City of God Against the Pagans

*random note: make sure posts actually get published on the site after you post them!

Re:Book 3 Opening Thoughts- Ambition

I like what you suggestd MJ. I think in a certain sense we could say Paul was ambitious- though somehow 'zealous' seems a bit more accurate. I guess with ambition I think more about personal gain, achievement. To be a 'right' sort of ambition, I think you are right, it would have to be grounded in a love for Christ. Because we don't do anything for our personal glory but we "do all for the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:31), as you mentioned. It's not that we achieve anything ourselves- by ourselves- but that we simply work hard and ask God to work through us, etc. So I'm not sure if this is a sort of 'Christian ambition' or not.
I was wondering about a different sort of ambition in relation to the Romans. What causes them to have an ambition to seek after having more gods? The want a multitude. In Boko 4 we see Augustine showing how the Romans had gods for every little thing- not just for the door, but for the hinges and other such things. It frankly sounds silly to me. But what drives them to have this sort of ambition, this desire or felt need to have more gods over more things? a multitude instead of just one?

Re: Different Perspectives

The thought also occurred to me that perhaps God was preparing the people for Christ's coming by having them undergo so many calamities, in hopes of showing the Romans that the gods they worship are not gods and are pretty useless in terms of prosperity, security, trust, etc. To reveal their own sin and emptiness. Reminds me of Revelation, all the sufferings that are guaranteed before Christ's second coming. Seems right to me. Interesting too. I wonder if such troubles were more widespread, or central to Rome and the surrounding area there?

Re:MJ- Book 2, Justice

I think your breakdown of the 2nd argument seems true to me. Reminds me of Romans 1:20- "for since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities- His eternal power and divine nature- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." I think this also speaks of a consistency in creation- all of God's creations will exhibit His invisible qualities in some way or other, and they will be consistent with one another. (because they reflect the one true God). The only difficulty I suppose is in seperating when something is reflecting God and when something is only reflecting man and his sinful nature, something of God's that has been corrupted. Anyway, my guess is that Augustine's argument would not be the first one.

Book 3 Opening Thoughts

This section seems to focus on all the disasters and wars that befell the Romans leading up to Christ. Augustine emphasizes the sufferings they underwent in spite of the fact that their gods they worship are there to provide "transitory prosperity." As Christians, we suffer as well. Thus, what are the differences between us suffering and the Romans suffering (described in this section)? Is it only because we are not promised prosperity/security in transitory things and only in eternity that sufferings don't nullify God's existence, whereas with the Romans it does?

Also, I was interested by what Augustine says about their "restless ambition" (3.14) that causes the Romans to fight, etc. They also seem to have an ambition in amassing more gods on their side- "the greater she became, the more gods she thought she should have, as the larger ship needs to be manned by a larger crew" (3.12). What do you guys think about this? What is the role of ambition in religion? (for them or in general)... applying to Christianity, is there such a thing as an 'ambitious Christian'?

Comments

I added comments so that people who aren't members of the group can add their questions (e.g. my mom is reading along, and my grandmama said she would...), which can be followed up on if we decide to... If you want to follow up on a comment just think up a new title, and quote as much of the comment is needed.

Also, I like the h4 heading for our posts... keep up the good work.

Re: Laws and Harmony

Yeah, I think that Augustine is attacking this religion with reason, because the followers are following absurd gods. What are the differences in the way these gods are absurd, and the way the Lord is "absurd?"
One thing that does make sense about God is that he is looking out for our best interest. But we usually say that because Gods will IS Good (itself) so we call things "bad" because of our lack of perspective. So Augustine is attacking these gods on a different level because if we presume that these god's wills are Good itself, Augustine's argument falls flat. (He seems to mention this near the end where he says he will now talk about the things that even pagans agree are bad: Plague, Famine, Natural Disasters... When he said this it threw me off understanding what he was doing before.)

Re: city of God?

Since this is the title of his book, I hope he comes out and definately clears this up by the end, but who knows? I am getting more of a feeling that he is talking about the Church (as existing when? I don't know.)

Re: Dwight's Thoughts

Today we see many people who participate in religion socially. I am not sure this is a new thing, especially with this kind of "party" religion the Romans practiced. Augustine seems to be ignoring these people (so far) by the approach he is taking.

Re: Book 2 Questions

As men's guardians, by definition, it is incumbent upon them to protect men. And punishing them for hidden laws is absurd. So to be men's guardians, operating in their mode it is absurd to hide their laws from men. I think Augustine is pointing out absurdities in the Roman gods. But he seems to leave out the middle premiss (is that how you spell it?) most of the time.

Laws and Harmony

I was thinking when I was reading over what you wrote MJ- first, about the role of laws, second about the harmony you brought up. The book is centered on this City of God... so I was wondering what sort of organization exists within this city? and to what extent does Rome have a similar or contrasting organization or government? Augustine says in 2.21 that "Rome never was a republic, because true justice had never a place in it.... but the fact is, true justice has no existence save in that republic whose founder and ruler is Christ, if at least any choose to call this a republic." I think the image of the harmony is neat as well. I also wondered if the reason Augustine argues the way he does- comparing the two religions on the same level even if they had different aims- was to establish a need for an organization (laws, harmony, justice, etc) in Rome as well as the City of God, thereby presupposing to a certain extent that the Roman religion should be establishing laws... but the Roman gods don't do that...what kind of guardians did the people expect them to be anyways?? and debauchery and chaos result. It seems to me that this sort of life- a chaos in society- is undesirable and not how God wants things. There is a reason for order and heirarchy- God the Father, Christ the Son, the Church, husband and wife, parents and children, etc etc etc. I wonder if Augustine agrees: that the chaos, lack of justice, lack of republic, reveals the weakness of their gods behind Rome- or rather, reveals their "gods" to not be gods...

What is the City of God? some more

Just thought I'd highlight some passages that speak about this City of God I still don't understand.
2.18- the same quote MJ typed: Christ "gradually withdraws His own people from a world that is corrupted by these vices, and is falling into ruins, to make of them an eternal city, whose glory rests not on the acclamations of vanity, but on the judgment of truth." This seemed to me to suggest the city exists now, in this world, as perhaps simply the body of Christ, His Church, that exists here and now but lasts forever.
2.19- "The people of Christ... are enjoined to endure this earthly republic, wicked and dissolute as it is, that so they may by this endurance win for themselves an eminent place in that most holy and august assembly of angels and republic of heaven, in which the will of God is the law." Again, here enters the image of a law to the city, the law as God's will. Also, this suggests more that the city is in heaven alone, and not here and now, for here and now there is only a wicked earthly republic. Hmm.
2.21- again the quote that I mentioned earlier - true justice only where Christ is the founder and ruler. This makes me also think of other things that are not true unless Christ is the founder- like love for example. True Love- sacrificial agape love- is that which is based on Christ. Non-Christians may seek to be sacrificial in their love, but if Christ is not their basis for this, I don't think this is true agape love. Not the love that reflects God. A love that tries to mimic God's love but does not succeed since it is not purely from Him who is Love.
2.29- "Incomparably more glorious than Rome, is that heavenly city in which for victory you have truth; for dignity, holiness; for peace, felicity; for life, eternity." Awesome.

Re:Book 2 Questions

When Augustine says it should have been incumbent on those gods to publish laws for a good life, I think he is appealing to the fact that these gods should set forth a standard of goodness/virtue. It would be incumbent upon them insofar as it was in their nature to do so and not otherwise. I think Augustine would apply this to God, who, being by nature perfect, good, etc., would never act in a way that was not in accordance with His nature. I don't know about this language of "incubent" and perhaps I'm just twisting the meaning that seems appropriate to me out of this quote, but, I think the point is that Augustine also wants to show that there does exist a sense of moralilty and shame at licentiousness- recall the women who going to the rites of a certain virgin goddess would out of prudence turn their eyes away from watching the rites... why? Because such women have a conscience, that tells them such behaviors are not in accordance with purity. So then I think Augustine- by highlighting the absurd nature of the Romans' beliefs and the demonic/evil nature of their so-called "gods"- is showing that the gods should be responsible for upholding purity, but instead it becomes just a fluke of some mere humans who feel called to a goodness and purity apart from these gods... and that is absurd. Humans should not be the standards of goodness. The gods, if that is what they are, should not encourage the people to sink to depths of impurity when in their consciences they know otherwise- that it is purity they should uphold instead.

Re: Dwight's Thoughts

Augustine says in 22, "But in all this the demons only looked after their own interest, and cared not at all how their worshippers lived, or rather were at pains to induce them to lead an abandoned life, so long as they paid these tributes to their honour, and regarded them with fear."
My guess is that we often underestimate the role these gods played in the lives of the Romans (and Greeks for that matter- sidenote: when i was in Greece, Sir Robert noted that people were extremely generous and hospitable, and he attributed this to their culture in which at one point in time, the Greeks would extend hospitality to strangers incase it was Zeus or another god in disguise. It seemed this might have been ingrained in them over time. Interesting.). Augustine says that the demons simply wanted man to regard them with fear... I wonder if this is related at all to our fear of God, but I sense it was more of a terror than an awe. They feared the calamities of these gods. Which is also interesting taking into account another quote by Augustine- that these gods "neither hurt those whom they hate nor profit whom they love" (23). It seems man would be always walking on eggshells, afriad to make a god mad, but it would always be in question whether they would anger a god from purity or impurity, following and fearing or ignoring... hmm. Yet in that same quote in 24, Augustine questions "why are they worshipped, why are they invoked with such eager homage?" Clearly the gods did play a large role in the lives of the Romans. Even when so much seems to us now absurd.
I have to go, so I will try to expand on this point later. I want to say a few things in response to MJ as well...

Neat.

"Let them read our commandments in the Prophets, Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, or Epistles;... which strike the ear, not with the uncertain sound of a philosophical discussion, but with the thunder of God's own oracle pealing from the clouds." (2.19)
YES!

also: I will be happy to supply an opening question Monday. have fun at oneday dwight!
i do not want emails of the posts. thanks for the offer though.

not a comment

Hey, I won't be around next Monday. I am going to be at One Day with Sir and Johanna. I hope the conversation wont die w/o me ;)

Book 2 Dwight's Thoughts

Not sure if the "What is the City of God?" question was answered, but it seems like maybe he is comparing Rome to the City of God. (The Church? Just a city with Christians in it? idduno?)

He starts out by comparing Rome to Greece, saying that the Greeks were at least consistant in their sinfulness. Who cares? I guess he is simply using reason to convince the minds of the pagans that their belief is absurd.

Then he goes on to show that the "gods" are actually demons who are trying to harm their followers. I can't help thinking of the people who didn't really believe that the "gods" were real. I was allways under the impression that the god's festivals were more though of as excuses to party (kinda like Christmas) for most Romans. I never really thought that they cared much about gods. But Augustine presents this like they all believe.

Email

If you aren't interested in getting the emails, please tell me, so I know if you noticed the message or not :)

Re: kristi

I think book 2 (or 3 or 4) might clear things up...

Re: MJ's Book 1 thoughts

Reason is to the mind as love is to the heart (or kidneys :)) The greatest command is to love (God and everyone else) Even though reason says not to. If reason is carried too far (I haven't read Pascal's wager, but have heard some about it) we get what I think Pascal said... Well, it doesn't hurt to believe in God, and if God DOES exist then the benefits are great. That isn't Faith.

Reason cannot work fully with Christianity:

Love your enemy.
Reasonably in this manner you get walked all over...

Forgive your brother 7 times 70 times.
Really... forgiveness has to be tempered... if you just unconditionally forgive you aren't helping anyone

Miracles
By definition unreasonable...

Works
If anyone has reasonably completely worked out (makes sense to me, but I don't think that I came to it reasonably) that works are a result of Faith, not a prerequisite... And if they do have a reasonable argument, why does the debate continue?

Anyone who seeks to keep his life will lose it and anyone who loses it for my sake will find it
Does not make sense...

ok- but is the City of God the type of earthly city God would want? is it specific to Rome or not? or this/a city as seen through the lives of the Christians? or something eternal and heavenly? still confused on the what aspect of the city of God... can anyone clarify?

Re: Book 1 City of God?

It seems like he is setting up the City of God in comparison to Rome. Or maybe within Rome? The Christians reacted this way during the sack, the pagans reacted this way... stuff like that

Wow, it is late...

One thing though... I have it set up so that it sends the posts to me by email... Are any of you interested in that?

Re: Book 1 Opening Question

I read your opening question Dwight even before I finished Book 1. (I confess I still have 9 pages in Book 1 still, but this was a good time to use the internet ;) ) So I kept that theme in my mind as I read- and I noticed Augustine remarking upon this theme, of, "the virtue which makes the life good [that] has its throne in the soul" (1.16). He also emphasized he force of one's own will- that we will to be virtuous and good and pure, etc. I remember my OT seminars sophomore year. I specifically remember us talking over and over again about the "circumcision of the heart"... though in the OT people often tend to see it as about a God of wrath and justice, one who holds us to every jot and tittle of the law, with the emphasis on the physical, bodily acts- like outward circumcision. Yet the circumcision of the heart is very much at the heart of the OT- it is the heart of the law itself I would say! So there cannot, like you said, be any "loopholes" to God's law, because His law moves beyond the external actions to the attitude of the heart and mind, one's will, one's soul. The circumcision of the heart is vastly more important than any action or deed- because if one's heart is right, one's body will follow. But unfortunately, like for the Pharisees, the body can act apart from the heart and breed deception, etc. This reminds me of something Pastor Greg at Bay Area Community Church here in Annapolis said in his sermon last Sunday. He taught on Genesis 19 and Romans 1- about wickedness of man, specifically on sexual sins, like homosexuality. Anyway, one thing he said was the homosexuality is the most dramatic bodily representation of a spiritual rebellion. Romans 1 gives a 3 step process to this spiritual rebellion: first, man replaces God with an idol- this begins in one's heart! Second, God gives man over to his sin. Third, we physically act out this spiritual rebellion. As marriage between a man and a woman is an image of the relationship between God and man, Christ and the Church, when one distorts this physical representation by sexual sin, then the image is destroyed. Like the Church trading Christ for an idol. the bride rebelling against her bridegroom,etc. Ok, ok, I know I am getting WAY off topic, my apologies. But I just had a bunch different thoughts on this topic of sin originating from the heart.

Re: MJ's Book 1 thoughts

I think your question Mary Jo is really hard. But I'll share the first thing that popped in my mind.
I think Augustine does rely heavily on reason. He demonstrates that Christianity, and Christian doctrine and practices, can be logical and make sense, even more logical than many find ancient Greek stories/histories/etc. Like take Cato as an example. Augustine shows how it can logically and reasonably be absurd to revere Cato for committing suicide. Which I found very interesting, considering so many Johnnies seem to support Cato's action. (at least, what I remember from that seminar on Plutarch's Lives). I felt as though I was reading apologetics ;) I guess in a certain sense that is what Augustine does.
I also think about the role of man's will in his relationship with God. Our will is oftentimes a product of reason, yet othertimes clearly not. If it is our choice and will to follow Christ, is that a reasonable decision? Or do we jump into a great unknown? Is it different for different people? (That would be my guess) But it seem like it is also man's nature to inquire why... why we believe, why it is true. At least I feel that way- the "whats" of Christianity are not satisfying to me. They satisfy me insofar as I know I am saved, but they are not satisfying insofar as my mind wants to understand God and Christ- not just as elusive conceptual ideas or in terms of 'character sketches' but as grasping at their substance, because it is from God's substance- the great I AM- that I am...
I also think God gives us reason, setting us apart from other creations, so that we can know Him, and know Him more. I think truth can be a feeling, a conviction, but the feeling and conviction needs to be tested against reason- like God's Word, something that is geared for our minds to read and understand. There is a gray area in relation to the role of one's mind-heart-soul in faith-belief-truth because I think there are few absolutes. I don't feel like one can say, faith is wholly non-rational any more than one can say faith is wholly rational, or that one person coming to know truth from a rational standpoint can set a mold for every other person coming to know truth. I don't know, any thoughts? (anyone?) I'm going to think about this more.

a few of my own questions up for grabs...

Book 1: city of God?

Augustine starts off this book by saying "The glorious city of God is my theme in this work..." I found myself thinking, well, what does Augustine mean? What is the city of God? As I kept reading Book 1, I still wasn't sure. He goes through so much history and putting forth doctrine, but, how does all of this relate back to his theme- where is he going...? etc.

Book 1: Burials

Burials was another topic that interested me. Augustine almost seems to contradict himself. He says, burials aren't necessary for Christians. But then speaks of burials as important, especially the ointment and wrapping and burial of Jesus. I wondered what we think about burials, why Augustine still seems to think they have value/importance. What that importance is. I have thought about Jesus' burial: could the reason that Jesus was buried be more part of God's plan to demonstrate His power by the resurrection- the empty tomb, etc? Or was it simply some sort of sign of love and care that Jesus was buried, nothing more? any thoughts?

Book 1 Opening Question

Sorry this is late... had to get my hair cut.

Augustine had a lot of interesting stuff to say.

Sins are not acts, but conditions of the heart. This obliterates any "loopholes" that we think we find in God's law. Even if we don't kick someone who is annoying us, the desire to do so is sinfull. But at the same time, no one can force us to sin. Even if the act is commited, the sinfullness comes from the condition of the heart.

I should probably change this to "Opening Thought Provoking Idea" instead of question.

For Titling: In response to this post, just "Re: Book 1 Opening Question" for a new idea just start it with Book 1 and think of something cleaver.

hey. My AIM is dwghtknol... I should be on most of the time, since my parents got DSL. I'll have some stuff ready to open up on Monday. I'll try to post it around noon.

The schedule and plan sound good to me. We can always amend later as we want.
I am also up for chatting online. I have AIM and MSN messengers. My AIM screen name is krisde15. Though I don't know what my availability will be, or how often I will be able to use the internet. But if we plan in advance I can always go over to campus to use a computer there if need be.
I look forward to blogging monday!

Adding Links

If anyone wants to add links to the list, you can edit the template. There are comments in the html that tell you where to add links. If you aren't comfortable doing that (or are lazy :), just tell me the link you want to add and I'll stick it in

Schedule

May:

Monday 19th: Book 1
Thursday 22nd: Book 2
Monday 26th: Book 3
Thursday 29th: Book 4

June:

Monday 2nd: Book 5
Thursday 5th: Book 6
Monday 9th: Book 7
Thursday 12th: Book 8
Monday 16th: Book 9
Thursday 19th: Book 10
Monday 23rd: Book 11
Thursday 26th: Book 12
Monday 30th: Book 13

July:

Thursday 3rd: Book 14
Monday 7th: Book 15
Thursday 10th: Book 16
Monday 14th: Book 17
Thursday 17th: Book 18
Monday 21st: Book 19
Thursday 24th: Book 20
Monday 28th: Book 21

August:

Thursday 4th: Book 22

So the plan (so far) is this:
Starting next monday (May 19th) we will discuss 2 books a week (one starting on monday, the second on thursday.) Each book is 30-60 pgs. in my edition.
As there are 22 books, that gives us 11 weeks. At this rate our last book discussion will be the first thursday in August.
The rate is not set in stone, but we should probably try to keep it up. If we cannot all keep up with the reading we can discuss a slower rate.

We will alternate the "opening question" between all four of us. I will volunteer to do the first one because I have the book with me now, if someone else wants to do the first one instead, just tell me.

Some ideas

If we all have AIM, ICQ, or something like that, we could try to have some intense discussion on each book (schedules permitting.) I could set up a IRC chatroom if everyone does not have an instant messaging program.

I could also set up a mailing list to attach to the blog. This way everyone could at least read the posts if they don't have time to get on the internet. Another benefit of this is that we can invite people to read our discussion (yes, they can read it on the web, but some people have email, and never get on the web.)

I can also sign up for a comment service. This would keep our posts organized because we could keep all of the discussion of one book under the "opening question" post. People reading along with us will be able to follow the discussion easily. I kinda think the discussion of any book will potentially spill over the following book. Drawbacks: I don't think they allow you to forward comments to mailing lists. Also, the comment services I have seen are kinda clunky.

An alternative for keeping the posts organized is for all of us to do a good job titling our posts. (There is no separate title, but you can use html

to add a title.

(used the h2 tag to do that)

I think that is it, please give me feedback on your ideas

yay it works!

Welcome to the City of God study group