* When will the Jews cease to be the favorite political football?
* When will people stop trying to rewrite or raise questions about Jewish history? (going back to your neo-nazi post)
..maybe never.
The Jewish people is the lamb of god, the moral fetish object of humanity, available for praise or slaughter as needed to accomplish the purification or edification of the souls of others.
Is it not so?
-----------
I'm Jewish, so I can say stuff like this all I want. But if someone like Hagee says it, it comes dangerously close to becoming a sanction for violence, even if he doesn't mean it.
The point is that for Hagee and Hitler both, the Jewish people are an object. I don't consider Hagee an antisemite or even an ill-intentioned man, but when he presumes to comment on the relationship between the Jewish people and God, its an act that is part of the internal drama of the Christian world, and in which the Jewish people are exploited.
There's a truth to what you say, but to use Hagee and Hitler in the same breath is horribly unfair. Of course Jews will always be objects on some level for the Evangelicals, but for them they are objects of love, for Hitler, an object of hate. There's an ocean of difference. And "these people" have done much more than objectify Jews, they've put themselves on the line to show their love. Christians will always talk about Jews and God, we're part of their story, and part of their theology. "How can God allow this to happen to his people?" It's OK for them to explore it....in a sermon 10 years ago.
> to use Hagee and Hitler in the same
> breath is horribly unfair
I don't mean to suggest a broad comparison between them, and certainly not one that would imply a moral equivalence. I can tell the difference between friend and foe, and between good and evil.
But yes, I should take a moment to avoid having solomonia accused of spreading hyperbole and hate through its comment section:
Hagee -> Friend -> Good
Hiter -> Foe -> Evil
And I'm not just saying it. I know it.
> Christians will always talk about Jews and
> God, we're part of their story, and part of
> their theology. "How can God allow this to
> happen to his people?" It's OK for them to
> explore it....in a sermon 10 years ago.
"Hagee's interpretation of scripture was grotesque and jarring, to say nothing of presumptuous in its claim to know the mind of God. But his long-forgotten sermon became news for one reason only: He had endorsed John McCain for president, and the left saw a target of opportunity." Jacoby
Precisely; that is the pivot-point around which Jacoby writes. I agree 100%.
Hagee's commentary in this vein is, as condensed within a single term, unbearable. Nonetheless, his presumption - to so assuredly presume to know the mind of God, the work of God and therein the esse of God, the being of God, at least to some extent - is of course reflective of the work of theodicy, i.e. to come to terms with the brute fact of evil in the world in its varied manifestations and simultaneously the reality of God's omniscience, omnipotence and goodness.
Finally, as the theme is presumption, I will presume to suggest two things for the Hagees of the world in their attempts to come to terms with theodicy and apologetics in general: silence and a healthy immersion into some critical aspects of analytic philosophy. I'd make similar, though not quite the same suggestions to the Left, regarding their devotion to the politics of presumption and reduction, if I thought they were interested in hearing, but they're not - decidedly to the contrary. (I know there are some rare outliers and exceptions. But those exceptions are very often considered to be blasphemers and heretics by the Left's core, their low-priests and the wider congregation of true believers, also the talking-head media types who channel and seemingly variously believe in at least some of the Left's core, underlying tenets, dogmas and writ. That farce is often not viewed for what it is, in some part, because it's leveraged at a type of meta-level, part of the warp and woof of our contemporary, political vernacular due to the essentially Gramscian long march through the institutions.)
Look, Jews sit around behind closed doors and debate difficult issues. Evangelicals mount the podium and shout it out. It's a cultural difference.
There is something very stereotypically Jewish about the reaction to Christians who love them. "You SAY you love me, but do you REALLY? Do you LOVE me, or just love me? Why do you love me? Are you saying that to manipulate me? How do you love me? What did I do to deserve such love? I think you're just saying that. Did someone tell you to say that, or did you decide for yourself?"...meanwhile we've beaten then thing to death. We should be able to accept the love, however it's meant, and know that regardless, we remain ourselves without intention to convert or change for reasons other than our own. That would be a confident reaction -- one we often lack.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
* When will the Jews cease to be the favorite political football?
* When will people stop trying to rewrite or raise questions about Jewish history? (going back to your neo-nazi post)
..maybe never.
The Jewish people is the lamb of god, the moral fetish object of humanity, available for praise or slaughter as needed to accomplish the purification or edification of the souls of others.
Is it not so?
-----------
I'm Jewish, so I can say stuff like this all I want. But if someone like Hagee says it, it comes dangerously close to becoming a sanction for violence, even if he doesn't mean it.
The point is that for Hagee and Hitler both, the Jewish people are an object. I don't consider Hagee an antisemite or even an ill-intentioned man, but when he presumes to comment on the relationship between the Jewish people and God, its an act that is part of the internal drama of the Christian world, and in which the Jewish people are exploited.
Wow, good comment Adam. :)
There's a truth to what you say, but to use Hagee and Hitler in the same breath is horribly unfair. Of course Jews will always be objects on some level for the Evangelicals, but for them they are objects of love, for Hitler, an object of hate. There's an ocean of difference. And "these people" have done much more than objectify Jews, they've put themselves on the line to show their love. Christians will always talk about Jews and God, we're part of their story, and part of their theology. "How can God allow this to happen to his people?" It's OK for them to explore it....in a sermon 10 years ago.
> to use Hagee and Hitler in the same
> breath is horribly unfair
I don't mean to suggest a broad comparison between them, and certainly not one that would imply a moral equivalence. I can tell the difference between friend and foe, and between good and evil.
But yes, I should take a moment to avoid having solomonia accused of spreading hyperbole and hate through its comment section:
Hagee -> Friend -> Good
Hiter -> Foe -> Evil
And I'm not just saying it. I know it.
> Christians will always talk about Jews and
> God, we're part of their story, and part of
> their theology. "How can God allow this to
> happen to his people?" It's OK for them to
> explore it....in a sermon 10 years ago.
I understand this as well.
It's a tricky subject.
"Hagee's interpretation of scripture was grotesque and jarring, to say nothing of presumptuous in its claim to know the mind of God. But his long-forgotten sermon became news for one reason only: He had endorsed John McCain for president, and the left saw a target of opportunity." Jacoby
Precisely; that is the pivot-point around which Jacoby writes. I agree 100%.
Hagee's commentary in this vein is, as condensed within a single term, unbearable. Nonetheless, his presumption - to so assuredly presume to know the mind of God, the work of God and therein the esse of God, the being of God, at least to some extent - is of course reflective of the work of theodicy, i.e. to come to terms with the brute fact of evil in the world in its varied manifestations and simultaneously the reality of God's omniscience, omnipotence and goodness.
Finally, as the theme is presumption, I will presume to suggest two things for the Hagees of the world in their attempts to come to terms with theodicy and apologetics in general: silence and a healthy immersion into some critical aspects of analytic philosophy. I'd make similar, though not quite the same suggestions to the Left, regarding their devotion to the politics of presumption and reduction, if I thought they were interested in hearing, but they're not - decidedly to the contrary. (I know there are some rare outliers and exceptions. But those exceptions are very often considered to be blasphemers and heretics by the Left's core, their low-priests and the wider congregation of true believers, also the talking-head media types who channel and seemingly variously believe in at least some of the Left's core, underlying tenets, dogmas and writ. That farce is often not viewed for what it is, in some part, because it's leveraged at a type of meta-level, part of the warp and woof of our contemporary, political vernacular due to the essentially Gramscian long march through the institutions.)
Look, Jews sit around behind closed doors and debate difficult issues. Evangelicals mount the podium and shout it out. It's a cultural difference.
There is something very stereotypically Jewish about the reaction to Christians who love them. "You SAY you love me, but do you REALLY? Do you LOVE me, or just love me? Why do you love me? Are you saying that to manipulate me? How do you love me? What did I do to deserve such love? I think you're just saying that. Did someone tell you to say that, or did you decide for yourself?"...meanwhile we've beaten then thing to death. We should be able to accept the love, however it's meant, and know that regardless, we remain ourselves without intention to convert or change for reasons other than our own. That would be a confident reaction -- one we often lack.