bit on Gutierrez ideas

https://liberationtheology.org/people-organizations/gustavo-gutierrez/

and then to think how poor people have a share in their own exploitation. Without revolting against their despots they remain always poor and without rights. It is easy to lament and complain.

Sometimes poverty is an injustice due to wrong priorities by some governments, but it is not always. Some of our saints in the Catholic Church took vows of poverty as part of their religious life.

Many thanks,

Debra

poverty is an injustice...the result of social structures...and cultural categories....sometimes, not always....born as a poor to poor parents is not our mistake....but if we die as a poor, then we are responsible for that....we should not blame the social structures and cultural categories for that....it is you and you alone is responsible for what you have, what you are and what you want to be....

Regards, Selvam...

HG Callaway stole my thunder, so to speak. Much as it might seem callous or impolitic, some people deliberately choose a path that won't lead to great monetary rewards.

Leaving aside those egregious examples of absurdity, society generally compensates individuals in accordance with their contributions to that society. Also, in accordance with how difficult it is to fill the needed roles. There are many people who prefer to follow their passion, and less worried about compensation.

So I guess, "poverty" is not always an injustice. It may also be a personal choice.

That depends on our perspectives in conceptualising poverty. Beyond the moralist discourse poverty is the other extreme of the distribution of power/capital,human and material. It rests one of the dynamics of social development across societies and ages.

Dear Albert Manfredi,

If poverty is personal choice, it is a consequence of ignorance, cowardice and laziness.

I am afraid the real aim of human life cannot be the great monetary reward. About 30 years ago, I had an opportunity (even one has very often opportunity) for choosing the great monetary reward as working for a big chemical company. My choice was the freedom and honesty.

Very valuble question.

Dear doctors,

I have a commendable work witch is important in the context of Organic Chemistry, Applied Chemistry, Medicinal Chemistry, Agricultural Chemistry, and Artificial Intelligence.(AI).

If you need this paper, you can contact me by a message.

Regards