Which one did you mean?susnfx wrote:Okay, Bloo, put back the second Churchill quote. I liked it.
Susan
), but also to respond to your clarifications. It seems so complicated, and I haven’t even started yet! 
) this thread was more to raise issues about his scholarly approach to the subject, than to attempt to decry his ideology. If this was not clear, I apologise again.I believe you have misunderstood my intent with this paragraph. I did not mean that the US and EU are incomparable, but rather that Weigel never clearly states whether his use of ‘Europe’ refers to the European Union, a bureaucratic structure, or to European countries as a whole. As I mentioned, Some of his points are valid, if applied purely to the European Union and its workings, but are woefully inadequate in terms of individual countries. Likewise, some points work if applied to an individual country, but not to the EU as an entity. This means that any analysis of his article is subject to the interpretation of the individual reader – not an ideal situation, especially for someone proposing a thesis that was bound by its nature to cause conflicts of opinion. My point that the EU is not comparable to the US was meant as an example of the lack of clarity in Weigel’s writing – and it is actually very unclear whether Weigel is equating the two abbreviations, or using one of the two possibilities I have mentioned above to explain ‘Europe’. So, regardless (again) of actual political leanings, there is no way to know exactly what Weigel himself meant, or on which interpretation to base a proper debate of his ideas.fluter_d wrote: Weigel seems intent on establishing a contrast between the US (the shining light of the democratic project, it seems) and 'Europe'. Some of his points are valid, if applied purely to the European Union and its workings, but are woefully inadequate in terms of individual countries. Likewise, some points work if applied to an individual country, but not to the EU as an entity. Weigel seems confused as to the differences between the US and the EU. There is not enough parity or commonality to make a broad comparison between the two. The EU is not a 'United States of Europe', just as the US is not an 'American Union'. This is the first (and a very valid and important) point, in my opinion, which must cast some doubt on his subsequent statements.
In this quote, I was rather reacting to Weigel’s underlying implications that Islamic fundamentalism is just waiting for the first available opportunity to overthrow the ‘civilised’ world, than posing a question that I felt should be addressed or answered. The ‘Surely not’ that you refer to was indeed meant to place the entire quote in an ironic light. Should an Islamic leader, fundamentalist or not, accuse Christianity of the same thing, I am sure that there would be an immediate outcry – not only in the US, let it be said, but also in Europe. This attitude does not seem to me to further the cause of understanding or debate, but rather to create an ‘us or them’ mentality, which is (as I believe Gary may have pointed out in relation to the article as a whole) a valuable tool of propaganda. I must confess to a lack of knowledge on the subject of Christian/Muslim wars; however, the fact that neither Christianity nor Islam have succeeded thus far in converting all of the heathens to their way of thinking leads me to believe that a divided religious world view will be a reality, at least for the foreseeable future. In this light, hyperbolic statements about what the other side is just waiting to do to us, should we let down our guard, are at best unhelpful – and this applies to both ‘other’ sides. Again, I did not mean to get into a debate on the relative merits or otherwise of particular religions.elendil wrote:fluter_d wrote:A cursory reading of history would suggest that the reason "we" have not been overrun is actually due to superior force of arms. Were it not for Poland's famed Winged Hussars at Vienna under Sobieski (when the French, characteristically, were allied with the Turks) and the Grand Coalition under Don Juan at Lepanto the history of Europe would undoubtedly be rather different. And history would also suggest that you oughtn't to be quite so sure.Surely the vast majority of Muslims do not subscribe to the views of the fundamentalists - otherwise we would all have been overrun by those evil people who are into jihad by now.
) for that. elendil replied:And surely Christian fundamentalism is just as dangerous and morally reprehensibly as Islamic fundamentalism. Yet only Islamic fundamentalism is pointed to as evil,
and then later clarified:Um, while I have no sympathy with Christian "fundamentalism" I think the "fundamentalisms" involved here are somewhat different. In general, I think it's a bad idea to apply the same word to diverse realities. It leads to confusion and sloppy thinking.
For the record, I do believe that there is a difference of degree here. And I do agree that the term you used, ‘relative degrees of evil’, is probably appropriate. My point was more to do with the overt wording, in some instances, and the implications (in others), which Weigel employs. Highly emotive language which implies threats is not conducive to valid scholarship, nor to having one’s work taken seriously, in my opinion – although I admit that I also did not choose my words well, or even follow my own strictures.Perhaps I was being a little defensive here. I sensed that I was somehow being grouped in with Christian fundamentalists. In fact, fluter_d's closing crack about the probable reception that fundamentalists would receive upon arrival in the US suggests that I was correct in my suspicion. At any rate, anyone who knows me or has even read a few of my posts will recognize that them are fightin' words for me--or about as close as you can get to those sorts of words for me. I know for a fact that I've remarked several time on the Chiffboard that "fundies" consider people like me to be, literally, pagans. Nevertheless, rather than getting into a lengthy, and probably futile, denial, I instead made an only slightly veiled plea to be mindful of the analogy of being in applying identical terms to different realities. I considered that an appropriate and serious comment, and I still do. I do, in fact, think there are significant differences between these two -isms, both of which are repugnant to me. Once again, however, I preferred not to get sidetracked into a probably futile attempt to distinguish their relative degrees of evil.
!) – much as I understand the Puritans did. That was what I was implying – nothing more, nothing less.Weigel is very far from a fundamentalist of any sort. In fact, he's a Catholic and has written extensively on Catholic theology in a scholarly vein and has even written a very widely praised biography of JP2. He's a very intelligent man, and I'm quite sure that if any of us were to engage him in conversation he would not paint the world in black and white. On the other hand, this article is an opinion piece and, as such, was intended (I'm quite sure) to evoke a lively response. First Things (the monthly in which the article appeared) prints numerous letters to the editor, and authors respond to those letters in a fair amount of detail. It's a major feature of the magazine, a bit like our beloved Chiffboard.My point was more that Weigel seems to see Christianity in terms of black and white – there is one path which should be followed, and any other approach is either morally flawed, or a threat to the world as a whole (Yes, this is an over-simplification of his approach, but give me some leeway here !) – much as I understand the Puritans did.
but, look what elendil had already said!I do not need to know more about him... and if I see his work in the future I will read with prepaired mind. I am sorry if this sounds prejusti-whatistherestoftheword.....
Now that's prejusti-whatistherestoftheword for you!I happen not to believe that he's always clearsighted in all regards. In fact, my refusal to even read certain of his writings has led to no small degree of tension between myself and another family member.
Far more than I initially intended--believe me!elendil - You’ve obviously put a lot of effort into this,
I appreciate that.Earlier in the string you were critical that I selected one small quote from you, and commented on that. It was a tactic I used, and you called me on it. Fair enough.
Naturally, I was waiting for someone to call me on that, which is why I said earlier:How now, is there justification in ignoring thirty-nine books (Old Testament) in which God's nature is explained to mankind, and his authority established, to get to the twenty-seven (New Testament) that help the particular argument you are making?
Regarding Christianity and Islam, let me offer a quite unoriginal thought. (But with this caveat: for me, just what Christianity is is not as uncomplicated a matter as you might expect.)
Bloom - Besides reading the article elendil recommended, I sought out other of his writings and learned more about Weigel and his perspective. I'm interested to read elendil's response, because I don't get the impression e takes this stuff lightly, or flippantly. I also have the impression that e places great emphasis on the authority of scripture. That authority was established in the OT, so separation seems a manipulation, from my perspective. But I am assuming e has thought through this previously and am very interested to learn that perspective.Bloomfield wrote:U2: This explains also why Weigel/elendil are happy to ignore the Old Testament. And it explains why elendil correctly states that Weigel is not a Christian Fundamentalist: those are all protestants of one type or another. Calling Weigel a "neo-Conservatist" leaves out a bit.
Far more than I initially intended--believe me!elendil - You’ve obviously put a lot of effort into this,
I appreciate that.Earlier in the string you were critical that I selected one small quote from you, and commented on that. It was a tactic I used, and you called me on it. Fair enough.
Naturally, I was waiting for someone to call me on that, which is why I said earlier:How now, is there justification in ignoring thirty-nine books (Old Testament) in which God's nature is explained to mankind, and his authority established, to get to the twenty-seven (New Testament) that help the particular argument you are making?
Let me get back to you on that later in this post, and first try to clear up a few things with Bloomie.Regarding Christianity and Islam, let me offer a quite unoriginal thought. (But with this caveat: for me, just what Christianity is is not as uncomplicated a matter as you might expect.)
That seems in a way a little unfair. I've already indicated numerous times that I'm not in full agreement with Weigel, but I don't question his scholarly credentials. "Apologist" to me suggests "popularizing." Ain't nuthin' wrong with that, of course, but to me it makes Weigel look more one dimensional than he is.Weigle is a Catholic apologist
Always! Couldn't agree more!it pays to look a back bit in history
There are many who claim that the House of Saud is, if not at the forefront, the financial power behind al Qaeda's jihad--intended to clean the world of non-Muslims.The Roman Catholic Church and its supporters have been at the forefront of keeping Europe clean of Muslims.
Right. Itinerant Muslim preachers had wandered through SE Europe, converting the locals by during the 14th-15th centuries by the eloquence and logic of their preaching. The result: after the locals had spontaneously embraced Islam there was a homogeneous Muslim population, yearning for peace with their Catholic Hapsburg neighbors. Unfortunately, the evil Catholic Hapsburgs once more thwarted world peace by installing Catholics (yuck!) in B/H. Puh-leeze! Remember? And it was wicked missionaries who converted black tribesmen in the Sudan, so those folk are only getting what they deserve at the hands of Dubya's "religion of peace?" Nice, Bloomie. Y'know, I did mention some of those issues, which you neatly sidestepped.it was the Habsburg Emperors (the stoutest secular defenders of the Pope's interest) who installed the Catholic settlers in Bosnia/Herzigovina causing five hundered years of strife.
Do you seriously think that your version of history is even remotely adequate to the tragic history of the Balkan Peninsula? Perhaps there are some people out there who could speak to that.it pays to look a back bit in history
Cheap rhetoric does you no credit, Bloomie. I've repeatedly stated my dissatisfaction with words like "fundamentalist," and I've given my reasons, if anyone would care to think about them a bit. In any event, I'm quite sure Protestants of virtually any stripe would reject the notion of Catholics as fundamentalists. As I've indicated, my views on Christianity itself are not as simple as you would like to portray them.And it explains why elendil correctly states that Weigel is not a Christian Fundamentalist: those are all protestants of one type or another.
It certainly does. I've previously, on this thread, characterized Weigel as a Catholic, a Neo Con of some sort--a widely recognized category in American politics which is considered to have a fairly identifiable agenda, a recognized scholar on just war theory, a biographer of the pope. I've rejected "fundamentalist" as a valid characterization, since I'm quite sure he doesn't favor a literal interpretation of Scripture--that is, I believe, the accepted definition of a fundamentalist. What would you like me to add?Calling Weigel a "neo-Conservatist" leaves out a bit.
I doubt that Weigel does ignore the OT, but I assume that you have some reason for suggesting that he does, which you'd be willing to share with the rest of us? You've read "Tranquilitas Ordinis" and his other works and discovered this lacuna?This explains also why Weigel/elendil are happy to ignore the Old Testament.
Well, I can't very well write the book on the Chiffboard, either, can I? 
As always, however, I recommend the writings of N. T. Wright (aka Tom Wright) on all matters Scriptural. I am in very close agreement with him on most matters--although not with his politics, necessarily, which probably more closely resemble those of (ohmigod!) Bloomie! MO, however, you can't do better than reading his books, both in the popularized Tom Wright editions as well as in the N.T. Wright full-academic-apparatus editions. : many years ago, my wife and I were trained counselors in NFP (Natural Family Planning - specifically, the Sympto-Thermal Method). We've practiced NFP throughout our marriage and have four wonderful offspring. I highly recommend NFP to one and all as a way to get in tune with nature, with your spouse's rhythyms and emotions, as a way to open and maintain communication in a marriage, as a gentle, loving, non-violent art. I offer this in the spirit of returning to the original intent of the thread. Conceded. Apologist ist loaded. But it sound so much cooler. And I also like the fact that those less familiar with the word apologist might think that I am implying that one has to apologize for Catholocism, which of course I am NOT.elendil wrote:Thus spake Bloomie:That seems in a way a little unfair. I've already indicated numerous times that I'm not in full agreement with Weigel, but I don't question his scholarly credentials. "Apologist" to me suggests "popularizing." Ain't nuthin' wrong with that, of course, but to me it makes Weigel look more one dimensional than he is.Weigle is a Catholic apologist
Is this a one of those Bush-is-making-a-mistake-Is-not-Clinton-slept-with-Monica arguments?There are many who claim that the House of Saud is, if not at the forefront, the financial power behind al Qaeda's jihad--intended to clean the world of non-Muslims.The Roman Catholic Church and its supporters have been at the forefront of keeping Europe clean of Muslims.
Oh, Puh-leeze back at cha.Right. Itinerant Muslim preachers had wandered through SE Europe, converting the locals by during the 14th-15th centuries by the eloquence and logic of their preaching. The result: after the locals had spontaneously embraced Islam there was a homogeneous Muslim population, yearning for peace with their Catholic Hapsburg neighbors. Unfortunately, the evil Catholic Hapsburgs once more thwarted world peace by installing Catholics (yuck!) in B/H. Puh-leeze! Remember? And it was wicked missionaries who converted black tribesmen in the Sudan, so those folk are only getting what they deserve at the hands of Dubya's "religion of peace?" Nice, Bloomie. Y'know, I did mention some of those issues, which you neatly sidestepped.it was the Habsburg Emperors (the stoutest secular defenders of the Pope's interest) who installed the Catholic settlers in Bosnia/Herzigovina causing five hundered years of strife.
Do you deny that the Catholic church has a bigger stake than most in historic struggle between European Christians & Muslims (esp. in the Balkans)? I wasn't saying more that that. You forgot to mention for what purpose I might consider my version of Balkan history adequate or inadequate. Nice, elendil. (hey I am getting into this)Do you seriously think that your version of history is even remotely adequate to the tragic history of the Balkan Peninsula? Perhaps there are some people out there who could speak to that.
Here I just don't see your issue. All those people we think of in this country as Christian Fundamentalists are protestants. The notion that you should go back the Bible and a literal reading of the Bible is protestant (and American). That's all I thought I was saying (I was agreeing that W isn't a fundamentalist, I thought). Just a bit of taxonomy if you will.Cheap rhetoric does you no credit, Bloomie. I've repeatedly stated my dissatisfaction with words like "fundamentalist," and I've given my reasons, if anyone would care to think about them a bit. In any event, I'm quite sure Protestants of virtually any stripe would reject the notion of Catholics as fundamentalists. As I've indicated, my views on Christianity itself are not as simple as you would like to portray them.And it explains why elendil correctly states that Weigel is not a Christian Fundamentalist: those are all protestants of one type or another.
That he is a Catholic apologist.It certainly does. I've previously, on this thread, characterized Weigel as a Catholic, a Neo Con of some sort--a widely recognized category in American politics which is considered to have a fairly identifiable agenda, a recognized scholar on just war theory, a biographer of the pope. I've rejected "fundamentalist" as a valid characterization, since I'm quite sure he doesn't favor a literal interpretation of Scripture--that is, I believe, the accepted definition of a fundamentalist. What would you like me to add?Calling Weigel a "neo-Conservatist" leaves out a bit.
But it's all right, I've added it for you. OK. I am being glib here, having a bit of a laugh about the tortured Catholic view of the relation of the OT and NT. Sorry. Oh, and I am sorry to say that I am not reading Tranquilitas Ordinis any time soon. I would, but I anticipate being busy now that I have to move back to Europe because I don't agree with Weekenders on everything. In fact, I'd better be packing.I doubt that Weigel does ignore the OT, but I assume that you have some reason for suggesting that he does, which you'd be willing to share with the rest of us? You've read "Tranquilitas Ordinis" and his other works and discovered this lacuna?This explains also why Weigel/elendil are happy to ignore the Old Testament.
U2 wrote:How now, is there justification in ignoring thirty-nine books (Old Testament) in which God's nature is explained to mankind, and his authority established, to get to the twenty-seven (New Testament) that help the particular argument you are making?
Philosophically you may not ignore it, but you did in the post. You acknowledged you were waiting for someone to call your hand at not mentioning the Old Testament while citing the New Testament. So I obliged. It was obvious because. . .well. . . it’s obvious.elendil wrote: Back to you, U2. I don't ignore the OT, either. . . Naturally, I was waiting for someone to call me on that, which is why I said earlier: Regarding Christianity and Islam, let me offer a quite unoriginal thought. (But with this caveat: for me, just what Christianity is is not as uncomplicated a matter as you might expect.)
Feel free to ask anyway. Since you didn't then I'll point out the teachings in the OT stood for many years as basis for millions of people's faith and hope, it wasn't simply a means to an end (revelation) for Christianity. It was divine law and the sum of their hope for eternal salvation given to and practiced by millions of Jews. I don't find it particularly enlightened to boil all those years, and all those souls, into terminology that concludes the record of Hebrew faith was but a path to Christianity since it preceded it in chronologically. That ignores the issue of authority, which is the issue I'm attempting to address. Perhaps that's not what you intend, but it certainly gets close to that in what you've written here.elendil wrote:. . .then what is being revealed. I think I know your answer, based on your post. . .
The OT is that, but not just that. It was the law. It was hope for eternal salvation, which seems suddenly , intentionally, minimized to not much more than a study, or a lesson. It must have been effective - it was given by the creator to a chosen people. I recognize that changing the plan (law to grace) sort of indicates there was a problem, but we can't back away from the concept of omnipotency and infallibility. Can we?elendil wrote:Here's my answer, in extremely summary form. I see the OT, on the whole, as a record of a people's search for God under the prompting of God's call. It is also, necessarily, a record of that people's failure to respond to God's call at times, to distort it at times for their own purposes, to refuse to accept the truth and prefer to seek the desire of their own hearts.
elendil wrote:U2, I know you won't be fully satisfied with that explanation, but it should serve as a general indication of why I don't feel theologically bound by such OT episodes as YHWH's supposed injunction to Saul to slay all the Amelekites: man, woman, child, animal.
Good prediction.Read whomever, but try this: get a red-letter version of the New Testament, and read only the words and phrases directly attributed to Christ, those in red. Surely those words would contain what we'd really need to know.elendil wrote:As always, however, I recommend the writings of N. T. Wright (aka Tom Wright) on all matters Scriptural. I am in very close agreement with him on most matters--although not with his politics, necessarily, which probably more closely resemble those of (ohmigod!) Bloomie! MO, however, you can't do better than reading his books, both in the popularized Tom Wright editions as well as in the N.T. Wright full-academic-apparatus editions.
I forgot to mention that I am fiercely blushing.elendil wrote:As always, however, I recommend the writings of N. T. Wright (aka Tom Wright) on all matters Scriptural. I am in very close agreement with him on most matters--although not with his politics, necessarily, which probably more closely resemble those of (ohmigod!) Bloomie!
I like that. Now all you have to add that it's cheating to read Paul, Augustine, or Aquinas. Or Luther, for that matter.U2 wrote:
Read whomever, but try this: get a red-letter version of the New Testament, and read only the words and phrases directly attributed to Christ, those in red. Surely those words would contain what we'd really need to know.
Uh, nooo. And, sorry, I guess I just don't get it.The Roman Catholic Church and its supporters have been at the forefront of keeping Europe clean of Muslims.There are many who claim that the House of Saud is, if not at the forefront, the financial power behind al Qaeda's jihad--intended to clean the world of non-Muslims.
Is this a one of those Bush-is-making-a-mistake-Is-not-Clinton-slept-with-Monica arguments?
Why would I deny that? But why "esp. in the Balkans"? There's always Spain, France (think Poitiers), Sicily. And Nigeria and Indonesia today. There's a long history of this stuff that you refuse to acknowledge.Do you deny that the Catholic church has a bigger stake than most in historic struggle between European Christians & Muslims (esp. in the Balkans)? I wasn't saying more that that.
Well, I think I've done so now, immediately above.You forgot to mention for what purpose I might consider my version of Balkan history adequate or inadequate.
I considered this another largely rhetorical sally. No need to go into it further.Here I just don't see your issue. All those people we think of in this country as Christian Fundamentalists are protestants.
See the beginning of this post, of course.That he is a Catholic apologist.
I'm Catholic, and I set out in outline form my notion of the relation between the OT and the NT. Feel free to expand on what you find tortured about it. As far as reading TO, I'm not going around recommending it, although it's probably not a bad resource on Just War theory. However, if you're looking for a good read on your flight over to Europe just let me know--I'm full of recommendations. Just ask Stoner.OK. I am being glib here, having a bit of a laugh about the tortured Catholic view of the relation of the OT and NT. Sorry. Oh, and I am sorry to say that I am not reading Tranquilitas Ordinis any time soon.
As a Christian, I have no alternative but to start with Christ and his Church--not with a book, no matter how hallowed. I think I stated that revelation in the truest sense is Jesus himself. All else has been handed down, i.e., is tradition of the Church (as Paul keeps repeating) and so is revelation in a derivative sense, i.e., derived from the primary sense. You didn't respond to that concept. I might add that the Church, the living body of Christ as Paul calls it, is in a sense revelation as well. The fact is, Jesus of Nazareth lived, died, rose again from the dead, and instituted his Church before a single word of the New Testament was ever written. The apostles went about the Mediterranean world preaching the good news of Jesus without red-letter editions[/]. The infant local churches existed for decades without red-letter editions of anything. Are we to assume that they lacked "what we'd really need to know"? I don't think so. The Church provided them with that. It was, in fact, the Church that Jesus instituted that gave its blessing to what later became known as the NT, and that Church existed for centuries before the NT (as well as the Christian form of the OT, come to think of it) was authorized in final form. I disagree utterly and totally with the idea that all we need to know is contained in the red letters of a red-letter edition. This supposes that these books were written as treatises of moral and systematic theology, which is simply not the case. Sorry if I sound a bit snippish. It's partly that I've heard these arguments so many times. And from people who tell me that I'm an idolater and no Christian. Burns me a little, is allRead whomever, but try this: get a red-letter version of the New Testament, and read only the words and phrases directly attributed to Christ, those in red. Surely those words would contain what we'd really need to know.
Now all you have to add that it's cheating to read Paul, Augustine, or Aquinas. Or Luther, for that matter.
