Money Isn't a False God

quote:

---

You've already agreed, though, that that's not what "worshiping a false god" means. You've agreed that it doesn't mean temples and prostrate worship; you've agreed that it means "putting material concerns ahead of spiritual ones."

---

I have not agreed that worshiping a false god has no actual worship involved. I feel it must have actual worship involved. The party must be worshiping the false god as a god.I agreed with your statement: I agree that the phrase "worshiping Mammon" does not include any actual worship. That's why I say that money is not a false god. There is no actual worship involved.Putting money ahead of spiritual matters is not worshiping a false god. There is no worship taking place. As you said, the phrase is nothing more than a metaphor. (Message 28)

quote:

---

Right, because those are her domains. The young virgin is Artemis. The expecting mother is Artemis. The ebb and flow of seasons is Artemis. The hunt is Artemis. The wild place is Artemis. All of those things are Artemis and Artemis is all of those things. That's what it means to be the "god" of something. Artemis is the hunt, so she is manifest in the hunt.

---

No. They aren't worshiping the hunt, they are worshiping the goddess. ABE: Edited by purpledawn, : ABE

If we can agree that "idolatry" is essentially synonymous with the worship of "false gods," it might be informative to look up "idolatry" in some Bible dictionaries. E.g. ISBE (the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia):

quote:

---

Idolatry -dola-tri : There is ever in the human mind a craving for visible forms to express religious conceptions, and this tendency does not disappear with the acceptance, or even with the constant recognition, of pure spiritual truths (see IMAGES). Idolatry originally meant the worship of idols, or the worship of false gods by means of idols, but came to mean among the OT Hebrews any worship of false gods, whether by images or otherwise, and finally the worship of Jehovah through visible symbols (Hosea 8:5,6; 10:5); and ultimately in the NT idolatry came to mean, not only the giving to any creature or human creation the honor or devotion which belonged to God alone, but the giving to any human desire a precedence over God’s will (1 Cor 10:14; Gal 5:20; Col 3:5; 1 Pet 4:3). ...

---

The author (Camden Cobern) agrees that the original meaning is essentially what you have been saying, but that the meaning broadened with time to include a usage which is essentially what you are arguing against.Paul equated idolatry with greed or covetousness:

quote:

---

Eph. 5:5 For you can be confident of this one thing: that no person who is immoral, impure, or greedy (such a person is an idolater) has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

​

Col. 3:5 So put to death whatever in your nature belongs to the earth: sexual immorality, impurity, shameful passion, evil desire, and greed which is idolatry.

---

Since greed or covetousness is a desire for wealth that one doesn't possess, Paul seems to be saying that wealth can be a false god.Also remember that Jesus said money is something which can be served like a God, in place of God:

quote:

---

Matt. 6:24 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 money.

​

Luke 16:13 No servant 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 money.

---

So it seems that both Jesus and Paul say that wealth or money can indeed be a false god.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : format

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

quote:

---

If we can agree that "idolatry" is essentially synonymous with the worship of "false gods," it might be informative to look up "idolatry" in some Bible dictionaries. E.g. ISBE (the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia):

---

It's a synonym when it refers to actually worshiping the idol of a god who is considered to be false. When used metaphorically as Paul uses it in the NT, it is not synonymous with worshiping a god.

quote:

---

So it seems that both Jesus and Paul say that wealth or money can indeed be a false god.

---

Figurative language used to make a point doesn't mean they really considered these things to be false gods nor does it make them false gods.They aren't saying that wealth or money can be false gods. They are drawing a verbal picture by comparing greed and idolatry or money as a master. They are trying to dissuade the people from being greedy and selfish.Comparing greed with idolatry or money with a master doesn't make greed idolatry or money a master.Generally stating that money and power are false gods is inaccurate. It is one's own behavior with wealth or power that goes against one's religion or not.

So what's wrong with us referring to money as a "false god" in a metaphorical sense? Isn't that essentially what Jesus and Paul are doing?

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

quote:

---

So what's wrong with us referring to money as a "false god" in a metaphorical sense? Isn't that essentially what Jesus and Paul are doing?

---

They weren't comparing money to a false god. We don't have the multitude of gods today that they had back then, so the reference is really weak. Our behavior concerning money or wealth is the issue, not the money or wealth.It isn't a good metaphor and is misleading. It would work better as a simile and not a metaphor. Compare someone's behavior towards money to those who worshiped false gods.Like I said earlier, when we water down the meaning of a false god to anything that gets in the way of doing God's will or we supposedly love more than our god, then that waters down the meaning of a god or worship, IMO. It also leaves the believer open to being used.Money isn't really similar to a false god.

I agree with this mostly, although I can see how someone might misconstrue what you've stated. It seems Joshua, and later Paul and other authors, addressed the actual motivating impulses of different behaviors where money played a role.If the trust & reliance placed on money is seen as faith in, and so the substance and evidence of, a particular idol or God, then the money becomes simply a means by which the practitioner and the gods, or god (or God) accomplish their tasks together. This really appears to be at the crux of that seemingly prophetic tradition found in the 1st Timothy booklet.In the verse it isn't money that is a false god, or even evil to speak, but rather it is love found wanting. Consider the statements which lead up to the infamous verse, while further considering the greek word employed for love has a connotation of avarice ..

avarice

[av-er-is]
—noun
insatiable greed for riches; inordinate, miserly desire to gain and hoard wealth.

".. men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. But godliness actually is a means of great gain when accompanied by contentment. For we have brought nothing into the world, so we cannot take anything out of it either. If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content.".One is then challenged to consider how a relationship with money may become unhealthy in such a way that it could be responsible, from an ethical standpoint, for a majority of the evil/suffering in the world. This seems to be increasingly prophetic when juxtaposed against some of the more fantastic foundation myths found throughout the Garden.Also, it seems interesting and worth mentioning we find this bit mixed in a chapter dealing with ecclesiastical instruction.Edited by Bailey, : sp.

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

That's why I said it would work better as a simile than a metaphor. It's the individual's behavior that is the issue, not the money itself.There are differences in our word worship. Meaning #1 was the norm for gods. Meaning #3 is more in line with love of money.While we use one word for these behaviors, the Bible uses different one. As you noted the Greek word for "love of money" deals with avarice and covetousness, which is closer to meaning #3. The Greek words for "worship" are more in line with meaning #1.So while we can say that a person worships money and people worshiped gods, it isn't the same behavior.The Judeo/Christian God does not require love in the 10 commandments, but does command that followers not bow down to other gods.In Deuteronomy 6:5, God requires love also.I don't feel that worshiping false gods is a good comparison to loving money.

Reasonably, that may depend on the expectations and the type of love one is attaching to the money. Biblically, one can't write a blank check statement declaring money as a false god, as it's a check that the Bank of Scripture won't cash.One need only consider the Parable of the Minas; in the parable Joshua is depicted rendering the two servants who invested their portion of the estate as 'faithful' (rather then perhaps shrewd, effective, and/or profitable, etc. ), while the last servant is cast as 'wicked', 'lazy' and 'worthless', and ultimately ejected from the premises.Yet, he is not addressed this way due to any loss of or failure to repay the capital as one may think could be reasonable, but rather for withholding the money and doing simply nothing with the potential but hoarding it. A strong case can be made apart from the ToRaH, within the Nevi'im alone, that the teachings - yes, all "365 restrictions and 248 positive commands", were intended to foster what would result in a loving society had it not been for those meddling youngsters. However, while money may indeed be playing a role there, it's likely fodder for another thread. There's a sense people tend to overgeneralize within the various traditions, perhaps due in part to pebbles of propaganda tossed long ago into a sea of theological discourse under which they still gently sink through the currents. Only now the rhetoric is generalized, less trivialized and so disconnected from what we find at calvin.edu.Money as a god does not really work for the obvious reasons, one being there's no actual god assuming that name as far as can be told. Also, while we can consider whether mammon as a god works better as a simile or a metaphor, we may be as well off to simply accept its common status as a 'personification of wealth' when considering its place in literature.(ie. 'You cannot serve The Father of Joshua and (or as), a Personification of Wealth and Avarice', etc.)One could muse over the dollar's legitimacy as a talisman within occult magik, however it seems traditions centered around the likes of the roman god Dis Pater - roughly translated as "Rich Father", or the goddess Juno Moneta provide better examples of the worship of money as a god. However, these traditions are lost under layers and layers of dust.Where these could serve as classic examples of your meaning #1 from above, meaning #3 does seem to align better with a 'personification of wealth' such as mammon. Edited by Bailey, : sp.

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

I'm sorry? Did you not write Message 27? If someone else is posting under your name maybe you could let Percy know. But Message 27 as written has this exchange: So, I said that clearly "worshiping a false god" didn't have to mean prostrate worship, it had a more modern definition of simply "not letting material concerns... supersede more important spiritual concerns." You replied that it was appropriate to construe the admonition in that sense.So, yes, you did agree that "worshiping a false god" doesn't mean the actual practice of worship, it just means a misallocation of priorities. Since you'll ask (just to be difficult, as usual), Message 27 is where you did that. You've already agreed that it is. As I said I'm prepared to allow you to walk back what you've already agreed, but I'm not prepared to allow you to simply deny saying what you clearly did say.If you don't agree anymore, that's fine! You're allowed to change your mind. But we're not going to have a debate on the basis of fictions about what was and was not said. Because Artemis is the hunt, worshiping the hunt is worshiping the goddess. That's what it means to be the "god" of something.

I've given you notice that you have misconstrued my response. I will make this second effort to help you understand your mistake. If you still don't understand, I won't continue to address your misunderstanding.

quote:

---

So, I said that clearly "worshiping a false god" didn't have to mean prostrate worship, it had a more modern definition of simply "not letting material concerns... supersede more important spiritual concerns." You replied that it was appropriate to construe the admonition in that sense.

​

So, yes, you did agree that "worshiping a false god" doesn't mean the actual practice of worship, it just means a misallocation of priorities. Since you'll ask (just to be difficult, as usual), Message 27 is where you did that.

---

You are incorrect in your understanding.
Your Message 26 quoted my Message 25. Notice the difference between what I quoted in Message 27and what you quoted to defend your mistake Yours is missing the question you asked and I was responding to. I took that question to be referring to my comment from Message 25 that you quoted: My answer to your question was that it is an appropriate way to construe it.My next statement addressed the rest of your paragraph. Do you see the difference?
Do you understand my answer to your question?
Do you understand your mistake?

quote:

---

Because Artemis is the hunt, worshiping the hunt is worshiping the goddess. That's what it means to be the "god" of something.

---

They don't worship the hunt. They worship the goddess.

I've given you notice that I clearly have not, and that I won't play this game where you say one thing, deny it, and then chalk the whole thing up to "my misunderstanding". You had your chance, months ago, to prove that that was something I was prone to and you were not able to.Did you write message 27 or didn't you? No, it is not. The material you quoted and the material I quoted are identical except for a small amount of introductory material. What you stated was that "not letting shallow material concerns, like wealth, power, prestige, or influence, supersede more important spiritual concerns" was an "appropriate way to construe" the passage.Your words. We can do this all day but the discussion is at a standstill as long as you attempt to be deceitful about what you did and did not say. Nothing has been "misconstrued" simply because you don't like the consequences of what you've already agreed to. You're free to change your mind at any time! You need merely state that you are doing so.I don't understand why you have such a major issue, apparently, with the notion of changing one's mind. I'm not going to think less of you for doing it. I am going to think much less of you if you continue to play these deceitful games. Oh, come on. You must think I'm truly a moron if you expect me to believe that you thought I was asking you if you agreed with your own position.Don't you think I'd assume that you did? Why on Earth would I ask you if you agreed with yourself?It beggars belief to for you to suggest that you innocently thought I was asking you if you agreed with yourself, and that the referent of "it" in "I think it is an appropriate way to construe it" is your own position, not the modern construction that I presented immediately before your assenting statement.Obviously that's what you were referring to when you said "it" - what I was saying. If there was a genuine misunderstanding or miscommunication, you would have corrected it in Message 29 when it was obvious I was understanding you to say that you agreed with the modern construction of "false god." But you did not; it was only when I "sprung the trap" in Message 30 and Message 39, showing you how premises you had already agreed to contradicted your position, that this fabricated story about what you "originally meant to say" emerged.It's a deceit, and it's blocking discussion. We can continue to discuss from a new position where you change your mind about what's an appropriate way to construe "worshiping false gods", but the discussion absolutely will not proceed from a basis in a fiction where every time you're caught on the horns of a contradiction, everybody else has simply failed to fully understand your genius. It's deeply insulting, deceitful, and contrary to forum guidelines that prohibit "any form of misrepresentation."

I may be mistaken, but the last statement in the above paragraph does not seem true.Purpledawn's original reply (Message 27) appears to state that she felt her interpretation was appropriate, rather than being what you referred to as 'a pretty narrow way to construe it these days' (Message 26). You asked 'But don't you think that's a pretty narrow way to construe it these days?'.Her answer was basically 'no'.Purpledawn asserted she thought her understanding 'is an appropriate way to construe it', rather than the possiblity you presented. Her text doesn't appear in agreement with yours regarding what you consider to be a 'narrow' understanding.That's what I'm seeing.

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Without reference to message 40, could you explain why you believe that to be the case?Why would she tell me that she felt her own interpretation was accurate? I didn't ask her about whether she thought she agreed with herself, I asked her what she thought about the modern interpretation of "worshiping false gods" to mean "letting material concerns supersede spiritual ones." Do you agree that she answered with "I think it is an appropriate way to construe it"? And by pronoun rules isn't it most reasonable to interpret the antecedent of "it" to be the most recent plausible antecedent that fits the sentence?And if I misunderstood her, then why did she agree with me again in message 29? That question was clearly rhetorical and not what I was asking, obviously. If purpledawn had been replying to a rhetorical question she would have said so in a subsequent message since it was immediately obvious what I was understanding her to say. But her answer was not "no", it was "yes." "I think it is an appropriate way to construe it" is a statement of assent, not denial. Are you seeing that because that's what purpledawn said she meant, now that she's been caught up in a contradiction? Can you agree with me, at least, that there's another possible motive in her part than correcting a misunderstanding nearly a week after it was apparently made?

I did explain w/o reference to message Message 40.However, Message 42 basically resulted in what may as well be a condensed summary of that post. She seems to have been under the impression you were presenting a contrasting view to hers and she defended her own.As I understood, you modified and expanded the plain meaning of the Yirmiyahu text as PD presented (ie. other gods of surrounding nations, etc.) - citing it as 'narrow', and presented a doctrinal extrapolation correlating to a more modern and contemporary apologetic view (ie. wealth, power, prestige, etc.). Yes, that's correct. I agree with you. This appears to be where the miscommunication resides - where did you ask her this? I ask because inquiring if one reading is more narrow than another is quite different than asking what one thinks regarding the legitimate "worshiping of false gods" as a correlation to "letting material concerns supersede spiritual ones."She doesn't appear to have recognized you were asking her personal thoughts on the doctrine, but rather that you were asking her personal thoughts on whether her view was 'pretty narrow' when compared to the doctrinal extrapolations.I didn't recognize you were seeking a validation of sorts for the doctrinal teaching when you inquired, 'But don't you think that's a pretty narrow way to construe it these days?'. However, I agree with you that PD's way of understanding the text is narrow. I also agree with her that it is an appropriate way to render the scripture. I agree she replied in that manner, however to the question, 'But don't you think that's a pretty narrow way to construe it these days?', which you state was rhetorical in nature (even though it seems to be a fair and decent question). Indeed, that is how I came to my conclusion.The 'that' in your question ('But don't you think that's a pretty narrow way to construe it these days?') referred to PD's contention false gods were gods of surrounding nations, while the 'it' referred to the legitimate definition of "false gods".This forms the question, "Do you not think (that supposing false gods were the gods of surrounding nations is) a pretty narrow way to construe (the legitimate definition of false gods) these days?".And so - with this understanding, the first 'it' in PD's statement ('I think it is an appropriate way to construe it') refers to her plain understanding of Yirmyahu's use of the concept of "false gods" and the second 'it' refers a legitimate concept of false gods. Again, as I said in our first exchange, I may have misunderstood one of you, or the other or both.Yet, I am making a concerted effort to understand the exchange between you both and maintain impartiality. She agreed "Worshipping Mammon" as a term does not refer to anything but letting the pursuit of wealth get in the way of spiritual concerns. That is different than asking for validation for contemporary doctrine, which she doesn't appear to have realized you were doing anyway.It is also different then asking if a plain text reading was 'pretty narrow' compared to a doctrinal extrapolation, which is how I understood the question you posed (ie. But don't you think that's (the plain text reading) a pretty narrow way to construe it (a legitimate concept of false gods) these days? (when compared to modern apologetic doctrine)). Please, don't be so quick to dismiss this lack of clarity as obvious. The question does not seem necessarily rhetorical and quite to the contrary I'd add. I think it's a fair - if not good, question. Especially if understood in the context of two contrasting interpretations competing for legitimacy: the first a plain text reading and the second a doctrinal extract. I think it safe to say that she did not find the question rhetorical simply by identifying the fact she provided an answer.PD supported the statement 'I think it is an appropriate way to construe it' by adding 'there are plenty of teachings concerning spiritual concerns without turning money into a false god'.How exactly would the latter assertion she provided lend any support to your contention? Well, technically it was neither no or yes. I agree that it is, however you have to provide the other question you asked because all we have is this one:'But don't you think that's a pretty narrow way to construe it these days?'So far we have ..purpledawn: A plain text rendering of Yirmiyahu is legit.
crashfrog: But don't you think it's narrow compared to all the modern doctrinal extrapolations?
purpledawn: I think a plain text rendering of Yirmiyahu is an appropriate way to construe it.crashfrog: stalemate
purpledawn: stalemateUntil we have this other question of yours (which I likely overlooked), it is easy to perceive PD's statement of assent in correlation to her presented understanding of the scripture. No, I don't think that's the case honestly. I noticed you two appeared to be talking past each other a bit or something and so I went back to the original exchange between PD and kbertsche which you piggy backed off of in Message 25 to get a better understanding of the dialogue. Then I tried earnestly to follow the discussion with the utmost neutrality. Absolutely.I'm not vouching for anyone's motives, including my own

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

What I'm hoping to get from you is an explanation of why it seems reasonable for you to come to the conclusion that purpledawn was "misunderstood" that doesn't rely to any degree on purpledawn claiming that she was misunderstood. It's my contention that she's simply attempting to walk back on a position she didn't like the consequences of, without appearing to do so, under this cover of "oh, well, you just didn't understand what I meant."So, no, you didn't really explain anything at all. But she didn't defend her own. Under your interpretation, she just re-affirmed that she thought her own position was reasonable.Which isn't what I asked her to do. So how is it a reasonable interpretation to assume that purpledawn's statements to me are a series of complete non-sequiturs? In the material that has been consistently quoted:

quote:

---

But don't you think that's a pretty narrow way to construe it these days? There's not a lot of competition for Christianity anymore, at least not among polytheistic religions. That's the reason that the passage in Jeremiah is interpreted, in modern theology, to refer to not letting shallow material concerns, like wealth, power, prestige, or influence, supersede more important spiritual concerns.

---

This is what she quoted and responded to. If it was her intent to respond to only the first sentence, why quote the subsequent material? It's understood that quotes should be used for the material you're responding to. If she had intended to respond only to the rhetorical point that the interpretation was narrow, that's the part she would have quoted. Quoting the rest proves that she was affirming the modern interpretation I refer to subsequently in the paragraph, not to the clearly rhetorical question at the start of it. Obviously. But I wasn't asking whether she thought something was "narrow" or not. That was a rhetorical question because the obvious and sole answer is "yes". At no point did I actually - actually - ask her if she genuinely thought that such an interpretation was "narrow".And regardless, if that's the impression that she got then why isn't that the question she actually answered? Why didn't she say "no, I don't think it's narrow"? If she was answering a question about narrowness, why does the word "narrow" not appear in her response? If she's talking about the ancient Yirmiyahu interpretation and not the more modern one, why didn't she say so at any point in the previous several days? No, it's not. Starting with her "it" and working backwards, the most reasonable antecedent is the modern interpretation. That's what she was referring to when she said "it" was "an appropriate way to construe it." Circular reasoning, since you're working from the assumption that she answered a rhetorical question. If you start from the assumption that she was, in fact, responding to the material she specifically chose to quote then it's obvious that "it" was meant to be the modern interpretation, to which she assented as an "appropriate" interpretation of the scripture. How does it lend any to yours? It's a logical fallacy - denying the antecedent. I ignored it because it makes no sense as a reply. Then again, how do you explain that we seemed to be in perfect accord in messages 26-30, and it's only when she's suddenly caught up on the horns of a contradiction that these claims of "miscommunication" appear?Isn't that pattern more consistent with a false claim of "miscommunication" meant to conceal a retreat, rather than a genuine miscommunication between two people that somehow went completely undetected for days? Except that she never at any time referred to a "plain text rendering of Yirmiyahu." The only conceivable referent, and the exact referent she chose to quote at the time she wrote the message is "not letting shallow material concerns, like wealth, power, prestige, or influence, supersede more important spiritual concerns."My words, quoted directly by her immediately preceeding a statement she wrote saying "I think it is an appropriate way to construe it." That proves that my interpretation of her words is correct. She could not have been referring to the "ancient interpretation"; if she had been that's the only part of my statement she would have quoted.This is a dodge. I think if you look carefully, and ignore what she's saying now about "misinterpretations" - a claim she's made previously, based on nothing but a personal animus - you'll see that I'm correct. I mean for God's sake, I was an English major for years, and a biochemistry major now. Every day I'm sussing the meaning out of highly technical scientific documents. I think I know something about reading plain statements in conversational English.