Dukasaur wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:So far, you, tzor, the OP, and PS have all been shown to be false for reasons already stated. If you'd like to address the problems with your (and whoever's arguments which you'll agree with but not support or maybe support or maybe change but not really depending on your time of day), then be my guest.
The OP asked, "why is it said.... blah blah blah" It's pretty clear from the context that when St. Paul wrote those words, he was not referring to money in the sense of "medium of exchange" so all this arguing about whether money or credit saves you time in the marketplace is completely irrelevant.
St. Paul was talking about those whose materialism blinds them to their spiritual development.
St. Paul wrote:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
6 But godliness with contentment is great gain.
7 For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
11 But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
Of course our public school teachers loved to quote this out of context as an attack on money in general, but you have to keep in mind that most public school teachers are members of virulently socialist public-service unions. Reading the passage in context makes it clear that it is not an attack on wealth, or on trade. It is an attack on materialism so intense that it distracts one from spiritual growth.
But godliness with contentment is great gain.
This is the nub of it. It basically means that there's nothing wrong with being well-off or even wealthy, as long as one's highest goals remain spiritual.
For Paul, of course, "spiritual" meant "Christ-worshipping" but there's no reason to straitjacket yourself into a narrow-minded model of any particular religion. Similar things are said in other religions, and in completely non-religious ethical systems.
For my atheist brethren, here's how Aristotle arrives at much the same conclusion from a secular approach:
Aristotle wrote:But, being a man, one will also need external prosperity; for our nature is not self-sufficient for the purpose of contemplation, but our body also must be healthy and must have food and other attention. Still, we must not think that the man who is to be happy will need many things or great things, merely because he cannot be supremely happy without external goods; for self-sufficiency and action do not involve excess, and we can do noble acts without ruling earth and sea; for even with moderate advantages one can act virtuously (this is manifest enough; for private persons are thought to do worthy acts no less than despots -- indeed even more); and it is enough that we should have so much as that; for the life of the man who is active in accordance with virtue will be happy.
http://www.constitution.org/ari/ethic_10.htmBasically people complicate their lives with materialistic claptrap and forget that the point of life is self-improvement, and self improvement does not proceed from burying yourself up the the neck with all the putrescent shit that Walmart can excrete from its shelves. I mean, what do you really need? Good food, good beer, a warm place to lay your head, and a decent blowjob every now and then. Beyond that, all is vanity and vexation of the spirit, as the old poem goes.
When I see the retards lining up in the rain because the Iphone 3 is out and some marketing asshole told them they had to have one or die, I just want to run up to them and scream, "You retards are the TOOLs OF your own Enszlavement!!!!!" but of course I don't because they would stare at me like cows waiting for the abattoir and continue to think nothing.
I like your interpretation of St. Paul's words, and it is true that he considers worship of God to be the higher value, but he stills says:
8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
8. Be content with the food and clothing. (Not cell phones, not cars, probably not even a horse or camel).
9. The rich fall into temptation and lust and etc. (the rich as in "those with money")
10. "Love of money is the root of all evil." Seeking money and going beyond the basics (food and clothing) is erring from faith and is the path to sorrow.
Based on my interpretation, he's still condemning wealth, as in living beyond the basics. I appreciate your pointing out that St. Paul is totes cool with using money for the basics (food and clothing... , perhaps basic housing if you wish to find a 'surplus of meaning' with a metaphorical approach.), but still he's condemning the use of money beyond the basics, and he's still lambasting "the love of money [as] the root of all evil." There's really no way you can cover that up.
On wealth beyond food and clothing and 'love of money = root of all evil', St. Paul is still wrong-headed. Putting "love of money" in some black box and saying, "it's the root of evil!" is completely wrong for reasons already stated and which are still relevant.
One can love money as much as they want; it still depends on the consequences and the means.
Bringing up Aristotle is fun! I love the man, and I've read the main parts of his Metaphysics, Nico. Ethics, Physics, and Politics. You know what he said about all this? The highest purpose of one's life is either politics or philosophy (it's 'either-or' because being ambiguous is Aristotle's schtick). So, there's nothing spiritual about that. Therefore, Aristotle didn't reach a similar conclusion to St. Paul's (their concepts of spirituality, or rather the spirit, were very different).
Furthermore, Aristotle is advancing his virtues as the way to go (which does not involve eschewing wealth, being content with only food and clothing, labeling money as the root of all evil, etc.). That section of Aristotle's stems from his doctrine of the mean, which insists on moderation.
For Aristotle, people can enjoy good wine, nice theatre, nice clothes, etc., but only if it's moderation. You don't want to be extravagant, but you don't want to become a beggar subsisting on food and clothing. You stay away from the extremes (one of which St. Paul advocates) and you aim for the mean (middle ground).
The OP asked, "why is it said.... blah blah blah" It's pretty clear from the context that when St. Paul wrote those words, he was not referring to money in the sense of "medium of exchange" so all this arguing about whether money or credit saves you time in the marketplace is completely irrelevant.
So, my criticism is still relevant for reasons stated above, and because St. Paul would demonize any medium of exchange which allowed oneself to be more content without only food and clothing. If money, whatever it may be, enabled one to be rich, St. Paul would say, "[you will] fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts." And no matter what form money may be (i.e. whatever medium of exchange may be), then love of that would still be the root of all evil.
If we could sit him down, and I could ask him what he means about 'money,' he would eventually agree that it means 'medium of exchange which leads to more wealth', then this would make his argument absurd. Then I'd be labeled a heretic or whatever pejorative term, but so it goes.
