augustine city of god
Second Assignment - Pols 201
Dear Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis,
Your last letter has arrived just two days ago, since then I have been thinking about your words. I am aware of the importance of your works on the Christian theology and I do respect you by my heart. Yet I write you this letter, because I have some doubts about your statements concerning your doctrine of two cities, namely civitas dei and civitas terrena.
As far as I understand civitas dei is the eternal, immutable and transcendental city, in which people live after the spirit, love eternal things. and have amour Dei. There none are born, none die. (A18) Citivas terrena, on the other hand, is temporary, changing and immanent, in which people live after the flesh. There people are mortal and loves temporal things, like money, power, glory and honor.
I have some suspicions about your explanations concerning the two cities. In your lines, there are some points that I cannot agree with you, thus I would like you explain my counter arguments in contrast with yours one by one.
Please pay attention to my words, I will try to show you another way, in which you are assured that this shall be the eternal condition and you do not have to cut short your happiness.
Objection 1: First of all, you wrote me that "the earthly city, which does not live by faith, seeks an earthly peace; and the end it proposes in the well ordered concord if civic obedience and rule is the combination of men's wills to attain the things which are helpful to this life. The heavenly city, or rather that part of it which sojourns on earth and lives by faith, makes use of this peace only because it must, until this mortal condition which necessitates it shall pass away.”1 What I conclude from your words is that in the earthly city peace and order can be achieved temporally and for the sake of the interest, whereas real and eternal peace can only be achieved in the heavenly city.
Objection 2: Secondly, you think that human beings
Dear Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis,
Your last letter has arrived just two days ago, since then I have been thinking about your words. I am aware of the importance of your works on the Christian theology and I do respect you by my heart. Yet I write you this letter, because I have some doubts about your statements concerning your doctrine of two cities, namely civitas dei and civitas terrena.
As far as I understand civitas dei is the eternal, immutable and transcendental city, in which people live after the spirit, love eternal things. and have amour Dei. There none are born, none die. (A18) Citivas terrena, on the other hand, is temporary, changing and immanent, in which people live after the flesh. There people are mortal and loves temporal things, like money, power, glory and honor.
I have some suspicions about your explanations concerning the two cities. In your lines, there are some points that I cannot agree with you, thus I would like you explain my counter arguments in contrast with yours one by one.
Please pay attention to my words, I will try to show you another way, in which you are assured that this shall be the eternal condition and you do not have to cut short your happiness.
Objection 1: First of all, you wrote me that "the earthly city, which does not live by faith, seeks an earthly peace; and the end it proposes in the well ordered concord if civic obedience and rule is the combination of men's wills to attain the things which are helpful to this life. The heavenly city, or rather that part of it which sojourns on earth and lives by faith, makes use of this peace only because it must, until this mortal condition which necessitates it shall pass away.”1 What I conclude from your words is that in the earthly city peace and order can be achieved temporally and for the sake of the interest, whereas real and eternal peace can only be achieved in the heavenly city.
Objection 2: Secondly, you think that human beings