Scrierile Fericitului Augustin

"Let us suppose that in explaining the words, "And God said, €˜Let there be light,€™ and light was made"€ one man thinks that it was material light that was made, and another that it was spiritual. As to the actual existence of “spiritual light” in a spiritual creature, our faith leaves no doubt; as to the existence of material light, celestial or supercelestial, even existing before the heavens, a light which could have been followed by night, there will be nothing in such a supposition contrary to the faith until un-erring truth gives the lie to it. And if that should happen, this teaching was never in Holy Scripture but was an opinion pro-posed by man in his ignorance. On the other hand, if reason should prove that this opinion is unquestionably true, it will still be uncertain whether this sense was intended by the sacred writer when he used the words quoted above, or whether he meant something else no less true. And if the general drift of the passage shows that the sacred writer did not intend this teaching, the other, which he did intend, will not thereby be false; indeed, it will be true and more worth knowing. On the other hand, if the tenor of the words of Scripture does not militate against our taking this teaching as the mind of the writer, we shall still have to inquire whether he could not have meant something else besides. And if we find that he could have meant something else also, it will not be clear which of the two meanings he intended. And there is no difficulty if he is thought to have wished both interpretations if both are supported by clear indications in the context. Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

Citat din "Despre geneza in sens literal"- Fericitul Augustin
(http://college.holycross.edu/faculty...e-Genesis1.pdf)

Ce parere aveti de acest pasaj scris de Fericitul Augustin? Ma impresioneaza ca acest om a avut o viziune asa deschisa in jurul anului 400.


Pentru a evita anumite comentarii, o sa citez ro.orthodoxwiki.org (http://ro.orthodoxwiki.org/Augustin_...Ortodox.C4.83)

Însă trebuie precizat că, în mod tradițional, Biserica Ortodoxă nu face o distincție de grad între termenii "fericit" și "sfânt" (adică ultimul ar avea un grad de sfințenie mai mare decât primul), ci una de categorie (e.g. cuvioși, episcopi, mucenici, fecioare etc. ).

Astept opiniile voastre.

[GMihai]

În prealabil postat de abaaaabbbb63

Ce parere aveti de acest pasaj scris de Fericitul Augustin? Ma impresioneaza ca acest om a avut o viziune asa deschisa in jurul anului 400.

Apoi nu ştiu exact despre ortodocşi, dar pentru noi, catolicii, Sf. Augustin, împreună cu Sf. Toma din Aquino, reprezintă miezul din franzelă, codiţa la cireaşă şi gaura din macaroană sub aspect teologic.

În prealabil postat de GMihai

Apoi nu ştiu exact despre ortodocşi, dar pentru noi, catolicii, Sf. Augustin, împreună cu Sf. Toma din Aquino, reprezintă miezul din franzelă, codiţa la cireaşă şi gaura din macaroană sub aspect teologic.

Multumesc pentru raspuns! Inteleg de ce este vazut asa.

[AlinB]

Pasajul ala n-ar fi trebuit sa-l salveze pe Galileo?

[AlinB]

În prealabil postat de GMihai

Apoi nu ştiu exact despre ortodocşi, dar pentru noi, catolicii, Sf. Augustin, împreună cu Sf. Toma din Aquino, reprezintă miezul din franzelă, codiţa la cireaşă şi gaura din macaroană sub aspect teologic.

Adica necomestibil/gol dar necesar pentru forma consacrata? :)
La ultimele 2 comparatii ma refer..

[GMihai]

Ce, tu n-ai auzit despre ceaiul din codiţe de cireaşă ?!!

[AlinB]

Doar de ceaiul de gaura de macaroana :)

[DragosP]

În prealabil postat de GMihai

Ce, tu n-ai auzit despre ceaiul din codiţe de cireaşă ?!!

Câte codițe are o cireașă?

[AlinB]

Sau cate codite trebuie pentru un amarat de ceai... :)

[iuliu46]

În prealabil postat de AlinB

Pasajul ala n-ar fi trebuit sa-l salveze pe Galileo?

Pai si inchizitorul din procesul lui Galileo a spus acelasi lucru, dar i se pare lui abaaab ca a descoperit cine stie ce.

"... if there were a real proof that the Sun is in the centre of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me. To demonstrate that the appearances are saved by assuming the sun at the centre and the earth in the heavens is not the same thing as to demonstrate that in fact the sun is in the centre and the earth is in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration may exist, but I have very grave doubts about the second; and in case of doubt one may not abandon the Holy Scriptures as expounded by the hold Fathers"

Asta nu intelege si abaaab si multi altii. Ca de multe ori ar vrea ca noi sa abandonam credintele noastre si sa le acceptam pe ale lor. - asa ar face un crestin care nu-i fundamentalist.
Si din pacate multi dintre noi pica in capcana asta, doar pentru ca li se pare lor ca par mai destepti daca accepta ca universul are 14 miliarde de ani sau ca s-a umflat intr-o secunda cat alte universuri in sute de milioane de ani.