Two Cities: Augustine’s City of God (Chuck Colson on citizenship)

BreakPoint ^ | 27 Jan 04 | Chuck Colson

[tcuoohjohn]

I think if you check the record you will find you are in error.

[tcuoohjohn]

I noted that I have forgiven Colson as a Christian. Again...His reaffirmation of faith however does not compell me to follow his guidance however. I applaud Colson's epiphany of faith. End Of Message.

[tcuoohjohn]

and Indeed that is a laudable thing. Colson religious views are Augustinian while I am more Thomist in my beliefs. We disagree on a very fundamental level. As I said previously. Colson's epiphany does not obligate me to accept his guidance. EOM

[tcuoohjohn]

Curiously I do in a philosophical sense. Augustinan thought,while laudable,is too loose a structure to support the demands of an increasingly complex world. I am somewhat chary of over simplfied structures. Lots of room for bumptious manipulation.

[tcuoohjohn]

Now this will be a clever joke...My concern with Augustine is not his misuse of files. I am concerned with the lack of philosophical cohesion WITHIN the files.

[Zack Nguyen]

No, you aren't obligated to accept his guidance. But you are obligated not to throw his "dismal past" back at him as a reason not to agree with his activities now. At least you are if you want to be consistent. Colson's work has brought many to a saving faith in Christ. Analyze that, if you will, and make your judgment.

[tcuoohjohn]

Chuck Colson pled to one count. The government doesn't care how many counts you plead to..just that you plead. Colson was charged with 19 counts. He pled to one. Done deal. He was gonna get the same sentence whether he pled to one or all 19.

[rcofdayton]

I'll ask you again, Don't you agree it is a shame that no one from the Clinton administration went to prison for illegally getting and possessing over 900 FBI files?

[tcuoohjohn]

well..Ken Starr investigated the matter fully with the full resources of the US Government. He is a very skilled lawyer and tends to be very thorough. After investigating he concluded that the allegation didn't merit being taken to the Grand Jury. Now either Ken Starr was wholly remiss in his conclusion or he was an agent of Bill Clinton. Take your pick.

[rcofdayton]

Starr did not have sufficient evidence of who was guilty. It is clear a crime was committed and you are happy the Clinton administration got away with it. Hypocrite!

[Mr. Silverback]

I think if you check the record you will find you are in error.

How exactly is he in error?

[Mr. Silverback]

Now this will be a clever joke...

Not really. Don't quit your day job.

[Mr. Silverback]

What Zack said in post 46. Your characterization of Colson has been foolish, pompous and self-righteous. If you really are dismissing the man because of his pre-conversion sins or some nitnoy philosophical point, you are definitely a Pharisee.

[tcuoohjohn]

I see...anyone who holds a different point of view is a " Pharisee". Bit facile isn't it?

All truth begins as heresy. Just ask Jesus.

[tcuoohjohn]

Let him check the record..

[tcuoohjohn]

Then explain the joke..

[Mr. Silverback]

Let him check the record..

I have found in the past that this sort of response means one of three things:

1. The accuser has made an accusation he cannot back up, and knows it.

2. The accuser is at least as shaky on the record as he claims his target to be, and he doesn't want to say "This is what he got wrong" because he might screw it up and look stupid. Of course, he would look stupid for making the accusation in the first place, not for any minor factual error, but it's too late...

3. The accuser is at least as shaky on the record as he claims his target to be, and he's too lazy to do the research to confirm his memory, so he adopts a "guilty until proven innocent" attitude and places the burden of proof on the accused.

[Mr. Silverback]

Before I could do that, it would have to be a joke. To be a joke, it would have to be funny. What you have done is handed me a piece of steel plate and asked me to explain why banana peels are slippery. No go on that!

[Mr. Silverback]

I see...anyone who holds a different point of view is a " Pharisee". Bit facile isn't it?

Well, that's about 180 degrees out from what I said! I said you were a Pharisee because (note: actual words ahead, please pay attention) you were "dismissing the man because of his pre-conversion sins or some nitnoy philosophical point".

So, let's see...Pharisees (1) were extremely judgemental of "sinners" including some people who were not sinners at all, and (2) often "strained at a gnat," choosing to dismiss their fellow man based on nitnoy interpretations of the law rather than a spirit of mercy, humility and brotherhood.

So...the dismal past stuff fits example #1, and the "He's not a Thomist, so who cares what he thinks" stuff fits example #2. So, if the shoe fits...

All truth begins as heresy. Just ask Jesus.

A man presents truth, you dismiss him as a heretic. Sound more like Jesus, or more like a Pharisee? Here's a hint, the answer begins with the same sound as "foolish."

[Salvation]

Memorial of St. Augustine is supressed by the Sunday liturgy. BTTT on 08-28-05!