[ExI] Existential hysteria [Mirco Romanato]

Mirco Romanato painlord2k at libero.it
Mon Aug 4 20:21:59 UTC 2014

Il 03/08/2014 19:36, BillK ha scritto:
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Mirco Romanato  wrote:

>> They had this rule, left by St. Paul, about "who do not work shall not eat".
>> So they were industrious and hard working (the first religion, I think,
>> conceiving manual labor as a way to heaven).
>> These rules made them more fit, as a whole, than the heathens.

> I don't think early Christians were particularly hard working. The
> hard work ethic didn't appear until the Protestant Reformation in the
> Middle Ages.

Wrong, It date back at least 800 years, when the "Salterio" of Utrecth 
(830) was inked by a Benedictine monk and the illustration showed the 
small army of the goods and the large army of the wicked sharpening 
their swords. But the evils used a hand sharpener where the faithfuls 
used a rotating sharpeners (just introduced from China).
Message--> technological innovation is the will of God.

Saint Benedict, in the sixth century (three centuries before Uthrecth), 
after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, introduced the "ora et 
labora" (pray and work) rules in his monastic order.

> Early Christians emphasized the early Second Coming of Christ and the
> end of the world. Any idea of accumulating worldly goods and riches
> was frowned upon.

Early Christians in what context?
First century, second, fifth?

Hard work was a way to perfect themselves, with liturgic prayers and 
meditation of the Scriptures. Wealth was just a by-product.

> The quotation of Paul to the Thessalonians has to be seen in context.
> Paul was making up the rules for his new religion as he went along and
> his first letter had talked about the imminent Second Coming. This led
> to the problem that some Thessalonians stopped doing anything to help
> the new Christian community, so he had to tell the Thessalonians to
> stop feeding the freeloaders. Just common sense, not a spiritual rule
> on how to live your life.

Your interpretation or mine of the motives of St.Paul to give this rule 
is unimportant. What matter is the rule and how it was publicly 
interpreted after it was given.
The interpretation given was no one can claim other are obligated to 
support him when he is doing his religious duties. This is a stark 
difference from other religions of the time where obligations were 
collective and were enforced.

If salvation is individual, no individual can claim other must support 
his salvation at their expenses.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list