So much Straussian hoopla exists over the theologico-political problem, how religious claims interfere with political deliberation as if they're two different spheres, but hardly any ink is spilled about the theologico-political problem INSIDE religion. For the sake of argument, let's say the divine exists and it is revealed. Divine law is never revealed perfectly. So who understands it best? However, if you examine most religious disputes, nobody can agree on the reasoning (if such clarity is even afforded), so most claims boil down to claim about AUTHORITY and who has it to settle religious disputes "in the divine name". Ergo, there is a theologico-political problem inside the theological-political problem. And it's ultimately a political problem first and foremost. Religion is just special because it has, in theory and rhetoric, a superlative moral claim compared to any other moral or political claim. As Strauss would say, there is a cave inside the cave.
>early lifeNo wonder the (((dissident right))) loves this charlatan: those dysgenic freaks love slurping the cock of their favorite jewish “thinkers” and overlords
>>25267195Imagine being such a retard you had to check wikipedia to know that Leo Strauss was Jewish. And then to actually take a screenshot of the wikipedia article like you've made some grand discovery.
>>25267201Seething KWAB
>>25267201>Shlomo Finkelsteinjust checked the early life on this guy, turns out he's bad news my fellow chuds.
you should really know better than to post about this here. it’s evinces neither judgment, nor righteousness, nor love.
>>25267195>not knowing Strauss was JewishWhat's next, are you going to look up Claude Levi-Strauss?
>>25267189>the theologico-political problemholy grift i can only imagine what a bunch of useless woo this crap is lmao
politics is the lowest of all domains of thought, it is quintessentially amoral and only persists by way of theft and slavery (the subversion of natural law.)>if you examine most religious disputes, nobody can agree on the reasoningreason cannot mediate the moral. authority is necessarily the only way to arrive at a moral, anything else would be something lesser, at most an ethic (ie. somebody's fancy or a convention, as is seen in politics.)the only "theological-political problem" is getting people to accept their incongruence. you can accept the commands of our better, The Lord, a system of infallible justice, or you can be a rootless aesthetic, doomed to subjugation and misery, at most remedied by passing pleasures.
Jews are just more sensitive to this problem because theirs is the only religion that institutionalized free and liberal criticism of tradition.
>>25267255which is why esoteric writing and its relation to persecution are such vitally important concepts to understand
>samefag keeps kvetching They really are the most fragile dweebs imaginable
This is not a problem if you recognize a Pauline law-gospel distinction. The function of the law is to condemn. Salvation is found in freedom from the law, by faith in the gospel. This is why Paul and Jesus are perfectly willing to concede both wisdom and legal righteousness to unbelievers like the Pharisees. Ethical judgement is shared by all humans alike, but that judgement condemns all humans alike. What this implies is that perfect ethical revelation is unnecessary, both for life (because Spirit, not letter) and for salvation (because faith, not works).
Paul is a guilt-ridden murderer and an irredeemable indictment on the Gospels.
The nigga literally collapsed in fit of seizures from his guilt for massacring Jews, and finds a way to mediate it by founding the faith of massacring Jews.
>>25267296>>25267301Do you have no filter between your brain and your fingers? Do you just post whatever thought pops up in your brain throughout the day?
>>25267195Is this your first day on /lit/?
>>25267307Don’t bother replying if that’s the best you can do. You’ll meet Paul in Hell, you spooked up Christian retard.
>>25267255>>25267256>>25267279>>25267296>people still stuck in the cave inside the caveholy missed the point award. >>25267245There used to be people who read books on /lit/. A few books, and a few people, to be sure. But once upon a time, there would be effortposts in addition to the early life freaks. I never thought I would have been embarrassed to be antisemitic. Ffs. Too many chuds chudding out. Maybe the Jews were right about goyim.
>>25267310Rabbi…
>>25267195Carl Schmitt wrote one of his rec letters for the Rockefeller fellowship that got Strauss forever out of Germany months before Hitler rise to power. Strauss even had his own hyper authoritarian/natsoc phase but it was with an anti-nazi party slant. Early life sectioning Strauss is retarded, ignores that Strauss was a Greekobo, and that the "Straussians" are just derivative halfwits compared to the actual guy.
op could you elaborate on what the initial theological-political problem and the second cave even is? Been meaning to read these parts of Strausses thought but been busy.
im reading this book
>>25267195You're a weird person. Get help.
>>25267189How does he stack up against Wolin and Skinner and other historians of political thought iyo?
And a happy shabbath shalom to you, anon. May g-d bring ruin to the goyim.>>25267189Still so hilarious that such a beta frail jewboy got chosen 3000 years ago to be the thinker for the proto shabbath goy neo cons.Strauss is such a wimp ideologically youd think his wrist would snap lifting a pen. But no, he goes on to write the dumbest takes on Plato and Xenophon ever conceived. Especially Xenophon is the physical antithesis of anything ashkenazi jewish.
>>25267189religion: that part of justice to give to God what belongs to Godpolitics: war by other meanswhat religio-political problem?
>>25268209Not OP, but there's two parts to the Theologico-Political Problem. The first more evident part is by what means political life should be guided, by revelation (consider how Judaism and Islam are both revelations of law) or by reason. You can see medieval efforts to ease that tension in the Islamic philosophers, Maimonides, and Aquinas, but even those efforts can be viewed with suspicion (think Al Ghazali w/r/t to Farabi and Avicenna, or the Catholic condemnations of thr 13th century). The second part of the T-PP is a narrower challenge for philosophy in addressing itself to revelation, whether it can ever actually refute it in favor of reason, or whether the philosopher's use of reason amounts to itself a willful belief.As for the cave beneath the cave, that's Strauss's characterization of the peculiar situation moderns find themselves in on account of the received tradition and historicism. In short, ancient philosophy could take its start by inquiring into the basic opinions of civic life, such as what virtue, justice, and happiness are according to ordinary opinions, but moderns find themselves in a totally theory-laden world that tends to take 2-2 1/2 thousand years of thought for granted, and the result is that if we read older authors, we tend to immediately translate them to our present understanding or dismiss them by the same without patiently inquiring into them to see whether or not they in fact had a superior understanding of things. This is pretty closely related to Husserl's notion of de-sedimentation. There's a related passage from Hegel touching upon this that,>The manner of study in ancient times is distinct from that of modern times, in that the former consisted in the veritable training and perfecting of the natural consciousness. Trying its powers at each part of its life severally, and philosophizing about everything it came across, the natural consciousness transformed itself into a universality of abstract understanding which was active in every matter and in every respect. In modern times, however, the individual finds the abstract form ready made.For Strauss, this situation looks to endanger a philosopher's attempt to free himself from the prejudices of his time, and Strauss's attempted fix is historical studies that take you part of the way so that you can be enabled to go further.
>>25269252Oh, to add, re: "cave beneath the cave," the image is obviously tied to Plato's Republic, but whereas for Plato philosophy starts in the cave (by seeing the character and potential dubitability of reigning opinions), Strauss thinks we're stuck in a cave under that which we have to ascend out of if we're going to be able to even ascend out of Plato's cave.
>>25267247>ignoring the works of Ernst Kantorowicz, Carl Schmitt, Jacob Taubes and John MilbankNgmi
>>25269252>>25269281OP here, good post. My intent was to point out that these problems are often framed as a clash between religion and politics, but they exist inside religion as well. Revelation is de facto not a settled question and the key differences across sects and religions ends up being dispute of authority and right more than anything else.
>>25269433Yes, your observation is sound. I'm only sorry to not really have anythingto add to it. I think Averroes talks a little about this in the Decisive Treatise, trying to settle who should have authority to interpret the law, but it's been a while since I've read it.
That's a non-problem, only people fool enough to fall for the Abrahamic hogwash think there's something to discuss.
>>25269577>Soc.Come, then, and let us examine what we are saying. That thing or person which is dear to the gods is pious, and that thing or person which is hateful to the gods is impious, these two being the extreme opposites of one another. Was not that said?>Euth.It was.>Soc.And well said?>Euth.Yes, Socrates, I thought so; it was certainly said.>Soc.And further, Euthyphro, the gods were admitted to have enmities and hatreds and differences?>Euth.Yes, that was also said.>Soc.And what sort of difference creates enmity and anger? Suppose for example that you and I, my good friend, differ about a number; do differences of this sort make us enemies and set us at variance with one another? Do we not go at once to arithmetic, and put an end to them by a sum?>Euth.True.>Soc.Or suppose that we differ about magnitudes, do we not quickly end the difference by measuring?>Euth.Very true.>Soc.And we end a controversy about heavy and light by resorting to a weighing machine?>Euth.To be sure.>Soc.But what differences are there which cannot be thus decided, and which therefore make us angry and set us at enmity with one another? I dare say the answer does not occur to you at the moment, and therefore I will suggest that these enmities arise when the matters of difference are the just and unjust, good and evil, honourable and dishonourable. Are not these the points about which men differ, and about which when we are unable satisfactorily to decide our differences, you and I and all of us quarrel, when we do quarrel?>Euth.Yes, Socrates, the nature of the differences about which we quarrel is such as you describe.>Soc.And the quarrels of the gods, noble Euthyphro, when they occur, are of a like nature?>Euth.Certainly they are.>Soc.They have differences of opinion, as you say, about good and evil, just and unjust, honourable and dishonourable: there would have been no quarrels among them, if there had been no such differences—would there now?>Euth.You are quite right.
>>25269577Sorry about your father
>>25267322get tricked. should have read more torah
>>25269561Thanks man, I appreciate the recommendation.
>>25267189the sacred science includes, in revealed knoweldge, that the time will come when men will think to change what time it is through politics. since theology is a science and politics is an art, the art can only misinterpret and fail to observe the laws the science, not the reverse, as when euler used incomplete fluid dynamics to build a fountain
>>25267296>muh PaulAnti-Paulinians talk big game about the real Jesus and esoteric forms of Christianity but forget that Paul was himself a successful mystic in the Merkavah before he was blinded by Jesus on the road to Damascus
>>25267189Most religions have a fairly developed cosmology and ontological framework for their claims to authority. If you want to get into the meat of schismatic disputes each side will usually have an extensive literary cannon with polemics and denser works if you are interested. The Talmud is the obvious example of this process being preserved as an article of faith.
>>25269686I'm not sure how I was tricked. For full disclosure, I felt that the "you should really know better" post was kinda low IQ but I was being nice.
>>25267195>No wonder the (((dissident right))) loves this charlatanBut no one on the dissident right actually likes him
>>25271019transparent backtracking cope. weaker of will than mind.>>25270480and all it did was soften his mind to the point of classical paralysis, hysteria, and hallucinatory symptoms. four entered pardes, only one left in peace.
Paul is a really bizarre and unsavory stand to take in defense of Chirstism. It's Nuremberg defense tier retarded. It exemplifies some of the most potent criticisms of this neo-paganism, that it is a religion of creditors loaning out indulgences every Sunday while (you), the pleb, debauch yourself through work-hard-play-hard ethic all week long.
>>25267195>antijewish shitIf you are a retard, please, back to the /pol/. In /lit/, we have brains.
>>25271382Its over.
>>25270480This is like the peak of Mount Stupid in the Dunning-Kruger chart. The fact that enormous intellectual labor has been poured into these ontological frameworks does zilch to validate whether they are sound. If you get deep into any religious system, you'll see quickly that there's not a lot of basis for most disputes except extra-scriptural tradition/metaphysics, "just trust me bro", political disputes, flimsy interpretations (often conjured off a single verse, often times to the detriment of other verses), insanely convoluted metaphysical accounting (needed to "resolve" the problems caused by motivated interpretations), etc. Many of the disputes that caused the schisms don't even matter anymore. e.g. the Sunni-Shia split. Is any Muslim country willing to submit themselves to the rule of a member of the Quraysh tribe or a descendant of Ali? Is that even possible to implement? >extensive literary cannon with polemics and denser worksAnd who gets to choose the canon? How many polemics actually get to the meat of the issue (and aren't simply motivated to prove their own side right at the expense of all the other "data points" their side can't explain)? Very few do. Most religious adherents don't know what they even believe in at the essence.
>>25271642>The fact that enormous intellectual labor has been poured into these ontological frameworks does zilch to validate whether they are sound.I agree, the side with the more logical argument is generally the one that is more sound.>If you get deep into any religious system, you'll see quickly that there's not a lot of basis for most disputes except extra-scriptural tradition/metaphysicsCould I maybe get a few examples? I realize you have an agenda but it would be interesting to hear what you base your arguments on.>And who gets to choose the canonCannon is generally agreed upon if the debate is even happening in the first place.>How many polemics actually get to the meat of the issueI don't think the polemics ever do this actually.
>>25271720>Could I maybe get a few examples? I realize you have an agenda but it would be interesting to hear what you base your arguments on.I already gave you an example in the Sunni-Shia split. But here's another good one. What is the Holy Spirit? Another one. Why does a verse about Peter being the rock mean that the Catholic Church has unilateral authority over Christendom? Another one. Why does Jesus Christ need to be God, given that through all things God is possible? Another one. Why are Hadiths needed to be an authentic Muslim, given that the Quran itself claims to be complete and warns against extra-scriptural messages? Another one. What evidence is there for an Oral Torah in addition to what Moses received on Mount Sinai? Another one. Why is the modern lineage of Jews considered the most authentic form of Judaism and not, let's say, the Samaritans (given the conflict illustrated in the Book of Ezra)? I suppose I am leaning heavy on Abrahamic religions, but I think I've made my general point clear. I could go on and on and apply stress to the edifices that all these ontological, legal, and ethical frameworks rest on. But the real answer is that most of them reach far beyond the foundations of which they use to justify their frameworks, so they are all structurally unsound. I am not trying to argue against religion, here, but rather the fact that religions are based on ideologies which "over-claim" because of and for the purposes of political power. It gets in the way of what it means to be pious. >Cannon is generally agreed upon if the debate is even happening in the first place.It's called canon, and not if the canon itself is up for debate.
>>25271790Could you maybe be a little bit more specific? These are fairly broad topics.
>>25267189Smoking a cigarette from a holder.>gay
>>25271811nigga you're just trolling at this point
>>25271931I mean is your problem with the holy spirit a rejection of the triune or is it a question about procession? What Hadiths in particular are you referring to? What is it about apostolic succession and papal authority that you find to be unconvincing? I'm not asking you these questions to upset you, I want to understand why you think what you think.
>>25271642>Mount Stupid in the Dunning-KrugerNo such qualitative quantification exists.
>>25271951>I mean is your problem with the holy spirit a rejection of the triune or is it a question about procession?You're getting way ahead of yourself. I'm asking about what is the Holy Spirit and what is the basis for claiming that that distinction exists in any form. >What Hadiths in particular are you referring to?Any of them. What is the basis for Hadiths holding equal (in practice, greater) status for Islamic practice to the Quran? >What is it about apostolic succession and papal authority that you find to be unconvincing?Why does Peter being called the "rock" and being given "keys" in the New Testament means that the Catholic Church has primacy over the other churches in perpetuity? Even if we accepted the premise that Peter beelined to Rome to found the "First Church" (which is hotly contested by early Christian writers; after all, we have Antioch and Corinth as competing reports), it still doesn't make any sense. We've constructed a metaphysics of "church" and broadly sweeping powers associated with it out of literally nothing, to create an institution and theology that has no explicit basis in the Bible. >>25271953It was a tongue-in-cheek remark, and your anal-retentive comment demonstrates that you haven't even reached the foothills.
>>25271642>that enormous intellectual labor has been poured into these ontological frameworks does zilch to validate whether they are sound.they're self-consistent which is all that matters. judging from the outside is bound to create conflict. expecting any of it to be "validated" is nonsense, it's unfalsifiable.>there's not a lot of basis for most disputesthere's no disputing the moral. either you do he right thing or you don't, and you are judged accordingly. interpersonally most you can do is just disagree. one guys thinks it this way, another that, and they may fight or whatever. arguing about it and devising theologies based in reason is an ethical activity, and a particularly foolish one at that; it isn't a concern for the faithful.this theology business is a sandtrap for nonbelievers, it isn't worth this much consideration. you'll never be able to mediate disputes between people with different basic axioms.
>>25272479>there's no disputing the moral.There isn't? A couple I think might count: whether lying is permissible in certain circumstances to save one's or another's life or community; whether "turn the other cheek" always holds or if defensive violence or war are permissible; what exactly can and can't be done on the sabbath; faith vs good works as requirements for salvation; whether following Paul on obeying worldly powers means it's okay to make a sacrifice to another god if threatened to do so as long as you don't inwardly feel it, or if one should only accept martydom at that point, and etc. These were and are still debated, and none of em seem like floaty theological issues. Or do you think these aren't moral issues?
>>25272509people may disagree with one another's perception of those moral realities, but their arguing about it is largely meaningless. the truth remains the truth, and so do their views (unless they're rooted in some less than moral reasoning.)unless one is correcting the other on some point like that, and they both assume similar axioms and a similar way of remaining internally consistent, but that again really comes down to authority.any dispute meaningful enough to not be readily mended within a sect really creates a new and parallel system with different axioms. arguing between different systems of axioms is of course senseless. see how in the OT, the way these disputes are solved with other groups, like those who do human sacrifice and idolatry, is by a show of authority by God - be it angels, a command/warning from a prophetic figure, a directly divinely commanded war, etc. either they say, "we're scared of your guys' God so we'll stop" or they don't care and get wiped out. they never have a chat over tea to reason and debate about it, because their guy says they have to kill children and their guy is from whom they take their orders. why should they listen to some foreigners who don't respect their laws anyways? that sort of disagreement can't be mended.
>>25267189You’re approaching it wrongly with the premise that all the religions have an equal claim to the truth. This is the same as Pilate giving up and saying “what is truth” when faced with conflicting truth claims (ironically it was standing right in front of him). When you compare all religions, there is one that stands out historically, morally, archaeologically, prophetically, theologically, scientifically, anthropologically, etc. It’s Christianity. >For the sake of argument, let's say the divine exists and it is revealed. Divine law is never revealed perfectly.Christianity believes divine law was revealed perfectly. Instead, it’s the interpreters who can corrupt it. Not because it’s hard to understand but because of wickedness, suppressing the truth with unrighteousness. This is a constant theme from the beginning with Satan corrupting God’s command by questioning “did God really say you must not eat from any tree in the garden?”
>>25267189>So who understands it best? However, if you examine most religious disputes, nobody can agree on the reasoningJudaism in the Old Testament was constantly corrected after being judged by God who purified them into a remnant of a remnant of a remnant who still obeyed Him. We see prophets applying this consistent moral standard to the people, over and over again, across generations. No other religion on earth has this kind of continuity and is still in practice today. Under the new covenant, we see Christ giving the warning that “many will build upon the foundation of Christ, some with gold, silver…others with straw, and their work will be put through the fire in the end to see which survives….If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire” and that there “must be divisions among you so that those who are approved may become evident”. So there is a gradation of additional good or bad beliefs one can build upon Christ and as long as you don’t deny Christ (which also implies the prophets and apostles) then you will be saved while the rest is either rewarded or burned away due to being false. Believers are called to examine Scriptures like the Berean’s to see if their pastor’s are speaking truthfully. Christ appealed to the Scriptures when tempted by Satan and exposing the Pharisees and Sadducees. The scriptures are constantly applied by the prophets who forced the Israelites to listen to readings of it. Overall, interpretations based on one’s memory, wickedness, or culture might change but the underlying scripture doesn’t.>so most claims boil down to claim about AUTHORITY and who has it to settle religious disputes "in the divine name".The truth exists independent of authority. Some leader or scribe coming along and declaring something true based on their authority doesn’t make it so unless it aligns with Scripture. Scripture gives authority, not the other way around. That’s why Christ said, “my sheep hear my voice”. They could hear Christ speaking the truth from Scripture, not man made corruptions and traditions.
>>25272479They’re not even self-consistent. The Bible is filled with numerous contradictions. e.g. It’s okay to blaspheme Jesus but not the Holy Spirit? And we’re supposed to believe that they’re equal in divinity but also the same One God? Another example: the Quran warns you in multiple places not to accept extra-Quranic messages. But what is the cornerstone of the Muslim faith? Hadith, aka extra-Quranic messages.>this theology business is a sandtrap for nonbelieversThe so-called believers don’t even believe. You can’t believe in something if you have no idea what that something is on even the most basic level. It’s just an empty statement with no mental content.>you'll never be able to mediate disputes between people with different basic axioms.Axioms should be irrefutable, and belief systems should be as parsimonious as possible. Unfortunately most religious systems do not know which axioms they hold are genuinely irrefutable and which ones are demonstrably horseshit (from other axioms or their own methods nonetheless) or just plain unnecessary.
>>25272479>there's no disputing the moral.There always is because the moral is mediated through a contingent and often partisan, incomplete, and self-interested medium! I’d sure love to do the moral thing, but the message by which we know what is moral is hopelessly corrupted. “Trust me bro, I know even though I look painfully retarded and Machiavellian in the way I demonstrate my knowledge” does not cut it and will not save me on Judgment Day if I can see with my plain eyes that it is nonsense.>>25272670>>25272672Who determines what is Biblical canon and why? Why can’t we add to the canon today?
>>25272672>Christ appealed to the ScripturesExplain why Jesus made mistakes in his appeal to Scriptures sometimes. e.g. Mark 2:23-28. Referenced an incident from scriptures regarding the High Priest Abiathar from 1 Samuel 21, even though it was Ahimelech (his father) who was the High Priest who was responsible according to scriptures. >it wasn't Jesus that made the mistake, it was the author of the Gospel of MarkOkay then revelation wasn't perfect, or revelation was perfect but we can't trust any medium that refers to it.
