What is donaticism? its meaning, origin and reaction/ lesson of st. augustine?
95885
Do you mean the Donatists?  If so, they were a group in the early Christian church who wanted to be much harder on chuch officials who turned over holy books to be burned during the Diocletian persecution that occured between 303-305 AD.  Those who turned over Holy Books became known as Traditores.  The Donatists believed that the character of the administrator determined the validity of the sacrament, so any of the sacraments preformed bye the traditores were invalid.  Augustine, and eventually the church as a whole, believed that it was the office of priest and not the character of the individual that determined the validity of the sacrament.\n\nDoes that answer your question?
793889
He certainly helped to define it.\nSt. Augustine brought together several strands of thinking:\n\n 1. there are “triadic” traces of the Trinity in the human soul: For example:  triad of self-knowledge (memory, understanding, will)\n \n triad of self-love (Lover, Beloved, Love)\n \n\n \n 2. the Spirit is the basis of the union between God and believers, and believer to believer. That is, the Spirit is the giver of community\n \n 3. “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16)\n \n\n \n\nAnd proposed:\n\n the Holy Spirit is Love personified\n \n Just as we experience the Holy Spirit as the “bond of love” between believers, the “giver of community,” so too within the Godhead, the Holy Spirit is the Bond of Love between Father and Son  Hence that triadic trace of the Trinity in each of us -- the “triad of self-love”\n \n\n \n “Economic Trinity” = “Immanent Trinity” is being assumed\n \n\n \n\nIn this model, Love (the Holy Spirit) must of course proceed from the Father and Son, not merely from the Father. Scripture (John 20:22) provides further support: Jesus, appearing to his disciples after the resurrection, breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. \n\nThe Son is the Word of God, Spirit is the Breath of God, proceeding from the Father and the Son.
534367
Latin to English: (Sorry I couldn't find translations to all text)\n\nFire god * about earth dura form woman beautiful her arte abl. of means by by these own art ) creator. Minerva she to her ) your clothes acc. pl. ) silver * votive offering. As yet she to her ) Fire god crown golden votive offering Iuppiter she to her ollam * votive offering. Dei and deae woman beautiful amaverunt was similar deae. She name her name ) was To stretch out , and omnes all nom. pl ) downwards she to her ) votive offering donaverunt. Dei To stretch out to earth wretched sent , to do thoroughly tense ). But To stretch out was curiosity *. To stretch out operculum lid acc. sing. ollae to draw back. Upon olla were tota jaw evils nom. pl virorum! Jaw upon totas earth and water volaverunt. Eheu! (Oh! ) Land only ) in one breath upon olla mansit - Hope hope nom. sing). Hope *** green remansit.
367376
I agree with Maimonides, who basically also sees eye to eye with classical (i.e. pre-evangelical fundamentalist) Christian theology: the same views were essentially held by St. Ambrose and St. Augustine in the 4th century.
1005670
Isn't it curious that our understanding of good and bad are meant to originate in Adam and Eve's great 'sin'? That the 'sin' they committed was wanting to learn about their surroundings instead of just blindly saying 'my Father told me not to touch it, so ı won't touch it'?\n\nIn normal life, we call that growing up. We call it learning for yourself. And it's humanity's greatest single trait.\n\nIf it was the devil, in the form of a snake, that convinced Adam and Eve to open their eyes and question their surroundings, and if it was God who arbitrarily said 'look but don't touch', here is my question:\n\nWhich one of them should we give praise to?
281534
Voltaire's philosophy was based on skepticism and rationality, which leads me to believe that he didn't really lean one way or the other. He probably would be more of the philosophy that men do good things and bad things, thus being skeptical of both the naturally good and the naturally evil philosophies. Check out the link below and see if that helps.
932385
I'm taking a stab at it without reading the context in which it was used.\n \nPeople use their devotion to god as a justification for their own motives and actions.  By claiming--especially if ostentaciously so--to be doing the work of god, people often mask their own motives, perhaps even unbeknownst to themselves.  Moreover, their claims of doing god's work insulate themselves against critics of their actions.  "If you oppose my actions, then you oppose god's will."   Unfortunately, the motives of the self-righteous when stripped of their piousness often appear patently contradictory to the values the "devoted" supposedly are attempting to espouse.   \n\nReligion can easily be used as a rationalization for an individual's action, regardless of whether the action is agreement with the principles of the religion or contradictory to them.  \n\nInterestingly, this can be seen in the action of a certain president and a certain leader of a group he opposes.   Each individual act in their own self-interests while blanketing himself in a cloak of religion.\n\n------------\nThe bible warns of devotion's visage and pious acts†:\nBook of Matthew (Chapter 6):\n2: Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. \n3: But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: \n4: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. \n5: And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. \n6: But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. \n7: But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
332079
Deicide\n\n&#92;De"i*cide&#92;, n. [L. deicida a deicide (in sense 2); deus god + c[ae]dere to cut, kill: cf. F. d['e]icide.] 1. The act of killing a being of a divine nature; particularly, the putting to death of Jesus Christ. [R.]\n\nEarth profaned, yet blessed, with deicide. --Prior.\n\n2. One concerned in putting Christ to death.\n\nSource: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. \n From Dictionary.com\n\nSo, in context with your question, it is the charge that the Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus.\n\nThe implications of this have been huge- the accussation was frequently stated, and used to exhort violence against the Jews.  many of the most violent pogroms (attacks against Jews), were as a result of a local priest preaching on this theme at Easter.\n\nThus this claim can be linked to numerous persecutions of the Jews.  The Dominicans were very active in preaching on this accusation - and the murder of 4000 people in Lisbon in 1506AD is directly attributed to preaching by Dominican priests.
317559
Here are some references I found.  I checked for St. Augustine and Romans 7:19.  Hopefully these will help.\n\nhttp://www.erikwait.com/index.cgi?location=8&action=display_one&story_id=39\nhttp://www.geocities.com/Athens/7939/rom7.html\nhttp://www.newadvent.org/summa/108301.htm\nhttp://www.godrules.net/library/arminius/arminius131.htm
1115563
This controversy has existed from the very beginning, and\nthe writings of the "Church Fathers" themselves reveal\nthat they were constantly forced by the pagan\nintelligentsia to defend what the non-Christians and other\nChristians ("heretics")4 alike saw as a preposterous and\nfabricated yarn with absolutely no evidence of it ever\nhaving taken place in history. As Rev. Robert Taylor says,\n"And from the apostolic age downwards, in a never\ninterrupted succession, but never so strongly and\nemphatically as in the most primitive times, was the\nexistence of Christ as a man most strenuously denied."5\nEmperor Julian, who, coming after the reign of the\nfanatical and murderous "good Christian" Constantine,\nreturned rights to pagan worshippers, stated, "If anyone\nshould wish to know the truth with respect to you\nChristians, he will find your impiety to be made up partly\nof the Jewish audacity, and partly of the indifference and\nconfusion of the Gentiles, and that you have put together\nnot the best, but the worst characteristics of them both."
1157975
Answered Separately\n\nTHE TRINITY\nThe whole first 800 years of Christianity was spent upholding, finessing, and strengthening the dogma of the Trinity.  It one of if not the the primary battle that Christians faced theologically.  All major disputes are only part of the larger context surrounding this belief.\n\n"Victor ious" above is not a student of history.  (sorry to do this to you but you are so off the mark historically that it is unbelievable)\n\nThe doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in \n\nMatthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." \n\n(Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).  After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" \n\nAnd throughout the writings of the Eastern and Western Fathers.\n\n"Victor ious" is thus incorrect to say that Tertullian formulated the concept (however Tertullian is the first known to use the word trinity to encapsulate the previously held belief).  "Victor ious" must not have read Tertullian because if he did, he would know that Tertullian is not regarded by Catholics as a shining example of belief in the Trinity.  Tertullian died a Montanist, a heretic.  Montanists held the belief that the Trinity consisted of only a single person, similar to Sabellianism, as opposed to the orthodox view that the Trinity is one God of three persons.  Montanists are similar (but still wildly different) in their views to charismatic "oneness" Pentecostals, in regards to their understanding of charismas and the denial of the Trinity.\n\n"Victor ious" is also wrong in saying that Rome adopted belief in the Trinity after Tertullian.  St. Pope Clement c.a. 80 AD wrote "Do we not have one God, one Christ, and one Spirit poured out upon us?"  This is a clear belief in the understanding of a Triune God (One God in Three Persons) that would later become expressed in more nuanced terms.\n\nBelief in the Trinity, and a subsequent Trinitarian baptism has been held from the beginning by both the East and the West as THE DEFINITION OF WHAT MAKES A CHRISTIAN A CHRISTIAN.\n\nA person might not believe in the Trinity, but then they cannot be a Christian.  The whole first 800 years of Christianity was spent upholding, finessing, and strengthening the dogma of the Trinity.  It is the primary battle that Christians faced theologically.\n----------------------------\nTHE RAPTURE\n\nThere is no rapture. What is meant by the term in modern times is a lie and it comes out of the works of a 19th century American named John Darby (look him up and you will find that he was into occult practices). The doctrine of a secret rapture was first conceived by John Darby of the Plymouth Brethren in 1827 It has nothing to do with how Paul and his followers understood what he wrote. Even a loose understanding of "rapture" is virtually unheard of in the writings of the Church Fathers. \n\nIf the tribulation comes during our life times, the idea of the rapture is going to have many Christians turn away and apostatize. Christians will suffer greatly before the end, and if you think you are going to get raptured, but end up suffering, you will assume that Christianity is wrong. \n\nthe book "The Rapture Trap" among many many others.
970939
The dictionary definition is\n\nExcommunication\n\nA curse: “the sound of a witch's anathemas in some unknown tongue” (Nathaniel Hawthorne).\n\nOne that is greatly reviled, loathed, or shunned: “Essentialism—a belief in natural, immutable sex differences—is anathema to postmodernists, for whom sexuality itself, along with gender, is a ‘social construct’” (Wendy Kaminer).
195294
It's been a long time since I studied this, but I'll give it a shot anyway, so please forgive me if I am not very detailed, and don't have a lot of references to back up my info. - Maybe I can give you enough info to start finding your own answers at least.\n\nPelagian and Augustine were contemporaries, and agreed on more issues than you might think.\nPelagian was decreed a heretic for his beliefs, and Augustine was highly favored for his beliefs.\n\nAt the opening of the fifth century, the British monk, Pelagius, introduced a heretical doctrine which emphasised the free-will of man, but the hersey consisted not in the emphasis that he laid on free will, but rather in the fact that, in emphasizing free will, he denied the ruin of the race and the necessity of grace. This was not only new in Christianity; it was even anti-Christian. Jerome, as well as Augustine, saw this at the time, and speaks of Pelagianism as the "heresy of Pythagoras and Zeno;" \n\nAugustine completed, in his treatment of Pelagianism, the circle of that triad of doctrines which he himself looked upon as most endangered by this heresy, - original sin, the imperfection of human righteousness, the necessity of grace. In his mind, the last was the center of the whole controversy.
147240
The origins of the word "religion" have been debated for centuries. Some explanations for the origin of the word are:\n\n    * re-reading--from Latin re (again) + legio (read), referring to the repetition of scripture.\n    * treating carefully--from Latin relegere (Cicero's interpretation) 'to go over again' or to carefully ponder.\n    * re-connection to the divine--from Latin re (again) + ligare (to connect, as in English ligament). This interpretation is favoured by modern scholars such as Tom Harpur, but probably originated with St. Augustine.\n    * to bind or return to bondage--an alternate interpretation of the "reconnection" etymology, possibly also originating with Augustine but emphasising a sense of servitude to God. However, the bondage interpretation, while popular with critics of religion, is often considered imprecise and possibly offensive in many modern religious contexts.\n    * concerning a gathering--from Latin ablative res (with regard to) + legere (to gather). More emphatically, religion concerns an organization.\n\nDespite the variety of possible etymologies, what is clear about the word "religion" is that its religious connotations (in the sense of denoting gods, morality, afterlife, etc.) were not a part of the term's Latin precursors — suggesting that today's common understanding of such terms as religion, religious, and religions may be peculiarly modern, notably Euro-based words and concepts.
1028092
You should try reading the bible the way Catholics/Orthodox do!  They will tell you that not everything in the bible is to be taken literally, there is plenty of metaphor and figure of speech in there!  St. Augustine taught a theory of evolution, the monk Gregory Mendel discovered genetics, the list goes on and on.\n\nWhen it comes to knowing what is literal and what is not in the bible, it is actualy very easy if you just follow the teachings of the Church.  Don't spend your time being confused!
567833
According to many religions, a miracle, derived from the old Latin word miraculum meaning 'something wonderful', is a striking interposition of divine intervention by God in the universe by which the operations of the ordinary course of Nature are overruled, suspended, or modified. People in different faiths have substantially different definitions of the word miracle. Even within a specific religion there is often more than one usage of the term.\n\nSometimes the term miracle may refer to the action of a supernatural being that is not a god. Thus, the term divine intervention refers specifically to the direct involvement of a deity.\n\nAccording to the philosopher David Hume, A miracle is "a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent."
768458
Stoicism is a school of philosophy, the founding of which is associated with Zeno of Citium, which became the foremost popular philosophy among the educated elite in the Greco-Roman Empire,[1] to the point where, in the words of Gilbert Murray, "nearly all the successors of Alexander [...] professed themselves Stoics."[2] It teaches that self-control, fortitude and detachment from distracting emotions, sometimes interpreted as an indifference to pleasure or pain, allows one to become a clear thinker, level-headed and unbiased. A primary aspect of Stoicism would be described as improving the individual’s spiritual well-being. Virtue, reason, and natural law are prime directives. By mastering passions and emotions, Stoics believe it is possible to overcome the discord of the outside world and find peace within oneself. Stoicism holds that passion distorts truth, and that the pursuit of truth is virtuous. Greek philosophers such as Cleanthes, Chrysippus, and later Roman thinkers such as Cicero, Seneca the Younger, Marcus Aurelius, Cato the Younger, Dio Chrysostom, and Epictetus are associated with Stoicism. In Cicero's case, it should be emphasised that while he shared many of the moral tenets of Stoicism, he was not a Stoic himself but an eclectic. Stoic philosophy is usually contrasted with Epicureanism. The term "Stoicism" is derived from the word "stoa," which means "porch," which is where Zeno began teaching in about 300 B.C.