Note: I want to preface this by saying I am not a Christian. Everything I write comes from me trying to understand the topic from within my (mis)understanding of the Christian perspective. I am trying to understand if the Seven Capital Vices really is a comprehensive list of the bases of all sin, where all the bases are truly distinct. I can definitely recognize all of the vices as progenitors of sin, and they do seem basic, quite comprehensive, and fairly distinct. But I'd like to see that more logically. The arguments for such a view will differ, given that the topic has been looked at differently by various scholars. Take a look at this table shown in *Glittering Vices* by Rebecca Konyndyk DeYoung. | Evagrius (4th c.)\* | Cassian (4th/5th c.)† | Gregory (6th c) | Aquinas (13th c.) | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1\. Gluttony | 1\. Gluttony | *Pride = root* | Pride = root | | 2\. Lust | 2\. Lust | 1\. Vainglory | 1\. Vainglory | | 3\. Avarice | 3\. Avarice | 2\. *Envy* | 2\. Envy | | 4\. Sadness | 4\. Wrath‡ | 3\. *Sadness* | 3\. *Sloth* | | 5\. Anger‡ | 5\. Sadness | 4\. Avarice | 4\. Avarice | | 6\. Sloth (Acedia) | 6\. Sloth | 5\. Wrath | 5\. Wrath | | 7\. Vainglory | 7\. Vainglory | 6\. Lust | 6\. Lust | | 8\. Pride | 8\. Pride | 7\. Gluttony | 7\. Gluttony | \* Evagrius did not maintain a consistent order for his list. † Cassian's list is the same as Evagrius's but is ordered from carnal to spiritual. ‡ "Anger" and "wrath" translate the same Greek and Latin terms, which also refer to the passion or emotion of anger. I take most of my understanding from DeYoung's book, which utilizes Aquinas' taxonomy: Pride is not among the Seven; it is the root of them. So, the basis of all sin is Pride, and at the first stage of specification, Pride manifests as one of the Seven Vices. But, to understand if these Seven Vices actually represent what they're supposed to, we must ask: *specification of what*? They are all sin; they are all forms of Pride, but what differentiates them? If we look at the spectre of fundamental differences in how sin manifests, we are able to logically verify that the seven categories are indeed distinct, comprehensive, and basic. But I have yet to see a very logical explication of this. I begin with a little demo of the kind of thinking I am looking for below: > When Pride blossoms into sin, what is the first "choice" of specification to be made? Well, to ask that, we must ask by what mechanism sin works? All that exists is from God. So, sin must be a corruption of God's work. For us to work as individuals, societies and as a species, we need to have drives. Drives can be placed on a taxonomy of basicness. The most basic drives are those directly given to us by God; less basic drives are simply more specific instantiations of (combinations of) those basic drives. For example, we have the drive to consume sustenance. So, we may have the drive to walk over to a river; that drive is a more specific one, that is simply a specific, less basic, instantiation of the drive to consume sustenance. > > So, it follows that sin must be a corruption of our drives; a disordered effort to fulfill our drives. How could our efforts be disordered? Well, if our efforts to fulfill a drive bring about net wrong, then it is disordered. But how could our effort to fulfill God-given drives bring about net wrongness? If our efforts actually harm our overall fulfillment of our drives, then they bring about net wrongness (AKA, they are "disordered"). Our efforts to fulfill a drive can fail by not actually fulfilling that drive, or by leading to a greater detriment of other drives, or (usually) a little bit of both. In all cases, we are harming our overall fulfillment of our God-given drives. > >So, if this thinking is correct, we may identify the bases of sin by identifying the bases of drives. What is the root drive? Whatever the root drive is, (assuming Aquinas and DeYoung are correct), the corruption of this root drive is Pride. I find the **drive towards self-love** to be a logical contender. Not only does it seem like the basic drive that would give rise to all other drives, that all eventually lead to the attainment of good; it also seems like Pride would be the corruption/disordering of our God-given drive to love ourselves. > > But how to proceed from here? How does this drive/vice get specified at the most fundamental level? It is claimed that the taxonomy of vices has a stem/root made that is Pride, with seven branches (each representing a Capital Vice) sprouting from it, from which all other branches and fruits come from. In logical terms, that means that we start with Pride, and then we ask a single question regarding its specific instantiation. We must find a comprehensive list of distinct answers to this single question. If that list has seven answers that each correspond to a Capital Vice, then we will have shown the taxonomy to be correct. > > It seems obvious the question will be something like "how does one engage in Pride?" Or, equivalently, "how is one's fulfillment for the root drive disordered?" Obviously, that formulation is far too vague. To answer that question in full-detail would not give us seven answers, but thousands! Instead, it must be a much narrower form of this question. So, what is this question? What is the logical structure of the taxonomy of sin? How are the Seven Capital Vices basic, comprehensive, and properly delineated (i.e., all vices are distinct)? And how do they all stem from Pride?

I've enjoyed reading Wesley's writings, but I'm struggling to find a decent account of Methodist systematics. Can anyone suggest anything notably Methodist in flavour or should I just pick up something by a mildly dissident Anglican?

I’ve been exploring Panentheism (not to be confused with *Pantheism*) and certain elements speak to my own experience of God. I also understand that this theology is embraced by some contemporary Christian thinkers. I just wondered if this was considered a heresy by the established church (Anglican or Roman Catholic)? Panentheism, in simple terms and as far as I understand it , is the idea that God is within and interpenetrates the whole of creation, but is at the same time above and beyond it in space and time. In other words, God is both immanent and transcendent. Pantheism, in contrast, is the idea that the universe IS God, and that God is the universe. There is no other than the created order. Contemporary Christian panentheists include - Richard Rohr - Ilia Delio - John Polkinghorne - Cynthia Bourgeault - Jurgen Moltmann - Phillip Clayton

For context: yesterday I asked two questions regarding what I would call "non-standard binitarianism" Father & Spirit no Son and Son & Spirit no Father the answer to both of these questions was that no such theological structure exists or by evidence seems to have ever existed. Given that there seems to be no theological underpinning for a belief system that includes the Spirit to the exclusion of the Son my question now becomes: Is Trinitarianism the only theological model that includes the divine entity of the Holy Spirit?

There are trinitarians who believe in God in three persons, and there are binitarians who believe in God the Father and the Son but do not believe in the personhood of the Holy Spirit, and there are unitarians who believe in God the Father but neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit. My question is, are there any Binitarians that profess belief in a different two of the Trinity. I have already asked about the Son and Spirit at Is there any theological model believing in God the Son and the Holy Spirit to the exclusion of God the Father? .

There are trinitarians who believe in God in three persons, and there are binitarians who believe in God the Father and the Son but do not believe in the personhood of the Holy Spirit. And there are unitarians who believe in God the Father but neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit. My question is are there any Binitarians that profess belief in a different two of the Trinity. in the interest of asking one question at a time I will post another question asking about God the Father and the Holy Spirit to the exclusion of the Son.

I'd like to read and understand Catholic theology, philosophy and Tradition as best as I can. I'm a biologist and not a philosopher/theologian -- and as such, I cannot (and thus far have not) dedicated massive amounts of time to reading/understanding *explicitly* the texts and concepts of specific philosophers/theologians in their entirety. I'm not opposed to reading the many influential authors, but given my lack of time to dedicate fully to this endeavor, I'd like to go about reading these authors in the most efficient way, if you will. My question then: **which major texts/authors should I prioritize reading (and in what order) to better grasp the current theology/philosophy of the Catholic faith?** My impression is, that I would benefit greatly reading the following (with supposed additions added in parentheses) in the presented order (first to last): (Plato) > Aristotle > Irenaeus > Augustine > Aquinas > Ratzinger Does this seem sensible? Are each of these authors necessary (as I suppose) to truly understand the other? Or can I read Aquinas or Ratzinger (for example) and get a good enough grasp of prior thought/philosophers? Are there other authors that are hugely important that I skipped (e.g., Descartes?)? Is there a textbook perhaps that anyone can recommend that introduces me to a sensible and necessary reading list or conceptual walkthrough? (I guess I'm ultimately looking for an "official" list (perhaps from a well-respected textbook, theologian, or the Church itself) vs anecdotal commentary. )

*De Fide* is the highest [Theological Note](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma_in_the_Catholic_Church#Theological_certainties) used by the Catholic theologians prior to the mid-20th Century. Of the sentences proposed for belief, there is that which comes directly from God (*de Fide Divina*) and that which comes from the Church (*de Fide Ecclesiastica*) and if a truth has been infallibly defined by a Pope or Ecumenical Council, it is *de Fide Definita*. [traditionalcatholic.net](http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Dogmas_of_the_Church.html) lists All the *sententiae* that Ludwig Ott labels *De Fide*. My question is: **Which of those dogmas are NOT infallibly defined?**

I would like to expand my theological library, but I don't have a strong background in Reformed theology. Which theological term dictionaries are most commonly used in academia? Thanks in advance.

I came across an essay published in BYU Studies journal 54.1 (2015) ["Toward a Mormon Systematic Theology - Essay on *Wrestling the Angel* by Terryl L. Givens"](https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/toward-mormon-systematic-theology-essay-wrestling-angel-terryl-l-givens-0) . I was *surprisingly pleased* by signs of cross fertilization in theological constructions between LDS and mainstream Christianity. Stephen H. Webb, the author, was a Roman Catholic who also wrote a 2015 book [Catholic and Mormon: A Theological Conversation](https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Mormon-Conversation-Stephen-Webb-ebook/dp/B0102TBHC8) , also [reviewed in the same journal](https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/catholic-and-mormon-theological-conversation-0) . The key points that jumped for me is "**open canon**", and aversion to writing systematic theology and to creeds (which by contrast, a well defined practice for many mainstream Christian denominations). While in the mainstream denominations theology keeps being redefined in every philosophical age (to respond to new worldviews), and currently mainstream denominations are undergoing *yet* another redefinition by revisiting what the church fathers said, *the sources of the theology have remained relatively constant, which include creeds and **closed canon***. Yes, in Catholicism there is the living Magisterium, and there is the living Holy Spirit, but both living voices cannot contradict the voice of the original authors of the closed canon. So there is **stability which grounds flexibility**; flexibility obtained by new research into Ancient Near Eastern background, new hermeneutics (which incorporate the now in vogue narrative criticism, for example), new research into the church fathers period, new appropriation of medieval theology, etc. My question is: "**If an LDS theologian wishes to write a systematic theology in the established genre of the mainstream denominations, what sources of authority one needs to consult?**" Of course the Bible and the Book of Mormon is high in the list. But what about LDS Church leaders / councils / prophets? Will there be new revelations that need to be taken into account? What are the ranking of authority compared to the Bible & the Book of Mormon? Can there be a prophet in the future? How about Reason and Philosophy, how are they ranked in terms of authority compared to [three-legged-stool teaching in Anglicanism](https://episcopalchurch.org/library/glossary/authority-sources-anglicanism) for example? (BTW, the answer to this sub-question maybe found in a 2010 book [Faith, Philosophy, Scripture](https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi/33/) by BYU philosophy professor [James E. Faulconer](https://www.fairmormon.org/testimonies/scholars/james-e-faulconer)) . Quotes from the review (***emphasis** mine*): > Nevertheless, for all its orderliness, Givens actually denies that his book is a work of systematic theology, calling it instead a “study of the foundations of Mormon thought and practice” (ix). I take such denials as a nod to nervousness in the Mormon community about attempts by individuals without a prophetic vocation to bring order to the capacious house of Joseph’s many ideas. That is understandable, but **I look forward to the day when Mormon theologians** (and yes, while Givens is a professor of religion and literature, he is most assuredly a Mormon and a theologian) **do not feel the need to use their church’s “open canon” to claim that “Mormon doctrine is by definition impossible to fix”** (x). Every Christian tradition that is open to the Holy Spirit is living and evolving and thus difficult to pin down. Even the most biblically focused Christian traditions tend to operate with a “canon within a canon” whose boundaries are hard to fix, and magisterial church traditions supplement the closed canon with the openness of creeds and councils. Mormons are in pretty much the same position as every other Christian tradition with regard to systematic theology; which is to say, there are lots of sources of authority to be juggled and few certainties to be found, but much delightful work to sustain the life of any curious mind. Brigham Young called theology a “celestial science” (6), and I couldn’t agree more. When Givens emphasizes how Mormon theology must be provisional and incomplete, he is describing theology as such; on this point, Mormons, I regret to say, are not all that special. > > I think Givens’s book will go a long way toward calming Mormon theological worries that system building can assume creedal dimensions. Despite his occasional rhetoric to the contrary, his systematic ambitions are clear; yet his aim, appropriately, is doctrinal complexity, not creedal simplicity. Givens is convinced that Mormon foundations have to be put in the context of both continuities with and departures from ancient and contemporary Christian traditions. **While systematic theology for churches that are more certain of their location within the broader stream of the faith can afford to be formal and abstract, the intelligibility of Mormon doctrine cannot be elaborated outside a comparative methodology grounded in a historical narrative about the development of church doctrine.** Mormonism’s claim to represent the fullness of Christian faith requires nothing less. > > **Givens points out that the Latter-day Saints do not have a counterpart to Catholicism’s Catechism and that the 1842 Articles of Faith “contain relatively few of Mormonism’s key beliefs”** (6). Yet it is my experience that the Saints have done a better job than any other Christian church in instructing their members in the doctrinal basics of their faith. When it comes to theology, Mormons protest too much. The theological practices of the Saints are much more systematic than their rhetorical apologies for being unsystematic would suggest. What the Saints say about theology needs to be brought into closer alignment with what they actually accomplish through education, publishing, and conferencing venues, which is quite impressive indeed. > > As demonstrated by his very fine analysis of Mormon views of apostasy, Givens keeps the fullness of the restored gospel front and center. “In Smith’s scheme of restoration, any pruning of accretions is meant to clear the way for the tree’s trunk to reattain the fullness of its original foliage” (19). Such flowery language is a testament to the decades Givens has spent immersed in the literature of the romantics, and indeed the overall aim of Givens’s project is to situate Mormon thought in the ancient past of the church, with all of its exotic richness, **rather than in the Protestant Reformation’s narrower explication of the three solae (scripture, grace, and faith). In Givens’s hands, Joseph comes across as a lot closer to Origen than Calvin—and Joseph also comes across as a more theologically explicit variant of Wordsworth, Blake, and Coleridge.**

I recently read an insightful essay written three years ago by Henry Kissinger (now 98 years old) called How the Enlightenment Ends which is a warning regarding, among other things, the usage of Artificial Intelligence in the fields of philosophy and politics. >The Enlightenment started with essentially philosophical insights spread by a new technology. Our period is moving in the opposite direction. **It has generated a potentially dominating technology in search of a guiding philosophy.** The Atlantic.com - June 2018 It would not surprise me if moves were afoot to use AI within Christianity in regard to examination of the scripture (to arrive at doctrinal conclusions) or in the examination of the wide spectrum of beliefs within Christendom (in order to 'normalize' faith itself). Is there any reliable information about such ongoing or proposed projects ? --------------------------- EDIT AFTER COMMENT : My question does not promote or condone AI. I am merely asking if it is being used for the kind of purposes I am outlining. Personally, that would concern me as an adverse step.

Numerous Bibles have a "The Words of Christ in Red Letter" feature. Understandably, there is some debate concerning which verses and words should be in red (but this question is not about that.) This question is: What is a good resource on systematic theology that _only_ looks at the verses in red -- i.e., instead of being based on the entire Bible, is based only upon the words that Christ says?

*To be clear right from the start: I have noted that some people do not believe in the doctrine of trinity, namely "three personas, one nature", but* **my question is not about whether the doctrine is true!** *It is about* **understanding the doctrine.** *Thus this is not a question of opinion.* ---------------------------------------------------- I have heard multiple times the doctrine that Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are personas of God or "one God in three Divine persons" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity) . According to Wikipedia: > The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is. But what does this mean? Sometimes it is compared with water also having three appearances, gas, liquid and ice, but I have been told that this is an example of [Modalistic Monarchianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modalistic_Monarchianism) , which, as I have been told is a heresy according to one of the large early church councils. I do not have evidence for any of that because I am recalling from memory and are happy for corrections if I got something wrong. In any case, I see that [for instance at the baptism of Christ, the Father, Son and Spirit are all distinctly present and interacting.](https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html) So I see how this is [not like water](https://www.apostolictheology.org/2014/02/why-trinity-is-not-like-water-in-any-way.html) . Quoting https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html : > Other bad analogies > > If water is inadequate, there are a wide array of alternative analogies we can turn to in modern theological parlance. Eggs are one, yet comprise yolk, shell and albumen. The sun comprises the sun itself, its light and its heat. > > These are likewise erroneous or even heretical. Each part of the egg make up only one portion of the whole—the yolk is not the fullness of the egg. Yet the orthodox view is that each person of the Trinity is fully divine. Similarly, light and heat are simply creations of the sun, yet it is the heresy of Arianism to claim that the Son or Spirit are mere creations of the Father. Ok, so I see what we do not mean when talking about the trinity. But what *do* we mean? In that context I am not so much looking for a good analogy, but instead of a good explanation of the terms "nature" and "person" in the context of the trinity and in order to understand the trinity. It seems to me that if those words cannot be defined properly, there is no point in using them in the first place, because that would be the same as stringing together syllables without meaning. In that case I would prefer to say "Jesus, Father, Spirit are distinct and one at the same time and we don't know how that is possible." without introducing fancy words like "nature" or "persona". To be honest, it actually sounds misleadingly similar to "three gods", because a friend of mine and I also have the same "nature" of being human and are two different persons. **EDIT:** I was asked to clarify what is unique of my question. In contrast to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/41928/are-father-son-and-holy-spirit-explicitly-identified-as-persons-in-any-writi I would like to get definitions of the words "persona" and "nature" and use these definitions to explain the term "three personas, one nature".

Some (for example, Pat Donahue, the owner of bibledebates.info ) contend that unintentional sins separate a person from God just as much as deliberate sins will. By contrast, others (such as Bob Myhan and others Donahue debated) argue that an unintentional sin will only separate someone from God if the individual discovers it's sinful but does not repent. This distinction is important, so I would like to read more about the subject. What are the names of these two contrasting positions? The website calls Myhan's position "continual cleansing," but is this a precise term? Also, if other positions exist, what are their names?

In my prayer book from 1930, it says, in an examination of conscience, under the 6th and 9th Commandment (emphasis mine): > It is sufficient to remind penitents that each and every act, if deliberate, contrary to the holy virtue of Purity--be it in thought or desire, in look, gesture, word, or deed--**is a Mortal Sin**, and as such must be mentioned in Confession intelligibly, yet modestly 6th and 9th commandment(pg 20) >6. Thou shalt not commit adultery. >9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife. This isn't the first time I've heard this, but this is the first time I can pinpoint to some kind of source. This specific prayer book, *A Manual of Prayers for the Use of the Catholic Laity * (pg 280) I should note was "PREPARED AND PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE THIRD PLENARY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE." As is stated in all capitals on the title page. So it is not merely one theologian's opinion that informs the pages. So, **why is it that all sins against the 6th and 9th Commandments are gravely sinful?**

It's said that most influential medieval work on angelic order was written by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. How much authority do his works still hold and what's the metaphysical foundation and necessity for the existence of Angels?

My question has been inspired by this question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/90845/can-a-christian-be-a-conservative ***It led me to investigate ‘Progressive Christianity’ which is a "post-liberal movement" within Christianity*** "that seeks to reform the faith via the insights of post-modernism and a reclaiming of the truth beyond the verifiable historicity and factuality of the passages in the Bible by affirming the truths within the stories that may not have actually happened." > Progressive Christianity draws influence from multiple theological streams, including evangelicalism, liberalism, neo-orthodoxy, pragmatism, postmodernism, Progressive Reconstructionism, and liberation theology. The concerns of feminism are also a major influence on the movement, as expressed in feminist and womanist theologies. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Christianity This link https://progressivechristianity.org/ outlines the eight fundamental beliefs of Progressive Christianity. Although Jesus is mentioned twice, neither God, the Bible, sin or salvation get a look in. Can anyone shed more light on the theology behind this movement? I am particularly interested in the Reformed Protestant perspective, but would welcome any information that explains their Christian position and whether they are a Christian denomination. I have no interest in any form of politics and whether Christians vote Conservative, Liberal or Socialist. ***My interest is in the theology behind this relatively modern movement, Progressive Christianity.*** My question is what is the Reformed Protestant view of Progressive Christianity?

Sometimes I'm not clear why a systematic theologian doesn't simply adopt the Biblical term "New Covenant" but using terms like "Covenant of Grace". What is the reasoning behind it? In the [ESV translation](https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=new+covenant&version=ESV) the term "New Covenant" appears in a variety of contexts: Jer 31:31, Luke 22:20, 1 Cor 11:25, 2 Cor 3:6, Heb 8:8, Heb 8:13, Heb 9:15, Heb 12:24. Doesn't the usage and contexts created by Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul, and author of Hebrews **sufficient** to justify the use of "New Covenant" as a systematic theology category, making the systematic theology more Biblical? If a systematic theology uses the category "Covenant of Grace" how does it integrate the Biblical term "New Covenant" into its theology and how does the theology contrast it with "Covenant of Grace"? ### Preliminary research - Examples systematic theologians using "Covenant of Grace": see [Mr. Bultitude's answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/37001/10672) to the question "What is the origin of the Covenant of Grace?". Although the answer shows that the origin was in the Calvinistic tradition, the answer does not explicitly explain why the need to organize their theologies around an *additional* but artificial concept "Covenant of Grace". - Clue from [Nathaniel's answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/54931/10672) to the question "According to Reformed theology, when did the New Covenant start?" since the answer is framed in terms of "Covenant of Grace".

Why do theologians and philosophers suppose a connection between God's **Infiniteness or Finiteness** and **Omnipresence,** and Problem of **Evil**? Proponents of God's Finiteness (like William James), suppose that this explains why Evil present in the World. Proponents of God's Infiniteness (like most theologians and philosophers) say: He is Omnipotent, and Omnipresent, so He should be Infinite. Let's examine these rationally: Christian Scholars **usually** allude to God an **Infiniteness**, i.e: space (not matter) is infinite, and God fills the whole space, hence He is Infinite. Also, God is Eternal (infinity in time). Look, for example, **Thomas Aquinas**, on (**Infinity of God**), on **encyclopedia.com.** I searched much more in the Bible to find Verses or passages that hint to Infiniteness of God, especially in **Space and Consciousness**, I couldn't find. To be accurate, there are two passages that hint to God's Omnipresence, i.e: **Psalms 139:7-12, and Hebrews 4:13**. Omnipresent doesn't mean Infinite in Space and Consciousness. All that it may means is that the Omnipresent God Permeates His creation; His creation=the World+the Living Beings. Thus, God is Omnipresent in His Creation. Finite in Space and Consciousness doesn't mean lack of Omnipotence and Presence of Evil. I.e: doesn't justify the Presence of Evil. Those philosophers who looked upon Evil from narrow scope. Evil is required as part of involution that precedes evolution, also, it may be considered as byproduct of **FREEDOM** granted to Human Beings. Of course God is Infinite in Time, i.e: He is Eternal. I.e: He **can't**, and **couldn't** die. In philosophy there are many philosophers who assume God's Finiteness, e.g: **Charles Renouvier** and **William James.** Could you, please, give me Biblical evidences for God (Finiteness) or (Infiniteness) in Space, and Consciousness?

I saw this quote today and it made me think: > Work is sacred. It is not just a way to earn money or gain power, though it may result in both. Work is a vehicle for testing out our gifts and talents and using them to explore their meaning. > > Anne Wilson Schaef Going back to the Bible to think about this. Starting in Genesis 2: > 15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. Here we see the created purpose of humans is to work. God thinks work is a good thing for humans to do. Going to Genesis 3 > 17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ > > “Cursed is the ground because of you; > through painful toil you will eat food from it > all the days of your life. >18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, > and you will eat the plants of the field. >19 By the sweat of your brow > you will eat your food >until you return to the ground, > since from it you were taken; >for dust you are > and to dust you will return.” In this we see work as a curse that comes after the fall. (Maybe you could read that God made work good, but it was broken by sin, and perhaps retains some of its original goodness by the common grace of God - but that is stretching this passage too far I think). In 2 Thess 3 we read: > 10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." > > 11 We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. > > 12 Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. Here we see that work is a necessity for life, it is the means by which we have food to eat. In Ephesians 4:28 we read: > 28 Anyone who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with their own hands, that they may have something to share with those in need. Here we see the necessity of work to provide for those in need. The broader themes we draw out from the Bible here are work as a necessity, work as a curse. Perhaps that work has fallen from what it was designed to be. I don't find Anne Wilson Schaef's quote quite fits into this framework. My question is: **Does Anne Wilson Schaef's statement about the sacredness of work fit into a Biblical worldview?**