holy cow, you're back!
good to see you.
Yeah, moving around a bit. Orlando ---> North Texas ---> Panama City. Didn't have the time (or internet connection) to play with you guys like I'd
like to. But, unfortunately for ATS, I should be able to now. Good to see you too.
but it's obviously false as it is not the root of ALL evil. it's an absolutist statement
As I attempted to establish ("I" meaning the link I posted) 'love of money' has a deeper meaning [ego, greed, etc.] than the one you're giving it
based on that one sentence, removed from its context. Which (imho) is intellectually lazy and/or dishonest. Reminds me of your thread where you
argued against 'thou shall surely die' with 'but, they didn't die' (can't remember where to find that one atm) or your attempt to falsify C.S.
Lewis' "Liar, Lunatic, Lord" argument with 'oh yeah, what if he was just wrong.' Which evidences that you'd never read Lewis' argument (which
dealt with such.)
I don't think your giving some of these issues and arguments the respect they deserve. Seems you skip the study, understanding and consideration
part and just jump into the deep end. Hard to have a serious conversation (much less debate or argue) with someone whom operates like that.
1 Timothy - Chapter 6 KJV (Read the entire chapter and (if you like) use the
Strongs feature too)
if i said ALL ATS members love the color pink, i'd be proven to be wrong the second someone said that they do not love the color
pink.
Sure. How about trying it this way: How would you change it to make it more accurate? [
? is the root of all evil.]
absolutist statement.
I guess we'd have to (like has been so far in your thread) do the [Clinton voice] "depends on what your definition of is
is" [/Clinton
voice] thing. Also, it's worth noting that many scholars believe that the NKJV version/translation is more accurate:
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves
through with many sorrows." [
1Ti 6:10
(NKJV) ]
As you can see, if this is indeed the better translation, we've nothing to argue about. So (imo) there are several ways in which your argument is
flawed/weak. Either way, not sure how we can (assuming nothing anyone has posted thus far has changed your mind/opinion/observation... which seems to
be the case) find any middle ground on this or have any reason to continue the argument. Personally, when taken in context and understanding that
this is an English translation of an ancient language, I find the statement true and wise...
as is. If not, the NKJV trans-lation/literation
defeats your 'absolutist argument.' Either way.
Your mileage may vary. See you around.
Regards.
[edit on 18-6-2008 by Rren]