How is virtue possible in a sinful world?

[Beryllos]

Just curious, Andy Klein, how do you envision rejecting society, or not participating in it? How does that work? Do you take a vow of poverty, move to another country, grow your own food, or what? I am not teasing or mocking. I just want to know what the options are, as you see them.

 

[andyklein]

Just curious, Andy Klein, how do you envision rejecting society, or not participating in it? How does that work? Do you take a vow of poverty, move to another country, grow your own food, or what? I am not teasing or mocking. I just want to know what the options are, as you see them.

Not that I necessarily subscribe to these ideas, but . . .

To “reject society” does not necessarily mean to not participate in it. We must participate in it if we wish to change it. But to “reject society” means to turn away from luxury, publicly advocate against it, and renounce its control over our lives , provided that we have enough for subsistence and have enough to exert an influence in it so that we can change it. For example, we participate in society when we pay taxes, but we do so only because we must for the conditions above. The message is directed against the controllers of mass media, which logically entails that wealth is more equitable, since wealth controls the direction of society. When wealth is not solely controlled by a few, who encourage the sins of society through mass media, people have more determination over their lives and have greater freedom to reject the sin society encourages.

I must also add that the freer one is, the more liberty one has to either accept or erect God. When one is alone with his conscience, he is better able to discern the truth, which leads him to God.

 

[andyklein]

Sorry that should say “accept or REJECT God,” not “erect.” Won’t let me edit the post.

 

[tonyrey]

Does that mean that it is impossible to escape from society? So we are sort “enslaved” by society and society determines many aspects of our lives?

Unfortunately yes but we are liberated by society in other ways because “united we stand and divided we fall”.

Unless of course we try to live like hermits with no opportunity to help others in time of need and no one to help us The solution would be worse than the problem…

 

[bluemug]

Anything is possible for God. HE loves the world so much that He sent His Only Son to save the world. HE loves and forgives the world. His mission in saving the world is forever perfect, without stain. He knows what to do in a sinful world, we don’t.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

If we must participate in society, then we can’t run away from the influence of money and the media. And since these things represent the highest influence in society, aspects we can’t escape from, then the foundation of society is these things, which also represent evil. So society is represented by evil, and if we do have free will in this society, then we have a choice whether to accept this evil or to reject it. Rejecting it means not participating in it. So we are culpable, at least somewhat, in maintaining its sin.

Money isn’t evil. Society isn’t evil.
Money is a token used when two things are not equal enough to barter.
Society is what we were created to live in and build. We are social animals.
And because of freewill you can go and live as a hermit if you like, on an island, without money or society.

 

[andyklein]

Money isn’t evil. Society isn’t evil.
Money is a token used when two things are not equal enough to barter.
Society is what we were created to live in and build. We are social animals.
And because of freewill you can go and live as a hermit if you like, on an island, without money or society.

To play devil’s advocate again . . .

When money is used for evil and when the purpose of money is to promote another’s evil doing and when money is pursued as the highest good and in a society in which the message is that power, luxury, possessions, etc. are goods obtained only by money and wealth, money can’t not be evil.

I also don’t mean society per se. I mean a society like the one described.

Also, I indeed do have free will, but if I’m a participant in a society in which money rules and I can only maintain myself and try to rise myself up within that society, by participating in that society, I have freely handed myself over to the influence of that society. If I reap the benefits of that society, I must be culpable in its sin.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

To play devil’s advocate again . . .

When money is used for -]evil/-] good and when the purpose of money is to promote another’s -]evil/-] good doing and when money is pursued as the highest good [or maybe not] and in a society in which the message is that power, luxury, possessions, etc. are goods obtained only by money and wealth, money can’t not be evil.

I also don’t mean society per se. I mean a society like the one described.

Also, I indeed do have free will, but if I’m a participant in a society in which money rules and I can only maintain myself and try to rise myself up within that society, by participating in that society, I have freely handed myself over to the influence of that society. If I reap the benefits of that society, I must be culpable in its sin.

I tried editing your post, above, but I gave up.
Obviously money isn’t evil. Most people in those societies you describe are only just surviving with a tiny percentage of people controlling the majority of the money. But then somebody has to control and administer the use of money.
When money is used to raise families, build society, schools, hospitals, jobs; when money funds charities and so on and so on, is money evil, is society evil?

 

[andyklein]

I tried editing your post, above, but I gave up.
Obviously money isn’t evil. Most people in those societies you describe are only just surviving with a tiny percentage of people controlling the majority of the money. But then somebody has to control and administer the use of money.
When money is used to raise families, build society, schools, hospitals, jobs; when money funds charities and so on and so on, is money evil, is society evil?

The double negative might have gotten confusing in the consequent. It would have been better to say “money must be evil” if these four conditions are met.

I’ll also say that money isn’t evil through itself. It’s only evil when it meets those conditions.

And if money is put to good use (ie non-sinful use), then we can’t necessarily posit that the superstructure under which this money operates is not evil. All we could say is that it was put to a good use in an unjust society. This use of money need not render the entire superstructure under which that money operates as just.

 

[andyklein]

The double negative might have gotten confusing in the consequent. It would have been better to say “money must be evil” if these four conditions are met.

I’ll also say that money isn’t evil through itself. It’s evil when it meets those conditions.

And if money is put to good use (ie non-sinful use), then we can’t necessarily posit that the superstructure under which this money operates is not evil. All we could say is that it was put to a good use in an unjust society. This use of money need not render the entire superstructure under which that money operates as just.