Is it sinful to love the material world?

[Qoeleth]

It seems as if it is sinful to love this Universe.

Christ says: ‘Whoever loves his life will save it, yet whoever hates his life IN THIS WORLD (Greek: Kosmos- Universe), will receive eternal life.’

John the Apostle says:
‘You must not love the world (Greek: Kosmos), neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.’

Similarly St. James:
‘Whosoever makes himself a friend of the world, makes himself an enemy of God.’

It seems as if Christians must give priority to the teachings of the NT, rather than the teachings of Genesis (in the same way we give priority to the ethics of the Gospel, over those of Leviticus). Jesus told us “The world hates me, because I give evidence against it, that it is evil.” Have world-affirming Christians become simply de facto Jews, placing more value on Genesis than the words of Christ, James and John?

It seems that love of this world is the source of all sin- greed, lust, wrath, avarice, etc. Is it then sinful to love ‘this world’?

 

[laircy]

The way I see it (and maybe I’m wrong) is that “the world” as it is referred to in those passages is more of something like our society and culture and materialism that is the source of the sin you mentioned, and is not identical to “Creation” which is something good (though not the Ultimate good).

 

[Qoeleth]

The way I see it (and maybe I’m wrong) is that “the world” as it is referred to in those passages is more of something like our society and culture and materialism that is the source of the sin you mentioned, and is not identical to “Creation” which is something good (though not the Ultimate good).

No, that’s what a lot of people like to say. It seems that theory was made up by people who want to excuse themselves from this very problem. There is no basis for saying it refers to ‘society’ or ‘the social order’, or ‘the current ruling powers’. That theory is as credible as the now dimissed idea that ‘the eye of the needle’ was actually a somewhat small gate. It is totally implausible, and unsupported by examination of the original texts.

In fact, the Greek word is ‘Kosmos.’ Looking at how it is used in other texts, it means ‘The Universe’ (or, ‘The Order of the Universe’)- or the most accurate English translation is simply to adopt the Greek, ‘Cosmos’. It is a metaphysical designation, not a social one.

 

[laircy]

No, that’s what a lot of people like to say. It seems that theory was made up by people who want to excuse themselves from this very problem. There is no basis for saying it refers to ‘society’ or ‘the social order’, or ‘the current ruling powers’. That theory is as credible as the now dimissed idea that ‘the eye of the needle’ was actually a somewhat small gate. It is totally implausible, and unsupported by examination of the original texts.

In fact, the Greek word is ‘Kosmos.’ Looking at how it is used in other texts, it means ‘The Universe’ (or, ‘The Order of the Universe’)- or the most accurate English translation is simply to adopt the Greek, ‘Cosmos’. It is a metaphysical designation, not a social one.

It really wouldn’t make sense that the literal universe we live in is evil in itself if it is said to be good in Genesis. So let’s see the options: either by ‘kosmos’ they meant our human societies contained by the cosmos, or they meant Creation and placed themselves in opposition to a basic tenet that Creation is good. I’d think the latter poses more of a problem.

From CCC 285 Since the beginning the Christian faith has been challenged by responses to the question of origins that differ from its own … According to some of these conceptions, the world (at least the physical world) is evil, the product of a fall, and is thus to be rejected or left behind (Gnosticism).

CCC 299 Because God creates through wisdom, his creation is ordered: “You have arranged all things by measure and number and weight.” The universe, created in and by the eternal Word, the “image of the invisible God”, is destined for and addressed to man, himself created in the “image of God” and called to a personal relationship with God. Our human understanding, which shares in the light of the divine intellect, can understand what God tells us by means of his creation, though not without great effort and only in a spirit of humility and respect before the Creator and his work. Because creation comes forth from God’s goodness, it shares in that goodness - “And God saw that it was good. . . very good” - for God willed creation as a gift addressed to man, an inheritance destined for and entrusted to him. On many occasions the Church has had to defend the goodness of creation, including that of the physical world.

 

[Qoeleth]

It really wouldn’t make sense that the literal universe we live in is evil in itself if it is said to be good in Genesis. So let’s see the options: either by ‘kosmos’ they meant our human societies contained by the cosmos, or they meant Creation and placed themselves in opposition to a basic tenet that Creation is good. I’d think the latter poses more of a problem.

I know it poses a problem. But we cannot just invent a new, and implausible, meaning for Kosmos, to reconcile it with Genesis.

We readily dispense with things in Leviticus, as superseded by the revelation of the Gospel. Why not do the same with Genesis? The Gospel and NT has authority over the OT?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

No, that’s what a lot of people like to say. It seems that theory was made up by people who want to excuse themselves from this very problem. There is no basis for saying it refers to ‘society’ or ‘the social order’, or ‘the current ruling powers’. That theory is as credible as the now dimissed idea that ‘the eye of the needle’ was actually a somewhat small gate. It is totally implausible, and unsupported by examination of the original texts.

In fact, the Greek word is ‘Kosmos.’ Looking at how it is used in other texts, it means ‘The Universe’ (or, ‘The Order of the Universe’)- or the most accurate English translation is simply to adopt the Greek, ‘Cosmos’. It is a metaphysical designation, not a social one.

I’ve gotta ask, do you see a dichotomy between loving your family (following the OT and most reasonable people) and hating your family (“following” Christ via Luke 14:26)?

Probably not. In fact, it is extremely clear that Christ does not want us to hate our families, only to put God above all things. Families are good, and we are to love them (and everyone else).

Perhaps you’re missing a similar exaggeration here? I mean, you call this approach “made up” to get around a problem, but I think it more likely that you’re making up a conflict where there is none. The world (though not everything in it, of course) is good. But it is also capable of being a large distraction, and in our fallen state it may be necessary for us to separate ourselves from it to varying degrees, and it certainly is necessary to always remember to keep our eyes on the prize, as it were.

But that doesn’t mean we should hate the entire material world, any more than we should hate our families. Families are also good things that can potentially be distracting and hold us back from following God, but we are not to treat all families as terrible things just because occasionally they can become a temptation.

 

[A_Augustinus]

I think this is getting a little too caught up in semantics. Step back and look at the underlying principles. Jesus was talking about people who are only concerned about material possessions. He was drawing a stark contrast to make a point. If your only goal in life is to lay up the treasures of the material world, you’ll find yourself very sorry when you pass on to the next life. That’s what this is about.

You say it’s a mistake to interpret “the world” as “the social order” etc. But that has been the long standing interpretation of exegetes, as I understand it. It’s not just something that cropped up in the last 50 years. The idea of “the world, the flesh, and the Devil” as the three influences that pull us away from Christ has been a long tradition of the Church, but “the world” is always understood in the context of “the secular world,” or “fallen, materialistic humanity” or something like that. It doesn’t make sense to interpret it as “the cosmos”. Why would God create such a grand material universe, with all it’s vast complexity and awe-inspiring greatness, and then tell us that we shouldn’t love it? That’s ludicrous!

 

[wanabesaint]

To put anything in front of God is a sin, and if material or the world is in front of God, its a sin.
The greatest gift from God, is the gift of life, and to that is Family.
The absolute worste or most tyrant and sinfull leader is one that neither values life or family, guess that ranked the current leader…

The most failed generation in all o f world history would be a generation that came to bring on themselves leaders who wanted to destroy the Family structure, wanted to murder the children, and to bring government that destroys Freedom and called for the people to surrender their individuality and right to chose for themselves.
WE have now leaders that want the children dead to enhance the Material world, are you really asking to love a material world is a sin?
stupid is, as stupid does.

 

[Qoeleth]

I think this is getting a little too caught up in semantics. Step back and look at the underlying principles. Jesus was talking about people who are only concerned about material possessions. He was drawing a stark contrast to make a point. If your only goal in life is to lay up the treasures of the material world, you’ll find yourself very sorry when you pass on to the next life. That’s what this is about.

You say it’s a mistake to interpret “the world” as “the social order” etc. But that has been the long standing interpretation of exegetes, as I understand it. It’s not just something that cropped up in the last 50 years. The idea of “the world, the flesh, and the Devil” as the three influences that pull us away from Christ has been a long tradition of the Church, but “the world” is always understood in the context of “the secular world,” or “fallen, materialistic humanity” or something like that. It doesn’t make sense to interpret it as “the cosmos”. Why would God create such a grand material universe, with all it’s vast complexity and awe-inspiring greatness, and then tell us that we shouldn’t love it? That’s ludicrous!

Possibly I am wrong. But the uses of Kosmos in other Greek texts always seems to mean Universe, as it does in all classical and common-era Greek philosophical literature. I am unfamiliar with a single example of ‘Kosmos’ being used to designate ‘social order’, and hence don’t see any textual justification for such an interpretation.

I am, however, happy to be corrected.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

No, this world is God’s creation. It is a good thing to love this world and to care for it. That said, you cannot love this world more than God, or things that are said to be “of this world” (i.e sin). So I say it depends what you mean by “world”. Unfortunately I think you set up a false dichotomy in your poll.

 

[Sirach2]

Quoeleth, I wonder if you have ever read St. John of the Cross, Doctor of the Church in mystical theology? There is never sin in allowing the will to rejoice in anything created by God or man, when it is directed to Him. Here’s the particular writing that addresses it.

1. Joy may arise from six kinds of good things or blessings, namely: temporal, natural, sensual, moral, supernatural and spiritual.

5. I wish, therefore, to propose a test whereby it may be seen when these delights of the senses aforementioned are profitable and when they are not. And it is that, whensoever a person hears music and other things, and sees pleasant things, and is conscious of sweet perfumes, or tastes things that are delicious, or feels soft touches, if his thought and the affection of his will are at once centred upon God and if that thought of God gives him more pleasure than the movement of sense which causes it, and save for that he finds no pleasure in the said movement, this is a sign that he is receiving benefit therefrom, and that this thing of sense is a help to his spirit.

In this way such things may be used, for then such things of sense subserve the end for which God created and gave them, which is that He should be the better loved and known because of them. And it must be known, furthermore, that one upon whom these things of sense cause the pure spiritual effect which I describe has no desire for them, and makes hardly any account of them, though they cause him great pleasure when they are offered to him, because of the pleasure which, as I have said, they cause him in God. He is not, however, solicitous for them, and when they are offered to him, as I say, his will passes from them at once and he abandons it to God and sets it upon Him.

catholictreasury.info/books/ascent/asc72.php

Let the test St. John propsed be our guide.