Jesus on the issue of Wealth

Yitzhak Rabin

Hi all,

I have a question about the inconsistencies I see between the teachings of Jesus and the practices of the RCC, and Christians in general.

It is extremely obvious from an overall reading of the Bible that Jesus placed a huge emphasis on giving to the poor. This wasn't a simple case of giving some of your wealth away, like say, in the Muslim faith, Jesus commanded his followers to give away all their wealth. So much so in fact that he says that entry into paradise is forbidden for those who possess wealth:

Matthew wrote:

19"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal,
20but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal.
21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
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. (Matt. 6:19-21, 24)

He is emphatically clear on this point and mentions it on a number of occasions.

Matthew wrote:

23And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matt. 19:23-24; Luke 18:24-25)

Mark wrote:

34And he called to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
35For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.
36For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? (Mark 8:34-36)

Luke wrote:

24"But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation.
25"Woe to you that are full now, for you shall hunger. "Woe to you that laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep. (Luke 6:24-25)

I could go on and quote further instances in which it is clearly indicated that one of the major aspects of Christianity, is an abondonment of wealth; such as the parable of the rich fool; the parable of the rich man and Lazurus; etc. etc.

So my question is, why is it that since its inception, the RCC has spent its time amassing unbelievable wealth. A trip to the Vatican is a sight to behold. It is one of the most decorative, extravagant, places on earth. The pope dresses like a King, has servants etc. etc.

Day to day, Christians may give to charity, but that is not what Jesus asked, he asked that we give away all our wealth.

This is not just solely an inconsistency from the RCC. The Pentacostal and Evangelical preachers are the same. They often preach about the sinfulness of homosexuality, something which Jesus had very little to say about, but rare to criticise themselves or others about amassing wealth, instead of doing what we are commanded to do, which is abandon wealth.

I would appreciate if a Christian could answer why the inconsistency exists, especially among the leaders of the faith. I am not attacking anyone personally, and I respect everyones faith, its just something I'd love to ask my local priest but wouldn't have the balls, as I see him dailt . For the record I am not a Christian, or a person of faith.

Thanks in advance.

Zombrex

You probably want to address your question to Catholics who support this type of thing. A lot of Christians (non-Catholic and Catholic) find the perceived decadence of the Catholic Church disgusting.

Yitzhak Rabin

Wicknight wrote: »

You probably want to address your question to Catholics who support this type of thing. A lot of Christians (non-Catholic and Catholic) find the perceived decadence of the Catholic Church disgusting.

Thanks, but even if you remove the decadence of the RCC from the picture, and just look to the other Christians, they are guilty too. There are not too many I know that give up their wealth voluntarily. Almost all of the preachers I have heard of are wealthy in the extreme.

Even down to the simple thing of people wearing their finest clothing to church. It seems to me like it would be something that Jesus would have found revolting. Even if they give generously to charity that is not enough. It is required that you give all your wealth.

I am reminded of the parable whereby Jesus scolded the rich man who gave half his wealth away, as he was not giving as much as the woman who gave away everything she had. Can't remember the exact story off hand.

PDN

yekahs wrote: »

Jesus commanded his followers to give away all their wealth. So much so in fact that he says that entry into paradise is forbidden for those who possess wealth:

No, He didn't command His followers to give all their wealth.

No, He didn't forbid entry into heaven (which I think is what you mean by 'paradise' - a different concept entirely) for those who possess wealth. He said it would be harder for those with wealth, but added that with God all things are possible.

I could go on and quote further instances in which it is clearly indicated that one of the major aspects of Christianity, is an abondonment of wealth

And you would be wrong about that too.

Day to day, Christians may give to charity, but that is not what Jesus asked, he asked that we give away all our wealth.

No, He didn't.

The Pentacostal and Evangelical preachers are the same. They often preach about the sinfulness of homosexuality, something which Jesus had very little to say about, but rare to criticise themselves or others about amassing wealth

We must be listening to different preachers.

PDN

yekahs wrote: »

I am reminded of the parable whereby Jesus scolded the rich man who gave half his wealth away, as he was not giving as much as the woman who gave away everything she had. Can't remember the exact story off hand.

Please look it up for us. I would love to find where Jesus scolded someone for giving away half his wealth. In fact, in Luke Chapter 19, Jesus commended Zaccheus for giving away half of his wealth!

yekahs

yekahs wrote: »

I am reminded of the parable whereby Jesus scolded the rich man who gave half his wealth away, as he was not giving as much as the woman who gave away everything she had. Can't remember the exact story off hand.

It was a poor woman giving a pittance, vs the rich people giving a tiny proportion AFAIK. I think the point was that she was giving all she had as a genuine sacrifice even though it didn't look like much and others were giving a random large amount they could easily afford just to look good.

Ah here we are, Mark 12

41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. 42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. 43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: 44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living

Yitzhak Rabin

PDN wrote: »

No, He didn't command His followers to give all their wealth.

No, He didn't forbid entry into heaven (which I think is what you mean by 'paradise' - a different concept entirely) for those who possess wealth. He said it would be harder for those with wealth, but added that with God all things are possible.

He said that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Isn't the point of that, that it is impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, therefore, it is impossible for a rich man to enter heaven?

And you would be wrong about that too.

So you don't think that Jesus viewed being poor as a virtue? That he instructed his disciples to abandon wealth and lives and trust in him alone?

We must be listening to different preachers.

Could you direct me to one so I can see their views on wealth.

The parable I was thinking of is the parable of the widow;

41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. 42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. 43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: 44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.(Mark 12:41-44)

I accept it doesn't say what I claimed. It just popped into my head as I was replying to Wicknight. However, I think it is clear from the passage that he finds the wealthy people who 'cast their abundance in' to be less worthy than the woman who abandoned all the wealth she had.

I just also want to emphasise, that I am not here to attack the Christian faith or Christians. If my OP seemed that way, I apologise. I am just trying to educate myself and if I leave here with a changed opinion I'll be happy.

Fanny Cradock

yekahs wrote: »

He said that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Isn't the point of that, that it is impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, therefore, it is impossible for a rich man to enter heaven?

I don't believe that was the intended meaning at all.

It's not that wealth is necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. Rather, if wealth is your god then you are leaving no place for YHWH.

Yitzhak Rabin

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't believe that was the intended meaning at all.

It's not that wealth is necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. Rather, if wealth is your god then you are leaving no place for YHWH.

I think when you take it in context of Jesus' view of the poor being virtuous, it makes sense that he is saying, that we need to abandon earthly possessions.

He even explicity says it

"If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

So, even if we take it that being poor is not a requirement to enter heaven, it is certainly something which we should aspire to.

PDN

yekahs wrote: »

I think when you take it in context of Jesus' view of the poor being virtuous, it makes sense that he is saying, that we need to abandon earthly possessions.

Where are you getting this idea that the poor are virtuous?

The Bible speaks of four kinds of people: the righteous rich, the unirighteous rich, the righteous poor, and the unrighteous poor.

Yitzhak Rabin

PDN wrote: »

Where are you getting this idea that the poor are virtuous?

Well, that Jesus says that they will inherit the Kingdom of God.

The fact that when someone who says to him all he has done, Jesus tells him that if he wants to be perfect, then he should give up all his wealth. That indicates that being a righteous poor person, is better than being a righteous rich person.

The Bible speaks of four kinds of people: the righteous rich, the unirighteous rich, the righteous poor, and the unrighteous poor.

Yes, but righteous poor people are held in higher regard than righteous rich people in Jesus' eyes.

JimiTime

yekahs wrote: »

I think when you take it in context of Jesus' view of the poor being virtuous, it makes sense that he is saying, that we need to abandon earthly possessions.

He even explicity says it

"If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

So, even if we take it that being poor is not a requirement to enter heaven, it is certainly something which we should aspire to.

He certainly never indicated that being poor was virtuous. Forsaking wealth for the sake of Christ is though. The lesson is about the trappings of materialism and self gratification. I think we must look contextually also to the time of Jesus, and what it meant to be 'rich'. Just the same as when we look to the term 'tax-collector' back then, it is different from inland revenue (well some may say not:) )

The more we strive for wealth, the less we strive for the Kingdom. The wealth itself is NOT an issue, but rather the context of wealth. I think you are correct in saying however, that alot of Christians ARE guilty in this manner. However, one can be guilty of this and not be 'rich'. You can be on social welfare and be guilty of what Jesus is warning us of here. The kingdom message brings hope to the hopeless. It brings an abundance to those who have nothing. In such a way, having nothing earthly is a blessing, as there is nothing to lose. One often hears of how in times of need, poverty etc, people turn to God. Yet in times of prosperity etc, people don't think about God. People become their own gods.

hivizman

May I recommend a recently published book by the American theologian Ben Witherspoon III: Jesus & Money: A Guide for Times of Financial Crisis (SPCK: 2010), which provides a detailed analysis of the issue of Christ's attitude to wealth (and the Bible's views more generally)? You can read quite a lot of the book online at amazon.co.uk.

Witherspoon basically argues, in line with several earlier posters, that Christian teaching does not reject wealth in itself, but rather the corrupting influence that wealth can potentially give rise to. He is particularly opposed to the "prosperity gospel", that sees worldly wealth as evidence of God's favour and that claims that the "right sort of prayer" will generate worldly wealth.

homer911

Just as well this is an Irish audience - it's my perception that in the USA wealth among Christians is viewed very differently - almost as a reward for being a Christian, a sign of God's goodness and generousity

Fanny Cradock

homer911 wrote: »

Just as well this is an Irish audience - it's my perception that in the USA wealth among Christians is viewed very differently - almost as a reward for being a Christian, a sign of God's goodness and generousity

AFAIK, the notion of the prosperity gospel isn't just confined to America.

Yitzhak Rabin

Thank you all for your replies. I have changed my point of view on Jesus commanding people to abandon wealth as a prerequisite for entering heaven. However, I do think that Jesus sees wealth as an obstacle to God, and looks more highly on people who have abandoned worldly possessions.

Fanny Cradock

yekahs wrote: »

Thank you all for your replies. I have changed my point of view on Jesus commanding people to abandon wealth as a prerequisite for entering heaven. However, I do think that Jesus sees wealth as an obstacle to God, and looks more highly on people who have abandoned worldly possessions.

I think none of us would disagree that wealth can be an insurmountable obstacle when desire for accumulation takes the form of idolatry. The last few years has taught us all a little about the immorality of the markets and how addictive greed can be. However, I don't believe that Jesus ever said or implied that wealth (and I assume we are all talking about money) itself was inherently bad. One can be rich and do wonderful things for humanity. Looks at the likes of a non-Christian Bill Gates as a great example. Jesus, it seems to me, was really talking about priorities.

hivizman

One of the most famous summaries of the Christian attitude towards wealth is the sermon by John Wesley "The Use of Money". This sermon contains what has been described as Wesley's "trilateral", the injunction to "gain all you can; save all you can; give all you can". What this means is summed up in the following extract:

You see the nature and extent of truly Christian prudence so far as it relates to the use of that great talent, money. Gain all you can, without hurting either yourself or your neighbour, in soul or body, by applying hereto with unintermitted diligence, and with all the understanding which God has given you;-- save all you can, by cutting off every expense which serves only to indulge foolish desire; to gratify either the desire of flesh, the desire of the eye, or the pride of life; waste nothing, living or dying, on sin or folly, whether for yourself or your children;-- and then, give all you can, or, in other words, give all you have to God. Do not stint yourself, like a Jew rather than a Christian, to this or that proportion. "Render unto God," not a tenth, not a third, not half, but all that is God's, be it more or less; by employing all on yourself, your household, the household of faith, and all mankind, in such a manner, that you may give a good account of your stewardship when ye can be no longer stewards; in such a manner as the oracles of God direct, both by general and particular precepts; in such a manner, that whatever ye do may be "a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savour to God," and that every act may be rewarded in that day when the Lord cometh with all his saints.

Wesley emphasises that we are only the stewards of what God has provided, and will be accountable to God for how we have discharged our responsibility. He encourages us to aim for "gain", but not at the expense of our own bodies and spirits, or those of our neighbours (that is, everyone else). Proper stewardship requires you to look after yourself and your family:

First, provide things needful for yourself; food to eat, raiment to put on, whatever nature moderately requires for preserving the body in health and strength. Secondly, provide these for your wife, your children, your servants, or any others who pertain to your household. If when this is done there be an overplus left, then "do good to them that are of the household of faith." If there be an overplus still, "as you have opportunity, do good unto all men." In so doing, you give all you can; nay, in a sound sense, all you have: For all that is laid out in this manner is really given to God. You "render unto God the things that are God's," not only by what you give to the poor, but also by that which you expend in providing things needful for yourself and your household.

Wesley does not specifically discuss the story of the rich young ruler (Matthew 19:16-30, Mark 10:17-21, Luke 18:18-30) and the injunction: "Go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor". The sermon is, I think, focused more on those likely to have heard it - hard-working people who wanted to know where the balance should lie between accumulating wealth, spending it, and giving to the poor. The sermon is therefore against the idea of wealth accumulation for its own sake, what might be called "love of money" as against "love of one's neighbour". The rich young ruler was in a different position as someone who probably acquired wealth through inheritance, and had become spiritually entrapped by his property ("he went away grieving, for he had many possessions" - Matthew 16:22). Wesley would perhaps have said that the rich young ruler was capable of earning an honest living, so selling his possessions and giving the money to the poor would free him from the alienation from God that his wealth gave rise to, without actually impoverishing him in a practical sense.

Seaneh

I dunno about the rest of you all but I'd be with Francis Chan on this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2oi6y292kE

lmaopml

homer911 wrote: »

Just as well this is an Irish audience - it's my perception that in the USA wealth among Christians is viewed very differently - almost as a reward for being a Christian, a sign of God's goodness and generousity

Yes, I think that everybody can be guilty of giving 'thanks' when things are going well - and wondering at what we did wrong when things aren't going so well, it's a pity we don't often wonder at it, and why we feel that way..

..and blaming ourselves, others etc. etc. Who knows what shapes a person, society..

It's a worldwide phenomena..lol..

I dunno, I think we have no idea how difficult life can be, in these times, here in Ireland..It's a 'gem' in some ways and a diuretic in others.. ))

..but we have a whole LOT of experience..to build on, and pass on..

It's how we pass it on that counts I guess..

Manach

From an RCC historical perspective in the o Medieval period the power-houses of economic activity were the Monastic communities - which raised the wealth and hence the well-being of society [channelling the spirit of Donegalfella here].

Slightly OT, the current government must also believe poverty to be more virtuous than wealth given their policies

lmaopml

Manach wrote: »

From an RCC historical perspective in the o Medieval period the power-houses of economic activity were the Monastic communities - which raised the wealth and hence the well-being of society [channelling the spirit of Donegalfella here].

Slightly OT, the current government must also believe poverty to be more virtuous than wealth given their policies

Ot too, but....

Eh..no, I think they valued their own personal wealth just a little too much...

'nice brown envelope ye have there..'

*generalising*

...and sadly so do the rest of the guys in the dail who might as well be doing the hokey cokey..

*generalising too*

....and who'd blame a body generalising?

...especially - considering the 'bills' :eek:

Soul Winner

Plus if Jesus was so against people having wealth then he would not have said the following:

"Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life." Mark 10:28-30

This was just after the eye of a needle text.

Why would God bless those who have forsaken all to follow Jesus with a hundred times the things that they had forsaken if He was so dead set against people having them?

FISMA

Dear Yekahs,

Please advise:
(1) What is THE most charitable organization on Earth? Hint - the Catholic Church.
(2) What is THE most charitable organization in Ireland? Hint - the Catholic Church.
(3) What is THE most charitable organization in the history of Earth? Hint - the Catholic Church.
(4) What organization has more people on Earth working for the poor?

You appear to be stating that Jesus command ALL christians too become poor, correct?

You appear to state that what I have said above is "emphatically clear" and then offer up a multitude of cherry picked quotes

Concisely: provide one reference where Jesus says that all of his followers must give away everything as a pre-requisite of getting into heaven.

Ever hear the old expression - the stuff you own usually ends up owning you? I think that was, more or less, the point he was trying to make.

Yitzhak Rabin

FISMA wrote: »

Dear Yekahs,
You appear to be stating that Jesus command ALL christians too become poor, correct?

In my OP, I was, but from the responses I have received I have changed my stance. I now accept that Jesus does not have being poor as a prerequisite to entering heaven. However, I do believe that Jesus said it is far more difficult for a rich man to heaven. In fact even more difficult than a camel passing through the eye of a needle, the only reason it is possible at all, is because of Gods power.

You appear to state that what I have said above is "emphatically clear" and then offer up a multitude of cherry picked quotes

Well seeing as the idea of being poor, being viewed as a positive thing, and Jesus telling righteous men, that in order to be perfect they should sell everything they own, and give the money away, is mentioned in some form across all 4 gospels, its hardly cherry picking. Or is it only cherry picking when you disagree with the point of view.

Had I come on and quoted John 3:7, or John 3:16, would I have been accused of cherry picking? What if I came on to discuss the golden rule? Would that have been cherry picking. if I failed to mention all of the other guidelines and wisdom Jesus offered?

Concisely: provide one reference where Jesus says that all of his followers must give away everything as a pre-requisite of getting into heaven.

See above, I no longer hold that to be the case.

Ever hear the old expression - the stuff you own usually ends up owning you? I think that was, more or less, the point he was trying to make.

Fair point, I disagree, and think he was going further, and saying that it is better to go even further and abandon it all. The passage about the difficulty in becoming a discipile is a good example of how Jesus expects us to trust only in him to provide for us. (I understand there is a difference between a Christian and a Christian Discipile, its just to illustrate the mindset of Jesus as I see it)

ISAW

yekahs wrote: »

He said that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Isn't the point of that, that it is impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, therefore, it is impossible for a rich man to enter heaven?

One traditional interpretation is that the "eye of a needle" was a narrow gate in Jerusalem. It was very difficult to lead a camel through it. Nopw imagine you start to load all your wealth onto the camel? What happens? The more goods you put on the harder it is to get through the gate! Get it?

So you don't think that Jesus viewed being poor as a virtue? That he instructed his disciples to abandon wealth and lives and trust in him alone?

I think the point was "don't worship material things". Give to the Emperor what is the Emperor's and give to Gods those things that should be given to God. i.e. pay tax but dont worship Caesar.

Could you direct me to one so I can see their views on wealth.

Please look up "shifting the burden" under "logical fallacy" If YOU claimn preachers say A and someone says "never heard that I think they say B" it is still for YOU to show A and not for others to prove B. Look up "proving a negative " while you are at it.

The parable I was thinking of is the parable of the widow;

"the widows mite" it is usually called

I accept it doesn't say what I claimed.

Great. Thank you for your honesty. What DOES say what you claimed?

I just also want to emphasise, that I am not here to attack the Christian faith or Christians. If my OP seemed that way, I apologise. I am just trying to educate myself and if I leave here with a changed opinion I'll be happy.

That's great too! You are welcome to be critical and I'm sure if you are misinformed someone here will show that.

I say the following in guessing from your name you come from an Islamic background which like Christianity is monotheist and rooted in reason.

You should also note most Christians believe scripture is inspired by God and not dictated by God but written by man. Very few actually believe the exact words are verbatum words from God . such people are called "fundamentalists" Christian fundamentalists are a very noisy bunch but are in fact a tiny minority of Christians in fact most christians would not regard these people as christian at all. I am sure you are aware the same point of view exists with respect to literal fundamentalist Muslims. Having said that it appears to me that in general Islam regards their scriptures in a much more fundamental light.

Yitzhak Rabin

Please advise:
(1) What is THE most charitable organization on Earth? Hint - the Catholic Church.
(2) What is THE most charitable organization in Ireland? Hint - the Catholic Church.
(3) What is THE most charitable organization in the history of Earth? Hint - the Catholic Church.
(4) What organization has more people on Earth working for the poor?

My point is, they should never be in a position to achieve such extravagant wealth.

If they were true practitioners of the bible then they should have no wealth.

I presume the hierarchy of the RCC see themselves as the discipiles of Christ. Then why do they not do as he commanded of his discipiles and abandon everything?

"In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple."

As for the church. As I mentioned in the OP, I am not a Christian, however, I feel the RCC has got the message of Jesus all wrong. They have become a self-serving institution more worried about 'the church' than the actual teachings of the Bible. They have a sordid history of downright evil, and disregard for human life. Why exactly do you think it was, that they resisted so long, in not letting ordinary people own a Bible?

Well, its not like Jesus didn't warn us:

"Beware of these teachers of religious law! For they like to parade around in flowing robes and love to receive respectful greetings as they walk in the marketplaces. And how they love the seats of honor in the synagogues and the head table at banquets" (Luke 20: 46-47)

ISAW

yekahs wrote: »

I think when you take it in context of Jesus' view of the poor being virtuous, it makes sense that he is saying, that we need to abandon earthly possessions.

He even explicity says it

"If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

So, even if we take it that being poor is not a requirement to enter heaven, it is certainly something which we should aspire to.

I think that passage is from when a self righteous rich man came to Jesus and asked what should he do. Jesus said follow the law and said he followed all the laws and did all that was required of him what more could he do. Jesus then said YOU as in the man give everything away and follow me. He pointed to two things
1. the worship of material wealth
2. the inadequacy of written law i.e. live Christianity rather than just follow Jewish law and thin k that following the written word is enough. follow the spirit rather then the lewtter of the law.

Yitzhak Rabin

ISAW wrote: »

One traditional interpretation is that the "eye of a needle" was a narrow gate in Jerusalem. It was very difficult to lead a camel through it. Nopw imagine you start to load all your wealth onto the camel? What happens? The more goods you put on the harder it is to get through the gate! Get it?

Thats a nice analogy, and it does make sense, but it begs the question, why didn't he just say a gate? I realise that Jesus' often spoke in parables and metaphors, so it can always be open to interpretation, however, to me here the use of the phrase the 'eye of a needle' means just that. Unless, there was a gate in Jerusalem, that was called that?

Please look up "shifting the burden" under "logical fallacy" If YOU claimn preachers say A and someone says "never heard that I think they say B" it is still for YOU to show A and not for others to prove B. Look up "proving a negative " while you are at it.

I don't believe I was shifting the burden. I wasn't asking for proof of anything. I just wished to hear the views of the preachers PDN was speaking of so I could get a better understanding of what the correct teachings on wealth retention are.

Also, it is impossible to prove my position, of preachers don't spend too much time discussing wealth compared with homosexuality. I can prove that preachers spend quite a bit of time speaking on the subject of homosexuality. I can't however prove that they don't spend much time speaking about wealth and the Bible(I can be disproved on that point though )

Great. Thank you for your honesty. What DOES say what you claimed?

I have changed my position since the OP, thanks to the responses here. I no longer believe that poverty is a prerequisite for entering heaven. However I do contend, that Jesus views poverty in a positive light, and that becoming a disciple of his, involves the shedding of property, among other things.

That's great too! You are welcome to be critical and I'm sure if you are misinformed someone here will show that.

Yes, and as a result I have learned my original position was misinformed.

I say the following in guessing from your name you come from an Islamic background which like Christianity is monotheist and rooted in reason.

Actually, I'm a lapsed catholic, my username, is just my nickname spelled backwards! :pac: (Although I am an Arabic speaker)

ISAW

yekahs wrote: »

My point is, they should never be in a position to achieve such extravagant wealth.

Bank account of the Pope? - nothing
Personal wealth of the pope - almost Zero

The Bishops of the RCC are not filthy rich!

They don't buy designer clothes or stay in extravagant hotels and waste food and other things. they dont spend months on a yacht in the Carribean etc.,.

If they were true practitioners of the bible then they should have no wealth.

And effectively they DO have little or no wealth. Priests and other clergy have little money very few have rich families and therefore have some personal wealth.

I presume the hierarchy of the RCC see themselves as the discipiles of Christ. Then why do they not do as he commanded of his discipiles and abandon everything?

they do! they don't marry or have families and many actually take vows rejecting personal wealth. This topic of the "riches of the church " has been discussed elsewhere.

As for the church. As I mentioned in the OP, I am not a Christian, however, I feel the RCC has got the message of Jesus all wrong. They have become a self-serving institution more worried about 'the church' than the actual teachings of the Bible.

If so it wouldnt be the first time But how have they become self serving? You do realise there are hundreds of thouisands of clergy in the last century? How many can you name as being self serving. 10,000? 1000? 100? 10? 0.01 per cent?

Let us translate that to say the UK about 70 million people 0.01 per cent is less than 7000 people, about as many as vote for the national front! Hardly representative?

They have a sordid history of downright evil, and disregard for human life.

REally ? Care to list that history ?

Please look up "sweeping statement" under logical fallacy?
Ho w is it soirdid and how many deaths?
What was happening elsewhere at the time and you can compare t?

Why exactly do you think it was, that they resisted so long, in not letting ordinary people own a Bible?

Duh! Bewcuase unlike in the East "ordinary people" could not read! Look Constantine couldn't even read and it was only after he learned that he thought it would be as good thing and instructed monks to teach people to read

Well, its not like Jesus didn't warn us:

"Beware of these teachers of religious law! For they like to parade around in flowing robes and love to receive respectful greetings as they walk in the marketplaces. And how they love the seats of honor in the synagogues and the head table at banquets" (Luke 20: 46-47)

And you claim this "synagogue" quote refers to the Pope?

ISAW

yekahs wrote: »

So you don't think that Jesus viewed being poor as a virtue? That he instructed his disciples to abandon wealth and lives and trust in him alone?

AS monks priests and Bishops do today.

ISAW

yekahs wrote: »

Well, that Jesus says that they will inherit the Kingdom of God.

Sorry to go all Monty Python on you but that wasn't the poor!

It was the MEEK! "meek will inherit the Earth" Meek does not mean poor it means gentle. that does not rule out them being poor as well. Or rich.

georgieporgy

The RCC has many charitable organizations that its members are asked to contribute to so that assistance can be given where needed.

eg, St Vincent de Paul Society
Caritas/Trochaire
Mother Teresa's missionaries of charity

this is not an exhaustive list but most people should recognise the names.

Not every catholic likes to respond to the exhortation "feed the hungry" "clothe the naked" . They instead become non practising or lapsed catholics and then they need to find a reason to justify their new belief. All they have to do is point at other non practising catholics and say "see, catholics are bad!" Sounds like the perfect get out of jail card (or is it? :rolleyes:)

Yitzhak Rabin

yekahs wrote:

Well, that Jesus says that they will inherit the Kingdom of God.

ISAW wrote: »

Sorry to go all Monty Python on you but that wasn't the poor!

It was the MEEK! "meek will inherit the Earth" Meek does not mean poor it means gentle. that does not rule out them being poor as well. Or rich.

Eh? I didn't say earth, I said the Kingdom of God.

Luke 6:20: Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.

I'll address your other points in a little while, they require more thought. I just said I'd jump straight in with that one.

ISAW

yekahs wrote: »

Thats a nice analogy, and it does make sense, but it begs the question, why didn't he just say a gate?

or "rope"
http://www.eyeoftheneedle.net/Church%20Traditions/eye_of_a_needle.htm
"The Aramaic word gamla means camel, a large rope and a beam. The meaning of the word is determined by its context. If the word riding or burden occurs then gamla means a camel, but when the eye of a needle is mentioned gamla more correctly means a rope. There is no connection anywhere in Aramaic speech or literature between camel and needle, but there is a definite connection between rope and needle."

Most English versions of the Gospels came from Greek texts by translators who may have known nothing about Aramaic. Thus "camel" would have been translated instead of "rope". It takes little effort to imagine Yeshua, while walking along the sea coast, pointing to a rope and saying, "It is easier for a camel [a gamla, a rope] to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God".

I realise that Jesus' often spoke in parables and metaphors, so it can always be open to interpretation, however, to me here the use of the phrase the 'eye of a needle' means just that. Unless, there was a gate in Jerusalem, that was called that?

Maybe there was. the point I think is fairly clear - don't put all your trust in worldly things.

I don't believe I was shifting the burden. I wasn't asking for proof of anything. I just wished to hear the views of the preachers PDN was speaking of so I could get a better understanding of what the correct teachings on wealth retention are.

I think you should look at whgat you stated
You claimed : It is A
PDN: No It is B
You: Show me evidence of B

Now people have provided evidence of B even though it isn't required. Your A still however remains unsupported.

Also, it is impossible to prove my position...

Not alone is A unsupported you are nowe claiming it is impossible to support!
This "logical argument" thing isnt something you seem to be used to.

Please dont takle that as a personal attack. It is something I was not used to until I began to study it. Go and look up some siotes on logical fallacy . Atheist sites are in fact quite usefull on this . Those who take on holocaust deniers are quite good too e.g. Nizkor project.

I have changed my position since the OP, thanks to the responses here. I no longer believe that poverty is a prerequisite for entering heaven.

A very rare occurance here! Tiume to slaughter the fatted lamb! The Prodical has returned!!!

However I do contend, that Jesus views poverty in a positive light, and that becoming a disciple of his, involves the shedding of property, among other things.

Indeed . I suggest you read about francis of Asissi and other Christian mystics. they can be paralled with Islamic Mystics and Sufiism.

Yes, and as a result I have learned my original position was misinformed.

TO no doubt misquoter socrates It is only when I accept that I dont understand that I begin to understand.


"One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing."

'Wealth does not bring goodness, but goodness brings wealth and every other blessing, both to the individual and to the State.'"

"whenever I succeed in disproving another person's claim to wisdom in a given subject, the bystanders assume that I know everything about that subject myself."

Actually, I'm a lapsed catholic, my username, is just my nickname spelled backwards! :pac: (Although I am an Arabic speaker)

ISAW

yekahs wrote: »

Eh? I didn't say earth, I said the Kingdom of God.

Luke 6:20: Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.

I'll address your other points in a little while, they require more thought. I just said I'd jump straight in with that one.

Yeah but this was directed AT HIS DISCIPLES - see the above argument in the thread. t
Look at that verse again and the bit you left out:
NIV
20Looking at his disciples, he said:
"Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.

NASV 20And turning His gaze toward His disciples, He began to say, "(A)Blessed are you who are poor, for (B)yours is the kingdom of God.

KJV 20And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.

Yitzhak Rabin

ISAW wrote: »

Bank account of the Pope? - nothing
Personal wealth of the pope - almost Zero

Just like Seanie Fitz eh?

Give me a break, just because he has no 'personal wealth' does not mean that as an entity the RCC is extravagantly wealthy.

If so it wouldnt be the first time But how have they become self serving?

I realise that I made the claims, and it would be dishonest of me not to back them up, but it will have the effect of derailing my initial intentions in outlining the perceived hypocrisy I saw between scripture and practice.

However, as I made the claim I will back it up, but I can't promise I will continue to discuss the history of the CC throughout the thread. But I suppose for the self serving, I'll go for the most obvious one. The child abuse scandals. The church hierarchy knowingly protected paedophiles in the interest of the churches image. That is self-serving. Also it was not just a small percentage of individuals who did this, it was a consistent policy, and not just here, but worldwide.

It is also not a new phenomenon, and paedophila, and the church have a long association. The first reference to it, goes all the way back to it in 60 AD in Didache, the council of Elvira acknowledged the fact in 309 AD, where it said paedophiles should not commune. In the 8 century, St. Bede, said that clerics sodomising children should be punished. In 1051AD St Peter Damian in Gomorrah complained of "rampant" child abuse and attempts by church superiors to hide it. Pope Leo IX reaction was to keep it in house and say that abuse was a 'spiritual issue' and not a 'criminal one'. In 1140 canon lawyer Gratian of Bologna called for paedophile priest to be put before secular courts. In 1741, pope benedict XIV wrote the manual on child sex abuse. He reccomended that it be kept in house. At least by the 17th century a system of moving, and promoting priest was in place in order to avoid scandal. Again then in 1917, and 1962, the reccomendation was for reports to be kept secret and dealt with internally. Our current pope, as recently as 2001, when he was cardinal ratzinger, he argued that the church should deal with abuse allegations at the highest level of secrecy, that of "pontifical secret".

So, there you have it, an organisation with a 2000 year history of self serving interest on the issue of child abuse.

REally ? Care to list that history ?

Inquisitions
Witch hunts
Anti-reformation
Crusades
Child Abuse
Supression of science
etc. etc.

Duh! Bewcuase unlike in the East "ordinary people" could not read! Look Constantine couldn't even read and it was only after he learned that he thought it would be as good thing and instructed monks to teach people to read

But thats not the point. The point is they were forbidden from ever owning a copy. Why forbid it?

And you claim this "synagogue" quote refers to the Pope?

I think the sentiments behind it, are as true today, as when Jesus spoke of the Pharisees.

Yitzhak Rabin

ISAW wrote: »

or "rope"
http://www.eyeoftheneedle.net/Church%20Traditions/eye_of_a_needle.htm
"The Aramaic word gamla means camel, a large rope and a beam. The meaning of the word is determined by its context. If the word riding or burden occurs then gamla means a camel, but when the eye of a needle is mentioned gamla more correctly means a rope. There is no connection anywhere in Aramaic speech or literature between camel and needle, but there is a definite connection between rope and needle."

Most English versions of the Gospels came from Greek texts by translators who may have known nothing about Aramaic. Thus "camel" would have been translated instead of "rope". It takes little effort to imagine Yeshua, while walking along the sea coast, pointing to a rope and saying, "It is easier for a camel [a gamla, a rope] to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God".

Now that makes a lot more sense than a camel. However, he still presents it as a near impossible task. If he were around today, he might say "A rich man entering heaven, is as easy as finding a needle in a haystack"

I think you should look at whgat you stated
You claimed : It is A
PDN: No It is B
You: Show me evidence of B

I'm pretty sure you are misunderstood.

I said I have rarely heard preachers speaking about wealth, however, I have often heard them speaking about homosexuality.

PDN said, I must be listening to different preachers than him.

I asked, who those preachers were, as I would like to hear what they had to say about wealth.

I wasn't asking for anything to be proven or disproven. Simply wished to further my understanding.

Not alone is A unsupported you are nowe claiming it is impossible to support!

By A do you mean, my claim that preachers rarely speak of wealth but often on the topic of homosexuality? If so, I can easily provide proof they speak of homosexuality often. I cannot however prove how rare or otherwise the topic of wealth is discussed, as I don't know of any, hence my asking PDN to direct me to some. I'm not claiming they don't, all I can base it on is my experience.
This "logical argument" thing isnt something you seem to be used to.

ISAW

yekahs wrote: »

Just like Seanie Fitz eh?

Give me a break, just because he has no 'personal wealth' does not mean that as an entity the RCC is extravagantly wealthy.

So what? Just bewcause the president of the US ius or is not wealthy hasd nothing to do with the GDP of the US. The point you made was about personal wealth not coroprate wealth. If a person is over a bank and doesnt embezzle or mis manage money for personal gain then they are not criminal.

I will continue to discuss the history of the CC throughout the thread. But I suppose for the self serving, I'll go for the most obvious one. The child abuse scandals.

REcent covering say the last 50 years of 2000 years. I have posted doccuments from the Early church stating chiuld abuse was wroing ( 5th centuury I believe) That neverf changed. then numbers involved are like suggesting that the national front represent British people.

The church hierarchy knowingly protected paedophiles in the interest of the churches image. That is self-serving.

I agree. Of four Bishops in dubil two tried to avoid a scandal . One didnt believe it possible. B t ther were over 2000- 5000 bishops I guess over this period and there was not a meeting of even three or four to discuss how they would cover up asnything to my knowl;edge. ther is a seperate thread in this. Npow as I asked compare this to OUTSIDE the church. Of the Dublin report we have 11 abusers since 1940-2004 period. How many child abusers not in the church over that period?

Also it was not just a small percentage of individuals who did this, it was a consistent policy, and not just here, but worldwide.

Your evidence is?

Mine ( counter evidece less than 1 per cent of clergy) is posted in the Child abuse thread

It is also not a new phenomenon, and paedophila, and the church have a long association. The first reference to it, goes all the way back to it in 60 AD in Didache,

Evidence?

the council of Elvira acknowledged the fact in 309 AD, where it said paedophiles should not commune. In the 8 century, St. Bede, said that clerics sodomising children should be punished.

Indeed as should murder rape and stealing. that does not mean the church condoned it!

In 1051AD St Peter Damian in Gomorrah complained of "rampant" child abuse and attempts by church superiors to hide it.

Evidence ? Numbers involved? What was happening outside the church at that time?

Pope Leo IX reaction was to keep it in house and say that abuse was a 'spiritual issue' and not a 'criminal one'. In 1140 canon lawyer Gratian of Bologna called for paedophile priest to be put before secular courts.

How many priests existed at that time?

In 1741, pope benedict XIV wrote the manual on child sex abuse. He reccomended that it be kept in house. At least by the 17th century a system of moving, and promoting priest was in place in order to avoid scandal.

Explain this can you please? Source for this "manual" ?
What does "in house" mean?

Again then in 1917, and 1962, the reccomendation was for reports to be kept secret and dealt with internally.

Again it is int the thread. You are misinformed. the recommendations were that victims statements be kept secret to protect the victim but that priests be outed.

Our current pope, as recently as 2001, when he was cardinal ratzinger, he argued that the church should deal with abuse allegations at the highest level of secrecy, that of "pontifical secret".

Where did he argue this?

So, there you have it, an organisation with a 2000 year history of self serving interest on the issue of child abuse.

Six unsupported examples from history! The rest from the last 50 years!


Inquisitions - killed how many people

I reckon about 30,000 in five centuries ! Compared to what over the same period?

Witch hunts- Killed I think four people in Ireland! Over a century these were by and large restricted to Eastern Europe and were stroinget in NON Catholic i.e Protestant regions!


Anti-reformation - Yeah what about it? Mind you "counter reformation" is the preferred term. An extremely interesting period.


Crusades - again how many? about a million people over centuries. Much more killed by noin christians elsewhere at the same time.

Child Abuse - covered that above

Supression of science - oh come on! the church WAS science!

etc. etc. - TO WHAT etc. etc. do you refer? Sources compasrisons!???

But thats not the point. The point is they were forbidden from ever owning a copy. Why forbid it?

Duh! Bewcause ignorant people who cant read might abuse or deface it? Because it might be used in a black mass? O tempora o mores.

I think the sentiments behind it, are as true today, as when Jesus spoke of the Pharisees.

SO do I . I just dont happen to thin k you have provided any evidence as to conspiracies in the church oiver the centuries. Althought i accept there were bad periods in the past there were also worse things outside the church. I dont thing the Dan Brown idea of a church having secret meetings to hush up or conspire and the whole history of the church being riddled weith this is a correct history.

Yitzhak Rabin

georgieporgy wrote: »

The RCC has many charitable organizations that its members are asked to contribute to so that assistance can be given where needed.

eg, St Vincent de Paul Society
Caritas/Trochaire
Mother Teresa's missionaries of charity

this is not an exhaustive list but most people should recognise the names.

I have never denied that catholic people give to charitable organisations. The problem I have, is with the extravagant wealth on display in the church. The gold ornamentation. The Vatican, has unbelievable wealth. Unimaginable. That is why I do not think they are living up to their self appointed image a disciples of Christ, who are supposed to abandon all trappings of wealth. When not sell a priceless painting in order to help make a difference in the world, instead of hoarding great wealth and riches?

Not every catholic likes to respond to the exhortation "feed the hungry" "clothe the naked" . They instead become non practising or lapsed catholics and then they need to find a reason to justify their new belief. All they have to do is point at other non practising catholics and say "see, catholics are bad!" Sounds like the perfect get out of jail card (or is it? :rolleyes:)

At least be man enough to address me, rather than abstractly referring to me.

Your insinuation that I left the catholic church, because I do not like to give to the poor, is unfounded, insulting, and dare I say it? Not very Christian of you.

I applaud charity, I am an avid supporter of charity. Not because I am told to do it, or because I fear damnation for not doing it. I do it because I think it is right.

There were a number of reasons why I left the CC. An objection to charity, was not one of them.

ISAW

yekahs wrote: »

I said I have rarely heard preachers speaking about wealth, however, I have often heard them speaking about homosexuality.

PDN said, I must be listening to different preachers than him.

What you stat

d:
Day to day, Christians may give to charity, but that is not what Jesus asked, he asked that we give away all our wealth.

This is not just solely an inconsistency from the RCC. The Pentacostal and Evangelical preachers are the same. They often preach about the sinfulness of homosexuality, something which Jesus had very little to say about, but rare to criticise themselves or others about amassing wealth, instead of doing what we are commanded to do, which is abandon wealth.

I asked, who those preachers were, as I would like to hear what they had to say about wealth.

I wasn't asking for anything to be proven or disproven. Simply wished to further my understanding.

Try again her is what you stated:

This is not just solely an inconsistency from the RCC. The Pentacostal and Evangelical preachers are the same.

You claimed an inconsistency with respect to wealth! rare to criticise themselves or others about amassing wealth, instead of doing what we are commanded to do, which is abandon wealth.

ISAW

yekahs wrote: »

I have never denied that catholic people give to charitable organisations. The problem I have, is with the extravagant wealth on display in the church. The gold ornamentation. The Vatican, has unbelievable wealth. Unimaginable.

Dealth with elsewhere. The point here isnt about the Holy See. You are changing the issue from INDIVIDUAL disciples and clergy having wealth to the Church having it! it is a DIFFERENT issue and already dealt with in another thread.

That is why I do not think they are living up to their self appointed image a disciples of Christ, who are supposed to abandon all trappings of wealth.

Now yoyu are conflating the two issues! stick with one will you ? the pone about personal wealth! they dont have any!

When not sell a priceless painting in order to help make a difference in the world, instead of hoarding great wealth and riches?

Now you are back to the other issue! See the other thread on that!

There were a number of reasons why I left the CC. An objection to charity, was not one of them.

But you object to people who took vows of poverty?

ISAW

yekahs wrote: »

the council of Elvira acknowledged the fact in 309 AD, where it said paedophiles should not commune.

Misquoted. the canons are difficult to find

http://www.beyond-the-pale.org.uk/elvira.htm

12. Parents and other Christians who give up their children to sexual abuse are selling others' bodies, and if they do so or sell their own bodies, they shall not receive communion even at death.

You are claiming that the above is evidence that the church condoned or conspired to conceal child abuse?

Please remove Elvira from you list. Need we go through all your other unsupported allegation?

Im just suggestiong you check out media stories before you believe in myths.

georgieporgy

yekahs wrote: »

I have never denied that catholic people give to charitable organisations. The problem I have, is with the extravagant wealth on display in the church. The gold ornamentation. The Vatican, has unbelievable wealth. Unimaginable. That is why I do not think they are living up to their self appointed image a disciples of Christ, who are supposed to abandon all trappings of wealth. When not sell a priceless painting in order to help make a difference in the world, instead of hoarding great wealth and riches?



At least be man enough to address me, rather than abstractly referring to me.

Your insinuation that I left the catholic church, because I do not like to give to the poor, is unfounded, insulting, and dare I say it? Not very Christian of you.

I applaud charity, I am an avid supporter of charity. Not because I am told to do it, or because I fear damnation for not doing it. I do it because I think it is right.

There were a number of reasons why I left the CC. An objection to charity, was not one of them.

ok Yekahs, good rebuttal. Sorry for casting a slur on you. I'm afraid I do have a sarcastic streak in me. Which probably makes me a bad catholic? or can I blame it on the church?(just kidding there now so don't follow that up)

On the subject of the vatican selling a few paintings and doing even more good work by distributing the proceeds to the poor, have you ever checked a catholic apologetics source for an explanation as to why that isn't done?

What do you think of the vatican's suggestion that rich countries reduce their expenditure on arms and use the funds to erradicate hunger and disease immediately?

And maybe the Louvre could sell a painting or two etc etc?

Perhaps (catholic)libraries could give their books to the poor so they can burn them to keep warm in winter?

sugested source for further study;

http://www.catholicapologetics.org/aptoc.htm#ap010200

georgieporgy

To make it easy I have looked up one source to give an answer to the specific question that was raised;

6. “If the Church truly followed Jesus, they’d sell their lavish art, property, and architecture, and give the money to the poor.”

When some people think of Vatican City, what they immediately picture is something like a wealthy kingdom, complete with palatial living accommodations for the pope and chests of gold tucked away in every corner, not to mention the fabulous collection of priceless art and artifacts. Looking at it that way, it’s easy to see how some people would become indignant at what they think is an ostentatious and wasteful show of wealth.

But the truth is something quite different. While the main buildings are called the “Vatican Palace,” it wasn’t built to be the lavish living quarters of the pope. In fact, the residential part of the Vatican is relatively small. The greater portion of the Vatican is given over to purposes of art and science, administration of the Church’s official business, and management of the Palace in general. Quite a number of Church and administrative officials live in the Vatican with the pope, making it more like the Church’s main headquarters.

As for the impressive art collection, truly one of the finest in the world, the Vatican views it as “an irreplaceable treasure,” but not in monetary terms. The pope doesn’t “own” these works of art and couldn’t sell them if he wanted to; they’re merely in the care of the Holy See. The art doesn’t even provide the Church with wealth; actually, it’s just the opposite. The Holy See invests quite a bit of its resources into the upkeep of the collection.

The truth of the matter is that the See has a fairly tight financial budget. So why keep the art? It goes back to a belief in the Church’s mission (one of many) as a civilizing force in the world. Just like the medieval monks who carefully transcribed ancient texts so they would be available to future generations — texts that otherwise would have been lost forever — the Church continues to care for the arts so they will not be forgotten over time. In today’s culture of death where the term “civilization” can only be used loosely, the Church’s civilizing mission is as important today as it ever was.

antiskeptic

yekahs wrote: »

Eh? I didn't say earth, I said the Kingdom of God.

Luke 6:20: Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.

I'll address your other points in a little while, they require more thought. I just said I'd jump straight in with that one.

Check out Matthew 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

The poverty being referred to isn't one of material wealth but one of spirit. In this opening section (of the sermon on the mount) Jesus is in fact describing the countenance of the Christian - beginning with that entry characteristic - spiritual impoverishment. It's only the Christian who realises that he is spiritually bankrupt afterall.

FISMA

yekahs,
I see your follow up posting - fair enough on the poor.

However, now you have gone on to say that the Church suppresses science.

yekahs wrote: »

Supression of science

Although not wholly, your posting now looks much more like what I expect to find on the Atheist forum: a thinly veiled attack on the Church.

Again, you're demonstrating a general lack of knowledge on the Church.

Let's start with Astronomy. Have a look at the moon and tell me why soooooo many craters et al are named after Jesuits. Because of suppression?

Unlike non-believers at the time, Christians and Catholics believed that God was "up there." Thus, people wanted to build telescopes. Later on, they wanted bigger and better ones to see farther out. Modern day studies of Optics, Physics, and Astronomy are derived at least in part from these studies.

Pick up a rock. To a nonbeliever it is just an inanimate object. Who cares what it is? To the Christian, it is part of God's creation. If God made it, then there must be some intelligence/order/structure to it. As such, we the believers want to study it to its indivisible (Atomos) level - enter modern day Chemistry.

As for Galileo, you've probably never heard that he WAS allowed to teach his heliocentric model in catholic learning institutions AS A THEORY, not AS FACT. I support this as Galileo was wrong in stating that the Sun was the center of the Universe. However, Galileo refused to teach as a theory and taught as fact.

I'll leave the last word to you as, from your postings, you demonstrate in your writings a position of increased attacks, and less of seeking knowledge or open debate.

Slan.