Money Or God: Pick!

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by JJM

(please read the whole thing before responding.)You continue to not understand the meaning of mammon. All riches are not mammon. Only those riches that make you worse of a person are mammon, because the definition is "material wealth or possessions especially as having a debasing influence." You refuse to except the second part of the definition. We are speaking of apples and you are describing fruit.

Now that I have read "the whole thing" you seem hung up on one part of the definition of mammon. The definition you give is not the dictionary definition. Mammon is wealth or possessions. It can be used as "especially having a debasing influence."

But this is not how Jesus used the word. He didn't say God or wealth that has a debasing influence. He said God or mammon. Now all mammon is not equal as you yourself have been arguing. You would have us believe that a certain amount of mammon is okay as long as it doesn't have a "debasing influence."

This is why I asked you (in many different ways) how much is too much? But you hesitate to answer, with good reason I suspect. There is no way of knowing.

Had Jesus said God or so much wealth that it debases you, you would have a fine argument. Too bad Jesus didn't say that!

Mammon does not ONLY mean what you want it to mean. It means what it means. Blame Webster or someone else but it is not my fault.

Mammon is mammon. A little mammon is mammon. Much mammon is mammon.

You have read the meaning the way you want it to read. Try reading it the way it simply appears. "ESPECIALLY" does not mean ONLY.

On another note if you really believe that Jesus was saying that it is possible for a rich man to get into heaven then all you have to do is show me how you can make a camel go through the eye of a needle and I will believe you. Until you can show me that, I will take Jesus at his word, his plain meaning word.

Face it, you are a Christian apologist who will never accept that there is a single contradiction, mistake or flaw in "God's Word." I don't have a problem with that. The one who has to reconcile unreality bears the burden.

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

[brucegdc]

Gentlemen/Ladies: At points in this thread, it is starting to ooze into personal attacks and a level of dialog beneath the standards of the forum. Please try to keep the posting guidelines in mind and respect each other and each others views.

... Thanks

... Bruce

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by brucegdc

Gentlemen/Ladies: At points in this thread, it is starting to ooze into personal attacks and a level of dialog beneath the standards of the forum. Please try to keep the posting guidelines in mind and respect each other and each others views.

... Thanks

... Bruce

Greetings Bruce,

Since your post comes directly after my last one I think it fair to assume that you are referring to me?

If I am "starting" to ooze into a "personal attack" please be kind enough to demonstrate what the attack consists of. Starting is not the same as executing so are you launching a "pre-emptive" attack here?

As I understand debate and commentary, we are allowed to express our views in any non-offensive manner in which we wish. So unless "apologist" is being construed as something offensive I would ask that you refer me to a specific posting guideline of which I might be unaware. If there is some code of conduct that you believe I breached, please be specific. The last thing we need in this time of growing censorship and fear of expressing our right to free speech is more chilling of our rights to simply express our views openly and without fear of Big Brother's red pen.


The owners of this web site are free to restrict left-handed red heads if they want. But if an open debate is the desired end, one must be willing to encounter "attacks" on faulty logic. This kind of "attack" should not be construed as being an "attack" on the person. That is an "ad hominum" attack and one in which I never engage.

But if it quacks like an apologist it must ...

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Pilgram

Now that I have read "the whole thing" you seem hung up on one part of the definition of mammon. The definition you give is not the dictionary definition. Mammon is wealth or possessions. It can be used as "especially having a debasing influence."

But this is not how Jesus used the word. He didn't say God or wealth that has a debasing influence. He said God or mammon. Now all mammon is not equal as you yourself have been arguing. You would have us believe that a certain amount of mammon is okay as long as it doesn't have a "debasing influence."

This is why I asked you (in many different ways) how much is too much? But you hesitate to answer, with good reason I suspect. There is no way of knowing.

Had Jesus said God or so much wealth that it debases you, you would have a fine argument. Too bad Jesus didn't say that!

Mammon does not ONLY mean what you want it to mean. It means what it means. Blame Webster or someone else but it is not my fault.

Mammon is mammon. A little mammon is mammon. Much mammon is mammon.

You have read the meaning the way you want it to read. Try reading it the way it simply appears. "ESPECIALLY" does not mean ONLY.

On another note if you really believe that Jesus was saying that it is possible for a rich man to get into heaven then all you have to do is show me how you can make a camel go through the eye of a needle and I will believe you. Until you can show me that, I will take Jesus at his word, his plain meaning word.

Face it, you are a Christian apologist who will never accept that there is a single contradiction, mistake or flaw in "God's Word." I don't have a problem with that. The one who has to reconcile unreality bears the burden.

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

I'm using the definition of mammon on Webster’s online dictionary. That is www.m-w.com If you could tell me where you get your definition I could compare the two but I've have come to except that Webster’s dictionaries usually have the most correct definitions. And yes it does use "especially" and yes you could argue that because of this all riches are mammon. Maybe I'm reading it the way I want to but I'm not arguing that all mammon isn't the same as you put it. I'm arguing that not all wealth is mammon. As for me not answering how much is too much I believe I have in many ways said this but if it has not been clear I'm sorry. Too much wealth is when it becomes too distracting, more important than God, or when those around you are suffering and you are lavishing your self. In my opinion those things are what have a debasing influence on a person. And who says Jesus wasn't using the debasing Part in this meaning. It is shown in the other passages you point out.


As for the camel thing. I alone cannot do this but if you continue reading the passage it says in line 26 "... For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible" Now while it says it is impossible for humans I think that means for humans alone because in Philippians 4:13 it says "I have strength for everything through him who empowers me." Him being God. So you can conclude that because God can pass a camel through the eye of a needle and Humans can do anything with Gods help them a human could if God helped them.



I never said that the bible didn't have flaws in fact I point one out in my last post. I just am trying to state that there is no evidence in the bible to support your argument. While of course the word of God isn't flawed the bible isn't the word of God it is the word of God written down at least 40 years after it was heard. Also you say my logic is flawed but the only flawed logic you seem to point out or responded to is my mammon definition. If you see other flaws please point them ou tto me I'd like to see the error in my thoughts. However we do need to realize that the majority of this argument is over the meaning of the word mammon. If it means what you say it does then I'd agree with you but I don't think it does until we agree on this meaning then we can never finish this conversation.

__________________________________________________ ______________
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by JJM

I'm using the definition of mammon on Webster’s online dictionary. That is www.m-w.com If you could tell me where you get your definition I could compare the two but I've have come to except that Webster’s dictionaries usually have the most correct definitions. And yes it does use "especially" and yes you could argue that because of this all riches are mammon. Maybe I'm reading it the way I want to but I'm not arguing that all mammon isn't the same as you put it. I'm arguing that not all wealth is mammon. As for me not answering how much is too much I believe I have in many ways said this but if it has not been clear I'm sorry. Too much wealth is when it becomes too distracting, more important than God, or when those around you are suffering and you are lavishing your self. In my opinion those things are what have a debasing influence on a person. And who says Jesus wasn't using the debasing Part in this meaning. It is shown in the other passages you point out.


As for the camel thing. I alone cannot do this but if you continue reading the passage it says in line 26 "... For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible" Now while it says it is impossible for humans I think that means for humans alone because in Philippians 4:13 it says "I have strength for everything through him who empowers me." Him being God. So you can conclude that because God can pass a camel through the eye of a needle and Humans can do anything with Gods help them a human could if God helped them.



I never said that the bible didn't have flaws in fact I point one out in my last post. I just am trying to state that there is no evidence in the bible to support your argument. While of course the word of God isn't flawed the bible isn't the word of God it is the word of God written down at least 40 years after it was heard. Also you say my logic is flawed but the only flawed logic you seem to point out or responded to is my mammon definition. If you see other flaws please point them ou tto me I'd like to see the error in my thoughts. However we do need to realize that the majority of this argument is over the meaning of the word mammon. If it means what you say it does then I'd agree with you but I don't think it does until we agree on this meaning then we can never finish this conversation.

__________________________________________________ ______________
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates

Greetings JJM,

I really didn't want it to come to this but you seem to be a person who can handle it. So here it is.

You don't have a very good grasp of words. I am not trying to hurt your feelings or "attack" you. (I say this because we are being watched by "others").

You simply don't have a good grasp of words and I am prepared to demonstrate. If you take this in the spirit in which it is intended perhaps we will both benefit. I can see us becoming friends. I like your steadfastness, I really do. There is something to be said for that. Now the bad part.

You say: "I've have come to except that Webster’s dictionaries usually..." Do you see that you are not merely misspelling (something I do quite regularly) but rather you use words that are inappropriate. "Except" does not equal "accept."

This indicates a level of understanding that is inferior to that necessary for arguing (logical debate, not fighting) in a cogent manner. Again, I do not say this in anger or to cause you any discomfort. I believe you have many good qualities. But I just can't expend anymore time and energy trying to argue (good argue) with you.

God bless you and have a happy life.

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Pilgram

Greetings JJM,

I really didn't want it to come to this but you seem to be a person who can handle it. So here it is.

You don't have a very good grasp of words. I am not trying to hurt your feelings or "attack" you. (I say this because we are being watched by "others").

You simply don't have a good grasp of words and I am prepared to demonstrate. If you take this in the spirit in which it is intended perhaps we will both benefit. I can see us becoming friends. I like your steadfastness, I really do. There is something to be said for that. Now the bad part.

You say: "I've have come to except that Webster’s dictionaries usually..." Do you see that you are not merely misspelling (something I do quite regularly) but rather you use words that are inappropriate. "Except" does not equal "accept."

This indicates a level of understanding that is inferior to that necessary for arguing (logical debate, not fighting) in a cogent manner. Again, I do not say this in anger or to cause you any discomfort. I believe you have many good qualities. But I just can't expend anymore time and energy trying to argue (good argue) with you.

God bless you and have a happy life.

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

Thank you for pointing this out to me. I'd like to say that it is not my grasp on words but rather my spelling. Even though you wish to think other wise. I can't spell to save my life for that reason I run most things through a spell check before I post them. I usually reread them as well but in this thread my posts have been Getting so long that reading them after I write them is becoming tedious. It is most likely that I spelt it as eccept or something along those lines, and simply hit change on my spell check. You may feel that my spelling ability makes my intelligence sub par. That is fine with me but You may still want to take my arguments into account. Trust me I know the difference between the meaning of except and accept. I realize that you didn't mean this as an insult but I'm taking it as a way of avoiding answering my post. Maybe your doing in on a subconscious level and by saying this to me you can convince yourself I'm a moron and you can simply disregard any statement I make. So go ahead and do that if it makes you feel as if you won. In the future I will attempt to go over my post word for word.

[brucegdc]

Originally Posted by Pilgram

Greetings Bruce,

Since your post comes directly after my last one I think it fair to assume that you are referring to me?

If I am "starting" to ooze into a "personal attack" please be kind enough to demonstrate what the attack consists of. Starting is not the same as executing so are you launching a "pre-emptive" attack here?

While the post directly followed yours, it is addressed to all participants in this thread. I refer *all* of you to the code of conduct at the top of the forum:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/...read.php?t=225

Specifically (since Brian wrote it so well):

We firstly strongly recommend you couch your objections respectfully. Direct attacks on other members, their beliefs, and their faith systems (denominations, religions, etc.) are not acceptable.

This discussion has slipped into personal mode fairly often - which is why I posted that - some of the posts have come close to the line in my opinion into slipping into attacks rather than questions - the tone has gotten somewhat strident, hence my gentle reminder of the rules to everyone.

... Bruce

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by brucegdc

While the post directly followed yours, it is addressed to all participants in this thread. I refer *all* of you to the code of conduct at the top of the forum:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/...read.php?t=225

Specifically (since Brian wrote it so well):



This discussion has slipped into personal mode fairly often - which is why I posted that - some of the posts have come close to the line in my opinion into slipping into attacks rather than questions - the tone has gotten somewhat strident, hence my gentle reminder of the rules to everyone.

... Bruce

Greetings Bruce,

I find your response non-responsive and vague. If you really care about helping to keep everyone "within the rules" it helps to be specific. "Coming close to the line" tells us nothing. It's like a parent waving a finger.

And coming close to the line means that one didn't violate anything, so?

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by JJM

Thank you for pointing this out to me. I'd like to say that it is not my grasp on words but rather my spelling. Even though you wish to think other wise. I can't spell to save my life for that reason I run most things through a spell check before I post them. I usually reread them as well but in this thread my posts have been Getting so long that reading them after I write them is becoming tedious. It is most likely that I spelt it as eccept or something along those lines, and simply hit change on my spell check. You may feel that my spelling ability makes my intelligence sub par. That is fine with me but You may still want to take my arguments into account. Trust me I know the difference between the meaning of except and accept. I realize that you didn't mean this as an insult but I'm taking it as a way of avoiding answering my post. Maybe your doing in on a subconscious level and by saying this to me you can convince yourself I'm a moron and you can simply disregard any statement I make. So go ahead and do that if it makes you feel as if you won. In the future I will attempt to go over my post word for word.

Greetings JJM,

I'm not avoiding answering your post. I just don't know if it can do any good. Maybe if you told me a little about your motivation for apparently apologizing for Christianity. It just seems to me that you have made your mind up that Jesus (who I don't even believe is a historical person) didn't really want people to do in 2004 what he asked them to do when he supposedly walked the earth.

If you would answer these simple questions, I'll answer yours. Fair enough?
Do you believe Jesus really lived? If so, do you think he wanted people to do things while he was alive that he doesn't want them to do now? If so, why, what's different other than the year?

If you would answer these simple questions, I'll answer yours. Maybe if we keep our questions and answers short and direct, we may be able to communicate on a meaningful level. Deal?

Love and Peace,
Pilgram

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by JJM

First of I'd like to point out that the Catholic church is no longer very rich. The Vatican Has actually been running a deficit the past few years. about $A22.7 million that is saying something for a country that is 0.17 square miles.

I've decided to number your questions in your post I know you didn't but I felt it would be easier to answer this way.

1. Yes it is possible to have too much money. If you have more than you need (unless your saving up for something) you should give it away. Excess isn't necessary. I do. However you must understand that this is very hard for many people to do. If you can you defiantly should. and if you don't work at it. It doesn't mean that your not a Christian if you don't live in poverty.

2. In my opinion if you have something that doesn't serve any purpose to you get rid of it. Give every bit of extra money away. Even if it is buying your friend a present. If we all showered each other in gifts then we would all live very good lives and be terrific people.

3.I think that It is very hard for people to give a lot of what they have away and live with near nothing. but even if you feel you have to buy a expensive car or house you still have to have some extra. Give that away. And next time you Go to buy something By just the next step cheaper and give that extra away. You most likely won't notice the difference.

4. Well money buys exposure and exposure gets the ignorant unfortunately most people are ignorant so I guess your statement is right. Kind of sad isn't it .

5.I don't think so because if most people are ignorant and the rich get the most then the ignorant get what they think they want. which is exact ally what this form of government is meant to do. Once again kind of sad.

6. Also true but Buying a press would be necessary to state an opinion thus not unchristian. Only the unnecessary things are unchristian.

7. Well if we could do such a thing (assuming that there is no corruption) we'd have a lot of excess after everyone was given what they need thus we could spend it on other things. However This perfect communist society you speak of (in my opinion) is far beyond the human race as a whole. Greed and corruption are horrible things, and at least one of us would be prone to it.

8. No because unless every one is equal then the low rung no matter how good they have it is poverty and the high no matter how horrible it is still wealth. It's all relative

9." "

10.Well I think it is possible to have a society where everyone has enough and if everyone has enough then you can't have to much.

11. I believe I've already described the perfect Christian society. If everyone only bought what was necessary for them to survive and gave the rest away as gifts then we'd all be rather well of but at the same time following Christ example. Of course this is only describing the money aspect of it. It would take far to long to cover a earthly Christian utopia toady. maybe later if anyone wishes to hear my opinion on it.

__________________________________________________ ________
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates

The catholic church is still one of the richest institutions in the wolrld. They are not in debt (real wealth wise). Their gold hordes exceed Fort Knox, US. Please, I know, I pay my stipend each week to my local church, which only gets a percentage of it. Roma Pax Ultima.

This is one "tiny" reason why some Americans think it is time for an "American Catholic Church", seperate from the Roman Church. The vatican needs an enima, and an overhaul.

American Catholic sends.

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

The catholic church is still one of the richest institutions in the wolrld. They are not in debt (real wealth wise). Their gold hordes exceed Fort Knox, US. Please, I know, I pay my stipend each week to my local church, which only gets a percentage of it. Roma Pax Ultima.

This is one "tiny" reason why some Americans think it is time for an "American Catholic Church", seperate from the Roman Church. The vatican needs an enima, and an overhaul.

American Catholic sends.

Greetings Quahom1,

I agree with you that the church is THE(my opinion) richest intitution in the world.

But why in the world would you want to ONLY part from it to create another replica in America? An American Catholic Church would just need time to become as fat and corrupt as its Roman counterpart!

If you love goodness, truth and beauty, you hardly need the Roman or the American version of a church. Just do what you already know is the right thing. Hint: stop supporting the wrong thing with even a "percentage" of your hard earned money.

Love and Peace,
Pilgram

[bananabrain]

first of all, can everyone stop quoting massive chunks of previous posts? it makes it really difficult to follow discussions and doesn't show what point is being addressed.

my two penn'orth:

Even the Old Testament had nothing good to say about charging interest [usury] and those that carried out the practice. (See Ezek. 18:8 and 18:17, Deut. 23:19-20, Exod. 22:25, Psalms 15:5)

actually, it's being talked about in quite different terms. we're not talking about all loans any more than we're talking about all money. our basic approach for the quotes from exodus and deuteronomy is first to look at the standard commentary, which is RaSh"I's (france, C12th) which says the following:

Torah (ex 22:24):
"When you will lend money to My people, to the poor person who is with you, do not act toward him as a creditor, do not place interest upon him"

Rashi:
"this means When you will lend *anything*, not just money to other jews; and rabbi ishmael (a mishnaic authority) says that this is one of the three occasions where the word "when" implies that you are obliged - in this case, you are obliged to lend to the needy. if you have to decide whether to lending to a jew or a non-jew, lend to the jew, (because you'd do the same thing if it was a choice of lending to a family member or a stranger) between a poor person and a rich person, the poor person takes priority. between the jewish poor and the general poor ("of your city"), your poor take priority. but between the poor of your city and the poor of another city, the poor of your city take priority."

"'to the one who is with you' means someone who asks you as opposed to going out and 'looking for business'. the phrase 'My people' teaches us that you should not treat someone in a humilliating manner when lending to them. look at yourself as if you are the poor person and do not make your claim against him forcibly. if you know that he does not have funds to repay, do not appear toward him as if you lent him, but rather as if you did not lend him, that is to say, do not embarrass him."

"'interest' means 'increase', for it is like the bite of a snake, for a snake bites a small wound in one's foot and the victim does not feel it, but suddenly it causes puffiness and swelling up to the crown of his head. So it is with interest. He does not feel it and is not aware of it, until the interest accumulates and causes him a loss of much money."

this implies that interest is OK in terms of what you are foregoing by not having the money because you've lent it to someone else and they're using it. in other words it's the same as the concept of "opportunity cost" - if there's no opportunity cost then you're not entitled to recover it!

Torah (ex 22: 25):
"If you will take your fellow's garment as security, until the sun sets you shall have returned it to him"

Rashi:
"use of the term 'security' does not mean that they take collateral at the time of the loan, but rather, that they take collateral from the borrower *only when the time that the debt due arrives, and he does not pay up*. similarly, the Torah makes you repeat the act of taking security even if you must repeat it many times. it is as if G!D, said, 'consider how much you owe Me! your soul ascends to Me each and every night and gives an accounting of itself and is found to be in debt to Me, yet I return it to you each morning and I do this over and over every day of your life'. therefore, we, too, should take the collateral and return it, over and over again. what is more, once you've returned it you can't get hold of it again till the next morning. we can therefore work our that the verse is discussing a garment used by day which the debtor does not need at night, or even the bed linen."

with regard to deuteronomy 23:19-20, the point is that money gained by immoral means or which involved cheating cannot be used for charitable purposes. rashi clarifies the verse from exodus, also, by saying that it's OK to make a business out of lending money, but that should not preclude 'social lending'.

this should serve to show that reading translations of Torah verses without the benefit of the explanatory oral tradition is *totally* misleading. in fact, there are several volumes of the Talmud devoted to the promotion of ethical business behaviour, contracts and the like. the general position is that people need to earn a living, but this is not an excuse for unethical behaviour. in short, there is a middle ground between monks and enron and we are encouraged to stay in it.

However, I do believe that GREED and God are mutually exclusive.

if G!D Is All and All Is G!D, then nothing can be exclusive of G!D. surely, without greed, generosity has no meaning?

I'd like to point out that mammon is not money itself it is "material wealth or possessions especially as having a debasing influence".

in the Talmud, "mamon" is a general term meaning "money" or, by extension, "financial transactions". however, the addition of "serve" should surely clarify this - i suspect that the aramaic term that is eventually being translated as "serve" is the equivalent of the hebrew word "'AVODaH" - which *also* means *worship*. it is essentially a pun which is lost in translation, because the explicit link between "work for" and "worship" is not obvious when the word "serve" has been used. in a strictly monotheistic context, it should be obvious that worshipping anything other than G!D would be problematic.

btw:

An American Catholic Church would just need time to become as fat and corrupt as its Roman counterpart!

and a universal church.....?

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Pilgram

Greetings Quahom1,

I agree with you that the church is THE(my opinion) richest intitution in the world.

But why in the world would you want to ONLY part from it to create another replica in America? An American Catholic Church would just need time to become as fat and corrupt as its Roman counterpart!

If you love goodness, truth and beauty, you hardly need the Roman or the American version of a church. Just do what you already know is the right thing. Hint: stop supporting the wrong thing with even a "percentage" of your hard earned money.

Love and Peace,
Pilgram

Hello Bananna,

Pilgrim,

I believe that an American Catholic church would be run far different than the Roman version. Because of the nature of the American people, I opine that the American version would be subject to the same checks and balances that we enforce upon our secular government...with the "people" ultimately overseeing the governing body.

Faith may be divine, but religion is an institution, a political entity, and can be managed in a democratic manor (after all, without people, there is no religion).

my to cents

v/r

Q

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I believe that an American Catholic church would be run far different than the Roman version. Because of the nature of the American people, I opine that the American version would be subject to the same checks and balances that we enforce upon our secular government...with the "people" ultimately overseeing the governing body.

That would be an odd idea - separation of the Church and State is an integral american idea. so the point of subdividing religions further seems distinctly odd.

Somehow it makes myself imagine such a body putting parts of the Bible to the popular vote, to see which parts should be accepted, rejected, or edited. After all, that would be an entirely democrative process and the American people could demand the right...personal freedoms...etc

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Pilgram

Greetings JJM,

I'm not avoiding answering your post. I just don't know if it can do any good. Maybe if you told me a little about your motivation for apparently apologizing for Christianity. It just seems to me that you have made your mind up that Jesus (who I don't even believe is a historical person) didn't really want people to do in 2004 what he asked them to do when he supposedly walked the earth.

If you would answer these simple questions, I'll answer yours. Fair enough?
Do you believe Jesus really lived? If so, do you think he wanted people to do things while he was alive that he doesn't want them to do now? If so, why, what's different other than the year?

If you would answer these simple questions, I'll answer yours. Maybe if we keep our questions and answers short and direct, we may be able to communicate on a meaningful level. Deal?

Love and Peace,
Pilgram

Yes I do believe That Jesus was a real Person. No, I don't believe that he wanted People to DO things then that he doesn't want them to Do now.

My Question. Why don't you believe he was a real person? Why am I apologizing for Christians? Why do you think Jesus said for us to Own nothing but the clothes on our backs?

As for the catholic church I'd like to say that It is big so it has to own allot of real estate and it has to own the things to fill those Buildings. Yes it has allot but in my opinion it is not because It is still corrupt but rather because It is huge which is something that shouldn't be held against it. If that money is being used to help people and To help them grow in their faith and dedication to God and not to make it's Priests rich then I don't feel that can count against them.

Another question, Is their some kind of comment you could make on my views on the wealth of the Catholic church?

I'd also like to as Quahom1 how you could have an American Catholic church?

Catholic mean universal and if it was in America it couldn't be universal.