What is Original Sin, is it historical, and how do Christ's teachings relate?

[jmullaney]

What is Original Sin, is it historical, and how do Christ’s teachings relate?

or, more precisely, does obeying Christ’s teachings free the individual from the punishments associated with Original sin as laid out in Genesis 1:17-19:

And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

This is a branch off of Christianity and Love, Part 2.

I will pick this up where I left off, although I already made some confusing statements which may yet come back to haunt me.

Gaudere wrote:

It would be helpful if you would explain clearly and plainly to me what the cause, punishment for, and results of, the fall of man are.

For a good overview you may wish to refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 385 through 421. I won’t vouch for all of this, as I haven’t read it yet (what fun would that be?), but I want to work from some common ground. For example, note the following disclaimer from section 406 I noticed:

The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable.

I have no idea what that even means!

I am wanting to focus primarily in the areas Gaudere and I were pondering. I would split these into the spiritual issue well put in section 387:

Only the light of divine Revelation clarifies the reality of sin and particularly of the sin committed at mankind’s origins. Without the knowledge Revelation gives of God we cannot recognize sin clearly and are tempted to explain it as merely a developmental flaw, a psychological weakness, a mistake, or the necessary consequence of an inadequate social structure, etc. Only in the knowledge of God’s plan for man can we grasp that sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another.

And yet, there is also an historical reality to the nature of Original Sin, per section 390:

The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

As Gaudere and I are both atheists, although I’m arguing a precise Christian viewpoint, I submitted to him my theory that this Fall of Man could be very roughly dated to certain enviromental strains (i.e. the drought which has turned much of Babylon/Iraq and northern Africa into desert and an ongoing population boom) which began circa 10,000-8,000 BC and accounted for a real historical “fall” of the proto-Jewish tribe into the bondage of sin. Which, when reading the beginning of Genesis as a parable, would seem to be supported by the text.

Gaudere wrote:

So, a guess:
Cause of Original sin: “Famine”, acc’ding to you?

Yes, I would say that if you had to put an historical marker upon it, I think that would be the cause. Spiritually I would refer you to the spiritual section above.

Gaudere again:

Punishment for OS: “working for unfair rewards until you perish into the dust whence you came” (I am amazed that people did not work for unfair rewards until they perished into the dust whence they came before 6000 BC)

Again, I’m arguing the xtian perspective as I see it, and I am uncertain of the date. If you are not separated from God, when your body dies, your soul, in so much as your soul is in no way separate from God, can not die, because God is immortal. And if one lived in a lush, natural Garden, the toil one would have to get food would be very minimal. Maybe picking apples is hard work for Gaudere – she would rather they fall on her head!

Result of OS: [various evils]. I have to wonder, if the punishment for OS is “working for unfair…”, etc., how did this result in [various bad things]?

There is a cause, both historical and spiritual. And there is a historical and spiritual punishment, which is a result. And there are various other results which we discussed. I listed the wars, the famines, the abject poverty, the weapons of mass destruction, the suffering of the poor and the weak, etc. as some of the evils which have resulted from the Fall of Man.

Gaudere offered that Technology has improved over the past 6000 years, and that man’s lot is therefor better. I maintain in the Spiritual realm, this is not the case.

I also purported that, out of all the religions I am aware of, I believe xtianity has the clearest solution to the punishment aspect of the fall. I concede that an individual following Christ’s teachings would not solve all the problems of the Fall, however I maintain he is free of its punishment. I also considered Christ came when he did because society has reached a certain critical mass, although I have elaborated that yet. I also think that were there enough believers in Christ, another critical mass would be reached, and indeed some of the other results would be lessened.

I won’t make a purely “Pelagianist” argument as mentioned above, I think to achieve the ends of this faith, there must be a spiritual dimension. But, for example:

1. Poverty didn’t exist before there was property, and there was a historical time before the fall when there was no property.
2. Christ taught, basically, that property is theft. If one does not own property, ones toilings are greatly reduced.

I can also present other examples, and I will try to support them scriptually and present whatever other evidence is needed.

[andros]

FYI, JM, Gaudere is a woman.

Re section 406 of the Catechism:

I have no idea what that even means!

Which part? I’ve done some research recently into Pelagius, if you’re interested.

I submitted to him my theory that this Fall of Man could be very roughly dated to certain enviromental strains (i.e. the drought which has turned much of Babylon/Iraq and northern Africa into desert and an ongoing population boom) which began circa 10,000-8,000 BC and accounted for a real historical “fall” of the proto-Jewish tribe into the bondage of sin. Which, when reading the beginning of Genesis as a parable, would seem to be supported by the text.

So you’re saying that the Biblical fall and expulsion from Eden is merely a Jewish retrospective of a couple thousand years of rising civilization and the concomitant droughts of the Fertile Crescent?

Does this view of Genesis as a historical myth, then relate to the spiritual aspects? Or are they merely unrelated except as causes of the idea of Original Sin?

1. Poverty didn’t exist before there was property, and there was a historical time before the fall when there was no property.

Er, how do you figure?

Even in a human or proto-human group without “ownership,” there can still be poverty in the sense of famine, poor hunting, little water, etc.

Further, upon what do you base your assertion that there even was a time before ownership? History, at least, doesn’t record such a thing, so it certainly isn’t “historical.” And since some of the earliest known humans used specialized tools, I don’t see any reason to believe they all lived communally.

“No! This Og’s rock. Go find own rock!”

[Gaudere]

And if one lived in a lush, natural Garden, the toil one would have to get food would be very minimal. Maybe picking apples is hard work for Gaudere – she would rather they fall on her head!

12000 years ago we lived in a lush, natural garden? We were still in the ice age before then (although not all was frozen); all the achievements of modern civilization came about after that–math, the wheel, writing, etc. Because of agriculture, many gave up their nomadic existence and settled down, leading eventually to the specialized and varied civilizations we know today.

Poverty didn’t exist before there was property, and there was a historical time before the fall when there was no property.

Gotta cite? I simply will not accept that there was no concept of “property” before 12000 years ago without some sort of backing. They certainly made art and tools long before then; wouldn’t people have their own particular stuff? And a group as a whole can still be extremely poor even if everyone shares.

Christ taught, basically, that property is theft. If one does not own property, ones toilings are greatly reduced.

::sing-song:: Oh, Libertarian…

So, your premise is that by following Christ’s teachings one can A) become one with God and B) become, apparently, a Marxist, which will save us from having to work for unfair rewards. Well, my first objections are A) I don’t think other religions do such a shoddy job at getting people together with God; why does Christianity do it better? and B) how will becoming a herb-tea-swilling Marxist save us from having to “work for unfair rewards”? Marxism has a pretty poor track record; I suppose if implemented by
perfect people it’ll turn out great. But any economic system implemented by perfect people will turn out great! If everyone was perfect and Jesus advocated libertarianism, we’d all freely give our money to the poor. Heck, that sounds a lot more likely than that we’ll forget completely about the concept of property. One of the first thing a child learns is the concept of “mine”.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Reminds me of two blind men discussing a movie neither has gone to.

[andros]

Well, that was appropriate, Daniel. Thanks for your input.

Or not.

[jmullaney]

andros wrote:

FYI, JM, Gaudere is a woman.

::smacks forehead:: I knew that. Sorry if I flip pronouns malewise once in a while!

I’ve done some research recently into Pelagius, if you’re interested.

Sure.

So you’re saying that the Biblical fall and expulsion from Eden is merely a Jewish retrospective of a couple thousand years of rising civilization and the concomitant droughts of the Fertile Crescent?

Excellent. That is exactly what I’m saying. I don’t know concomitant, but sounds fine.

Does this view of Genesis as a historical myth, then relate to the spiritual aspects? Or are they merely unrelated except as causes of the idea of Original Sin?

Certaintly, from the xtian perspective they must be related. If the fall of man is a real event, and not some fairy tale the fundies use to have us believe dinosaurs are imaginary, I think that would have a real impact on there being an importance to the xtian faith and humanity’s willingness to improve its lot.

Even in a human or proto-human group without “ownership,” there can still be poverty in the sense of famine, poor hunting, little water, etc.

Well, there are always bumps in the road. Of course, without such modern concepts as nation states and the like, you just go where the food/water/fetile land is and problem solved. If human population was moderately low, then you shouldn’t have to worry about war etc. to find such a venue. Of course, Genesis describes a perfect garden and who am I to argue. When I say abject poverty, I mean poverty you don’t need to walk ten miles to get out of. And after the fall, they describe exactly the problem where, when they found a good place, there were people already there, and this did not bring about the best of consequences.

Further, upon what do you base your assertion that there even was a time before ownership? History, at least, doesn’t record such a thing, so it certainly isn’t “historical.” And since some of the earliest known humans used specialized tools, I don’t see any reason to believe they all lived communally.

“No! This Og’s rock. Go find own rock!”

You have a good, very legalistic, point. I don’t mean people did not have “stuff.” However, I have no reason to believe, in the land of plenty, if you asked Og to borrow his hammer, and he wasn’t using it, he’d mind terribly if you did. Nor would I think Og would be particularly toiled by having a hammer. Would he to not carry it around, he would have no great effort making a new hammer, should his hammer go missing. As for Og’s camp, should he come home to find strange people camping there, so what? Expand the camp, or if he did not like the company, ask them to leave. I doubt it would be the kind of thing to come to blows.

[jmullaney]

Gaudere wrote:

12000 years ago we lived in a lush, natural garden? We were still in the ice age before then (although not all was frozen)

True, true. I fail to see your point, though.

all the achievements of modern civilization came about after that–math, the wheel, writing, etc. Because of agriculture, many gave up their nomadic existence and settled down, leading eventually to the specialized and varied civilizations we know today.

Again, absolutely true. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of that.

I simply will not accept that there was no concept of “property” before 12000 years ago without some sort of backing. They certainly made art and tools long before then; wouldn’t people have their own particular stuff? And a group as a whole can still be extremely poor even if everyone shares.

I agree, that yes, people had “stuff.” I don’t think we have a good word to express the thin difference I am attempting to slice here. I guess I could say they didn’t have mammon, but geez, that is an Aramaic word. Only one of two words in the NT the powers that be don’t bother translating into English (although they drop the “a” on the end – probably to solve a conjugation nightmare!), by the way.

Quoting me, she continues:

(jmullaney wrote:)

Christ taught, basically, that property is theft. If one does not own property, ones toilings are greatly reduced.

::sing-song:: Oh, Libertarian…

Oh man, er… I mean, oh, woman, don’t sick him on me unless you are willing to translate. I’m still trying to figure out my gerundive relation to God from the last thread!

So, your premise is that by following Christ’s teachings one can A) become one with God

Yep.

and B) become, apparently, a Marxist, which will save us from having to work for unfair rewards.

No. Marxism, IIRC, involves the owning of property in common. I’m talking about not owning property at all.

I don’t think other religions do such a shoddy job at getting people together with God; why does Christianity do it better?

Because, Christianity solves the punishment of original sin.

and B) how will becoming a herb-tea-swilling Marxist save us from having to “work for unfair rewards”? Marxism has a pretty poor track record; I suppose if implemented by
perfect people it’ll turn out great.

Hmmm… No, I think you can have a flawed system and even with perfect people it would be flawed. Perfect people wouldn’t adhere to a flawed system though.

If everyone was perfect and Jesus advocated libertarianism, we’d all freely give our money to the poor.

Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore, riding through the woods… You might recall from Python, he kept stealing from the rich to give to the poor until the rich were poor and the poor were rich. (see bottom half of here)

Moore: “Wait a tic … blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought.”

But what would you have the poor do with this “money” as you call it?

Heck, that sounds a lot more likely than that we’ll forget completely about the concept of property.

It doesn’t matter, because salvation can be achieved individually. You see to think I am implying this would have to be a global change in the behavior of all people at once to work out.

[jb_farley]

jmullany, do you think it is important for the creation and fall story to be historical (somehow) in origin? i don’t know if it is important or not, but i can’t see how the people who physically wrote the story and those through the generations who passed it down orally could have any idea of the historical elements of what is essentially pre-history. i mean, the concept of fertile crescents and propertyless cromagnons is essentially ours. and that is based on archeology and anthropology u.s.w.

as i said above, i don’t know how important it is that the story be historic. it’s too much of a brain-buster for me to consider the factual nature of the bible, so i look to it more for poetic insight. more what i can get out of it than what was intended to be said.

a recent take of mine on the story of the fall is this. sin’s definition, put very simply, is ‘doing what’s wrong, even though you know it’s wrong’. for some reason everybody who focuses on original sin focuses on the former clause of the definition. what if we should be looking at the latter?

we ate from the tree of knowledge, in order to be like god. all of a sudden, we knew the difference between right and wrong. behavior that for a wolf is not evil, for us is. why? because we know better.

one of the consequences of eating of the fruit was that childbirth would become painful for the woman. in fact, humans are born in a somewhat fetal stage, because if we were born at the more common level of maturity, our heads wouldn’t make it through the pelvis. our big heads lead to cognition and conscience, as well as to maternal aagony.

[Liberal]

Christ taught, basically, that property is theft. If one does not own property, [one’s] toilings are greatly reduced.

Jesus never taught that property is theft, basicaly or otherwise, (hence no citation), but He taught that love of property over love of God stands as an obstacle between man and the Kingdom of Heaven.

Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”

“Which ones?” the man inquired. Jesus replied, “Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.”

“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

Jesus answered, “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.”

When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Matthew 19:16-22

It is like loving your mother’s apple pie more than you love your mother. God is the source of all property. He is delighted to give it to you, but your thanks should be to Him, and your joy derived from His giving.

Jesus encouraged us to be good stewards of property, as was He when He drove the vandals and trespassers out of His Father’s house.

“I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings. Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?”

Luke 16:9-11

Property (and the atoms in general) provide an amoral context for man to act out the morality that is in his heart.

It is a modern notion peculiar to Marxism, born of envy, spite, and greed, that there is something wrong with being poor.

There can be great nobility in poverty.

As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins.

“I tell you the truth,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”

Jesus recognized the rightful ownership of property by going only into homes where He was invited, by keeping a purse (which Judas pilfered) for his disciples, and by using ownership in His parables to illustrate authority.

“But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into.”

Luke 12:39

It was within His power to raise His hand and obliterate poverty throughout the land, yet He did not. Not because He was remiss, but because poverty is part of the very important play.

Man, fretting over the atoms and all things physical, is straining gnats and swallowing camels. There are greater things. Wealth and poverty are morally irrelevant. It is how you handle either that your own character will determine.

The Marxist preoccupation with property misses the whole point of existence (to love God and one another). It is not surprising that God found no place in the Manifesto, except as a target of derision and ridicule. Marx and Engels were not stupid men. They knew there was no room in their wealth distribution schemes for God.

“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”

Matthew 6:24

“Oh”, you say, “and who loves money more than the capitalist pigs?!”

At least they keep their greed to themselves. Guard good people from the fraud and coercion of the greedy rich, and the greedy rich are hurting nothing but their own Spirit. We are to leave God to deal with them.

The Marxists would institutionalize their wealth fetish, forcing it upon every man.

Take your eyes off your neighbor’s property, and start being a good steward of your own.

Put your eyes on God and His Kingdom. Rich or poor, the only thing that matters, the only thing that is real, the only thing that is of any significance whatsoever, is the Spirit.

The atoms will be around until the end of the age. Put your attention to those fleeting moments when the Spirit fills your heart with Love.

It is the whole purpose of our passage here.

Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.”

He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

“Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “[It was intended] that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”

John 12:2-8

[Gaudere]

12000 years ago we lived in a lush, natural garden? We were still in the ice age before then (although not all was frozen)

True, true. I fail to see your point, though.

I seem to misundertand you often. You said previously: “Again, I’m arguing the xtian perspective as I see it, and I am uncertain of the date. If you are not separated from God, when your body dies, your soul, in so much as your soul is in no way separate from God, can not die, because God is immortal. And if one lived in a lush, natural Garden, the toil one would have to get food would be very minimal. Maybe picking apples is hard work for Gaudere – she would rather they fall on her head!” which led me to believe that prior to “the fall” you were saying that the world was a lush, natural garden, and I was simply pointing out that that was not accurate.

Because, Christianity solves the punishment of original sin.

You have said this. I want to know why: 1) it is better at bringing man and God together than other religions and 2) why lack of property will keep us from having to toil for unfair rewards more than any other solution. If you are saying that without property there is little toil, it seems as if Buddhism’s elimination of desire would do quite as well; certainly, if you lack desire you will not want many “things”.

No, I think you can have a flawed system and even with perfect people it would be flawed.

Perhaps I lack imagination, but I cannot think of any economic/government system in which perfect people would not make it work perfectly. Communism, socialism, anarchism, democracy, monarcy, what-have-you, they all seem like they’d work great.

Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore, riding through the woods… You might recall from Python, he kept stealing from the rich to give to the poor until the rich were poor and the poor were rich.

I imagine, being perfect people and valuing themselves as the equal to other people, all the wealth would become equalized.

It doesn’t matter, because salvation can be achieved individually. You see to think I am implying this would have to be a global change in the behavior of all people at once to work out.

How would it work individually? Closer to God, that I can understand as an individual thing. But a person with no concept of “property” would have a real rough time staying alive, I think. How do you think these people would live in this world? It seems like without property you would have no home, no money, no keeping food for a couple days so you can tide yourself over a rough spot…

[Aside: this seems rather someone trying to convince others that Buddhism is the best religion, since none of the others have the proper method to relieve the suffering of desire. Of course not! The suffering of desire is a Buddhist tenet, not one necessarily held by other religions! ]

[jmullaney]

jb_farley wrote:

jmullany, do you think it is important for the creation and fall story to be historical (somehow) in origin?

Part of this debate is over whether it is (somehow) historical in origin. Is it important that water freezes at 32 degrees?

i can’t see how the people who physically wrote the story and those through the generations who passed it down orally could have any idea of the historical elements of what is essentially pre-history.

Rosencranz: Wake up, Gilderstern, history starts today.
Gildernstern: History starts today? Well, I’d better write down what I did yesterday.
Rosencranz: No, History starts today.
G: Ah, but I clearly remember yesterday.
R: Well, you have to forget it. Yesterday is before history.
G: Forget it? Well, alright, consider it history then.

i mean, the concept of fertile crescents and propertyless cromagnons is essentially ours. and that is based on archeology and anthropology u.s.w.

The Fertile Cresent is a “concept?” Are you implying it is imaginary?

it’s too much of a brain-buster for me to consider the factual nature of the bible, so i look to it more for poetic insight.more what i can get out of it than what was intended to be said.

jb_farley, the Anti-FoG. As I said in the OP, there is nothing wrong with both spiritual and historical elements coexisting.

a recent take of mine on the story of the fall is this. sin’s definition, put very simply, is ‘doing what’s wrong, even though you know it’s wrong’. for some reason everybody who focuses on original sin focuses on the former clause of the definition.

I don’t understand you. Did you read the catechism link in the OP?

behavior that for a wolf is not evil, for us is. why? because we know better.

I can’t think of an example of the behavior for a wolf which would not be evil for them but would be for us.

one of the consequences of eating of the fruit was that childbirth would become painful for the woman

True, but that is out of scope. Some say Eve represents Mother Earth in this passage as well, so this does relate to the overpopulation theme. But I’ve bit off a big enough already.

[jb_farley]

geez dude! so i’ll just leave already…

[andros]

I can’t think of an example of the behavior for a wolf which would not be evil for them but would be for us.

Howsabout killing and eating a human? Perfectly natural for a predator like ol C. lupus, but not smiled upon as a human behavior.

( tell ya, ya have one little plate of fava beans with chianti . . .)

[SuaSponte]

I’m enjoying this thread, and don’t have much to contribute for now, so I’ll keep lurking. There is one point that I wanted to toss in. Gaudere wrote:

**
… which led me to believe that prior to “the fall” you were saying that the world was a lush, natural garden, and I was simply pointing out that that was not accurate.
**

There is one fact that may support jmullaney on this. Various studies, consisting both of attempts to recreate the “cave man” experience and of observations of modern hunter/gatherer societies, have alleged* that in Cro-Magnon society, the amount of work necessary to gather enough calories to support oneself and one’s clan/tribe averaged 20 hours per week. To me, that’s paradise in an of itself.

'Course, one of the trade-offs was that most everyone died by the time they were 30. I don’t think this figure is significant, as it had little bearing on the “toiling for unfair rewards” concept, but instead reflected lack of knowledge of disease and medicine, as well as the fact that the food often didn’t take kindly to being hunted.

Sua
*I use the word alleged because, while I have read abstracts of these studies, I cannot for the life of me remember the studies or the authors. Therefore, feel free to debunk or ignore - I have no ammunition to back up my assertion.

[Gaudere]

I believe that that statistic is true for modern-day hunter-gatherer societies as well. (At least, unless they start producing excess for trade; cro-magnons probably did some of that as well, I suspect.) I think that it is simply an aspect of that sort of society, not a measure of whether you are in paradise. Modern technology permits us to thrive in areas that a hunter-gatherer tribe could not; hunter-gatherers have to live in places where food is fairly readily available. Once we had to live in a “paradise” area; now we can live just about anywhere. And we’re much less susceptable to starving just because of a bad year.

The end of the ice age 12000 years ago did cause environmental upheval in certain (most?) areas, and led to agriculture, line-fishing, etc. enabling us to produce a surplus and thus provide for more humans even in places where game was scarce. However, the “paradise” of little work was availiable in untouched areas even then, and still is today; just find a temperate area with enough game and edible plants and commence foraging. Personally, I prefer my 40-hour weeks and the medicine, science and technology that come from doing more than eking out a living. (And if you think everyone works all of those 40 hours… <g> Of course, there are people who work for far more than 40 hour weeks.) They do have a lot of time for leisure in hunter-gatherer societies, but I don’t find modern society particularly lacking in the “quality of life” department. I am always suspicious of “the good old days” being near as good as they were claimed to be.

[Liberal]

They were better for some things, and worse for others.

[Gaudere]

Always are.

[pldennison]

Is it important that water freezes at 32 degrees?

THat would depend heavily on what you meant by “32 degrees.” Centigrade? Fahrenheit? Kelvin? Angular?

[jmullaney]

Libertarian wrote:

Jesus never taught that property is theft, basicaly or otherwise, (hence no citation)

Sure he did. Did he say so in so many words? No. Imagine an alternate universe where he had.

One day, David B was walking by a hillside and a rock fell upon him.
FriendOfGod, who takes the bible litterally, walks by.
David B: Please, FoG, can you get this rock off me?
FoG: Oh, gee, I’d like to. But I can’t.
David B: What, look, I’m sorry about that whole flame war but you’re a Christian, you have to help me.
FoG: Nope. See, if I picked up the rock, then I’d own the rock. That would be stealing from God. Jesus quite plainly said in the Gospel of James, chapter 12, verse…
David B: HELP! I can’t feel my legs!!

You think fundies are bad now? Hah. Picture them all walking around naked!:eek:

Libertarian wrote:

He taught that love of property over love of God stands as an obstacle between man and the Kingdom of Heaven.

No, he did not teach that man can serve two masters, as long as the master he loves more is God. He clearly makes it an either/or situation.

Jesus answered, “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.”

Yep. Thanks for saving me the typing :P.

It is like loving your mother’s apple pie more than you love your mother. God is the source of all property.

God is the source of all property? And where does Libertarian come up with that? His basis seems to be “all things” come from God and some things are property. Therefore all property does, by extension, come from God. But since things which are not considered property by man also come from God, you can hardly say God has taken a position advocating property.

He is delighted to give it to you, but your thanks should be to Him, and your joy derived from His giving.

God gives us arsenic. Arsenic can be used as poison. Therefore, God is delighted to have you poison people, and their joy shall be derived from his giving.

Jesus encouraged us to be good stewards of property, as was He when He drove the vandals and trespassers out of His Father’s house.

I thought what he said was “you shall not make my father’s house a den of theives.” And then he went totally medieval on them (anachronism not withstanding). You do not en-courage people by en-fearing the heck out of them.
Libertarian goes on to quote Jesus out of context, completely leaving out his preface to this remark –

For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are* the people of the light.*

The parable in full recounts the story of a man, knowing he is about to be fired, forgiving customers a portion of what they owe the company, so they might help him out once he is jobless. This is commended by his boss as shrewd. Jesus makes his statement that can be interpreted as either a) the people of the light are stupid for not being shrewd or b) being merely “shrewd” is not a good thing. I think in the context of Jesus being pro-light-people, he is saying this mere shrewdness is bad, and thus with that preface, what he quoted makes my point quite well:

“I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings. Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?”

He is preaching to the unconverted here, who, one would presume, still have worldly wealth, and telling them to dispose of it wisely. “When it [your unrighteous mammon] is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.” Having mammon must be untrustworthy in and of itself if the manner of getting rid of it is regarded with such importance.

Libertarian makes a few other bizzare statements about property, but then says:

There can be great nobility in poverty.

I agree.

Libertarian, quoting the Bible:

As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. “I tell you the truth,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”

And he is here commending someone who gave away all her property.

Jesus recognized the rightful ownership of property by going only into homes where He was invited

Hmmm. But he also stole food when he was hungry, didn’t he? I’m not saying because you do not own property you can just ignore others who do – to do so would be foolish. If someone says “get off my land or I’ll shoot,” you’d better get the lead out.

by keeping a purse (which Judas pilfered) for his disciples

Can I get a reference where Jesus kept a purse? I know Judas Iscariot had a purse but, well, I think you have picked a poor example for a good follower of Jesus.

and by using ownership in His parables to illustrate authority.

“But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into.” Luke 12:39

I don’t understand how using ownership in the parables symbolically undermines what the parable themselves are about. Please explain futher.

It was within His power to raise His hand and obliterate poverty throughout the land, yet He did not. Not because He was remiss, but because poverty is part of the very important play.

Well, I’m not 100% on about this being the reason. But, more of a bad thing wouldn’t solve the problems of original sin. Perhaps the old phrase the rich get richer would apply here?

Wealth and poverty are morally irrelevant. It is how you handle either that your own character will determine.

Well, if that is the point Libertarian trying to make, I don’t think he has a standing argument at this point.
I agree about Marx versus Jesus though
Libertarian, quoting the bible again:

“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” Matthew 6:24

This is a mistranslation. The word is not money. The word is mammon, which means (essentially) property. Still, I’m getting pictures of FriendOfGod dancing naked in my head, so I don’t want to put too fine a point on it.
Libertarian writes:

[the]rich are hurting nothing but their own Spirit. We are to leave God to deal with them.

Well, again I agree. As I said, salvation can be achieved individually.

The atoms will be around until the end of the age. Put your attention to those fleeting moments when the Spirit fills your heart with Love. It is the whole purpose of our passage here.

Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it. “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “[It was intended] that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”
John 12:2-8

Again, I agree. But Libertarian seems to be confusing atoms with property. The radioactive decay of uranium property? Yes, Judas was a thief and a beggar. He hung out with Jesus and had the poor among him. This passage is really about money, which, as some of you may have noticed, clouded Judas’s judgement from time to time. If Judas were truly poor, he would have come to see the utility inherent in the perfume – instead of using the shrewdness Libertarian tried to say was a good good from Luke chapter 16. However, merely knowing that objects have utility does not in anyway suggest what Libertarian is trying to make it suggest:

Rich or poor… the only thing that matters is the Spirit.

Simply false. A camel will sooner pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter the kingdom of heaven.

[Liberal]

JMullaney

Sure he did. Did he say so in so many words? No. Imagine an alternate universe where he had.

Stop equivocating. Either He said it or He didn’t. And what do alternate universes have to do with anything?

You think fundies are bad now? Hah. Picture them all walking around naked!

What on earth are you talking about?

No, he did not teach that man can serve two masters, as long as the master he loves more is God.

Who said He did?

He clearly makes it an either/or situation.

Makes what?

Yep. Thanks for saving me the typing.

The typing of what, this? — Jesus answered, “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.”

If it were the property that Jesus despised, He would have told the man to go burn it or something. He merely told the man that, to be perfect, he must give the property to someone else. That was because of the man’s adoration of his riches. That misplaced adoration was his obstacle to New Life.

The property wasn’t evil, else you are saying that Jesus advocated giving something evil to the poor.

God is the source of all property? And where does Libertarian come up with that? His basis seems to be “all things” come from God and some things are property. Therefore all property does, by extension, come from God. But since things which are not considered property by man also come from God, you can hardly say God has taken a position advocating property.

Why are you addressing me in the third person?

I never said God advocates property. I don’t even know what that means.

I said that property (and the atoms in general) provide an amoral context in which man acts out his morality. You had said that Jesus considered property to be theft, an assertion that remains unsupported by you.

God gives us arsenic. Arsenic can be used as poison. Therefore, God is delighted to have you poison people, and their joy shall be derived from his giving.

That was rebuttal to this? — He is delighted to give it to you, but your thanks should be to Him, and your joy derived from His giving.

Weird.

The only thing I can guess is that you believe you have constructed either an analogy or a syllogism. Since my assertion was not a syllogism, yours cannot be an analogy. Therefore, it must be a syllogism. But I don’t think your conclusion follows from your premises.

I thought what he said was “you shall not make my father’s house a den of theives.” And then he went totally medieval on them (anachronism not withstanding).

Yeah. He threw 'em out.

You do not en-courage people by en-fearing the heck out of them.

Toward what is that relevant?

Libertarian goes on to quote Jesus out of context, completely leaving out his preface to this remark [For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light.]

Yeah. I also left out the first sixteen-hundred pages of the Bible.

The parable in full recounts the story of a man, knowing he is about to be fired, forgiving customers a portion of what they owe the company, so they might help him out once he is jobless. This is commended by his boss as shrewd. Jesus makes his statement that can be interpreted as either a) the people of the light are stupid for not being shrewd or b) being merely “shrewd” is not a good thing. I think in the context of Jesus being pro-light-people, he is saying this mere shrewdness is bad, and thus with that preface, what he quoted makes my point quite well.

Your point? And what exactly is that?

He is preaching to the unconverted here, who, one would presume, still have worldly wealth, and telling them to dispose of it wisely. “When it [your unrighteous mammon] is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.” Having mammon must be untrustworthy in and of itself if the manner of getting rid of it is regarded with such importance.

After repeated readings, I still find that remark incomprehensible. “Untrustworthy” is a character attribute, and applies to a person. You have attributed it (as inherent) to a gerund phrase, “having mammon”. Could you untie that and make a point?

Libertarian makes a few other bizzare statements about property…

Gratuitous and unsupported assertion.

I agree [that there can be great nobility in poverty].

I am greatly relieved.

And he is here commending someone who gave away all her property.

So, because His “commendation” came after her giving away all her property, His “commendation” must have been because she gave her property away?

Bzzzzzt. That’s called a coincidental correlation, or post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this).

Jesus wasn’t talking about the property, but about the woman, specifically about her heart, which was so filled with Love that she gave all she had to her Lover, God. She did not give something evil to Him.

Do you honestly believe that had she walked up and slung the exact same coins at the temple, screaming, “Here, take it, ya bastard!” that Jesus still would have “commended” her?

Hmmm. But he also stole food when he was hungry, didn’t he?

Good lord. What a ridiculous assertion.

I’m not saying because you do not own property you can just ignore others who do – to do so would be foolish. If someone says “get off my land or I’ll shoot,” you’d better get the lead out.

And that is relevant to what?

Can I get a reference where Jesus kept a purse?

Aside from the one I already gave you? Okay, here’s another — Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor. — John 13:29

(Note for the implication impaired: Since Jesus had authority over the money, as in telling Judas what to do with it, and since the money was kept in a purse like all money was at the time, Jesus had a purse.)

I know Judas Iscariot had a purse but, well, I think you have picked a poor example for a good follower of Jesus.

Judas didn’t have a purse. He held the purse for the group. It’s called a “treasury”.

I don’t understand how using ownership in the parables symbolically undermines what the parable themselves are about. Please explain futher.

Explain what? I never made the assertion that you say you don’t understand.

Well, I’m not 100% on about this being the reason. But, more of a bad thing wouldn’t solve the problems of original sin. Perhaps the old phrase the rich get richer would apply here?

[looking around…]

Are you talking to me?

Well, if that [Wealth and poverty are morally irrelevant. It is how you handle either that your own character will determine.] is the point Libertarian trying to make, I don’t think he has a standing argument at this point.

Yes he does. I mean, yes I do. So there.

This is a mistranslation. The word is not money. The word is mammon, which means (essentially) property.

The word is Strong’s number 3126, the Greek, mammonas (mam-mo-nas’), from the Aramaic, mamona (ma-mo’-na), meaning ‘riches’.

There is a difference between a translation and a transliteration. The former is useful.

Still, I’m getting pictures of FriendOfGod dancing naked in my head…

Well, that might explain much.

But Libertarian seems to be confusing atoms with property…

No he isn’t. I mean, no I’m not. So there.

Yes, Judas was a thief and a beggar. He hung out with Jesus and had the poor among him. This passage is really about money, which, as some of you may have noticed, clouded Judas’s judgement from time to time. If Judas were truly poor, he would have come to see the utility inherent in the perfume – instead of using the shrewdness Libertarian tried to say was a good good from Luke chapter 16. However, merely knowing that objects have utility does not in anyway suggest what Libertarian is trying to make it suggest[.]

Okay, so Judas was a beggar, but he wasn’t truly poor. The passage is about money, which, as the audience is aware, confused Judas. Libertarian, I mean I, tried to say it was a good good. But the mere knowledge that objects are useful doesn’t imply what he, I mean I, am trying to suggest.

Is that pretty much the way of it?

Simply false [that Rich or poor… the only thing that matters is the Spirit.]. A camel will sooner pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter the kingdom of heaven.

“With God all things are possible.” — Jesus