 |
| 
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 4/19/2004 1:46 AM (GMT -6) |   | http://www.dissertation.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581120176
quote:
Augustine's development of the idea of predestination reveals the Manichaean concept of the Good at work in three ways: on the framework of that development, in the implication of determinism, and on the context of the doctrine. To respond to the Manichaean view of the universe as a mixture of good and evil, Augustine suggests an alternative theory of cosmic ordering. Despite the presence of evil, he believes that the whole cosmos is in harmonious beauty so long as evil is assigned to its proper place. God is to preserve this order in both the physical and the spiritual (moral) creations, an order portrayable with a two-tiered frame. Initially (around 388), Augustine thought that an individual person, as a spiritual creature, should have self-determination by the exercise of the will.
As did the church from it's founding until the third century AD
quote:
But gradually, due to his conviction that personal evil is inevitable (a view shared by the Manichees and demonstrated in his conceptions of consuetudo and concupiscentia), Augustine assigned determination of one's destiny to the jurisdiction of God. As he neared the maturation of his predestinarian idea (around 396), therefore, Augustine increasingly subsumed the individual's election or condemnation, which belongs to the moral order in the spiritual creation, into God's hidden eternal plan for the cosmos. Determinism, however, is not the only characteristic feature of Augustine's version of predestination. The cosmological and eschatological contexts of his doctrine demand the notion of summum bonum to warrant the beauty of the cosmic order as well as to assure the elect's eternal tranquil beatitude.
The Manichaean contribution to the success of Augustine's conception of predestination is both undeniable and indispensable. By engaging the Manichaean question of unde sit malum?, he was able to achieve what other Christian leaders of his time could not: a Christian theory of the inevitability of personal evil and the cosmological implications for the role played by predeterminism in the doctrine of predestination.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Calvin_and_Hops
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 4/19/2004 4:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear Sisters of Cain,
Here are some other things, NOT so Augustinian!!! 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 4/19/2004 5:05 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Calvin_and_Hops
Dear Sisters of Cain,
Here are some other things, NOT so Augustinian!!!
Thanks!
During a recent debate between an Open Theist and a calvinist, do you know what the calvinist said when confronted with the fact that the first three centuries of the church, the church fathers taught free will? He said:
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Calvin_and_Hops
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 4/19/2004 5:20 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
You know what Bob DeWaay said when confronted with the fact that the first three centuries of the church, the church fathers taught free will? He said:
I don't know who that is.
Anyways, it is a Latin-centric perception that the "church fathers" stopped teaching free will after the first three centuries. Look at what the Eastern Orthodox tradition understands! (Like my brother-in-law.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 4/19/2004 5:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Justin Martyr, circa 100-165 AD
"Free Will: Long before the deterministic views of Augustine, Justin offers some clear statements articulating a belief in free will. Justin claims that “God, wishing men and angels to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness; possessing reason.” He then goes on to claim that God’s punishment of them is not because He created them to sin, but “all who wish for it can obtain the mercy of God” (Dial. 102). Justin believes human beings “each according to their deliberate choice either do right or sin.” He adds, that “this is the nature of all that is begotten, to be capable of wickedness and of virtue; for neither would any one of them be praise-worthy, if they did not have the power to turn themselves towards both” (2 Apol. 7)."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Aaron Reynolds
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 4/19/2004 8:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Sisters of Cain,
Thanks for sharing those excerpts. That looks like a very interesting read; I'll have to check it out sometime. Before my transition from Reformed theology to traditional Arminianism and finally to Open Theism, I made the surprising discovery while doing a research paper on the early church that the early church fathers knew nothing of the concepts that would later be taught by Augustine and eventually systemized into the 5 points of Calvinism (which I fully accepted at that time). The theology contained in the systemized points of Total (inherited) depravity/inability, Unconditional election, Limited/particular atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the saints (eternal security) was completely foreign to them and their theological framework (a framework which, I now believe, was passed down to them straight from the apostles themselves).
The only places these ideas (such as Total Depravity or Irresistible Grace) can be found in any way, shape or form (before the teachings of Augustine) is in the pagan, Greek heresies that were trying to infiltrate the church, and which the church had to deal with as it expanded and grew and persecution lessened and finally ended with Constantine. The Manichaeism-based theology of Augustine (who couldn't even read Greek) - and of his "disciple," Calvin - is nothing more than re-packaged Gnosticism/Manichaeism/Neo-Platonism with Christian wrapping paper. Ideas such that everything was already pre-determined, and that only a select few were chosen for some kind of "divine enlightenment" to free them from their "inherently evil" carnal nature while the majority of mankind was left to stumble around in utter darkness out of which they would never be freed, was simply not taught by the early church, and was in fact fiercely opposed and combated by early Christian apologists such as Irenaeus.
Only later would these pagan ideas make their way into the Church - and that began with Augustine.
Aaron
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/19/2004 8:23 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Calvin_and_Hops
quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
You know what Bob DeWaay said when confronted with the fact that the first three centuries of the church, the church fathers taught free will? He said:
I don't know who that is.
Anyways, it is a Latin-centric perception that the "church fathers" stopped teaching free will after the first three centuries. Look at what the Eastern Orthodox tradition understands! (Like my brother-in-law.)
"Calvin and Hops", yet another rendition of Pot on Wheel. What's up with all the new screen names? I thought that was against the rules of the board.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
pen-name
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 6
| Posted 4/19/2004 9:14 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
"Calvin and Hops", yet another rendition of Pot on Wheel. What's up with all the new screen names? I thought that was against the rules of the board.
The first moderator had four names. And Dr. Boyd had at least three.
The difference between a pen name and your real name is that your real name has to travel with you through all of life's situations. pen-name is situation specific, and people know how to take it.
When you have over 5000 posts, and post an idea, some poor schmuck might think your idea is good even if it is rubbish. That's not good. Posting with carefully chosen "names" gets more honesty of responses. (And nonesense from guys resembling "Norm" and the post-guy on Cheers: I like your REAL posts better!). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/19/2004 9:20 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by pen-name
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
"Calvin and Hops", yet another rendition of Pot on Wheel. What's up with all the new screen names? I thought that was against the rules of the board.
The first moderator had four names. And Dr. Boyd had at least three.
The difference between a pen name and your real name is that your real name has to travel with you through all of life's situations. pen-name is situation specific, and people know how to take it.
When you have over 5000 posts, and post an idea, some poor schmuck might think your idea is good even if it is rubbish. That's not good. Posting with carefully chosen "names" gets more honesty of responses. (And nonesense from guys resembling "Norm" and the post-guy on Cheers: I like your REAL posts better!).
Honesty is the best policy. | | Back to Top | | |
|
pen-name
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 6
| Posted 4/19/2004 9:22 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/19/2004 10:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
. While I have used more than one name, I have never used more than one AT THE SAME TIME!
Did you later disclose your AKA? | | Back to Top | | |
|
pen-name
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 6
| Posted 4/19/2004 10:58 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
when the same person is dialoguing with himself, or he creates pen names to defend himself. Such actions deceive...
I didn't do that. You are bearing false witness--which is a sin.
quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
when you dialogue with yourself it gives the impression that more than one person is speaking
No. On one thread I INTENTIONALLY gave the impression that the initial poster asked a question, and was late in returning. (I'm a classroom teacher.) THAT successfully produced a fruitful situation where the dynamic of discussion was energetic and free. I did that for everyone elses benifit. Most of the contributions have been from a variety of people. AND THAT WAS MY GOAL. And I'm happy with it.
Now, sparkinheart asks: Aren’t we getting of the subject?
I'm done with the empty banter.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Calvin_and_Hops
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 4/19/2004 11:07 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/19/2004 11:17 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Calvin_and_Hops
Thread title: Augustine, the Manichaean
The fundamental doctrine of Manichaeism is its dualistic division of the universe into contending realms of good and evil: the realm of Light (spirit), ruled by God, and the realm of Darkness (matter), ruled by Satan. Originally, the two realms were entirely separate, but in a primal catastrophe the realm of Darkness invaded the realm of Light, and the two became mixed and engaged in a perpetual struggle. The human race is a result and a microcosm of this struggle. The human body is material, therefore evil; the human soul is spiritual, a fragment of the divine Light, and must be redeemed from its imprisonment in the body and the world. The path of redemption is through knowledge of the realm of Light imparted by the succession of divine messengers that includes Buddha and Jesus and ends in Mani. With this knowledge the human soul can conquer the carnal desires that perpetuate its imprisonment and so ascend to the divine realm.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/19/2004 1:42 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
Frankly, POW I don't think any of us want to get into the time you were banned from the board...so don't go there.
What you don't know is the apology I received from the administrator.
Harold, I was banned for what I said defending YOU!
quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
My problem is not with that, but what I mentioned before. When you are dialoguing with yourself, or defending yourself through another name, I simply find that deceptive.
Harold, you and John, and maybe another or two are simply MEAN, and attempt to derail any chance that I have made recently to post ideas. You (pl.) have heckled with meaningly, uncontributing verbage. IT IS GROSSLY UNFAIR TO THOSE WHO ESTABLISHED THE THREADS. But y'all didn't care -- you just had too much fun trying to get your jolly's at other people's expenses.
I don't have time for that. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/19/2004 1:44 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Calvin_and_Hops
Thread title: Augustine, the Manichaean
Good luck, Sisters of Cain
Thanks, sparknheart
Weidersehen. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/19/2004 3:56 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Harold, you and John, and maybe another or two are simply MEAN, and attempt to derail any chance that I have made recently to post ideas. You (pl.) have heckled with meaningly, uncontributing verbage. IT IS GROSSLY UNFAIR TO THOSE WHO ESTABLISHED THE THREADS. But y'all didn't care -- you just had too much fun trying to get your jolly's at other people's expenses.
I don't have time for that.
Hi PoW (may I call you PoW?  )
First, I have never tried to derail the discussion. The extremely UNChristian behavior of John Calvin is ALWAYS appropriate to any discussion of his teachings.
Second, I have never gotten any "jollies" by pointing out the truth to you about John Calvin.
Third, if it is "mean" to point out that the man you hold up as some kind of "doctor of the Church", a veritable Protestant Pope, as a horribly wicked person who did not truly follow Christ in his life, but merely used religion as a means to his own political and egotistical ends, then so be it.
Sorry the truth about John Calvin's life offends you so. Sounds as if you are the one with issues. (By the way, Calvin's life offends me, too, but not as much as those who would attempt to justify his crimes against humanity yet in the name of God).
John Earp (who ALWAYS posts with his real name).
P.S.: If I'm heckle are you jekyll? | | Back to Top | | |
|
ataraxia
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 67
| Posted 4/19/2004 8:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everybody-
Let’s just post our thoughts on the subject and leave it at that shall we?
PoW (Calvin and Hops, Echo, Al, Bug, and so on),
If your argument for needing new alias so that your nearly 4,000 posts as PoW don’t discourage newer members from posting has any weight at all, it doesn’t follow that you need 10 new aliases, or that you need to continue multiplying aliases. It’s annoying and an abuse of the site. I promise you, your multiple personalities are not encouraging people to interact.
It’s reasonable to argue that a member may want a second alias to post. Doc had good reasons for doing so. I know what they were and I understand them. You don’t have similar reasons. Besides, Doc never came close to abusing the capabilities of registering alternate aliases in the manner you do. It’s about balance.
So I’ll make you a deal, tell me via email which two you’d like to use. The others will be blocked. I appreciate your cooperation. Until one of your two aliases reaches several thousand posts and becomes a danger that discourages newer members from posting, don’t think about registering a new alias.
ataraxia | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/20/2004 1:27 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by ataraxia
It’s reasonable to argue that a member may want a second alias to post.
That's ALL that I tried to do.
Leave PoW.
I'll take another at another point. (Block all others.)
You are wrong, though, when you think that there is no need to have oportunity to post without receiving rudeness. Perhaps you can recall.
I'm the victom here, and have not done any harm. ("Who" posts an idea is immaterial.)
There's my decision.
(I'd much prefer that you, ataraxia, go back and deleat all posts from the last couple days that were just about "personalities" -- Scripture says that "God is not a respector of persons." which I've always taken as parallel to the admonition to not practice "party spirit." Ganging up is un-Christlike. While I did make posts that received thanks and congratulations from those actually involved in the threads' discussion, "the boys" litterered the site with posts amounting to "he's over here--lets get him." "The boys" feel it apporpriate to call up any totally-unrelated issue from the past and litter the threads with it; failing in the process to address what it being talked about. THAT is an offense.)
Perhaps, ataraxia, you can see what I feel is hurtful. Your post above did not reflect such understanding.
I suggest you try to see the other side now. (As is fair, and appropriate to someone bearing authority.)
-PoW- | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/20/2004 1:29 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by ataraxia
Hi everybody-
Let’s just post our thoughts on the subject and leave it at that shall we?
That's what I've been asking for! | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/20/2004 1:32 AM (GMT -6) | |
Someone pick up on THIS!
quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
quote:
Originally posted by Calvin_and_Hops
Thread title: Augustine, the Manichaean
The fundamental doctrine of Manichaeism is its dualistic division of the universe into contending realms of good and evil: the realm of Light (spirit), ruled by God, and the realm of Darkness (matter), ruled by Satan. Originally, the two realms were entirely separate, but in a primal catastrophe the realm of Darkness invaded the realm of Light, and the two became mixed and engaged in a perpetual struggle. The human race is a result and a microcosm of this struggle. The human body is material, therefore evil; the human soul is spiritual, a fragment of the divine Light, and must be redeemed from its imprisonment in the body and the world. The path of redemption is through knowledge of the realm of Light imparted by the succession of divine messengers that includes Buddha and Jesus and ends in Mani. With this knowledge the human soul can conquer the carnal desires that perpetuate its imprisonment and so ascend to the divine realm.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ataraxia
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 67
| Posted 4/20/2004 4:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
ataraxia: It’s reasonable to argue that a member may want a second alias to post.
PoW: That's ALL that I tried to do.
From my perspective, PoW, that’s not quite ALL you tried to do. Actually you wanted a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, etc., alias. The strategy isn’t working, which should tell you that it’s not JUST your handle.
quote:
PoW: Leave PoW. I'll take another at another point. (Block all others.)
Fair enough. I appreciate your simplifying it and cooperating.
quote:
You are wrong, though, when you think that there is no need to have opportunity to post without receiving rudeness.
I can appreciate the need to be able to post without receiving rudeness. What I’m suggesting, PoW, is that new handles aren’t helping you.
You ARE who you are and your basic views are well known by now and that is what’s betraying your true identify after a few posts in spite of your new handles. So, just stick with who you are. That’s simplest and best. A spare alias isn’t a crime, and it’s all one should need if he is careful to actually BE different in that ID. But ten or more new aliases is counterproductive.
quote:
PoW: (I'd much prefer that you, ataraxia, go back and deleat all posts from the last couple days that were just about "personalities" -- Scripture says that "God is not a respector of persons." which I've always taken as parallel to the admonition to not practice "party spirit." Ganging up is un-Christlike. While I did make posts that received thanks and congratulations from those actually involved in the threads' discussion, "the boys" litterered the site with posts amounting to "he's over here--lets get him." "The boys" feel it apporpriate to call up any totally-unrelated issue from the past and litter the threads with it; failing in the process to address what is being talked about. THAT is an offense.) Perhaps, ataraxia, you can see what I feel is hurtful. Your post above did not reflect such understanding.
I take all this into consideration PoW. Let me respond with a few comments:
1) I don’t see the need to go through and delete the particular posts you mention. You are of course free to remove any post of yours you wish.
2) The thanks and congratulations you received for helpful and informative comments is something (if you’ll notice) you receive because of your comments and not because you weren't PoW. People aren’t generally stingy with their praise when something you’ve said really helps them. You’ll receive it as PoW just as easily as you will as somebody else.
3) The “boys” appear to be exposing your identity precisely because you’re attempting to hide it with so many constantly changing aliases that do nothing to hide your identity. If you stick to one identity I think you’ll successfully empty their guns of ammunition in that respect. You’re welcome to try to maintain an anonymous second alias as well, but whereas some are clever enough to successfully hide in a second alias, you can hardly keep your identity a secret chiefly because of your propensity to argue Eastern Orthodox views, to post lengthy quotes from others, and to provide lots of URL’s for further investigation. There’s nothing wrong with bringing the EO into the discussion as often as you do or posting helpful URLs for others to check out if they wish. That’s you! And since that’s who you are regardless of your handle, why not just BE who you are instead of showing up as somebody else? Be one person, post your honest feelings respectfully, and ignore the “boys.” My guess is they’ll find somebody else to pester, maybe me!
This is not a big deal friends. PoW, be PoW. Don't sweat it.
Now if the "boys" will lighten up as well, can we get somebody go kick Augustine's butt!
ataraxia | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/20/2004 7:07 AM (GMT -6) | | ataraxia has settled on her revision of history. while much is agreeable, several true things that i value she dismisses by disposition. o well.
the last part--while jovial--does invite a question: when the aim is to "kick butt" where is the spirit?
of Augustine, while many of his ideas are condemned by the Eastern church, he is nonetheless called "Blessed Augustine." Not a Saint. But no less "blessed." Part of the reason for this was, with the exception of unfairness to Pelagius, he was a very, very nice man. Even when his ideas were condemend (some ironically at the council of Orange) they did so without using his name.
I don't want to see Augustine's "butt kicked." | | Back to Top | | |
| 50 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:56 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|