(most of this was posted in the Original Sin thread)
From the last Chapter -
The Nature of Nature....That we suffer and die does not mean that we participate in guilt—neither Adam's guilt nor our own, That we suffer and die shows only that we are, by nature (and indeed Julian would add, by divine intent), mortal beings simply one living species among others. Arguing against the penal interpretation of death, Julian says, "If you say it is a matter of will, it does not belong to nature; if it is a matter of nature, it has nothing to do with guilt.
Like Copernicus's revolution, Julian's threatens to dislodge humanity, psychologically and spiritually, from the center of the universe, reducing it to one natural species among others. He rejects Augustine's primary assumption that Adam's sin transformed nature. To claim that a single human will ever possessed such power reflects a presumption of supernatural human importance. When Augustine claims that a single act of Adam's will "changed the structure of the universe itself", he denies that we confront in our mortality a natural order beyond human power. For Augustine insists that we became susceptible to death solely through an act of will: "Death comes to us by will, not by necessity."
Why did Catholic Christianity adopt Augustine's paradoxical—some would say preposterous—views? Some historians suggest that such beliefs validate the church's authority, for if the human condition is a disease, Catholic Christianity, acting as the Good Physician, offers the spiritual medication and the discipline that alone can cure it. No doubt Augustine's views did serve the interests of the emerging imperial church and the Christian state...
For what Augustine says, in simplest terms is this: humans beings cannot be trusted to govern themselves, because our very nature—indeed, all of nature—has become corrupt as the result of Adam's sin. In the late fourth and fifth century, Christianity was no longer a suspect and persecuted movement; now it was the religion of emperors obligated to govern a vast and diffuse population. Under these circumstances, as we have seen, Augustine's theory of human depravity—and correspondingly, the political means to control it—replaced the previous ideology of human freedom.
(my bold - the rest of the punctuation as written).
When you read what Pagels said about Augustine - how his promotion of Original Sin corresponded with his rise to power within the church, how it was based on his own inability to control his own self, how he had to misinterpret words in the Bible and mis-characterize Bible passages to get there - besides the fact that it just flat out doesn't make sense - it's just amazing that the church has held onto this concept as long as they have. And that there were reasonable people who argued long and hard against it - who were then branded as heretics.
The other thing about it - other interpretations of the Adam and Eve myth do not require that Adam and Eve be real people. But this one does.
- Apparently the Greek Orthodox Chruch does not think very highly of him - "Another view is expressed by Christos Yannaras, who descibed Augustine as "the fount of every distortion and alteration in the Church's truth in the West" (The Freedom of Morality, p. 151n.)."
http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Augustine_of_HippoBefore Augustine - (354–430) - "the moral freedom to rule oneself (was) virtually synonymous with "the gospel". (according to Pagels)
At the time - there was an understanding that this interpretation was about a joining of Church and State Power. That is one reason that it is relevant today - it's these same kinds of ideas - that people NEED to be controlled by the Church and the State. It sounds like Augustine was the first Christian leader to use force on Christians, "many Christians as well as pagans, he noted regretfully respond only to fear."
Sound familiar?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
