>>>What kind of church amasses wealth
>>
>>ask your boy Creflo $$$
>^ The exact same type of "church" which is what I'm getting
>at. Both the Church of Creflo and the Vatican are equally
>corrupt in that they amass gross amounts of wealth

that's funny, cuz when ppl here were talking about Creflo fleecing his flock of $60 million to buy himself a luxury private jet you didn't have a single word to say against it. You did however give tacit agreement with the rationale he gave for needing it - ironic, huh? And to make matters worst, Creflo is specifically taking advantage of YOUR OWN PEOPLE who you are always professing to defend against injustices and wrongdoing, but when this shyster is stealing from them hand over fist in the name of Jesus you don't have a word to say about it. So nah don't come in here now trying to say this is the same thing that you're getting at because you didn't have shit to say about it before.


>and do not
>distribute or utilize said wealth to care for the poor,
>widowed, and orphaned (to say the least) which is exactly what
>they should be doing with it.

Actually the Catholic Church does exactly that.


>>>and holds secret and
>>>mysterious rituals?
>>
>>Mormons?
>^ just as wrong (not sure how your bringing a religion with
>heavily racist undertones into the conversation helps your
>point)

you asked a question and I gave an answer. And my point is you think they're just as wrong and acknowledge their heavily racist undertones yet never say a peep about them.


>>Prays to statues and the dead for
>>>miracles?
>>
>>Lutherans?
>^ Also just as wrong (if in fact they do this)

They do the same stuff that you are opposed to Catholics for doing (Anglicans/Episcopals too!) Again funny that you aren't even aware of this but are so obsessed with Catholics doing the same things they do.


>(you do know that these branches are all interconnected? -- I
>want to say since the first council of Nicaea)

Which branches? The Catholic Church and Lutheran Church? You are aware that the Lutheran Church was specifically established to NOT be interconnected with the Catholic Church, right? And didn't even exist until well over 1,000 years after the first council of Nicaea? Or maybe you meant something else? Not sure what you are talking about here.


>A mythological book containing records of historically
>accurate kingdoms and rulers would be a little closer to the
>truth, however your opinion about words you don't believe is
>pretty much irrelevant.

You mean the Heimskringla? But as for the one I was referring to, a mythological book containing record of a global flood that wiped out most of humanity and animal life on earth which the scientific geological and archaeological record (not to mention common sense) clearly shows never happened, and a mass population exodus from a historically well-attested kingdom for which extensive historical and archaeological records exists, yet there is absolutely zero historical or archaeological evidence for such an event taking place would be a more accurate assessment. However you're a creationist so your opinion on science, history, or even basic logic is pretty much irrelevant.


>>That's the thing - you don't actually know what you are
>>talking about. I'm sure you think you do, but you have an
>>extreme case of confirmation bias where you only see what
>>you want to see to fit your preconceived notions. I'm just
>>pointing out the fallacies of your arguments.
>
>But you haven't really done that -- at least not by pointing
>out non Christian practices as practiced by other entities
>which may or may not be christian themselves. So again I'm not
>sure what you're getting at.

No I've done that before. Here I was just answering the questions you asked.


Other than saying "hey these
>religions/churches that also don't adhere to what's written in
>a book of mythology are doing it wrong too" which I could have
>told you and saved you some typing.

except that you don't actually ever say anything about that, which was the point I was making.