Subj:	Credo in unum Deo
Date:	6/4/99 1:32:51 AM EST
From:	RGZiegler

Jeff, 

It is difficult for me to take too seriously the reductionism of quotation from scripture,
not only because it is 'corrupted,' but also because on account of that corruption of
the word, there is so much contradiction within it. That is, of course, one of the major
problems with reductionism. What comes clearly through amidst the contradiction is
the spirit that permeates and even exudes from scripture, but not only the New but
as well the Old Testament. It seems incredible to me that any recognition of such
contradiction would leave anyone able to construct arguments on such suspect 
particulars. What one must realize is the culture that scripture came out of, and that
would include even more than the eastern Mediterranean, but of a certainty that, and
especially Greek philosophy. That is why it is so interesting to draw parallels between the usage
of terms like Logos and filoque and Son of God and so on with
those of Golden Soul, et al, on Plato. And it is on that basis that the political 
economy of scripture I made reference to is grounded. Certainly, that must also
include a heavy dosage of Hebrew tradition, too. The wealth creation I mentioned
is important because through it man, all mankind, is elevated. And I take the mandate to subdue
the earth to be but the first of many dictates for man to 'recreate'
the creation of God at higher levels so that increasing numbers of human beings 
would be able to develop to higher levels of living. 

I find your interest in the Essenes fascinating. They are interesting, and they may
have been much of what you seem to indicate. It may be that the exigencies of the
community demanded the kinds of self-sacrifice that your interpretation of 'the poor
in spirit' would suggest, but I cannot see your meaning in the terminology at all.
In this instance, I think it is necessary to take a more literal interpretation to heart.
Poor in spirit is much more amenable to interpretation as 'weak' than 'impoverished.'
In the beatitudes are there any other 'groups' the reference to which would be so
contrived? The meek? The peacemakers? They who hunger and thirst after justice?
Or any of the others?

I even see my 'political economy' in some of the wonders of Jesus. Take for example
the possibility that the stories of the mulitiplication of loaves and fishes may suggest
that human communities working together create the greater wealth necessary for
their existence. And consider the 'no man is an island' conceptualization in that 
context. How many people does it take to produce a cup of coffee? The entire world
is involved. And the more each can contribute to that process, the better the lives
will be of all those intricately intertwined with one another. 

This is not a matter of finance capital vs industrial capital, either. It is the former
which funds the latter, in fact. That there have been 'evil' finanicers is beyond question. But that
trait is no monopoly of theirs. It simply put, is an irrelevancy
to the consideration. 

Baptism as a symbolic act is not diminished in its importance. It represents the
potential of liberation from the weaknesses of man. But no one, as you pointed out,
is 'saved' by baptism alone. 

Indeed, I do not think that Christianity is diminished or demeaned in my political
economy of scripture. In fact, I suggest that it is elevated by it. Nor is capitalism
seem as the quintessence of Christianity 'obscene.' It is capitalism that has brought
about the level of wealth creation that has elevated man on earth so much. I wonder precisely
what it is that wealth might be used for other than such elevation. Profit
is not evil. Even profits earned on 'evil' enterprise may contribute to that elevation
because it is through profit that wealth creation is funded. That does not justify
'evil' enterprise, nor does it condemn all enterprise as evil, any more than all things
of this worldly existence may be seen as inherently evil. Creation is good, and 
recreation is even better, done by the work of man as the hands of God on earth.
And it is exactly so that the use of wealth that is critical, and that it is not either
in and of itself, evil. It may be, however, construed to be inherently good on the
basis of the prescribed interpretation you offered.

The near Maoism or Luddite (Jeffersonian?) connotations on the suggestion of the evil of the
work of 'hands' is strange. It smacks of the idea that we too often hear from fundamentalists that
knowledge is of this world and therefore wicked or corrupted. Maoists relish the work of the
hands, of course, and so do Luddites
and Jeffersonians. My point is that precisely contradicts what the work of God's 
hand on earth should be about. 

The mention of the quote that we should be as gods is important to consider too.
It might be better read as 'ye may be as gods.' But there is volition involved in
that, as is suggested by the idea that it is works and not mere faith that brings
salvation. We may be sons of God or golden souls, but that is a choice. That 
many may not raise to that level does not necessarily condemn them to eternal
damnation, however, and hence my suggestion that though the way may be narrow,
salvation is not so limited as some of your earlier comments may have suggested.

There is, perhaps ironically, a hint of 'liberalism' in your consideration of wealth
and its redistribution. The crucial thing about that is that such redistributive justice
is contradictory to the spirit of the work of man on earth, to raise the lot of the human
species, if only to better be able to serve the Great Spirit. Such redistributive 
schemes decapitate the basis of wealth creation. It may be that the notions of such
community sharing of wealth are not to be taken as any sort of communism of the
community. Rather, it may be argued that wealth dedicated to the community is
the social surplus of profit that is the engine of wealth creation. In that sense, any
suggestion of robbing Peter to pay Paul (sic) is the real evil that is to be avoided.
It condemns man to a lesser level than he might otherwise be able to attain. And
that would be obscene. Loving one's neighbor as oneself is the very virtue of 
capitalism. Through it we all prosper. The alternative is an altruism that just does 
not square with human nature -- and human nature is not evil; man, indeed, has
a propensity to good, even if many are weak. Altruism is contemporary liberalism
and not Christian in the least. We are to do onto others as we would have them do
onto us, but that again is the invisible hand!

I am not, by the way, convinced that there was not a 'virgin birth.' But it is not
important from the standpoint of works anyway. Your early church history is
interesting, as well, but I must only return to my question of what would have 
happened to Christianity and civilization if a less ambitious plan than 'going forth
onto all nations' had prevailed. 

I am not sure what the seeming preoccupation with the true succession has to do
with anything anyway. There are many mansions, right? The politics of the early
church is probably more corrupted in our vision of it than scripture is, anyway.

I am quite sure that at the judgement, we will be held accountable for what we
do and do not contribute to humanity. If we do not develop our potential, it could
be that we will be judged quite quilty of the condemnation of our fellow man to 
a lower level of existence. And given the bare subsistence level that most of the
earth hobbles along at, such dereliction could be tantamount to genocide. At least,
if we are probably weak, we may be judged on the balance of our effort, and not
by a reductionist Spirit who condemns us for human frailties. That God is present
and active among human beings is unquestionable. But it is in our work -- accomplished by our
hands and minds -- that his work is accomplished or not. 

I am not certain that the second coming is one that will be one general tribunal
of all. It may be that we each experience that when we stand before St Peter,
at the gates to the heavenly city. I do not imagine that there would be that
general judgement and coming at or near the millenium anyway. Not only are
calculations off so that 1993 (when Clinton became President by the way) was 
actually the beginning of the second millenium, but I think it would be a flawed
foolish hubris to imagine that God would be constrained by our shallow time
lines anyway. And what of the Muslim and Hebrew calendars?

I will close with a question for now. If we are all gods, or the children of the Most 
High, shall any of us be condemned at all? And if so, precisely how would that
be justified? If we are gods? Shall God condemn God? I am not so sure that the
suggestion that God created good and evil and that it is all to be resolved in the
ultimate return to him that you mentioned earlier. God is 'good.' His creation is
'good.' The furtherance of that, including the elevation of human life is 'good.'
Rejection of all of that is evil. Rejection of God, of good, is evil. Whether there will
be an eternal absence from God complete with everlasting weeping and gnashing
of teeth is a matter that is beyond my scope of comprehension. I would suggest
that there are those who deserve it, but who am I? A mere human, not fit to judge
such things. But if I am that, and a god, how is it that I should be so humble as not
to judge,as I am warned against doing? There is that weeping and gnashing of teeth
in this purgatory existence anyway. But can a kingdom divided against itself stand?

And to conclude for now where I began,  with possible corruptions of the text,
precisely where did Cain and Able get their wives? Or, how is it that Jesus rejected
the idea of raising the sword, but also said he came to bring a sword which would
be struck by brother against brother? And why did he curse the fig tree and make it
shrivel? Or are cheeseburgers ungodly? Perhaps more importantly, what is meant by the 'word'
?

Dominus vobiscum

Ron


Subj:	 In Re/Credo in unum Deo
Date:	6/4/99 10:00:12 AM EST
From:	Woodward 

Thanks for the rejoinder.  But you address so many points that I'll have to answer in two or
three installments.  

But first, as to "reductionism," and to your assertion that it is "incredible..that any recognition of
such contradiction would leave anyone able to construct arguments on such suspect particulars,"
one can overcome the textual contradictions in part by the use of non-canonical
texts and historical sources.  There is also the matter of how one reads, whether it is literal or
allegorical/symbolical, and perhaps it is preferable to read the text as the Essenes and as Jesus
himself did?  That would be the method of the pesharim, or "true interpretation,"
which involves a recognition that there is a literal meaning AND a symbolic meaning.  The
construction of the parables of Jesus demonstrate the method, as do the various NT readings of
Old
Testament prophets, the many "Thus was fulfilled the words of..." whichever prophet.

This whole approach involves something we haven't discussed as of yet, but which your
question concerning the multiplication of the loaves brings up as well, i.e., that there is an inner
church and an outer church, an esoteric teaching and an
exoteric teaching.  There are numerous indications of this in the NT as we now have it, and even
more in non-canonical sources, but look only to such admonitions of Jesus as "do not let your
left hand know what your right hand is doing," or the drawing away of the disciples by Jesus to
desolate places away from the "many" for a teaching, or the fact that the "many" are addressed
in parables whereas the disciples are not, or the frequent admonition of Jesus that "Not
everyone can receive this saying."  Thus, there is a teaching for the
"left hand" (for the many who are "called") and a teaching for the "right hand" (for the few who
are
"chosen").  The multiplication of loaves is no doubt an extreme example of a teaching for the
"right hand."  Pay attention, first, to the emphasis Jesus places upon the numbers -- of persons
sitting for the meal, of the baskets of
fragments of the loaves and of the fishes -- and
second there is the curious impatience of Jesus
in the query "How is it you do not understand?"
Now, I cannot offer the pesharim, or true interpretation for the passage, but there is indisputably
a deeper signification here than a mere practice in accounting.   



Subj:	The Parable of the Rising Tide
Date:	6/4/99 12:22:49 PM EST
From:	RGZiegler

Now, a certain upscale capitalist was living near there, and the people began to
mock him and ask how it was that such abusive wealth on exploitation could be
justifiable. Does he not mock God while serving Mammon? But the prophet turned
to them and repeated that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. How do
you best 
serve the poor? 
This upscale capitalist is precisely the one I am talking about, except for perhaps
the mistress or two. When this fellow consumes, he creates income and a better
standard of living for those who make what he buys. It would be better were he to
have a home in Florida in addition to the other two, and yachts at each place, etc.
What he does not consume with, he invests or just saves which engenders wealth
creation at an even higher level, further raising the ships in the parable of the rising
tide. :-) Marx is going to have the exact of this occur, as with most collectivism.
To each involves wealth redistribution which not only curtails freedom, but also
decapitates the engine of development, profit. And why is profit so crucial, why
is development so important? -- to lift even the sanpans along the Mekong or
canoes along the Amazon or dugouts along the Congo! With Marx, as with all
collectivism, we end up with a zero sum game. And the arc of collectivism is not
only toward totalitarian fascism, but the to Malthus, to re-emphasize what I said
earlier about the untenable position of most of the world's people. But why are they
in that state? Because wealth creation has been decapitated by envious (or worse)
collectivists. Now at this moment, I have to go cut the lawn, so I'll be returning
to all this in future editions. And when he had finished speaking to them, he went
out and cut the grass. :-)

But the crowd was filled with the geist and began to worship God in his wisdom,
but some of them, harboring envy against those who had more than they did,
began to whisper that wealth was Mammon and of the corruption of this world,
which was enmity before God. And these poor souls stricken with the anti-geist
slithered off and were seen no more that day.

Ron

Subj:	 The Gospel of Wealth
Date:	6/4/99 10:12:22 AM EST
From:	Woodward 

Okay, so there is the commandment and blessing, too, to "subdue the earth" and "to multiply." 
That is God's will, and hence it is Good.

No one is maintaining that wealth is in-and-of-itself evil.  What is crucial is the 
MOTIVE for obtaining wealth and the USE to which wealth is put.  One cannot "serve two
masters,"
one cannot serve "God and Mammon." If we take the example of the upscale capitalist, with a
nine-figure bank account, with homes on the East and West coasts,
with a 120 ft yacht, with four cars in the garage, with a wife and a mistress (or two), then a
question of MOTIVE and USE is, well, relevant.
As over-and-against your "ethic of capitalism" as
the "quintessence of Christianity," wouldn't Marx's "from each according to his ability, to each
according to his need" be closer to the spirit of the Jerusalem community that "had all things in
common"?

Connected to this is the whole business of the
"works" of one's hands in which you are tempted to see a Luddite or Maoist persuasion.  Now
the Essenes and the congregation of the primitive church still had to eat, and they did produce
wealth, i.e., they were definitely IN the world
albeit, in their terms, "in exile in the wilderness."  The admonition about not trusting
in the work of one's hands as against the works of God has to do more with the question: Is this
work in accord with God's will or is it in contradiction with God's will?  And also, of course, the
fact that the works of man are all
temporal and subject to decay, whereas the works of God are eternal.



Subj:	 The Poor Again
Date:	6/4/99 10:36:47 AM EST
From:	Woodward 

Your interpretation of "poor in spirit" as being
"weak" is very much the one that Paul himself would offer.  That is, those brothers are "weak"
who are offended by Paul's abuse of the Law and
by his "worldliness" (i.e., that Paul is, in Qumran terms, "a seeker after smooth things" and not
one who "turns neither left nor right" of the
Way).  The use to which Jesus or James put the expression is one of strength -- strength of
resolve in following the Way and, of course, in so
offering a sacrifice acceptable to the Lord. That is, the Yeshuan reading of "Poor in spirit" would
be "the Poor who are in the Spirit" or "the Poor who are in the Way," and not Paul's implied
"poor
in their spirit."  

The other designations in the Beatitudes -- the meek, those who hunger for righteousness, and
so on -- are all variations on the Poor, i.e, the Poor who are in the Way.

You ask, on another note, why the "seeming preoccupation with the true succession"?  Well, it
has to do with the authority that Babylon claims,
with the fact that Babylon (I'm borrowing Peter's
designation for Rome) is not Jerusalem.  You offer
John's "many mansions" as a way of saying that the succession question is of no import, but in
terms of doctrine will Rome accept the saying?  And will Rome's "universal congregation" do
so?

Now, you are "not convinced that there was not
a virgin birth."  Apart from common sense, one might also apply the natural law argument, i.e.,
that a virgin birth is contra naturam, and that the creation and its creatures are God's, and that
the laws of the creation are God's, so that natural law and God's law are one and the same.  



Subj:	 The Great Day
Date:	6/4/99 12:08:27 PM EST
From:	Woodward 

I saved for the last your comments that touch upon eschatology, the last things, as in the
Parousia
and the Last Judgement.  "If we are all gods, or the children of the Most High, shall any of us be
condemned at all? ....Shall God condemn God?"
Good questions.

I can't pretend to have answers ready at hand.  In the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas, that
was recovered at Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945, Jesus is
asked, "When shall the Kingdom come?"  Meaning, I
presume, the Parousia, the peaceable kingdom of 1000 years that is to precede the Great Day. 
And Jesus replies, "The Kingdom is spread out upon the
Earth.  You do not recognize it."

There is a future eschatology, perhaps, as in the Parousia and the Great Day, and a realized
eschatology, here and now, as in the Kingdom that
Jesus says is "spread out upon the Earth."

Origen's answer, in which all things return to God because all things are of God, God being first
and last, is one approach, though not the orthodox one.  God IS merciful, and James, in his
letter,
asks us to remember that God provides rain "to the just and to the unjust."  Jesus says the same,
or something similar, in the Sermon on the Mount in
Matthew.

But the Psalmist says not only "I have said, Ye
are gods; and all of you are children of the most
High," but in the very next verse, "But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes."

But of course Yeshua himself died but rose on the third day and thereafter ascended unto the
Father.  


Subj:	 A Further Rejoinder
Date:	6/4/99 2:41:28 PM EST
From:	Woodward 

I have to say that your rich man is insufferable.
It all reminds me of the tale of Dives and poor
Lazarus eating the crumbs of his table.

And why, can I ask, does collectivism necessarily mean LESS wealth?  Is there any reason that
a collective cannot invest? Yes, I am in favor of a redistribution of wealth.  Not of a lowering of
anyone's lifestyle (so long as that lifestyle is
reasonable and not inequitable).

What is inequitable?  Well, it is to me inequitable and socially irresponsible to pay a guy "x"
million dollars for dribbling a basketball, for example, when there are schoolteachers making,
say, 30 or 40 thousand.
It is inequitable and socially irresponsible to
pay some pretty face "x" million dollars to say a few insipid lines in a movie or film when, for
example, a single mother in a clerical position
is supporting a family of four or five on 20 thousand.

The ethic of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" seems equitable,
responsible, and much to be preferred.  The point is putting it in action, not as a charming ideal,
but as a living ethic.  Why is it impossible?
There is still room in such an ethic for the recognition of merit.  And the ethic also provides
a solution for those who cannot provide for themselves through no fault of their own, through
disability, through being orphanned, or what have you.  

Again, Dives, explain to me the justice of the following commonplace of capitalism:  Infant A
and Infant B are born on the same day and in the same year, and in the same city. Without the
slightest effort or merit, Infant A shall inherit, based upon his father's labor and investment, X
millions of dollars and shall never be required to work a day of his life, nor to think, for that
matter.  But Infant B, who is a fatherless ward of the State and is furthermore hampered by a
serious learning disability, shall not only never
have a chance to WORK his way toward the X millions of Infant A but shall always be
condemned, through no fault of his own, to a life
at or below the poverty level.  

Now certainly your Rich Man's ethic will provide for Infant B?    



Subj:	Nozick and Rawls, et al
Date:	6/4/99 3:37:12 PM EST
From:	RGZiegler

It is simply that the fuel of wealth generation is social surplus (ie, profit), and without
that, there can be no creation of new wealth. Hence, the inevitable outcome of such
a scheme is Malthus. Let us assume, as Nozick does, that the distribution of wealth is
inequitable, and further, that it got that way through coercion and other unfair
means. If we redistribute the wealth, where will we be one year hence? By and large,
the same 'unequal' distribution will recur, and it may even be in much the same hands as it was
previously. Imagine that redistribution and then people insist on
paying Wilt Chamberlain 5 cents each time they go to watch him stuff the basketball. At the end
of one year, all the many will have a few nickels less, and 
Wilt will have millions. Is that unfair? Is coercion involved? It is simply the workings
of the market. In addition to that, who is it that is to do the redistribution? Government?? 
Hardly. It is inept, inefficient, and fundamentally wasteful. It also
produces little actual wealth. It would also redistribute by politics -- meaning by
some political formula favoring whomever is the top dog at the moment. 

Besides, by what rationale do we provide for A or B? They must provide for themselves, and
undermining that uncuts the incentive which produces wealth
and provides for the substance of all. It would be devastating. The distribution of
wealth that exists is fair because it is, and because it provides for greater wealth
generation which increases equality. If we seek to force equality, we undermine
achievement, and increase inequality and at lower levels. If we encourage achievement, we
enhance wealth creation and greater equality. There is no society
in history in which there has been a greater and more equitable distribution of wealth,
and creation of new wealth, than in the present, or at least recent, US. Capitalism
is the great leveler!

Or are we to pay someone because they decide they do not want to produce and work, and
would prefer to surf all the time? That is why William F. Buckley chides
John Rawls for wanting everyone to be entitled to a free trip to Europe every year.

There is another issue involved here, and that is the matter of rights vs entitlements.
What redistribution by artificial means comes down to is the abrogation of rights by
governance, and the replacing of rights with government guaranteed entitlements,
and that is a serious violation of human rights.

No, Jeff, it just doesn't work. And it is exceedingly dangerous and inhuman. It is
deadly and destructive. The arc of collectivism is to totalitarian fascism and Malthus.
The alternative is that rising tide that lifts all ships.

Ron


Subj:	 In Re Nozick & Rawls
Date:	6/4/99 3:45:51 PM EST
From:	Woodward 

But what about Infant B?



Subj:	A is A
Date:	6/4/99 10:18:33 PM EST
From:	RGZiegler

The Parable of the Two Students

I once had two male students in a junior high school class who were best friends,
lived next door to one another, grew up together, and both came from one parent
families, and had many siblings. Both lived below the poverty level as well. Some
where along the way, something happened. One of them was killed in Jackson 
Prison, where he had been sent for dealing drugs, abusing them, and having offed
someone who did not pay up, or some such thing. The other, who sat next to him
in my class, is today a physician on the west side of Detroit. Now, which is infant
A and which is infant B? They both inherited something that your analysis does
not consider. They were Americans and had an opportunity, truly hard won, although
one squandered it. 

State power, in any event, is not likely to help as much as hurt either one. The reason there are
so many infant B's in the world is state power and usurpation.
One might suggest that the physician above probably benefited from affirmative
action programs and civil rights legislation and state funded colleges and probably
even college loans, but he had to make choices to get there. Making other choices,
the other one probably had more money spend on him by the state through the legal
and correctional systems. But it was also probably government folly that helped 
destroy the opportunity for the incarerated kid. The federal programs of the last
thirty years have gone far to turning our urban areas into third world America.

Infant B should have the chance to start at the starting line in the race at the same
point as A, but a level race track cannot be provided. And state sanction to enforce
one is only going to muck things up for both. And that would be equally the case
whether they lived in Detroit or Calcutta.

The choice of letters is interesting from another standpoint. A is not B and B is not
A. A does not equal B and B does not equal A. No, Jeff, A is A and B is B.
The best thing that can be done for infant B would be to allow markets to work and
they both would be better off. The results may have been the same, but at least
the government would not have been liable for a portion of the blame. Society can
best serve to permit the equal starting point by allowing the development that 
proceeds on capitalist profit to be fruitful.

The issue is not what is is, in the words of that great national hero, Sick Willie.
And if governance had truly had its way, both would have had an equal opportunity
to die as junkies in some alley on the east side. The best thing for both A and B,
or for any two A's or any two B's would be unfettered markets. Do not forget that
when the B I had in class died, the bell tolled for all of us.

I do not disparage all or any state activity. The state does afford some potential
for proactive contribution. There have been NASA's, for example. But that is by
far the exception, isn't it. It can promote markets, but the redistribution you seek
as remedy is scarcely that. Besides such as NASA do not seem to be so in favor
with most such advocacy.

What it comes down to here is geist vs anti-geist again. A decent point to perhaps
begin exploring such thinking might be Frederich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.
Give that some serious consideration. Pity the poor infant B left to the devices of
state power. 

Ron

Continue