Video: The love of theory is root of all evil

posted at 2:41 pm on April 27, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

In 1 Timothy 6:10, the Bible says that the love of money is the root of all evil (not money itself, as many mistakenly believe).  PJ Media’s Bill Whittle makes the case that the love of theory is the root of all modern evil, as he explains in his new Afterburner.  And he has a pretty good point, at least over the last 100 years.  Dedication to theory at the expense of evidence and fact has borne malicious fruit in that time, resulting in the deaths of tens of millions around the world.

I’d only quibble with Bill on one point, which is whether the theories themselves were really the end games at all.  They certainly weren’t for Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, or any of the other bloody tyrants of the age; it was the centralization of wealth and power into the hands of the few or the one.  Theories such as Marxism and fascism were a means to an end, not the end itself.  In all of these systems, and perhaps most honestly in fascism, the entire premise is based on a leader elite dictating economic choices by force to a captive population, couched in a proletarian veneer that allowed the leader elite to seize control.  The only people who prospered in those systems were the ones who didn’t take the theories too seriously.  The true believers — Leon Trotsky comes to mind — tend to end up dead.

In this case, Bill’s not talking about theoretical systems of government or economics, but of climate change.  This still applies, though it’s not as dire as the above examples.  Some of the AGW crowd are true believers; more, though, are motivated by the expropriation of private property and redistributive justice.  In fact, during the climate-change conferences, much of what gets discussed relates to “climate justice” and the disparities between wealthy nations and developing nations.  It’s not really the theory that people love — it’s the wealth and power they can grab by exploiting the theory.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

You and akzed are sounding like radical Islamasists looking to kill the infidels. dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Yeah, and you really wanna kill all the Jews. We know.

Akzed on April 27, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Intellectually challenged are you? The passage in question says no such thing. It says, “The LOVE of money is the root of all evil” which is not even remotely the same as the pursuit of wealth.

SWalker on April 27, 2012 at 3:46 PM

So you live in the theoretical world where pursuit of wealth has no relation to love of money?
OK – and you talk about others being intellectually challenged….
You really are an arrogant holier-than-thou type – you’d make a solid addition to the Obama administration.

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 3:56 PM

And yet you keep attacking.
So put down the torch and holier-than-thou attitude and get a grip on reality. You and akzed are sounding like radical Islamasists looking to kill the infidels.
If you’re not even Catholic, why are you spending so much time defending it? I was Catholic and I will not defend their hypocrisy. Believe what you want about God, but there is clear hypocrisy within the Catholic church regarding their actual accumulation of wealth versus what the Bible says.

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Wow, the cognizant dissonance is really strong with you isn’t it.

which means Dante has the right to believe or not believe whatever he wants. Some of your attacks on him in this thread make you seriously look like Muslims going after infidels.

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 3:36 PM

A) put the crack pipe down and back slowly away from it
B) I am not a Catholic
C) I have not attacked him for his beliefs (only for his veiled hypocritical attacks on those who do believe)
D) I have in fact stated unequivocally that he has every right to believe what ever he chooses to believe.

SWalker on April 27, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Pretty simple, it’s right there in black and white.

SWalker on April 27, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Then he explains that “the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil” anyway, so if you have food and clothing that’s enough.

He is not talking about money, but covetousness, and the desire to have one’s faith affirmed by God with material gain.

I can’t make it any plainer.

Akzed on April 27, 2012 at 3:48 PM

You are completely missing the implication of the part I’ve highlighted, a part which, as I said, underscores my argument. Thank you again, for continuing to support my argument.

Dante on April 27, 2012 at 3:59 PM

So you live in the theoretical world where pursuit of wealth has no relation to love of money?
OK – and you talk about others being intellectually challenged….
You really are an arrogant holier-than-thou type – you’d make a solid addition to the Obama administration.

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 3:56 PM

You keep using that word… I do not think that it means what you think it means…

SWalker on April 27, 2012 at 3:59 PM

You are completely missing the implication of the part I’ve highlighted, a part which, as I said, underscores my argument. Thank you again, for continuing to support my argument. Dante on April 27, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Ok genius. I can read it in Greek. If I have trouble with a word I have a shelf full of Greek dictionaries, glossaries, etc to consult. But you no doubt have better insights into the Bible that you hate than I do.

I mean, why wouldn’t you? You can make it say whatever you want, while I’m stuck with the original language’s sticky ol’ definitions.

Akzed on April 27, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Schadenfreude on April 27, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.

davidk on April 27, 2012 at 4:07 PM

I’d love to watch the whole clip, but I’m afraid for my health. I understand guys are just dropping dead mid-stride from too much online exposure.

Just lookin’ out for my “ticker”.

sartana on April 27, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Additionally ironic is the coveting argument being made, which is another watchword for wealth envy. There is no such thing as greed, that is no real definition that can stand by itself without being a tool of the wealth envy crowd. It is an immoral tool that is again used to keep the flock in its place, to not better themselves, to use against the pursuit of wealth and gains. It is designed to keep the uneducated in a subservient position, to keep the poor impovershed, to prevent man from using his mind and hands.

Dante on April 27, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Your pure unadulterated hatred of God and anyone who has the audacity to believe in him is duly note, thank you for your concern.

SWalker on April 27, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Intellectual honesty is not his forte, nor is logic. Who are the Church if not those who “Believe” in God, to mock the Church is to mock those who comprise the Church and the very reason for their being the Church.

SWalker on April 27, 2012 at 3:15 PM

So… Please set the record straight for everyone. Do you or do you not believe that their is no evidence for the existence of God and therefore as a consequence believe that there is no God.

It’s a simple yes or no question…

SWalker on April 27, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Pretty simple, it’s right there in black and white

.

SWalker on April 27, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Yes – right there in black and white. And you’re doing the same to me. Do I need to replay your own words to you again?
You are not debating facts and logic – you’re attacking people for not believing the same thing you do.
You and akzed are liars and hypocrits – proven – right there in black and white.

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Ok genius. I can read it in Greek. If I have trouble with a word I have a shelf full of Greek dictionaries, glossaries, etc to consult. But you no doubt have better insights into the Bible that you hate than I do.

I mean, why wouldn’t you? You can make it say whatever you want, while I’m stuck with the original language’s sticky ol’ definitions.

Akzed on April 27, 2012 at 4:04 PM

You have made it a habit of introducing irrelevant items to the thread. Back to the topic. Did you not type “so if you have food and clothing that’s enough”?

Dante on April 27, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Yes – right there in black and white. And you’re doing the same to me. Do I need to replay your own words to you again?
You are not debating facts and logic – you’re attacking people for not believing the same thing you do.
You and akzed are liars and hypocrits – proven – right there in black and white.

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Your grasp of logic doesn’t ever reach the level of tenuous.

SWalker on April 27, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Liberalism is faith-based (in which the primary god is the self) so it should come as no surprise that the devotees of the liberal faith also try to shore up up their fraudulent belief system with another faith: AGW.
And the liberal faith has caused more death and destruction to the human species than all the other faiths combined, many times over.

rocksandbroncs on April 27, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Your grasp of logic doesn’t ever reach the level of tenuous.

SWalker on April 27, 2012 at 4:16 PM

And there you go again….
You’d make a fine liberal with your avoidance of fact and dependence on ad hominum attacks.
Thanks for proving my point.

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Perhaps this question gets more to Dante’s point without attempting to disect the particular Biblical passage in question…

The Catholic Church’s heirarchy (the Vatican, College of Cardinals, etc… to distinguish from it’s followers) clearly have vast amounts of wealth, to the point of extreme oppulence within the Vatican itself. It would be silly for anyone, Catholic or not, to deny that simple fact. It would be hard to argue that the Catholic Church’s wealth does not go far beyond “food and clothing” for itself.

Since the Catholic Church is invested in such wealth seemingly for the sake of luxury (since it is not purely in liquid wealth which could be argued to be for the purposes of distribution or paid service through it’s charities), what is the purpose of such wealth being in luxury goods for which their can be little purpose other than making the heirarchy comfortable to the point of luxury for it’s own sake? Does that level of wealth not go beyond the nessecities of “food and clothing” which that passage says are what one should be happy with by the fruits of one’s own labor? And should not the Catholic Church heirarchy itself, as the ultimate representatives of biblical standards on Earth, be the last people to live in such oppulence?

I certainly know when I was growing up in Cathlic school, the priests and nuns lived in nothing close to what would be described as luxury in their quarters in the rectory. Isn’t that more representative of what one would expect of the Catholic Church heirarchy as opposed to the luxury of the Vatican?

gravityman on April 27, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Your grasp of logic doesn’t ever reach the level of tenuous.

SWalker on April 27, 2012 at 4:16 PM

This coming from the same person who must’ve cast and read entrails to come up with this fantasy: “Your pure unadulterated hatred of God and anyone who has the audacity to believe in him is duly note”

Dante on April 27, 2012 at 4:21 PM

You have made it a habit of introducing irrelevant items to the thread. Back to the topic. Did you not type “so if you have food and clothing that’s enough”? Dante on April 27, 2012 at 4:13 PM

I’ve been spot on topic while you’re making up new definitions to words and denying universally accepted human traits.

Yes, I typed that. And I have more than food and clothing. How do I square that? Re-read my posts. There’s a quiz Monday.

You haven’t been paying close enough attention to what I’ve already said to warrant taking any further pains with you today.

Akzed on April 27, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Christians are commanded to love only two thing: God and our Neighbor.

The pursuit of money does not necessarily require one to be in love of money. One may pursue money in order to help out his neighbor through charitable giving.

Or to put in a bank and provide investment captial so his neighbor can expand his/her business.

Or to buy fancy sports cars and bigger houses puting his neigbors to work building cars and hoouses.

Or to pile it in a room and roll around in it, taking the money out of circulation which would lower the demand on goods and services which would lower the price of goods and services which would benefit his neighbors.

Money! Gotta love it.

Money
Get away
You get a good job with good pay and you’re okay
Money
It’s a gas
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash
New car, caviar, four star daydream
Think I’ll buy me a football team

Money
Well, get back
I’m all right Jack
Keep your hands off of my stack
Money
It’s a hit
Don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
I’m in the high-fidelity first class travelling set
I think I need a Lear jet

Money
It’s a crime
Share it fairly
But don’t take a slice of my pie
Money
So they say
Is the root of all evil today
But if you ask for a raise
It’s no surprise that they’re giving none away

davidk on April 27, 2012 at 4:23 PM

gravityman on April 27, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Very well stated.

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Dante has his theory and is in love with it. He places all his faith in his theory and argues against the facts of reality. In the context of the video that is the context of this thread, the irony is palpable.

db on April 27, 2012 at 4:24 PM

davidk on April 27, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Love the song – one of the all time greats.
But I would say “Or to pile it in a room and roll around in it” probably gets to the point of “love of money”.

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 4:28 PM

I’ve been spot on topic while you’re making up new definitions to words and denying universally accepted human traits.

Akzed on April 27, 2012 at 4:23 PM

I’ve done nothing of the sort.

Dante on April 27, 2012 at 4:29 PM

This coming from the same person who must’ve cast and read entrails to come up with this fantasy: “Your pure unadulterated hatred of God and anyone who has the audacity to believe in him is duly note”

Dante on April 27, 2012 at 4:21 PM

A) you never answered my question, obviously because doing so would expose the truth intentions behind your diatribe.

B) Your history here as a rabid militant atheists of the Richard Dawkins variety is far to well documented fore you to pretend that only the words currently appearing on the screen have meaning.

SWalker on April 27, 2012 at 4:30 PM

And there you go again….
You’d make a fine liberal with your avoidance of fact and dependence on ad hominum attacks.
Thanks for proving my point.

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 4:20 PM

You keep using that word, I do not think that it means what you think it means.

SWalker on April 27, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Lol. Excellent video.

Another way in which we are paying the price today for dedication to theory at the expense of evidence and fact is with our policies toward Islam, Muslims, and geopolitics in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush administration foreign policy team was operating with a theory: that every problem in the world of a conflictual nature could ultimately be attributed to a lack of democracy. It was a rather simplistic theory: they just looked at a map, and went, “hmm, it occurs to me that all of these nations that are democracies are living together peacefully, but most of those that are not, are not. Therefore, democracy must cause peace.” And they were unapologetic about wanting to use US power projection to make more of those countries democracies.

Then, when the September 11, 2001 attacks occurred, that theory got manifested as “lack of democracy causes terrorism.” A truly bizarre hypothesis. But all of our policies toward Muslim countries since then have been based on this bizarre theory. And we can see how well that’s worked out.

It hasn’t worked out because it isn’t lack of democracy that causes terrorism – at least not this kind of terrorism – it’s Islam. And as far as democracy as a totally separate issue, you’re never going to have any success establishing a democracy in a Muslim-dominated country because according to Islamic law, democracy is ILLEGAL. The most success anyone will have on that front is to impose something on them at the end of a gun that kinda, sorta has some of the exterior trappings of a democracy, but which isn’t really a democracy in any way that we in the West understand a democracy. Then, as soon as that Western force is disapplied, sooner or later they will go right back to some sort of dictatorial arrangement. Why? Because Islam mandates dictatorship.

But the Bush administration was absolutely welded to that theory. It was the theory over all else. And no matter how much evidence that contradicted the theory became apparent, they were determined to stick to the theory. As a result, we’ve wasted billions and squandered thousands of US lives. And yet still – even with a 100% strategic failure rate for TEN YEARS – not only ex-Bush administration officials, but most politicians, policy makers, and military leaders, on both sides of the aisle to this day are still embracing, and operating according to, this disastrous theory.

Love of theory is the root of all evil indeed…

WhatSlushfund on April 27, 2012 at 4:33 PM

SWalker on April 27, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Moved on to inhaling vapors, have you?

Dante on April 27, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Dante has his theory and is in love with it. He places all his faith in his theory and argues against the facts of reality. In the context of the video that is the context of this thread, the irony is palpable.

db on April 27, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Normally I would agree with you – I’ve had a couple battles with Dante myself. However, in this case I believe his original statement that caused the firestorm from akzed and swalker was directed at the Catholic Church and pretty much in line with what gravityman also just recently said, and I have also said – though not nearly as well as gravityman.

I have no problem with pursuit of wealth or anyone’s beliefs – as long as they don’t impact me in a bad way or are imposed on me.
I do have a problem with hypocrisy – in any form.

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 4:33 PM

SWalker on April 27, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Moved on to inhaling vapors, have you?

Dante on April 27, 2012 at 4:33 PM

And trespass on your property? Never…

SWalker on April 27, 2012 at 4:34 PM

I do have a problem with hypocrisy – in any form.

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Mirrors….

SWalker on April 27, 2012 at 4:34 PM

gravityman on April 27, 2012 at 4:21 PM

You make the same mistake Dante and dentarthurdent do and assume wealth equals sin in Christian theology. Whether or not the Catholic Church covets wealth does not address the central misunderstanding of 1 Timothy 6:10. 1 Timothy 6:10 makes it clear that putting wealth above God is the sin, not wealth itself. Wealth can be used for many good works and quite frankly condemning wealth undermines man’s ability to do good works.

NotCoach on April 27, 2012 at 4:36 PM

You keep using that word, I do not think that it means what you think it means.

SWalker on April 27, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Do you even know where that quote came from?
Try getting some new material.

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Mirrors….

SWalker on April 27, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Proof? Facts?
Didn’t think so – just more of the same.

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 4:37 PM

A good example is the theory of “fairness” if you want to term it that.

The Leftist search for “fairness” can only give 1 of 2 end results.

The 1st being the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, Mao, Castro with millions slaughtered and the poverty of equality for the masses, with the politically elite cronies raised up in socieity.

the 2nd end result is the economic morass the likes of Detroit, Greece, Zimbaubwae, hyperinflationary Argentina or Brazil

…..in theory….

sbark on April 27, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Liberals love us and have a wonderful plan for our lives. Yeah. I’ll pass.

Paul-Cincy on April 27, 2012 at 4:42 PM

But I would say “Or to pile it in a room and roll around in it” probably gets to the point of “love of money”.

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 4:28 PM

You would have to be old enough to recognize the allusion. Donald Duck’s Uncle Scrooge had a room full of money that he would swim around in.

But the economic principle is sound. Money taken out of circulation by one person will lower the price in goods and services for others regardless of the hoarder’s movtivation.

davidk on April 27, 2012 at 4:43 PM

You make the same mistake Dante and dentarthurdent do and assume wealth equals sin in Christian theology. Whether or not the Catholic Church covets wealth does not address the central misunderstanding of 1 Timothy 6:10. 1 Timothy 6:10 makes it clear that putting wealth above God is the sin, not wealth itself. Wealth can be used for many good works and quite frankly condemning wealth undermines man’s ability to do good works.

NotCoach on April 27, 2012 at 4:36 PM

In this case, you appear to be ignoring the sum total of many other passages to justify your interpretation of just this one.
While millions of people have been debating various interpretations of the Bible for centuries, I do recall that what I was taught in Sunday School was that pursuit of “too much” wealth was a bad thing, and living in poverty was somehow noble. That directly conflicts, in my mind, with how the upper hierarchy of the Catholic church lives – which to me scream hypocrisy.

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 4:43 PM

You make the same mistake Dante and dentarthurdent do and assume wealth equals sin in Christian theology. Whether or not the Catholic Church covets wealth does not address the central misunderstanding of 1 Timothy 6:10. 1 Timothy 6:10 makes it clear that putting wealth above God is the sin, not wealth itself. Wealth can be used for many good works and quite frankly condemning wealth undermines man’s ability to do good works.

NotCoach on April 27, 2012 at 4:36 PM

That’s what I meant to say.

davidk on April 27, 2012 at 4:44 PM

You would have to be old enough to recognize the allusion. Donald Duck’s Uncle Scrooge had a room full of money that he would swim around in.

But the economic principle is sound. Money taken out of circulation by one person will lower the price in goods and services for others regardless of the hoarder’s movtivation.

davidk on April 27, 2012 at 4:43 PM

I’m 50 – and yes I understand the allusion and the economic principle. And Uncle Scrooge had a very clear and definite “love of money” – to a pathological level.
And I have “Dark Side of the Moon” on vinyl….

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 4:47 PM

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 4:43 PM

So it is impossible those who were teaching you (if what you say is true) were wrong?

NotCoach on April 27, 2012 at 4:47 PM

You make the same mistake Dante and dentarthurdent do and assume wealth equals sin in Christian theology.

NotCoach on April 27, 2012 at 4:36 PM

“I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:23-24
Parallel versions appear in Mark 10:24-25, and Luke 18:24-25.

The saying was a response to a young rich man who had asked Jesus what he needed to do in order to inherit eternal life. Jesus replied that he should keep the commandments, to which the man stated he had done. Jesus responded, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” The young man became sad and was unwilling to do this. Jesus then spoke this response, leaving his disciples astonished.”

Dante on April 27, 2012 at 4:48 PM

I do recall that what I was taught in Sunday School was that pursuit of “too much” wealth was a bad thing, and living in poverty was somehow noble. That directly conflicts, in my mind, with how the upper hierarchy of the Catholic church lives – which to me scream hypocrisy.

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 4:43 PM

I am certainly not endorsing the opulence of any religion’s magisterium, but what NotCoach has stated is correct.

Wealthy people,including wealthy Christian people, have done much good and will continue to much good with their wealth.

For the Christian it is a matter of heart allegiance.

davidk on April 27, 2012 at 4:49 PM

And I have “Dark Side of the Moon” on vinyl….

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 4:47 PM

The love of vinyl is the root of all kinds of good music.

davidk on April 27, 2012 at 4:51 PM

You make the same mistake Dante and dentarthurdent do and assume wealth equals sin in Christian theology. Whether or not the Catholic Church covets wealth does not address the central misunderstanding of 1 Timothy 6:10. 1 Timothy 6:10 makes it clear that putting wealth above God is the sin, not wealth itself. Wealth can be used for many good works and quite frankly condemning wealth undermines man’s ability to do good works.

NotCoach on April 27, 2012 at 4:36 PM

I’m actually not making that mistake at all. I did go to Catholic school and was raised Christian. I have studied a lot of biblical teaching (a hobby of mine regardless of my religious views).

I totally understand that it is perfectly within Christian doctrine to pursue wealth by the fruits of one’s own labor, and that according to biblical teaching it is placing the pursuit of money above God (a la “The Golden Calf”… an idol above God) that is the real sin, as well as coveting of the wealth of another for which you did not work yourself.

However, it is also part of biblical teaching that one should do good in the community with one’s wealth (“to whom much is given, much is asked”).

I do not question the Catholic Church’s hierarchy in terms of pursuing wealth, but I wonder to what good use they put that wealth when clearly a good bit of it is being used for little more than the luxury of it’s heirarchy. No doubt they put much wealth to good use through their charities, but they also have quite a bit that is of no use other than to bathe themselves in luxury. I believe biblical teachings also warn against such use of wealth.

gravityman on April 27, 2012 at 4:53 PM

So it is impossible those who were teaching you (if what you say is true) were wrong?

NotCoach on April 27, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Not at all. I no longer agree with a lot of things that were taught to me when I was younger – and not just about religion.
I do still believe that excess greed – to the point of accumulation at any cost and regardless of impact to others (e.g. by theft or scams) is not good.
I don’t have a problem at all with someone wanting to get rich – as long as it is by ethical means. I am very comfortable, but I would still like to have more – but I don’t feel a need to take it from those who have more – which is why I am very conservative politically.

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 4:54 PM

In 1 Timothy 6:10, the Bible says that the love of money is the root of all evil (not money itself, as many mistakenly believe).

More correctly, Ed: “all kinds” or “all sorts” of evil.

In other words, the love of money is not at the heart of every single evil deed but it is responsible for quite a few.

UndeadBeav on April 27, 2012 at 4:55 PM

I do not question the Catholic Church’s hierarchy in terms of pursuing wealth, but I wonder to what good use they put that wealth when clearly a good bit of it is being used for little more than the luxury of it’s heirarchy. No doubt they put much wealth to good use through their charities, but they also have quite a bit that is of no use other than to bathe themselves in luxury. I believe biblical teachings also warn against such use of wealth.

gravityman on April 27, 2012 at 4:53 PM

I have no opinion of the Catholic Church in this regard (I am not a Catholic nor have I ever been and no Catholic has ever done me wrong as an agent of the church), and I am not going to get worked up over the Catholic Church’s past sins concerning greed and power. I am only concerned with Dante and dentarthurdent’s dishonest and ignorant views about what Christianity teaches about wealth.

NotCoach on April 27, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Wealthy people,including wealthy Christian people, have done much good and will continue to much good with their wealth.
davidk on April 27, 2012 at 4:49 PM

I don’t have ay problem with that – and yes, many people have done a lot of good with their money. And I have stated that the Catholic church has done a lot of good – but they have also accumulated far more “trappings of wealth” than can be justified by their own teachings. I have merely pointed to what I see as a bit of hypocrisy in that respect.
I’m not accusing you of this, so don’t misunderstand me, but I also don’t judge people based on how they use their money. If they use it for good – so much for the better. But even a rich person who just puts his money in the bank (to accumulate more), in reality makes that money available to many others – whether they intend to or not – a point I think liberals completely miss.

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 5:03 PM

I am only concerned with Dante and dentarthurdent’s dishonest and ignorant views about what Christianity teaches about wealth.
NotCoach on April 27, 2012 at 4:59 PM

It’s unfortunate that you choose to now take the ad hominum route that akzed and swalker took.

If you are not and never have been Catholic (I was raised Catholic) – why do you now feel the need to personally attack me or anyone else for our opinions about the church?

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Never argue Christian theology with leftists – they work for the other side.

As concerns the actual point of the post, the problem is that “In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they aren’t.” ~ Yogi Berra.

Adjoran on April 27, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Never argue Christian theology with leftists – they work for the other side.

Adjoran on April 27, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Christian theology is leftist.

Dante on April 27, 2012 at 5:12 PM

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 5:08 PM

This may be the 4th time I’ve said this, but I am arguing against the improper interpretation of 1 Timothy 6:10.

NotCoach on April 27, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Christian theology is leftist.

Dante on April 27, 2012 at 5:12 PM

There are fools then there are Super Grandmaster fools.

NotCoach on April 27, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Never argue Christian theology with leftists – they work for the other side.

Adjoran on April 27, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Christian theology is leftist.

Dante on April 27, 2012 at 5:12 PM

One of Reverend Wright’s fellow travelers agrees with you:

Rev. Dr. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, a senior fellow at the left-wing Center for American Progress and a board member for Faith in Public Life (a progressive, religious organization), believes that Christianity — and right-leaning political beliefs — are responsible for the tragic Oslo rampage.

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled, “When Christianity Becomes Lethal,” Thistlethwaite lectures readers about the perils of “extreme Christianity” and the failure of believers to see the connections between their beliefs and associated violence.

Enjoy:

Del Dolemonte on April 27, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Jeesh, can’t you even quote a directly linked quote correctly?

“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil”

All kinds of evil is not the same as ALL evil.

BVM on April 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM

This may be the 4th time I’ve said this, but I am arguing against the improper interpretation of 1 Timothy 6:10.

NotCoach on April 27, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Define “improper interpretation”. Are you 100% sure that only your interpretation is correct? I mean, people have only been debating various intepretations of the Bible for over a thousand years and there is still no 100% consensus on all (or perhaps any) of it’s meanings.
I have relatives who believe every word in the Bible is the absolute literal truth and as such the earth is only 6000 years old. How far do want to carry your argument?
I’m willing to accept other people’s beliefs and interpretations as what works for them – whether I agree with them or not.

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 5:26 PM

There are fools then there are Super Grandmaster fools.

NotCoach on April 27, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Hey, you’re the guy who buys into it but then denies its teachings while attempting to defend it.

Dante on April 27, 2012 at 5:30 PM

In the video Whittle says “if there’s a direct conflict between the atmosphere and Zwick’s computer model, then obviously the atmosphere must be wrong.” Quite appropriate to the AGW “theorists” (propagandists). Like with temperature, there is “missing heat,” or faulty measurements, not a faulty theory.
And look at sea level. You don’t need multtiple satellites and dual observation stations on the moon to measure sea level, just go to the beach and you can see that there has been no rise in the sea level. A good thread on this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/26/sea-level-surprise-in-new-zealand, and 1 of 2 of my comments:

@Lars P. Excellent analysis!
So even the minimal sea rise as purported in the “data” is modeled. It’s not an observable rise. See my last comment, I have a point, then. There has been no actual rise at all in sea level, for decades. They have fabricated a rise based on modeled fanciful tectonic plate movements, or the like.
Yes, go to the beach, the beach shows that the sea has not risen. That is reality. The models show the sea has risen. That is not reality.
I remember imaginary numbers in math. Well, we have imaginary modeled sea level rises. Inane. So we may very well see 10 ft in sea level rise over the next 50 years. But that will be a modeled rise. Go to the beach in the future and it will be the same as it’s ever been. So we need to implement draconian 80%+ CO2 cuts to combat future modeled (imaginary) sea level rise?

anotherJoe on April 27, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Christian theology is leftist.

Dante on April 27, 2012 at 5:12 PM

I would have said “progressive.”

davidk on April 27, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Back to the greatest sentence. In counseling terms it is called “Circular thinking”

I’ve misread nothing.
Dante on April 27, 2012 at 3:33 PM

As for this reading the Bible and understanding it those are two things. Somewhat like reading Steinbeck but much more. A great story on the surface with a second meaning throughout. You have missed nearly all of it. You just don’t know it. That is what people are trying to point out to you here.

BullShooterAsInElk on April 27, 2012 at 5:34 PM

anotherJoe on April 27, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Heeeeyyyyy – what’s with trying to hijack this religion thread to talk about AGW – oh wait…. ////

I think we had this discussion once before about sea level rise. The AGW fanatics keep talking about it, but it just isn’t happening. Belief in something without any actual proof – that’s definitely a religion.
Not there’s anything wrong with that….////

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 5:37 PM

As for this reading the Bible and understanding it those are two things. Somewhat like reading Steinbeck but much more. A great story on the surface with a second meaning throughout. You have missed nearly all of it. You just don’t know it. That is what people are trying to point out to you here.

BullShooterAsInElk on April 27, 2012 at 5:34 PM

I will merely ask, as I did with NotCoach – are you so sure that only your interpretation is the correct one? Think about it.

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 5:39 PM

NotCoach on April 27, 2012 at 4:36 PM

This is the correct interpretation based upon the grammatical, linguistic and cultural nuance of the text as written in it’s original language. Further proof comes from context and similar passages in the Bible.

“I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:23-24
Parallel versions appear in Mark 10:24-25, and Luke 18:24-25.

The saying was a response to a young rich man who had asked Jesus what he needed to do in order to inherit eternal life. Jesus replied that he should keep the commandments, to which the man stated he had done. Jesus responded, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” The young man became sad and was unwilling to do this. Jesus then spoke this response, leaving his disciples astonished.”

Dante on April 27, 2012 at 4:48 PM

You show a lack of understanding of the meaning of this passage. Jesus stated that it was difficult for a rich man to enter the king of heaven because those with much in this world find it difficult to through it all away for Jesus’ sake. In this case, Jesus asked him to literally do so as a test of his faith. Jesus did not do this with every rich follower. He knew the man’s heart and used the opportunity to make a point. In fact, if you were to keep reading you find that Jesus demanded that his disciples put Him before even their own families.

Lastly, your argument that the word “Church” refers to an institution is not how the word is used in the Bible or the common conception of it among Christians. The Church refers to the body of believers. To malign the Church is to malign the body of believers. If you wish to condemn the top brass of the Catholic Church, feel free to do so. I doubt you’d have too many non-Catholics condemn you.

Pattosensei on April 27, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Dante on April 27, 2012 at 4:48 PM

“If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” The young man became sad and was unwilling to do this. Jesus then spoke this response, leaving his disciples astonished.”

Dante on April 27, 2012 at 4:48 PM

He didn’t say give all of your possessions to the government in the form of taxation so it can dole it out to the poor and George Kaiser.

According to the Gospel of Luke (23:1-2), “Then the whole body of them arose and brought Him before Pilate. And they began to accuse Him, saying, ‘We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is Christ, a King.’”

Now, how can he be telling people they should be happy to pay more and more of the fruits of their labour to the Great Leviathan in the form of taxes if the Great Leviathan is charging him with advising his followers to evade taxation?

He Ain’t St. Levi, He’s His Brother’s Tax Collector … What Jesus Really Thought About Taxes

Resist We Much on April 27, 2012 at 7:22 PM

“lack of democracy causes terrorism.” A truly bizarre hypothesis. But all of our policies toward Muslim countries since then have been based on this bizarre theory. And we can see how well that’s worked out.

It hasn’t worked out because it isn’t lack of democracy that causes terrorism – at least not this kind of terrorism – it’s Islam. And as far as democracy as a totally separate issue, you’re never going to have any success establishing a democracy in a Muslim-dominated country because according to Islamic law, democracy is ILLEGAL. The most success anyone will have on that front is to impose something on them at the end of a gun that kinda, sorta has some of the exterior trappings of a democracy, but which isn’t really a democracy in any way that we in the West understand a democracy. Then, as soon as that Western force is disapplied, sooner or later they will go right back to some sort of dictatorial arrangement. Why? Because Islam mandates dictatorship.

But the Bush administration was absolutely wedded to that theory. It was the theory over all else. And no matter how much evidence that contradicted the theory became apparent, they were determined to stick to the theory. As a result, we’ve wasted billions and squandered thousands of US lives. And yet still – even with a 100% strategic failure rate for TEN YEARS – not only ex-Bush administration officials, but most politicians, policy makers, and military leaders, on both sides of the aisle to this day are still embracing, and operating according to, this disastrous theory.

Love of theory is the root of all evil indeed…

WhatSlushfund on April 27, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Interesting. Very good presentation. Certainly the absolute refusal to acknowledge that Islam has any role in terrorism is not unique to the Bush administration. I would say the left now holds those views more firmly than the right. The arab spring will not end well.

talkingpoints on April 27, 2012 at 7:48 PM

You show a lack of understanding of the meaning of this passage. Pattosensei on April 27, 2012 at 7:10 PM

I actually find this quite funny. Another person whose personal interpretation of what the Bible says – and you and only you have the “correct” interpretation. I think it’s amazing how many so called Christians are so absolutely certain that only they know the absolute truth and nobody else can possibly have a different opinion.

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 8:27 PM

He didn’t say give all of your possessions to the government in the form of taxation so it can dole it out to the poor and George Kaiser.

According to the Gospel of Luke (23:1-2), “Then the whole body of them arose and brought Him before Pilate. And they began to accuse Him, saying, ‘We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is Christ, a King.’”

Now, how can he be telling people they should be happy to pay more and more of the fruits of their labour to the Great Leviathan in the form of taxes if the Great Leviathan is charging him with advising his followers to evade taxation?

He Ain’t St. Levi, He’s His Brother’s Tax Collector … What Jesus Really Thought About Taxes

Resist We Much on April 27, 2012 at 7:22 PM

That was a wonderful, wonderful straw man.

Dante on April 27, 2012 at 8:59 PM

I actually find this quite funny. Another person whose personal interpretation of what the Bible says – and you and only you have the “correct” interpretation. I think it’s amazing how many so called Christians are so absolutely certain that only they know the absolute truth and nobody else can possibly have a different opinion.

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 8:27 PM

It would really be funny if he were a biblical literalist.

Dante on April 27, 2012 at 9:00 PM

In between the pointless troll instigated arguments re the Church and biblical interpretations does anyone know the full name of Bert or Burt who did work with the computer modeling?

That is a subject I’m interested in ever since learning that the computer models could not be used to predict in any way the known from the known.

Grammie on April 27, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Too bad it’s a Bill Whittle vid so I won’t watch. The dude comes across as arrogant and unlikable, for example his Breitbart tribute vid managed to be more about Bill Whittle than about Andrew Breitbart.

AngusMc on April 27, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Interesting comment by Noblesse Oblige at the linked William M Briggs page for the video and the Love of Theory:

I will be bold and suggest that the word “theory” should be replaced by “story.” It is the love of story that is the root of most evil. The psychologists know this (see Kahneman, “Thinking Fast and Slow”). It is the story that is built from scratch without evidence, based only on wish and association with other stories. It is the story that is impervious to fact. There is nothing wrong with “theory” in the scientific sense, as long as it is only the preamble to test, falsification, and revision. Global Warming was once a theory. It has become story.

anotherJoe on April 28, 2012 at 2:25 AM

It’s unfortunate that you choose to now take the ad hominum route that akzed and swalker took.

It’s not an ad hominem. It’s against an interpretation.

What do you contest? That everybody knows everything? If that is not the case, there are ignorant positions. To allege that something is a position of ignorance is not ad hominem as much as it is summary conclusions of the argument.

There are a number of things that are wrong as arguments, but have cases where they are valid statements because, for example some people have better aptitudes than others. Some people are smarter than other people. Some people are relatively less intelligent than others, or even less scrupulous than others.

Axeman on April 28, 2012 at 3:55 AM

I actually find this quite funny. Another person whose personal interpretation of what the Bible says – and you and only you have the “correct” interpretation. I think it’s amazing how many so called Christians are so absolutely certain that only they know the absolute truth and nobody else can possibly have a different opinion.

dentarthurdent on April 27, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Not everything in the Bible is open to interpretation. In fact, very little of it is. There is a truth to every passage. The problem is that men “see but through a mirror dimly.” As for the passage in question, there is no controversy over its meaning. I hate to break it to you, but the Bible is objective, not subjective. If it were not so, then Jesus’ birth, death and resurrection would be open to interpretation as well.

Pattosensei on April 28, 2012 at 9:06 AM

This is a great video and I highly recommended viewing it.

They certainly weren’t for Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, or any of the other bloody tyrants of the age; it was the centralization of wealth and power into the hands of the few or the one. Theories such as Marxism and fascism were a means to an end, not the end itself.

I agree. In reality we have the cynical corrupt power hungry tyrants and the gullible idiots who lap up the poison and help them. In the end what we end up with is an exchange of aristocracies.

dogsoldier on April 28, 2012 at 9:22 AM

The only people who prospered in those systems were the ones who didn’t take the theories too seriously. The true believers — Leon Trotsky comes to mind — tend to end up dead.

I recall reading that those who used their particular theory, be it fascism, communism, socialism, etc. to achieve their own ends would pretty much laugh up their sleeves at the true believers for being such saps to believe their BS as fervently as they did, before they ended up dead.

PatriotGal2257 on April 28, 2012 at 11:47 AM

it was the centralization of wealth and power into the hands of the few or the one.

i.e., the love of money. “Wisdom is proved right by her children.”

IrishEyes on April 28, 2012 at 12:47 PM

VALIDATION BY EVIDENCE

What a concept!

Tim_CA on April 28, 2012 at 1:14 PM

climate change: I want to see evidence!

creationism: we don’t need evidence, god did it!

triple on April 28, 2012 at 4:11 PM

. I hate to break it to you, but the Bible is objective, not subjective. If it were not so, then Jesus’ birth, death and resurrection would be open to interpretation as well.

Pattosensei on April 28, 2012 at 9:06 AM

I hate to break it to you, but it already is and has been for centuries.

Dante on April 29, 2012 at 3:59 PM

I’ve been thinking about this video for a while and I realized that liberals, progressives, communists and socialists all have a fascination/obsession with theory.

Not just political theory but they are enamored with theories for everything which explains why so many liberals professors in colleges. They are excited about theories in general and that it is the only place where they can get paid to play in the basement of their mind and get paid for it and play with other people rather than playing down there alone.

Which is why there are more liberal teachers than conservative ones. Conservatives deal with the pragmatic reality and evidence. Liberals don’t.

Conservative Samizdat on April 29, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 2