Helmut, List: It sounds like you may have it backwards. While Christianity has had to fight against various forms of gnosticism throughout its history, the New Testament itself strongly advocates respect for the body, which is precisely why it condemns sexual immorality. For example ...
“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (1 Corinthians 6:12-20) Also, *The Scarlet Letter* is a *fictional* novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne about a woman in mid-17th-century Massachusetts who was required by the local Puritans to wear a red "A" on her dress because she had a child with a man who was not her husband. The big revelation at the end is that the father is the church's pastor, so the whole point of the story is the hypocrisy of it all. Finally, Enoch is another person who was "translated" according to the Old Testament--he "walked with God, and he was not, for God took him" (Genesis 5:24)--which is presumably why Peirce often used his name in illustrative syllogisms about the mortality of all men. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > List, > sorry for the off-topic-ness of this, but at this point I am wondering > quite muchly, why these anti-body-dogmatists, who disrespect the human body > and its urges so much (I had read something about a red letter "A" for > adultery embroidered by a woman on her dress to be worn all her life, just > because she has had a rudimentary sex life after her husband had left her), > I mean, these rigid protestants, pietists, maybe catholics too, why ever do > they want to take their so disgusting *body* with them when they go to > heaven? > Best, > Helmut > > 30. November 2017 um 14:19 Uhr > *Von:* [email protected] > > > List, > > > > For those unfamiliar with Biblical language, “translated” in this context > means “taken up to heaven bodily” (which happened to the prophet Elijah in > that universe). An interesting choice to show how lines of identity work > inside a cut. But some example like this is necessary to “unpack” Peirce’s > opening sentence here, “The more you scribe on the bottom of a cut, the > less you assert.” This is very important in the interpretation of beta > graphs. > > > > In the example where a single line of identity connects the two rhemes, > Peirce reads it as “Either nobody is translated or if anybody is > translated, that person does not return to earth.” But strictly speaking, > it could also be read the other way round: “Either nobody returns to earth, > or if anybody does, that person is not translated.” We don’t read it that > way because we take for granted a temporal order that prevents anybody > “returning” from a place where they haven’t gone. This is an example of how > semantics can affect our reading of system meant to be purely formal (i.e. > all syntax, no semantics). > > > > In the last two diagrams, lines of identity are permitted to extend *to* > the cut from outside and inside. But why can’t we simply have one line of > identity that *crosses* the cut to join the spot inside with the spot > outside? This question — which is, if you’ll pardon the expression, > *crucial* in the development of EGs — will be addressed in 2.17. > > > > Gary f. >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
