The Root of All Evil?

[ QUOTE ]
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
--1 Timothy 6:10,11

[/ QUOTE ]

To those knowledgable in biblical scripture (and I'm looking at you NotReady [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] ) is the above translaton of "ALL evil" correct?

If it is, then isn't Jesus dismissing all sin that doesn't have to do with loving money?

And if it isn't, then how should it read?

[lotus776]

I see what you're saying, but I believe "money" is used loosely in this sense. Metaphorically speaking "money" represents ANY material posession with which someone holds in higher value than his faith. I suppose this is up for debate but to look at money itself as a medium of exchange is illogical. I'm sure Jesus wasn't talking about cash, but the posessions by which humans are lured to instead of faith.

[ QUOTE ]
I see what you're saying, but I believe "money" is used loosely in this sense. Metaphorically speaking "money" represents ANY material posession with which someone holds in higher value than his faith. I suppose this is up for debate but to look at money itself as a medium of exchange is illogical. I'm sure Jesus wasn't talking about cash, but the posessions by which humans are lured to instead of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

But in this loose definition you can't include sexual matters, violence for revenge, or other such "sins," can you?

[lotus776]

Interesting. What you're really questioning is the use of the word "ALL" as the scripture utilizes it. I understand your arguement; however, I believe that Jesus was directing attention to the fact that MANY conflicts in which you have named "sexual matters" including rape and incest, can be specifically linked to coveting material posessions. Which, again, he is stressing cannot be placed above faith. This is the root of ALL evil...now, this is up for debate

[ QUOTE ]
What you're really questioning is the use of the word "ALL" as the scripture utilizes it

[/ QUOTE ]

Right.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that Jesus was directing attention to the fact that MANY conflicts in which you have named "sexual matters" including rape and incest, can be specifically linked to coveting material posessions

[/ QUOTE ]

Even consentual premarital sex and masturbation are considered evil by most Christians. I don't see any connection between these things and material possession.

Maybe I am missing the point, but it seems that here the bible is definitely wrong. How could the first cause not be the root of all evil. It must be, by definition, the root cause of all, no?

[lotus776]

One could say that masturbating and premarital sex ARE worldy posessions, thus back to my thesis on the meaning of the scripture. In a piece of literature (I don't remember the title) I can recall that "love" of anything more than faith is a sin. Sex is a physical (albeit emotional also) experiece, (physical being the key word) as is masturbation. Both of your exampeles ARE indeed wordly posessions simply because they are not tangible doesn't mean that they are not. The material posession that I make reference to is the act of coitus, with another and self; both of which Jesus makes very specific comments towards regarding the physicality of both and the nature of sin begind both: "do not spill thy own seed"...just something to think about.

What do you mean by the "first cause?" Are you referring to the first principle or first movement, as in Aristotle and Aquinas?

I could see how that would relate if you mean that since we are supposedly born with original sin then the first cause must be the root of all evil. Interesting.

Hi evelovedForm,

No, by first cause I mean an omnipotent, omiscient, omnipresent entity, presumed creator of all, by definition. My objection is only to refusing to accept that the concept of such an entity as being all-loving at the same time is contradictory. Which explains, imo, a lot of the contracdictions displayed by religionists supporting such a concept. Those who believe in multiple gods fighting it out, altough not answering the question of a single origin, an somewhat displacing the problem, seem more credible and less contradictory. That may explain why it seems that atheists appear to pick specifically on some religions rather than other, as has been mooted in some other posts/thread. As I have said many times before, I have no beef with any religions. I have some friends that believe in astrology even and all sort of things (talismans, icons, gris-gris, voodoo, etc..). It's ok by me as long as they stay in their lane (as bigdaddydvo would say [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ), which unfortunately religionist tend soon or later not to do. Hence the need, often underrated, for militancy from atheists.

Ah, right. I had a feeling I overlooked the obvious on that one. So you're just rehashing the same argument I see 20 times a day on this forum? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Militancy, I suppose.