Is money the root of all evil?

[Autumnleaf]

My friend says lack of money is the root of all evil.

 

[Washington]

My friend says lack of money is the root of all evil.

In as much as "evil" is a Christian construct it's roots are in Christian theology. So, the root of all evil is Christianity.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

No, the love of money is the root of all sorts of evil though.

In as much as "evil" is a Christian construct it's roots are in Christian theology. So, the root of all evil is Christianity.

You're funny.

 

[The Nihilist]

I thought your guy said it was the love of money that was the root of all evil. Except sex stuff, like adultery and being gay. I bet it's not the root of racism either. Maybe Jesus needs to rethink his position.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

The abuse and idolization, subtle or otherwise is.

See 50% of Jesus' teachings (the other 50% is about tolerance).

 

[Apollo Celestio]

I thought your guy said it was the love of money that was the root of all evil. Except sex stuff, like adultery and being gay. I bet it's not the root of racism either. Maybe Jesus needs to rethink his position.

"The love of money is the root of all sorts of evil."

For clarification purposes, this is the actual saying.

 

[Washington]

"The love of money is the root of all sorts of evil."


For clarification purposes, this is the actual saying.

Did a little checking around and found it really isn't the "actual saying," at least according to an assortment of other Bibles that disagree with you.

Here's how 16 versions put it. While some are inconsequential rewordings, others are sending significantly different messages.

Amplified Bible
For the love of money is a root of all evils;
​

King James Version
For the love of money is the root of all evil:
​

New International Version
Holman Christian Standard Bible
American Standard Version
English Standard Version
New Living Translation
For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil
​

New American Standard Bible
the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil,
​

New International Reader's Version
Contemporary English Version
The love of money causes all kinds of trouble.
​

New Century Version
The love of money causes all kinds of evil
​

Young's Literal Translation
for a root of all the evils is the love of money,
​

Darby Translation
For the love of money is [the] root of every evil;
​

New Life Version
The love of money is the beginning of all kinds of sin.
​

Wycliffe New Testament
For the root of all evils is covetousness,
​

Worldwide English
Because people love money they do all kinds of wrong things.
​

 

[ebia]

Did a little checking around and found it really isn't the "actual saying," at least according to an assortment of other Bibles that disagree with you.

Here's how 16 versions put it. While some are inconsequential rewordings, others are sending significantly different messages.

Amplified Bible
For the love of money is a root of all evils;
​

King James Version
For the love of money is the root of all evil:
​

New International Version
Holman Christian Standard Bible
American Standard Version
English Standard Version
New Living Translation
For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil
​

New American Standard Bible
the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil,
​

New International Reader's Version
Contemporary English Version
The love of money causes all kinds of trouble.
​

New Century Version
The love of money causes all kinds of evil
​

Young's Literal Translation
for a root of all the evils is the love of money,
​

Darby Translation
For the love of money is [the] root of every evil;
​

New Life Version
The love of money is the beginning of all kinds of sin.
​

Wycliffe New Testament
For the root of all evils is covetousness,
​

Worldwide English
Because people love money they do all kinds of wrong things.
​

In what way? ".. all kinds of evil" and "... all sorts of evil" seem pretty much synomous.

I thought your guy said it was the love of money that was the root of all evil. Except sex stuff, like adultery and being gay. I bet it's not the root of racism either. Maybe Jesus needs to rethink his position.

Well, it was Paul that said it - not Jesus - and if you take every bit of Paul's hypobolic language literally you will get your knickers in a twist far more deeply than on this one.

Though ultimately what's "love of money" referring to but following one's desires rather than God's way?

 

[Washington]

In what way? ".. all kinds of evil" and "... all sorts of evil" seem pretty much synomous.

They are, and this is one of those instances where the wording is inconsequential; however, there is a vast difference between "For the love of money is the root of all evil:" and "For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil

In the former, "all evil," the love of money covers every evil there is: In the latter, " all kinds of evil" the "kinds" tempers the "all" and allows for cases in which some evil does not have a love of money as its root. The easiest way to see this is by using the word in a different context, Say you're at a picnic at the beach and various people go swimming: kids, old people, a couple of Japaneses, a one armed gay guy, a fat lady, two teenagers, and one topless girl. But, some people do not go in the water. Later you're asked asked what people went swimming. If you said "all kinds went swimming" you would be correctly excluding those who stayed out of the water. However, if you said, "all went swimming" you would be saying everyone at the picnic went in.

Then there's the matter of the use of "trouble" instead of "evil." As should be apparent, not all trouble is necessarily evil. I may have trouble paying my bills, but I would not consider my plight to be an evil one,

Then there's the use of "covetousness" instead of a love of money. Obviously the root of evil is vastly expanded here, and it hardly says the same thing..

 

[ebia]

They are, and this is one of those instances where the wording is inconsequential; however, there is a vast difference between "For the love of money is the root of all evil:" and "For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil

Absolutely. Most of the version you quoted seemd to fall into something roughtly equivalent to the later. I suspect one's koine greek would have to be pretty good to tell which is the more accurate (or the greek may be ambiguous in a way that the English can't be).

In any case Paul is not averse to overstating the case. It wouldn't be remotely out of character for him to say "all evil" and mean "much evil".

Then there's the matter of the use of "trouble" instead of "evil." As should be apparent, not all trouble is necessarily evil. I may have trouble paying my bills, but I would not consider might plight to be an evil one,

NIRV is a children's version of the NIV. CEV is translation for children and others of a very low reading age.

Then there's the use of "covetousness" instead of a love of money. Obviously the root of evil is vastly expanded here, and it hardly says the same thing..

Cant say I know much about the Wycliffe.

 

[Khameo]

Evil only exists in the minds of those who see it.

 

[quatona]

Is money the root of all evil?

That would mean there was no evil prior to money.

 

[TheReasoner]

In as much as "evil" is a Christian construct it's roots are in Christian theology. So, the root of all evil is Christianity.

Oh, evil as a term has existed prior to Christianity. Red the OT for a pre-Christian example. Look at pentagrams for another, used long before Christianity to ward off evil.

My friend says lack of money is the root of all evil.

Lack of money is a root of evil, yes. No doubt about it. But poverty alone does not make you evil or do evil things. Even though it sure does help...

That would mean there was no evil prior to money.

What is money? Hard currency as we know it? Or is is possessions? Love for money is often also a love for luxury and possessions. In other words, greed.

Evil only exists in the minds of those who see it.

What do you mean by this? That no evil truly exists? If so, what would you call the Gestapo? What would you say about the Swiss man who had his daughter imprisoned as a sex slave for 24 years? Evil only because we consider it to be evil? Would you say that it is merely a question of culture?

 

[Dysnomia]

Originally Posted by Khameo

Evil only exists in the minds of those who see it.
​

What do you mean by this? That no evil truly exists? If so, what would you call the Gestapo? What would you say about the Swiss man who had his daughter imprisoned as a sex slave for 24 years? Evil only because we consider it to be evil? Would you say that it is merely a question of culture?

I think a better way to interpret that would be to look at it in terms of culture. There are evil things done, but the people that do the evil deeds--the Gestapo, for example--do not at the time believe that they are doing something bad. That is not to say they are in the right, but more that different cultures or groups of people will tend to interpret events and practices in ways that may be construed as evil outside of their enclaves. Remember the Nazi Germans thought they had the best interests of humanity in mind, though now we know the truth of their sins (though we'll never know the depth).

And then...there are guys like the Swiss nutcase. Only a small number of other certifiable nutcases would ever agree with what he did.

 

[quatona]

What is money? Hard currency as we know it? Or is is possessions? Love for money is often also a love for luxury and possessions. In other words, greed.

No, by any definition I know money is not greed.
Then again, I don´t know what the OP meant when asking about "money". It´s always a good idea to define your terms when asking such questions.

What do you mean by this? That no evil truly exists?

It exists in your head, as a way of looking at things.

If so, what would you call the Gestapo?

"Gestapo".

What would you say about the Swiss man who had his daughter imprisoned as a sex slave for 24 years?

I could say a lot of things about this man (and there are a lot of things I couldn´t say, due to lack of information), but "evil" wouldn´t play a part in these statements.
(The current case was in Austria, btw.)

Evil only because we consider it to be evil?

Yes. It´s a judgement call, and the judgement call of the person who makes it.

Would you say that it is merely a question of culture?

No. It´s a question of your personal conceptualizations which are determined by a lot of factors.

 

[TheReasoner]

No, by any definition I know money is not greed.
Then again, I don´t know what the OP meant when asking about "money". It´s always a good idea to define your terms when asking such questions.

I wrote 'love for money' I think you read it as if I wrote 'money'. I would argue that love for money is greed.

It exists in your head, as a way of looking at things.

About what can you not say what you just did? Any word we have is just there for us to use as a reference to something else. A way of defining an emotion, a state of mind or whatever. Evil, as is defined, would be a word describing that which is immensely immoral and malevolent. For example delighting in rape. That's certainly malevolent and immoral. Of course you could argue that this is a subjective statement as the rapist possibly doesn't see it as being malevolent. However, I would see anything which is severely degrading or destructive for one's peers or victims as malevolent and as such can define a more set foundation for that and related words such as evil.

"Gestapo".

Surely you agree that 'evil' is a term which goes far in describing what they did, even if it may not always have been consciously evil, it was still extremely malevolent.

I could say a lot of things about this man (and there are a lot of things I couldn´t say, due to lack of information), but "evil" wouldn´t play a part in these statements.
(The current case was in Austria, btw.)

Honestly I don't think that case should get as much press as it has given other, more important cases. Can you tell I think it shouldn't receive as much focus?

Yes. It´s a judgement call, and the judgement call of the person who makes it.

I disagree. A person can commit evil without believing that's what he or she commits. A person can even be evil without realizing that this is the case. I hate to bring forth examples, but I think SoF is an example. What he has been proposing is evil, yet he believes it is good and holy. Doesn't mean it's constructive and beneficial however.

No. It´s a question of your personal conceptualizations which are determined by a lot of factors.

I agree that many factors are at play. But I don't think we should fall in the postmodern trap and declare everything ok out of a desire for political correct, or for a desire to take the multitude of relevant factors into consideration. I don't care how you look at it, if you shoot a man in the head, he'll die. If you torture someone, that is wrong and evil. Even if it is with good intentions.

 

[quatona]

I wrote 'love for money' I think you read it as if I wrote 'money'.

Well, I for one was going with the thread question.

I would argue that love for money is greed.

One could argue that love for material goods in general is greed. I wonder why the thread is about money in particular, then.

About what can you not say what you just did?

Answering this question would require an in-depth philosophical discussion.
I guess, for pragmatic purposes I would like to distinguish phyiscally existing things from ideas. On a deeper philosophical level I am not sure this disinction holds water, though.

Any word we have is just there for us to use as a reference to something else.

...but not any word we have is a value judgement.

A way of defining an emotion, a state of mind or whatever. Evil, as is defined, would be a word describing that which is immensely immoral and malevolent.

I´m not sure I see much use in the concept of "morality".
When it comes to terms like "malevolent" I am out, because it would require mind- and motive-reading.

For example delighting in rape. That's certainly malevolent and immoral.

Well, these aren´t categories I find useful.

Of course you could argue that this is a subjective statement as the rapist possibly doesn't see it as being malevolent.

Most definitely I argue that. "Malevolent" means "wanting the bad", after all. It´s a statement about intention and mindset.

However, I would see anything which is severely degrading or destructive for one's peers or victims as malevolent and as such can define a more set foundation for that and related words such as evil.

I´m not a great fan of redefinitions like this one.
For me, the relevant part is that the result of an action is undesirable to me.

Surely you agree that 'evil' is a term which goes far in describing what they did, even if it may not always have been consciously evil, it was still extremely malevolent.

Unless I follow your arbitrary redefinition, "malevolent" means "being consciously evil" exactly. I wouldn´t even know why to engage in such considerations. The result is undesirable to me and to most everybody else. That´s all I can say and all I need to say.

Honestly I don't think that case should get as much press as it has given other, more important cases. Can you tell I think it shouldn't receive as much focus?

I´m not sure I understand the question. Could you reword it for me, please?
I think this case catches a lot of interest because it raises a lot of questions and is very disturbing to most everybody.
The interesting question (which we have a lot of opportunities to ask, but which urges itself upon us in a condensed and exemplary way in this case) to me is: How does someone become able to do such things? "He´s evil" is too convenient an answer in my book, and it does not really explain anything of what I would like to get to know.

I disagree. A person can commit evil without believing that's what he or she commits. A person can even be evil without realizing that this is the case. I hate to bring forth examples, but I think SoF is an example. What he has been proposing is evil, yet he believes it is good and holy. Doesn't mean it's constructive and beneficial however.

You don´t think it´s constructive and beneficial, neither do I. He does.
I don´t think that any of us can elevate himself and announce himself the judge from a supposedly higher perspective.

I agree that many factors are at play. But I don't think we should fall in the postmodern trap and declare everything ok out of a desire for political correct, or for a desire to take the multitude of relevant factors into consideration.

Neither did I declare everything ok, nor did I argue from political correctness.
Whilst I definitely think it is a good idea to take all relevant factors into consideration.

I don't care how you look at it, if you shoot a man in the head, he'll die.

Yes, that´s most likely to be one of the results.

If you torture someone, that is wrong and evil.

I understand you disapprove of torturing and shooting others in the head. So do I. If there´s anything beyond that which you are trying to communicate when saying "It´s wrong and evil", please explain.
In the meantime I will keep to a wording that signifies this as my personal opinion and feeling.

Even if it is with good intentions.

I´m sure your attempt to picture your opinion as objective is based in good intentions.

 

[quatona]

Regarding the idea that the love for money and material goods is "greed" and "evil", I sense that in this broad wording it comes with a lot of far leading implications.
Considering that most of us spend a lot of time working in order to get money, considering that most cases that are commonly seen as "self-defense" are actually but attempts to keep material goods, etc.
Just saying.

 

[TheReasoner]

Well, I for one was going with the thread question.
One could argue that love for material goods in general is greed. I wonder why the thread is about money in particular, then.

I don't think money is evil, yet I certainly think love for money is. And yes, I certainly agree that love for material goods is greed too.

Answering this question would require an in-depth philosophical discussion.
I guess, for pragmatic purposes I would like to distinguish phyiscally existing things from ideas. On a deeper philosophical level I am not sure this disinction holds water, though.

Agreed.

...but not any word we have is a value judgement.

Isn't that subjective? Man, to me, is a male member of the human species. To me, it doesn't hold much in terms of value judgment. To a stereotypical and crazed feminist, however it sure does

I´m not sure I see much use in the concept of "morality".
When it comes to terms like "malevolent" I am out, because it would require mind- and motive-reading.

Okay. If malevolent requires premeditation or conscious admittance of a desire to inflict harm, then I guess it's not the word I was searching for. Think of it as this then: Actions or words which destroy or harm individuals or groups intentionally or otherwise.

Well, these aren´t categories I find useful.
Most definitely I argue that. "Malevolent" means "wanting the bad", after all. It´s a statement about intention and mindset.
I´m not a great fan of redefinitions like this one.
For me, the relevant part is that the result of an action is undesirable to me.

evil |ˈēvəl|
adjective
profoundly immoral and malevolent : his evil deeds | no man is so evil as to be beyond redemption.
• (of a force or spirit) embodying or associated with the forces of the devil : we have been driven out of the house by this evil spirit.
• harmful or tending to harm : the evil effects of high taxes.
• (of something seen or smelled) extremely unpleasant : a bathroom with an evil smell.
noun
profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, esp. when regarded as a supernatural force : the world is stalked by relentless evil | good and evil in eternal opposition.
• a manifestation of this, esp. in people's actions : the evil that took place last Thursday.
• something that is harmful or undesirable : sexism, racism, and all other unpleasant social evils.
PHRASES
the evil eye a gaze or stare superstitiously believed to cause material harm : he gave me the evil eye as I walked down the corridor.
the Evil One archaic the Devil.
put off the evil day (or hour) postpone something unpleasant for as long as possible.
speak evil of slander : it is a sin to speak evil of the king.
DERIVATIVES
evilly |ˈēvəl(l)ē| |ˈivəl(l)i| adverb
evilness |ˈivəlnəs| noun
ORIGIN Old English yfel, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch euvel and German Übel.

I´m not sure I understand the question. Could you reword it for me, please?

Never mind. I just think it's kind of sad that it - while important - receives more coverage than more significant occurrences elsewhere.

I think this case catches a lot of interest because it raises a lot of questions and is very disturbing to most everybody.
The interesting question (which we have a lot of opportunities to ask, but which urges itself upon us in a condensed and exemplary way in this case) to me is: How does someone become able to do such things? "He´s evil" is too convenient an answer in my book, and it does not really explain anything of what I would like to get to know.

Yet his actions were clearly evil. Locking the woman up, abusing her and their children for so long. Damaging their minds beyond repair. It is clear that his motives were utterly selfish, and that the result of his actions were evil. I would argue, contrary to the popular approach these days, that the man was evil. He may believe that he is doing good. he may believe he is righteous and good. But that doesn't change the horrible facts related to his actions. You can believe with all your mind and heart that you are an orange. That does not make you one. He may believe he's not evil. That doesn't mean he isn't. In my opinion, politically incorrect though it may be in this instance, anyone who truly harms people as severely as this over such a long time for such selfish purposes is evil. What that person thinks about the issue doesn't matter. If you ruin lives like this, that means evil fits like a glove.

You don´t think it´s constructive and beneficial, neither do I. He does.
I don´t think that any of us can elevate himself and announce himself the judge from a supposedly higher perspective.

Maybe not. But it doesn't take any elevation. It takes basic knowledge about history to know that this has been tried before and what the results were. It takes basic knowledge about politics to understand that it will not hold water and will degrade rapidly into a terrible nation doomed to fall.

Neither did I declare everything ok, nor did I argue from political correctness.

Nono. I didn't intend to say that you did. Only that it is a common mistake in this day and age to discount the presence of right and wrong due to the complexities of life. In certain areas there is a clear right and wrong. Shooting people in the head is almost always wrong. Whereas giving them flowers is usually quite the opposite.

Whilst I definitely think it is a good idea to take all relevant factors into consideration.

Absolutely. Though we should not be blinded by them

Yes, that´s most likely to be one of the results.
I understand you disapprove of torturing and shooting others in the head. So do I. If there´s anything beyond that which you are trying to communicate when saying "It´s wrong and evil", please explain.

Torture, and shooting people in the head for that matter, is something I consider immensely detrimental to society. Both locally and globally. And not just society, but the ethical structure necessary for functional democracies and the presence of human rights.
Hence, evil.

In the meantime I will keep to a wording that signifies this as my personal opinion and feeling.

I should underline that this is also the case with my statements.

I´m sure your attempt to picture your opinion as objective is based in good intentions.

While I usually do try to remain very objective I have not done so in this thread

 

[quatona]

I don't think money is evil, yet I certainly think love for money is. And yes, I certainly agree that love for material goods is greed too.

Please see my separate post #18: Love for material goods is a strong driving factor in many fields, it is the motive for going to work. This broad demonization of the "love of material goods" implies a thorough paradigm shift.

Isn't that subjective? Man, to me, is a male member of the human species. To me, it doesn't hold much in terms of value judgment. To a stereotypical and crazed feminist, however it sure does

I think there is a difference between a word that typically is meant to communicate an objective information (although it may have a positive or negative connotation to some) and a word the sole purpose of which is to make a judgement call.

Okay. If malevolent requires premeditation or conscious admittance of a desire to inflict harm, then I guess it's not the word I was searching for. Think of it as this then: Actions or words which destroy or harm individuals or groups intentionally or otherwise.

Most every action - no matter how positive results we may see in it - also harms an individual or group.
I think it is a good idea to be precise and mention whom, why and how an action harms, and what other results it has, too.

evil |ˈēvəl|
adjective
profoundly immoral and malevolent : his evil deeds | no man is so evil as to be beyond redemption.
• (of a force or spirit) embodying or associated with the forces of the devil : we have been driven out of the house by this evil spirit.
• harmful or tending to harm : the evil effects of high taxes.
• (of something seen or smelled) extremely unpleasant : a bathroom with an evil smell.
noun
profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, esp. when regarded as a supernatural force : the world is stalked by relentless evil | good and evil in eternal opposition.
• a manifestation of this, esp. in people's actions : the evil that took place last Thursday.
• something that is harmful or undesirable : sexism, racism, and all other unpleasant social evils.
PHRASES
the evil eye a gaze or stare superstitiously believed to cause material harm : he gave me the evil eye as I walked down the corridor.
the Evil One archaic the Devil.
put off the evil day (or hour) postpone something unpleasant for as long as possible.
speak evil of slander : it is a sin to speak evil of the king.
DERIVATIVES
evilly |ˈēvəl(l)ē| |ˈivəl(l)i| adverb
evilness |ˈivəlnəs| noun
ORIGIN Old English yfel, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch euvel and German Übel.

Thanks, but I know these definitions. I find this term useless nonetheless. Everything I would like to say about something can be said more precisely by using other words, while "evil" in the above definition communicates a lot of things I wouldn´t want to communicate.

Yet his actions were clearly evil. Locking the woman up, abusing her and their children for so long. Damaging their minds beyond repair. It is clear that his motives were utterly selfish, and that the result of his actions were evil.

I don´t like the results, I would prefer it if such things wouldn´t happen. That´s all I can say.

I would argue, contrary to the popular approach these days, that the man was evil.

I don´t know what this judgement call about a person helps you with.

He may believe that he is doing good. he may believe he is righteous and good. But that doesn't change the horrible facts related to his actions.

...and therefore any judging statement about the person is redundant. I´m looking at the results and I don´t like them.

You can believe with all your mind and heart that you are an orange. That does not make you one. He may believe he's not evil. That doesn't mean he isn't.

With the difference that an orange is a clearly word for a physical object, and that the meaning of "evil" merely depends on one´s personal preferences and desires.
I think that at least one thing your Jesus had right was his idea to stop judging persons. I find it surprising to see how so many of his followers don´t seem to take this part of his message very seriously.

In my opinion, politically incorrect though it may be in this instance, anyone who truly harms people as severely as this over such a long time for such selfish purposes is evil.

I don´t like this repeated reference to political correctness. I don´t argue from political correctness, so you may want to spare this inference for someone who does.

I don´t see how the statement "he is evil" helps us with anything, except maybe with feeling better about ourselves ("at least I am not like...").

What that person thinks about the issue doesn't matter.

Let´s say it doesn´t matter any more than what you or I think about it.

If you ruin lives like this, that means evil fits like a glove.

And how do you proceed from there?

Maybe not. But it doesn't take any elevation. It takes basic knowledge about history to know that this has been tried before and what the results were.

Well, besides predicting a certain outcome the judgement "evil" requires your personal preferences, standards and desires.

It takes basic knowledge about politics to understand that it will not hold water and will degrade rapidly into a terrible nation doomed to fall.

Not sure I understand how you get from this unique incident to national and political developments.

Nono. I didn't intend to say that you did. Only that it is a common mistake in this day and age to discount the presence of right and wrong due to the complexities of life. In certain areas there is a clear right and wrong. Shooting people in the head is almost always wrong. Whereas giving them flowers is usually quite the opposite.

I share your preferences and dislikes. However, that doesn´t make them "clearly right".

Absolutely. Though we should not be blinded by them

I don´t know how acquiring a more complete view comes with the danger of being blinded. I tend to think the opposite is the case.

Torture, and shooting people in the head for that matter, is something I consider immensely detrimental to society. Both locally and globally. And not just society, but the ethical structure necessary for functional democracies and the presence of human rights.
Hence, evil.

I don´t like it either.

I should underline that this is also the case with my statements.

Fair enough. However, it seems to me that you prefer wordings that tend to hide this part.