Why Augustine?

Augustine was the first existentialist philosopher.

You should read him and see for yourself. Veeky Forums has nothing say about thinkers they consider 'spooked' because they know nothing about them or their work.

I can't judge his philosophy but he was a brilliant writer, the best African since Apuleius and better than any pagan of his day. He did a lot to preserve greek philosophy in the west, even though he himself didn't know much greek.

Why is there a butt plug on his desk?

...

There arguably is no one more influential in the development of theology and philosophy of religion than Augustine.

Even a giant like Aquinas bowed to him, and almost undoubtedly modern philosophy would not exist without an Aquinas to debunk.
The Greeks

A combination of these, most likely. Theology (as it stands today) wouldn't exist without him, and many of its major topics bleed into other schools (existentialism et al). Didn't hurt that there was about a thousand years before the next major theologian (Aquinas) came along.

i have read his stuff and i really liked it. that is why i thought it was weird

Augustine is interesting to read but he was an asshole, the legalistic view of original sin in western Christianity is basically all his fault. He literally believed infants burned in hell because all humans naturally deserved eternal suffering for existing.

>original sin
>humans naturally deserved eternal suffering for existing
You don't know how God's compassion works, and you have no understanding of how original sin works. Original sin is what differs man from the divine.

He was a powerful Church figure, nothing more. His debate game sucked

>gets BTFO by Pelagius
>proceeds to get him and his partners excommunicated

christcucks: since 400AD

I like how you argued everything except the infants burning in hell part

>but why?
this guy put forward many concepts that later served as bais for existentialism, psychology & psychoanalysis, and philosophical thought in regard to language

he was a genius

>You don't know how God's compassion works
There you go, tubbo.

psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/babies-prefer-individuals-who-harm-those-that-arent-like-them.html

The 'Problem' of Evil is a massive fallacy, you know.

In addition, all are saved despite none being truly innocent. If you would like to fix your very black-and-white view of Christianity I'd suggest you read Blake.

Infants are not innocent, you perceive them as so because the modern ideology is Lockean in that aspect (besides instinct, which makes you types hypocritical since I imagine you supporting putting down a dog for attacking a child that had tormented it).

>I imagine you supporting putting down a dog for attacking a child that had tormented it
I agree with your post, but I find this statement irritating. Human soul is more important than animal soul regardless anything.

I'm speaking to the Lockean that sees a man as a rational animal; an infant to them only has the potential to become rational and thereby is essentially on the level of a dog. i.e., a beloved animal. To say there is an issue with Christian morality in regards to Hell whilst claiming babies are innocent is Lockean since it claims infants lack any evil features but still have animal instincts.

A dog also has animal instincts, yet a dog will be put down for following them (by faith that they will attack again) while the infant if it does the same (through its capacity) will not be truly punished. The error here is a claim to rationality, but an action of pure sentiment. I cannot stand hypocrisy.

Because low IQ proles will spend an inordinate amount of time running through mental gymnastics in order to convince themselves that their deity of choice exists.

Because Veeky Forums is retarded, and probably hasn't read the wikipedia let alone anything written by Augustine I'll tell you.

He wrote the first autobiography in western literature. He changed everything with this.

Also he incorporated platonic understanding into christian thinking, making christianity more palatable and paving the way for st. thomas aquinas, who would do the same with aristotle, who would then influence dante, as we all know was the most defining influence of western literature and christianity until luther/shakespeare/milton

>convince
No need.

Nice arguments but they don't defend burning babies that well at all, you all sound like psychopaths

No, you are the psychopath actually. Perhaps you should read my post.

how do you know god burns babies?

Heraclitus was the first existential philosopher