Money Or God: Pick!

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

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

This has already been done Brian, only without the consent or knowledge of the people who follow the faith. And it occurred well before there was a nation called the United States.

There are at least 63 books, that were decreed unacceptable by the cannon who decided what went into the original Bible. Who gave them the athority to do so is at this point mute. They did it.

American Catholics already do as you suggest might happen, that is why they wish to leave the Roman heiarchy (sp). The Americans do not accept the Roman cannon's point of view. Rome says, too bad, do it. But Americans have never accepted an order from anyone...

Probably the first time a people strong enough to defy the Vatican have ever given it the High sign (middle finger strongly extended). At least the Anglican church of England remained polite, during its disengagement from Rome.

Americans are such barbarians....AMEN.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

This has already been done Brian, only without the consent or knowledge of the people who follow the faith. And it occurred well before there was a nation called the United States.

There are at least 63 books, that were decreed unacceptable by the cannon who decided what went into the original Bible. Who gave them the athority to do so is at this point mute. They did it.

American Catholics already do as you suggest might happen, that is why they wish to leave the Roman heiarchy (sp). The Americans do not accept the Roman cannon's point of view. Rome says, too bad, do it. But Americans have never accepted an order from anyone...

Probably the first time a people strong enough to defy the Vatican have ever given it the High sign (middle finger strongly extended). At least the Anglican church of England remained polite, during its disengagement from Rome.

Americans are such barbarians....AMEN.

May I ask who besides you wishes to leave Rome? I certainly don't. And also How can you have A Universal church that doesn't leave America.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by JJM

May I ask who besides you wishes to leave Rome? I certainly don't. And also How can you have A Universal church that doesn't leave America.

Can't answer that JJ. Can only speak for myself. And come to think of it, if the United States Catholics (some) leave the Universal church, that would in deed make them "Protestants".

If you want to know who would leave "Rome", guess you have to ask your fellow Amercians, who happen to be Catholic. You have just met one, and i think my two sons would agree, so that makes three.

But JJ, this is all academic. Those that disagree already pick and choose what they will follow, and won't. They're just quiet about it. I'm not. But then, I never was. ;-)

v/r

Q

[Susma Rio Sep]

Jesus says:

No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. Matt 6:24

I don't agree with Jesus. He is committing the fallacy of argumentum ad aut album aut negrum -- my own labeling: a thing is either white or black -- wrong. In reality nothing is wholly white or wholly black.

In my own case, I am serving not only two but several masters all the time, at the same time: I serve my wife, I serve the government, I serve God, I serve my children.

And I love them all.

Maybe I should resort to that well-worn cliche but with an adaptation: "You can fool all the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time", namely:

I can serve well all my masters some of the time, I can serve stingily some of my masters all the time; but I cannot serve all my masters well and stingily all the time. (Go ahead and laugh if you see anything absurd in the phraseology here.)

And then also I hate some masters in some aspects some of the time, and love them in other aspects some of the time; but all the time I can serve them whether they be lovable or a real pain in the neck.

Also Jesus is wrong about serving God and mammon, even if we personify mammon. I can, and so do many people, by earning money in order to support charitable causes, like the spread of the Gospel among non-Christians, or at least make education available to the ignorant masses -- which I believe is one of the works of mercy: teaching the ignorant.

It is necessary to serve mammon in order to serve God, the first as a means to the second. Mother Teresa serves God by suckering up to guys who serve mammon.

In sum the argument of Jesus is wrong because the premise is wrong: "You cannot serve two masters" (wrong, you can and do serve not only two but several); and the conclusion is wrong: "Therefore you cannot serve God and mammon" (wrong, everyone serving God is first serving mammon to be able to serve God. See if you can serve God without serving mammon first).

Man does not live by bread alone; yes, but first the bread then God.

Susma Rio Sep

[Susma Rio Sep]

About the charge that the Catholic Church is corrupt, I don't seem to have read anyone coming up with this super all in one defense:

People in the Church can be and are corrupt, but the Church is not corrupt; we must distinguish between the institution and the people running the institution.

Now, what is the fallacy here with that kind of a defense?

Susma Rio Sep

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

I do believe there is a distinction here to be made. The conflict is not between God and money (wealth), the conflict is between serving God and serving money. Wealth is a blessing. Serving wealth, commonly called greed, creates its own curse. When one understands that what the Good Lord gives, the Good Lord can take away, then greed is not an option, and money becomes a tool. And like so many tools, it can be used to do good and great things. On the other hand, without such a tool, you are powerless regardless of your motivation.

Money can't buy happiness, but it sure makes misery a whole lot easier to bear.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, all!

I do believe there is a distinction here to be made. The conflict is not between God and money (wealth), the conflict is between serving God and serving money. Wealth is a blessing. Serving wealth, commonly called greed, creates its own curse. When one understands that what the Good Lord gives, the Good Lord can take away, then greed is not an option, and money becomes a tool. And like so many tools, it can be used to do good and great things. On the other hand, without such a tool, you are powerless regardless of your motivation.

Money can't buy happiness, but it sure makes misery a whole lot easier to bear.

Congratulations, Juan. You manage to say in a brief pregnant paragraph what I had to go into acrobatic length to relay.

Here's my reward for you: a humorous phrase:

Send Juan dollar to the missions.

I salute you.

Susma Rio Sep

[JJM]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, all!

I do believe there is a distinction here to be made. The conflict is not between God and money (wealth), the conflict is between serving God and serving money. Wealth is a blessing. Serving wealth, commonly called greed, creates its own curse. When one understands that what the Good Lord gives, the Good Lord can take away, then greed is not an option, and money becomes a tool. And like so many tools, it can be used to do good and great things. On the other hand, without such a tool, you are powerless regardless of your motivation.

Money can't buy happiness, but it sure makes misery a whole lot easier to bear.

I guess this is what I've been trying to say all along . You put it nicley.

[Pilgram]

Greetings JJM,


In an earlier post you wrote:

"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."

JJM, I am not sure to what you refer when you say "word of God" but I totally agree with you that the bible is NOT the word of God. Therefore, since we both agree that the bible is not the word of God and since as you say the bible has flaws, there is little need to go any further!

If the bible is not the word of God, then the entire basis of Christianity is flawed since it rests upon the flawed bible! This being the case, why would you take the position that ANYTHING in the bible is of any importance whatsoever?

We both agree that the bible was written by human beings. Therefore it should only be given the same respect we give any book. And since this book contains so many flaws, contradictions, errors, etc. there is no rational reason why you would argue that Jesus said ANYTHING! Mammon, God, Peter Cottontail; it's all the same: flawed words of human beings and not the INNERENT WORD OF GOD.

So, where should we go from here, my friend?

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by 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.

bananabrain, it is not in this string of posts where I asked you why you quote from different people without identifying who you are quoting. It is in the other post where you have done this. And you still did not explain WHY you would mix up the quotes of various people without notifying the reader that you were doing this!

Now, to the business at hand. When I refer to the Old Testament and give a book, chapter and verse, that is what I am talking about. You change the subject when you talk about other Jewish texts. I do not see the logic in this unless it is to confuse the issues. If that is it, you are almost successful.

You can make the argument that YOUR translation is the only true one but the Old Testament is the text upon which our argument rests. If you don't or can't logically defend the practices as stated there, just say so. But the inference that you would like to make is that YOUR translation is the BEST or the ONLY TRUE ONE. As you like to say, BOLLOCKS!

The Old Testament says what it says. You are free to say that it is a bad translation if you wish but that doesn't address the argument at hand, does it?

Since I have no desire to study YOUR translations, it seems we are at an impass. The Old Testament says what it says. You are free to deny it but I have a sneaking suspicion that your argument is a variation on theme that I've heard a billion times. It goes: you have to go back to the original Hebrew (or Greek, Aramaic, or pig latin) in order to REALY UNDERSTAND!

Take up your argument with the translators. But changing the subject is avoiding the subject.

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

bananabrain goes on to dazzle us with his brilliance of scholarship:

my two penn'orth:
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.
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?
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.
b'shalom
bananabrain

Anyone else want to discuss why the Old Testament God told the Hebrews that they were free to charge interest to the goyim (non-Jews) but not to the Jews?

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by pilgram

If the bible is not the word of God, then the entire basis of Christianity is flawed since it rests upon the flawed bible! This being the case, why would you take the position that ANYTHING in the bible is of any importance whatsoever?

if this is your opinion of christianity, i wonder why exactly you think it is worthwile hanging around a board like this? to "convert" people, perhaps?

Originally Posted by pilgram

bananabrain, it is not in this string of posts where I asked you why you quote from different people without identifying who you are quoting.

i've answered it where you asked it. and i note you have gone on to requote a large chunk of my post - without having read it, apparently. in any case, that wasn't only addressed to you.

Originally Posted by pilgram

When I refer to the Old Testament and give a book, chapter and verse, that is what I am talking about. You change the subject when you talk about other Jewish texts. I do not see the logic in this unless it is to confuse the issues. If that is it, you are almost successful.

what i am doing is explaining the verses you referred to. to interpret them, what our tradition does is to comment. the basic commentary we start with is rashi. rashi then explains how we are to understand it, bringing together his understanding of the totality of the system. the other commentators then comment on him, sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing. you may very well not see the "logic", possibly because talmudic logic is not the same as greek logic, but it is nonetheless there.

Originally Posted by pilgram

You can make the argument that YOUR translation is the only true one but the Old Testament is the text upon which our argument rests.

it's not a translation. it's a commentary. i'm working from the original hebrew, as is the commentary.

Originally Posted by pilgram

If you don't or can't logically defend the practices as stated there, just say so.

firstly, these practices do not have to be defended in logical terms, because they are religious, not mathematical or scientific. secondly, the practices as stated there are not the whole of the story.

Originally Posted by pilgram

The Old Testament says what it says.

but you don't have the least idea of the totality of what that is. i am telling you what generations of us have agreed and you are telling me that all you can see is all that there is, which is patently not the case unless you ignore the entire oral tradition, in which case we're not talking about how judaism understands the "old testament".

Originally Posted by pilgram

I have a sneaking suspicion that your argument is a variation on theme that I've heard a billion times. It goes: you have to go back to the original Hebrew (or Greek, Aramaic, or pig latin) in order to REALY UNDERSTAND!

this is not a mere translation problem. there are laws for divorce in the Torah. there are no laws for marriage. yet the text says that people got married. our thousands of years of oral tradition is there to fill in the gaps. reading the pentateuchal text - even in the original - is like sitting on an engine and expecting to move without attaching steering, wheels and the like. it's not a matter of "original", "best" or "true" - it's a matter of extra information i have that you don't. accusing me of trying to change the subject when i am in fact explaining how we approach it is only confirmation of your unwillingness to have your views challenged. if you can't see that i am sticking closely to the text then frankly, i don't see the point of discussing it with you. you might as well accuse me of lying - but if i am not speaking to you in good faith then the entire point of dialogue is missed.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Pilgram]

Greetings All,

So here we are at the beginning again. I wonder how many people can read the following and not come to the conclusion that lending money at interest (usury) was forbidden by Jehovah? And if you read it differently please explain what you think these two verses say. Don’t use “experts” to guide us. Use your own reasoning and ability to read plain words.

Deuteronomy 23

19: "You shall not lend upon interest to your brother, interest on money, interest on victuals, interest on anything that is lent for interest.
20: To a foreigner you may lend upon interest, but to your brother you shall not lend upon interest; that the LORD your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land which you are entering to take possession of it.

As you see, Jehovah made it quite clear, You SHALL NOT LEND upon interest to “your brother” (another Hebrew). It was clearly forbidden to lend “upon interest.” I don’t see an ambiguity here. Jehovah goes on to make it quite clear with a few more examples so no one would be tempted to get around the law by using something besides money. You SHALL NOT lend upon interest on money, interest on victuals (food) or ANYTHING that is LENT for INTEREST.

Is it possible that Jehovah was really saying that one Hebrew could charge interest to another Hebrew? Or is it more likely that Jehovah was forbidding the charging of any kind of interest from Hebrews to other Hebrews?

Then comes the really good part where Jehovah discriminates against non-Hebrews! Shocked? Don’t be. Gentiles were looked at as sub-humans throughout the Old Testament and even into the New. That is why it was okay for Jehovah to order the Hebrews to kill all the Non-Hebrew men, women and children of any land Jehovah decided that the Hebrews, his chosen people, should occupy. Jehovah was funny that way.
Jehovah okays the charging of interest to non-Hebrews. “To a FOREIGNER you may lend UPON INTEREST, but to your brother you shall not lend upon interest…”

Is there an ambiguity present that I failed to see? Perhaps you might say that ‘foreigner” might not mean “non-Hebrews.” Anyone?

I can certainly understand why a Jew would not be happy about my quoting these verses from Deuteronomy. But I didn’t make them up. They are there in black and white.

Like a lawyer who doesn’t like the law there are those who will twist and turn these two plainly stated verses until you will swear that they don’t mean what they appear to mean. But just why would you allow a lawyer (or other “expert”) to sway you from the plain meaning? Actually, in law, as well as in other fields, there is a principle called the “plain meaning” principle! Imagine that!

If one is claiming that a verse doesn’t mean what one person is claiming it means the “plain meaning” principle comes into play. The judge or jury would have to determine if the language of the law (here Deut. 23:19, 20) makes more sense as it’s understood in its “plain meaning” or whether the lawyer’s (or other “expert” making a case against the plain meaning) “interpretation” or “commentary” makes more sense.

Readers, what’s your verdict?


Love and Peace,
Pilgram

[Pilgram]

Greetings All,

bananabrain has accused me of not having read the "explanation" of the "expert" he quotes. So, to be fair, I have set out the two verses in issue and then the quotation of bananabrain where he cites his expert. You be the judge of whether or not his expert has convinced you that interest is just fine and dandy. I still have this illusion that Jehovah said YOU SHALL NOT LEND UPON INTEREST. But you be the judge.

Deuteronomy 23

19: "You shall not lend upon interest to your brother, interest on money, interest on victuals, interest on anything that is lent for interest.
20: To a foreigner you may lend upon interest, but to your brother you shall not lend upon interest; that the LORD your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land which you are entering to take possession of it.



Bananabrain says:

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.


Nowhere does Deut 23: 19-20 speak of "money gained by immoral means" so what does this have to do with anything? Rashi "clarifies" something, all right. He clarifies that he is a typical lawyer that does not like what Jehovah has plainly said.

He then goes on to talk about "cheating" and "charitible purposes." Is Rashi talking about the same two verses? There is no mention of cheating or charity!

Then Rashi gives the businessman what he wants! "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."
I don't know folks, maybe Rashi is recieving email from God. Who is he to "clarify" these two simple verses to make them go from "You shall not lend upon interest... " to "it's OK to make a business out of lending money"? Of course, Rashi means that it's okay to charge interest otherwise how could you make a business out of lending money?

Please!

Love and Peace,
Pilgram

[Pilgram]

Greetings All,

bananabrain has accused me of not having read the "explanation" of the "expert" he quotes. So, to be fair, I have set out the two verses in issue and then the quotation of bananabrain where he cites his expert. You be the judge of whether or not his expert has convinced you that interest is just fine and dandy. I still have this illusion that Jehovah said YOU SHALL NOT LEND UPON INTEREST. But you be the judge.

Deuteronomy 23

19: "You shall not lend upon interest to your brother, interest on money, interest on victuals, interest on anything that is lent for interest.
20: To a foreigner you may lend upon interest, but to your brother you shall not lend upon interest; that the LORD your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land which you are entering to take possession of it.



Bananabrain says:

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.


Nowhere does Deut 23: 19-20 speak of "money gained by immoral means" so what does this have to do with anything? Rashi "clarifies" something, all right. He clarifies that he is a typical lawyer that does not like what Jehovah has plainly said.

He then goes on to talk about "cheating" and "charitible purposes." Is Rashi talking about the same two verses? There is no mention of cheating or charity!

Then Rashi gives the businessman what he wants! "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."
I don't know folks, maybe Rashi is recieving email from God. Who is he to "clarify" these two simple verses to make them go from "You shall not lend upon interest... " to "it's OK to make a business out of lending money"? Of course, Rashi means that it's okay to charge interest otherwise how could you make a business out of lending money?

Please! And this is the clincher:

"this should serve to show that reading translations of Torah verses without the benefit of the explanatory oral tradition is *totally* misleading."

How has this shown that the two verses quoted above are "totally misleading?" Rashi doesn't even seem to be talking about the same verses!!

Give us a break, man. Don't piss on our heads and tell us it's raining.

Love and Peace,
Pilgram

[Susma Rio Sep]

Note to Brian: If you have to delete this post, please send it back to me in my private message box. Thanks.

Thanks, Pilgram, for your very enlightening posts.

I was afraid that you would not be around longer. I had wanted to inquire from Brian in a private message, but my computer was acting up. So I decided to wait further for you to appear again.

Glad that you are still around. Don't go away. At least I need you to clear up for me a lot of issues. Compared to you I am an infant, no, not a terrible one at all. No patronizing here, either.

I hope Brian does not mind my being personal in a way, but I wanted to find out once whether Banana was a member of something like a kind of Jewish Defense League. There is a Catholic organization for that kind of thing.

For my own part, I want to know the background from where people are writing. If from their convictions, well and good. If from their professional background and as a job of sorts, then also accepted; but it's useful to know in order to really understand what each is truly saying in his posts, and why.

So, I am not really being offensive trying to delve into the personal attachments of posters here, as I deem it necessary for my own understanding of their posts. I seem to know your psychological background, and it makes for blood to run more energetically. I am anemic in a clinical sense, which accounts maybe for my peculiar psychology.

In my posts, I feel I have to state as occasions dictate what I know to be the official teachings of the Catholic Church; but I regularly take the care to indicate somehow that I am no longer attached to the Catholic Church, for being now a postgraduate Catholic -- my own self-designation.

If and when you are no longer around here, let me know. My email address, pachomius2000@yahoo.com.sg. I will miss you very badly...

Susma Rio Sep