People first, God second. Should people put themselves above God?

[fkizz]

If you're impressed by God, by definition, you get impressed too often (at least one time too often).
Ooooooo, burn. Mic drop, son. What you gonna do now? Whachu gonna do, huh?

Cu Chuulainn wouldn't disaprove

[chriscase]

Well, I guess root was the wrong word.

Isn't the essence of sin when somebody attempts to remove God from His proper place?

This sounds like the Augustinian perspective that Pride is the root sin, a view that dominated the Christian world well into the Middle Ages and the Reformation as well. Whatever one might say about the OP, it's clearly not in line with Augustine.

[Inhuman One]

What about the pride of god then? Heck he seems guilty of all the seven sins.

[chriscase]

Well from an Augustinian perspective I think it's more of a meditative or transcendent thing, where as human beings we cause ourselves harm with pride (something like the modern concept of ego), and the only way to become closer to God (sort of a neoplatonic "Good") is paradoxically to give up all that is good as ours and give it all to God. So from that perspective humiliation is a good thing.

[fkizz]

[...]where as human beings we cause ourselves harm with pride [...] So from that perspective humiliation is a good thing.

That's an obviously forced conclusion, even Sun Tzu Art of War mentions pride/ego/honour as one of the pitfalls a General has to avoid having too marked in his character, otherwise he shall invite defeat:

"No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general should fight a battle simply out of pique.’[...]

Five Pitfalls of a General[...] A delicacy of honour, tending to shame [...]

No one thinks Sun Tzu was a Christian (he was 500 years BC, was a pragmatic Military Leader and Strategist, not Religious Leader person) and he does warn about ego/pride aswell, and as them being perilous, yet advocates no humiliation as good.

Buddha (also 500 years BC, was a Religious leader) goes even further in being against egoistic impulses, Buddhism goes even further than Chrisitianity in Ego denial efforts. Again unrelated to humiliation.

The concept of being careful of ego/pride/honour impulses are much much older than Christianity, can be found even among Stoicism Philosophers from Classical Antiquity, to say it comes from Christianity is an accidental strong flattery you're making, despite opposite intent.

[chriscase]

I'm just going from my reading of The Confessions, a rather influential book in its time IIRC.

Not sure what makes you worry about my intent. I found The Confessions an interesting read. Of course it's not like Augustine's ideas just sprang out of thin air, there are a lot of variations on Platonic themes in there, but he did find a way to synthesize those ideas with Christian scripture that's nothing short of brilliant.

Obviously I don't believe any of it empirically but that's not really the point.

[Ludicus]

People first, God second

Ask Abraham and read Kierkegaard's teleological suspension of the ethical.

nobody has ever claimed that God exists rather that they BELIEVE that God exists. It's a very big difference.

Indeed, the key word is Faith. (btw, I'm agnostic)

[fkizz]

Not sure what makes you worry about my intent. I found The Confessions an interesting read. Of course it's not like Augustine's ideas just sprang out of thin air, there are a lot of variations on Platonic themes in there, but he did find a way to synthesize those ideas with Christian scripture that's nothing short of brilliant.

Are you saying your idea that being less prideful -> humiliation is good comes from St. Augustine?

[chriscase]

Of course. The modern usage of the word "humiliation" carries a certain negative connotation but I doubt Augustine (or many of his Christian contemporaries) saw it that way. For them true humiliation seems to have been a path to God, not anything degrading or insulting. At least, not in the way we think of that word now, as an affront to basic human decency.

In the context of Roman society, the concept spoke directly to the class differences at that time. One of the distinguishing characteristics of Augustinian theology was its identification with the poor. So I should say other Christians of Augustine's time would (and, I believe, did) accept Augustine's praise of humility, though the upper classes in Roman society likely would not have. In the Middle Ages though, this view put forth in The Confessions dominated monastic life to be sure, and Christian ideas of virtue in general. At least, that's my recollection from my Western Civ classes way back when.

[fkizz]

I think you could benefit from some re-reading on Augustine. Not now, in a year or so, when older. No sense felt of "I wasted time"? (assuming you aren't bluffing)

[chriscase]

You're a bit short on substance here. I suspect most familiar with Augustine would agree with the gist of what I wrote even if I'm wrong on a fine point or two. I got the requisite Gen Ed requirements covered and enjoyed the classes, so no sense of wasted time really.

[fkizz]

Alright I respect your personal musings. If you believe your subjective opinion trumps outside critics and that theology is about one single possible interpretation, that's your thing man. Nothing new under the sun.

However, there is little added value in talking to a third party if you value so much your own subjective opinion over the others. Goes against the point of debating.

Basically I'm saying your point is tautological. "I say St. Augustine promotes humiliation as good therefore it's obviously true".

Against such types it's impossible, said types can only be convinced otherwise by someone who is not a third party, and not in a debate.

[chriscase]

Have you read the Confessions? I don't think anything I have said is even remotely controversial.

[fkizz]

Directly no. It's on reading list among with other pile of books. Heard about St. Augustin, but directly reading his books, not yet. As compensation, have read other books on Theology.
Of course, Bible has a priority above Confessions.

That said, with so many books around, choosing a style of debate that consists of "unless you have read exactly the same books as I have, you can't dispute whatever I feel like claiming" is degenerative for cultivating a debate and idea exchanging atmosphere. How is such suposed to be a debate of ideas as opposed to being a pocker bluff game of claiming credentials on an internet forum?

If everyone pulled this, debate sections would be empty due to lack of interest.
I entertained your post because I was legit curious, thought there would be shown content to learn from and exchange ideas, but I was wrong and such wasn't the case.

Gave your post more importance than it had, was a mistake on my part. I will avoid repeating such again, so no worry.

[chriscase]

Well perhaps you thought we were discussing what actually brings a person closer to the Christian God, which is obviously a waste of time to discuss with me.

I found the Confessions interesting on a number of levels, but a big part of that was my recent study of the Platonic dialogues, particularly the Phaedrus and Symposium. It might interest you that the Confessions of St. Augustine, IIRC, would have been found right next to the Bible in virtually every medieval monastery. Second only to the Bible, it was considered a central holy text, and a guide to the conduct of a Christian, particularly in private life.

This is one of the fascinating things about the book - it details intimate matters of private life in the twilight of Roman Antiquity that can't be found in other texts. In any case please don't let my admiration put you off - it's well worth reading regardless of my admittedly secular interest.

There is a ton you can find on Augustine and the Confessions in particular. I'll see if I can come up with a primer.

The full text.

From the second book, some relevant discourse on pride as the root sin:

For there is an attractiveness in beautiful bodies, in gold and silver, and all things; and in bodily touch, sympathy hath much influence, and each other sense hath his proper object answerably tempered. Wordly honour hath also its grace, and the power of overcoming, and of mastery; whence springs also the thirst of revenge. But yet, to obtain all these, we may not depart from Thee, O Lord, nor decline from Thy law. The life also which here we live hath its own enchantment, through a certain proportion of its own, and a correspondence with all things beautiful here below. Human friendship also is endeared with a sweet tie, by reason of the unity formed of many souls. Upon occasion of all these, and the like, is sin committed, while through an immoderate inclination towards these goods of the lowest order, the better and higher are forsaken,- Thou, our Lord God, Thy truth, and Thy law. For these lower things have their delights, but not like my God, who made all things; for in Him doth the righteous delight, and He is the joy of the upright in heart.

When, then, we ask why a crime was done, we believe it not, unless it appear that there might have been some desire of obtaining some of those which we called lower goods, or a fear of losing them. For they are beautiful and comely; although compared with those higher and beatific goods, they be abject and low. A man hath murdered another; why? he loved his wife or his estate; or would rob for his own livelihood; or feared to lose some such things by him; or, wronged, was on fire to be revenged. Would any commit murder upon no cause, delighted simply in murdering? who would believe it? for as for that furious and savage man, of whom it is said that he was gratuitously evil and cruel, yet is the cause assigned; "lest" (saith he) "through idleness hand or heart should grow inactive." And to what end? that, through that practice of guilt, he might, having taken the city, attain to honours, empire, riches, and be freed from fear of the laws, and his embarrassments from domestic needs, and consciousness of villainies. So then, not even Catiline himself loved his own villainies, but something else, for whose sake he did them.

What then did wretched I so love in thee, thou theft of mine, thou deed of darkness, in that sixteenth year of my age? Lovely thou wert not, because thou wert theft. But art thou any thing, that thus I speak to thee? Fair were the pears we stole, because they were Thy creation, Thou fairest of all, Creator of all, Thou good God; God, the sovereign good and my true good. Fair were those pears, but not them did my wretched soul desire; for I had store of better, and those I gathered, only that I might steal. For, when gathered, I flung them away, my only feast therein being my own sin, which I was pleased to enjoy. For if aught of those pears came within my mouth, what sweetened it was the sin. And now, O Lord my God, I enquire what in that theft delighted me; and behold it hath no loveliness; I mean not such loveliness as in justice and wisdom; nor such as is in the mind and memory, and senses, and animal life of man; nor yet as the stars are glorious and beautiful in their orbs; or the earth, or sea, full of embryo-life, replacing by its birth that which decayeth; nay, nor even that false and shadowy beauty which belongeth to deceiving vices.

For so doth pride imitate exaltedness; whereas Thou alone art God exalted over all. Ambition, what seeks it, but honours and glory? whereas Thou alone art to be honoured above all, and glorious for evermore. The cruelty of the great would fain be feared; but who is to be feared but God alone, out of whose power what can be wrested or withdrawn? when, or where, or whither, or by whom? The tendernesses of the wanton would fain be counted love: yet is nothing more tender than Thy charity; nor is aught loved more healthfully than that Thy truth, bright and beautiful above all. Curiosity makes semblance of a desire of knowledge; whereas Thou supremely knowest all. Yea, ignorance and foolishness itself is cloaked under the name of simplicity and uninjuriousness; because nothing is found more single than Thee: and what less injurious, since they are his own works which injure the sinner? Yea, sloth would fain be at rest; but what stable rest besides the Lord? Luxury affects to be called plenty and abundance; but Thou art the fulness and never-failing plenteousness of incorruptible pleasures. Prodigality presents a shadow of liberality: but Thou art the most overflowing Giver of all good. Covetousness would possess many things; and Thou possessest all things. Envy disputes for excellency: what more excellent than Thou? Anger seeks revenge: who revenges more justly than Thou? Fear startles at things unwonted and sudden, which endangers things beloved, and takes forethought for their safety; but to Thee what unwonted or sudden, or who separateth from Thee what Thou lovest? Or where but with Thee is unshaken safety? Grief pines away for things lost, the delight of its desires; because it would have nothing taken from it, as nothing can from Thee.

Thus doth the soul commit fornication, when she turns from Thee, seeking without Thee, what she findeth not pure and untainted, till she returns to Thee. Thus all pervertedly imitate Thee, who remove far from Thee, and lift themselves up against Thee. But even by thus imitating Thee, they imply Thee to be the Creator of all nature; whence there is no place whither altogether to retire from Thee. What then did I love in that theft? and wherein did I even corruptly and pervertedly imitate my Lord? Did I wish even by stealth to do contrary to Thy law, because by power I could not, so that being a prisoner, I might mimic a maimed liberty by doing with impunity things unpermitted me, a darkened likeness of Thy Omnipotency? Behold, Thy servant, fleeing from his Lord, and obtaining a shadow. O rottenness, O monstrousness of life, and depth of death! could I like what I might not, only because I might not?

What shall I render unto the Lord, that, whilst my memory recalls these things, my soul is not affrighted at them? I will love Thee, O Lord, and thank Thee, and confess unto Thy name; because Thou hast forgiven me these so great and heinous deeds of mine. To Thy grace I ascribe it, and to Thy mercy, that Thou hast melted away my sins as it were ice. To Thy grace I ascribe also whatsoever I have not done of evil; for what might I not have done, who even loved a sin for its own sake? Yea, all I confess to have been forgiven me; both what evils I committed by my own wilfulness, and what by Thy guidance I committed not. What man is he, who, weighing his own infirmity, dares to ascribe his purity and innocency to his own strength; that so he should love Thee the less, as if he had less needed Thy mercy, whereby Thou remittest sins to those that turn to Thee? For whosoever, called by Thee, followed Thy voice, and avoided those things which he reads me recalling and confessing of myself, let him not scorn me, who being sick, was cured by that Physician, through whose aid it was that he was not, or rather was less, sick: and for this let him love Thee as much, yea and more; since by whom he sees me to have been recovered from such deep consumption of sin, by Him he sees himself to have been from the like consumption of sin preserved.

And note that the text, intended to be read aloud, is itself an enactment of humility, a ritual prayer of abasement whose singular devotion is surrender to God - and thus, by the intercession of Christ (the Physician) to be redeemed.

Or maybe not. What the do I know?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Isn't sin when Man puts himself above God? Biblically speaking, isn't the root of sin when somebody attempts to remove God from His proper place?

If it is, then consider that Jesus did just that when he took the right hand seat, the judgement seat, from God.

Judge Yahweh was supplanted by Judge Jesus.

Root of Sin comes from Original Sin that led to Fall of Men, that for people such as myself is described in a sort symbolic/codified way like the old divine misteries of pre-christianity often did. Hence why Literalism is limiting in possibilities IMO, but to each its own.

But given said Sin was born out of disobedience towards God, not too long after Creation, you're not that far away.

What Fall of Man?

We are talking of a Jewish myth and they say that man was elevated in Eden. They deny the notion that becoming as God in the knowing of good and evil is a fall.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil which encompasses all knowledge is analogues to our schools from kinder garden to PHDs in all subjects.

If God told you to not educate yourself and not go to school, would you see that as something you should obey?

The Jews thought that a really stupid command on God's part. They were/are right and the Christians are wrong.

[fkizz]

Judge Yahweh was supplanted by Judge Jesus.

In new covenant, Old Testament Laws that so often called for Death Penalty were abolished, in that sense what you say can hold water. By trinitarian definition YHWH and Jesus cannot replace each other. Even if you don't follow trinity, replacement would imply a de-throning, which is never suposed to happen if you follow Arisianism route.

What Fall of Man?
We are talking of a Jewish myth

Highly disputable if Jewish myth, given on how much Judaism absorved from religions of its neighbours. Kabbalah included. King Solomon absorved from their wives religions elements to Judaism aswell, most likely.

Many other old religions talk about Penitence aswell. All religions in a way or another talk about Salvation but with another terminology. Even atheistic Ideologies do accept Men born as a being fallen from grace who needs correction (in their case, ideological indoctrination and "education")

Judaism of today would appear as an Alien Heresy to Torah following Hebrews of Old.
Hence be more specific please. This is red herring.

In conclusion, to claim monopoly of Fallen Men who need Salvation being a Jewish myth is a conceited notion. It's almost as if Persia and Zoroatrism didn't and don't exist.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil which encompasses all knowledge is analogues to our schools from kinder garden to PHDs in all subjects.

I can't help but disagree. Both kindergarden and Ph.D are Profane institutions.

A decent analogy would be a Rabbi in his mid 20s practicing Kabbalah rituals routinely if you get what I mean.

If God told you to not educate yourself and not go to school, would you see that as something you should obey?

I would get confused. I would in such case think there was something wrong with the school. Imagine being a Jew in Nazi Germany being taught at school that the Jew is the source of all Perversion, wouldn't a Rabbi tell his followers to be careful of state schools?

The Jews thought that a really stupid command on God's part. They were/are right and the Christians are wrong.

Adam and Eve timeline is neither Jew nor Christian. It's pre-flood and pre-Moses.
There is no Jews vs Christians dispute on who were right or wrong. The differentiation didn't exist on said timeline. It's from before Epic of Gilgamesh.

[Inhuman One]

The Adam and Eve tale is a dumb one no matter how you put it though.

Children need parents to teach them about right and wrong. They where brought into existance as adults it seems, never being a learning child. But god would be their parent, yet takes no responsibility for their mistakes. Throwing them out of the garden of Eden for eating from something they where not allowed to is like kicking your child out of your house after they drink liquor that you as a parent did not properly lock away. Also a one time occurance.

Then again most of the bible can be described as God throwing a tantrum. It's all about his ego. It explains why he made the galaxy infinitely big though.. that way there is room for his ego.

[fkizz]

Children need parents to teach them about right and wrong.

People can never truly discover right and wrong until at least puberty (hence why minors don't have same punishment as adults in western legal system), and children can be teached that killing is Good and that Stealing is good aswell. Sounds a fantasy? This is basics to what's teached to every Child Soldier around the world. (so they can be less hesitant in shooting and more prone to looting)

You can also have Secular State Endoctrination breaking the bond between parents and children and teaching them crooked concepts of right and wrong they can only challenge a decade and half later more or less. (Obvious examples: Nazi Germany; USSR)

[DaniCatBurger]

The state of law is necessary secular and the totalitarian state is necessary lawless to the degree of the injustice of its rules.

That's why it's hard to compare the situation of a secular (public) education in a state of law with the education in a totalitarian state.