Absolute Being vs. Humaneness

I think it would be interesting to talk about Absolute Being in City of God, and the Humaneness in The Analects, because I see some similarities between the two. Both seem to be unobtainable in a way…but the same not really. It is implied that Absolute Being is a sort of enhanced view of the universe that can only be obtained in the after life only by those who have followed Jesus during their lives on Earth. I say "enhanced" because to saying that they are all-knowing would imply that they have the same knowledge as God, which is impossible. We have also pretty concretely defined Humaneness as a virtue of the gentleman, but at the same time, a person that is humane is always striving to be more humane through continual self-examination. The criteria for having reached Humaneness and Absolute being are both very obscure. What is the purpose of this?

creation & unity

After reading and thinking so much about free will due to these blog posts, I began to consider another part of Augustine's City of God. In Book XIV, Chapter 1, Augustine writes about God: "His first purpose was to give unity to the human race by the likeness of nature. His second purpose was to bind mankind by the bond of peace, through blood relationship, into one harmonious whole." He then briefly talks about creation, and how Adam came from nothing and Eve from him, and that their sin "impaired all of human nature." The sin that Eve committed was so great that it impacted human nature so heavily and in such a widespread manner. If God's purpose was to promote unity, then why, logically, would he impose the idea or threat or test of sin that could destroy all of this work? I understand that in one sense, sin has to exist to justify atrocities that occur, but on the other hand, all of these sins that are committed could technically be avoidable. As God creates the opportunities for these sins to occur, doesn't that simply work in the opposite way of his goal and what he was aiming to achieve, peace and unity?

Chastity

Something I found very interesting in our discussion of the concepts for the final yesterday was the idea of chastity.  As was said in class, chastity is supposed to be a spiritual state, not just a physical state as it is often defined.  Augustine makes a point of saying that someone can still be chaste if they are a rape victim (which honestly says a lot about the view of rape back then with victim blaming and the girl being ruined).  Interestingly, chastity derives from the Latin word castus, which means pure, morally pure, or guiltless.  The definition as morally pure leans more towards the idea that Augustine presents about chastity being a mental and spiritual state of moral goodness and separation from sin.  It is interesting that the word has evolved in it’s modern connotation to be totally about sex and abstinence from sexuality and sin in that way.  This also presents questions about where the spiritual and physical intersect. One explanation might be that it is an easy way  to prove your spiritual chastity by giving it a physical embodiment.

Confined Free Will?

In this week's and last week's classes, we spoke about free will. We came up with so many different theories about whether we actually have free will, and then decided if it was without restriction. After thinking about it, I understood that we must have free will. The fact that God created us with a conscience that would be able to recognize good and bad, and choose between them, means that we must have free will. If he knows every outcome, as well as the method taken to achieve them, aren't we just His puppets? The fact that Eve gave in to the serpent's temptation is proof of free will. Temptation, or desire, is part of the evil. Our job is to overcome it and choose the good side in every situation. As St. Augustine says, every time we choose good, we become closer to God. What do you guys think? Is life full of these tests, or 'karma moments,' in which we decide between good and bad?

Free will in relation to justice

I do not agree with the idea that free will is related to justice. We did not take into account temptation and trickery when we discussed this in class. Why is Eve punished so harshly when she was tricked by the serpent? In turn, does that not mean that humans were punished before they were even born? Evil was unleashed in the world because of Adam and Eve's actions, which would later affect every single human being born into the world. Evil affects the good just as much as it affects the bad. Also, what about the people who are born into this world by God's hand as handicapped? If they are unable to speak, eat, or think on their own then how would they be capable of having free will and being rewarded or punished for their actions on Earth? This means that not every person has free will, but rather it is a privilege that it decided for us before our birth.

Chart from Tuesday's class (12/2)

god's power, free will, & sin

During Tuesday's class, we came to the decision that God gives free will to people, and that their decision making is the test. In the story about Lucretia in Book I, Chapter 19, God tested her. She was raped and later committed suicide. In Chapter 28, Saint Augustine defends the idea that there is no excuse for resorting to this end, as we are all created in God's image and that from conception, our life is a gift, etc. "They believe that He would by no means abandon those who have served Him and invoked His aid so faithfully," Augustine writes. He expands on this idea by saying that God wouldn't permit the evils if they could destroy the "purity of soul" which he bestows on his saints. However, if God gives free will to man as a test, and someone sins which leads another person to sin, then is God truly acting in accordance with the idea that he wouldn't permit evils that destroy people? We concluded that God is responsible for everything; why then, would he (for instance) drive someone to suicide, or create a world in which free will could lead to so much sin?

Wealthy and poor in The Bible and City of God

What I have noticed while reading City of God is the view on rich and poor, which resembles the perspective we came across in the Bible. We can see this when Mary talks about her gratefulness to God and all the power that he has, as she includes “He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty” (Luke 1:52-52). In City of God, we are also faced with discussion bout rich and poor in the form of analogy, saying that the poor man is better: “is religious and pious, of kindly disposition, healthy in body, self-restrained, chaste in morals, and at peace with his conscience”(Book IV, Chapter 3), while the wealthy man has worries, enemies, insecurity and fear. What struck me the most about this is the recurring view of negative things being attached to the wealthy and more positive to the poor. Is this in a way an aspect of justice and equality or on the other hand, relationship between rich and the poor and the view on authority and power mainly by the poor, with underlying cultural context in both cases.