Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9025 total)
45 online now:
DrJones*, nwr (2 members, 43 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,362 Year: 1,008/14,102 Month: 411/597 Week: 21/168 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Money Isn't a False God
Bailey
Member (Idle past 3156 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 91 of 126 (615604)
05-14-2011 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by purpledawn
05-14-2011 8:44 AM


Re: Money Can Be A False God By Definition
quote:
That's correct - this was the first time in roman history that a living human was prominently displayed on a coin. This golden calf act clearly placed Caesar not only above the God of the Yuhdeans, but well above the roman state and tradition.

Interesting. That may give a new insight to the teaching concerning two masters. Can't serve God and money. Money may have been an overt way of referring to Caesar since avarice was associated with Caesar.

Just an interesting thought. I'll have to do more research.

That's an interesting line of reason appearing worthy of further pursuit. Here's a thought ..

Perhaps money or 'mammon' was an overt way of referencing avarice, considering the latter ties them all together?

Caesar’s general downplays throughout latter testaments gives me the sense this was more of an indirect way of referring to him as he was simply another false god, although a figurehead of roman terrorism. I’d agree money, and the tribute coin specifically, appeared easy to view as a symbol of avarice (an actual adversary), rather than Caesar or wealth in general. I’ll touch on this below, yet in this sense Caesar seems to have further personified the symbol through his coin/idol stunt.

However, just as this coin overtly represented Caesar as an idol, I may suggest, money was an overtly direct way of referring to that which Caesar represented. That’s to say - not only avarice, but the vehicles accomodating it's pursuit: political and social policies of Rome, with an emphasis on economic policies they facilitate and especially all policies lying in contrast to the ideals within the Kingdom of Heaven. I feel there’s an important distinction between wealth and avarice.

I think you’ve dealt with the issue to some degree. If they are not the same, then the definition of mammon as a ‘personification of wealth’ needs to be refined, as it will continue to cause confusion while misleading folks in their studies.

Mammon as a false god refers to the pursuit of avarice, which is often facilitated with tools of economy such as money.

However, it has been pointed out, as in the Parable of the Minas, honorable pursuits may also be facilitated through economical means. Mammon as a false god speaks to 'a personification of avarice', rather than referencing any honest pursuit of investment and wealth in general; for if your intentions are to expend the vastness of your invested sums of wealth servings all the maimed, the poor, the sick and the widowed for no reward or any other reason than their need ..

How have you served a false god? I contend you haven't.

(unless the needs of the maimed, the poor, the sick and the widowed may be deemed false gods as Luther's protest doctrine holds)

On a side note, I’m coming to the conclusion much of what passes for apologetic doctrine appears to be the result of a depoliticization of Joshua’s circumstance, which is not to say apologetics and doctrinal extrapolates are without value. I’d suggest there’s no detriment found in deferring apologies while isolating any variant doctrine(s) rooted in these teachings.

After all, identifying where grafting takes place doesn't discount a vine's been rooted. Rather than offending the doctrine, I’d suggest an identification process simply offers more contextual insights such as those you’ve expressed above.

Our teaching on serving two masters seems more natural in even a roughly contemporary framework. Perhaps we're inclined to struggle as though walking in the dark when attempting to grasp the original teachings outside of such terms.

Edited by Bailey, : sp.

Edited by Bailey, : sp.

Edited by Bailey, : grammar


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by purpledawn, posted 05-14-2011 8:44 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by purpledawn, posted 05-14-2011 7:52 PM Bailey has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2243 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 92 of 126 (615620)
05-14-2011 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Bailey
05-14-2011 4:47 PM


Re: Money Can Be A False God By Definition
quote:
(unless the needs of the maimed, the poor, the sick and the widowed may be deemed false gods as Luther's protest doctrine holds)
Another interesting thought.

If a false god is that which we turn to or rely upon instead of God as some have mentioned, then by creating and supporting charities we create something the poor can to turn to or rely on instead of God.

Did God really instruct us to do something that could potentially cause someone to stumble?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Bailey, posted 05-14-2011 4:47 PM Bailey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Bailey, posted 05-14-2011 8:40 PM purpledawn has not yet responded
 Message 94 by Bailey, posted 05-15-2011 7:45 AM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 3156 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 93 of 126 (615624)
05-14-2011 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by purpledawn
05-14-2011 7:52 PM


Re: Money Can Be A False God By Definition
purpledawn writes:

quote:
(unless the needs of the maimed, the poor, the sick and the widowed may be deemed false gods as Luther's protest doctrine holds)
Another interesting thought.

If a false god is that which we turn to or rely upon instead of God as some have mentioned, then by creating and supporting charities we create something the poor can to turn to or rely on instead of God.

Did God really instruct us to do something that could potentially cause someone to stumble?

Immediately after suggesting they weren’t required to oblige the Temple tax, Joshua once had Peter snatch a couple bits out of a fish head to toss in the collection plate. So I’d say no, not everyone. Only apologists are instructed to do that.

For it is precept by precept, precept by precept, line by line, line by line; here a little, there a little. For with stammering lips and with a strange tongue shall it be spoken to this people; To whom it was said: 'This is the rest, give ye rest to the weary; and this is the refreshing'; yet they would not hear.

And so the word of God is unto them precept by precept, precept by precept, line by line, line by line; here a little, there a little; that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken ...

Edited by Bailey, : abe ..


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by purpledawn, posted 05-14-2011 7:52 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 3156 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 94 of 126 (615637)
05-15-2011 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by purpledawn
05-14-2011 7:52 PM


Regarding Charity as a Sin ..
purpledawn writes:

quote:
(unless the needs of the maimed, the poor, the sick and the widowed may be deemed false gods as Luther's protest doctrine holds)
Another interesting thought.

If a false god is that which we turn to or rely upon instead of God as some have mentioned, then by creating and supporting charities we create something the poor can to turn to or rely on instead of God.

Did God really instruct us to do something that could potentially cause someone to stumble?

Of course, but was Able responsible for Cain’s unwillingness to master what was crouching at the door?

Likewise, if God instructs us to another means of provision which we decline for tradition, has he tripped us?

Consider the keyword’s ‘instead of’ within your inquiry.

Now, does someone seek the charity in place of God or do they seek the charity in His provision?

If the former, have they relied on His teaching? If the latter, have they relied on the charity?

Edited by Bailey, : grammar


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by purpledawn, posted 05-14-2011 7:52 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2243 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 95 of 126 (615638)
05-15-2011 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Bailey
05-13-2011 6:01 PM


Re: Money Can Be A False God By Definition
quote:
While it's true the dollar is a currency whose value may experience relative stability and gold is a commodity whose value may display great variance, it's also true they cannot reasonably be termed with intrinsic value in the absolute sense. The fact is, money is little more than a symbol of faith in the value of an economic system (ie. visible but without substance).

It also seems safe to say money has indeed been, and is still at times, adored and often blindly; even to excess.

Additionally, we learn an idol can be a false god. When we examine the meaning of idol, we find that money seems to apply well in many instances, as it has been demonstrated money can be viewed as an image used as an object of worship without the meaning of (false) god being modified, providing one allows for a broad context defining worship.

Thus, if money is one's idol, it may also - by definition, be considered one's god or false god.


I didn't have time to address this earlier.

The broader meanings of idol (adoring a person) and worship (excessive adoration) are attested to the late 1500's.

I don't feel that having faith in an economic system is the same as choosing another god over God. We simply trust that every day things function the way they are supposed to.

When you take the later broad meaning of worship, many things can become false gods. It doesn't really reflect the Bibles issue with false gods.

As I've pointed out before, paying homage to idols in the Bible isn't about excessive adoration. Also the articles I've linked to aren't really talking about excessive adoration except when the love of money is thrown in.

The issue seems to be the idea that we have chosen these every day things to sustain us instead of God. They liken it to the Hebrews feeling deserted by their God and turning to other gods.

If my house is burning, I'm going to call the fire department. I'm not going to pray to God to put the fire out. A religious person may do both, but they will call the fire department. Adding a prayer to God doesn't change the fact that we trust that the fire department will come to our aid.

I don't feel that God, Jesus, or Paul were trying to tell us not to rely on everyday things or systems to function as they are supposed to. God literally did not want his people to bow down to the gods of other nations.

Trying to associate the things we rely on in our society as false gods is just a way to manipulate people IMO.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Bailey, posted 05-13-2011 6:01 PM Bailey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Straggler, posted 05-15-2011 8:59 AM purpledawn has responded
 Message 99 by kbertsche, posted 05-15-2011 11:15 AM purpledawn has responded
 Message 100 by Bailey, posted 05-15-2011 2:27 PM purpledawn has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10328
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 96 of 126 (615639)
05-15-2011 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by purpledawn
05-15-2011 8:07 AM


Metaphorical Gods Are Not Literally Worshiped
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by purpledawn, posted 05-15-2011 8:07 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by purpledawn, posted 05-15-2011 10:07 AM Straggler has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2243 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 97 of 126 (615641)
05-15-2011 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Straggler
05-15-2011 8:59 AM


Re: Metaphorical Gods Are Not Literally Worshiped
Straggler writes:

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?

No.

It doesn't work metaphorically. There is no real similarity IMO.

People don't pay homage to money, sports, power, etc. the same way people paid homage to idols.
People don't turn to money, sports, power, etc. the same way the Hebrews turned to foreign gods.

It is the words worship and idolizing that have become figurative.

So it seems that when some Christians talk of modern false gods, they are actually thinking of the later figurative meaning of worship or idol which has nothing to do with false gods.

Some Christians feel these things are being substituted for God.

Others seem to use a mixture of the obsession issue and the substitution issue.

Some lessons do try to make people feel they are worshiping false gods. Not very metaphorical IMO. Another way to manipulate people.

Just as Juliet is not the sun, money is not a false god.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Straggler, posted 05-15-2011 8:59 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Straggler, posted 05-15-2011 10:38 AM purpledawn has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10328
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 98 of 126 (615642)
05-15-2011 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by purpledawn
05-15-2011 10:07 AM


Re: Metaphorical Gods Are Not Literally Worshiped
PD writes:

It doesn't work metaphorically. There is no real similarity IMO.

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?

PD writes:

It is the words worship and idolizing that have become figurative.

When talking about figurative gods - Yes.

PD writes:

People don't pay homage to money, sports, power, etc. the same way people paid homage to idols.

People don't turn to money, sports, power, etc. the same way the Hebrews turned to foreign gods.

People don't turn to figurative gods the same way they turn to literal gods. This much is true.

PD writes:

Straggler writes:

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?

No.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by purpledawn, posted 05-15-2011 10:07 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by purpledawn, posted 05-15-2011 5:23 PM Straggler has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 917 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 99 of 126 (615644)
05-15-2011 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by purpledawn
05-15-2011 8:07 AM


Re: Money Can Be A False God By Definition
purpledawn writes:

quote:

Additionally, we learn an idol can be a false god. When we examine the meaning of idol, we find that money seems to apply well in many instances, as it has been demonstrated money can be viewed as an image used as an object of worship without the meaning of (false) god being modified, providing one allows for a broad context defining worship.

Thus, if money is one's idol, it may also - by definition, be considered one's god or false god.


I didn't have time to address this earlier.

The broader meanings of idol (adoring a person) and worship (excessive adoration) are attested to the late 1500's.

I don't feel that having faith in an economic system is the same as choosing another god over God. We simply trust that every day things function the way they are supposed to.

When you take the later broad meaning of worship, many things can become false gods. It doesn't really reflect the Bibles issue with false gods.

As I've pointed out before, paying homage to idols in the Bible isn't about excessive adoration. Also the articles I've linked to aren't really talking about excessive adoration except when the love of money is thrown in.

The issue seems to be the idea that we have chosen these every day things to sustain us instead of God. They liken it to the Hebrews feeling deserted by their God and turning to other gods.

If my house is burning, I'm going to call the fire department. I'm not going to pray to God to put the fire out. A religious person may do both, but they will call the fire department. Adding a prayer to God doesn't change the fact that we trust that the fire department will come to our aid.

I don't feel that God, Jesus, or Paul were trying to tell us not to rely on everyday things or systems to function as they are supposed to. God literally did not want his people to bow down to the gods of other nations.

Trying to associate the things we rely on in our society as false gods is just a way to manipulate people IMO.


PD, I don't understand why you keep ignoring the New Testament? As shown in message 34, both Jesus and Paul equated covetousness with idolatry. This broader, metaphorical use of the term "idol" doesn't derive from the 1500's, but from the 00's (the first century) or earlier. It is a biblical metaphor, not a modern invention.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I 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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by purpledawn, posted 05-15-2011 8:07 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by purpledawn, posted 05-15-2011 6:39 PM kbertsche has responded

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 3156 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 100 of 126 (615661)
05-15-2011 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by purpledawn
05-15-2011 8:07 AM


Re: Money Can Be A False God By Definition
Thanks for taking the time pd,

Hope things are well ..

purpledawn writes:

quote:
While it's true the dollar is a currency whose value may experience relative stability and gold is a commodity whose value may display great variance, it's also true they cannot reasonably be termed with intrinsic value in the absolute sense. The fact is, money is little more than a symbol of faith in the value of an economic system (ie. visible but without substance).

It also seems safe to say money has indeed been, and is still at times, adored and often blindly; even to excess.

Additionally, we learn an idol can be a false god. When we examine the meaning of idol, we find that money seems to apply well in many instances, as it has been demonstrated money can be viewed as an image used as an object of worship without the meaning of (false) god being modified, providing one allows for a broad context defining worship.

Thus, if money is one's idol, it may also - by definition, be considered one's god or false god.


I didn't have time to address this earlier.

The broader meanings of idol (adoring a person) and worship (excessive adoration) are attested to the late 1500's.

For an argument of this nature to hold water, one would first have to nullify scripture, archeology and history in general, in favor of etymonline.com. Your insights in Message 83 concerning the teaching on Two Masters seem to support this also.

Message 77 provides a strong historical framework in support of a context allowing the meanings of idol, as adoring a person or the image of a person, and worship in the sense of excessive adoration to be viewed quite plainly in a biblical sense, at least in regards to the latter testaments from which these biblical and historical concepts are being drawn.

We cannot say the same, or one way or the other, for many instances of false gods in the original testaments.

As it is lost to history, there simply is not enough information available.

I don't feel that having faith in an economic system is the same as choosing another god over God. We simply trust that every day things function the way they are supposed to.

In a general sense I agree with this sentiment and I'll expand below.

Message 38 offered an example where the basic functions of economy can be harnessed in a positive sense, as well as displaying how they may be taken for granted. Isn't it when we have faith in an economy (or social and political policy) in support of God's opposition and the creation (maintenance, etc.) of a destructive society that is the issue?

When you take the later broad meaning of worship, many things can become false gods.

By the 'later' meaning excessive adoration is implied and that is correct; things such as avarice, Emperors and Kings - all biblical concepts of false gods, can become such through this understanding (ie. excessive adoration) of worship.

While I disagee the definition of worship cannot biblically withstand the notion of 'excessive adoration', I agree a less encompassing definition of worship creates confusion concerning what a false god consisted of in certain biblical epochs.

It doesn't really reflect the Bibles issue with false gods.

Sure it does and there is support of this position above. The bible does not have simply one issue with false gods.

It's much easier to suggest 'excessive adoration' is a definition arriving late to the the bible party when one ignores historical information such as Caesar's attempt at deification, insatiable pursuit of avarice, his idol/tribute coin, etc..

Then again, manipulating the political landscape is how apologetics - and religion in general, are shaped to a large degree.

I will agree that the issues dealt with in the latter testament offer more specific insights which seem in contrast to the original testament examples in Yirmiyahu. The issue is we don't know how comparable they are without recovering more information concerning the false gods you've provided in examples such as those found in Yirmi's booklet.

As I've pointed out before, paying homage to idols in the Bible isn't about excessive adoration. Also the articles I've linked to aren't really talking about excessive adoration except when the love of money is thrown in.

I think I've shown where paying homage to idols in the Bible can sustain the notion of excessive adoration in regards to biblical worship. Perhaps if you demonstrate how paying tribute to Caesar and pursuing his lifestyle of avarice does not relate to biblical concepts of false gods, such as idols or Mammom, you'll be in a better position to support your case.

The issue seems to be the idea that we have chosen these every day things to sustain us instead of God. They liken it to the Hebrews feeling deserted by their God and turning to other gods.

I'm pretty sure I get where you're coming from and I agree scriptures are taken out of context resulting in false doctrine. To be sure, the fact there's no consistent or monolithic concept of false gods throughout scripture lends to the phenomena.

On the other hand, considering we have inspirations such as the Pope (ie. inquisitions, etc.), Luther (ie. On Jews and Their Lies, etc.), and Calvin (ie. burnig Servetus alive, etc.) there may be some truth to people deserting contemporary models of god due to a feeling of abandonment. Yet, I think our point is the model of god abandoned is commonly a model established through contemporary doctrine (perhaps false), rather than the plain historical teachings.

If my house is burning, I'm going to call the fire department. I'm not going to pray to God to put the fire out. A religious person may do both, but they will call the fire department. Adding a prayer to God doesn't change the fact that we trust that the fire department will come to our aid.

I don't feel that God, Jesus, or Paul were trying to tell us not to rely on everyday things or systems to function as they are supposed to.

That's reasonable and I don't feel they were not suggesting we might examine whether certain 'things or systems' were working properly.

Then, rather than subsidize them if they weren't, perhaps consider no longer continuing to use them simply because they're convenient or traditional.

God literally did not want his people to bow down to the gods of other nations.

It is deeper than that pd and I dare say a simple prostrate bow is a shallow understanding, perhaps fit for children.

God also literally didn't want His people sharing the destructive traditions within surrounding cultures (ie. taking up bribery and extortion is financially bowing to foreign nations and false gods, etc.). Again, the bible seems to support these views.

Yet, the information gathered from a purely canonical view, discounting any veracity towards archeological and historical findings, offers more or less ambiguity concerning a clear understanding of economic, social and political factors in relation to even simple themes such as Kingship, and much less false gods, throughout the original testaments.

This conclusion, coupled with our ambiguity, hardly supports any triumphalist use of the term.

To be fair, it's not entirely our fault we're being ambiguous as we haven't much to draw from.

Perhaps it's worth noting the time during and after Babylonian exile corresponds with the period setting the tone for the latter testaments, which proves to be a truly formative period for Yuhdean political thought in both a biblical and historical sense. Remember, Cyrus the Persian pagan can be found as God's anointed, ready and willing to rescue the exiles and send them home and Yirmiyahu then urges those in exile to seek Babylon's welfare, even praying to the Father for it.

Yirmi made the case that the Father had raised up a servant - a fell'r by the name of Nebuchadnezzar who happened to be the king of Babylon. Accordingly, Yirmi's God had given him authority over all the nations, and in this sense he was not viewed as a false god. That is, if you trusted Yirmi's word over that of the Levite priestcraft occupying the first Temple at the time. Nevertheless, despite some prophetic hopes, no Davidic king emerges to create a new, independent kingdom, and so, Yirusalem and the Temple are simply rebuilt by the exiles under ambivalent auspices of pagan rulers.

Granted, we have Daniel's booklet relaying stories about Yuhdeans refusing to compromise with paganism; yet, as the Father vindicates them, they're simply promoted to positions of service within the pagan kingdom like Joseph under Pharaoh. The Wisdom of Solomon then explains pagan kings and rulers have been appointed to their high office by the living God, with the understanding He will judge them for what they do and fail to do.

Therefore, Wisdom, who's seen as active throughout Yisrael’s traditions and more or less an alter ego for the Father, is needed. And this Wisdom which speaks of God is in stark contrast to others. I think you'll agree the guiding, judging, living, rescuing, wise God of the biblical tradition has little in common with the absentee god of enlightenment deism found dividing the world between right vs. left and authority vs. revolution, which leaves Yuhdean writers to their device ..

Wrestling with the ambiguities of living as God’s people under non-Yuhdean rule from the exile to Joshua and beyond. We come to learn the Kingdom of Heaven is manifest as policies recorded in the teachings are implemented, consequently transforming and ultimately replacing manifestations such as the Legions, the Roman Empire and its holy terrorist regime by incinerating them with the flames of justice and forging the tempered remains.

Trying to associate the things we rely on in our society as false gods is just a way to manipulate people IMO.

At times it certainly is, but I don't think a blank check statement written in this vein will cash. We do not have enough information concerning any monolithic concept of false god in old Yisreal. Additionally, there are objective examples which seem to support various association's with a certain degree of validity (ie. a negative aspect of wealth as avarice, etc.).

Whether concerning the Levite priests who opposed Yirmiyahu or contemporary apologetics, albeit both manipulative, the association processes are those of identification, with certain expectations attached. If you can demonstrate how Joshua and Paul explained traditional social constructs and religious systems should be taken for granted without evaluation or show where that view can be found in the Nevi’im, and anywhere else in a canon, you will have a stronger case.

One Love

Edited by Bailey, : sp.

Edited by Bailey, : grammar

Edited by Bailey, : grammar


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by purpledawn, posted 05-15-2011 8:07 AM purpledawn has acknowledged this reply

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2243 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 101 of 126 (615682)
05-15-2011 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Straggler
05-15-2011 10:38 AM


Re: Metaphorical Gods Are Not Literally Worshiped
Have you read the articles I've linked to or paid attention to the quotes. This isn't a hypothetical situation. It is about what is being taught and preached. Look at what they are calling false gods.

quote:
Do you agree that it is perfectly legitimate to describe wealth as a metaphorical 'god' that is worshiped in a (metaphorical) non-religious sense?
One can describe wealth any way they want. But when one starts telling others that by having wealth or possession they are turning to false gods, that is different. They are trying to manipulate behavior.

quote:
When talking about figurative gods - Yes.
What gods are figurative? The words worship and idol are not figurative when referring to gods or images of gods. They are when referring to people or things other than gods or images of gods.

You need to provide an example of a real teaching you're talking about.

quote:
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'.
I'm talking about things that are deemed false gods by Christians. You're attaching the figurative use of worship and idolize to the issue. Different behavior.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Straggler, posted 05-15-2011 10:38 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Straggler, posted 05-16-2011 8:25 AM purpledawn has acknowledged this reply

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2243 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 102 of 126 (615688)
05-15-2011 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by kbertsche
05-15-2011 11:15 AM


Re: Money Can Be A False God By Definition
quote:
PD, I don't understand why you keep ignoring the New Testament? As shown in message 34, both Jesus and Paul equated covetousness with idolatry. This broader, metaphorical use of the term "idol" doesn't derive from the 1500's, but from the 00's (the first century) or earlier. It is a biblical metaphor, not a modern invention.
You didn't provide verses. Yes, Jesus and Paul taught that greed is wrong. Paul compared inordinate desire for wealth or possessions to idolatry. The money isn't compared. The behavior is compared.

In the articles I've provided, the authors aren't talking about greed or avarice. When they refer to love of money they are, but wealthy people aren't automatically greedy.

Neither Jesus nor Paul says we can't be wealthy.

Things the Apostle Paul Teaches Us About Money
The first is that Paul never says that money itself is a root of evil – rather he says that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. ...

But, if you are rich, you have to be careful – and you have to be generous. Look at what Paul says in 1 Timothy 6:17-18:

As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share.

The idea that ordinary things in our life should be likened to choosing false gods simply because we enjoy them or rely on their function, is absurd. Still not talking about obsession.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by kbertsche, posted 05-15-2011 11:15 AM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by kbertsche, posted 05-15-2011 9:17 PM purpledawn has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 917 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 103 of 126 (615707)
05-15-2011 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by purpledawn
05-15-2011 6:39 PM


Re: Money Can Be A False God By Definition
purpledawn writes:

quote:
PD, I don't understand why you keep ignoring the New Testament? As shown in message 34, both Jesus and Paul equated covetousness with idolatry. This broader, metaphorical use of the term "idol" doesn't derive from the 1500's, but from the 00's (the first century) or earlier. It is a biblical metaphor, not a modern invention.
You didn't provide verses.

Absolutely false! I most certainly did provide verses, in Message 32, to which you replied in Message 33, to which I replied in Message 34. I didn't suspect you would forget or ignore them within two messages!

Here they are again, from Message 32:

quote:
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.


Now please try to respond to these verses instead of ignoring them and/or denying that I have presented them.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I 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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by purpledawn, posted 05-15-2011 6:39 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by purpledawn, posted 05-16-2011 5:15 AM kbertsche has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2243 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 104 of 126 (615732)
05-16-2011 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by kbertsche
05-15-2011 9:17 PM


Re: Money Can Be A False God By Definition
quote:
Absolutely false! I most certainly did provide verses, in Message 32, to which you replied in Message 33, to which I replied in Message 34. I didn't suspect you would forget or ignore them within two messages!
You do realize it has been almost 10 days since those posts. I have a life outside of this board and it has many things that are a bit more important than remembering those verses.

When you are referencing verses you have already posted, a link to the post would be helpful. You said message 34 (no link). When no link is provided and I'm short on time, I don't take the time to go back. Now that I've looked at Message 34, the verses aren't listed in that post either.

quote:
Now please try to respond to these verses instead of ignoring them and/or denying that I have presented them.
As you noted, I did address them in Message 33. I also addressed the issue in Message 102. Jesus and Paul addressed behavior. Comparing greed to idolatry was Paul's way of vilifying greed. In reality, greed isn't idolatry either. He used an unacceptable action to vilify another unacceptable action.

So if those who compare money to false gods do so to vilify money, that's not a good message. Money is something that is necessary to daily life.

Do all the items in Message 81 deserve to be vilified?
Some even add church and children to the list.

Vilify the behavior as Paul did, don't vilify the object.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by kbertsche, posted 05-15-2011 9:17 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by kbertsche, posted 05-17-2011 10:00 AM purpledawn has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10328
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 105 of 126 (615741)
05-16-2011 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by purpledawn
05-15-2011 5:23 PM


Re: Metaphorical Gods Are Not Literally Worshiped
PD writes:

What gods are figurative?

The ones that aren't literally deities of any sort?

PD writes:

Straggler writes:

Has anyone at all genuinely suggested that money is a god in the sense of being a supernatural entity directly comparable to, or in competition with, Yahweh?

Not a deity, no.

So we are talking about a false god that isn't literally a god and that isn't figuratively a god either.

PD writes:

I'm talking about things that are deemed false gods by Christians.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by purpledawn, posted 05-15-2011 5:23 PM purpledawn has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021