<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Henrik</i>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by elendil</i>


[quote]I understand the reasoning behind his ideas and those of Spengler, and it would be pointless to get bogged down in discussing them without getting at the basis for their ideas--which they both (as well as others) refuse to do.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Why do they refuse?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Either Emmanuel or Edward Lasker (I forget which, now) once said that what he had learned from a lifetime of chess playing is that men do not want to know the truth. They want/desire something else--what they want: certitude, security, power, prestige, victory for their group. But rarely truth. What does Spengler want?

Very nice post, Henrik.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">


Spengler quote:
I must say in passing that it is self-referential to say that revelation is Jesus, and that Scripture merely is tradition; that is so much as to say that the Magisterium of the RCC can say that Jesus is whatever it wants Jesus to be without being tied to Scripture. That has nothing to do with Reason but with arbitrary authority.




The Evangelicals run in to an even worse problem: "I know the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true." Muslims run in to the same problem. They're in the same boat, like it or not.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Note Spengler's misdirection: nobody suggested that the Church pays no attention to Tradition and is not tied to it--quite the contrary, as is well known the Church has tied itself firmly to Tradition, both written and otherwise. Of course, the Church existed before any canon of scripture was decided upon--the canon is itself an exercise in authority. Logic has never been Spengler's strongpoint. Henrik's characterization of the Evangelical position is largely correct, however.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

Spengler quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jews have no doubt that they are the People of God, in the flesh, warts and all, but tangible and real. Christians require a nice theology to define what a People of God might be, what the Church Visible and the Church Invisible are, and so forth. Uniformity of doctrine is a life and death matter for Christians; it is icing on the cake for the Jews. Again, read Rosenzweig, and he will explain why this is the case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It sounds like you don't have a high opinion of theology.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Henrik, Spengler resolutely refuses to recognize that most other peoples of the world regard themselves as uniquely representing the true order of God. Spengles' self referential logic procedes thusly: why are we the Chosen People? Because we don't doubt it. Ironclad logic, for Spengles. But the Chinese and most other cultures feel the same way.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">


Spengler quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judaism as pagan self-worship a la N.T. Wright -- jealousy and pique, pettifoggery and casuistry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Your ad hominem attacks don't prove that Wright is wrong. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
But Henrik, deprive Spengles of the <i>ad hominem attack</i> and very little is left. You're absolutely right--it's his stock in trade. If you can't beat it, deride it, misrepresent it, change the subject, confuse issues, etc. Whatever.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">


Spengler quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where Christianity continues to flourish, namely in the United States, it is because the Christian attitude towards the Jews became: "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Do you volunteer to break it to Jerry Falwell that he's a Jew<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
See, Spengles says he believes, but he would never act based on his beliefs. But that's exactly what he wants Evangelicals to do. Does a picture begin to emerge? I, on the other hand, try to act based on reason and urge both Evangelicals and Jews--and everyone else--to use their reason and act based on reason. At least I'm consistent and am not trying to manipulate anyone. Just bludgeon them. [:p]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> At least I'm consistent and am not trying to manipulate anyone. Just bludgeon them.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
We're still waiting to see how elendil's club of reason is not made out of foam.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by dyr</i>

For instance, tell me how a Jew (or Muslim) could accept for himself any hint of speech about a man-god or god-man, <b>however that gets worked out to various Christians' satisfaction</b>.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well, it is important to understand that not all Christians agree on how Jesus is divine. There are some Christian sects who understand Jesus in such a way as to very clearly avoid having other gods besides YHWH. For example, many Quakers don't believe in the Trinity. But, Jews aren't allowed to view Jesus as the messiah even without putting Jesus on the same level as YHWH; but are still free to consider some fortune-teller in Brooklyn the messiah.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
It sounds like crypto-paganism. Perhaps Dyr should sacrifice a sheep <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I must take your "paganism" facetiously, but your "crypto-" not : what don't you understand in what I've said? That Jews (& everybody) should be inspired to action based on Torah about Sabbath? That this is of grave importance in our day? That re-appropriating ancients' sense of "importance" of elements of creation, even as they mistakenly took these for " 'eLoHIM " (gods), is important for us? This might have attendant danger, but the danger of not doing so is far greater.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So do you propose that it is necessary to rebuild the Temple and offer sacrifices there?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by elendil</i>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

Why do they refuse?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Either Emmanuel or Edward Lasker (I forget which, now) once said that what he had learned from a lifetime of chess playing is that men do not want to know the truth. They want/desire something else--what they want: certitude, security, power, prestige, victory for their group. But rarely truth. What does Spengler want?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I suppose the normal stuff: certitude, security, power, prestige, victory for his group*.

*of course, the group may change [;)]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by elendil</i>

Very nice post, Henrik.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Thanks.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Note Spengler's misdirection: nobody suggested that the Church pays no attention to Tradition and is not tied to it--quite the contrary, as is well known the Church has tied itself firmly to Tradition, both written and otherwise. Of course, the Church existed before any canon of scripture was decided upon--the canon is itself an exercise in authority. Logic has never been Spengler's strongpoint. Henrik's characterization of the Evangelical position is largely correct, however.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So how long is the Evangelical position viable? They act as if they are under attack. They attack Evolution and the study of the history of the Bible and the Church.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Henrik, Spengler resolutely refuses to recognize that most other peoples of the world regard themselves as uniquely representing the true order of God. Spengles' self referential logic procedes thusly: why are we the Chosen People? Because we don't doubt it. Ironclad logic, for Spengles. But the Chinese and most other cultures feel the same way.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Be careful. You don't want Spengler to get the idea that the Chinese are anti-semites. Then he'd do his own dry cleaning, and that would be a disaster.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Your ad hominem attacks don't prove that Wright is wrong. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
But Henrik, deprive Spengles of the <i>ad hominem attack</i> and very little is left. You're absolutely right--it's his stock in trade. If you can't beat it, deride it, misrepresent it, change the subject, confuse issues, etc.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

But the longer he avoids discussing Wright's works on their merits, the more suspicious Spengler's position looks.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">See, Spengles says he believes, but he would never act based on his beliefs. But that's exactly what he wants Evangelicals to do.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

He's merely giving the Evangelicals wise council. [;)]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Does a picture begin to emerge?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The picture that begins to emerge is that of the Grand Inquisitor of Dostoyevsky.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I, on the other hand, try to act based on reason and urge both Evangelicals and Jews--and everyone else--to use their reason and act based on reason. At least I'm consistent and am not trying to manipulate anyone. Just bludgeon them. [:p]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Unfortunately, those that encourage reason are often the ones who get bludgeoned.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">but are still free to consider [someone other than the Christian messiah as] the messiah. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Although not crude like elendil's bringing up the events of some 60 years ago, you should know that what you refer to is very, very controversial. There has been much written contra. But for many of us messiah-talk is just not a central issue, only when pressed to think about it do many even bother considering it, & some of us might have too little substantive to say. Same goes for <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
So do you propose that it is necessary to rebuild the Temple and offer sacrifices there?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
There are also some even dangerous folks who are too preoccupied with what this could entail. Such people would be little likely to take seriously what I'd have to say on the matter. But all this just points to what others have said, that what a Jew entertains in his head is less primary than what a Jew does. For some of us intellectual types, thought is so serious as to be contrued almost as deed. That allows the cross-over theological di-tri-whatever-alogue. Strict halachists, Heschel I think calls them "panhalachists", have little time for philosophy. For others this might suit. Not for me. But if you translate the messiah question into deeds implicated, no, there is no way, given what Jews know about what Christianity was & is, in its definition of messiah, that can allow messiahship for the Christian messiah, at a minimum for the huge political fact of defeat back then.
One can interpret this away in two-messiah theory, but who really cares, unless you insist on a Jew theorizing, which I'm unlikely to be interested in. Do you see, if it's almost beside the point for Jews, why bother?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by dyr</i>
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
So do you propose that it is necessary to rebuild the Temple and offer sacrifices there?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
There are also some even dangerous folks who are too preoccupied with what this could entail. Such people would be little likely to take seriously what I'd have to say on the matter. But all this just points to what others have said, that what a Jew entertains in his head is less primary than what a Jew does. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

But what a person does is restricted by what they are able to do. Thoughts can become deeds when a person is given the opportunity. Some Jews see the creation of Israel as a sign that the Temple will be rebuilt. They're even training temple priests. What is in a person's head can become very important, if they think they can do it. If you don't care about what a person is thinking until they do something, like destroying the Dome of the Rock, it is too late.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But if you translate the messiah question into deeds implicated, no, there is no way, given what Jews know about what Christianity was & is, in its definition of messiah, that can allow messiahship for the Christian messiah, at a minimum for the huge political fact of defeat back then.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Do you really think Jesus was defeated? There are over a billion Christians and the number is growing.

Perhaps his strategy was different than what you would expect, but you can't argue with success.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
But what a person does is restricted by what they are able to do. Thoughts can become deeds when a person is given the opportunity. Some Jews see the creation of Israel as a sign that the Temple will be rebuilt. They're even training temple priests. What is in a person's head can become very important, if they think they can do it. If you don't care about what a person is thinking until they do something, like destroying the Dome of the Rock, it is too late.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> I think you see I do agree with you. But I thought we're talking things like theology, philosophy. People that propose possibly dangerous things (not that their ends are necessarily misplaced) are simply to be stopped. You can trust that what they plan for is what's intended, and that this is a matter for local law enforcement.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Do you really think Jesus was defeated? There are over a billion Christians and the number is growing.

Perhaps his strategy was different than what you would expect, but you can't argue with success.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Consider what Moslems would say. They'd probably be ever more frank than Jews about on-the-ground political failure obviating messiahship status. Spiritualizing it, or going the messiah #1 then messiah #2 thing, that's an available tactic. But if Jews are largely not going to bother, why should Christians bother with Jews' not bothering? If it agitates some Christians so, they've got psychological or inherited doctrinal problems.

I'm interested in seeing what Brother Wm. would make of "conversion of the Jews", if he feels like going out on a limb...

Henrik, Elendil,

Of course the Protestants fall back upon tradition and authority as much as do the Catholics, just as you said. Never have I implied anything different. One can of course argue that careful attention to the record of revelation in Scripture helps avoid arbitrary and arrogant pronouncements on the basis of mere institutional authority, but Catholics -- especially since Ressourcement -- can argue Scripture just as well. What I object to is the insistence that unaided Reason can settle any of the important matters here, whether that insistence comes from St. Thomas, Maimonides, Hermann Cohen or whomever. In this respect Wyschogrod's attack on Maimonides in "Abraham's Promise" is one of the pieces of theology I have read in years. We have worn this track down before and I do not need to repeat myself.
Faith is an existential choice. And whatever choice one makes leads to dreadful difficulties, as I have said many times in the past. These difficulties often have tragic consequences. I agree with Luther's critique of Free Will; it is incompatible with Original Sin. Predestination, on the other hand, is no solution at all; it is pretzel of an argument designed to preserve Original Sin. If man has enough Free Will to save himself through prayer and good behavior without Jesus' sacrifice, what's Jesus good for? I never believed the old story that Luther turned on the Jews because he was disappointed that they did not become Christians once he had reformed the church. I believe he turned on the Jews because Servetus, the Anabaptists and other radicals made clear to him that once he attacked the foundations of the Church, his "Judaizing heresy" could lead to a new kind of Arianism, Unitarianism, etc. That is why he persecuted the Jews (and why Calvin burned Servetus at the stake). Christianity's future hung by a thread during the great pagan resurgence of the Renaissance, and tough times called for tough measures. The RCC, as I mentioned before, persecuted the Jews because the presence of Jews promoted Protestantism. The Jewish position, as I have said many times, is just as illogical, starting with the scandal of election (by the way, I wrote on numerous occasions that every people in the world considers itself to be the chosen people, hence anti-Semitism). Heschel's resume of Jewish theology is remarkable in its documentation of two quite diametrically opposed positions which are made to coexist in modern Jewish liturgy and theology. To believe that the Creator of Heaven suffers with His creatures is nonsense from a philosophical standpoint. Get rid of this, and keep the Creator, and you more or less have Islam -- and that has its own set of problems.

Nothing "works." Every choice runs into impossible logical difficulties. One accepts a tradition not in order to find a solution to learn to live with the inconsistencies.

The RCC offered to the peoples of Europe a combination of Jewish hopes and a pagan life. The pagan life trumped the hopes. Nonetheless the RCC has the capacity to renew itself, and Benedict XVI is in my view the great religious leader of our times. I pray for his welfare. American Evangelicalism is a mass of contradictions and confusions but has the enormous advantage that Americans, strictly speaking, are not "Gentiles," in the sense that the Gentium is defined by its birth. Americans are defined by a choice to move to America -- thus an "almost chosen people."

I can only endorse Paul Johnson's words in an essay in the June/July First Things, in which he writes of "an angry conservative response from [the mainline Protestant churches'] disenfranchised rank and file that took the form of anew and nonelitist variety of ecumenicalism, a de facto unity that stretches across the sects and even into Catholicism. This popular ecumenicalism is based upon a common reassertion of traditional moral values and of belief in the salient articles of Christianity not as symbols but as plain historical facts. What is unusual about this fourth Awakening is that for the first time it embraces Catholics...while America remains the world's most powerful and enthusiastic champion of democracy, it is likely to preserve its exceptional role as the citadel of voluntary religion."

In the service of the ecumenicalism, which I embrace, I eschew the Protestant sectarianism which denounces the RCC as pagan, or the Catholic sectarianism which denounces Jewish election as pagan (N.T. Wright) and emphasize that choices of denomination can be both valid and contingent. There is no alleinseligmachende Kirche, no absolutely correct doctrine. There I am with Kierkegaard. Is that dangerous? You betcha, as the fellow from Fargo said. It is hard to deal with the odious Heidegger once you allow faith to be an existential choice -- but not impossible. Henrik already has observed that Rosenzweig had (on his deathbed, to be fair) some positive things to say about Heidegger (although these had to do with Heidegger's shameless plagiarism of Kierkegaard).

Life, though, is dangerous, unstable, and uncertain. What is my agenda? Not the Grand Inquisitor's, surely. It is to promote Judeo-Christian ecumenicism in the support of traditional moral values and the resolve to defend the West against its enemies, something I have being doing since the Cold War. But it is also to inculcate the habit of mind of accepting uncertainty. That is, if you will, the Clausewitzian side. It is why I emphasize the Biblical view: the strange, miraculous, unpredictable appearances of the Divine and the responses they should elicit. And it is why the literature I find most relevant -- from De Rojas through Goethe to Dashiell Hammett -- centers upon uncertainty. I simply have no time for those who think they have the answer to everything.
Nur der verdient sich Freiheit wie das Leben
Der taeglich sie erobern muss.