When did you realize St. Augustine was retarded?

Confessions is a theological treatise. The confessional is a device for exploring deep theological truths. He doesn't claim the pear is the worst thing he's ever done--he's saying it's the first moment he strays from God, and therefore contains within it the seeds of all the sin in his life. He fathered a child out of wedlock because he strayed from the path of God, which began when he valued the companionship of bad friends above the companionship of God. The metaphysical issues he discusses with each confession are the point. I shouldn't have to tell you this. If writing has survived 1000 years, you should at least consider that it wasn't an accident. Did you really believe that everyone who has carried this book for these long centuries just did it because they liked reading about the corporeal sins of a horny boi?

again i dont know why youre responding to me with this, its what i alreadt said. although i disagree about one thing, of course he didnt state the pear was the worst thing but it was implied since he never talked about anything worse and he was jacking himself off a little with it

I'm responding to you because you're shit at reading. I literally just explained to you why the pear received more literary attention. Theologically it is of greater significance. Everything he did after that was a variation of the same sin. He desired acclaim and love from his peers, at the expense of God's love. That is why he stole the pear. That is why he wanted to be a skilled orator like Cicero. That is why he had a extramarital relationships and had a son. He did what he was expected to do by the ways of men, and in so doing, he walked far from the sight of God. Why do the details of his sexual proclivities matter? They are abhorrent enough simply from the general view. You act like the stealing of the pear was trivial, which is precisely what he is arguing against. The small and venial sins must be understood as the most dangerous. A man who never steals a small thing will not steal a larger thing. If you are willing to reject God for such small and unmeaningful praise, what will you do when you are offered the world?

me: hes drawing a parallel between his personal original sin and the apple in the garden of eden and mankinds original sin and also pointing out what a great guy he is on the down low while simultaneously retelling the story of original sin for brainlets to understand in a more realistic and real way you: AAAAAAAAAAAAH!

More telling than what people say is what they are unable to say.

>i was only pretending to be retarded

>theological truths
Stopped reading

I bet you didn't understand any of his analysis of the material of God.

Attached: fedora.jpeg.png (773x737, 25K)

>trust me guys, it was all a clever ruse to fool you and im totally not an idiot i swear

>I've stopped presenting any arguments because I've run out

Kek

>goes into a thread about a topic he hates for no reason

You're either ignorant or will fully idiotic. The pear challenges the platonic idea that one never willingly do evil, only do what they mistakenly believe to be good in a wrongheaded way. The pettiness of the pear is the entire point. He does not need the pear, he doesn't necessarily want the pear for anything, he stands to gain nothing, and he genuinely knows it's wrong. He isn't deluded into some notion of doing right or gaining advantage, he wants to transgress for transgression's sake. There are many complications then that come from this, which I won't get into. The problem of evil is something which concerns Augustine, and how this pulls one away from god. The work itself is addressing this question of "god, how may I come to know you?" And this takes the form of his biographical personal route to god, coming to god ethically, epistemic notions which include memory and time to figure out exactly what "coming to know" actually means, and even figuring out how biblical interpretation works. It's an amazing piece of writing and no foolish misreadings detract from it.

OP was very obviously fucking about.

Anyway nice interpretation

>Christfags come to know god through ethical quibbles because they all have a guilty conscience
>Platonists and Vedics come to know their Deity through Gnosis, love of Wisdom, respect for Dharma and Karma, the understanding of Non-Duality and a love of the Good itself
>the Will predates Happiness and the Good for Nietzsche and is also a kind of impersonal God force
note how the christfags are the only one's who seek shelter in God while the others are enamored with the power or wisdom of absolute being/becoming. Note how most Nietzscheans, Platonists and Vedantists are more pleasant, intelligent and healthy minded people than Christfags. I wonder what's happening?

Augustine's ravings about original sin (caused by his own distorted view of sex) and God damning unbaptized infants planted the poison seed that eventually led to Protestantism.

Christians (and their retarded cousins) reject the world for God and everyone else accepts the world as God.

You will know them by their fruits.

>Christians (and their retarded cousins) reject the world for God
That's not what I was bringing up user, the Christfags largely convert because they are in emotional pain, their morals have been shaken. Platonists are trained to see wisdom as the highest and found or constructed a transcendental power of pure being that produces the indefinite dyad that is the world of becomings. Firstly this is not a pantheist god so your second statement doesn't hold here; next, the Platonist seeks the divine for much more inhuman, unworldly reasons than the Christfag. Christfaggot was a heroin addict, had degenerate sex, was in practice a hedonist nihilist, then feels horrible, has no outlet, goes to AA, is told their sins are forgiven and God LOVES them and will give them HABBINESS for all time if they love God over everything.

Nietzsche, sees force as the metaphysical (we're not allowed to say this out loud) ground for all becoming, as the becoming itself, worships it over all else, seeing it as a cyclical energy that slightly varies through time infinitely, is basically a pre-Physis worshiper.

Vedantist does his duty socially, maintains good karma by not becoming attached to becomings (almost exactly like Socrates taught), meditates, attains dhyana state in the woods while fasting, starts to see the structure of his self, the self is an aggregate of divine light and vac, makes the connection with impersonal consciousness. Realizes this consciousness produces matter and space, makes the correct assumption that it is what is doing him and everything around him, says he now worships divine consciousness as the precursor to matter and personal consciousness.

Note again, all 3 of these types do not worship the world, the Vedantist is not worshipping matter, he worships pure consciousness producing space/time, prajapati (ground, pure divine mind) and purusha (pure force, consciousness, spirit, Atma). The Platonist worships the One, the divine transcendental that emanates the Indefinite Dyad which through oscillation produces the unreal appearance of matter and material reality. Finally, the Nietzschean vitalist does not worship matter because he does not believe in atomism, is not beholden to inductive logic or the necessity of causality, does not have to make a synthetic judgement about consciousness existing from aprioris and is not bound to declaring the human an automaton. Vac, voice, power, force, Heraclitus' fire is his divine principle. None of the 3 resort to worship of the world and none of the 3 predicate their understanding upon morality or ethics, though all 3 produce a kind of divine morality from their metaphysics and ontology.

Only the Christian resorts to drawing from gross, matter derived emotional states, and the personal guilt, the internal rumination upon one's own entanglement in becoming to produce a moralizing godman and his moralizing incarnation as their deity.

Damn, I didn't know Augustine lived that long.

This is a good post.

No, it sounds complicated so you want to become a part of it for egotistical purposes

>muh rejectionism
Whoa, grossly misinterpreting post modernism is fucking cooooollll

I knew it were bs before I reddit because theology is just a dumb rationalisation for some imaginary friend that's just two guys and a bird living in the sky lmaoooo dab

You have to be fucking retarded to call his post complicated.

K big guy

if u wanna read some really dumb shit check out city of god, absolutely packed with specious arguments even by ancient standards, interesting as ancient primary source, but totally stupid