City of God Against the Pagans

so... my last post... was meant to convey that i would be delayed in responding for a few days... a few days turned into a few weeks... and now it has been almost two months. whoops. a big whoops.

so... here i am on thanksgiving break- 9 full days of "nothing" and yet... I just now get around to this on, oh, day 8. hmm. i am aware i can make a better effort to work on this, but, on the other hand, part of me thinks maybe it would be better to just call it quits. I know I'll personally get around to finishing The City of God, but I think maybe I'll just do it on my own time. Maybe all in one chunk over Christmas break, or during essay writing, or spring break, or even next summer. and something tells me I'm not the only one who doesn't have time, seeing as how neither of you guys have gotten around to posting or asking "what's up??" ;)

if either of you have a good plan or solution... i'm open to suggestions. but even dwight's suggestion of taking little chapters even got pushed to the wayside for me. i suppose we could all just finish it on our own time, and then "reconvene" to discuss it at large afterwards. maybe, say, the beginning of summer, or spring break, or something. I just don't know what sort of schedule you guys are on, and I know you are super busy MJ, and I guess I've adequately conveyed my seemingly whirlwind life by now, so... you two just let me know.

I figured since no one had touched this blog in almost 2 months that we better figure something out... you know... a plan or closure or. . . . .

i know i'm a loser but i'll get to this eventually... just not now...

This chapter seems (from its title) to set out to inquire weather or not the Platonist's spirits(daemons) require sacrifices and worship due to the one God. Augustine has previously said that the Platonist's idea of supreme good is God, therefore the Platonists are the noblest of all philosophers. Then he notes that some latin terms are inaccurate for discussing God... then finishes by saying that if the daemons do not love us, they do not deserve our worship and sacrifices. But if they do, then do they not get their blessedness from the same source as us?

Does Augustine mean to say that if they do love us, they don't want our sacrifices because we receive blessedness from God, as do they. Therefore if we sacrifice to them and worship them we don't get that blessedness, so the daemons turn out to not love us? He seems to leave something out... but I'm not sure this is it...

see title of post.
how about this friday doing the first chapter in book 10? (is that where we should pick up?) we'll see if a faster pace will work later on (like, 2 or 3 chapters a week).

How about one chapter at a time... I sat down the other day and read a chapter pretty quick... I think that would be great, that way we don't wait to have read the whole book to discuss...

Whatcha think?

I hope we hear from MJ, but I think some sort of schedule would help me to keep reading...

ok kids. lets hit the books. so to speak. i'm up for getting back into city of god, and specifically, to get back into some good discussions with you guys. any conversation or thoughts from the first nine books is game too. definitely would be neat to re-visit some old posts. but let's also keep on going with some new stuff. we never discussed book ten, though i did post a question/thoughts on it. so if we want, we could start there.

i propose going at a slow pace. we can either have no deadlines nor certain days to finish readings and just let each other know how we're doing, and wait for everyone to post a comment before considering moving on to another book. OR, if you guys want to set dates, we could do it, say, every saturday or every other saturday or something to that effect. what are your thoughts?

Well we're back... some of us at least... I don't know about getting back to it right away... maybe some time to adjust to being a Junior or something would be great.

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

Book 9

Compassion

I was wondering what we thought about section 5. Augustine speaks of the Stoics who claim emotions, like compassion, "invade" us. he also says that "the holy angels feel.... no fellow-feeling with misery while they relieve the miserable... though they have none of our weakness, their acts resemble the actions to which these emotions move us." So is compassion, and other emotions of feelings, a human weakness, something that invades us, we cannot control? Will we have compassion in heaven, or is there no need for compassion in heaven? We also were talking at CF last friday about "what is emotion?" or "what is feeling?"-- Sir Robert was wanting a definition but such a definition is hard to come to. We were discussing that thoughts can be sinful, but not feelings. The feeling of anger or lust or whatever is not sinful, but when we indulge that feeling, pursue it, think upon it, dwell in it, etc, then it is sinful. So Jesus, on the cross, can "complain" to God by asking "why have You forsaken me?"- these words arising in part of a feeling Jesus had on the cross, of being forsaken, but obviously such a feeling is not sinful especially if Jesus has this feeling... it seems kind of inhuman if one were to say Jesus did not feel forsaken. So what are feelings in relation to sin, weakness, strengths, etc...?

Section 16-Demons

I was wondering in this section if Augustine was saying that the demons become contaminated by men or at least have the capability of being contaminated? I don't understand how a demon can be contaminated if it is already in of itself wicked? You add a drop of oil to a glass of milk and it no longer is pure milk, and can never be pure milk again. Adding more drops to the milk changes a ratio, but it was already contaminated and thus that fact remains unaltered. Just because you sin 100 times a day doesn't make you more sinful than if you sin 10 times a day... you were sinful to begin with, it doesn't change. A murderer is no "more sinful" in the eyes of God than a blasphemer. etc. what do you think?

Book 8

any more thoughts?
I like your point, Dwight, about 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.

Re: Pace of reading
I say that we aim for one a week, but give everyone time to respond to each book before moving on... and then move on and if more discussion on previous books continue even with the new book discussions, great!

Re: Book 8 at last

Yeah, nice slow pace is cool with me :) wanna do one a week? or no schedule, just do it when it happens? Any opinions?

...since I started reading 40+ pages of War and Peace every day...
Thanks for reminding me, I bought Don Quixote yesterday (pretty good book so far)

"As a result, after Jesus' death (and resurrection) His followers only preached and healed and never used violence in the way that Augustine describes with Athens."
It is interesting what you about violence from the followers of Socrates and Jesus. I think that most people would think of Philosophers as more non-violent than Christians (think Crusades etc.)

..."But the true and highest good, according to Plato, is God, and therefore he would call him a philosopher who loves God; for philosophy is directed to the obtaining of the blessed life, and he who loves God is blessed in the enjoyment of God." so we really are philosophers! (haha)
Augustine is so ... not sarcastic, but facetious sometimes. He knows that Plato's highest good was his god, not God. But he puts it like "yeah, I agree with everything you say..." That's the problem with talking to many people these days, they agree with everything you say, but not the definitions of your words (think- love, good, spirituality etc. )

Prayers to Martyrs?

something else I noted at the end of Book 8, section 27.
Augustine states that sacrifices are offered at the tombs of martyrs not for the martyr but for God, as "honuors rendered to their memory." This is interesting because I remember Dwight bringing up prayers to saints and what Augustine would think of those. Well, this at least suggests to me that saints would not be prayed to unless it were to invoke God to aid us as He aided that saint, but the prayers not going to the saint him/herself... what do you think? Augustine seems to stress the memory, remembrance of the saints/martyrs, nothing more. Of course, Augustine only specifes "sacrifices"- "we do not ordain priests and offer sacrifices to our martyrs as they do to their dead men, for that would be incongruous, undue, and unlawful, such being due only to God..." I wonder if prayers would be in the same vein as sacrifices or acceptable if they are something completely different. Prayers however are more than honour and remembrance, these two things being what Augustine seems to 'approve' of here.

Book 8 at last

Hey all, sorry I'm a bit late, of course, someone else could've posted a question on Book 8. (any volunteers for Book 9??) As of now, I am realiziing it is taking me a whole heck of a lot longer to do the readings since I started reading 40+ pages of War and Peace every day... hmm. I am quite fine however at a nice slow pace...

So, Book 8!
It is so exciting, don't ya'll think?? Well, I was loving sections 2 and 3... and all the Plato stuff. In section 3, Augustine recaps the history of the life of Socrates. He remarks, "that very city of the Athenians, which had publicly condemned him, did publicly bewail him- the popular indignation having turned with such vehemence on his accusers, that one of them perished by the violence of the multitude...." I found this event quite interesting, as a parallel to Jesus. Jesus too was condemned by the city to die, though the disciples in "bewailing" Jesus never resorted to violence. While Jesus was still living, that had been their initial reaction (ex: Peter chopping off a guard's ear when Judas hands Jesus over, etc.), but were rebuked for violence. As a result, after Jesus' death (and resurrection) His followers only preached and healed and never used violence in the way that Augustine describes with Athens. I thought this was very interesting, as Jesus also had many followers, that only increased in number after His death, and we can say the same about Socrates and the Socratic philosophy.

the reason I am so interested in this section, incase anyone was wondering, was beacsue i am thinking about writing my senior essay on this, namely, contrasting the philosophies of Socrates and Jesus. Any thoughts to this end would be most appreciated. :)

So I don't really have a question, but, wanted to point some things out that I enjoyed and found interesting.

also, at the end of section 8, it says "But the true and highest good, according to Plato, is God, and therefore he would call him a philosopher who loves God; for philosophy is directed to the obtaining of the blessed life, and he who loves God is blessed in the enjoyment of God."
so we really are philosophers! (haha)

Re:Dwight on Will

I have the same tendency to think of God as Big Guy in the Sky... you put our conundrum nicely ;)

Re: MJ Book 5 on Will

(June 7th)

"But it seems like evil could come out of God giving us a will..."

Without evil can good exist? Imagine light without darkness, we wouldn't know what light was if we weren't ever without it. So I think more good comes from God allowing us to choose than would ever exist if we were all good all the time.

Why did God create the world... he doesn't need us, he was ALL... Is there more love now that we are here?

Re: Kristi on MJ on Will

(June 8th)

The nature of God's foreknowledge came up a lot last year in my OT and NT seminars. Does God plan each and every part of the entire actual history of man, so that our lives are simply like a movie? Or does he set down the big things, and force people not to interfere with those things? Or does he simply know what is going to happen (and therefore prophesy is true, not because he is making it true, but because the people in the world are going to make all the decisions that will bring about that prophesy) because he knows the creator's (his) nature and the creator made all people? This last option allows will. Just because God knows what IS going too happen, doesn't mean that he is forcing it to happen.

Also some of our problems with Will are created by the way we tend to think of God... as a Big Guy Somewhere Up in The Clouds looking down on us. But he is different... He doesn't exist in time (except when Jesus was incarnate) He is the Beginning and the End... he is both places in time and all others from eternity to eternity. (I know Kristi already said this, but I have to keep saying it to myself, and even when I do, I keep slipping back to the Big Guy in the Sky idea of God)

Re: MJ 3 Divisions of Theology continued

June 14

What you put in natural and civil theology sounds like what I have been thinking along these lines: Ok... now I am redeemed, since I can't just kill myself and go to be with God now... what do I do? Nothing we do is FOR redemption... but because of the redemption we do good. We can have rules and stuff to guide us through life, as long as we are always talking to God. Sometimes God talks to us through the law. But sometimes we say "OK God... I got it from here" and we start paying attention to the law instead of God. So all of Paul's passages that sound like laws are just good ideas that we should do. But we shouldn't get caught up in doing them. Always pay attention to Natural theology. And constantly strive to improve civil theology w/o thinking that perfect civil theology is even obtainable or can bring salvation.

Progress

This internet thing might start working soon... sorry about the delay I will try to catch up soon...

catch you latter

It seems to me that sometimes I can assert I "know" something since I trust God's word... but perhaps that just means it boils down to faith anyway. hmm.

anyway, I will not be on tomorrow since the internet here will be down, but, maybe I'll get on saturday or sunday and post a book 8 question, unless someone else wants to beat me to it....

Re:Disaray of gods

I find this very interesting too. I am definitely learning a lot about the Roman cultuer and religious lives. It's pretty disturbing. This disaray also relates to a previous topic we discussed, about chaos adn order. To quote Augustine who was quoting that guy Varro in 7.17, "I can be more easily led to doubt the things which I have writen in the first book, than to attempt to reduce all the things I shall write in this one to any orderly system." Clearly, the religion of teh Romans and their "gods" was a complete disaray... no order was possible. This also relates to some of my thoughts on Book 7 about the mind...

The Mind in Book 7

Augustine begins Book 7 by saying that he will "eradicate depraved and ancient opinions hostile to the truth of piety," (preface). I find the claim interesting that the Romans reliled on opinions and not truth, preferring to be deceived than to know the actual nature of these gods, truth, etc. Some interesting passages I was reflecting on and relating:
".. they do not explain them, but rather involve them. They rush hither and thither, to this side or to that, according as they are driven by the impulse of erratic opinion; so that even Varro himself has chosen rather to doubt concverning all things, than to affirm anything." (17)
"...[Varro] was not only without the guidance of the truth of things, but was also pressed by the authority of tradition." (17)

this one is especially interesting: "as Xenophon of Colophon writes, I will state what I think, not what I am prepared to maintain; it is for man to think those things, for God to know them." (17)

and some more:
"Interpretation failed, reason blushed, speech was silent..."(26)
"We, however, seek for a mind which, trusting to true religion, does not adore the world as its god, but for the sake of God praises the world as a work of God, and, purified from mundance defilements, comes pure to God Himself who founded the world." (26)
"...we have mind and reason by which to seek after Him who made all these things..." (31)

I find the role of the mind in the Christian life particularly interesting. We are commanded to love God with our minds, yet for the Romans, they denied their minds, deined the ability to grasp truth, and were swayed by passions and pleasures instead, vile and wicked things, etc. In a time that I always think of being as particularly logical and philosophical, this was a bit shocking that they seem to abandon reason in religion. Any thoughts? Also, what do you guys think about the last quote I wrote from 17- can we know things as God knows, are our ideas only thoughts and not things we can maintain... my gut screams no, we can know things, God can tell us things, but, what is this balance for the Christian between "thought" and "knowledge"?

Re:MJ on Divisions

ok, I gotcha now. I had a feeling after posting my comments that we didn't actually disagree that much, but, that I just wasn't clear on your thoughts.

p.s- Book 8 is so great! Socrates! Plato! Greek Philosophy! hurrah! ;) I can't wait to discuss...!

hey... I am in Minnesota... I just downloaded the posts y'all have done in the last couple days. I am having trouble connecting, but I think I got it worked out, look for some responses tomorrow... sorry for the delay

yeah... whatever pace we set is fine with me... see y'all tomorrow

Re: MJ on the Three Divisions

I agree with you that religions are related. my guess is that other religions exist because they were trying to understand the one true God but just missed the mark. and since they are based in this world created by God, it makes sense that some of the same "themes" run through differing religions. However, it is necessary to identify that when these ideas are shared, they can only be right in the correct, true and only context- the context of Christ Himself.
As to the second part of what you were saying, MJ, I am not sure I agree. The church is a vital part to Christianity, as is the Bible and perhaps other "religious" things you mention like traditions etc. I recognize this "civil theology" you apply to the religion side of Christianity as important because of sin. yet this statement is what i am not sure i agree with: If we did not live in sin, that would be all we needed, but because we do live in sin, we need religion. If we did not have sin, we wouldn't have Jesus. But clearly after we die adn no longer live in sin but live eternally in Christ, we still have Christ, we still have a community of believers even in heaven. The church is not just there in my eyes becasue of sin. The church and religious things are important beyond the purpose of helping us survive through sin. It's also important because of doctrine, adn this is why we have denominations, differences over doctrine. (in general). I do recognize that after life, "doctrine" won't necessarily be the same because I suppose everyone will be on the same page on everything, and the divisions won't exist. So I can see at least a few ways how your divisions of theology are appropriate, I jsut don't fully agree. I also don't think the natural theology would be the only thing we needed, at least not how you define it. I don't think all we need is our own personal relationship with Christ... I mean, yes, that is all we need, technically, but God designed us to live in communion with one another and with Him. I think we devalue the importance of the church, community,etc., thinking we can get along just fine without it when it is exactly what we need. maybe thsi is what you meant by sharing it with others, but, i was just trying to be more specific by referring to "the church." anyway... i'm rambling a bit.

Book 7?

I'm still reading book 7, will be finished tuesday, so if someone else has a question or opening thoughts, please ask and post away ;)

another thing occurred to me about Book 6. This guy Varro Augustine talks about divides theology into the fabulous (mythical), natural (physical), and civil. why the heck i wonder was theology divided at all in the first place? i mean, do we experience that- different theologies for the "theater, world, city"? Seems a bit absurd to me. Theology, being about the one true God, seems to me that it should be like God and be unchanging. Book 6 , and now 7 I'm still reading, both are not quite as interesting to me. But perhaps these sections were especially important if this guy Varro was deceiving people by his philosophy...

anyone in this great void have some thoughts? :)

Re:Interem Post
readings are long and slow but manageable for me. However, since it's Friday and no posts have been made on Book 6 yet (after my thoughts at least) I'd vote to do 7 on Monday and just fall back a bit. We can always carry this study into the fall/school year, that is fine by me. I'd rather take our time and really understand it as much as possible then rush just to fit it in during the summer, etc. I'll check back later today to see if anything new has been posted on 6... so hope everyone's doing well out there! ;)

Interem Post

Hey... I am kinda confused and behind... I am finished with book 6, and will try to catch up on what y'all have posted later tonight.

For me at least, the reading hasn't been to much for me, I just have been lazy. So my vote is to do 7 tomorrow and keep up 2 a week.

Other's opinions may vary

Re:Will and Time, Book 5 still

Well, not sure how much I can expand my thoughts on God out of time, us locked in time. I brought it up because I wanted to emphasize I don't think the paths of our lives must follow one single path. We do have choices, and if we follow God, the road is indeed straight and narrow. But let me give you an analogy that has come up about 3 times in the past week during discussions at Christian Fellowship and outside of it, etc. (Neat how God brings something up over and over again to teach me!) God's will is one line. A straight and narrow road, if you will. And you must walk this narrow road and not fall off to either side. Yet imagine that this narrow road is like a plane slicing through a medium. The plane's edge is a single line, it cuts the medium with one cut, one slice, this one narrow road of God's will. Yet being a plane, there are an infinite many ways to go from point A to point B- straight lines, wavy lines, jagged lines, etc. I use this analogy to illustrate our freedom of choice even when we are abiding in God's will. I hope this doesn't complicate the discussion.

But to be more specific to the issue, I guess I think God is not one who will "force" us to do anything simply because it is "fated" or what-have-you. We don't "interact" with God's foreknowledge in that way. Rather, He knows the future, we don't know the future, but we go and do and be in each moment as we choose and He knows it all because He is God. Not sure I can take it much further at the moment, maybe someone else can reflect on God and time.

Re:Ambition Book 5

Thanks for your thoughts MJ! I found the quotes good/helpful as well.

Book 6 Thoughts

Not sure if we want to keep going, since it seems we're a bit behind, seeing as how it is Wednesday and technically were supposed to go on to Book 6 on Monday, but I'll throw something out there. Please give feedback on whether we should slow down, wait for Ryan and ourselves (ha!) to catch up, keep on trucking, ... ?

Eternal Life

Augustine mentions toward the end of this section that "none of these gods is the giver of happiness, who are worshipped with such shame... Moreover, how can he give eternal life who cannot give happiness? For we mean by eternal life that life where there is endless happiness," (12). Is this a good definition or description of eternal life- endless happiness? For some reason it struck me as an interesting way of "summing up" eternal life. Also, is it not possible that the Romans felt happy even in their shameful worship? Sin as sin wants to seem good and fun and enjoyable. Turning from sin seems to be one of the hardest things for Christians because it is tempting and tempting to enjoy sin, etc. How would the Romans- or anyone- then know they were experiencing "true felicity" from God?

Madness

another interesting comment: Augustine says in section 10 after describing the shameful practice of worship of the gods, etc, that "no one would doubt that they are mad, had they been mad with the minority; but now the multitude of the insane is the defence of their sanity." What do we think about this? Don't Christians sometimes give the same impression- that we are mad- i.e. Pentecost, drunk on the Spirit, etc...? is the difference that our "madness" is "moral" since it is from God and recognizably different from the "immoral madness" of the Romans?

Re: MJ on Will

I think Augustine says the power of the will is good- so perhaps, in the ultimate case (sorry, couldn't resist the Newton Principia reference... haha), the will is good. Yet the will involves freedom which is also good... good until the freedom is used for evil. Yet if we did not have the will to choose God and what is good, we would be robots, and any praise or love or devotion to the Lord would be like a computer or something... it wouldn't be as much of a delight becasue we had no choice whetehr to love God or not.. but we choose Him just as He chooses us... thereby, on both sides, the love is of more value. does that make any sense? not that i'm clearing up problems, but, perhaps moving in that direction at least.

What you brought up about having an uncertain outcome has certainly been stewing in my mind longer than I've been reading Augustine. yet this is what I've come to in my own thoughts. If God only "predicted" as you said, this is a limit on His being. I also don't think God predicts things because then He would be "surprised" by things and I don't think that is possible. He knows every hair on our heads, and no one falls without His knowledge. I also think this means, He sees things beforehand, and this foreknowledge is what enablees Him to intervene in our lives as well. He knows what needs to be done to watch out for us. I think if we try to understand the freedom of choice from two perspectives- one that is ours, locked in time, and the one that is God's, outside of time, it might help. We have the freedom in time because the future for us is uncertain. the future is not uncertain for God but that doesn't necessitate Him dictating our own thoughts and actions. He knows them, but doesn't force us to do/make them in one particular way or the other. Not that He's a distant observer or "watchmaker" that doesn't do anything, but, He allows us to sin and allows us to choose Him or reject Him. And this is good and perfect because it is from God, how we are made, etc. How am I doing on my logic adn theology? ;)

Book 5

Will

Well. I really enjoyed book 5. I especially found sections 9 and 10 extremely interesting. Did anything stike you guys particularly in those sections? I almost wish however that Augustine would have gone another step further and talked more about 'predestination' and what it means to be 'chosen'- still, the discussion of will and foreknowledge was complex and good. I think I agree with the way he seems to reconcile them. Augustine does say that "as He is the creator of all natures, so also is He the bestower of all powers, not of all wills; for wicked wills are not from Him, being contrary to nature, which is from Him." So what do we think about this? Obviously in creation God gave us this power of choice- the power of will. Yet what does it mean for Him to give us actual wills? It makes sense not to give us wicked wills being contrary to nature, but I guess I'm not sure what it means to give us wills if it is supposed to be something different than the power of will...?

Awareness

Then, in section 23, Augustine says something that I just had a little question over. He says God did "cause that the king of the Goths should be conquered in a wonderful manner, lest glory should accrue to demons, whom he was known to be supplicating, and thus the minds of the weak should be overthrown..." I was wondering whether we think God still "protects" His glory by not letting glory "accrue to demons" today? Was this sort of action normal, specific to the time, specific to the situation? Perhaps we are simply not aware of the fullness of God's role in this world. In many ways, Augustine takes it for granted that his audience knows God's constant intervention. God's intervention in our daily lives- in my life- is certainly something I know I must have no full comprehension of.

Re: "good" not pertaining to God

I still don't understand Augustine when he says that a certain attitude, while not aligned with God, is better than another attitude.
Dwight, I wasn't sure what you were referring to, so if you get a chance, could you expound and quote Augustine if possible to a section he talks about this?

Schedule

Yes, I have not tackled book 6. I also know Ryan is trying to catch up, so, doing catch up either later on or just not at all sounds better to me. So, just doing 5 today sounds good with me. I'll post some of my thoughts on book 5 later today.

Re: Dwight's Ambition in Religion

I' not sure it is the same thing to think about God in the facets of your life as it would be to create separate gods for those facets. However, I suppose what you mention does make it conceivable how the Romans would do such a thing, i.e. creating a multitude of gods. Creating gods for those facets implies a discontinuity in life- that other gods can' "help out" with more than one thing, and the human experience is only connected in our eyes but then the gods don't know us as the Lord does. They would only know us in one specific manner. Thus, a multitude of gods allows the Romans to think that different gods act differently, i.e. they change. There is no one divine nature- more than one nature could be divine. Thus, divinity is relative. And that is not how the Lord is. In addition, the Romans must assume gods have limited power, which is also not how God is. So I think creating gods for every facet of life starts with a deception/blindness/misunderstanding of who God is, what He is, how He is, etc. Whereas, for your experience, you know His nature, and thus every facet of your life is governed by this same nature when you think on Him, etc. (man, I'm long-winded. I'll work on that...)
I like your comment about the saints, too. I'm not sure what Augustine would say about them...

Re:Dwight's Felicity

I wondered what you thought about the evil that exists in the world- when we as Christians suffer, and evil/sin are the causes, is this still "good" for the Christian? Or is it more that God works through the evil in this world to give His children good? (an ultimate good if not a temporal good?) What do you think? Again, as to what felicity is, I think it's another one of those things like justice and love that only has true meaning when based upon Christianity. (referring back to a previous blog post)

Re:MJ's Felicity

I like the distinction you make about happiness and joy. However, I've always thought the non-Christian tries to attain true felicity apart from God, ends up empty, then can begin to understand God as the true giver of felicity... however, you suggested (based on my quote from 33) that a non-Christian would only be able to understand true felicity at all from being accustomed to felicity from good fortune. In my quote from 33, Augustine says a person would be "spiritual" yet not "openly declaring"- so perhaps they have a glimmer of true felicity that is in/from God, and experience of that, but still holding back? anyway, it's interesting to think about the two different perspectives.

Re:Dwight's Deception

Based on what you say, it doesn't sound like you are deceived if you know that your thinking is off. So I would say, because your thinking is off, then that is sinful, because it is not how God would have you think. So I don't know if there is another form of deception besides sin (or something derived/resulted from sin) or demons.

Here it is, thursday night, and I just finished book 5 this morning... I don't know how y'all are doing, but I am behind. I won't be able to reply the next couple of days... see y'all Sunday!

Observations on Augustine following the 5th book

From the last chapter of book 5 and the Preface to 6, I think we can rule out the idea that this book could be adressed to Pagans. After saying they are too stupid to understand what is going on, the idea that the whole time Augustine was adressing these arguments to a sympathetic audience was cemented in my mind.

In books 1-5 he has sufficiently delt with Pagan "gods" Whats next?

"good" not pertaining to God

I still don't understand Augustine when he says that a certain attitude, while not aligned with God, is better than another attitude. I guess it is kinda like the attitude I have had sometimes. "At least Americans aren't ___" or "It sure is nice that we have freedom of religion." Wouldn't it be better if we were persecuted for our faith? Isn't civil government an intrument to make softies out of us?

Stuff

My brother would like to join the group... I told him to use the comments for a while just to see if y'all wanted to let him join. So read the comments, and if you think he does a good job, we can let him join
:-)

Sorry I was out of pocket the last couple days, my cousins are graduating, and my grandmother had a micro-stroke (TIA or something like that) in church on Sunday. If you would pray for her that would be great... She is fine, there was no damage, but it was scarry.

I think we should try to do 5 and 6 this week if possible (I am almost done reading 5) but we can skip one if we are falling behind...

Re: Deception

Is there any other source of deception than sin or demons? Even within my life, I am deceieved into some of the ideas you present. Sometimes I find myself weighing the "good" things I have done versus the bad things i have done... and I know that nothing I do is good except for God.

Re: Felicity

(More)

What exactly is felicity? It is Good Fortune, right? It cannot be bad, as fortune can. Is there more to it? Also, what we view as good and what IS good are two things. Since "all things work out for good for those who believe in Jesus," every event is good for Christians. (Not necessarily for non-Christians.) So no-matter-what Christians experience "good-fortune." Even when friends and relatives pass away. Even when we are being held hostage. Even when _fill in the blank with anything that would be considered bad from a secular viewpoint_ happens.

Re: Ambition in Religion

(More)

While I was reading about all of the Gods in books 3 and 4 I couldn't help thinking about saints. I don't know that much about them, but I do know that Luther swore by St. Anne (Patron saint of Miners) that he would become a monk when he was scared by lightning. Aren't there saints of most of the stuff that Augustine was talking about? I wonder what Augustine would say about saints today.

Re: Book 3 Opening Thoughts

(Kristi)

Thus, what are the differences between us suffering and the Romans suffering (described in this section)?

I think Augustine is saying that the gods were worshiped so that the worshipers would not suffer, and to disprove these gods Augustine shows how they don't "do their jobs."

Re: Ambition in Religion

I do see that as I learn more about God, a greater percentage of my life (thoughts, actions, etc.) is lived with God in mind. I wonder if this is in any way similar to "creating gods" for every facet of life... I'm not saying it is an acceptable way of living, but is it kinda the same?

hmm. so it's monday and i thought everyone would have been talking about book 4 by now... or perhaps everyone like me is behind, haha. how's everyone doing out there?? sorry, guys, that i disappeared for 3 days. we can push book 5 back to thursday if we want. but i'll try to start us off with some thoughts on book 4 at the moment....

Two Thoughts from Book 4

Felicity

We see this role of 'ambition' - or whatever we want to call it- again throughout this book in relation to their gods. The Roman people seem to think (the) one God is not enough, and that they must have multiple gods for every detail of life. Augustine goes on to talk at great length about the gods/goddesses the Romans appoint for Fortune, Felicity, Virtue. He argues these should not be gods seeing as how they are gifts from God (4.21). He also concludes in 33 that first, God is the only giver of felicity and second, "Felicity He gives only to the good."- what do we think about this statement? Frankly, what do we think about the entire section 33? (He also ties felicity to piety which is interesting.) I thought this is true if it was referring simply to an eternal felicity, but then Augustine says that "and this is the mystery of the OT, in which the New was hidden, that there even earthly gifts are promised: those who were spiritual understanding even then, although not yet openly declaring, both the eternity which was symbolized by these earthly things, and in what gifts of God true felicity can be found." Do all physical things really symbolize eternity? etc.

Deception

Augustine also writes that "[the pontiff] thinks it expedient, therefore, that states should be deceived in matters of religion" (4.27). is this motivation for deception a by-product of sin or demons? I find a similar train of thought running today- not that people should be deceived abotu religion, but that people should submit themselves to a religion if it will help them be a better person... thus there is deception that someone can be a good person by going to church but not having to believe. People push aside the idea of an absolute truth and simply want the temporal benefits of religion- good morals, character, etc. These are comfortable thoughts because they push aside the awareness of sin and the need for holy, obedient, servants of Jesus Christ. Morality is not enough. Why was there this push towards religious deception??

if anyone else has some better questions or thoughts, go ahead. i'll head on to book 5, but you guys let me know where you are in reading, etc.

*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.