Reading the Church Fathers discussion
Augustine of Hippo: City of God
>
Book III: The external calamities of Rome,
date
newest »
newest »
For these are the only things that evil people consider evil, rather than the things which have the effect of making persons evil, and they feel no shame at all in the fact that, surrounded by the goods they praise, they themselves, the very ones who do the praising, remain evil. They are more distressed at having a bad house than at having a bad life, as if a person’s greatest good were to have everything good except himself.He certainly has a way of putting things in perspective!
I have now read approximately half of book III, and I am impressed (and a little bored) with the vast amount of examples he gives.A few thoughts:
1) I can understand that he needs to be so elaborate, because religious convictions are very deeply ingrained, so to convince people you must really show them all the inconsistencies based on their own starting points.
2) It's interesting how he speaks about evil spirits as wanting to confuse people and degrade all morals. And then on the other hand he shows a lot of common sense about strange events that people would usually attribute to spirits, I mean for example an eclipse, see chapter 15:For an eclipse of the sun had also occurred, and the ignorant multitude, having no idea that this was the effect of the fixed pattern of the sun’s regular course, attributed it to Romulus’s merits.
3) I wonder what we learn from this about spiritual influences in the world. (God, devils, what do they do and why)
Ruth wrote: "I have now read approximately half of book III, and I am impressed (and a little bored) with the vast amount of examples he gives.A few thoughts:
1) I can understand that he needs to be so elabo..."
I was a believer in some of the precepts Augustine is fighting against, I had the rational of "the God I believe in could never send anyone to hell."
Then, as my life progressed, I ran into "spiritual influences in the world." Now, I'd say I am a firm believer in the power of dark vs. light in the world, the same concept the Gospel of John addresses in a number of places. I have seen light and I have seen dark, and is some of the most unusual places. So now I try to keep my eye's and my mind open.
Yes, I can relate to that. I think we all start with some basic assumptions, and then bump into some hard facts that don't fit.Then we either search for a scapegoat, or else adjust our assumptions.
Augustine is teaching us how to adjust the assumptions of how the world works, what is the meaning of life etc.
(Although come to think of it, didn't Jesus voluntarily take the part of scapegoat? But this is very off topic, I think)
In chapter 20 he writes: If the gods really were the protectors of Rome’s good fortune and glory, therefore, they should have shielded her from the grave fault of the Saguntine disaster.Lots of people say: because there is evil, there can't be a God. Augustine uses here basically the same argument, but then more to say that gods, or God, are not there to protect our good fortune.
Anyone else still reading this book and willing to share something?
Ruth wrote: "...They are more distressed at having a bad house than at having a bad life, as if a person’s greatest good were to have everything good except himself. ..."A poignant statement, indeed.
Ruth wrote: "Lots of people say: because there is evil, there can't be a God. Augustine uses here basically the same argument, but then more to say that gods, or God, are not there to protect our good fortune. "Augustine is refuting the argument of the pagans, who argued, like "lots of people", that gods would protect the good fortune of their worshippers. His refutation is twofold. First, IF it is true that god would protect the good fortune of the people, then the fact that their fortunes have not been protected proves that their gods don't exist. Second, their so-called "good" fortune is not good in its true sense.
Christianity historically has not taught the "prosperity gospel". For starters, Jesus was not prosperous in this life, but suffered and died on the cross. The apostles made it quite plain in their teachings that it was necessary for them to follow Jesus' example and endure all things. This is very different from the quid-pro-quo religions practiced by the pagans, which makes it all the more amazing that Christianity eventually triumphed in the Roman Empire.
The first time I read City of God, I was strongly reminded of a BBC play, “God on Trial”, a tale of a group of Jewish prisoners in Auschwitz who put God on trial for breaking his covenant with the Jews and allowing the genocide of the Jews by the Nazis. All the different views on religion were represented in court, the humanist, the atheist, the rationalist, the opportunist and the religious. The question was not so much whether God exists but whether He is good and just in His dealings with men. Why would a just God allow the Holocaust? Even the Nazis claimed, “Gott mit uns” (God with us). Which side was He on, the Jews or the Germans? If the Jews were His chosen people, where was He when they were herded into the gas chambers?
In a way, “City of God” anticipated and answered all the questions, though it was written more than 1500 years earlier.
Augustine's arguments in Book III are definitely more subversive than I realized the first time round: He is questioning, no, attacking, the very foundation of Rome, and the (pagan) conception of patriotism. Rome was founded upon mass rape, fratricide and filicide. Many, if not all, earthly empires are founded in the same way. The war between Alba and Rome (3.14) is analogous to the Revolutionary War between Great Britain and America, where people were forced to kill their own fathers, children, brothers and friends on the opposite side.
Romulus, the first king of Rome, killed his own brother, Remus, to solidify his kingdom; King Solomon, son of David, killed his half-brother, Adonijah... There are countless similar stories in history, where fathers kill their children, children their own fathers, and brothers kill each other, to secure or usurp the kingdom.
Yes, subversive... I wonder how a traditional Roman person would have read this. It must be rather shocking, if all the stories you've grown up with, are shown in this different light. Just as when you point out the violence in Israels history, I find that a little shocking, as if that's somehow different, because I'm used to these stories.
I've been wondering why he is so very elaborate. Is that just to be very clear, to get the message across by repetition, or are there different points in each example that all need addressing?
Ruth wrote: "I've been wondering why he is so very elaborate. Is that just to be very clear, to get the message across by repetition, or are there different points in each example that all need addressing?"I think part of the reason is that Augustine is writing about the history of Rome, and it is definitely a very long, interesting and intriguing history. It may seem repetitive at times because history repeats itself, or as Mark Twain writes, history rhymes.
To really get into the details of the history of Rome, it would take a lot more than 1100 pages. But I think Augustine is selecting his topics that are important to his overall thesis.
One scholar quipped that the Church Fathers did not have "the gift of brevity". Conversely, it can be argued that moderns have a much shorter attention span. :)
:-)Yes, we're definitely not used to such long arguments. But once I got into it, I did admire the beauty of this text, and the flow in it. there is something irresistible in his fluent stream of arguments that keep coming.
That said, it might be worthwile to investigate if there is a particular type of examples that Augustine chooses. Why are these inportant to his overall thesis.
For example, his overall theme is to contrast the City of God vs. the City of Man, and the latter is represented by Rome. In Book II. he sharply criticizes the injustice and moral corruption of Rome, to set it in contrast to the justice and uprightness of the City of God; In Book III, he attacks the foundation of the city of Rome, one of violence, murder and rape, to contrast it with the foundation of the City of God.Because we, like the pagans, have been living in the City of Man for so log, we are used to the way things are, and are not aware of what they ought to be, that is, what the City of God truly is, and so it is necessary to point out every thing that is wrong, so that we might be "awakened" to see things in their true state.
So a potential question for discussion has been formulating in my mind. Some appeals by Augustine (and others) pointed to the goodness or holiness of Christians. How does this sound 1500 years later? In other words, Christians launched the crusades. The 30 Years war was Christians massacring each other. Christians don’t appear much more loving than others, in general. It seems that, given time, the Christians are not much better than the pagans at building a just society. So why go to Christians for any sort of hope?I have a few answers that are different levels of satisfying :
1. Not all “Christians” are Christian. But is that a cop-out, a no true Scotsman fallacy?
2. Christendom was more just than other societies and the worst evils happened after modern period began.
3. The point is heaven/afterlife, not society here.
David wrote: "It seems that, given time, the Christians are not much better than the pagans at building a just society. So why go to Christians for any sort of hope?"I don't recall Augustine saying anywhere in the book that Christians are "better than the pagans", although Justin Martyr, Origen and Tertullian did point to the holiness of Christians in their writings. They are defending Christians against persecutions, whereas Augustine is defending Christianity. So the emphasis is different.
The question seems to be a common one nowadays, although I'm note sure it is relevant to Book III and won't go into it here. I came across a similar argument online a year ago while perusing a blog series on "progressive Christianity", and made a brief reply in a blog comment section.
Nemo, I agree that this isn’t what he’s saying. But as a practically minded guy, I am looking for what had changed to today and how this might sound to people. I mean, you (or someone) pointed out Augustine is answering questions people still ask and that that war between Rome and Alba was “analogous” to the war between Britain and America. If we’re going to draw such a parallel, it is worth pointing out many (most?) in the revolutionary war on both sides were Christians. So it’s one thing for Augustine to attack pagans in his day. The skeptic of our day might rightly ask, shouldn’t converting to Christianity actually change your life? If Christians are no better than pagans, why not cast Christianity aside?
Of course, by Augustine’s day with Christianity legal, it was much easier to be a Christian. If I recall, he’d say the church includes both sinners and saints (wheat and tares to use Jesus parable) and only God knows who are the true Christians.
David wrote: "it is worth pointing out many (most?) in the revolutionary war on both sides were Christians. ..."Yes, many of the barbarians who attacked Rome were Christians too, and Augustine did not denounce them on that ground alone.
Augustine is not a pacifist, and he believes that there is such a thing as just war (Book 1 Ch. 21). So I would question your assumptions that the crusades and the 30 year war are evil just because they are wars, and that the Christians were not good just because they participated in the wars.
David wrote: "If Christians are no better than pagans, why not cast Christianity aside?"
I used to challenge Christian evangelists with that question when I was an atheist. So I understand where it is coming from, but it is too broad a question to be addressed satisfactorily here. I would just offer a couple of points for consideration.
Firstly, I'm not at all convinced that the premise is correct. To judge whether Christians are better than non-believers on the whole, one would need 1) a valid standard of good to measure against, 2) the ability to discern the hearts of men, 3) knowledge of the past, present and future of the two groups of people being judged. In other words, none of us are qualified to make that judgement.
Secondly, even if the premise is true, the conclusion doesn't follow. Even if Christians are no better than pagans, it doesn't follow that Christianity is false. Christianity would be proven false if it teaches that every convert automatically becomes better, but that is not what Christianity teaches at all.
The skeptic of our day might rightly ask, shouldn’t converting to Christianity actually change your life? If Christians are no better than pagans, why not cast Christianity aside?Yes, that's a question I have asked myself as well. If God cannot even get his own people to behave, does he actually exist? Or does it have any practical value to believe in him? Why do we say that God gave us his spirit when it doesn't seem to have much effect? (On the other hand, our society is shaped by Christian values: schools, hospitals, social security, perhaps it had more effect than we realize)
It would be interesting to know what Augustine would say to that question. From what I've read so far, I think his opinion is that the Church also contains both good and bad people, just as any other institution. (He says that in book I and I've also read it in some of his sermons)
In the course I am following, it was said that it is a common misconception to think that Augustine said that the Church is the city of God. He does not say that. ( I'm a bit at loss for words of how to summarize what he does mean, I'll need to think on that some more)
Ruth wrote: "If God cannot even get his own people to behave, does he actually exist? Or does it have any practical value to believe in him? .."I'm reminded of Augustine's famous prayer, "Give me chastity and continency, only not yet."
If we're honest with ourselves, we would confess that "to behave" is not what we really want, at least not yet; if God compels us to behave, we would complain, like the Israelites in the desert, and make idols for ourselves to replace Him. Why does God call such people as these "His people"?
Boniface, a Roman general and governor of Africa, was either directly or indirectly responsible for the barbarian invasion of North Africa and the fall of Hippo. It was during the siege of Hippo that Augustine died.It appears that Boniface's life was ruled by lust, lust of the flesh and lust of dominion. And yet, when Augustine wrote to him, his sternest admonition was, "You are a Christian."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf1...
In the letter, Augustine makes many of the same points concerning the calamity of war as he does in "City of God", but also writes in more detail concerning the duty of a Christian soldier.
O that's splendid. How interesting! I've just glanced through this letter, will certainly read it more carefully later.
He has such a great way of saying things! Here in chapter 21, after he spoke a little about the new luxuries:My purpose here, however, was not to speak of the evils which human beings gladly create for themselves, but rather of the evils which they cannot bear to suffer.
I was reading the Bible today, and what Jesus said to the pharisees reminded me of this long argument of Augustine, that the foundations of the society aren't so praise worthy.I was reading this: Matt 23:29
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
Ruth wrote: "..Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. .."And yet, God sent His only Son to dwell among these murderers, as sheep among wolves, and to die for them.
Yes, the verse-of-the-day app on my phone just quoted 1Tim1:15The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.
That's really the point, I guess. We need to learn to come to terms with the fact that our history and roots aren't stable nor good, and shift our trust to God.
Word of the day: proletarian2.17
At that time, indeed, so many wars were everywhere engaged in, that through scarcity of soldiers they enrolled for military service the proletarii, who received this name, because, being too poor to equip for military service, they had leisure to beget offspring.
Another specimen of Augustinian sarcasm:Rome was driven, by the violence of another intolerable plague, to send to Epidaurus for Æsculapius as a god of medicine; since the frequent adulteries of Jupiter in his youth had not perhaps left this king of all who so long reigned in the Capitol, any leisure for the study of medicine.
Freedom of SpeechNow, if those historians judged that an honorable freedom of speech required that they should not be silent regarding the blemishes of their own state, which they have in many places loudly applauded in their ignorance of that other and true city in which citizenship is an everlasting dignity; what does it become us to do, whose liberty ought to be so much greater, as our hope in God is better and more assured, when they impute to our Christ the calamities of this age, in order that men of the less instructed and weaker sort may be alienated from that city in which alone eternal and blessed life can be enjoyed? Nor do we utter against their gods anything more horrible than their own authors do, whom they read and circulate.
2.17
Nemo wrote: "Word of the day: proletarian2.17
At that time, indeed, so many wars were everywhere engaged in, that through scarcity of soldiers they enrolled for military service the proletarii, who received t..."
He's really quite funny. How about this one:
And in the midst of all this wartime slaughter, a deadly plague broke out among the women; for pregnant women were dying before they reached full term and gave birth. At this point, I imagine, Aesculapius excused himself on the grounds that his profession was chief physician, not obstetrician.
As to the proletarians: the footnote in my translation adds: “Offspring”: proles. The etymology can be found in Cicero, Republic II,22
I also enjoyed his idea of setting up a temple to Discord instead of Concord.
In Book III, Augustine gave an overview of the calamitous wars that had befallen Roman since its founding to the time of Augustus, in which Christ was born.Augustine had great respect for the Roman statesman and orator Cicero, whose writings inspired he to pursue philosophy, especially Platonism, which eventually led to his conversion to Christianity. Cicero, endorsed the young Augustus, "for he hoped that Cæsar would overthrow and blast the power of Antony, and establish a free state". Unfortunately for him, Augustus made a strategic alliance with Antony, and allowed the latter to kill Cicero. Augustus eventually became the first emperor of Rome, bringing an end to the "liberty of the republic, in defence of which Cicero had made so many orations."
What Augustine writes in ch. 30 about Cicero is another historical lesson for those who are involved in politics. Just yesterday I watched a video lecture given by Chuck Colson. He talked about his unreserved support for President Nixon, which initially was motivated by an idealistic zeal to change the world for the better, but which eventually led to his disgrace and imprisonment as a result of the Watergate scandal. I see a sort of tragic parallel between Cicero and Colson here...
Augustine's take on the "costs of peace" is fascinating, albeit limited to the example of Rome.Peace vied with war in cruelty, and surpassed it: for while war overthrew armed hosts, peace slew the defenceless [sic]. War gave liberty to him who was attacked, to strike if he could; peace granted to the survivors not life, but an unresisting death."
Kyle wrote: "Augustine's take on the "costs of peace" is fascinating, albeit limited to the example of Rome.Peace vied with war in cruelty, and surpassed it: for while war overthrew armed hosts, peace slew t..."
Cruelty is not exclusive to Rome though. Abu Ghraib is a case in point.
I'm also reminded of Cicero's Orations: Philippics 7-14 (7.19):
"I am not against peace, but I dread war camouflaged as peace."
To get started I quote here the introduction to that book from my translation.
Book III continues the argument of Book II: that Rome’s gods failed to protect it from many disasters which occurred prior to the coming of Christ and which, therefore, cannot be blamed on Christianity or on the discontinuation of sacrifices to the gods. Book III, however, focuses not on the moral evils that corrupted Rome’s character but rather on such natural and political disasters as famine, plague, civic strife, and war, and on the dreadful human suffering that they caused in the history of the Roman republic from the era of the kings down to the triumph of Augustus. The overall point, once again, is that it is senseless to worship the gods either to avoid the evils or to obtain the goods of this temporal life. Throughout, Augustine emphasizes not only the failure of the gods to safeguard Rome but also the moral flaws and inconsistencies of their reputed behavior. For example, they were supposedly offended by the adultery of Paris and abandoned Troy but took no offense at Romulus’s murder of his brother and protected Rome; or, again, they did nothing to save the city of Saguntum from destruction in the Second Punic War, even though the city kept faith with Rome instead of deserting to Hannibal, and so on. An underlying aim, then, is not only to show that the traditional gods did not and could not protect Rome from disaster but also to intimate that they are in fact malicious demons seeking to do harm.