first of all, can everyone stop quoting massive chunks of previous posts? it makes it really difficult to follow discussions and doesn't show what point is being addressed.
my two penn'orth:
Even the Old Testament had nothing good to say about charging interest [usury] and those that carried out the practice. (See Ezek. 18:8 and 18:17, Deut. 23:19-20, Exod. 22:25, Psalms 15:5)
actually, it's being talked about in quite different terms. we're not talking about all loans any more than we're talking about all money. our basic approach for the quotes from exodus and deuteronomy is first to look at the standard commentary, which is RaSh"I's (france, C12th) which says the following:
Torah (ex 22:24):
"When you will lend money to My people, to the poor person who is with you, do not act toward him as a creditor, do not place interest upon him"
Rashi:
"this means When you will lend *anything*, not just money to other jews; and rabbi ishmael (a mishnaic authority) says that this is one of the three occasions where the word "when" implies that you are obliged - in this case, you are obliged to lend to the needy. if you have to decide whether to lending to a jew or a non-jew, lend to the jew, (because you'd do the same thing if it was a choice of lending to a family member or a stranger) between a poor person and a rich person, the poor person takes priority. between the jewish poor and the general poor ("of your city"), your poor take priority. but between the poor of your city and the poor of another city, the poor of your city take priority."
"'to the one who is with you' means someone who asks you as opposed to going out and 'looking for business'. the phrase 'My people' teaches us that you should not treat someone in a humilliating manner when lending to them. look at yourself as if you are the poor person and do not make your claim against him forcibly. if you know that he does not have funds to repay, do not appear toward him as if you lent him, but rather as if you did not lend him, that is to say, do not embarrass him."
"'interest' means 'increase', for it is like the bite of a snake, for a snake bites a small wound in one's foot and the victim does not feel it, but suddenly it causes puffiness and swelling up to the crown of his head. So it is with interest. He does not feel it and is not aware of it, until the interest accumulates and causes him a loss of much money."
this implies that interest is OK in terms of what you are foregoing by not having the money because you've lent it to someone else and they're using it. in other words it's the same as the concept of "opportunity cost" - if there's no opportunity cost then you're not entitled to recover it!
Torah (ex 22: 25):
"If you will take your fellow's garment as security, until the sun sets you shall have returned it to him"
Rashi:
"use of the term 'security' does not mean that they take collateral at the time of the loan, but rather, that they take collateral from the borrower *only when the time that the debt due arrives, and he does not pay up*. similarly, the Torah makes you repeat the act of taking security even if you must repeat it many times. it is as if G!D, said, 'consider how much you owe Me! your soul ascends to Me each and every night and gives an accounting of itself and is found to be in debt to Me, yet I return it to you each morning and I do this over and over every day of your life'. therefore, we, too, should take the collateral and return it, over and over again. what is more, once you've returned it you can't get hold of it again till the next morning. we can therefore work our that the verse is discussing a garment used by day which the debtor does not need at night, or even the bed linen."
with regard to deuteronomy 23:19-20, the point is that money gained by immoral means or which involved cheating cannot be used for charitable purposes. rashi clarifies the verse from exodus, also, by saying that it's OK to make a business out of lending money, but that should not preclude 'social lending'.
this should serve to show that reading translations of Torah verses without the benefit of the explanatory oral tradition is *totally* misleading. in fact, there are several volumes of the Talmud devoted to the promotion of ethical business behaviour, contracts and the like. the general position is that people need to earn a living, but this is not an excuse for unethical behaviour. in short, there is a middle ground between monks and enron and we are encouraged to stay in it.
However, I do believe that GREED and God are mutually exclusive.
if G!D Is All and All Is G!D, then nothing can be exclusive of G!D. surely, without greed, generosity has no meaning?
I'd like to point out that mammon is not money itself it is "material wealth or possessions especially as having a debasing influence".
in the Talmud, "mamon" is a general term meaning "money" or, by extension, "financial transactions". however, the addition of "serve" should surely clarify this - i suspect that the aramaic term that is eventually being translated as "serve" is the equivalent of the hebrew word "'AVODaH" - which *also* means
*worship*. it is essentially a pun which is lost in translation, because the explicit link between "work for" and "worship" is not obvious when the word "serve" has been used. in a strictly monotheistic context, it should be obvious that worshipping anything other than G!D would be problematic.
btw:
An American Catholic Church would just need time to become as fat and corrupt as its Roman counterpart!
and a universal church.....?
b'shalom
bananabrain
. 
