Skip to main content

Home/ Groups/ Religion-senior-seminar-at-Ursinus
Nathan Rein

St. Augustine, The City of God, Book 10 - 0 views

  •  
    See chapter 20 on this page for the quotation Molly sent around.
Nathan Rein

Quotation from St. Augustine, from Molly - 1 views

"…He chose, in His character as a slave, to be Himself the Sacrifice rather than to receive it, lest any one might take occasion to think that sacrifice could be rendered to a creature. Thus it is...

theology christianity primary_source rels404 augustine

started by Nathan Rein on 15 Mar 10 no follow-up yet
Ryan C

Best content in Religion-senior-seminar-at-Ursinus | Diigo - Groups - 1 views

    • Ryan C
       
      Notes upon notes upon notes!
Moira McGrath

On the Incarnation - 11 views

    • Nathan Rein
       
      Senior seminar members: feel free to start highlighting and annotating as you like.
    • Ryan C
       
      I have to say, that even if it is in some medium that's a far cry from tattered vellum or moldy yellowed pages, I find something very humbling and even a bit magical about approaching this text. I don't think it's just time that does that, nor is it that really cool picture of him, though that helps. I'm not quite sure what it is. Maybe just the significance in general.
  • e saw in the last chapter that, because death and corruption were gaining ever firmer hold on them, the human race was in process of destruction. Man, who was created in God's image and in his possession of reason reflected the very Word Himself, was disappearing, and the work of God was being undone. The law of death, which followed from the Transgression, prevailed upon us, and from it there was no escape. The thing that was happening was in truth both monstrous and unfitting. It would, of course, have been unthinkable that God should go back upon His word and that man, having transgressed, should not die; but it was equally monstrous that beings which once had shared the nature of the Word should perish and turn back again into non-existence through corruption.
    • Nathan Rein
       
      This is what I meant by "death as a theological problem"
    • Karen Boedecker
       
      I think that I'm still confused about the death/transgression/punishment business. My first instinct here would be to go back and lean on the idea that "religion is merely an explanation for the unexplainable," but that seems like such a cop out. The way that Ath writes about death sort of reminds me of Euthyphro's dilemma. Does that make sense to anyone else?
    • Moira McGrath
       
      I have the same question. I don't see how the "Law of death" could have followed from an act of sin. I think I understand that when Adam and Eve sinned, they made themselves corrupted because they freely chose to go against God, making themselves un-God-like and therefore, perishable. But as far as I understand they were still made in God's Image and had all the features therein (i'm thinking rationality/free will here), so I don't get how Death managed to get into the picture and screw everything up, or even what that means. Maybe the devil has a larger role than I originally thought. Maybe Ath had in mind that when the devil and all subsequent corruption got humankind to listen to him, he gained a control over humans (specifically Eve), some sort of foothold that could lead them down to the choice to not make themselves like God and therefore make themselves impermanent, and destined to "die" theologically. But the only way I can see this idea as working is if the ACTION was indicative of the SELF/WILL, which I'm not sure is necessarily the case. Good kids do bad things, but i guess though bad things could only be committed if some part of the self was bad-willed.
    • Moira McGrath
       
      I like the part that says it "unthinkable that God should go back upon His word and that man, having transgressed, should not die; but it was equally monstrous that beings which once had shared the nature of the Word should perish and turn back again into non-existence through corruption." ...I guess that explains why humans stay the corrupted way they are insead of having our slates wiped clean. But what about Baptism, which removes original sin? And why the specific need to sacrifice Christ?
    • Ryan C
       
      Yeah. Let's please talk about this. I just spent a while staring at this, and typing all these things I don't understand. I don't get it at all.
  • For instance, some say that all things are self- originated and, so to speak, haphazard. The Epicureans are among these; they deny that there is any Mind behind the universe at all. This view is contrary to all the facts of experience, their own existence included. For if all things had come into being in this automatic fashion, instead of being the outcome of Mind, though they existed, they would all be uniform and without distinction.
    • Ryan C
       
      Innovation is an ability reserved only by the Creator. I'm thinking of feet or hands or plants from Ath's perspective; they can't do anything new, they can only get larger or add to themselves in prescribed ways.
    • Moira McGrath
       
      On that note (literally), I think that's mostly what Ath. meant by "Mind," a question I had earlier about the text. Clearly "Mind" is divine, but it doesn't seem to be God in His entirety: more like one of His attributes that enabled creation. I assume it's God's intentionality, and having planned creation before He created it, thus there's such a diversity of what we see; if matter existed before creation (like Plato said, accd'g Ath.) then creation couldn't be as diverse as it is since the starting materials were limited. There'd only be feet or hands or plants.
    • Nathan Rein
       
      hello!
  • ...53 more annotations...
  • From it we know that, because there is Mind behind the universe, it did not originate itself; because God is infinite, not finite, it was not made from pre-existent matter, but out of nothing and out of non-existence absolute and utter God brought it into being through the Word.
    • Ryan C
       
      Important to remember, I think, in regard to what life/being/existence/creation means.
  • Upon them, therefore, upon men who, as animals, were essentially impermanent, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked—namely the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the Mind of God even as He does, though in limited degree they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise
  • If they guarded the grace and retained the loveliness of their original innocence, then the life of paradise should be theirs, without sorrow, pain or care, and after it the assurance of immortality in heaven. But if they went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, then they would come under the natural law of death and live no longer in paradise, but, dying outside of it, continue in death and in corruption.
    • Ryan C
       
      This is so much more vast than I can comprehend. God confers upon the grace of expressing the Mind of God and such. Is it their godliness that gives them the choice of becoming vile? Is it something unique to them? What would the implications of either of these be? What would that tell us about the Mind of God?
    • Moira McGrath
       
      Good point. I think it's because we have free will, by virtue of our rationality (due to our likeness to God), that we can choose to become vile and base. I feel like that essentially means rejecting our God-given qualities of rationality etc, so maybe it's something only humans can choose to do. I think Ath would say if we can choose to be vile, we can choose not to be vile, but you don't see any animals or plants making that choice ("vile" not meaning "disgusting," of course, just less complex or something).
    • Moira McGrath
       
      What confuses me about this passage is that it's the first time "original beauty" is mentioned as having death-fighting properties. Tthis "beauty" and "loveliness" might refer to a state of incorruption, or never having committed sin. At first I thought it meant people were to remain in a sort of ignorance if they wanted to have eternal life, not having considered the alternatives and then employing their free will not to sin. But I guess that's not necessarily the case; the act of sin having occurred at all, presumably, is what did us in for corruption and therefore, death since we made ourselves un-godlike. So I guess the words Ath uses here like "beauty" and "innocence" refer to one's track record for choices, not their exposure to opportunities for such choices.
  • It is we who were the cause of His taking human form, and for our salvation that in His great love He was both born and manifested in a human body. For God had made man thus (that is, as an embodied spirit), and had willed that he should remain in incorruption. But men, having turned from the contemplation of God to evil of their own devising, had come inevitably under the law of death. Instead of remaining in the state in which God had created them, they were in process of becoming corrupted entirely, and death had them completely under its dominion. For the transgression of the commandment was making them turn back again according to their nature; and as they had at the beginning come into being out of non-existence, so were they now on the way to returning, through corruption, to non-existence again. The presence and love of the Word had called them into being; inevitably, therefore when they lost the knowledge of God, they lost existence with it; for it is God alone Who exists, evil is non-being, the negation and antithesis of good. By nature, of course, man is mortal, since he was made from nothing; but he bears also the Likeness of Him Who is, and if he preserves that Likeness through constant contemplation, then his nature is deprived of its power and he remains incorrupt.
    • Ryan C
       
      This is it, death as a cosmic, theological thing. And we see that they're talking about death in a different way, perhaps. What would it mean to have been completely under the dominion of death? It seems to mean more than extinction of humanity, but I don't really know. Complicating matters is the fact that existence, which I take to be the opposite of death, was lost as soon as knowledge of God was lost. If something loses contact with God, it is dominated by death. Apparently, anything that is free from death is somehow closely related to God, since only God exists and is therefore incorrupt. Man, I don't know where I'm going with this.
  • though they were by nature subject to corruption, the grace of their union with the Word made them capable of escaping from the natural law, provided that they retained the beauty of innocence with which they were created.
  • When this happened, men began to die, and corruption ran riot among them and held sway over them to an even more than natural degree, because it was the penalty of which God had forewarned them for transgressing the commandment. Indeed, they had in their sinning surpassed all limits; for, having invented wickedness in the beginning and so involved themselves in death and corruption, they had gone on gradually from bad to worse, not stopping at any one kind of evil, but continually, as with insatiable appetite, devising new kinds of sins.
    • Ryan C
       
      Death seems totally parallel with sinning. Is this what it means to be dominated by death? How is it related to the physical death of the body, then? I have the feeling that the definitions of evil, sin, and death are more subtle than I'm able to tease out yet.
  • Nor does repentance recall men from what is according to their nature; all that it does is to make them cease from sinning.
    • Ryan C
       
      Which aspect of his nature is he referring to here? The fact that he is mortal? That's the only thing I can remember him mentioning about man's nature before.
  • Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father.
  • Thus He would make death to disappear from them as utterly as straw from fire.
  • The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death; yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father's Son, was such as could not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of the equivalent.
    • Ryan C
       
      I think it might be helpful to understand more about sacrifice in this time period. What is sacrifice normally performed for? What is the language invoked in sacrifice in that time and place? Is it also about life versus death? Or is the Word especially innovative? Moreover: What about creation makes it so that God needs to intervene on the level of creation, and that he does not just absolve the sin as a whole? (Perhaps Ath answers that later when he talks about the need for the public death of the Word?)
  • For the solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word's indwelling in a single human body, the corruption which goes with death has lost its power over all. You know how it is when some great king enters a large city and dwells in one of its houses; because of his dwelling in that single house, the whole city is honored, and enemies and robbers cease to molest it.
    • Ryan C
       
      This is a really bizarre kind of reckoning. Maybe it would make sense if he said, "You know how it is when some great software update enters a network; because of the update from the one computer, the whole network is updated..." There is a really fascinating sense of connection in the human body, according to Ath.
  • For by the sacrifice of His own body He did two things: He put an end to the law of death which barred our way; and He made a new beginning of life for us, by giving us the hope of resurrection.
    • Ryan C
       
      The human software is now capable of rebooting when it crashes.
  • But, in fact, the good God has given them a share in His own Image, that is, in our Lord Jesus Christ, and has made even themselves after the same Image and Likeness. Why? Simply in order that through this gift of Godlikeness in themselves they may be able to perceive the Image Absolute, that is the Word Himself, and through Him to apprehend the Father; which knowledge of their Maker is for men the only really happy and blessed life.
    • Ryan C
       
      How does the Image Absolute relate to the Word? Interesting about the only way to "really happy and blessed life."
  • Three ways thus lay open to them, by which they might obtain the knowledge of God. They could look up into the immensity of heaven, and by pondering the harmony of creation come to know its Ruler, the Word of the Father, Whose all-ruling providence makes known the Father to all. Or, if this was beyond them, they could converse with holy men, and through them learn to know God, the Artificer of all things, the Father of Christ, and to recognize the worship of idols as the negation of the truth and full of all impiety. Or else, in the third place, they could cease from lukewarmness and lead a good life merely by knowing the law.
    • Ryan C
       
      Does knowledge of God bring only happiness and point back to the nature of man? Repentance prevents from sin, says Ath, but the corruption still runs rampant.
  • In order to effect this re-creation, however, He had first to do away with death and corruption. Therefore He assumed a human body, in order that in it death might once for all be destroyed, and that men might be renewed according to the Image. The Image of the Father only was sufficient for this need. Here is an illustration to prove it.
  • Moreover, since even the best of men were confused and blinded by evil, how could they convert the souls and minds of others? You cannot put straight in others what is warped in yourself. Perhaps you will say, then, that creation was enough to teach men about the Father. But if that had been so, such great evils would never have occurred. Creation was there all the time, but it did not prevent men from wallowing in error.
    • Ryan C
       
      It's a really interesting idea that creation could impart knowledge of God. I don't know what that would mean. Does it mean to study the weather and animals? Or some other kind of thing? Ath says it isn't sufficient for throwing off error, but it is at least compelling enough to require that clarification.
  • When He moved His body He did not cease also to direct the universe by His Mind and might. No. The marvelous truth is, that being the Word, so far from being Himself contained by anything, He actually contained all things Himself. In creation He is present everywhere, yet is distinct in being from it; ordering, directing, giving life to all, containing all, yet is He Himself the Uncontained, existing solely in His Father.
    • Ryan C
       
      I have no idea what to do with this at this point, but it's worth highlighting and considering.
    • Ryan C
       
      Preserves his divine nature, I guess, and his immutability.
  • To speak authoritatively to evil spirits, for instance, and to drive them out, is not human but divine; and who could see-Him curing all the diseases to which mankind is prone, and still deem Him mere man and not also God? He cleansed lepers, He made the lame to walk, He opened the ears of the deaf and the eyes of the blind, there was no sickness or weakness that-He did not drive away. Even the most casual observer can see that these were acts of God.
    • Ryan C
       
      What it means for God to act. The rampancy of disease would seem to be death, which is part of why I am having a hard time understanding his meaning of death. In a world of constant disease and pain, the spectre of death is indeed constantly near. Nathan mentioned this in the Christianity class, but I guess I still don't feel that it sufficiently captures the meaning of death. The fact that it requires spiritual, existential rectification, and not merely medical, adds some clarification about the nature of the body and such. The obvious question is if someone came through with antibiotics, if they would be godly. After all, they studied creation, right?
  • From such ordinary acts as being born and taking food, He was recognized as being actually present in the body; but by the extraordinary acts which He did through the body He proved Himself to be the Son of God.
    • Ryan C
       
      Who needed to recognize him? God? Humans? Creation/history?
  • Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man's account with death and free him from the primal transgression. In the same act also He showed Himself mightier than death, displaying His own body incorruptible as the first-fruits of the resurrection.
    • Ryan C
       
      Confusing stuff is going on here with the idea of a body. This is something we'll really need to flesh out. (Har har har.)
  • The body of the Word, then, being a real human body, in spite of its having been uniquely formed from a virgin, was of itself mortal and, like other bodies, liable to death. But the indwelling of the Word loosed it from this natural liability, so that corruption could not touch it.
    • Ryan C
       
      I take it that here we're talking about the body of Jesus Christ, the physical, fleshly thing. It was liable to death, but because the Word was in it, corruption couldn't touch it. Does the fact that corruption can't touch it mean that death can't touch it? Yes. Does the Word have a body besides Jesus? If not, what does it mean for man to be created in God's image? If so, that's a whole other hill of beans.
    • Moira McGrath
       
      Yeah, these questions about the Word make me wonder: what gospel was Ath. using as a source? Was he using all four? All his talk about "the Word" sounds very John-esque, but I wonder if it was influenced by the others as well.
  • Thus it happened that two opposite marvels took place at once: the death of all was consummated in the Lord's body; yet, because the Word was in it, death and corruption were in the same act utterly abolished.
    • Ryan C
       
      I guess everything died because Jesus WAS GOD, and therefore contained everything in that little body of his. I didn't pick up on that the first time I read this. Mind boggling! Moreover, because the Word couldn't die, and everything was in the Word, this meant that nothing died. Did Ath think that up? That's a pretty fancy understanding to come up with. As a side note, I think the veil being torn was biblical equivalent to the Blue Screen of Death that you get when your computer crashes.
  • He, the Life of all, our Lord and Savior, did not arrange the manner of his own death lest He should seem to be afraid of some other kind. No. He accepted and bore upon the cross a death inflicted by others, and those others His special enemies, a death which to them was supremely terrible and by no means to be faced; and He did this in order that, by destroying even this death, He might Himself be believed to be the Life, and the power of death be recognized as finally annulled.
    • Ryan C
       
      Beats death at its best, and in the most complete way. The importance of God guiding history.
  • How could He have called us if He had not been crucified, for it is only on the cross that a man dies with arms outstretched? Here, again, we see the fitness of His death and of those outstretched arms: it was that He might draw His ancient people with the one and the Gentiles with the other, and join both together in Himself.
    • Ryan C
       
      Is this kind of symbolism involved in how God reveals himself in creation?
  • it was evident to all that it was from no natural weakness that the body which the Word indwelt had died, but in order that in it by the Savior's power death might be done away.
    • Ryan C
       
      He keeps saying it was evident to everyone that God was involved. Surely, the mountains knew when they shook. But it wasn't evident to many Jews, nor to many of the Romans. Was it?
  • A very strong proof of this destruction of death and its conquest by the cross is supplied by a present fact, namely this. All the disciples of Christ despise death; they take the offensive against it and, instead of fearing it, by the sign of the cross and by faith in Christ trample on it as on something dead. Before the divine sojourn of the Savior, even the holiest of men were afraid of death, and mourned the dead as those who perish. But now that the Savior has raised His body, death is no longer terrible, but all those who believe in Christ tread it underfoot as nothing, and prefer to die rather than to deny their faith in Christ, knowing full well that when they die they do not perish, but live indeed, and become incorruptible through the resurrection.
    • Ryan C
       
      The proof is in the pudding!
  • Even children hasten thus to die, and not men only, but women train themselves by bodily discipline to meet it.
  • So weak has death become that even women, who used to be taken in by it, mock at it now as a dead thing robbed of all its strength.
    • Ryan C
       
      How does one mock death? Throw oneself off a cliff? Martyrdom? What's involved in the training to meet death? How does one actively and continually mock death? What's that look like?
  • Even so, if anyone still doubts the conquest of death, after so many proofs and so many martyrdoms in Christ and such daily scorn of death by His truest servants, he certainly does well to marvel at so great a thing, but he must not be obstinate in unbelief and disregard of plain facts. No, he must be like the man who wants to prove the property of the asbestos, and like him who enters the conqueror's dominions to see the tyrant bound. He must embrace the faith of Christ, this disbeliever in the conquest of death, and come to His teaching. Then he will see how impotent death is and how completely conquered. Indeed, there have been many former unbelievers and deriders who, after they became believers, so scorned death as even themselves to become martyrs for Christ's sake.
    • Ryan C
       
      OK, martyrdom is one way of establishing victory over death. What are the other proofs?
  • How can you think otherwise, when you see men naturally weak hastening to death, unafraid at the prospect of corruption, fearless of the descent into Hades, even indeed with eager soul provoking it, not shrinking from tortures, but preferring thus to rush on death for Christ's sake, rather than to remain in this present life? If you see with your own eyes men and women and children, even, thus welcoming death for the sake of Christ's religion, how can you be so utterly silly and incredulous and maimed in your mind as not to realize that Christ, to Whom these all bear witness, Himself gives the victory to each, making death completely powerless for those who hold His faith and bear the sign of the cross?
  • Doubt no longer, then, when you see death mocked and scorned by those who believe in Christ, that by Christ death was destroyed, and the corruption that goes with it resolved and brought to end.
    • Ryan C
       
      Don't doubt that death was destroyed, and that the corruption that goes with it was also resolved. It was probably obvious to you folks before, but it wasn't obvious to me before. It looks like when he talks about "corruption" he's probably talking about the corruption of man's nature, and that death is the result of that. Does that sound accurate?
  • Dead men cannot take effective action; their power of influence on others lasts only till the grave. Deeds and actions that energize others belong only to the living. Well, then, look at the facts in this case. The Savior is working mightily among men, every day He is invisibly persuading numbers of people all over the world, both within and beyond the Greek-speaking world, to accept His faith and be obedient to His teaching.
    • Ryan C
       
      The Word's ability to "energize" after death is interesting when taken as a proof. Are there more details on this?
  • Does a dead man prick the consciences of men, so that they throw all the traditions of their fathers to the winds and bow down before the teaching of Christ?
    • Ryan C
       
      To refute tradition and carry an argument after death is a sign of life.
  • If He is no longer active in the world, as He must needs be if He is dead, how is it that He makes the living to cease from their activities, the adulterer from his adultery, the murderer from murdering, the unjust from avarice, while the profane and godless man becomes religious?
    • Ryan C
       
      Stronger evidence to me!
  • (31) In a word, then, those who disbelieve in the resurrection have no support in facts, if their gods and evil spirits do not drive away the supposedly dead Christ. Rather, it is He Who convicts them of being dead. We are agreed that a dead person can do nothing: yet the Savior works mightily every day, drawing men to religion, persuading them to virtue, teaching them about immortality, quickening their thirst for heavenly things, revealing the knowledge of the Father, inspiring strength in face of death, manifesting Himself to each, and displacing the irreligion of idols; while the gods and evil spirits of the unbelievers can do none of these things, but rather become dead at Christ's presence, all their ostentation barren and void.
    • Ryan C
       
      Really interesting tasks that Christ's acts take on, especially the idol stuff. Presumably, one of Christ's acts is inspiring Athanasius. Does he still heal, though? It almost seems to me that God healed when Jesus was around, but then once he was gone he impelled them to face death (and meet eternal life). Ath would likely disagree, and say that there are healing miracles happening all the time at the risen Christ's behest.
  • it is the idols and the evil spirits who are dead, not He.
    • Ryan C
       
      Were evil spirits a sign of death which was then done away with, or did they die? What's it mean for death to be totally done away with, but to still have people who definitely are dead and can't do things anymore?
  • A blind man cannot see the sun, but he knows that it is above the earth from the warmth which it affords; similarly, let those who are still in the blindness of unbelief recognize the Godhead of Christ and the resurrection which He has brought about through His manifested power in others.
  • Obviously He would not be expelling evil spirits and despoiling idols, if He were dead, for the evil spirits would not obey one who was dead. If, on the other hand, the very naming of Him drives them forth, He clearly is not dead; and the more so that the spirits, who perceive things unseen by men, would know if He were so and would refuse to obey Him.
    • Ryan C
       
      Interesting proof. Those evil spirits are helpful for something. And not totally done away with when death was totally done away with.
  • He it is Who has destroyed death and freely graced us all with incorruption through the promise of the resurrection, having raised His own body as its first-fruits, and displayed it by the sign of the cross as the monument to His victory over death and its corruption.
    • Ryan C
       
      We're only PROMISED resurrection? Is it still coming?
  • From the Scriptures you will learn also of His second manifestation to us, glorious and divine indeed, when He shall come not in lowliness but in His proper glory, no longer in humiliation but in majesty, no longer to suffer but to bestow on us all the fruit of His cross— the resurrection and incorruptibility.
    • Ryan C
       
      Wait, I thought he already rectified the nature!
  • One cannot possibly understand the teaching of the saints unless one has a pure mind and is trying to imitate their life.
    • Ryan C
       
      Well, crap, you tell me after I read all that other junk!
  • Upon
    • Moira McGrath
       
      Here's where I'm starting to wonder if "Death" is too general a term: Ath seems to refer to death in the theological sense as a form of impermanence, like what the animals and all non-human creations will experience. But humans, because they're in God's Image, have qualities of God such as reason. But becasue of our free will we're able to choose to use that god-likeness and make ourselves permenent, therefore not expereincing the theological "death" although we'd have to experience the biological "death"?
    • Ryan C
       
      Yeah, that's exactly what I thought, that it seemed at times much more like a general impermanence. But it sometimes seems to mean more than that. Does he talk about us having the ability to choose life over death? I don't recall seeing that. I thought we just chose wrong the one time and were fucked thenceforth.
  • their nature
    • Moira McGrath
       
      "According to their nature"? Whose nature? Nature of men? This is strange, because all of a sudden after sinning, we're completely un-godlike (it seems)...so do we have animal nature then? But I don't know if Ath would say animals by nature are self-interested and against God. Rather, when he says "death had them completely under its domination," I guess we adopted Death's nature or morphed into having another evil nature because of it. How though? This is what I'm skeptical about, since death seems like an acutal being out to have power over us and hunt us all down, rather than some sort of effect or something. But if that's the case how on earth did that come about?
    • Moira McGrath
       
      ps I call blue for highlighting
  • graciously bestowed on them His own life by the grace of the Word.
    • Moira McGrath
       
      some more support that death is the absense of this God-likeness.
  • by counsel of the devil
    • Moira McGrath
       
      Ah. Maybe death isn't the evil being hunting us down, then; maybe its the devil. I totally forgot about the serpent in Adam and Eve; duh. Maybe by listening to the devil (by means of our free will), we made ourselves against God like the devil and so corrupted ourselves, and also by listening to the devil that's how we became "self-interested" and evil, essentially: we made the devil's nature our own.
    • Ryan C
       
      I don't know if I agree with the way that you talk about "natures"; it would help to clarify that a bit. I didn't read with much attention to it, so I acknowledge that I'm not too educated on it. But it seems strange to me that the nature of one's being could be so fluid. Ath seems to see particular essences in different aspects of creation, and humans had their particular nature. When they opposed their nature, I don't know that they necessarily picked up somebody else's; it was just altered. Instead of the whole thing being messed over, it was just broken a bit. After all, humans have God-given free will; it is our closeness to God that allowed us to choose evil. Is that the same as having the devil's nature? It may well be, I'm not sure. What is Satan's nature? This is confusing stuff.
  • the renewal of creation has been wrought by the Self-same Word Who made it in the beginning
    • Moira McGrath
       
      I can't help but be reminded of Solovietchik's "Halakhic Man" here. I guess a huge contrast regarding this though is that while Halakhic Man actively participates in *creating* creation, in Christianity it's God *fixing and renewing* creation, which humans screwed up.
    • Ryan C
       
      It'd be neat if Christian Man could participate like Halakhic Man in that process. Maybe that's kind of what's involved in post-millenarian dispensationalism.
  • The law of death, which followed from the Transgression
  • The law of death, which followed from the Transgression , prevailed upon us, and from
  • The
  • The
  • It
  • It
  • It
  •  
    Here's the webpage again.
Nathan Rein

Saint Augustine (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) - 0 views

  •  
    adadsfadsf
Nathan Rein

On the Incarnation | Christian Classics Ethereal Library - 0 views

  •  
    hi this is a bookamrk
Nathan Rein

Heiko Oberman, "Luther Against the Devil" (from Luther: Man between God and the Devil [... - 2 views

  • Luther’s ravings should not be suppressed out of embarrassed respect, and certainly not because they might no longer be considered proper today. Dealing so gingerly with him means not taking him at his word. Luther’s language is so physical and earthy that in his wrathful scorn he can give the Devil "a fart for a staff": You, Satan, Antichrist, or pope, can lean on it, a stinking nothing. When the therapist hears that Luther was already suffering from painful constipation in his monastery years, he is tempted to diagnose a psychological complex. In the total historical context, however, Luther’s scatology-permeated language has to be taken seriously as an expression of the painful battle fought body and soul against the Adversary, who threatens both flesh and spirit.
  • "But if that is not enough for you, you Devil, I have also shit and pissed; wipe your mouth on that and take a hearty bite." Is a man who still thinks and talks like this as an adult caught in the stage of development modern psychology terms the anal stage because of mistakes made in his early upbringing?
  •  
    This is where I first came across the quotation about Luther and his soiled pants which I mentioned in today's meeting.
  •  
    I'm quite pleased that scatology is one of the top ten tags for our group.
1 - 7 of 7
Showing 20 items per page