Print

Print


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.)
Nancy

>>> 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
of
man.  When Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount if your eye causes you
to
sin pluck it out and if your right hand causes you to sin cut it off
(Matt
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
that
was ONLY spirit and a bad god that was ONLY matter, and that the earth
was
their battleground.  As Christianity became a common topic of
conversation,
the Gnostics adopted some of the divine characters to their thinking:
YHWH,
God in the Old Testament, became their bad god of matter and Jesus, God
in
the New Testament, became their good god  consisting only of spirit. 
That
created some bizarre teachings, namely that Jesus was only a vision or
3-D
projection (like the character of the "Doctor" on Star Trek: Voyager)
and
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
would
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"
and
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
sin"
or else "slaves to God" (no third option like 'free will').


Robert Meyer