Where did god get the idea that money is the root of all evil when his one true church teaches that the penis is the root of all evil?

The natural man's penis (meaning uncircumcised, or as I like to imagine, uncircus-sized...) is unholy, and the taproot of all evil.

But if one has been the victim, I mean the recipient of the Abrahamic slicing and dicing, then the penis drops to #2 on the hot 100 sin chart.

I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to thank my penis for all the adventures it started that I somehow finished (and miraculously survived!).

The Reproductive Urge is often impossible to resist, which explains how and why humanity soared in popularity once beer was discovered in 8627 B.C., on a Tuesday evening. Let us bow our heads...

But yes, it is almost a truism: It takes money to get laid.

Beer allows women to see through my outer façade, to my inner façade, which is a lot more appealing!!

If you can't make a good first impression, just hang around until she gets a buzz on.

It's the LOVE of money that's supposedly the root of all evil. Slightly different thing.

olderelder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's the LOVE of money that's supposedly the root
> of all evil. Slightly different thing.

HUGELY different thing.

I thought it was the love of more money.

or as the hipsters and cool chicks say: "More mon".

So it was in the fall of 1819 that young Joseph Smith was begging "Floozy Deelite" (the most popular lady of dubious repute in all of Wayne and Manchester counties) for a second date on credit.

As was her strict policy vis-a-vis indigent farm youth, Miss Deelite declined, saying: "Ohhh, honey. You need more mon, hon, if you want more me. Sorry, but that's the way it has to be. Just bring me more mon and you'll get more fun!"

This humiliation was burned into young Joseph's mind.

"More mon, honey. More mon!" It repeated over and over in his mind until it became a mantra. "More mon, more mon...more mon."

Of course nobody thinks that it had any influence on Joseph's later work involving the translation of an ancient record that became known as the "Book of Mormon". Hey....wait a minute!

Oh... it's the money that the church will do anything to get their grubby mitts on... if asking Africans to pull all their gold fillings and give proceeds to TSCC isn't evil... I don't know what is... the penis is just a distraction!

Really? When was this? Can you provide more info?

It was in South America. And the church is SOOOO proud of the members who sacrificed their chompers!!!

It's in the final paragraph... And the church gave them market price for that gold!!!

https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/porto-alegre-brazil-temple/

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was in South America. And the church is SOOOO
> proud of the members who sacrificed their
> chompers!!!
>
> It's in the final paragraph... And the church
> gave them market price for that gold!!!
>
> https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/porto-alegr
> e-brazil-temple/


OMG... I hadn't heard of that. What a shameful thing to do .

Imagine how well that works for the propaganda pics. Tall, white, besuited men descending from on high to share the gospel with the toothless natives.

Right out of a National Geographic from the 1950s.

...Holding pliers...

You are a sick man, Elder, fortunate that Sister Saucie has taken you under her wing and is keeping you out of trouble.

And such.

It wasn't 'fortune'... We planned the whole thing in the Pre-Existence... it was a Tuesday evening. We'd been out discovering beer... we were bewitched by moonlight.

Down home dentistry: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k8CGhocOFJs

Also known as the "New Faustian Bargain".

"You gimme the gold outta yer mouths or you don't get the magic handshakes!"

"For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the ability to chew food again, but suffers the loss of his opportunity to learn some cool handshakes?"

"Blessed are they who rip the gold out of their mouths and give it unto the Apostles, for they shall inherit much funny underwear--but only if they can pay for the underwear."

Not having ENOUGH money is the root of all evil.

There is nothing particularly enobling about poverty, as several recent studies have pointed out.
Poverty handicaps people and countries in various ways.

Mormon church leadership does not do enough when it comes to helping out financially around the globe.

Thanks for mentioning this. We tend to think people get what they deserve, but this is certainly NOT TRUE. Children in poverty is ample evidence of that not enough money is evil.

Elyse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not having ENOUGH money is the root of all evil.


Yet there are billionaire criminals, and criminal billionaires, who never feel like they have enough money.

Make America Grift Again

I believe the verse (1 Tim. 6:10) is best translated as, "The love of money is the root of many evils." So it's not as simple or absolute as is commonly thought.

I heard one celebrity wag say, "Money doesn't buy happiness, but it lets you be miserable in the best part of town."

One reason I know there's a God is that I've never been, and never will be, rich. He knows I can't be trusted with lots of money. Or sex appeal, for that matter.

So he lets other people get rich and do bad things with money, but saves you because he likes you more?

Evil spelled backward is live. Being alive is the root of all evil. God did that to test our faith.

God is backwards?

Yep, backasswards! Notice how he does one thing (create man in is image), then when it doesn't work out (they misbehave) he wipes them out and starts over (the flood).

Backasswards!

So what is Dog?

Dog is non-evil incarnate, which is the opposite of cat.

My heavens, Roy, you are in rare form lately!

Roy G Biv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Evil spelled backward is live. Being alive is the
> root of all evil. God did that to test our faith.

Serious questions (I am in the process of intellectually working the question(s) of evil through right now):

So you are saying that evil is restricted to our species (homo sapiens sapiens)?

And, therefore, you are saying that evil does not exist wherever human beings do not exist?

That evil is a characteristic which depends on the existence of our species to appear/exist?

And therefore: evil exists only on our planet, and does not exist elsewhere in our solar system or universe, because human beings are a necessary condition of its existence?

I am not attempting to play witty games here. I am genuinely interested in how you really "see" these related issues.

Very interesting. I hadn't given it much thought beyond that statement, and I was kind of being sarcastic, but now that you asked......

>> So you are saying that evil is restricted to our species (homo sapiens sapiens)?

Yes. We assign good or evil to our actions. Man kills man = evil. Animal kills animal = survival. The animal doesn't have the same intent as the man.

>>And, therefore, you are saying that evil does not exist >>wherever human beings do not exist?

Yes. Beyond humans, all that's left is nature.....not god is nature either in case anyone is thinking about starting up the old debate :) No evil in nature without humans.

>>That evil is a characteristic which depends on the existence >>of our species to appear/exist?

Yes. Like in the killing example. Animals kill for a variety of reasons...food, territory, reproductive rights, etc. There is no evil in any of that. Man kills for the same reasons and its deemed evil.

>>And therefore: evil exists only on our planet, and does not exist elsewhere in our solar system or universe, because human beings are a necessary condition of its existence?

Yes. Evil would only exist in human like forms with the capability to assign intent to actions that occurr in their society.

Another example.....a gazelle is only stressed if there is a stress present. the gazelle is casually grazing = no stress. A lion appears = stress! The lion goes after another gazelle and doesn't return. Gazelle goes back to grazing = no stress because the stress is no longer present.

Mean while, we humans spend the bulk of our waking hours stressing over something that isn't even present, but it might be so we stress.

Evil works the same way.

Plus, I was never taught that satan could temp animals, so yeah, evil is strictly a human condition /s

Men kill for way more reasons than animals.

"Animals kill for a variety of reasons...food, territory, reproductive rights, etc. There is no evil in any of that. Man kills for the same reasons and its deemed evil."

Some men and a few women kill just to kill. It might be just firing neurons compelling them to do it, but I call it evil. There are no homicidal maniac animals.

That's what I'm saying. Its evil when men kill. Not animals. I'm not quite sure what your point is regarding my post though.

Allow me to introduce you to my cats...

I'm going to challenge that.

Evil does not depend on humans per se. It depends on some characteristics that humans have: the intelligence to understand the consequences of one's actions and an understanding of emotional and physical pain. A creature lacking in those traits is incapable of intent and hence of the evil intent to cause suffering.

It follows that if there are other beings elsewhere in the universe who comprehend pain and know they can cause, or refrain from causing, such suffering, they too can act evilly. Ultimately it comes down to pain: does a being intentionally and cognizantly inflict physical or emotional discomfort on other beings?

I believe that dolphins have been observed to rape and kill for unexplained reasons...

Well, if they (or for that matter chimps or parrots) are sentient enough to know what they are doing, perhaps they are capable of some degree of evil.

This is an important question. Assume a robot with increasing mental abilities. While it does not have sentience and the ability to feel pain, humans don't really owe it a duty of care. But if the robot reaches the point where it can feel pain and that pain remains in its memory, surely there is a duty to refrain from inflicting unnecessary suffering.

People are gradually moving towards this sort of pain-based definition of evil. The sanctity of various life forms has achieved legal status in much of the Western world on the basis not of animals' humanity but on the basis of their ability to suffer.

If a child unwittingly hurts an animal, the child is not evil. But as its sentience increases, so too does its moral responsibility and its culpability. Thus the two things that matter are 1) the object's susceptibility to pain, and 2) the subject's awareness of the consequences of his actions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/16/2019 12:35AM by Lot's Wife.

One man's evil is another man's holy crusade.

Evil is a concept. It has no substantial form, cannot be photographed or put in a cage, and certainly can't be killed. Evil is subject always to interpretation. Nothing is inherently evil and can only be evil through the perspective of those harmed by an action.

Selfishness to the point of disregard for harm done to enrich ones bank account or sex life or power or fame is what it is. Some one wins. Someone loses. Life is a game best played by not following all the rules because the selfish never do. The high road leads straight off a cliff.

I just attempted to define evil in functional terms.

It is the intentional and cognizant infliction of unnecessary pain on others.

Does that make sense as a foundational concept?

In an ideal world, yes. I’ve known “evil” people. If they inflict suffering, it’s because they think it’s necessary. What about do-gooders acting in the name of God? Shiites stoning a gay person to death? Evil doesn’t know or think it’s evil. Stanley Milgram demonstrated that inside most of us is a little Eichmann.

Where does this leave “the judgment”? What’s to judge if there is a judgment bar? Of course, any action has consequences. I consider that more a force of nature than a social construct. No God required.

i'm so sick and you guys make me laugh so hard!

To posit that there is an enforced, Universal standard for what is evil and what isn't is too large a chasm for me to engineer a means to cross.

It could be the case, but I don't believe it.

Certainly, I have a list of actions and inactions that I believe are evil, but it's of my own construction. And I'm sure we each have items on our lists that others don't.

Remember when that star quarterback was arrested and convicted of dog fighting? Pure evil in my book, but all the cock-fighters the world over just yawned.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Remember when that star quarterback was arrested
> and convicted of dog fighting? Pure evil in my
> book, but all the cock-fighters the world over
> just yawned.

Yes. This is one of the primary elements in the question.

What is deemed "evil" (on this planet) varies enormously from person to person, and from culture to culture. To the ancient Romans, dog fighting, cock fighting, and importing animals to tear human beings apart as entertainment, are all the "same" thing.

In the pre-Civil War South, slaves were subject to the same (or similar, from a slave's viewpoint) things done to animals--think lynchings, which were often public entertainment for the family, not only in the American South, but in other areas as well. That was also the time of soon-to-be modern medicine, and slaves (particularly women) were used as experimental animals. The Japanese did this same thing (with other ethnicities) in World War II--as did the Nazis too, of course.

You have precisely identified one of the big problems in trying to understand "evil."

If there ARE ethical criteria which apply to dog fighting as versus cock fighting, then do these generalized criteria not also apply, at least in part, to human beings? And regardless of whether the goal is medical knowledge, or entertainment?

If one is a hermit, one's standards for good and evil are all that is needed. No one attempts to correct the hermit's behavior, simply because in the absence of others, the hermit's standards are absolute.

Take that hermit and put him in 'society' and there are likely to be clashes when his behavior, both in action and inaction, cause commentary among his neighbors. The traitorous act of being 'different'!!

I think it's obvious that one's society sets the standard of what is evil. And for many, what we can ignore, we will. Evil done out of sight and sound goes without punishment; but with the invention of religion, we all relax, knowing that a ghawd will be balancing the scales.

And then there is the seduction of good men who slippery-slope their way to first allowing evil, then condoning it and finally to doing it. Everybody else is so, why not? Who here doesn't constantly and willfully exceed the posted speed limit?

Anyway, for me, absent any belief in a Final Balancer of The Scales, all I can do it keep a sharp eye out for golfers who nudge their ball for a better lie through the green, or push the ball forward a couple of inches when they mark their ball on the green and then put the ball back down a couple of inches in front of that lying mark. Pure evil!!

So if there are rules that when broken allow us to identify evil, it makes the rule makers the arbiters of evil. No ghawds need for that.

Would it not be evil if the hermit adopted the habit of catching and torturing animals?

Yes, by my standards. But he's a hermit so no one judges him. He's the tree falling in the forest that makes no sound. Only in the eyes of ghawd can the hermit's evil be measured. And I won't admit to ghawd's existence.

But if I encounter a man on the highway and kill him, or cut a drunk's throat in order to obtain a book in his possession, and leave no witnesses, am I not the tree falling in the woods? Or more precisely is not the hapless librarian the one falling unobserved in the street?

That is where empathy comes in: the capacity to imagine the suffering one inflicts on others, the sense that others' pain is in John Donne's words, my one. I'm not sure it's too much to suggest that the same sort of empathy might extend to all sentient beings, two legged or four, lunged or gilled.

I realize I am plodding on here, but I do think that witnesses are not essential to evil. To say otherwise is to opine that obstruction of justice is impossible if the obstruction succeeds; intimidation of witnesses is no crime if it works. It strikes me that something is wrong even if the dead tell no tales. So the hermit who tortures an animal is evil by dint of the suffering itself.

End of rant. You may return to your regularly scheduled television.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is where empathy comes in: the capacity to
> imagine the suffering one inflicts on others, the
> sense that others' pain is in John Donne's words,
> my one. I'm not sure it's too much to suggest
> that the same sort of empathy might extend to all
> sentient beings, two legged or four, lunged or
> gilled.

I've been thinking about this for the last several hours, and I think empathy is crucial (to the LACK of evil), for anyone who has the cognitive ability to understand what they are doing (even if they are a witness, or a spectator)....

....plus: another crucial element is the ability to "see" the probable future consequences of present actions....

....and also, for humans specifically, the ability and the inner strength to say "No" (to orders from superiors of any kind, or implicit or explicit social directives). (Think of the Inquisition, any genocide or random massacre, or incidents of bullying, such as Jim Crow laws, or malicious rumor mongering).

Mostly, though, I think the critical factor in most real life situations is empathy.


> So the hermit who tortures an
> animal is evil by dint of the suffering itself.

Yes!!

All I know about Evil is you can get a doctorate in it.

And Dallin Oaks and Dr. Evil have never been seen together. Hmmmnnn. Very telling.

Rusty is Mini Me all grown up.

What I find amusing is how much people focus on evil when they can't even figure out what is good.

Case in point, we think we know what is good and we pick and choose something we value as good and do it, eat it, love it, "seek after these things"...

Yet, we think since we have this "preference" thing down and "know it when I see it" in the valuations of "good" we continually struggle with "evil." Why?

If wet is the opposite of dry and white the opposite of black why is evil so hard for people to understand and form preferences, valuations, and/or claim understanding?

If the root of all evil isn't good in being its opposite wouldn't having a better understanding of "good" be much more important that its antithesis?

I know why and it directly related to Mormonism and religion. Because if good is vague we can be it and if evil is understood we can avoid and judge with it in maximizing our ego's strokes for the good. Good Mormons can do bad things and still consider themselves good. They did all the righteous things. They go to their meetings, attend the temple, serve in callings, do their ministering, judge others like hell, offend the crap out of lots of people, lie, cheat, and steal and yet they know what is good for them and how it will get them to their Kingdom Celestial.

People stop seeking God when they find Mormonism. That’s not good.

I thought religion was the root of all evil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nAos1M-_Ts

The root of all evil is chaos. It's a duality with order. Order cannot be known, defined, or valued without chaos. In an ideal world, there'd be just enough chaos to value order. Order and chaos would cycle. Hmm. Starting to look like yin and yang? There's the duality.

Yin and yang--or perhaps 2 Nephi.

Razortooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where did god get the idea that money is the root
> of all evil....

This is plainly not true.

Many people throughout human history have committed evil just because, for them, it brought pleasure (and sometimes self-validation), and money had not the slightest bit to do with it.

(Think of a serial murderer, or parents who willfully abuse or torture their children.)