Money Isn't a False God

Beyond both inspiring an "adoring reverence or regard" (to use your own definitions of "worship") I don't think there is anything else on which to base the comparison.But is a comparison beyond that being made when people say that money is worshiped as a false god? I might well describe someone as 'worshiping money' or as treating 'money as their god'. But I wouldn't mean anything more than the comparison stated above.

I don't think that "currency"does inspire adoration as such. But people can be said to adore money and wealth in the sense of making the acquisition of it an end in itself and loving the acquisition and possession of it to the exclusion or detriment of other things. In that sense money can be adored, revered, worshiped etc. etc. Again I think you are being overly pedantic in your use of semantics.Nobody is suggesting that those who can be said to "worship" money are going to setup their prayer mats outside the local branch of HSBC. In the sense of being directly comparable to a supernatural being worthy of appeasement through worship you are right that the two things are incomparable. But that isn't what people mean when they say money is a false god (IMHO).We quite legitimately and meaningfully use words like "worship" or "idolise" and even "god" to mean things beyond their strict religiously related definition.For example David Beckham is (or at least was) referred to as a football god. He is arguably idolised and worshiped in a genuine sense of the word that has everything to do with a devout following and nothing to do with being a supernatural entity that needs to be appeased. The use of these terms in such a context is kinda metaphorical and kinda literal in a non-religious sense of the terms being used.Likewise the use of such terms and phrases when used to describe people's attitude to money and wealth. I think you are being overly literal and very narrow in your analysis.

If by 'false god' you absolutely and exclusively mean something that is in direct competition with a supernatural being such as Yahweh in terms of being the object of religious devotion - Then you are inarguably correct that money cannot be described as a 'false god'.If by "worship" you absolutely and exclusively mean "worship" in the purely religious sense of erecting temples, praying and generally seeking appeasement or favours from a supernatural entity - Then again money cannot be descibed as a 'false god' that is worshiped.But in the same sense that I know what someone means when they say that something or someone is worshiped or idolised in a more general sense I also know exactly what they mean when they describe money being worshiped as a false god. In this sense the phrase is entirely meaningful.In the overtly religious sense you seem intent on pursuing money is not worshiped and, on this entirely literal religious basis, cannot be described as a false god. But I am unconvinced that anybody other than you is claiming that such a position exists?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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'....?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Do you agree that money and wealth can be idolised? Boldening mine.

The problem here is that you seem to have shut the door on both a literal meaning of 'false god' and a metaphorical meaning of 'false god' as well. Thus I remain genuinely confused as to what you do mean.... So you are not talking about a 'false god' in the literal sense of a supernatural entity such as a god or demon or whatever. Is that right? OK. I get it. But if 'false god' is neither figurative nor referring to an actual 'god' in the supernatural being sense of the word then what are we talking about here?

In a literal sense of the word 'god' no they are not gods (false or otherwise)In a more metaphorical sense I suppose any of them could be in the right context but some of the things in your list lend themselves better to that metaphor than others.

As far as I can work it out your complaint in this thread is that metaphorical 'false gods' (such as wealth) aren't worshiped or idolised in the literal religious sense that a deity would be.Is this right? And if so why would you expect them to be?

Are you talking about the term 'god' or the term 'worship' here?Do you agree that it is perfectly legitimate to describe wealth as a metaphorical 'god' that is worshiped in a (metaphorical) non-religious sense? When talking about figurative gods - Yes. People don't turn to figurative gods the same way they turn to literal gods. This much is true. But your entire objection seems to be against a figurative use of terms like "worship" and "idolise" as applied to what you perceive as a literal use of the term 'god'.Do you agree that it is perfectly legitimate to describe wealth as a metaphorical 'god' that is worshiped in a (metaphorical) non-religious sense?

The ones that aren't literally deities of any sort? So we are talking about a false god that isn't literally a god and that isn't figuratively a god either. When the Christians you are talking about describe money as a ‘false god’ do you think they are using the term ’god’ A) Figuratively B) Literally in the sense of referring to a supernatural being C) Something else (if so what?)I don’t really see how this thread makes any sense without this being clarified.