Money Isn't a False God

quote:

---

Sorry, PurpleDawn, but I think I may have misinterpreted your question. Did you mean what physical activities do you do when you worship money? If so here is my response. When one worships money they hold it to a higher standard, as I posted earlier. Therefore, people rely on it for protection, safety, happiness, ect. just like you would for a god. Instead of looking to the actual God they look towards money for the things you would expect out of God. For this kind of worship you wouldn't offer sacrifices or anything like that because they do not have to please money in order to get its benefits. They just have to obtain lots of it and keep it safely hidden. So, they end up serving money like it is an actual God.
I hope all of this made sense!

---

I don't feel that people actually do that in reality. They aren't replacing God with money.So with your scenario a wealthy moral person who prays to God for protection, safety, and happiness is not worshiping a false god, but a wealthy moral person who does not pray to any god is actually worshiping a false god.What outward indications are there that someone is actually looking to money for protection, safety, happiness, etc. instead of God?

Obviously they aren't treating money as a false god in the absolute and literal sense of it being a rival supernatural being vying with Yahew for their exclusive religious devotion. Nobody is claiming that money can be described as a false god in exactly the same sense that that Baal (for example) could be. The similarity and basis for comparison is the devotion, adoration, reverence and worship accorded to wealth and power and the pursuit of wealth and power. Did anyone ever suggest that the two were directly comparable in terms of physical ritualistic acts of religious worship? No money is not directly comparable to supernatural gods such as Baal. But has anyone actually made that direct comparison or is that just you making a very literal interpretation of the phrase 'false god'....?

Money is a false god is a metaphor not a simile. To be a metaphor there needs to be a reason for the comparison. The phrase is used to suggest that people replace god with money as the Hebrews replaced their god with foreign gods.There are teachings in the Bible against avarice, but they don't present money as a false god.I don't see that people actually replace God with money or power.Worshiping money or love of money is a different issue, which is what I was trying to point out. (apparently ineffectively)

The basis for comparison is the devotion, adoration, reverence and worship accorded to wealth and power and the pursuit of material gain. No? I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that money is a false god in an absolutely comparable sense to Baal being a false god. When people say that money or the pursuit of material wealth is a false god they are talking about it being the focus of devotion at the expense of more spiritual or meaningful pursuits. Well obviously when we talk about worshiping money as a false god we are not talking about an absolute and direct comparison with religious worship of supernatural beings. It is different, but remains meaningfully comparable nevertheless.

quote:

---

Well obviously when we talk about worshiping money as a false god we are not talking about an absolute and direct comparison with religious worship of supernatural beings. It is different, but remains meaningfully comparable nevertheless.

---

The phrase isn't: worshiping money as a false god. The phrase is: money is a false god or modern false gods are money, power, sex, etc.

quote:

---

The basis for comparison is the devotion, adoration, reverence and worship accorded to wealth and power and the pursuit of material gain. No?

---

I don't see that. How does that manifest itself in reality? These feelings may be towards wealthy people or powerful people, but I don't see it towards money itself.

quote:

---

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that money is a false god in an absolutely comparable sense to Baal being a false god.

---

Supposedly it is a substitute for God just as Baal was.From Message 51
IMO, people don't substitute those things for God in their lives. The Hebrews very obviously did. Their god seemed to have abandoned them in their opinion so they found another god. There were plenty to choose from. Your car fails, you buy another car. Jobs, hobbies, children, illness, and life in general may keep us busy and unable to give as much time or money to the church as the church wants, but I don't feel people are substituting money for God. Whatever your heart clings or entrusts itself to.. IOW, they changed the meaning of a god to make it work.

quote:

---

When people say that money or the pursuit of material wealth is a false god they are talking about it being the focus of devotion at the expense of more spiritual or meaningful pursuits.

---

That's one comparison that's the same between money and ancient gods. Whether one is deemed a false god or not depends which side of the fence you're on.

If your position in this thread is to point out that money isn't a god in the specific way that supernatural beings like Yahweh, Thor, Zeus, Baal etc. etc. are gods then you have an inarguable case. Money is obviously no more conceptually equivalent to a god in this sense than is my left shoe. In this incredibly literal sense money is not a god at all. False or otherwise. Well if anyone was genuinely claiming a like for like comparison between money and a supernatural entity such as Baal then they are an idiot.But I still think you are taking the whole thing far too literally. Has anyone at all genuinely suggested that money is a god in the sense of being a supernatural entity directly comparable to, or in competitiopn with, Yahweh?

quote:

---

But I still think you are taking the whole thing far too literally. Has anyone at all genuinely suggested that money is a god in the sense of being a supernatural entity directly comparable to, or in competitiopn with, Yahweh?

---

Not a deity, no. As I showed, they changed the definition of god to make it work.

I need to better understand this discussion in order to better moderate, so a little clarification would be helpful.I understood Crash to be arguing that the worship of money made money into a divine entity like any other god, such as Jehovah, Allah, Thor or Zeus.And I understood PD to be arguing that the worship of money was metaphorical and not an indication that anyone actually assigned any divinity to money.But Straggler is arguing that no one argued that worshiping money made it into a divine entity, and PD isn't arguing that Crash did, so I must not be following this very well. Can someone explain?--Percy

I'm looking at the phrase "Money is a false god".My point is that a deity is a very specific being, not just anything one desires. Even when the word god is used creatively it is still describing a being.When the Hebrews thought they had been abandoned by God, they turned to the gods (deities) of other nations.So far in this discussion, I've discovered that Christianity has changed the meaning of god to include things that capture your heart or "where your heart is". In Biblical terms, money is not a false god; but when we change the meaning of god, pretty much anything can be a false god.Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

Worshipped can mean several things. There is the the religious idea of worshipping a deity, but it can also mean devotion to any object of esteem. Money can be such an object. The Bible warns that devotion to money distracts from appropriate devotion to god, implying that there is a conflict of interest between being worthy of heaven and of being wealthy - that wealth may bring stronger temptations than poverty.But worship can also be something we do to a deity.Thus, as a metaphor, one can describe money as a 'false god'. One worships it, yet it is not a deity. Since being an object of worship is a characteristic of being a real god, it is an appropriate metaphor. One's mind conjures up people bowing down before a pile of gold coins or something colourful which itself suggests a deeper meaning - just as any good metaphor. Christianity has beaten up on the wealthy since its early days. But I don't feel that a metaphor that basically suggests that money is 'venerated in vain' in a fashion that is religiously counterproductive somehow 'waters down' the meaning of the words anymore than I think a ship ploughing through the waves undermines the meaning of vitally important agricultural developments.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Can we agree that if I say "money is a false god"...1) I am not making an absolute and like for like comparison of money with Thor, Zeus, Baal etc. etc.2) That I am referring to a devotion towards money and the pursuit of material wealth at the expense of more meaningful endeavours3) That this second less literal usage of the phrase is perectly legitimate and meaningful. OK so we both agree that nobody is referring to money or wealth as a divine being directly comparable to supernatural gods.Is your complaint here that some theists intentionally conflate the literal and more metaphorical usage of the phrase "money is a false god"...?Is that what you are getting at?

At the risk of confusing things - I don't think Crash is saying that. I think he also is talking about a more metaphorical usage. Boldening mine.But I am honestly not sure exactly what point PD is trying to make.

quote:

---

Can we agree that if I say "money is a false god"...

​

1) I am not making an absolute and like for like comparison of money with Thor, Zeus, Baal etc. etc.

---

I have no idea what you are doing. It usually depends on how you use it in a sentence or lesson. The point is about what Christianity is doing and I feel they are. Of course, as I've just noticed, today Christians don't feel that the ancient gods were deities at all. IOW, they didn't exist unlike their own god. So it was just worshiping an idol (inanimate object). Since they only considered them idols, they are comparing money to those false gods. That's probably why I have a problem with the statement. I consider false gods to have been someone else's god.

quote:

---

2) That I am referring to a devotion towards money and the pursuit of material wealth at the expense of more meaningful endeavours

---

Again, I don't know what you are referring to since you aren't using it in a sentence or lesson. Christianity isn't necessarily talking about obsession. The word worship can refer to an obsession, but I don't feel that the majority of people are obsessed.

quote:

---

3) That this second less literal usage of the phrase is perectly legitimate and meaningful.

---

Depends on how you use it. When people call money a modern false god, I disagree. I don't see the behavior to go along with it.I understand the metaphor, I'm saying I disagree with it. I wanted Christians to explain how this manifests itself in reality. Creatively we can say what we want, but like most things in Christianity, the reality doesn't fit.Looking at the way Christians responded here, the phrase is more of a way to lay guilt trip on people.

OK. But I am still not sure why you disagree exactly? The problem is that the phrase in question isn't exclusively used by Christians. Whether used by Christians or others it certainly implies dissapproval at an unhealthy fixation with material gain at the expense of more meaningful pursuits.

No, this is exactly opposite. I argue that people don't actually mean the worship of Mammon when they say "worship Mammon", they mean "putting material concerns and money ahead of spiritual ones", that the prohibition against "false gods" is not properly interpreted only as referring to competing religions, but to anything that competes with spiritual growth. The invention of the "deity" Mammon is a metaphor for the behavior prohibited by the scripture referred to as it specifically pertains to money, and that the result of all this is that an obsession with money is "worshiping a false god" - Mammon, in this case - precisely as described by the passage in question.Nobody assigns divinity to money, but they do place it ahead of more enduring spiritual concerns. This is "worshiping a false god" under the terms of the scriptures in question. Mammon is a false god, invented specifically to be false - nobody has ever been under the impression that a god called "Mammon" actually existed, or was the subject of any actual worship. Since everybody knows there's no such thing as "Mammon", the phrase "worship Mammon" exists so that placing money ahead of spiritual concerns can be prohibited under the terms of the scriptural clause against worshiping false gods. If "worshiping Mammon" means putting money ahead of spiritual concerns, it perforce must be prohibited, because Mammon is false, and therefore worshiping Mammon means worshiping a false God.Everybody knows this, so I don't see what the deal is. PD agreed with pretty much all of this right up to the point where it was going to contradict her whole thread and then this "misrepresentation" story started. At least, that's how I see it.