2003AugustineCityOfGod

Marcus Regulus was a Roman commander in the First Punic War (256 BC) against Carthage. When peace was proposed Regulus was unreasonable according to Augustine. The Carthaginians arranged that Regulus goes to Rome and put their proposal forward to the Senate and if the Senate does not accept Carthage's proposal, Regulus on oath must return to Carthage. In the Senate Regulus motivated why Rome should not accept Carthage's proposal. The Senate followed Regulus's advice to continue the war and he, according to his oath returned to Carthage. The Carthaginians then tortured him to death. (Augustine 2003:24) The story supports my opinion that Truth existed as idea above people then, but Love existed not as perfect idea above Regulus. Maybe if he did not reduce everything to only Truth, and he considered Love as well the outcome would have been better for all involved.

"With those vices kept under restraint, the morality which supports a country flourished and increased, and permanence was given to the liberty which goes hand-in-hand with such morality. It was the same conviction, the same patriotic forethought, which lead (sic) the same pontifex maximus of yours (who, as I must often repeat, was unanimously chosen by the senate of that time as the best man in Rome), to restrain the senate's project to build a theatre.⁸¹He deflected them from this ambitious design, and used all the weight of his authority in a speech which persuaded them not to allow Greek corruption to infiltrate into the virile morality of Rome, and to have no truck with foreign depravity which would undermine and weaken the Roman moral character." (Augustine 2003:42)

"For it is well known that the Greeks and the Romans, and other people, have decreed such honours to those whose public services they valued highly, and that such people were believed to have been made immortal and to have been received among the number of the gods.⁹" (Augustine 2003:52)

Augustine mentions many "gods" and "goddesses" of the pagans relevant at everyday life with regard to sowing, harvesting, growing of the crops and housing. He wrote for example: "Each man appoints one door-keeper for his house and that one, being a man is enough. But the Romans appointed three gods; Forculus to guard the doors (fores); Cardea the hinges (cardo); Limentinus the threshold (limen)." (Augustine 2003:143-145) Read together with Socrates's view that gods have good ideas, it could mean that Accounting FOR ideas was much more prevalent during the pagan era. Credit was given for creative thinking and people were acknowledged for new ideas, which added value to living conditions of society. Probably the idolatrous credit also caused jealousy amongst people and as things goes with the 'theft' of ideas; troubles attributed to creative thinking and Caiaphas syndrome.

So let them make what claims they like in their scientific theories and arguments." It seems from Augustine's explanations that the names of "gods" and "goddesses" were used similar to words describing concepts in a scientific way. (Augustine 2003:148-149) The statements of Augustine imply that "gods" and "goddesses" were relevant at science for the pagans. Currently the Accounting for ideas of intequinism posits that the rise of the Roman empire was partly due to credit given to gods and goddesses becaue of their good ideas, albeit irrationally with shrines and temples, whilst espousing idolatry. According to Euhemerus they were 'only' human. The feminine and masculine form of nouns in Latin probably originated from the practice. It seems however that gods and goddesses who were 'only' human had only the idea Truth above them and not the idea Love, because the sophists helped to form the idea Love (social contract theory).

"social contract theory ... In ancient times Protagoras, Hippias, Lycophron and other Sophists favoured a theory of this kind. In the modern ear, it was proposed in various forms by many political thinkers including Hobbes, Pufendorf, Locke and Rousseau. Present-day philosophers, among them John Rawls and David Gauthier, have revived the tradition: a just society is one that would satisfy the clauses of a contract that rational human agents under certain specified conditions would be prepared to agree to." (Mautner 2005:577)

"volonté générale; volenté de tous .. general will; will of all. Two concepts contrasted in Rousseau's Contrat Social 1762 (Social contract). The general will, distilled from the particular wills of the citizens, is always right. The will of all, in contrast, can be wrong and when it is it ought to be disregarded. The general will is always directed towards that which is truly in the citizens' interest. The will of all, in contrast, is directed towards that which the citizens may favour even if it is not really in their interest." (Mautner 2005:648) Rousseau's social contract theory did not have the ideas Truth and Love above the general will.

"Stoicism ... Their physics is a materialist, though not atomistic or atheistic system. ... The whole universe is formed and guided by a logos, or reason, which is itself composed of matter in its finest degree of tension. This logos can be understood as God, as nature, as fate and as providence. The individual human mind is a 'seed' of the logos, and the purpose of an individual life is a progressive grasp of, and adaptation to, the overall purposes of the universe. The Stoics believed that the regularity of the natural world provided evidence for these purposes, and in this way they formulated an argument from design for the existence of gods, or God. Their way of arguing is presented in Cicero's De natura deorum (On the nature of the gods). ... The ideal of conformity with logos implied an ethical cosmopolitanism: all human beings are by nature fellow-citizens of one world, divided only by artificial convention." (Mautner 2005:595)

"Heraclitus .. Writing in riddling prose epigrams, he announced that he would expound the nature of things according to the Logos, the objective principle of order in the world. Although the Logos is available to all, most mortals ignore it, living like sleep-walkers, in a dream world of their own. The philosopher's task, Heraclitus implies, is to express everyday truths in such a way that their underlying meaning can leap to one's attention - like the solution of a riddle. Thus Heraclitus presents paradoxical truths: The way up and the way down are one and the same. ... This doctrine of flux is probably not that ultimate reality is change, but that change is the manner in which ultimate reality, Logos, manifests itself.

...For Heraclitus, the ultimate reality is not any substance, for substances are not permanent; but the process of change, the law of transformation, which is perhaps to be identified with the Logos itself." (Mautner 2005: 271-272)

"MacPherson, Crawford Brough (1911-87) ... He attacked the fixation on the market in current political thought, and the narrow conception of human nature that goes with it. In The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism 1962 and in his introduction to the Penguin edition of Hobbes's Leviathan he argued that such an outlook is present in the classical political writings of Hobbes and Locke who, according to MacPherson, were ideologists of the rising bourgeoisie. That outlook, he urges, ought now be superseded: instead of private utility-maximisation the overriding ideal should be one of full actualization of human potentiality in cooperation with others." (Mautner 2005:369)

Jupiter was regarded as supreme god and the lesser gods and goddesses were regarded "aspects" of Jupiter. "If it does not embarrass our opponents, let Jupiter be all that I have mentioned - and all that I have left unsaid (for I decided to omit a great deal): let him, and him alone, be all those gods and goddesses,⁴⁵whether, as some would have it, they are all aspects of Jupiter, or forces of Jupiter. The latter interpretation is advanced by those who have decided that he is the soul of the world - an opinion held by men of apparent distinction and erudition.

If this is true - and for the moment I leave aside the question of its truth - what would they lose by a wise economy in worshipping one God? Would he be in any way underrated, since he himself would be worshipped? If it should be feared that the omitted or neglected aspects of Jupiter might be angry, the inference would be that here there is not (as they would have it) one whole life of, one Living Being, containing in itself all gods as its powers or members or aspects, but rather, each aspect has a life distinct from the others, if one aspect can be angry independently of another, if one can be appeased while another is irritated. If, on the other hand, it is asserted that all the aspects together, that is the whole of Jupiter himself, could have been offended if his aspects were not worshipped individually and separately, this assertion is the merest folly. None of them could have been neglected while the god himself, who in himself possess them all, was being worshipped. Out of innumerable possible examples I will contend myself with this. They say that all the stars are 'aspects' of Jupiter, that they are alive and possess rational souls and are therefore indisputably gods.⁴⁶" (Augustine 2003:150-152)

45. Augustine listed here many lesser gods and goddesses for example "Liber", also called "Bacchus", an "old Italian fertility god". They were regarded "aspects" (concepts) of Jupiter. (Augustine 2003:150)

"46. Stars. The belief in the divinity of the stars was common in antiquity. It is found in Neoplatonism, and it was consonant with the Stoic equation of deity and light. St. Augustine himself is not prepared to deny sentience and intelligence to the heavenly bodies; cf, BK XIII, 16." (Augustine 2003:152)

"The Romans assigned particular gods to particular spheres and to almost every single movement. They had a goddess called Agenoria, to arouse to action; a goddess Stimula, to stimulate to extraordinary action; a goddess Murcia to make a man extraordinary inactive, that is (according to Pomponius) murcidus, meaning slothful and inert, and a goddess Strenia, to make man strenuous." (Augustine 2003:155)

"I have mentioned in my fourth book some of the gods who are distributed among particular functions, one god for each minute duty. Who could brook the suggestion, indeed the contention, that such divinities can assure eternal life to anyone?" (Augustine 2003:226)

"we should even so be perfectly right in saying that those goddesses only had power within the limits somehow assigned to their particular function, and that one should not seek eternal life from Juventus". (Augustine 2003:228)

The Pagan gods and goddesses were much more abstract than Christianity and therefore more scientific.

"What conception of Jupiter was in the minds of those who placed his nurse in the Capitol? Have they not given support to the theory of Euhemerus, who, writing as a careful researcher, not as a purveyor of legendary chatter, maintained that all those gods were originally men, mere mortals?" (Augustine 2003:239)

'But all these phenomena', we are told, 'have what one may call "physiological" explanations, explanations, that is, in terms of natural science.' This is to assume that it is 'physiological' we are looking for in this discussion and not theology, that is, the science of nature, not the science God. Doubtless, the true God is God by nature, not in idea, but that does not mean that all nature is God; for there is a nature of man, of beast, of tree, of stone; and God is none of these. However, if the main point in this line of interpretation, when applied to the rites of the Mother of Gods, is that she is certainly the earth, do we need to look further and to examine other explanations? There could be no clearer support for the theory which alleges that all those gods were once mere men. They are 'sons of earth', and so earth is their mother. But according to the true theology, the earth is the work of God, not his mother.

Besides, in whatever way the rites of the Mother of Gods may be interpreted in reference to the facts of nature, it remains true that for men to be treated as women is not in accordance with nature; it is contrary to nature. This disease, this scandal, this disgrace, is openly professed in these religious ceremonies; whereas it is reluctantly confessed, under torture, by men of corrupted morals." (Augustine 2003:242)

Augustine went irrationally, over the top with his interpretations about the 'Mandate from Heaven', whilst discrediting the influences of ideas. He did however rightly oppose the negative effects of homosexual "rites" in accordance with current 'deontology'.

"Anyone who intelligently examines the futile obscenities of both [mythology and civil 'opera' plays] will conclude that both are fabulous [sarcastically]; anyone who observes that stage shows closely related to 'fabulous' [mythological] theology are included in the festivals of the gods of the city and the civic religious cult, will recognize that both theologies are, in fact, civil.

How is it, then, that the power of giving eternal life is ascribed to any of those gods, when their images and their ceremonies show quite unmistakably that they are precisely the same as those openly rejected 'fabulous' [mythological] divinities in respect of their physical form, their age, sex, clothing, their marriages, their children and their rites? All this makes it clear that they were originally human beings in whose honour rites and ceremonies were established in response to some special circumstance in their life or death and that this error has crept in with the encouragement of the demons who insinuated it, or at least through the activity of an unclean spirit, seizing any chance to delude the minds of men." (Augustine 2003:243) It is not clear what Augustine means with "fabulous" (mythological) and "civil" theology. Sometimes it seems as if "fabulous" refers to theatres and "civil" to temples.

"But felicity is not a goddess, but the gift of God. To what God then should we consecrate ourselves except to the giver of felicity, if we fix our devout affection on eternal life, where there is true fulfilment of felicity?" (Augustine 2003:252) Augustine defines "God", several places, as the giver of "felicity". It is yet to come clear whether his "felicity" is the utilitarian happiness or a deontological idea. It seems it could be the utilitarian happiness because he discredits values of ideas. He did however value Truth but I have not found him propagating Love (social contract theory).

"And now I should like our friends to explain what interpretation they want to be put on Jove, who is also called Jupiter.²³(Augustine 2003:265)

"23. Jove-Jupiter. The root Iov for all cases of Jupiter other than the nominative implies a nominative Iovis, which occurs in chs. 14, 15 (twice) and ch.16. It is perhaps significant that in ch.15 and ch.16 this form is found where God is identified with the world, which may suggest a traditional formula. Iovis (nominative) occurs in lines of Ennius quoted in Apuleius (De Deo Socr., 2, 112) in a list of the 'great gods'. It is used by Apuleius himself in two places (De Mund., 37, 370 and Met., 1, 33, 311). (Augustine 2003:265)

"But we need say no more about Jupiter, if it is true that the rest of the gods are to be reduced to him: which means that belief in a multitude of gods would be left a mere delusion, since Jupiter in himself is all gods, and they are regarded as parts or powers of Jupiter; or else the spiritual force, which Varro and his like suppose to be diffused through all the universe, has received the names of many gods from the different elements which go to make up the mass of the visible world and from the multiple forms of the operations of nature." (Augustine 2003:270) Earlier Augustine wrote that one "God" makes economic sense. It seems the struggle for ideas was also prevalent in Rome. The people for the mythical god, Jupiter, claimed that their "God" was the origin of everything, also ideas. The civil gods, which were regarded lesser gods often represented ideas, for example hinges of doors, methods during harvest etc. Augustine also made the distinction between the theatre and the temples ceremonies. The one was for the mythical and the other for the civil. It seems he was more in favour of the theatre than temple ceremonies.

"Among the rites of Ceres, the Eleusinian cult is widely known, for it was the most notable religious ceremony held at Athens. Varro offers no interpretation of it, except for a reference to the discovery of corn by Ceres". (Augustine 2003:278)

"Zeno of Citium (fl. c. 300 B.C.) founded the Stoic school; cf. n. on Bk XIV, 2. Chrysippus (c. 280-204 B.C.) was the third head of the Stoics. He completed and systematized their teachings." (Augustine 2003:347)

"For we are now disputing with those who agree with us in believing that God is an immaterial being, the creator of all things other than himself." (Augustine 2003:434) I recall that elsewhere Augustine wrote that Jesus is God, which contradicts his statement about immateriality, because Jesus was a man.

"For evil is not a positive substance: the loss of good has been given the name of 'evil'. (cf. Plotinus: Enneades, 3, 2, 5, 'Evil is to be defined as the lack of the good': cf. also ch. 22, and Enchir. 4, 'What is called evil is really the privation of good.')" (Augustine 2003:434)

"They [manicheans] would not have babbled like this if they had believed in the truth, that the nature of God is unchangeable and completely incorruptible, and that nothing can do it harm; and if they had held, according to sound Christian teaching, that the soul, which could change for the worse through free choice, and could be corrupted by sin, is not part of God, nor of the same nature as God, but is created by him, and is far inferior to its creator." (Augustine 2003:454)

This statement of Augustine implies a belief by manicheans that "the soul", according to Augustine, could be part of God, according to manicheans. What is "the soul" however according to Augustine? Did the manicheans refer to "the soul" or is it Augustine's interpretation of what manicheans believed. Probably "the soul", according to Augustine, is his own soul, that is Augustine's soul. His emphasis on singularity cause Caiaphas syndrome, which has not shown clearly, but he often wrote about utility, which implies sacrificing others, of utilitarian philosophy. According to me also, "the soul" cannot be part of God, because of the singularity, "the soul" implies. A problem however is that when no people are part of good then the world digresses into disgrace. How can an argument thus be made that people should be good, in order to be in a world in which gradual progress takes place continuously, without intermittent gradual progress and gradual digression? I think the answer is to change "the soul" to *souls* and "him" to *them-and-us* being part of God. "Him", according to Augustine, is used as direct references for "God". *Them-and-us* or others-than-only-selves can however not be used as a direct reference for God, because *them-and-us* can only be used to refer to a part of God. An individual who is part of *them-and-us* cannot be individually a part of God. The one part *them-and-us* together with other parts, for example, logic and noumenon parts, makes up the whole of God, *that* cannot be known completely. An important attribute of "God", according to Augustine is incorruptibility ("For we are now disputing with those who agree with us in believing that God is an immaterial being, the creator of all things other than himself." (Augustine 2003:434)) Incorruptibility, is according to my view, an important attribute of *parts of God*, the logos, logic and unknown, which relate to the ideas Truth and Love. Another part, that is, *them-and-us*, who keeps the ideas Truth and Love above selves are corrupt, especially with some of the seven deadly sins, and it often happens, whilst people each become part of *them-and-us* and each become not part, after being part. *Them-and-us* is thus usually corrupt, at least, with some of the seven deadly sins. Theodicy explains that. It implies that people are more intensely part of *them-and-us* when close to being dead, because I assume that then, even the seven deadly sins could leave people. It seems thus the truth is that there are grades and levels in *them-and-us*, depending on circumstances, age, knowledge, views etc.

The main difference is between the cosmological and ontological definitions of and/or *for God*. The cosmological view is of and *for God*. My ontological view is *for God*. The cosmological view includes no people, or only one man functionally as part of "God" or as "God himself". My ontological view includes many people as parts of a group who is part of God. If the group does not exist, there is no humane part of God and the land/state is in serious trouble. Can these two views be united? An agreement, which could help the two views unite, is that one man alone cannot be part of God. In the cosmological view the idea of Jesus is only functional and in my ontological view the idea of one man alone, being part of "God" does not exist, not even functionally. Another agreement is that both views are *for God*. These two views can then be the views of *them-and-us* or perhaps *them-and-I*, if no other joins me with my view.

"In respect of those truths I have no fear of the arguments of the Academics.⁴⁸ They say, 'Suppose you are mistaken?' I reply, 'If I am mistaken, I exist.' A non-existent being cannot be mistaken; therefore I must exist, if I am mistaken.⁴⁹"

"48. The philosophers of the 'Second Academy' who followed Arcesilaus of Pitane (c. 315-214 B.C.) in adopting the scepticism of Pyrrhon of Elis; cf. Bk IV, 3on.

49. cf. the argument of Descartes, Cogito ergo sum, 'I think therefore I exist.' (Augustine 2003:460)

"Now we are human beings, created in our Creator's image, whose eternity is true, whose truth is eternal, whose love is eternal and true, who is a Trinity of eternity, truth and love, without confusion or separation; and the constituents of the world which are inferior to us could not exist at all, could not have shape or form, could not aspire to any ordered pattern, or keep that pattern, had they not been created by him who supremely exists, and who is supremely wise and supremely Good." (Augustine 2003:463)

Note 53. "i.e. the logos ('word' or 'reason', cf. 'wisdom' in the preceding paragraph). The Stoics, from who the Logos doctrine of the Christian Fathers was, in part, derived, distinguished the λογος ενδιαθετος, immanent in God, from the λογος προΦορικος, externalised as the agent of creation. It is the latter which is generally designated the personal 'Word', the Second Person of the Trinity, while the denotation of the former shifts between the personal Logos and the logos as an attribute of God." (Augustine 2003:464)

The works of creation are described as being completed in six days, the same formula for a day being repeated six times... For six is the first number which is the sum of its parts, that is of its fractions, the sixth, the third and the half; for one, two and three added together make six." (Augustine 2003:465)

"We may speak of two cities, or communities, one consisting of the good, angels as well as men, and the other of the evil.

The contrasted aims of the good and the evil angels did not arise from any difference in nature or origin. It would be utterly wrong to have any doubt about that, since God created both, and he is good in his creation and fashioning of all substances. We must believe that the difference had its origin in their wills and desires, the one sort persisting resolutely in that Good which is common to all -- which for them is God himself -- and in his eternity, truth, and love, while the others were delighted rather with their own power, as though they themselves were their own Good. Thus they have fallen away from that Supreme Good which is common to all, which brings felicity, and they have devoted themselves to their own ends." (Augustine 2003:471)

"Again, the text in the Gospel, 'Whatever you will that men should do to you, do that also to them',⁵⁴ seems to imply that no one can will anything in an evil or dishonourable way; he can only so desire.

This is an instance where Augustine refers to what I regard the 'true' meaning of Love relating to social contract theory and the law, which instructs us to not do to others like we want others not to do to us. Augustine however did not understand the law in the same sense because he has several times degraded compliance with the law based on Jesus's saying that the grace of God to others is only forthcoming through himself. The definition, Jesus gave of Love (compliance with the law) is thus not yet mentioned by Augustine with the importance it deserves, imo.

"For is there anyone so uninformed about our religion, or so deaf to its widespread renown, that he does not know that the name Christ is derived from 'chrism', that is from anointing? But as soon as he has recognized Christ as the king, let him subject himself to the king who reigns in the cause of truth, kindness, and justice". (Augustine 2003:746)

'Chrestotes', the Greek word for honesty probably relates to 'chrism' (anointing). Christianity thus partly originated from Greece. Jesus, imo, knew that the singularity in human form posited with regard to existence of "God", is false functional indoctrination, by people who control that indoctrination and who spread it for their own benefit, whilst sacrificing honest people, for imparting of 'their' good ideas.

"In one of these books, called the Wisdom of Solomon, Christ's passion is most expressly prophesied. For without question it is his godless murderers who are recorded as saying,

"'Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is displeasing to us and opposed to our activities, and accuses us of offences against the Law, and blames us for sins against our upbringing. He claims to have knowledge of God, and calls himself God's son. He has become a reproach to our way of thinking. The very sight of him depresses us, because his manner of life is different from that of other men, and his paths are unchanged. In his opinion we are men of no account, and he holds aloof from our ways as though from filth. He holds in honour the latter end of the righteous, and boasts of having God for his father. Let us see then if what he says is true; let us test what will happen with him, and we shall know better what his latter end will be. For if the righteous man is God's son, God will uphold him and set him free from the clutches of his adversaries. Let us examine him with insult and torture, so that we may explore the extent of his devotion, and put his endurance to the proof. Let us condemn him to the most degrading death, since, on the evidence of his own words, he will be well looked after.' This is how they reasoned, but they were misled; for they were blinded by their own malice." ¹³⁹

Solomon's and Augustine's emphases on singularity caused problems. Did Solomon actually write about "the righteous man" or was it the translator's mistake? Reference to righteous people in the plural form when necessity requires defence is more logical. It is disputed whether the book "Wisdom of Solomon" was actually Solomon's work according to Augustine.

"Then again, what degree of wisdom could exist in Egypt before the art of letters had been bestowed by Isis, whom the Egyptians, after her death, thought it right to worship as a great goddess?" (Augustine 2003:812)

"Aristobulus was the first among the Jews who, by assuming the priestly diadem became both king and high priest... He was succeeded by Alexander,²⁰¹ and he also was both king and high priest; and he, as report says, was a cruel ruler to his people. After him, his wife Alexandra was queen of the Jews,²⁰² and from her time onwards more grievous sufferings attended them. In fact Alexandra's sons, Aristobulus and Hyrcanus, in their struggle for the royal power, appealed to the Roman forces for help against the people of Israel - for Hyrcanus asked for Roman assistance against his brother.²⁰³.. This was the situation when Pompey, a leader of the Roman people of the highest renown, entered Judaea with an army and took the city... After confirming Hyrcanus in the high priesthood, and imposing Antipater on the subjugated nation as protector, the name then given to procurators, he carried off Aristobulus as a prisoner. Henceforth the Jews also were tributaries of the Romans...

201. Alexander Jannaeus. 102-75 B.C. He alienated the Pharisees by his military activities.

"Now God, our master, teaches two chief precepts, love of God and love of neighbour;.. and the basis of this order is the observance of two rules: first, to do no harm to anyone, and, secondly, to help everyone whenever possible. To begin with, therefore, a man has a responsibility for his own household". (Augustine 2003:873)

Augustine did not mention the idea of doing to others like selves want, which is strange. It however means the same. The idea of others and selves however explains the logic. I recently posted at alt.taoism.philosophy, Google groups, that not doing evil to others and doing good to family and friends like selves want to be not done to and done to, is social contract theory (Love). Previously i posted the idea with which Kant expanded social contract theory (Love) with his categorical imperative. When doing something asks self what the world will be like if all people do that.

"But in the context of our passage, when we hear or read that the Lord is to come as an avenger, it is obvious how these words are to be understood." (Augustine 2003:941) In the context of Undifferentiated's Hintaoism at alt.philosophy.taoism at Google Groups, this sentence relates to Shiva's presence in Hintaoism because "In Shaivism tradition, Shiva is the "creator, destroyer and regenerator".^{[6][7][8]"[1]}, according to Hinduism. Undifferentiated often includes Jewish thought in his views and he said Shiva has many meanings. I read on the Internet that Shiva in Jewish culture has something to do with burials. Hintaoism could therefore also be some type of apocalyptic view, like the current view of Augustine, i am reading.

"As for God's omnipotence, which he shows in the performance of so many great marvels, I have said a great deal about this already. But if our friends want to discover something that the Almighty cannot do, here they have it: God cannot lie. And so let us believe that he will do what he can do by refusing to believe that he does what he cannot do. Thus, by refusing to believe that God can lie, our philosophers may reach the belief that he will do what he has promised to do; and let them believe it in the sense in which the world has come to believe it, since God foretold that the world would believe; he approved that the world should hold this belief; he promised that the world would believe; and by now he has shown that the world has come to believe." (Augustine 2003:1077)

AUGUSTINE St. 2003. Concerning the City of God against the Pagans. Penguin: London, 2nd edition.

MAUTNER, T. 2005. The Penguin dictionary of philosophy. (London, England: Penguin, 2nd edition)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva on 3 October 2016.