Right v Left - would this sum up the difference?

[Neogaia777]

So if a person is ill and they put their faith in a doctor and his medicine to get better rather than praying for God to heal them, would this be an example of mammon?

That's an excellent subject for debate, but I don't think it's mammon worship unless your actually trusting in the money itself to do it...

And it's another separate subject, etc...

But way, way too many people put their faith more in money and material wealth/gain and possessions to take care of them in almost all other areas than they do God sometimes, or much of the time, etc, and that is making money or mammon an idol, and is idol worship, cause you put it above God, etc...

But as far a doctors and their abilities to heal you or help you or make you better go, some say they trust in God to work through the doctors, who provided them with the abilities and what they know, etc, but it's an excellent subject for debate, and think many have already debated it to no end, are you making the doctors or medical workers in some ways your god? or a god above God, etc? but, as to the former, or the other, unless it is actually trusting in the money or material possession itself to do it, or provide it for you, more than God, I don't think it is directly mammon worship, or making money and/or wealth and/or material possessions your god, over God, etc...

But many do do this, etc, in a whole bunch of other areas, all of the time, etc...

I catch myself slipping up on it or doing it sometimes, etc...

And sometimes have to talk with or to God about it, etc...

Now God can provide you with money, wealth, things, etc, but when you begin to exceedingly and excessively worry about those things for what you may need them for, or you are just constantly fretting over these kinds of things and having them, or always having more of them or these things, etc, and without ever giving God a second (or first) thought, etc, then they are more than likely now quickly becoming an idol for you in your life, and one that you have just now just crossed the line into now "worshiping", etc...

Which is why I said I catch myself slipping up in this sometimes, etc...

And have to talk with God about it, and apologize, etc, repent, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Ken-1122]

That's an excellent subject for debate, but I don't think it's mammon worship unless your actually trusting in the money itself to do it...

You aren't suggesting people put faith in paper dollar bills to take care of them are you? I don't think I'm understanding you; can you provide scenario of someone doing what you're talking about?

 

[Neogaia777]

You aren't suggesting people put faith in paper dollar bills to take care of them are you? I don't think I'm understanding you; can you provide scenario of someone doing what you're talking about?

Mammon is more than paper dollar bills, but it is what they represent and what they can get or provide or do for you, etc, cause that's mammon, etc...

In your doctors example, one has to do with putting more faith in people or the person, or the persons skills, over the God that made them, or gave them to them, etc, and the other, mammon worship, has to directly with what money can get or do or provide for you, etc...

Or people and/or people versus things, etc...

Which is what basically separates the subject and makes them a separate subject(s), etc...

God Bless!

 

[Ken-1122]

Mammon is more than paper dollar bills, but it is what they represent and what they can get or provide or do for you, etc, cause that's mammon, etc...

In your doctors example, one has to do with putting more faith in people or the person, or the persons skills, over the God that made them, or gave them to them, etc, and the other, mammon worship, has to directly with what money can get or do or provide for you, etc...

Or people and/or people versus things, etc...

Which is what basically separates the subject and makes them a separate subject(s), etc...

God Bless!

So would you agree that a Christian who takes a sick child to the doctor instead of praying for him is resorting to mammon?

 

[Neogaia777]

So would you agree that a Christian who takes a sick child to the doctor instead of praying for him is resorting to mammon?

No, and your apparently not reading what I said...?

Your on a different subject than mammon now, as mammon would have to do with you somehow putting more faith in the money that provided the doctor to heal you, or your child, etc, to heal you, etc, than in God who provided the doctor and gave the doctor what he has and knows, which just doesn't make any sense...? As money has no ability in and of itself to heal you, etc...? But it can do or make or provide many, many other things for you, etc...

Your on a whole other subject/debate now in other words, and I told you it was a great debate, but it does not really pertain to the subject matter here, so...?

If you truly don't understand it, then maybe you need to increase in your understanding, as your not seeming to even know what mammon is, etc...?

Mammon is what the currency represents, and what it does or can provide, etc, and putting more faith in it/that than God to do what it can do or give or provide for you, etc...

Speaking more broadly than just money, trusting whatever you have in the way of things, that can be used as "currency" or traded for other things if need be, and then also in those things themselves once you have them, and its or their or it's (mammons) (those things, etc) ability to provide them for you, or get more of them for you, etc, (more of those "things", etc) (that provide, or yet potentially provide for yet more other things, etc), Anyway, putting your faith/hope/trust/love in "that", more so than God does or could or can or will, etc, basically, etc... or "would gladly provide for you", if you'd have more faith in Him and His ability (God's ability) to give and/or provide or whatever, etc, those things for you, etc, than you did in and/or over having more faith in mammon, or those material wealth/health, or gain, or money, or possessions, or things, etc, to do that more so for you than Him (God), etc, to do and/or provide "that", etc, or all of those things for you, etc....

Anyway, cause then it becomes an "idol", etc... And your worshiping it, and worshiping it over and above God, at that point, etc...

And I really don't know how I can be any clearer, etc, (or repeat myself more, etc), so...?

More faith in "things" to get and/or provide even more, and sometimes even way much more, "other things", etc, etc, etc, than you do in God who really provided those things, and was the true provider of those things, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

So would you agree that a Christian who takes a sick child to the doctor instead of praying for him is resorting to mammon?

As for that debate however, which is a separate one, etc, it would depend on what was in the heart of the parent when they did it or do it, etc...

But I don't want to derail this thread, so if you don't want to talk about something related to wealth and money (or currency) or material things, or mammon, and what it does and can provide for you, etc, and how it/that can corrupt the human heart and it can be turned into an idol, then I'd rather not derail the thread, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Tom 1]

So when you close down a business indefinitely because of a virus, how do they put food on the table to feed their family? Currently Nancy Pelosi is holding up government money to give to people because of economic hardship, presumably until after the election for obvious reasons. Yea, Nancy really cares doesn't she.

I have no real idea why, but only in America do people seem to think that such absurdly superficial and one-sided representations of a situation have anything to do with reality, and can be used as a basis for argument.

 

[Neogaia777]

No, and your apparently not reading what I said...?

Your on a different subject than mammon now, as mammon would have to do with you somehow putting more faith in the money that provided the doctor to heal you, or your child, etc, to heal you, etc, than in God who provided the doctor and gave the doctor what he has and knows, which just doesn't make any sense...? As money has no ability in and of itself to heal you, etc...? But it can do or make or provide many, many other things for you, etc...

Your on a whole other subject/debate now in other words, and I told you it was a great debate, but it does not really pertain to the subject matter here, so...?

If you truly don't understand it, then maybe you need to increase in your understanding, as your not seeming to even know what mammon is, etc...?

Mammon is what the currency represents, and what it does or can provide, etc, and putting more faith in it/that than God to do what it can do or give or provide for you, etc...

Speaking more broadly than just money, trusting whatever you have in the way of things, that can be used as "currency" or traded for other things if need be, and then also in those things themselves once you have them, and its or their or it's (mammons) (those things, etc) ability to provide them for you, or get more of them for you, etc, (more of those "things", etc) (that provide, or yet potentially provide for yet more other things, etc), Anyway, putting your faith/hope/trust/love in "that", more so than God does or could or can or will, etc, basically, etc... or "would gladly provide for you", if you'd have more faith in Him and His ability (God's ability) to give and/or provide or whatever, etc, those things for you, etc, than you did in and/or over having more faith in mammon, or those material wealth/health, or gain, or money, or possessions, or things, etc, to do that more so for you than Him (God), etc, to do and/or provide "that", etc, or all of those things for you, etc....

Anyway, cause then it becomes an "idol", etc... And your worshiping it, and worshiping it over and above God, at that point, etc...

And I really don't know how I can be any clearer, etc, (or repeat myself more, etc), so...?

More faith in "things" to get and/or provide even more, and sometimes even way much more, "other things", etc, etc, etc, than you do in God who really provided those things, and was the true provider of those things, etc...

God Bless!

And I'm still "working on it/this", etc, and am not yet perfect in it, etc...

Hopefully God understands...

And forgives, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Ken-1122]

As for that debate however, which is a separate one, etc, it would depend on what was in the heart of the parent when they did it or do it, etc...

I was more so interested in your personal point of view. Care to share your POV?

But I don't want to derail this thread, so if you don't want to talk about something related to wealth and money (or currency) or material things, or mammon, and what it does and can provide for you, etc, and how it/that can corrupt the human heart and it can be turned into an idol, then I'd rather not derail the thread, etc...

God Bless!

This thread is not about Mammon, it's about the differences between the left and the right. The only reason mammon is being discussed is because somebody joined the conversation and derailed it in order to discuss mammon so I discussed it with him; but make no mistake, this thread is NOT about mammon.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I’m talking about the standard of what constitutes expensive. Just because his house is expensive to you and 99% of everyone else, does not mean it is expensive to him. My point is, what’s expensive to you and everybody else who doesn’t have to pay for it don’t count.

It doesn't matter what's "expensive" or not. You're harping on an insignificant point. What matters is whether one's faith is in mammon or God.

Mammon worship??? Back on post #105 you defined Mammon as the love or worship of material possessions/money. So mammon worship would be worshipping the worship or love of material possessions/money? Really? How does someone worship the worship of money? C’mon! Pick a definition and stick with it. This is why it is difficult to understand you sometimes.

And in the same post 105 I also provided the dictionary definition of mammon. Either you have very bad comprehension skills, or you're not trying to understand, or you're deliberately pretending to be incapable of understanding in order to push your argument in favor of materialism and mammon-worship. You do this repeatedly so I'm sure you're doing it simply to be argumentative and deflect from the fact that your position is untenable.

Excess and extravagant spending? That’s your subjective opinion. Earlier you mentioned he spent $147,000,000 on his house as extravagant spending. How about if he only spent 7,000,000; is that extravagant? How about $1,000,000? How about $500,000? or $250,000 or even $50,000? Where is the line drawn for extravagant spending? The reality is, what he spent on his house is extravagant spending according to your subjective opinion, but to some people, even if you only spent $50,000 on your house, according to their subjective opinion that is extravagant spending

You are incapable of understanding and it's first and foremost because you're not a Christian. Secondarily, even non-Christians can understand, depending on what their morals are. Your morals clearly are to put money ahead of people, which is the topic of this thread. Extravagance is easily understood - look it up in the dictionary, I'm done educating you for free. Clearly you want to simply insist that extravagance is relative although it is not.

And as far as mammon-worship? The definition of worship you provided is something you do towards that with an actual existence. You described mammon as the worship of something which is more of an action rather than an actual thing, so again you cannot worship an action AKA mammon

The definition I provided in does not say worship "is something you do towards that with an actual existence", so nice try but you are caught in your lie. Even if it said that, money/mammon/material possessions DO have an "actual existence". As for how I described mammon, I provided the dictionary definition, so if you have a problem with that then I can't help you with your learning disability.

According to "factcheck" the claim that he has given over $50 Billion to Charities is true.
Fact check: Bill Gates has given over $50 billion to charitable causes.

$147 million is a small amount when compared to $50 Billion i

How is that relevant? It's not. Not sure why you're harping on yet another irrelevant issue. What's relevant is whether he prioritizes himself or the lives of his fellow humans. Clearly, he chooses to disbelieve in God. That leaves only one other object of worship, which is his self, his ego. From there, he adopts other idols, most likely mammon being one of the chief idols.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

And I'm still "working on it/this", etc, and am not yet perfect in it, etc...

Hopefully God understands...

And forgives, etc...

God Bless!

All iof us, even Christians, are imperfect, and we fall into the trap of serving mammon. We fall into other sins, also. The life of a Christian is about becoming better and doing it less and less; this is the sanctification process and it consumes our lives from the time we're born again until we die. So you are not alone, in fact every Christian in the world is just like you in this regard, myself most definitely included.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

This thread is not about Mammon, it's about the differences between the left and the right. The only reason mammon is being discussed is because somebody joined the conversation and derailed it in order to discuss mammon so I discussed it with him; but make no mistake, this thread is NOT about mammon.

This thread IS about mammon. It IS about the differences between left and right with the difference being that the right seeks to serve mammon and the left seeks to serve humanity. It is a well established and well known fact that this sums up left vs. right.

The Christian viewpoint is to serve humanity over mammon. Christians are not to be humanists, putting humanity above God, but Christians are to serve God by serving our fellow man. It is also a huge part of how we evangelize. But more so, Christians are not to serve mammon, in any situation, ever. That's why a Christian's values align much better with the left and pretty much not at all with the right.

That's the whole point of this thread. So your statement is dead wrong. @Neogaia777 was 100% correct to not derail the thread and to correct you about the topic of this thread.

 

[Ken-1122]

It doesn't matter what's "expensive" or not. You're harping on an insignificant point. What matters is whether one's faith is in mammon or God.

If it doesn't matter what's expensive, why did you keep bringing up his extravagant spending?

And in the same post 105 I also provided the dictionary definition of mammon. Either you have very bad comprehension skills, or you're not trying to understand, or you're deliberately pretending to be incapable of understanding in order to push your argument in favor of materialism and mammon-worship. You do this repeatedly so I'm sure you're doing it simply to be argumentative and deflect from the fact that your position is untenable.

In post #82 you said mammon is not synonymous with money and material possessions that it is more so the desire for accumulation, greed, and what is called the love of money
Post #105 you again reiterated it was the love or worship of material possessions/money.
The dictionary definition you provided said nothing about it being the love or worship of money, but material wealth or possessions which contradicts how you defined it. Because your definition contradicts the dictionary definition you provided, I responded in accordance to your definition.

You are incapable of understanding and it's first and foremost because you're not a Christian. Secondarily, even non-Christians can understand, depending on what their morals are. Your morals clearly are to put money ahead of people, which is the topic of this thread. Extravagance is easily understood - look it up in the dictionary, I'm done educating you for free. Clearly you want to simply insist that extravagance is relative although it is not.

I've noticed you didnt care to address what I actually said instead you just resorted to Belligerent insults and rants; typically the last line of defense for one whose argument has no merit.

The definition I provided in does not say worship "is something you do towards that with an actual existence",

I was paraphrasing; I never claimed it to be a quote.

How is that relevant? It's not. Not sure why you're harping on yet another irrelevant issue.

You said:

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.

Those were your exact words. I provided proof that this is not something I was just making up. If this was an irrelevant issue, why did you bring it up? Tap out dude, you've lost this one!

 

[Ken-1122]

This thread IS about mammon. It IS about the differences between left and right with the difference being that the right seeks to serve mammon and the left seeks to serve humanity. It is a well established and well known fact that this sums up left vs. right.

Really? Provide the facts.

 

[Neogaia777]

I was more so interested in your personal point of view. Care to share your POV?

I don't know that I have one...?

And if I do, or when I do, or when I may sometimes express that I do, it's probably wrong anyway, if it is just only mine alone, and mine alone only, etc...?

This thread is not about Mammon, it's about the differences between the left and the right. The only reason mammon is being discussed is because somebody joined the conversation and derailed it in order to discuss mammon so I discussed it with him; but make no mistake, this thread is NOT about mammon.

It was about the right caring more about riches than the left, and then got into riches and/or material wealth/possessions in general, which then led to the subject of mammon, and having more love for it than for God or other people, etc...

But it was not about possibly making people a god or your God (doctors example), but money and things and worldly wealth and possessions, or things or "mammon", etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

All iof us, even Christians, are imperfect, and we fall into the trap of serving mammon. We fall into other sins, also. The life of a Christian is about becoming better and doing it less and less; this is the sanctification process and it consumes our lives from the time we're born again until we die. So you are not alone, in fact every Christian in the world is just like you in this regard, myself most definitely included.

Thanks man,

God Bless!

 

[ArmenianJohn]

If it doesn't matter what's expensive, why did you keep bringing up his extravagant spending?

Because it's the extravagance that matters, not so much the expensiveness. Expensiveness really only matters as to its role in extravagance.

In post #82 you said mammon is not synonymous with money and material possessions that it is more so the desire for accumulation, greed, and what is called the love of money

Because it's not synonymous with money and material possessions alone - it is synonymous with those things where the worship or devotion to those things is involved. Perhaps I didn't do a good job explaining it, but that is what I meant and that is what I provided the dictionary definition to clarify.

Post #105 you again reiterated it was the love or worship of material possessions/money.
The dictionary definition you provided said nothing about it being the love or worship of money, but material wealth or possessions which contradicts how you defined it. Because your definition contradicts the dictionary definition you provided, I responded in accordance to your definition.

The dictionary definition defines it as not simply material wealth or possessions but those that have a debasing nature. I was explaining that the debasing nature of those things is the effect of worship or devotion to those things that they can bring. That is the difference between money and material possessions and mammon.

What's so hard to understand about all of this that you are incapable of understanding it and still asking questions about it? If you can't understand the explanation, I can't help you further.

I've noticed you didnt care to address what I actually said instead you just resorted to Belligerent insults and rants; typically the last line of defense for one whose argument has no merit.

I absolutely addressed what you said and I was not belligerent, nor did I use insults and rants. But good attempt to dodge and deflect.

I was paraphrasing; I never claimed it to be a quote.

You never said "money". I said "tons of money" about Bill Gates and you said "you too" about me. That's not paraphrasing - that's no phrasing at all, that's simply a redirection of what I said about someone else. You redirected what I said about Bill Gates to me. If you didn't mean what I said about Bill Gates to be about me also then you were wrong to redirect what I said about Bill Gates back to me.

Again, simple logic, simple communication, and here you are asking me to re-educate you on this. I can't help you if you're incapable of understanding.

You said:

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.

Those were your exact words. I provided proof that this is not something I was just making up. If this was an irrelevant issue, why did you bring it up? Tap out dude, you've lost this one!

I asked you to prove that all his spending (i.e. homes, plural, cars, yacht, jet, etc.) was a tiny amount compared to what he's given away. Your article states that he gave away close to $50 Billion but it doesn't show what his spending is. So how did you prove that his spending is tiny compared to that $50 billion???

He is worth $117 billion. If I were worth $117 billion I could easily give away more than $50 billion. Very easily. Could you? Or would your greed prevent you?

Tap out dude, you've lost this one.

In fact, you've lost this entire argument. You not only failed to prove that conservatives value money to the point of worshiping it as mammon, but you've demonstrated it yourself. Your entire concern in this discussion is money, and defending money as not being mammon, and trying to insist that mammon doesn't exist and that people don't worship or devote themselves to money/material possions/mammon. You've shown us all what your concern is. You attempted to make an argument that some people "need" extravagancies just to live or survive. And you've failed miserably at all your attempts, all the while showing us your true colors.

This all started with the question of "when is enough really enough?" You completely avoid that question. I'll ask you again - when is there "enough" for a person? When does a person have "enough" money or material possessions? Can you answer that? Or do you believe there's no such thing as "enough"? Do you believe in a thing called greed? Do you know what the word "avarice" is??? I doubt it.

Tap out dude, you've lost this one.

 

[Ken-1122]

Because it's the extravagance that matters, not so much the expensiveness. Expensiveness really only matters as to its role in extravagance.

Okay; same thing! What constitutes extravagance is subjective; you call his spending extravagant, someone from a 3rd world country would call your spending extravagant; thus you are guilty of the same sin you accuse him of.

Because it's not synonymous with money and material possessions alone - it is synonymous with those things where the worship or devotion to those things is involved.

Well you haven’t shown he worships or has devotion to his money and material possessions; so this is what you need to do before accusing him of mammon

Perhaps I didn't do a good job explaining it, but that is what I meant and that is what I provided the dictionary definition to clarify.

No you didn’t do a good job of explaining. I responded according to what you said. And the dictionary says nothing about worship or devotion of those things. Are you sure you ain’t just makin’ stuff up as you go along? It’s starting to sound like it.

The dictionary definition defines it as not simply material wealth or possessions but those that have a debasing nature. I was explaining that the debasing nature of those things is the effect of worship or devotion to those things that they can bring.

No it does not. To worship something does not bring a debase nature, and even if it did, you didn’t show that he worships that stuff anyway.

I absolutely addressed what you said and I was not belligerent, nor did I use insults and rants. But good attempt to dodge and deflect.

No you did not address what I said. I asked where do you draw the line before an act is considered extravagant, because to someone much poorer than you, your purchases would seem extravagant. You have yet to address this point.

You never said "money". I said "tons of money" about Bill Gates and you said "you too" about me. That's not paraphrasing - that's no phrasing at all, that's simply a redirection of what I said about someone else. You redirected what I said about Bill Gates to me. If you didn't mean what I said about Bill Gates to be about me also then you were wrong to redirect what I said about Bill Gates back to me.

Again, simple logic, simple communication, and here you are asking me to re-educate you on this. I can't help you if you're incapable of understanding.

I think you’re getting a little confused here. You provided the below definition of “worship:

extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem

//worship of the dollar

I paraphrased the definition you provided saying:
"The definition of worship you provided is something you do towards that with an actual existence."

You accused me of lying by saying:

The definition I provided in does not say worship "is something you do towards that with an actual existence", so nice try but you are caught in your lie.

THATS when I said I was paraphrasing.

I asked you to prove that all his spending (i.e. homes, plural, cars, yacht, jet, etc.) was a tiny amount compared to what he's given away.

How do you know he has a yacht, a jet, or a fancy car? About 10 years ago this girl I knew worked at Dickies burgers and Bill Gates was known to go there occasionally. At that time he drove an Audi. I suspect that may not have been his only car, but how do you know he has all the fancy stuff you mentioned? He obviously doesn’t spend a lot of money on clothes; perhaps he doesn’t spend a lot of money on toys either!

Your article states that he gave away close to $50 Billion but it doesn't show what his spending is. So how did you prove that his spending is tiny compared to that $50 billion???
.

I spoke of the price of his house as being small compared to his charity; YOU tried to get me to address all of his other spending which I did not agree to do. So my argument stands.

 

[Triumvirate]

The right overall is absolutely lousy at understanding systemic problems.

To a degree, anyway - they're very concerned about cancel culture that might affect them, but beyond that they play dumb about how words and attitudes can actively harm other demographics, for example.

 

[Ken-1122]

The right overall is absolutely lousy at understanding systemic problems.

Maybe they just don't agree the problem is systemic

To a degree, anyway - they're very concerned about cancel culture that might affect them,

Everybody should be concerned about that.

beyond that they play dumb about how words and attitudes can actively harm other demographics, for example.

Words and attitudes don't hurt everybody