Thanks; I appreciate your definition.
Horse crap. If you appreciated my definition you wouldn't have misquoted it, as you go on to do in your very next sentence...
If mammon is the worship of material possessions or money, I can assure you that mammon does not exist! There is no such a thing as mammon because nobody worships money or material things. People value money and material things, but they don't worship those things. To worship is to express reverence towards a deity; and nobody perceives money or their material possessions as a deity or God.
I said it's the love or worship of money. I said it that way to clarify the connotation of the word. I went on to provide you the dictionary definition of the word "mammon" to further clarify it.
As for the word "worship", you clearly don't know what that word means either. Yes, people do worship money and material things. To help you out, here is the dictionary definition of "worship":
worship
noun
Definition of
worship (Entry 2 of 2)
1: reverence offered a divine being or supernatural poweralso : an act of expressing such reverence
2: a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
3: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem
//worship of the dollar
Definition of WORSHIP
Note the third entry. "Worship" is not always "to express reverence towards a deity[sic]". The dictionary provides the complete definition and even uses as an example of the correct usage of the word "worship of the dollar".
Are you ignorant of the English language and vocabulary or are you playing games with semantics in order to wiggle out of your untenable argument which is not based in logic? It's hard to tell, but either way, that's really weak.
If you disagree, I challenge you to list a single sane person who worships money this way.
I do disagree and I don't have to list a single person who worships money in the sense of the narrow definition you provided. I did better than that - I corrected your assertion that worship has one meaning, i.e. "to express reverence towards a deity [sic]", and I also showed you that it is in the lexicon as a direct example that the correct usage of the word can apply to the worship of money.
If you can't do that, then hence forth; please refrain from using Mammon or other terms for actions that do not exist, because it makes it difficult to understand what you are trying to say.
Henceforth (one word, not two) I will continue to call out where you are fumbling with selective definitions and trying to play games with semantics in order to avoid sticking to the topic or using logic instead.
I think you find what I say difficult to understand because you appear to have some genuine deficiencies with vocabulary and grammar, not to mention rational, logical thinking.
So where does he spend his money?
Largely on himself. I provided you examples and links to the sources for my examples. Yet, here you are asking me again. And again I must wonder, are you being intentionally obtuse? Or do you really have no capability for listening to what I have already provided? You ask things over and over despite my having provided you the answer previously. Whether out of ignorance or an attempt to dodge and deflect it's very weak.
He doesn’t owe you or anybody else an explanation for his motives. And how do you know what he has or has not demonstrated to his wife or closest friends?
Where have I ever said he owes anyone any explanation for his motives? He doesn't. Again, you are fabricating things. Again, you have not listened to what I have actually said. You have created yet another red herring. As for what he demonstrates to his wife or friends, that has no bearing on what he's already demonstrated to the public, which includes me. I already know what I need to know to make the conclusion that he spends tons of his money on himself. Am I wrong? Are you trying to argue that he doesn't spend tons of his money on himself?
So because some people do it, you are going to accuse him of doing it?
No. But I'm not going to rule it out, either.
By some people’s standards, so have you! (except you haven’t given much to others) Does that make you a bad person?
I have? You don't know anything about me. What makes you say I have "spent tons of money on [my]self" and that it's "far above what is necessary to be comfortable"??? How would you know what I've spent? Or are you just talking out of your rear end because you're desperate and have no rational argument so you're trying to put me on the defensive to distract from your untenable argument?
When it comes to his personal expenses, you and 99% of the worlds population don’t count. The only thing that matters is what is expensive according to his standards.
What are you talking about? "don't count" for what? "matters" for what?
For the sake of this discussion, what I and 99% of the world's population think does matter. This discussion is about mammon-worship, what constitutes excess, and how mammon-worship is demonstrated in excess and extravagance in spending rather than helping those in need, especially those in life-or-death predicaments who need help desperately. So what I think and what most people think absolutely does count and matter.
Bill Gates does not have a lot of money, he has a lot of wealth. Do you understand the difference?
Money in large amounts is wealth - it is financial wealth and it is material wealth. Wealth, however, is not necessarily money. Wealth can be and typically is relative. We can objectively know that Bill Gates is wealthy in terms of financial wealth. To say he does not have a lot of money is ridiculous because we know how much money he has and it's "a lot" by any standard. To say that all his money is different from "wealth" is incorrect also since material or financial wealth is exactly having a lot of money (and/or material possessions that are worth a lot of money).
You should brush up on vocabulary. The word "wealth" is yet another word that you don't understand or use correctly. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not intentionally misusing the word, the only alternative is that you're ignorant of the meaning of the word. It's the same as with the words "mammon" or "worship" - you're lost and you've even admitted to having a lot of difficulty understanding the meanings of those words. You should focus on the basics like vocabulary before trying to have a grown-up discussion that goes well beyond the simple meanings of the terms involved. I should be charging you for the education I'm providing you in vocabulary alone.
The amount of his wealth he chose to convert to money in order to purchase his house is tiny compared to the amount his wealth funds to help others.
I work in the field of Wealth Management. Wealth is not limited to either money or other assets. If something has economic value is it part of one's wealth. It doesn't matter what he converts to "money" (we call that "liquidity" - I should be charging you for this information the way I charge my employer). Please get your terms and definitions straight before trying to talk about these things.
As for your assertion that his purchase of his home (should be homes, plural, and should also include his cars, yacht, jet, etc.) is tiny compared to what he's given away, please provide your source for that. I don't believe you, I think you're making that up.
Can you say the same? And he doesn’t go around giving money to people who needs it, he used his wealth to fund a charity that helps people; and this charity operates regardless of the amount of his wealth he chose to convert to money in order to buy his multimillion dollar house. So the amount he spend on his house has no effect on the money used to help the needy; one has nothing to do with the other.
So here you admit that he isn't even using his own money anymore but instead the charity he established is using its funds to continue the charity work. So Bill Gates is not giving his money anymore, according to you. So he's spending all his money on himself. Thanks for helping prove my point.
Again; he doesn’t have much money, he has wealth. If you were in charge of his wealth, you would probably destroy it and it wouldn’t be able to fund his charity thus ruining everything.
Again, in the wealth management field we know that "wealth" means monetary value, i.e. "money". You are trying to tell me that he doesn't have "money" in the sense of cash or liquid wealth. I'm aware that most of his money is illiquid. Anyone with that kind of money would be foolish to keep it as cash. Do you honestly think you are the only one aware of this? Because you're not.
Bill Gates has a lot of money. A whole lot of money.
You are wrong. You dont need as much food as you eat, you don’t need as many clothes as you have, you don’t need the type of shelter you live in, you don’t need a phone, computer, or transportation; lots of people live without those things, so can you. You are only making excuses to justify your excessive lifestyle while point your finger at others; and I ain’t buyin’ it!
In order to make those kinds of determinations, you need to know 2 things:
1) Approximately how many/much of those things I actually have, and
2) how many/much of those things I actually need
Given that you know barely anything about me, there's no way you know either of those 2 things. So there's no way you can make any kind of judgment as to what I have that I need or don't need.
For example - you say I don't need as many clothes as I have.
1) How many clothes should I have?
2) How many clothes do I actually have?
Answer those questions correctly and I'll accept your judgment.
Of course, we both know you have resorted to talking out of your rear end yet again, talking about things you know nothing about because you're frustrated and flailing in trying to defend your untenable position in this discussion.
Your Christian viewpoint is wrong. Just because somebody does not actively worship God does not mean they are rejecting him.
Show me this from God's Word and/or the Church. That is the ultimate arbiter of the Christian viewpoint. If you're going to tell me I'm wrong then back it up. Of course, we both know you can't. It's that old talking-about-things-you-know-nothing-about thing again...
Wrong again! Some of the most humble people in the world reject your idea of God
From the Christian belief set, rejection of God is the sin of Pride. Those who reject God share the same sin that Lucifer fell for, Pride. They replace God with self, making them Prideful. While they may be humble in terms of their demeanor, and I know many atheists are, they are Prideful according to Christian theology.
This is YOUR Christian viewpoint. Not all Christians agree with your Christian viewpoint
So where are the Christians who disagree with me? You'll notice none of them are "correcting" me or disagreeing with me. If you're going to tell me I'm wrong then tell me what is right. Of course, we know you won't because you can't because you're talking about what you don't know... that whole thing again.
Nobody does that with money.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary and I disagree with your empty, unfounded, subjective assertion.
