>>> <kenneth.mackendrick at utoronto.ca> 12/23/99 11:30AM >>>
On Thu, 23 Dec 1999 10:26:47 -0500 Charles Brown
<CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> wrote:
> CB: Hell, why not look to the snake in the garden and original sin, the
original source of Luther and Calvin's doctrine. The idea of ineradicable evil
of human nature is not original with these guys.
Because Augustine *invented* the idea of original sin - it isn't textually based.
(((((((
CB: Of course, Augustine was before Luther and Calvin, so it " is not original with these guys."
Furthermore, what are you talking about that it is not textually based ? The story of Adam and Eve is that they disobeyed God , seeming to fit the definition of "sin", and were cast out of the Garden of Eden. Not that I care about defending Augustine's interpretation, but it is pretty obvious that there is some textual basis for such an interpretation.
((((((((
> CB: I thought Christian doctrine attributes free will, given by God, to
humans. The repressive paradox is that not only are humans (supposedly) born in
sin, but they also have free will and are thereby somehow responsible for their
actions. The original damned if you do and damned if you don't.
(((((((((((
The idea of free will in Xianity is a fairly late development, it pretty must starts with Augustine (who really aruged that human beings weren't free at all since *everything* in the universe is sustained solely by God) (ie. human beings are responsible for sin, but they have no choice) (predestination). Strictly speaking, only Adam and Eve were the only free human beings - and their sin so great that all the rest of humanity is to suffer because of it. Augustine holds human "free will" to be responsible for hurricanes and earthquakes...
((((((((
CB: You seem to think that you are correcting what I said, and yet what you say clearly describes a repressive paradox ( that's why you have to use so many parathenses) just as I said. You say the idea of free will starts with Augustine, YET, he really argued that human beings weren't free at all. That's a contradiction.
(((((((((
> CB: Still sounds like that old time religion.
Sort of, without the light at the end of the tunnel. Remember, Lacan's argument is a political one, not a metaphysical "city of god."
(((((((((
CB: Both believers in God and believers in the Devil are philosophical idealists, metaphysicians, non-materialists.
((((((((