>"If there is a god, I see no reason at all why we should assume she hates
her creation or thinks loving it is sinful."
Agreed, as the recurring phrase in Genesis 1 says, "It is good."
> [Original Message]
> From: Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 8/11/2007 8:36:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Fearing death by water
> The problem with the distinction you are trying to make is that the
> Catholic Church--and others of course--has historically identified sin
> with the body and its desires. So hatred of sin and hatred of the body
> are inextricably connected.
> This comes of a false (and I think destructive) hierarchy of body as low
> or ignoble and spirit as high or noble. It's already there in Plato's
> Phaedrus very explicitly, and it runs all through much theology--and is
> unavoidably linked to monastic idealization of a soul that transcends
> the body. If there is a god, I see no reason at all why we should
> assume she hates her creation or thinks loving it is sinful. I wish
> there were half the fretting over sins of the spirit. (Yes, I know it's
> there in the texts and in Dante is far worse than those of the body; I'm
> talking about what is, not just what has been said.)
> >>> robert meyer <[log in to unmask]> 08/11/07 11:12 PM >>>
> > Diana Manister wrote:
> > > Tom, if the body is seen as an impediment to salvation,
> > > its destruction is a good thing, right?
> I think you're slightly missing the point, it's not the body, in and of
> itself, that it the problem. The problem here is sin, the fallen nature
> man. When Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount if your eye causes you
> sin pluck it out and if your right hand causes you to sin cut it off
> 5:29-30), he was not really endorsing blindness or amputation but saying
> sin is SO worthless a person should do anything to avoid it.
> > Carrol Cox wrote:
> > > You describe Manichaeism.... Hatred of the body is
> > > heresy because it casts doubt on the doctrine of the
> > > Incarnation and the Sacrament of the Mass. Gnosticism
> > > had a similar hatred of the body.
> Yes and no. Mani and almost all other Gnostics had a dualism inherited
> from Persian Zoroastrianism that said there were two gods, a good god
> was ONLY spirit and a bad god that was ONLY matter, and that the earth
> their battleground. As Christianity became a common topic of
> the Gnostics adopted some of the divine characters to their thinking:
> God in the Old Testament, became their bad god of matter and Jesus, God
> the New Testament, became their good god consisting only of spirit.
> created some bizarre teachings, namely that Jesus was only a vision or
> projection (like the character of the "Doctor" on Star Trek: Voyager)
> therefore wasn't really crucified, it just 'looked' like it.
> Note to Diana on the "Da Vinci Code" book and film: if it was true to
> Gnostic teaching, Jesus could never have sex with anyone because he
> just be a noncorporeal image.
> >Nancy Gish wrote:
> > > I do think, though, that hatred of the body is theoretically
> > > denied but practically affirmed by much of Christian
> > > thought even though the Incarnation presumably makes
> > > that utterly false.
> Again, it's not so much of a hatred of the body, in and of itself, but a
> hatred of sin. In the 6th chapter of his letter to the church at Rome,
> Paul says to "not let sin reign in your mortal bodies" because, as
> Christians, we are dead to sin, "baptized with [Jesus] into his death"
> now live as part of him (see also 1st Corinthians 12, with the "body of
> Christ" metaphor). Romans 6 also states that we are either "slaves to
> or else "slaves to God" (no third option like 'free will').
> Robert Meyer