[ Home | Contents | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Norman MEL nov 2
Date: 11/1/99
Time: 9:04:16 PM
Remote Name: 205.188.198.22
After re-reading the chapter that discusses the issue of church poverty, I found myself rather angry about the debate the two sides had about this issue. I just don't agree that there should be any argument at all about whether Christ was poor or not. If he wasn't, like some seemed to be leaning towards, that didn't affect the way he treated those around him or those who followed him. As said by Umbertino on page 341 to defend that point, it wasn't that he might have possessed such goods as clothing and food, but that they put them to use and this didn't effect anything.
In relation to how Eco represents this during this passage, I believe that this debate was set up to make us think a little bit about this poverty issue and the church. When I read this, I did just that. I'm not sure that I can see these two sides coming to a clear answer to their problem being that their arguments are so opposite from one another.