Because of the nature of this site, most of what I say about the Bible and quote from it is negative. So here’s something positive for a change:
Bread is made for laughter,
and wine gladdens life,
and money answers everything.
—Ecclesiastes 10:19
Recent Comments
- Shawn: Sounds a bit like ‘torture until you agree with... on Let’s Hope The Mormons Are Wrong…
- Donny Pauling: Pay attention to the sign, gentlemen. The part where my name is... on Let’s Talk About …
- UrsaMinor: Practically anything that is covered in beer batter and deep-fried is... on Night Swimming with Sea Monsters
- Lashaunda Reginaldo: I appreciate an amazing publish, can examine your... on The Bible Argues Against Blind Faith
- FO: Awesome animals. Also, they apparently taste good and I’d be curious... on Night Swimming with Sea Monsters
- PamBG: Facetious. No, there is no free will in heaven, because everyone knows that... on John Piper and Divine Command
Funny $&#!@ From 9 Laughs
I'm one of the contributors to 9 Laughs:
Subscribe by Email
Archives
That explains so much about the Republican party – Get fat, drink way too much and buy your way out of trouble!
I was thinking the EXACT same thing. That’s why they’re so greedy – the bible tells them to be that way
Except for what we read in 1 Timothy 6:10 (if I remember rightly): “… the love of money is the root of all evil…”
Glad to see that bible consistency is as high as it’s ever been.
There’s a huge difference between money being the root of all evil and the love of money being the root of all evil. Money does answer everything. A broken clock is right twice a day, unless it’s digital.
You know, I decided last night while being kept awake by my sleep-talking g/f that clocks are actually the least efficient form of machinery. Why? I’m glad you asked. Because they’re only actually useful when you’re looking at them, which is what? Maybe forty seconds on a given day? Given that you look at a clock for maybe two seconds and check the time twenty times a day. That means that for 23 hours, 59 minutes and 20 seconds per day your clock is switched on, operating and burning power even though you’re not using it. Shocking waste of energy if you ask me.
@Kodie: Take it a step further. The love of that which answers everything is the root of all evil. Some people would say that God answers everything (or at least is the answer to everything), which leads to an interesting conclusion. Except that – in reality – God never answers anything (eg, prayer), so I guess he’s covered. Or would be if he existed.
If that is a direct quote from one of the many translations(not positive myself since I last read the book cover to cover 25 or more years ago). How is this a positive note? The bottom line ruins any good from above it(though I suppose does give an origin to the bottom line used so much in business).
So you think businesses shouldn’t pursue making money? If that’s so, then why would they do anything? The primary reason we have so much technological and medical progress is due to the incentive of profit. Why is that bad?
Well, the profit motive is the prime reason for progress and wealth creation in our current economic system, which is a highly bastardised version of capitalism. So in the current setting it could be called “good”. That’s only looking at the small picture, though.
The bigger picture is that capitalism itself is not sustainable in the long term. Why? Because in order for capitalism to work, the economy must grow. This is because most of what we call “money” doesn’t exist, when we talk about money moving around banks what we’re actually talking about is debt and the promise to pay if required. This is why runs on banks are so callamitous, by the way.
Anyway, because most money exists as debt (not really money at all), and because that thing we call “interest” is fictional money which also doesn’t really exist (note: this is why lending money for interest is considered a sin in the Bible and the Qu’ran, it takes control over production of wealth out of government hands), it is impossible for more than about 1/12th of all the world’s debts to be paid off even if everybody suddenly decides to settle their debts all at once. It can’t happen, because there isn’t enough “real” or “central bank” money in existence – and if we did suddenly wipe out all of the “cheque-book money” (as it’s called), there would suddenly be 11/12ths less wealth in the world.
Back to growth: In order for this system, which is known as “fractional reserve banking”, to actually work, the economy must steadily grow so that the amount of cheque-book money also steadily grows – if that doesn’t happen, there’s not enough wealth for people to pay the interest on their debts.
Now, the problem here is obvious: For the economy to keep growing, consumption must also keep growing, as must population – but of course, the Earth is a finite space with finite resources. At some point, we’re going to run out of space, resources or both.
So that’s why the profit motive is bad :-)
Because in order for capitalism to work, the economy must grow.
Capitalism doesn’t need to keep growing to work, but certain businesses do. Markets grow and collapse. There is no need for infinite growth, even if such a thing was possible. The car industry boomed, and the horse and cart industry died. The computer industry boomed, the need for human calculators died. Etc.
Net growth is usually desirable, but I don’t know if it’s necessary.
I’m curious what Elemenope thinks about this — he can probably explain what I’m trying to say much better.
Maybe I’m off here, I’m a bit rusty in economics and haven’t read much in that discipline in a while.
Well, think about the word “recesion”. It means simply that the economy is shrinking instead of growing. Individual sectors aren’t too big of a deal (as you pointed out) but capitalism does require net growth to work succesfully.
Hmm. Custador was correct about most of it, at least in the broad strokes. The only thing he got wrong was the derived conclusion; an expanding economy does not require an ever-increasing expenditure of resources. The why of that is something you pointed out obliquely; the actual limitations of resources drive firms to innovate in order to provide as service or product more efficiently, hence cars do the job better and more efficiently (and, believe it or not, have a lesser environmental impact than a horse and buggy used for the same distance trips over time), and outperform horse & buggys in this and other ways so thoroughly that they have completely replaced them as a transportation product.
The thing that needs to grow continuously is not produced commodity or service but value, and value is primarily a function of (depending on who you believe) utility and/or labor, not resources. Else, it is, for example, impossible to account for the drive to miniaturization and process streamlining prevalent in every industry. Making a more economically attractive widget is a confluence of several pressures, but high among them is making the same thing with less “stuff”, thus saving on cost of materials.
It is, in fact, the consistently increasing size of an economy that causes its non-zero sum nature, because only while total value is increasing is it possible to have more without taking from someone else. That’s why recessions hurt so much; when the economy shrinks, you might find yourself in *direct* competition with someone else for value, rather than in productive competition.
———-
The problem of interest as money is horrifically complicated. I would only say that I quibble on the notion that it is in some sense illusory money. If it has effects (and it certainly does) then it exists. I see nothing intrinsically wrong with representing debt as value, since promises of payment are simply a convenient way for value to be stored, backed as they are by law of contract. Insanity (such as that which visited our financial institutions lately) enters the picture only when people start in thinking about this money as free, and unfettered to actually stored value, or when they have good reason to believe (usually because of corruption) that they don’t have to worry about losses of that value.
Hey, I thought I did quite well considering I’m just a student nurse :D
Hmm, I was mostly commenting on the concept money answers everything, the part in parentheses I just thought was amusing, more than anything else. Not even sure how what was commented on what I said was even gleaned at all from what I actually said. Although I will say that the greatest medical and technological progress that the world has and has seen generally has more to do with responses due to fighting wars and lucky accidents than it has from any business seeking to make money at least more often than not. The most profitable medical and technological advances tend to come from making things better rather than from new things,in other words things built upon the backs of others who often see little to no profit from their own inventions. The computer,and the airplane are two decent examples, and their are countless others. In fact I would go so far as to say without the huge profit margins of modern companies seem to want and expect,especially in the USA, both technology and medical science would be further along than it is, the ‘bottom line’ calculations stop more research than they have ever aided.
This is a helpful verse to use against the crazy local churches in our county who are promoting a vote to ban the sale of alcohol in restaurants and to maintain an overall ban on Sunday alcohol sales.
Maybe they don’t want to be glad.
This must not be one of the parts you’re supposed to take literally. No dogma applies, please skip to the next section in your study guide.
Also, is the next verse where “a little birdie told me” came from?
“Do not revile the king even in your thoughts, or curse the rich in your bedroom, because a bird of the air may carry your words, and a bird on the wing may report what you say.”
Either the world was a much more Narnia-like place in Biblical times, or this is another of those ‘not literal’ parts.
Ecclesiastes is one of my favorite Bible books. (Admittedly, it’s a short list.)
Funny Elemeno, I had you pegged as more of a Leviticus fan! :)
I’m with you. If I have any faith at all left in the bible, it’s solely contained within Ecclesiastes. The core message: life is long and hard, bad things do happen to good people seemingly without explanation, so do your best and take what pleasure you can.
I always thought it was no coincidence that it came straight after my least favourite, the plastic, artificial, pithy and pathologically detatched from reality book of proverbs, which went at great lengths to explain how if you do bad things, bad things will happen to you, completely oblivious to the fact that world demonstrably doesn’t work that way.
Incidentally, I remember hearing Bart Ehrman talking about all the different rationalisations for the problem of good and evil (the penteteuch and the prophets are radically different, the gospels and the writings of the apostles are different, the book of Job alone has two that are contradictory), and when you examine them objectively, the most realistic and attractive (at least to modern eyes) is the one laid down in Ecclesiastes.
What about Job?
Shit happens to Job. His friends march on the scene and preach orthodoxy to him. None of that consoles him or makes any sense to the reader. (Then the original poem ends). Then, YHWH bursts onto the scene and tells them that all their theology is rubbish.
It’s such a jarring poem, and it ought to remind us Christians of our place.
“it ought to remind us Christians of our place”.
What “place” might that be BR???
On the ground, with the rest of us apes.
You go ape, I’ll go up!
Go UP.
As Soon As Possible.
Please.
Now.
Our place as creatures, fallible human beings. I was trying to say that the story of Job ought to evoke a sense of humility, because it evokes our place in the world, our place in the universe, and our place as creatures.
I wrote one of my Philosophy of Religion papers on Job, back in the undergrad days.
“Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags”.
Prov 23:20&21
Biblical consistency hey John?
No, its called balance. Wine does gladden the heart…up until a certain (tipping, pun intended) point. Then you wind up driving the big white porcelin bus callin for some guy named….rrrrraaaaallllllppppphhh for the rest of the night.
Well, I’ll gladly let you bother God while I’m enjoying wine, women and song, old boy.
(actually for strict accuracy I should have said “wine, womAn and song”)
Moderation is the key! I think they’re both good. Eat bread while you’re drinking wine, so you don’t run out of money and become unglad from overdoing the wine on an empty stomach. I don’t get laughter from bread, but maybe that is also slang for money.
John C,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Ecc 10:19 actually refer to the actions of the unwise Kings and Princes and is not meant as something one is suppose to do? I had thought that Custadors first post on this thread had hit this nail on it’s head, but now I’m not sure of what context it should be viewed in. Care to enlighten me?
ffty…unfortunately, modern day breaks in chapter and verse, while necessary today are not always helpful in relaying the Author’s original meaning and context in scripture. I believe that his words in the verses you cite in Ch 10 are actually a continuation of his thoughts beginning in 9:13&14. Perhaps if you read (hear) it from that vantage point you may hear differently.
Often when scripture speaks of land, kings, princes etc, it is referring to that which rules a man’s life and subsequent actions, who is loyalties and affections (you shall have no other God’s meaning love’s before/ahead of me) sort of meaning. Notice v16 “woe to you O land, when your king (ruler) is a mere child”. (this is not referring to the good kind of childlikeness,ie trusting, innocence, etc but rather having a fool for a king inwardly).
Not quite sure how Custador managed to mix in Politics and Proverbs with his Republican party reference there, but oh well, leave it to dear ol’ Custy to throw us a curve ball, ha.
All the best ffty…
When Biblical authors wrote about “kings”, they literally means kings. “Princes” are also, literally, princes. Remember that when Ecclesiastes was written its country, Judea literally was ruled by a King. These were not merely figurative phrases for modern readers to interpret into meaning anything they want. If it’s hard to understand in light of our modern culture, that’s because it was not written by someone living in our culture.
You are right about one thing though: the rest of the book gives more context to this quote. It’s essentially saying that unwise and foolish kings and princes indulge in too much food and wine at the wrong times of day, while wise ones indulge at (what their society considered) the appropriate times. In other words, you can have fun later, but take care of your business first.
The part about money solving everything is exactly what it means; they were not being ironic. The writer felt that his princes should be more focused on money. The next verse about not disparaging the rich sinks the pro-wealth message in.
Actually friend believers are referred to as “Kings & Priests” unto God themselves. Scripture is not time sensitive in the way you are supposing, is not an historical “book” in the way you describe.
There is more to the bread & wine reference also than mere laughter & gladness.
Now that makes sense, I wish the bible was an easier read.
Actually, the philosophy espoused in Ecclesiastes almost totally opposes that found in Christian orthodoxy, including the book of Proverbs. It also happens to be my favorite book in the Bible. This may not be a coincidence.
lol
How very reasonable of you.
Amen! Preach it, brother.
This quote basically sums up the idea of major religions.
” Keep them happy, full, and unaware while we take their money.”
Here’s an alternative translation that I think gets at the whole inconsistency issue:
Laughter and bread go together,
And wine gives sparkle to life—
But it’s money that makes the world go around.
I don’t currently have the resources at my disposal to look at the Hebrew, but my preliminary attempt at an answer would be that the last line of the stanza is meant to communicate something like the above. To state that “money makes the world go around” is an observation, one that we’ve probably all made in some form or another in our lifetimes, and frankly, it sounds a bit cynical to my ear. But it isn’t an endorsement of money, the pursuit of wealth, etc. It’s simply an observation of reality.
In other passages, greed is rightly condemned (the love of money).
I’m not disputing that the bible has its share of inconsistent passages, but this ain’t one of ‘em. The only way to get to inconsistency in these passages is to read an endorsement of the pursuit of wealth into the former, and it doesn’t appear to be there.
Feasts make people happy; wine makes things interesting; and, money makes the world turn (positively and negatively). Sounds about right to me.
I think the author knew that money made life a lot better. Could still be cynical, but I’d guess he would think life is better off with money than without it. There are some other verses that make me think this as well. Eccl is def my favorite book of the bible — I’m amazed it remained in the canon.
I had a professor in seminary who argued that early Christianity was much more heterodox than orthodox. He argued that even the early councils were more heterodox than later interpretations would allow.
The inclusion of Ecclesiastes in the canon (And heck, even the juxtaposition of Proverbs vs. Job) would seem to indicate that he was correct.
I think the author knew that money made life a lot better. Could still be cynical, but I’d guess he would think life is better off with money than without it
I don’t disagree.