Crosswords12 mins ago
The love of money the root of all evil?
23 Answers
Probably not but certainly once money is injected into a sport it then slowly spreads its influence like germs in a petri dish destroying its very nature.
What started out as a football club representing, supported and staffed by its locals playing other football clubs comprised of similar stock has now become a multi-national conglomerate as far removed from sport as ballet is to open origami.
The ball was made of leather, an inflated bladder kept in place by laces, the hair was short-back-and-sides, the boots heavy and cumbersome but it brought supporters of both sides together in their collective love of the game. The rivalry was friendly and good natured, the winning was important, but not all-important. That was when it was a sport.
Today we have footballers earning more in a week than players of a bygone era earned in a life time. Players are bought and sold like gladiators for millions of pounds. Mutual respect has given way to greed, their position in the league crucial as even greater rewards beckon for the next season.
Football isn't the only patient ridden with this virus; rugby and cricket have been tempted by increased wealth and are following suit.
The need for perfection has resulted in a desperate search for players of a high caliber wherever they come from. No longer is it a prerequirement to live in the town the club represents, nor the same country. This importation has smothered any likelihood of any young footballer improving his skills and slowly nudging ever nearer to the club he's always supported.
These imports come here and maintain their strangle-hold on the game much the same as vegetation multiplying on the surface of a pond denying any air or sunlight to the life further below the surface.
Individually they grow old and retire, their names change but any vacancy is filled by their compatriots and so the suffocation of home-grown
What started out as a football club representing, supported and staffed by its locals playing other football clubs comprised of similar stock has now become a multi-national conglomerate as far removed from sport as ballet is to open origami.
The ball was made of leather, an inflated bladder kept in place by laces, the hair was short-back-and-sides, the boots heavy and cumbersome but it brought supporters of both sides together in their collective love of the game. The rivalry was friendly and good natured, the winning was important, but not all-important. That was when it was a sport.
Today we have footballers earning more in a week than players of a bygone era earned in a life time. Players are bought and sold like gladiators for millions of pounds. Mutual respect has given way to greed, their position in the league crucial as even greater rewards beckon for the next season.
Football isn't the only patient ridden with this virus; rugby and cricket have been tempted by increased wealth and are following suit.
The need for perfection has resulted in a desperate search for players of a high caliber wherever they come from. No longer is it a prerequirement to live in the town the club represents, nor the same country. This importation has smothered any likelihood of any young footballer improving his skills and slowly nudging ever nearer to the club he's always supported.
These imports come here and maintain their strangle-hold on the game much the same as vegetation multiplying on the surface of a pond denying any air or sunlight to the life further below the surface.
Individually they grow old and retire, their names change but any vacancy is filled by their compatriots and so the suffocation of home-grown
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LewPaper. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
I'd have thought that the basic idea extended beyond my favourite sport, and it is as daft a notion nowadays as it was when that great non-thinker Paul first uttered it.
I don't think money was the idea behind the holocaust, or the evils of Stalin. Suicide-bombers want virgins, not money. The Inquisition, the burning of heretics and the Crusades were not about money, neither is present-day child abuse. I could go on but I think the point is made.
I don't think money was the idea behind the holocaust, or the evils of Stalin. Suicide-bombers want virgins, not money. The Inquisition, the burning of heretics and the Crusades were not about money, neither is present-day child abuse. I could go on but I think the point is made.
The question is a quote from The Bible and I think you're taking it too literally. In those days the evil influences weren't so prevalent as they are today, so i think it's fair to say, in the context of the time, it WAS the root of all evil. Even ignoring this concept the examples you've given are borne from a single person or a small group, not the commonly-held belief I'm expressing.
As for citing different acts of evil as in your child abuse example, don't be ridiculous. We could be here all day if that's the level of your criticism.
As for citing different acts of evil as in your child abuse example, don't be ridiculous. We could be here all day if that's the level of your criticism.
-- answer removed --
No girls are, and here's the proof.
http://www.stacken.kth.se/lists/best-forestry/ 2001-05/jpg00000.jpg
http://www.stacken.kth.se/lists/best-forestry/ 2001-05/jpg00000.jpg
What a curious response, LewPaper. You ask whether a particular rule is true. I show that it isn't by quoting a few exceptions (where one would be enough) and you refuse to accept the answer. Would you accept it if I quoted another hundred? If so, why? Very odd.
That I know that the untrue saying is from the bible should have been obvious from the fact that I attributed it to Paul - 1st Timothy 6. 10 to be exact. As for the idea that 'evil influences weren't so prevalent as they are today' you should bone up on your history and your Old Testament.
That I know that the untrue saying is from the bible should have been obvious from the fact that I attributed it to Paul - 1st Timothy 6. 10 to be exact. As for the idea that 'evil influences weren't so prevalent as they are today' you should bone up on your history and your Old Testament.
I still think you're wrong chakka35 on so many levels. Quote as many examples as you have time to type, but if they're all biased, irrelevant or wrong, you're just wasting your time.
I'm no sociologist, but yes, the Holocaust could be deemed arising from money, if you think it through far enough. Come to think of it so can the Spanish Inquisition. As for Stalin, I don't know but then money is power, so possibly, yes. I think you've demonstrated your bias by calling the author of the saying a NON-thinker, but that's ok - it's your opinion, I just don't happen to share it.
If you know as much about history and the Old Testament as you claim perhaps you could expand on your point regarding the evil influences WERE as prevalent as they are today. I'd seriously like to know. And it may change my opinion. Fire away.
I'm no sociologist, but yes, the Holocaust could be deemed arising from money, if you think it through far enough. Come to think of it so can the Spanish Inquisition. As for Stalin, I don't know but then money is power, so possibly, yes. I think you've demonstrated your bias by calling the author of the saying a NON-thinker, but that's ok - it's your opinion, I just don't happen to share it.
If you know as much about history and the Old Testament as you claim perhaps you could expand on your point regarding the evil influences WERE as prevalent as they are today. I'd seriously like to know. And it may change my opinion. Fire away.
It's not my job to give you a history lesson, but I'll be generous and suggest that you start by reading the Old Testament and discovering how often whole tribes and even cities were slaughtered, right down to the children and animals. Then you might like to read about the tens of thousands that the Romans crucified. In your journeys you'll find lots more.
Meanwhile, since I've answered your original question I'll leave you to it. 'Bye.
Meanwhile, since I've answered your original question I'll leave you to it. 'Bye.
