City of God Against the Pagans

Sounds like a plan

ok all, so, I am about to leave for 4 weeks on my road trip with Neal. we're leaving Sunday I think. Being able to use the internet will be questionable and if at all, it will be unpredictable and sporadic. I also know MJ is on vacation and behind in her reading. And I don't know if Ryan has any desire to discuss City of God with us or try to catch up. And I don't know where Dwight is in reading and such. so here is my suggestion: Book X concludes the first major section and theme of City of God. Book XI picks up with the second part to the work which shifts the focus a bit. Do we think it would be a good idea to take a hiatus until the fall, around when we start back at St. John's, like for a month or something, and allow all of us to catch up (or get ahead) and so that no one will miss out on conversations? Thus we can start in Book XI in the fall, and perhaps even return to some of the things we discussed in Books I-X. What do ya'll think?

Ok, so I am almost done book X, and thought I'd go ahead and get us going on some discussion here.
In Section 24 Augustine discusses the views of Porphyry and Plotinus vs. us Christians on the Holy Spirit. One thing that struck me was Augustine's suggestion that the Holy Spirit is "holding the middle place" between the Father and the Son. Is this how we are to understand the Holy Spirit? what does it mean for the Holy Spirit to hold a middle place...? I would have almost thought Jesus was the middle of the Father and Spirit, because we receive the Holy Spirit who lives in us as humans, and humans need Christ to approach the Father, so Christ seems more in the middle... hmm. and then Augustine says "we assert that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit not of the Father only, nor of the Son only, but of both." this sort of phrasing communicates a more foreign notion of the Spirit once again. I do not personally conceive of the Holy Spirit as a Spirit who "belongs" to the Father or Son or both, but simply as "belonging" to the Trinity itself. The distinction in my mind is perhaps subtle. But to say the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son seems to put the Holy Spirit on a "lower rung" in the Trinity, beneath the Father and the Son. Whereas I understand the Holy Spirit as "one" with the Father and the Son, not "of" the Father and the Son. Any ideas into what Augustine is saying? Or comments on my conceptions of the Holy Spirit?

I'll get back to you on this one. I am still thinknig a lot about these things- compassion, emotions, desires, etc.
I did come across quite a few neat Scriptures that apply to compassion, which I will share when I have them in front of me... ;)

Honestly, I don't think I can answer your questions here simply because my knowledge and memory of Socratic philosophy and the Platonic readings we did freshmen year at St. John's are vague. thus, I'm inclined to trust Augustine on his assertions about Socrates but that's because I don't remember it myself... maybe we can look into it. unless someone else has a vivid recollection of Socratic philosophy, etc.

I think you are right- Augustine is using the words 'manners' here to designate somethink along the lines of the conduct of men. Augustine suggests Socrates may have wanted to establish a more definitive way to attain the blessed life. Thus, unlike philosophers before him who were concerned solely with 'causes', Socrates "though they[the causes] could only be comprehended by a purified mind." The 'manners' has to do with this 'purified mind' more than anything else. and the purified mind leads to a freedom from lusts, confusion, etc. More than just intellect, it influences the body, soul, and will as well.

Hey... did some tinkering with the site... Hope y'all like it... if not I have the old template... I can restore it


notice that there is a title block on the create new post page... use that instead of html tagged titles if you will...

Thats all for now

Re: Compassion

I am not sure we are going to simply become like angels in heaven. We are different from angels, and one of those ways may be that we are able to feel compassion. Of course on what will we excersise passion? Maybe on the angels who aren't blessed in the same way as us?

Talking about the definition of emotion... how is emotion separated from thoughts and desires? Because one definition of sin that I have heard is "Every thought, desire, word, and deed contrary to the Word of God." So if desires are like emotions, then emotions can be sinful (by this def.) but (with the same def.) we say that emotions and desires are separate, to sustain the idea that "thoughts can be sinful, but not feelings," then what is the line separating emotions from desires?
How would I keep Jesus sinless with my definition, and making emotions equal to desires, therefore able to be sinful? I would say that asking God why he has forsaken him would not be contrary to the Word of God. The Psalmist writes all the time asking God why he has forsaken him. And on top of that, Jesus was forsaken! The Psalmist usually came to the conclusion that he was not forsaken, and remained sinless (could the inspired Word of God be written in an act of sin?) So Jesus is safe...

Re: Section 16-Demons

I believe that in this section he is talking about demons from the pagan perspective... Otherwise, if he isn't, you are probably right :-)

Re: Book 8

people not having the same understanding or perspective on certain things, like love or spirituality. A result is that truth gets watered down or abandoned.

Not only that, but it adds another challenge to the near impossible task of convincing someone logically that Jesus is the only way, who insists that everyone has their own personal way to God.

Book IX Demons? Angels? Daemons?

I am still having trouble finding relevance in City of God. What is it? "A reasoned account of the City of God, that is the earthly Church"? Or is it a broadside against Paganism? For Augustine is the best apology a good offense? How can I apply this to myself, or to others? Why is this a "Great Book"? What are y'all's thoughts on this?

I was excited to see Augustine actually discuss Jesus as the only intermediary between God and man(Ch. 15 (and 16?)) I am kind of surprised that he didn't just assume we already knew that.

Reason and Faith

Did we ever decide what part Reason plays in Faith? I know it is heretical coming from a Johnnie, but Many people are realizing that Descartes was wrong, there isn't a Method. The more we know, the more we know we don't know. As we move out of Modernity and into "Post Modernity" we are starting to come full circle. Seekers are not always looking for a answer to everything. There is less a need for Aquinas to bring relevance to Christianity with philosophers. People are looking for something else... love... relationship... compassion.

So anyway, what I am trying to get at is: What good is this book from a ministry point of view? I understand the historical relevance, but I am curious if any of y'all see life application in these pages