|
Post by Young Ireland on Jun 6, 2017 17:44:52 GMT
I'd appeal to members to avoid attributing unseemly motives to any other members. Remember we live in an intellectual climate where opposition to same-sex marriage is homophobia, concern about immigration is racism, and prolife views are misogyny. Let's not add to it. I think it's best to critique ideas and apply the principle of charity in argument. OK, but surely there are lines where one ought not to cross? I'm not saying Servant has crossed them, even though his reference to the Jews of today (as distinct from the Jews of Jesus' time) as "stubborn" does strike me as a bit unseemly, considering that we are all stubborn whenever we persist in sin.
|
|
|
Post by servantofthechief on Jun 6, 2017 18:02:25 GMT
I'd appeal to members to avoid attributing unseemly motives to any other members. Remember we live in an intellectual climate where opposition to same-sex marriage is homophobia, concern about immigration is racism, and prolife views are misogyny. Let's not add to it. I think it's best to critique ideas and apply the principle of charity in argument. OK, but surely there are lines where one ought not to cross? I'm not saying Servant has crossed them, even though his reference to the Jews of today (as distinct from the Jews of Jesus' time) as "stubborn" does strike me as a bit unseemly, considering that we are all stubborn whenever we persist in sin. I apologise if I have given offence with regards to this, but I do not think I am wrong in what I have stated since I was talking about the religious context in that paragraph. By definition anyone who is presented with the Truth of Christ but refuses to convert is being stubborn, and yes that does apply to us Christians who need to constantly convert our hearts back to Christ as we are indeed stubborn in our sins. Frankly I don't know why we have to be so sensitive about applying the same principles to Jews that we apply to literally everyone else, everywhere, ever.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jun 6, 2017 18:08:01 GMT
OK, but surely there are lines where one ought not to cross? I'm not saying Servant has crossed them, even though his reference to the Jews of today (as distinct from the Jews of Jesus' time) as "stubborn" does strike me as a bit unseemly, considering that we are all stubborn whenever we persist in sin. I apologise if I have given offence with regards to this, but I do not think I am wrong in what I have stated since I was talking about the religious context in that paragraph. By definition anyone who is presented with the Truth of Christ but refuses to convert is being stubborn, and yes that does apply to us Christians who need to constantly convert our hearts back to Christ as we are indeed stubborn in our sins. Frankly I don't know why we have to be so sensitive about applying the same principles to Jews that we apply to literally everyone else, everywhere, ever. That misses the point. You singled out the Jews for their stubbornness, which had the implication that Christians were not. They are no more stubborn than any other non-Christian.
|
|
|
Post by servantofthechief on Jun 6, 2017 18:17:16 GMT
I apologise if I have given offence with regards to this, but I do not think I am wrong in what I have stated since I was talking about the religious context in that paragraph. By definition anyone who is presented with the Truth of Christ but refuses to convert is being stubborn, and yes that does apply to us Christians who need to constantly convert our hearts back to Christ as we are indeed stubborn in our sins. Frankly I don't know why we have to be so sensitive about applying the same principles to Jews that we apply to literally everyone else, everywhere, ever. That misses the point. You singled out the Jews for their stubbornness, which had the implication that Christians were not. They are no more stubborn than any other non-Christian. Ah right I see. Ok in that sense it was my bad, but that was really me going off on a tangent about why the heresy of Dispensationalism was wrong. I did that because it was the spread of dispensationalism amongst American Baptist Churches that spread the popular use of the phrase Judeo-Christian, first in American intellectual circles and then beyond it (which is why before this decade it was largely only ever found in American articles, news, conferences and discussions that the phrase came up with reference to the Socio-philosophical foundation of the united states, usually by American Conservatives), Dispensationalism is, in very rough terms, the belief that God will bless you personally and your nation by extension by supporting and helping the Jews and de-emphasises the need to convert them, indeed sometimes it goes to the extent that the Church was God's 'plan B' and salvation comes from the Jews as a people (not just through Christ. I think, I could be wrong here so someone should correct me if they have more information on this topic) although I think different Baptist and Evangelical congregations and associations have varying levels of belief in this theological heresy as well as different interpretations, its broad impact on mainstream Protestant Christianity in America is very evident and is part of the reason why American politicians are very particular about their public support for the State of Israel as a key ally (beyond the very realistic and obvious realpolitik reasons America does and should support Israel as key ally in the Middle East) I have a tendency to go off on tangents on an issue of interest when I write my posts, which is why I often break my posts up into several paragraphs so it doesn't seem like I am spewing an incomprehensible word salad when responding to a topic. Edit: Incidentally I 'think' the phrase Judeo-Christian was at least used within intellectual circles sometime around the early 19th century, or perhaps earlier, but I have no hard evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 6, 2017 19:11:41 GMT
I think some remarks about this topic are in order here.
In any conservative discussion (outside of Jewish circles themselves, I guess), this is going to be a vexed subject-- indeed, it may be THE most divisive subject on the right. William F. Buckley, in pretty much forming the conservative movement in modern America, made a huge effort to actively purge anti-semitism (or what he considered anti-semitism) from its ranks. A few decades down the road, the whole question of Jewishness and conservatism has come back with a vengeance in the Alt Right-- it really does seem a case of "the return of the repressed".
I'm almost a free speech fundamentalist and I'm determined to have absolutely minimal moderation on this forum. To the extent that, there are only a very few things I can imagine intervening on. Libel is the obvious one. Spam advertising (I'm not talking about relevant plugs) is another. EXPLICIT injunctions to violence are another. Being abusive towards another member is another. Obvious trolling, and deliberate provocative blasphemy. I can't think of anything else.
So I would appeal to an "honour code", ESPECIALLY on this subject. It's a very fraught one because it really does hit on so many sensitive areas.
First of all, many conservatives are Christians and the Bible tells us to go convert all nations-- which includes the Jews. Indeed, sometimes I think Christians who are very sensitive about any language that can be perceived as anti-semitic should avoid reading the book of Acts. On the other hand, there are some very ugly parts of Christian history in terms of treatment of the Jews.
Many conservatives are nationalists and the Jewish people have often been seen as the cosmopolitans par excellence, justly or unjustly.
Many conservatives (me included) are up in arms about political correctness and are tired of speech codes and taboos. G.K. Chesterton wondered why the Jews were the only people who couldn't be discussed as a people, as the Irish or Germans or anyone else could be. It's a fair comment.
To put my cards on the table; I myself am very much a philosemite, indeed an attraction towards Jewish history and culture was part of what led me to Christianity. As a conservative, the fidelity of the Jewish people to ideals of family and tradition is something I find completely inspiring. On the other hand, I'm a Catholic and I would like all the Jews to become Catholic, just as I would like all the Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Protestants and atheists to become Catholics.
So I'll repeat-- I'd especially ask members to be very tolerant and careful with each other on this topic. Pretending it is not a vexed topic is not going to make it any less of one. Let's discuss it calmly and without aspersions, but also with a decent regard to sensitivities.
|
|
|
Post by servantofthechief on Jun 6, 2017 19:27:44 GMT
Understood. Personally I do like the Jews in general, but I am a political realist in a lot of senses (inasmuch as I am also a political Idealist, you do not be a monarchist in the 21st century if you don't have some romance in your soul) so I have little patience or tolerance for whitewashing or glossing over the realities of say, the state of Israel and its activities in conservative circles, while still supporting the state of Israel for realpolitik reasons. (for another example, I absolutely HATE Saudi Arabia's government, but in terms of realpolitik, I had to concede to a friend it was better to have a stable Saudi kingdom to prevent the rise of a real Radical Islamic Caliphate in the middle east, which would be terrifying) And I am rather unmitigating on the topic of whether or not to convert them or if they as a people or individuals are as flawed as the rest of us are. I think its fair to say I like the Jews, but I dislike zionism as an ideology, at least outside of Jewish circles, in which case its just a form of ethnocentric nationalism with religious elements, which is fine in my books.
I have studied the Alt Right for the past year and a half as a curiosity as I saw something in the movement that was both dangerous and promising before Hillary made possibly the worst political mistake of this century in bringing them to the mainstream by mentioning them in a speech (in short, as bad as the alt right is in some respects, its still a largely youthful movement of people SEARCHING for something very real, some of them come to wrong conclusions of course, but the fact that they are looking is greatly encouraging and a reason for hope as much as it is one of caution and the Alt right is inspiring less radical right wingers to at least question the current conservative establishment by virtue of giving most moderate people something to contrast it with, which is good in itself) and I have been contemplating writing a few articles about what a monarchist ought to make about the movement on my blog, keeping it all released in a week so I dont draw it out and bore readers who are more interested in my blog's primary focus. The racialsim of the Alt Right initially turned me off, especially the antisemitism before I realised to a certain extent, its more an explosion due to repression of opinions and concerns going on for decades if not longer, it was going to happen sooner or later, repressing it further rather than arguign about it will only make it worse.. The issues surrounding it is, as Maolsheachlann rightly points out, a vexed topic within conservatism, and will take some time for things to level out and cool off. Interestingly there are some signs that might be happening, there is a phenomenon of self professed Jews on the alt right now, which is predictably hilarious in the reactions it provokes from both the left and right, but that topic is neither here nor there.
Tangent aside, sorry if I caused any concern with my words or strident attitudes on this subject. Christendom is very, very dear to me, and the insistance on the term of Judeo-Christian does rub some of my nerves the wrong way for a variety of reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 6, 2017 20:58:43 GMT
No worries, servantofthechief. My comments were not aimed at anybody in particular, but general recommendations/requests. I have pretty much the same attitude to the Alt Right as yourself.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Jun 6, 2017 22:33:59 GMT
Servantofthechief I don't get tied up with term but use it on occasion deliberately as ideologues within the EU and their Irish minions have refused formally to accept Europe has religious roots which of course were largely christian in practice.
Maolsheachlann's remarks above are fair minded although G K Chesterton died in 1936 before most of the Nazi horrors emerged. I wonder had he lived longer would he have tempered the tone of some of his remarks on the Jews ? Occasionally he can come across to the modern reader as being uncomfortably close to anti-semitic nut jobs although I believe he hadn't a bad bone in his body and has the makings of a saint.
|
|
|
Post by kj on Jun 7, 2017 9:51:32 GMT
I personally wish all Catholics and Christians would convert to Judaism. Christianity is merely a simplified form of Universal Judaism. You can't really be a Catholic without being a Jew first. Jesus makes no sense whatsoever outside of Judaism. I am in total agreement with Joseph Roth, who supported the Catholic Austro-Hungarian Empire for being a vehicle of Judaism in Catholic guise.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 7, 2017 9:57:24 GMT
I'd say there are substantial theological differences; the Trinity and the Incarnation, for instance.
|
|
|
Post by kj on Jun 7, 2017 10:08:30 GMT
Most Christian anti-semitism is based on complete and utter ignorance. Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, and cannot be understand properly outside of that religion. Jesus as Messiah only makes sense if you understand Jewish Messianism. It's just ridiculous how many Christians know nothing whatsoever about this. To use a crude comparison, it would be like someone claiming to love Star Wars who had only seen the sequels and never watched the original movies. Christianity is a branch of Judaism.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 7, 2017 11:02:54 GMT
I agree with everything in your last post except the last sentence. And perhaps that comes down to semantics.
|
|
|
Post by servantofthechief on Jun 7, 2017 14:37:24 GMT
Honestly kj, I don't mean to be rude, but what you are saying does not make any sense. At the very least, modern day versions of Judaism can't very well claim absolute legitimacy or cohesion with the form of Judaism that existed during Christ's life, not least because of that council during the early centuries post Christ's death and Resurrection where Jewish elders and scholars opted to abandon or consider non-canonical books of what we call the old testament, sometimes precisely because they confirmed Jesus was the prophecised Jewish messiah now that they had the benefit of hindsight. Many protestants in fact use this council to justify their abandonment of the books largely known as the Deutorocanon, or 'second canon'.
Christianity not only makes sense outside of Judaism, but we don't need to convert to Judaism. We are in a sense, already Jews, and the Church is Israel and the House of David with Christ as our king. We are not merely an offshoot or weird Jewish heresy that got out of hand, Christ is the fulfilment of the Jewish religion, who has completed the Law and by whose blood we have signed a new covenant with Almighty God. We are very aware of the messianic tradition, sometimes I feel, moreso than most modern day Jews are even if our individual members are sometimes hilariously ignorant of history, tradition and theology. You need look no further than the many many MANY traditions we carried over from the Jewish priesthood tradition as confirmation of this, not least of which is the tradition of the Bishop's throne often found in cathedrals (or the stone chair for priests in many churches if not all of them, you can't be sure nowadays with modern churches). Hence the term Catholic, meaning Universal, this applies to everyone and everything.
|
|
|
Post by kj on Jun 7, 2017 18:33:57 GMT
I really hate that 'applies to everyone and everything' view. For me, that's what has fueled millennia of Christian anti-semitism. Christianity should be down on its hands and knees every day begging forgiveness for its appalling attitudes to its 'older brothers' over the centuries. Apart from the child abuse, the Catholic church's Jew hatred is what has most often pushed me to the brink of atheism. It may yet push me over the edge.
|
|
|
Post by servantofthechief on Jun 7, 2017 19:45:21 GMT
I'm sorry you feel that way, but the truth is no amount of apologising will ever be enough. Not just to the Jews but to anyone about anything that happened in the past, and that has been proven demonstrably time and again. The Church has apologised for the treatment of the Jews by Christians in the past, but the same charity is usually never reciprocated (outside of certain sectors of course), the Church is lambasted for what the Crusaders did to Jews as they past through Christian kingdoms to the middle east, but the Church is never even given one wit of praise for the swift actions it took to rebuke Crusaders for what they were doing at the time, or even how Bishops put their lives and properties at risk to shelter their local Jewish neighbours from harm. The Spanish Inquisition had many lamentable drawbacks, I will admit, but will we be forgiven if we apologise for it? Your own words say we will not be. Are we still to apologise for 'Hitler's Pope' who in actuality, defied the Nazis went out of his way to use what power and authority he had to hide and shelter Jews in Italy and help them escape persecution? No. No we will not. I sincerely hope the Jews as a whole will one day forgive us for what wrongs we have done them as a body, and I hope that you yourself to let go of whatever anger you might be feeling with regards to it. But the past is what it is, and the truth is what it is, and burying that up and demanding we slavishly go down on our hands and knees forever because of what happened in the past will achieve nothing but a permanent state of apology that is never accepted. All it will do is reverse the hatred and nothing will be reconciled.
|
|