In article , tuppence says...
>
>In message: ,
>> Matthew says...
>
>In article ,
>>>tuppence says...
>
>
>>>By what standard should one gauge the truthfulness of your
>>>"sigfile"?
>>>
>
>>By your reference to 'sigfile', it appears you meant this post
>>to be a reply to me. But the only msg-id included in
>>'References' in the NNTP header is your _own_ post. How
>did this happen? And why haven't you configured your
>>NNTP client to show to whom you are replying? It can't be
>>that hard to do.
>>
>
>Ah, but you should have learned by now, never
>overestimate me.

Ah, but you should have learned by now, never understimate the importance of
configuring your NNTP client. It is hard enough to avoid flame-wars without the
unfortunate misunderstanding a mis-configured NNTP client can cause;)

>>>If God has granted one self-awareness how does one
>>>recognize profound truth without some element of self?
>>>
>
>>Ah, but what _is_ the 'self-awareness' you are talking about?
>>The whole point of the Augustine quote is that what most of
>>us _call_ 'self-awareness' is really an bevil form of love of
>>self. That evil form of self-love and/or self-awareness must
>>be purged before the _good_ form of self-love can find
>>room to grow.
>
>>How can this be? Is it paradoxical? Of _course_ it is. But
>>Christians _accept_ paradoxes; we cannot run away from
>>them. On the contrary: we must live by those paradoxes
>>revealed to us by Scripture.
>>
>
>The self-awareness I was referring to is man's knowledge that
>he is somehow unique, as illustrated in the second chapter of
>Genesis. I think this is a bit different from your notions which
>seem to unnecessarily produce their own paradox.

But your 'self-awareness' is too vague. As you word it, it actually sounds to me
like something sinful, which is why I had to question you when you mentioned it
earlier. And now you are confirming my suspicions!

For your 'self-awarness' demands that Man view himself as an _individual_.  But
this is something that happened only after the Fall. But what is even more
surprising, you do not even _mention_ what it is that makes Man 'unique'. How
could you leave this out? If you think it is anything other than being made in
the image and likeness of God, or if you misunderstand what it _means_ to be 
made in the image and likeness of God this is very unfortunate.

>>>Is there a trait or an attribute that would make such truth
>>>apparent?
>>>
>
>>Yes. Complete humility and love based on self-denial.
>>Those of us who fall short of this cannot see it as 'apparent
>>truth'. But that those who do _not_ fall short see it is shown
>>by:
>
>>Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God
>>(Mt 5:3)
>
>>But once you see this, you see all you need to know or see.
>>
>
>The trait you describe does indeed support your beliefs, but
>that is not to say those beliefs are _profound truth_

I am amazed you could think of Mt 5:3 as anything less than 'profound truth'.

>(I refer to your self-denial as foundational concept).

And I am just as amazed you could think of Mt 16:24 as anything less than
'profound truth'. Recall, and notice the implications as you re-read it:

   Then Jesus told his disciples, "If any man would come after me,
   let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.  (Mat 16:24 RSVA)

Notice what He says: "if ANY man would come". That makes self-denial a
fundamental prerequisite, if not even THE fundamental prerequisite for following
Christ.

If anyone thinks he is obeying the commandment to love one another without
meeting this prerequisite, he is fooling himself. Unfortunately, such
self-deception is very common these days.

>I'll mention a few of
>the problems I see in your statements.

OK, I can return the favor;)

[snip]

>The first problem brings us back to my first question, by what
>standard should one gauge the truthfulness of your snippet,
>or Augustine's entire sermon? You have not mentioned any
>standard, other than Augustine perhaps.

I did not mention it, because if you really understand Augustine, you will not
need an answer to the question: you will see for yourself that Augustine is
explaining correctly what is already in Scripture.

>You've used a quotation from the Beatitudes, but I think
>this creates another problem. I can't see that Jesus blessing
>necessarily supports your premise.

But why _can't_ you see this?

>It's a matter of misplaced priorities.

No, it is not.

>That humility may be founded upon self-denial is
>possible and perhaps understandable, but love...?

Yes! Some of us find it even _more_ clear. Why don't you?

> I believe
>that an attempt to build love upon self-denial may all too often
>lead to a false sense of piety, and maybe something other
>than love.

It may. But even so, it does not lead to a false sense of piety as often as
self-love does.

Let me put it another way, in other words: true love _must_ be built on
self-denial, as any mother who gave up much for her children knows. That is why
God allows the saints to be tested by trials, so that their love for Him might
be purified like gold in the fire. That is why Christ Himself, in order to show
His love for us, committed the ultimate act of self-denial, dying on the Cross.

>With no standard of truth for guidance, an unnecessary
>paradox is created by the self-centered perspective at the
>heart of your snippet:

But if that "standard of truth" you select is itself faulty, then you have
solved nothing. You have only pushed the problem back, possibly to sweep it
under the rug. And we see this over and over again not only in the history of
Christianity, but in human history in general. That is why I find your obsession
with 'standards' unhealthy. Standards can NOT substitute for real understanding.

>>He steals away from himself, for himself, in order to cling to
>>God; whatever good he has he attributes to Him by Whom
>>he is made.
>>
>
>You may think I'm nitpicking, but consider Jesus' teaching on
>the greatest commandment: you shall love God with all your
>heart, soul, mind and might;

I did. In fact, it seems to me that it is you have have not yet given this the
full consideration it deserves.

> and you shall love your neighbor
>as yourself. Far from a denial of self, his teaching in fact
>acknowledges the reality of one's love of self, but Jesus
>goes further and puts that love in its proper perspective.

He does. And He does it _by_ referring to the need to deny one's self. But I
have yet to see _you_ do put it "in its proper perspective",
since you refuse to
accept the prerequisite Christ Himself spells out in Mt 16:24.

>We are to love God with all we have, and to love our
>neighbor _no less_ than we love ourselves, kinda hard
>to do if you deny that very love.

You have put the cart before the horse. It is not "kinda hard to do" if you
realize that the love we are commanded to do is to give over the care of our own
bodies and souls to God, rather than rely on ourselves.

It is not "kinda hard to do" if you realize that (again, as
Augustine explains),
we are to love our neighbor not for our own sake, not even for his sake, but for
God's sake in whose image our neighbor is made. Then the righteous love of
neighbor flows naturally out of our complete love for God.

For that matter, do I really need to point out that you have not avoided the
paradox here? For we are commanded to love God with ALL our heart. What, then,
is left over for ourselves OR our neighbor?

Augustine, OTOH, does deal with the paradox. He explains that rather than what
you say, giving our heart over to love God completely IS the first step to truly
loving our neighbor. If we do NOT do this, then what we call "love of
neighbor"
is not even really love at all.

>Whereas, your snippet is more or less introspective, Jesus
>teaches that love is the outpouring of one's self.

And this is why the evil self-love must be avoided. For if it is not, then that
'outpouring' will be the outpouring of something evil.

>Love is the
>foundation upon which all else is built, including humility and
>self-denial, and not the other way around. He avoids your
>paradox.

No, YOU avoided it, but only at the cost of changing what Christ actually
taught! For Christ never taught that love comes first, and only then come
humility and self-denial. On the contrary: He _clearly_ teached (Mt 16:24 again)
that self-denial comes first, and only then are humility and love really
possible.

>In his first letter, John presents much practical and thoughtful
>consideration to this concept. Among his insights is this:
>"We love, because He first loved us".

Yes, he did say this. But if you stop there, it is not really 'insight' at all.
You must remember what Paul explained, that we know He loved us because of the
self-denying love He showed on the Cross.

> I believe the first
>evidence of that love is found in Genesis, when God
>allows Adam and Eve to live in spite of their transgression,
>because He loves them.

How could this be the first??? What about when He created Paradise for them to
live in? What about when He allowed Adam to name the animals? Don't you see the
same love in that? Why not?

> We are to do likewise.

And to do likewise, we must do what He says come first: deny ourselves, pick up
our cross and follow Him. Without these, fulfilling the greatest commandment is
just a pipe-dream. You cannot neglect the first commandments given, rush on to
the greatest and expect success. Life just doesn't work that way.


-- 
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/4/05 8:10:32 PM