Money Or God: Pick!

[Pilgram]

Greetings All,

I have always been fascinated with the Biblical admonitions regarding money and wealth. The New Testament seems to take a dim view of them in more verses than those allowing that they have a legitimate purpose. (See 1Tim 6:7-10, Luke 12:33-34 14:33 and 18:18-25, Matt 6: 19-21 and 19:21-24, Mark 10:23-25, Acts 2:44-45, Col 3:2, Phil. 3:8, 1John 2:15-16).

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)

{As an aside I love the current TV commercial telling us that the AVERAGE American has 14 credit cards, pays $83 per month in interest and carries a credit balance of over $8,000!}

The verse from which I named the title of this post is from Matt. 6:24, my personal favorite. It's pretty clear!

Since I am not a Christian I am not troubled by any of these verses although I fail to see how a Christian would not be (aside from blatant hypocrisy).

I agree with many of the sentiments of some of these verses. It is apparent to me that greed is probably responsible for most (if not a sizable minority of) trouble in the world and always has been. Although we are told that the early Christians lived under a form of communism, with the exception of a VERY small minority of Christians today, most would rationalize away the admonition in Acts to live in common. After all just look at the fallen Soviet Union, China, etc.

Most people would agree that money is an important subject. {Many may never admit it but it is the MOST IMPORTANT subject to them} It has always been interesting to me that although Christians claim to follow Jesus, few take him seriously when he talks about giving away your possessions and following him. Many don't even feel obligated to live a frugal life. And other religions are not exempt from the same responsibility.

The colossal wealth of the Catholic Church and the not so shabby wealth of the Protestant Churches make me wonder about the rationalizations offered by church leaders and swallowed by followers.

So here's my question: is it immoral to accumulate more wealth than you need to live "the good life" as Socrates called it? His definition of the good life allowed for enough money/wealth to have enough of the necessities and even a little more so that one could travel a "bit" and have the leisure time to study and take an active part in one's political system. (Having as much as Bill Gates or George Bush would probably have caused Socrates to have asked for the hemlock much earlier in his life).

If unfettered capitalism does not make for the ideal society for good men what about the standard of "enough is enough"? A plea to certain people (you know who you are!):Please do your best not to quibble over definitions and line drawing. I am looking for discussions on the basic ideas presented above. Of course there are always "real politic" issues that can be hashed out later. For now, I am most interested in hearing your views on the "big issues." You can define what you want to, of course. Example: Your definition of "too much" might be what the person has who has more than you.

Is there such a thing as having too much money/wealth?

How much is too much?

Is it the same amount for you as you would set for the next person?

If money buys political power doesn't this give more votes to the wealthy and less to the poor?

And doesn't this then negate any real "one man one vote" principle?

Another aside: Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.

If a society could be established in which all people had exactly the same amount of wealth/money/possessions, and that amount proved to be adequate in terms of food, shelter, health care, etc., would this be a society that you would like to live in?

Can we have wealth without poverty?

Can we have poverty without wealth?

Can we have a society where everyone has "enough" and no one has too little or too much?

What society would Christians want? Moslems? Buddhists? Jews? Wiccans?

Peace and Love,Pilgram

[I, Brian]

Good topic.

My current position is that material existence requires some compromise between spiritual and material needs.

For example, my material needs include putting a roof over the heads of my children, and this requires money. I would not wait around expecting God to do this for us.

However, I would say that it is our actions that have greatest currency in spiritual terms. Sure, you can do can greater material things with money. But all too often it is the little things in life - the passing acts of kindness - that really shape our experience and attitude of this material world.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Pilgram

Greetings All,

I have always been fascinated with the Biblical admonitions regarding money and wealth. The New Testament seems to take a dim view of them in more verses than those allowing that they have a legitimate purpose. (See 1Tim 6:7-10, Luke 12:33-34 14:33 and 18:18-25, Matt 6: 19-21 and 19:21-24, Mark 10:23-25, Acts 2:44-45, Col 3:2, Phil. 3:8, 1John 2:15-16).

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)

{As an aside I love the current TV commercial telling us that the AVERAGE American has 14 credit cards, pays $83 per month in interest and carries a credit balance of over $8,000!}

The verse from which I named the title of this post is from Matt. 6:24, my personal favorite. It's pretty clear!

Since I am not a Christian I am not troubled by any of these verses although I fail to see how a Christian would not be (aside from blatant hypocrisy).

I agree with many of the sentiments of some of these verses. It is apparent to me that greed is probably responsible for most (if not a sizable minority of) trouble in the world and always has been. Although we are told that the early Christians lived under a form of communism, with the exception of a VERY small minority of Christians today, most would rationalize away the admonition in Acts to live in common. After all just look at the fallen Soviet Union, China, etc.

Most people would agree that money is an important subject. {Many may never admit it but it is the MOST IMPORTANT subject to them} It has always been interesting to me that although Christians claim to follow Jesus, few take him seriously when he talks about giving away your possessions and following him. Many don't even feel obligated to live a frugal life. And other religions are not exempt from the same responsibility.

The colossal wealth of the Catholic Church and the not so shabby wealth of the Protestant Churches make me wonder about the rationalizations offered by church leaders and swallowed by followers.

So here's my question: is it immoral to accumulate more wealth than you need to live "the good life" as Socrates called it? His definition of the good life allowed for enough money/wealth to have enough of the necessities and even a little more so that one could travel a "bit" and have the leisure time to study and take an active part in one's political system. (Having as much as Bill Gates or George Bush would probably have caused Socrates to have asked for the hemlock much earlier in his life).

If unfettered capitalism does not make for the ideal society for good men what about the standard of "enough is enough"? A plea to certain people (you know who you are!):Please do your best not to quibble over definitions and line drawing. I am looking for discussions on the basic ideas presented above. Of course there are always "real politic" issues that can be hashed out later. For now, I am most interested in hearing your views on the "big issues." You can define what you want to, of course. Example: Your definition of "too much" might be what the person has who has more than you.

1.Is there such a thing as having too much money/wealth?

2.How much is too much?

3.Is it the same amount for you as you would set for the next person?

4.If money buys political power doesn't this give more votes to the wealthy and less to the poor?

5.And doesn't this then negate any real "one man one vote" principle?

6.Another aside: Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.

7.If a society could be established in which all people had exactly the same amount of wealth/money/possessions, and that amount proved to be adequate in terms of food, shelter, health care, etc., would this be a society that you would like to live in?

8.Can we have wealth without poverty?

9.Can we have poverty without wealth?

10.Can we have a society where everyone has "enough" and no one has too little or too much?

11.What society would Christians want? Moslems? Buddhists? Jews? Wiccans?

Peace and Love,Pilgram

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

[Pilgram]

I, Brian says:

Good topic.

My current position is that material existence requires some compromise between spiritual and material needs.

For example, my material needs include putting a roof over the heads of my children, and this requires money. I would not wait around expecting God to do this for us.

However, I would say that it is our actions that have greatest currency in spiritual terms. Sure, you can do can greater material things with money. But all too often it is the little things in life - the passing acts of kindness - that really shape our experience and attitude of this material world.

Greetings Brian,

I agree with most of what you say but I would not even call "compromise" the fact that we need material as well as spiritual things. We are both; it is only natural that we would require both.

My interest lay more in the position of religionists who claim to follow Jesus' teachings about money/wealth. As I said I am no longer a Christian so I do not have a problem doing what Jesus says (sell your property and give the proceeds of sale to the poor). It intrigues me that billions of people identify with a religion that they make no attempt to actually live up to. Rather than take the good things from that religion and renounce that which is irrational (or even evil), my observations lead me to believe that most believers remain mute (and hypocritical) on the articles of their "faith" that they cannot/wil not live up to.

I do not know if Jesus was even a real person but I can address the myth. The myth says God OR money. It does not say both. In so far as that goes I must disagree with Jesus (or whoever created that particular myth) and say that money and God are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I believe that it is IRRATIONAL to purposefully choose to remain poor if you have an opportunity to earn enough to live a decent but frugal life.

However, I do believe that GREED and God are mutually exclusive. Unlike true capitalists (wherever such mythical creatures may reside, Randites notwithstanding) I believe a person can have too much money, too much wealth. I think it is a dangerous philosophy to encourage people to give away their possessions or sell them and give the money to the poor. It only gives more power to the rich who are not so foolish as to take the myth literally. Fortunately, few people actually do what Jesus told them to do in this area. Maybe the Amish and a few other sects truly live a life of frugality a la Jesus. Maybe not?

But my big question is about the APPEARANCE of faith. Herein is the stuff that is toxic to the soul. In labeling oneself a Christian (or any other religion that teaches the irrational) one must either be a hypocrite (which causes much psychological, mental and spiritual illness) OR one must actually do the irrational (i.e. sell one's possessions and live a life of poverty). I know many Catholics and Protestants who admit that they pick and choose which teachings of their church they "believe in." When I point out to them that their religion does not give them that option they change the subject or pretend not to know that what I tell them is EXACTLY what their church tells them. Religious Authority does not embrace elements of democracy.

I truly believe that most people want to do the right thing. And I see that they feel they must be a part of something "greater than themselves" in the words of, I think, Hoffler (author of The True Believer). That is why I ask: why not belong to a religion that teaches only the good AND rational teachings that most people really want in a religion? The answer I receive most frequently is that most people fear leaving their religions for another. They have been taught that their religion is the most correct (or even the only true one) and they can't see the fallacies involved. Meanwhile they must absorb the hypocrisy that accompanies any theology or philosophy that teaches the irrational but winks at the breaching of such dogma. After all, if there is no breach, there can be no sin. And where there is no sin, what need have people for forgiveness, penance and priests?

Love and Peace,Pilgram

[Pilgram]

The quotations that follow are those of JJM. The comments after the quotes are mine.

JJM,

I cannot answer your entire post today so I will take your comments and answer some today and some at a later time. I hope this causes no confusion.

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.

Very rich is "relative". I would like to be a poor as the church you say has a 22.7 million dollar deficit. But then you neglected to mention that the Catholic church owns more real estate than any corporation and more than most governments! You neglected to point out that unlike myself and all working individuals, the Catholic church pays ZERO taxes on all its real estate! And, might I add, that the poor church owns UNIMAGINABLE WEALTH in its holdings of art, antiques and jewels. Poor, poor church!

But do you think it's "Christian" of the church to keep its art, antiques and jewels when it could sell them and give the money to the poor?

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.

Should we assume then that you are using the computer of a friend or a library? Or do you NEED a computer?

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.

You seem to find the ownership of an "expensive" house permissible. If it requires tens of thousands of dollars in taxes, maintainance, utilities, etc., are these expenses money that is in excess and should be given away or is this money NEEDED?

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.

I am not sure I understand you here. Are you saying that the ignorant DESERVE to be defrauded by a government where the rich can influence its politicians much more than the poor can?

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

Again, I do not get your meaning. Perhaps I should make my statement more clear. I am pointing out that the rich can PUBLISH via billion dollar media corporations, their opinions (and propaganda) much more effectively than a poor man who must resort to handing out leaflets on the street. This equates to HUGE political power. In effect, the rich man now has thousands or millions of votes compared to the poor man who gets only one.

I will try to get back to your other comments as soon as possible. Until then ...

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Pilgram

The quotations that follow are those of JJM. The comments after the quotes are mine.

JJM,

I cannot answer your entire post today so I will take your comments and answer some today and some at a later time. I hope this causes no confusion.

Very rich is "relative". I would like to be a poor as the church you say has a 22.7 million dollar deficit. But then you neglected to mention that the Catholic church owns more real estate than any corporation and more than most governments! You neglected to point out that unlike myself and all working individuals, the Catholic church pays ZERO taxes on all its real estate! And, might I add, that the poor church owns UNIMAGINABLE WEALTH in its holdings of art, antiques and jewels. Poor, poor church!


But do you think it's "Christian" of the church to keep its art, antiques and jewels when it could sell them and give the money to the poor?

Ok Large doesn't mean rich. However I understand your point. I'd say that the church maybe should sell some of it's stuff but ther is Nowhere that it could go could it possibly be useful. Also the majority of the riches are in churches not making it's followers rich. Please correct me if you find me wrong

Originally Posted by Pilgram

Should we assume then that you are using the computer of a friend or a library? Or do you NEED a computer?

Excuse me for my miss use of the word need by need I meant Need to pay the bills. What I'm saying is if you owe $100 in bills a month. (Note: I'm using dramatically small numbers to keep the math simple.) and you make $140 dollars a month give that extra $40 away. though I don't think we should spend Our money on things that don't serve a purpose such as the latest fashion/A highly priced car. I would say that a computer does have a purpose. Information/ entertainment/ typing.

Originally Posted by Pilgram

You seem to find the ownership of an "expensive" house permissible. If it requires tens of thousands of dollars in taxes, maintainance, utilities, etc., are these expenses money that is in excess and should be given away or is this money NEEDED?

Now when did I say that. I said that it is hard for some people to just give up everything so they should gradually give more and more. you know take it slow. I never said that they should own those things just that if the thought of giving up all things at once seems hard they could take steps. However A large house I would say is ok for a large family. After all part of being Christian is being able to be alone and reflect on life and pray so Everyone in the house hold should have at least one place to them selves
.

Originally Posted by Pilgram

I am not sure I understand you here. Are you saying that the ignorant DESERVE to be defrauded by a government where the rich can influence its politicians much more than the poor can?

I never said deserved in fact I am sad at the fact that this occurs. I just meant that the ignorant still get one vote and the poor still get one vote and the rich still get one vote. So while it is a shame that money allows the ignorant to hear of the rich man and thus vote for him. They still get what they think they want and our government is suppose to give the people what they want. I never said it was right just that it doesn't mess with the whole one man one vote thing.

Originally Posted by Pilgram

Again, I do not get your meaning. Perhaps I should make my statement more clear. I am pointing out that the rich can PUBLISH via billion dollar media corporations, their opinions (and propaganda) much more effectively than a poor man who must resort to handing out leaflets on the street. This equates to HUGE political power. In effect, the rich man now has thousands or millions of votes compared to the poor man who gets only one.

Well yes I agree with you on what I said in question 4. What I thought you where saying was that the act of owning a printing press was unchristian which in my opinion is ridiculous.


And in response to you other statements most of the places Jesus say sell all of your belongings and follow me he doesn't mean in a spiritual sense he is literally telling someone follow him. and if he was still wandering the middle east preaching I'd be the first one there. But he's not. And the name of your post is not from Matt 6:24. Sorry man. It says "No one can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." Because Mammon means to care for nothing over money. The obvious was being stated. You can't put God before all things but love money more than God. You really need to watch how you paraphrase. IT doesn't say that all Christian have to be in poverty. Obviously the goal of giving money to the poor is to bring them out of poverty. Just thought I'd clarify.

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

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by JJM

Ok Large doesn't mean rich. However I understand your point. I'd say that the church maybe should sell some of it's stuff but ther is Nowhere that it could go could it possibly be useful. Also the majority of the riches are in churches not making it's followers rich. Please correct me if you find me wrong

Excuse me for my miss use of the word need by need I meant Need to pay the bills. What I'm saying is if you owe $100 in bills a month. (Note: I'm using dramatically small numbers to keep the math simple.) and you make $140 dollars a month give that extra $40 away. though I don't think we should spend Our money on things that don't serve a purpose such as the latest fashion/A highly priced car. I would say that a computer does have a purpose. Information/ entertainment/ typing.



Now when did I say that. I said that it is hard for some people to just give up everything so they should gradually give more and more. you know take it slow. I never said that they should own those things just that if the thought of giving up all things at once seems hard they could take steps. However A large house I would say is ok for a large family. After all part of being Christian is being able to be alone and reflect on life and pray so Everyone in the house hold should have at least one place to them selves
.




I never said deserved in fact I am sad at the fact that this occurs. I just meant that the ignorant still get one vote and the poor still get one vote and the rich still get one vote. So while it is a shame that money allows the ignorant to hear of the rich man and thus vote for him. They still get what they think they want and our government is suppose to give the people what they want. I never said it was right just that it doesn't mess with the whole one man one vote thing.



Well yes I agree with you on what I said in question 4. What I thought you where saying was that the act of owning a printing press was unchristian which in my opinion is ridiculous.


And in response to you other statements most of the places Jesus say sell all of your belongings and follow me he doesn't mean in a spiritual sense he is literally telling someone follow him. and if he was still wandering the middle east preaching I'd be the first one there. But he's not. And the name of your post is not from Matt 6:24. Sorry man. It says "No one can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." Because Mammon means to care for nothing over money. The obvious was being stated. You can't put God before all things but love money more than God. You really need to watch how you paraphrase. IT doesn't say that all Christian have to be in poverty. Obviously the goal of giving money to the poor is to bring them out of poverty. Just thought I'd clarify.

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

Dear JJM,

You are clearly speaking from your heart and I respect you for that. However, I don't think that we understand each other. I will attempt once more to address one point that should serve as an example.

In your first post to this string (post #3) you said:

"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 responded to that by pointing out that the Catholic Church owns more real estate than any corporation and more than the governments of most countries for which it pays NOTHING in taxes unlike every working man and woman with a mortgage.

To this you made no comment.

In addition I pointed out that it also owns huge amounts of precious art, ancient books and manuscripts, jewelry, antiques, and many other VERY valuable material possessions. Experts have said of these things that their value is INVALUABLE. This does not mean that they have no value. It means that their value is so great that it is difficult to put a price on. If they were auctioned off it is possible that the Catholic Church could realize enough profit to care for the poor for the next one hundred years. To this you say only:

"I'd say that the church maybe should sell some of it's stuff but ther is Nowhere that it could go could it possibly be useful."

Do you believe that my assessment (and that of many experts) is incorrect and the Catholic Church is merely holding on to worthless junk ("stuff... Nowhere ... possibly by useful")?

Or are you an apologist for the Catholic Church that refuses to see anything that stands as evidence of its corruption?

What would the Catholic Church have to do in order for you to admit that it is hypocritical and corrupt? It is already becoming clear to the world that it knowingly and intentionally aided and abetted NUMEROUS child molesters. Is there something worse that it needs to do before you would be moved to see it for what it really is?

But I digress. We were talking about money vs. God.

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Pilgram

Dear JJM,

You are clearly speaking from your heart and I respect you for that. However, I don't think that we understand each other. I will attempt once more to address one point that should serve as an example.

In your first post to this string (post #3) you said:

"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 responded to that by pointing out that the Catholic Church owns more real estate than any corporation and more than the governments of most countries for which it pays NOTHING in taxes unlike every working man and woman with a mortgage.

To this you made no comment.

In addition I pointed out that it also owns huge amounts of precious art, ancient books and manuscripts, jewelry, antiques, and many other VERY valuable material possessions. Experts have said of these things that their value is INVALUABLE. This does not mean that they have no value. It means that their value is so great that it is difficult to put a price on. If they were auctioned off it is possible that the Catholic Church could realize enough profit to care for the poor for the next one hundred years. To this you say only:

"I'd say that the church maybe should sell some of it's stuff but ther is Nowhere that it could go could it possibly be useful."

Do you believe that my assessment (and that of many experts) is incorrect and the Catholic Church is merely holding on to worthless junk ("stuff... Nowhere ... possibly by useful")?

Or are you an apologist for the Catholic Church that refuses to see anything that stands as evidence of its corruption?

What would the Catholic Church have to do in order for you to admit that it is hypocritical and corrupt? It is already becoming clear to the world that it knowingly and intentionally aided and abetted NUMEROUS child molesters. Is there something worse that it needs to do before you would be moved to see it for what it really is?

But I digress. We were talking about money vs. God.

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

I did reply to what you said when I said large doesn't mean rich. The Catholic Church is the largest organized religion on in the world am I right? And because of this It most have allot of churches they must have allot of real-estate. Buildings need land to be built on. This is not mentioning the numerous monasteries, Charities and schools they run. It is not Out of greed that they own this land but rather to help its followers.

Secondly I don't think that this stuff is useless. I meant to say more useful. The majority of the things that they have are in churches where they are at the climax of their usefulness in glorifying a house of God. and the other Jewels and things are in museums that are open to the public the only place they could sell them would be to other museums Thus making them no more useful or private collectors where the average person wouldn't have access. As for the writings the majority of them are papal documents. It would be like asking the USA to sell the declaration of independence. Or they are religious text and because Catholicism is a religion they are necessary. If there is anything that doesn't fit into one of these categories then it should be sold and I think that the fact that it isn't is disappointing.

Also the Church has admitted its officials corruption in the Medieval time period but I don't think the church it's self has ever been corrupt as a whole. This corruption in the officials in my opinion was because most Bishops where former princes who had entered a religious life because their brothers had taken the thrown. It was a way of telling the ruling monarch you had no ambition in dethroning him. But these men where not used to a life of poverty and thus Embellished them selves. How ever I think in the past century the church has began to change in that respect for the better. As for the child molestation charges that is horrible in deed. And I'm sorry for those people and have no respect for those priests. But they would account for maybe .00001% or lower of the total amount of priests and (correct me if I wrong.) it was in the most part an Isolated thing.

However as you said we are talking about God and money which is why I'd like to put this issue aside and have you respond to where I pointed out your bible readings where misinterpreted at least in my opinion in the last paragraph of my last post.
__________________________________________________ _________
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates

[Pilgram]

JJM says:

"And the name of your post is not from Matt 6:24. Sorry man."

and

"However as you said we are talking about God and money which is why I'd like to put this issue aside and have you respond to where I pointed out your bible readings where misinterpreted at least in my opinion in the last paragraph of my last post."


Greetings JJM,

Here is Matt 6:24:

24: "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.

The title of my post is: Money or God: Pick

I thought everyone knew that mammon and money are the same thing! The author of that this verse makes it clear that you cannot serve both ergo, pick!

What is it you think I got wrong?

Love and Peace,
Pilgram

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Pilgram

JJM says:

"And the name of your post is not from Matt 6:24. Sorry man."

and

"However as you said we are talking about God and money which is why I'd like to put this issue aside and have you respond to where I pointed out your bible readings where misinterpreted at least in my opinion in the last paragraph of my last post."


Greetings JJM,

Here is Matt 6:24:

24: "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.

The title of my post is: Money or God: Pick

I thought everyone knew that mammon and money are the same thing! The author of that this verse makes it clear that you cannot serve both ergo, pick!

What is it you think I got wrong?

Love and Peace,
Pilgram

I'd like to point out that mammon is not money it self it is "material wealth or possessions especially as having a debasing influence". SO basically it is saying that one should not care about money it makes them acked like a fiend, and thus be a bad christian not that in order to worship God you have give up all money. Also In this passage the term is being personified as a false God. So A More correct translation would be One can not worship both God and money. Because your right not having any possessions is ludicrous Simply because If you don't you won't be able to eat and you’d starve to death. Like I said you need to watch how you paraphrase.
I believe I said this in post #6. Did you read the whole thing.

__________________________________________________ _____________
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'd like to point out that mammon is not money it self it is "material wealth or possessions especially as having a debasing influence". SO basically it is saying that one should not care about money it makes them acked like a fiend, and thus be a bad christian not that in order to worship God you have give up all money. Also In this passage the term is being personified as a false God. So A More correct translation would be One can not worship both God and money. Because your right not having any possessions is ludicrous Simply because If you don't you won't be able to eat and you’d starve to death. Like I said you need to watch how you paraphrase.
I believe I said this in post #6. Did you read the whole thing.

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

Does the substance of the choice change when you substitute money for "material wealth or possessions"? Jesus was the person to whom this question is attributed in Matthew 6: 24. Most people understand that money can be exchanged for "material wealth or possessions" so why would you make an issue over the word? Is the substance of the question different when I say: God or wealth: Pick! Rather than God or money: Pick!

If you really think the substance is different, then show me how money rather than wealth might not be exclusive of serving God. If you simply like to argue I can understand that but it is a waste of life, is it not?

Here, let's try this: God or possessions: pick! Jesus put the choice to you, not I. If you don't like the choice, that's another issue isn't it?

Now that I've retracted my "paraphrasing" does the question require a different answer?

Moving on to the substance of the choice made in Matt 6: 24 how can an individual or an institution that serves "wealth or material possessions" claim to also serve God? Didn't Jesus say that both could not be served?

The issue does not even come down to one's definition of possessions or wealth (as many have argued) You see, Jesus even addressed that, I'm afraid. Go back to my original post and see if you can justify (by Jesus' standards) an individual (such as Donald Trump) or an institution (such as the Catholic Church) that holds onto possessions rather than selling them and giving the money to the poor. If you own more than one set of clothes (by Jesus' standards, not mine) you serve mammon

"Sell your possessions and give alms" does not allow you to "interpret" what Jesus "really meant"! He didn't say sell most of your possessions but keep your house, he didn't say sell the possessions that YOU think are excess and YOU CAN AFFORD TO SELL.

Like I said I am not a Christian so these things are not my problems. But a Christian who possesses ANYTHING has a lot of explaining to do to Jesus. My only concern is pointing out the hypocrisy and irrational "rationalizations" that Christians must resort to if they have more than a "stone on which to lay their head." If you have a pillow, tell Jesus why you really didn't think he was serious and so you didn't take him literally. Tell Jesus that YOU knew where he was waxing poetic and where he was being literal.

Christians like to point out that because we live two thousand years after Jesus they don't have to live like the early Christians did. Somehow the passage of time changes some things but not others. So today's Christians do not have to live with each other in communes after selling ALL their possessions BUT it is still a sin for a man to lay with another man. BUT it's okay not to stone him to death like the old testament called for but ... need I go on?

The title of my post perhaps should have been: Hypocrisy or living like Jesus: Pick!

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Pilgram

Does the substance of the choice change when you substitute money for "material wealth or possessions"? Jesus was the person to whom this question is attributed in Matthew 6: 24. Most people understand that money can be exchanged for "material wealth or possessions" so why would you make an issue over the word? Is the substance of the question different when I say: God or wealth: Pick! Rather than God or money: Pick!

If you really think the substance is different, then show me how money rather than wealth might not be exclusive of serving God. If you simply like to argue I can understand that but it is a waste of life, is it not?

Here, let's try this: God or possessions: pick! Jesus put the choice to you, not I. If you don't like the choice, that's another issue isn't it?

Now that I've retracted my "paraphrasing" does the question require a different answer?

Moving on to the substance of the choice made in Matt 6: 24 how can an individual or an institution that serves "wealth or material possessions" claim to also serve God? Didn't Jesus say that both could not be served?

The issue does not even come down to one's definition of possessions or wealth (as many have argued) You see, Jesus even addressed that, I'm afraid. Go back to my original post and see if you can justify (by Jesus' standards) an individual (such as Donald Trump) or an institution (such as the Catholic Church) that holds onto possessions rather than selling them and giving the money to the poor. If you own more than one set of clothes (by Jesus' standards, not mine) you serve mammon

"Sell your possessions and give alms" does not allow you to "interpret" what Jesus "really meant"! He didn't say sell most of your possessions but keep your house, he didn't say sell the possessions that YOU think are excess and YOU CAN AFFORD TO SELL.

Like I said I am not a Christian so these things are not my problems. But a Christian who possesses ANYTHING has a lot of explaining to do to Jesus. My only concern is pointing out the hypocrisy and irrational "rationalizations" that Christians must resort to if they have more than a "stone on which to lay their head." If you have a pillow, tell Jesus why you really didn't think he was serious and so you didn't take him literally. Tell Jesus that YOU knew where he was waxing poetic and where he was being literal.

Christians like to point out that because we live two thousand years after Jesus they don't have to live like the early Christians did. Somehow the passage of time changes some things but not others. So today's Christians do not have to live with each other in communes after selling ALL their possessions BUT it is still a sin for a man to lay with another man. BUT it's okay not to stone him to death like the old testament called for but ... need I go on?

The title of my post perhaps should have been: Hypocrisy or living like Jesus: Pick!

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

I do not argue for the sake of arguing. I guess I'm saying that you being to blunt. You in my opinion Either Chose not ignore the "especially as having a debasing influence" part of my definition or not read it. Regardless, What I'm saying is that mammon isn’t money or riches itself. If the riches don’t make you a worse person it is not mammon. What I'm saying is that the passage is not saying One must choose between God and the ownership of anything. But rather it is saying that one can not care more about money than God.

Also if you have not read all of my posts in this thread I suggest that you do because You seem to state things I have already responded to without responding to my statements. If you have read them I mean no insult but I'd like to know why you continue to ignore them. Because In my previous post I said that when Jesus tells people to sell all they own and give it to the poor then follow him he doesn't mean fugitively follow him or spiritually he means literally follow him. If his disciple where going to follow him they had no need for a house or belongings other than food and clothes. However Jesus is dead. And is no longer wandering the middle east preaching. His followers are now stationary and thus have houses and other belongings and are not sinning because of it. While yes people like Donald Trump do have to much and should sell much of his belongings. a middle class family is not. I've written all this and more in other posts including my Reponses to your thoughts about the catholic church. SO I’d appreciate it if you read them. Assuming you haven't yet. And if you have use them in your responses because I’m sick of typing the same thing over and over.

__________________________________________________ _______________
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 do not argue for the sake of arguing. I guess I'm saying that you being to blunt. You in my opinion Either Chose not ignore the "especially as having a debasing influence" part of my definition or not read it. Regardless, What I'm saying is that mammon isn’t money or riches itself. If the riches don’t make you a worse person it is not mammon. What I'm saying is that the passage is not saying One must choose between God and the ownership of anything. But rather it is saying that one can not care more about money than God.

Also if you have not read all of my posts in this thread I suggest that you do because You seem to state things I have already responded to without responding to my statements. If you have read them I mean no insult but I'd like to know why you continue to ignore them. Because In my previous post I said that when Jesus tells people to sell all they own and give it to the poor then follow him he doesn't mean fugitively follow him or spiritually he means literally follow him. If his disciple where going to follow him they had no need for a house or belongings other than food and clothes. However Jesus is dead. And is no longer wandering the middle east preaching. His followers are now stationary and thus have houses and other belongings and are not sinning because of it. While yes people like Donald Trump do have to much and should sell much of his belongings. a middle class family is not. I've written all this and more in other posts including my Reponses to your thoughts about the catholic church. SO I’d appreciate it if you read them. Assuming you haven't yet. And if you have use them in your responses because I’m sick of typing the same thing over and over.

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

Greetings JJM,

I don't quite follow your logic. Unless God has given you some special rules of construction that you are permitted to apply to this verse, it appears clear to me.

"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."

Unless Jesus is wrong, if you serve God you cannot serve mammon (wealth and possessions). And if there were any doubt Jesus went even a bit further and said, "for either he will hate the one (mammon) and love the other (God), or he will be devoted to the one (mammon) and despise the other (God)." This is about as clear an either or statement as I have ever heard.

Jesus says nothing here about middle class families and whether they are or are not permitted to own one or more houses. These are your words and no offence, but your words don't carry any weight if you want to ADD to what Jesus has said here. I believe there is ample authority in the Bible prohibiting you from doing so.

Now, you are free to argue that Jesus didn't really mean this or Jesus didn't realy mean that but then we are left with a book that has whatever meaning you and 6 billion others assign.

You admit that Donald Trump "has too much and should sell much of his belongings." I'm sure Jesus would agree. But then you give your imprimatur to the "middle class family" by implying that they are not under a similar obligation. So how much is too much? Since Jesus didn't give an amount maybe Donald might feel that he DOESN'T have too much mammon! Does the middle class family have too much mammon when it owns a house down the shore and one up the mountains in addition to the family home? Are six cars too many if they have four children. How about a motorcycle just for fun and not as a means of getting back and forth to work or church?

If you read the quotes in the first paragraph of my original post I believe there is little wiggle room for making the argument that Christians are doing Jesus' will when they own all the things they own in America. And as I said, I respect those few Christians who really do obey Jesus here and have formed communities where they live together and work together in a frugal manner. But there are not many! (The Amish, Pennsylvania Dutch, Mennonites, I'm just guessing here and giving them the benefit of the doubt so don't jump on my if they own a Corvette)

Love and Peace,
Pilgram

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Pilgram

Greetings JJM,

I don't quite follow your logic. Unless God has given you some special rules of construction that you are permitted to apply to this verse, it appears clear to me.

"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."

Unless Jesus is wrong, if you serve God you cannot serve mammon (wealth and possessions). And if there were any doubt Jesus went even a bit further and said, "for either he will hate the one (mammon) and love the other (God), or he will be devoted to the one (mammon) and despise the other (God)." This is about as clear an either or statement as I have ever heard.

Jesus says nothing here about middle class families and whether they are or are not permitted to own one or more houses. These are your words and no offence, but your words don't carry any weight if you want to ADD to what Jesus has said here. I believe there is ample authority in the Bible prohibiting you from doing so.

Now, you are free to argue that Jesus didn't really mean this or Jesus didn't realy mean that but then we are left with a book that has whatever meaning you and 6 billion others assign.

You admit that Donald Trump "has too much and should sell much of his belongings." I'm sure Jesus would agree. But then you give your imprimatur to the "middle class family" by implying that they are not under a similar obligation. So how much is too much? Since Jesus didn't give an amount maybe Donald might feel that he DOESN'T have too much mammon! Does the middle class family have too much mammon when it owns a house down the shore and one up the mountains in addition to the family home? Are six cars too many if they have four children. How about a motorcycle just for fun and not as a means of getting back and forth to work or church?

If you read the quotes in the first paragraph of my original post I believe there is little wiggle room for making the argument that Christians are doing Jesus' will when they own all the things they own in America. And as I said, I respect those few Christians who really do obey Jesus here and have formed communities where they live together and work together in a frugal manner. But there are not many! (The Amish, Pennsylvania Dutch, Mennonites, I'm just guessing here and giving them the benefit of the doubt so don't jump on my if they own a Corvette)

Love and Peace,
Pilgram

(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.

you have told me to read your Bible passages so I have. 1Tim 6:7-10 This Passage Describes mammon not the owning of all objects. It is speaking out against Greed not actual owner ship , Luke 14:33 This statement is saying that those things can't get in the way of discipleship similar to your "title" passage. you must begin reading farther back to understand. *Luke 18:18-25 This passage is referring to literally following him as formally mentioned in another post. Matt 6: 19-21 This passage is stating that the treasures of heaven are more important than the ones on earth, and no one, other than God, can take away. While it also says not to store up riches it is not the most important part of the passage. however I do say in my former posts that one should not store up riches and should give away their extra wealth. that does not mean get rid of all things you own completely. *Matt 19:21-24 This passage is also referring to literally following him. Also if you read before it says that selling all of your things is not mandatory for entering heaven but one can't be perfect without doing it. The passage also says that those who give up something on earth will be rewarded 100 fold in heaven however that doesn't mean that selling all possessions. finally this passage says the commonly known statement about the eye of a needle. How ever if you continue reading you see it is not impossible for a rich man to enter heaven just hard. I believe this to be because these riches create distractions that can keep you from your devotions to God and can easily become more important to the person than God. Very few people are strong enough to have money and still have this. as for my statement about middle class families I believe that these people are low enough that they could easily devote them selves completely to God if they tried. Those people who don't are hypocritical yes but not because they own money but because they don't completely devote themselves to God *Mark 10:23-25 my response to this is the same as Matt 19:21-24 for it is the same event. Acts 2:44-45 When did I or you say modern Christians did not do this. Most Christians Give much of there wealth to help those in need. While it may not be as efficient it may not be that we don't try as hard but rather our number has grown so large that this sort of thing would be extremely hard for men to complete. however I and many Christians, especially those that attend my church, are able to give much and often sacrifice things to give to others. This however says nothing of selling all your things If those around you are well enough off. also owning things such as business and objects that collect interest could help the poor more if you give what you make from them away than just selling them. Col 3:2 once again this is saying that heaven is more important than earth nothing of giving away your wealth. Phil. 3:8 If you read the whole passage you would realize this is speaking of his former beliefs about religion it has nothing to do with material wealth 1John 2:15-16 once again this simply says that heaven is more important than earth it has nothing to do with selling anything. Luke 12:33-34 I leave this passage for the end because it is the only one that may have some merit in your argument. However you most read from line 22-34 (this is the complete passage) for my comments to make sense. This passage until line 33 is about not worrying to much for all is in God's hands. 33-34 seems to be a way of saying the something along the lines of 1John 2:15-16 and doesn't seem to belong to the rest of the passage. This leads me to believe that these two lines are meant somewhere else. But if they are where they are suppose to be he is only talking to the 12 which means it could something along the lines of Luke 18:18-25.

SO as you see it is not a Jesus didn't mean this and that through out the bible I have only done this in one little out of place part and if it was put into the correct passage for I believe it isn't then I'm sure it would make sense.

Now I don't think one should own more than one house that is to much that house could house a homeless person or be sold and the money could be used to by food for the poor. Also I think that one should have only enough cars for those eligible to drive in the house hold. But if it comes to a point where no one in the world is in poverty. and A person can have great wealth without putting anything before God then more power to them for it is not an actual sin.

My middle class family is under the same obligations they hold between 4-5 people and barley pay bills so I'm saying that they are pretty low in standards. Maybe middle class family means something different to you. Of course they could improve but I'd say many are doing a pretty good Job and like I said the bible doesn't demand we live in poverty.
__________________________________________________ ___________
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates