[davideous]

The Bible speaks about this:

“But godliness with contentment is great gain, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.” — 1 Timothy 6:6-10 ESV

[GeoAtreides]

Here is the King James version, which I find it much more beautiful (from a literary point of view):

But godliness with contentment is great gain.

For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.

And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.

But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.

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.

[derriz]

Maybe but it makes much less sense to me. The meaning of “the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil” is very different to “the love of money is the root of all evil”. The former seems like a reasonable claim. The latter is surely untrue? I know of lots of evil acts NOT motivated by money or the love of money.

[davideous]

Here are a few key paragraphs from a sermon that has the most compelling explanation of that sentence that I've heard:

> When Paul said in 1 Timothy 6:10, “The love of money is the root of all evils,” what did he mean? He didn’t mean that there’s a connection between every sinful attitude and money — that money is always in your mind when you sin. I think he meant that all the evils in the world come from a certain kind of heart, namely, the kind of heart that loves money.

> Now what does it mean to love money? It doesn’t mean to admire the green paper or the brown coins. To know what it means to love money, you have to ask: What is money? I would answer that question like this: Money is simply a symbol that stands for human resources. Money stands for what you can get from man, not from God! (“Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters. He who has no money come buy and eat!” Isaiah 55:1.) Money is the currency of human resources.

> So the heart that loves money is a heart that pins its hopes, and pursues its pleasures, and puts its trust in what human resources can offer. So the love of money is virtually the same as faith in money — belief (trust, confidence, assurance) that money will meet your needs and make you happy.

> Therefore the love of money, or belief in money, is the flip side of unbelief in the promises of God. Just like Jesus said in Matthew 6:24 — you cannot serve God and money. You can’t trust or believe in God and money. Belief in one is unbelief in the other. A heart that loves money — banks on money for happiness, believes in money — is at the same time not banking on the promises of God for happiness.

> So when Paul says that the love of money is the root of all evils, he implies that unbelief in the promises of God is the taproot of every sinful attitude in our heart.

From: https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/battling-unbelief-at-be...

[hellojesus]

I get what you're saying, but as someone completely unfamiliar with the Bible but familiar with the common phrase, "Money is the root of all evil", I agree that the GP's original statement is much clearer.

> For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils.

This reads not that money itself is the root of evils, or even that a desire for money ensures you live a sinful life.

To me this reads that money, as a motivator, can be a catalyst to dip into immoral practice. If someone wants riches but cares not about how they acquire it, they may steal, they may start wars, they may con others, etc. But someone who uses their desire of money as a catalyst for bringing world change via a new product, service, knowledge, is well found in their desires and implementation, as they are making the world better while achieving their goals.

The contrast in translations completely alters the takeaway for me.

[gen220]

> But someone who uses their desire of money as a catalyst for bringing world change via a new product, service, knowledge, is well found in their desires and implementation, as they are making the world better while achieving their goals.

For what it's worth – and I think it is a worthwhile thing to note – I do not believe that Jesus would condone this.

To Christ, the root of "well-founded" behavior is the golden rule – treat others as you would want yourself to be treated. This comes from the Sermon on the Mount.

Capturing value (a requirement to satisfy the desire for money) from exchange with your customers is not how you would want to be treated, as a customer. If you become wealthy from this exchange, you are violating the Golden Rule.

This sentiment is corroborated elsewhere, with another a famous saying of his that's often "explained away" but should probably be taken seriously.

> It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

Martin Luther (of Lutheranism) has some interesting writings/interpretations on this subject [1], if you're interested.

[0]: https://biblehub.com/mark/10-25.htm, the larger story has more interesting context https://biblehub.com/bsb/mark/10.htm#17.

[1]: https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=501...

Edit just to make it clear in a TLDR; the severity of the "money is the root of all evil" translation is warranted. I'd interpret the "all kinds of evil" translation as "every kind of evil", rather than "many kinds of evil" (which is how we colloquially interpret 'all kinds' in contemporary english).

[hellojesus]

Thank you for the response and the links. It's an interesting perspective on life, but I'm not sure I'm totally sold.

> 17And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. 19You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” 20And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” 21And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

Here we do see the commandment for this rich man to rid himself of his possessions, but the command instructs him to take the proceeds and give it to the poor.

In selling his goods, does the man not capture value from his customers? He does so, and then is able to transfer the value freely to those who have none.

IMO, capturing value through voluntary transactions isn't robbing the counterparty. In fact, you may be treating them exactly as they wish to be treated. For example, I am quite happy to buy a phone for $700. It would take me far more than $700 to make my own phone, so the trade is really quite good for me. And I don't mind that some of the $700 goes to paying the people that did create the phone. Both parties are left better off.

Assumingly my employer feels the same about me, and we trade time for money. With the money, I can support myself and use the surplus to give freely to others.

I don't see any of this as a bad thing. But if I did rent out a house that was mold infested, knowingly, and refused willfully that fix it, that would be a violation of the golden rule.

[jwoq9118]

I am giddy seeing a link to Desiring God on HN. John Piper, good stuff.

[davideous]

HN and Desiring God are my two favorite websites.

[jwoq9118]

Recently introduced a friend to Desiring God. Changed their whole perspective on Christianity. Took things back to basics for them, here’s what Jesus actually said, here’s what the Bible actually teaches, no sensationalism, let’s calm down and dive deep.

Here are some favorites of mine, bookmarked and ready to reread whenever I feel the urge.

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-to-be-spiritually-mi...

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-humility

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-one-must-read-this-y...

[GeoAtreides]

If you're looking for clear, unambiguous moral guidance, then sure, you have a point. For me it's more about how it sounds, the poetry of it all, and less about guiding my life, my spiritual life or my morality.

[all2]

I find these two things to be inextricably bound together in my own life.

[pxmpxm]

Far more overwrought prose in my opinio; like a Baroque cheateu, all the beauty is lost in the noise of the embellishments.

[ako]

Please don’t do this, there are many people and stories that speak to this. Now it looks like you’re claiming this for one particular religion, when it’s completely unrelated to religion.

[rramadass]

Your comment is downright petty and silly.

Wisdom/Insight/Life Advice wherever it comes from is always valuable. It is up to you to tease out the kernel of knowledge from the chaff of religiosity.

I am no Christian, but i found Robert Alter's The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes quite interesting and would advice you to a study of the same.

[mistermann]

> Your comment is downright petty and silly.

And contains some irony.

[ossyrial]

He is sharing a quote from a religious book, it makes sense to cite it, no? If they quoted the Qur'an, a Buddhist Sutra, a piece by Kahlil Gibran, or a quote by Adam Smith, I would all expect a citation to be honest.

A few comments around we see a quote by Rick Roderick, and one by the Beatles. I don't see why this is fundamentally different and deserves critique.

[vouwfietsman]

Quoting a religious/ideologist book is inherently different to quoting an individual author or a non-religious/spiritual text, because the act of quoting itself is part of a tradition of (in this case evangelical) propagation of the religion/ideology.

We can pretend to see contemporary bible-quoting as a secular thing, but in these cases history matters.

For instance, in the above quote in the part "It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs." it is obvious that the quoted passage goes beyond a non-religious moral text and veers into religious moral judgement.

Furthermore, quoting a passage does not isolate you from the whole of the work, as you would probably take offense to me quoting WWII dictators even if the quote makes sense for the topic in isolation.

What I'm saying is all quite obvious and on the nose behavior by religious (or ideologist) people, who absolutely view quoting as a religious/ideologist act as described above.

[all2]

I'm confused at what you are trying to say. As far as I can tell, it appears you are saying something like "don't quote religious texts in a way that makes them look like they have any claim on moral authority". And it appears to me that you are saying "moral authority", in this case, is a-religious and should not be related to any particular religion.

Am I getting this right?

[vouwfietsman]

Well, fundamentally moral authority is a misguided idea, morals don't flow from an authority, morals are constructed and transformed over time by society. Taking your morals from an authority directly is itself immoral, as they don't have a foundation of human rights or empathy but rather are based on arbitrary ancient writing of arbitrary ancient writers.

I'm saying quoting religious texts without religious context (like you say, morals are not inherently religious) is not a secular act and can not be separated from the religion because of the history around quoting religious texts. Quoting religion in a moral discussion introduces religion into a discussion where religion is not necessary, and could even be harmful.

That's not to say you should never do it, but doing it is not the same as quoting any other text or other author. Again I'm not sure why this is controversial, regardless of the other comments quoting Hitler or Mao's red book in a moral discussion would very much be very weird if there is no reason to introduce any of his writing.

Somehow religion gets a pass, it shouldn't.

[all2]

> Taking your morals from an authority directly is itself immoral, as they don't have a foundation of human rights or empathy but rather are based on arbitrary ancient writing of arbitrary ancient writers.

Where do you think should morals come from? A more precise question would be "where does human morality arise from?" Or even more fundamental, "why is it wrong to do one thing and not another?".

Given what you've said about religion and moral authority, I am genuinely curious to know your answers to these questions.

[bigstrat2003]

> as you would probably take offense to me quoting WWII dictators even if the quote makes sense for the topic in isolation.

Of course I wouldn't take offense to that. I will accept wisdom wherever it is to be found, even if it's from Hitler himself. I care about the merit of ideas, not the merits of their sources.

[pbourke]

This text sits at the wellspring of Western culture, such as it is. You don't need to accept any metaphysical claims that it makes in order to appreciate its wisdom.

[acidioxide]

There is nothing wrong with drawing on the values that a text carries without necessarily agreeing with it in its entirety. This quote captures the point of the post above quite well.

[zilti]

You should work on your very warped perception.