Points to Ponder:

[C]hasing conspiracies becomes a religion of its own. It's all very interesting detective work and it gives a simplistic view of the world situation. I speak from my own experience and I know that I'm not alone here. What is worse is that continuous reading of these conspiracy books leads to hatred of races and peoples. It leads to unbalanced fears. I've witnessed the unbalance first hand. A certain person says that I exaggerate but I do not. When your own grandson is practically starved to death because certain conspiratorialists believe modern medicine is part of the great conspiracy to harm us, then, you'll stand up and take note.

People become unbalanced, xxxxxx, when they delve too much into the conspiracy books. I know from experience. The conspiratorialists get livid when they cannot convince their neighbor that Bill Clinton is out to put them into chains by using black helicopters. The proof was there to be seen by all. We were told that foreign troops on our soil would be led to the enemy by the directions located on the back of highway signs. Remember that one? The conspiratorialists are flabbergasted that their neighbor doesn't lose sleep over the international banker who is working to enslave them.

"I came out of an independent, traditional Chapel one Sunday morning. I had a short conversation with the priest and suddenly the priest said: "Those God----ed Jews!" He had read too many conspiracy books. The conspiratorialist thinks he or she has revealed the work of evil when, in truth, the evil has taken them in. They are neutralized and they work against Our Lord Jesus Christ because they give unbelievers all the reasons why they should not have anything to do with Christianity."[Anonymous]


I got this from James M. Scott IV in the comments boxes over at Lidless Eye. Apparently a former SSPXer made these comments on the Envoy Encore weblog. If someone supplies me with the name, I will delete this prefatory paragraph and credit the person accordingly. (I think I know whom it is but am not certain.) Until then, it will read simply "anonymous." And other than the sentences which directly apply to the individual (the grandson, the part about the independent chapel priest), so much of the remaining statement puts flesh on one of the skeletons from the closet of this writer's own past.

More on John Kerry, Spain, Terrorism, Etc.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This is a more refined version of comments posted earlier to the message boxes at SecretAgentMan's Dossier BLOG. It also builds a bit on subjects touched on earlier in the week as well.

[A]n attack WILL sink Bush on Nov 4--my psychic prediction.

I am not sure this would be the case actually. If Leiberman was running against Bush this is possible (since he has some good national security positions). But John Kerry is a man who has voted against probably every military spending bill in the past thirty odd years. Likewise, John Kerry is very anti-American. He likes to talk about "foreign leaders" whom would prefer him to Bush. He refuses to name names so I will do so for you. They are as follows:

---Gerhard Schroeder

---Jacques Chirac

---Vladimir Putin

---Muammar Khaddafi

---Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

---Bashar al-Assad

---King Jong II

---Fidel Castro

If those are your idea of "good guys" then by all means vote for Kerry to confirm yourself in your own suicidal idiocy. As I noted earlier, Kerry is probably lying about that claim of meeting with "foreign leaders."

Yes my friends, I do not buy the "mistranslation" crap for an instant because Kerry failed to say this until he found out that the comments were not playing well with the American people as a whole. Prior to that, he was quite content to let the idea permeate the election atmosphere. Thus, I can only conclude that he is lying here and -if not- then his refusal to name names is probably because they would be on the list above.

Of course anyone aware of the kinds of contacts (not to mention contracts) that Russia, Germany, and France had with Hussein are well aware of the reasons why (i) they voted for action in Iraq and then (ii) opposed the US military actions to enforce the UN's own sanctions -one of which was recognizing the termination of the 1991 war ceasefire for what it was.{1}

The former was because they saw Resolution 1441 as an abstract idea which was not going to be implemented in reality. The latter was because they realized that Bush intended to actually implement the very same 1441 that they voted on. Nonetheless, Kerry does not want to name names because either (i) he is a liar or (ii) if he is telling the truth, the names he would name would not be to his credit. But enough on that point.

Furthermore, Kerry makes no secret about believing that we should turn over war on terror operations in the Iraq theatre -and presumably in Afghanistan as well- to the UN. This I remind you is the very same UN which is involved in its own corruption and profiteering in the Iraq oil for food program which ran in Iraq for about 11 years. My friends, if the UN cannot even run a simple humanitarian program without this kind of blatant corruption, how the hell would they competently manage a much more complex war effort???{2}

Frankly, I believe that we will benefit from watching Spain get their just desserts for their pathetic ass kissing to terrorism by voting in the terrorist appeasers socialists. They are going to only see worse days in the coming months and if Bush plays his cards right in dealing with those situations, we will not have to worry about an attack like that causing an election defeat. If anything, Bush's handling of 9-11 will likely be an ace in his hand since Spain's conservatives had nothing of the sort to fall back on.

I must note though that I understand your concerns CCCCCCC but with defense issues and national security, Bush is so superior to Kerry that we need to in the coming months emphasize those points.

It also would not hurt to emphasize the constitutional amendment idea in tandom with Kerry's weaknesses on defense. In doing this, we can with greater ease point out that those who undermine marriage are the very sort of people that these kinds of terrorists hate the most. As a 70% plus issue, it would quite likely contribute to Kerry losing in 2004. Obviously nothing is 100% but I have a hard time believing that Americans would be stupid enough to put Kerry into office after another terrorist attack of the same scope or greater than what happened on 9-11.

Oh, lest I forget to mention it, Kerry also voted to cut funding for intelligence and then gripes in his campaign stops about being "deceived" about 9-11 by Bush. He tries to have it both ways on everything. If it would help insure against the likelihood of such attacks in the future, I would be willing to see my civil liberties suspended for a week or two under certain conditions.{3} A week or two to really bust the heads of terrorist cells in this country and also -though I am probably going to get criticism for this- the terrorists at the ACLU as well.{4} There is more to terrorism than physical destruction after all. But that is all I will note on those subjects at this time.

Notes:

{1} This as my readers know was the foundation of my position on the war with Iraq. Unlike certain war supporters who -in their mania for war- fell on their face in embarrassment by focusing on the wrong points of this situation, this weblog writer chose to ignore superficialities and focus on the root and matrix issues.

For I never sought to make what was speculative (the WMD's existence) the foundation of my position, only what was incontrovertible. As a result, I can stand here today and say with a clear conscience that I have not the slightest regret of my position as enunciated at the above link.

{2} I will save giving you a detailed dossier of the UN's miserable war management trackrecord over the decades. John Kerry wanting to put us under UN command in those operations insure that it would be saimo saimo viz. nothing happening against terrorist sponsored regimes. And you can take that statement to the bank for cash my friends.

{3} Provided of course that there was a clear sunset provision in the bill and no riders contradicting said sunset provision.

{4} There is also fifth column forms of terrorism. This is the very sort that the ACLU for the past four decades plus has been involved in by seeking to defend every filthy piece of degenerate human debris they can find.

In such situations, often the losers in this are often the very kind of fairly moral people whom we need more of in this country. From there the degenerate so-called "winners" are paraded around as so-called "examples" for us to supposedly embrace.

As I see it, the difference between the two (those the ACLU opposes versus those it supports) is that of half a loaf or more with the so-called "losers" and little to none with the pseudo-"winners." Anyone with a normal intact functioning brain can figure out which sorts are a more solid foundation to lean on for building a strong cultural structure. But then again, such people would not likely be supporters of the ACLU anyway.

Meditations on The Dark Night of the Soul:
(Aka "the Rerum Novarum 2004 Lenten Spiritual Instruction")

The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this series, please go HERE.


CHAPTER VI

Of imperfections with respect to spiritual gluttony.

Though there are imperfections in all of us, the imperfections with respect to spiritual gluttony are particularly applicable to most of those who claim to be "traditionalists" and by implication "more Traditional than thou."

WITH respect to the fourth sin, which is spiritual gluttony, there is much to be said, for there is scarce one of these beginners who, however satisfactory his progress, falls not into some of the many imperfections which come to these beginners with respect to this sin, on account of the sweetness which they find at first in spiritual exercises.

There are parallels here between the spiritually gluttonous who find sweetness in spiritual exercises and those who find it in what is inappropriately referred to as "The Traditional Mass."

For many of these, lured by the sweetness and pleasure which they find in such exercises, strive more after spiritual sweetness than after spiritual purity and discretion, which is that which God regards and accepts throughout the spiritual journey.

See my previous comments.

Therefore, besides the imperfections into which the seeking for sweetness of this kind makes them fall, the gluttony which they now have makes them continually go to extremes, so that they pass beyond the limits of moderation within which the virtues are acquired and wherein they have their being.

Of course I should note that moderation is generally a problem in some ways for everyone. That does not make such deficiencies "okay" however.

For some of these persons, attracted by the pleasure which they find therein, kill themselves with penances, and others weaken themselves with fasts, by performing more than their frailty can bear, without the order or advice of any, but rather endeavouring to avoid those whom they should obey in these matters; some, indeed, dare to do these things even though the contrary has been commanded them.

The above it might be noted was the weakness that beset Fr. Martin Luther. And your weblog host in his "trad" past was not exactly innocent in that area either unfortunately.

These persons are most imperfect and unreasonable; for they set bodily penance before subjection and obedience, which is penance according to reason and discretion, and therefore a sacrifice more acceptable and pleasing to God than any other. But such one-sided penance is no more than the penance of beasts, to which they are attracted, exactly like beasts, by the desire and pleasure which they find therein.

The reference to God preferring obedience to sacrifice in the Old Testament comes to mind here (1 Samuel xv,10-26).

Inasmuch as all extremes are vicious, and as in behaving thus such persons are working their own will, they grow in vice rather than in virtue; for, to say the least, they are acquiring spiritual gluttony and pride in this way, through not walking in obedience.

Notice how often St. John of the Cross returns to the subject of obedience. This is an area that is not infrequently problematical (if not lacking altogether) in many of those who claim to be "more Traditional than thou."

And many of these the devil assails, stirring up this gluttony in them through the pleasures and desires which he increases within them, to such an extent that, since they can no longer help themselves, they either change or vary or add to that which is commanded them, as any obedience in this respect is so bitter to them.

To such an evil pass have some persons come that, simply because it is through obedience that they engage in these exercises, they lose the desire and devotion to perform them, their only desire and pleasure being to do what they themselves are inclined to do, so that it would probably be more profitable for them not to engage in these exercises at all.

You will find that many of these persons are very insistent with their spiritual masters to be granted that which they desire, extracting it from them almost by force; if they be refused it they become as peevish as children and go about in great displeasure, thinking that they are not serving God when they are not allowed to do that which they would.

For they go about clinging to their own will and pleasure, which they treat as though it came from God; and immediately their directors take it from them, and try to subject them to the will of God, they become peevish, grow faint-hearted and fall away. These persons think that their own satisfaction and pleasure are the satisfaction and service of God.

Albert (among others I could mention), did you pay close attention to what was noted in the above paragraph???

There are others, again, who, because of this gluttony, know so little of their own unworthiness and misery and have thrust so far from them the loving fear and reverence which they owe to the greatness of God, that they hesitate not to insist continually that their confessors shall allow them to communicate often. And, what is worse, they frequently dare to communicate without the leave and consent of the minister and steward of Christ, merely acting on their own opinion, and contriving to conceal the truth from him.

And for this reason, because they desire to communicate continually, they make their confessions carelessly, being more eager to eat than to eat cleanly and perfectly, although it would be healthier and holier for them had they the contrary inclination and begged their confessors not to command them to approach the altar so frequently: between these two extremes, however, the better way is that of humble resignation. But the boldness referred to is a thing that does great harm, and men may fear to be punished for such temerity.

What is noted in this next paragraph can legitimately be noted of many of those who are so strident against communion in the hand. Granted the pretext given is that not receiving this way is more "fitting"; however, I have seldom found such a proponent who when superficialities are not stripped away does not react to this issue emotionally and thus betray themselves as one who is attached to the "sensible sweetness" of reception in the manner of reception on the tongue.

Now granted, since this option is allowed them, it cannot in and of itself be seen as problematical. However, it should be noted that those who would presume to kneel to receive (if there were local customs to the contrary), would be guilty of some degree of spiritual gluttony in this area. (Insomuch as their pride and stubbornness would be prevailing over the obedience that is required of them in these situations.)

These persons, in communicating, strive with every nerve to obtain some kind of sensible sweetness and pleasure, instead of humbly doing reverence and giving praise within themselves to God. And in such wise do they devote themselves to this that, when they have received no pleasure or sweetness in the senses, they think that they have accomplished nothing at all.

How many people say things like "I do not like mass because I get nothing out of it???" or opine about a supposed "superiority" of the Tridentine rite because the latter better caters to their own spiritual gluttony??? These are the sorts who believe that absence of sweetness or pleasure of the senses during mass is the barometer by which they measure the "worth" of the mass or the "superiority/inferiority" of a particular liturgical rite.

This is to judge God very unworthily; they have not realized that the least of the benefits which come from this Most Holy Sacrament is that which concerns the senses; and that the invisible part of the grace that it bestows is much greater; for, in order that they may look at it with the eyes of faith, God oftentimes withholds from them these other consolations and sweetnesses of sense.

The same principle applies in some respects to the Revised Missal which generally speaking is lacking in "sensible sweetness" to self-styled "traditionalists."

And thus they desire to feel and taste God as though He were comprehensible by them and accessible to them, not only in this, but likewise in other spiritual practices. All this is very great imperfection and completely opposed to the nature of God, since it is Impurity in faith.

These persons have the same defect as regards the practice of prayer, for they think that all the business of prayer consists in experiencing sensible pleasure and devotion and they strive to obtain this by great effort, wearying and fatiguing their faculties and their heads; and when they have not found this pleasure they become greatly discouraged, thinking that they have accomplished nothing.

I refer back to my previous three comments here.

Through these efforts they lose true devotion and spirituality, which consist in perseverance, together with patience and humility and mistrust of themselves, that they may please God alone. For this reason, when they have once failed to find pleasure in this or some other exercise, they have great disinclination and repugnance to return to it, and at times they abandon it. They are, in fact, as we have said, like children, who are not influenced by reason, and who act, not from rational motives, but from inclination.

Such persons expend all their effort in seeking spiritual pleasure and consolation; they never tire therefore, of reading books; and they begin, now one meditation, now another, in their pursuit of this pleasure which they desire to experience in the things of God. But God, very justly, wisely and lovingly, denies it to them, for otherwise this spiritual gluttony and inordinate appetite would breed in numerable evils. It is, therefore, very fitting that they should enter into the dark night, whereof we shall speak, that they may be purged from this childishness.

These persons who are thus inclined to such pleasures have another very great imperfection, which is that they are very weak and remiss in journeying upon the hard road of the Cross; for the soul that is given to sweetness naturally has its face set against all self-denial, which is devoid of sweetness.

Again I ask you Albert (among others I could mention), are you paying close attention to what was noted in the above paragraphs???

These persons have many other imperfections which arise hence, of which in time the Lord heals them by means of temptations, aridities and other trials, all of which are part of the dark night. All these I will not treat further here, lest I become too lengthy; I will only say that spiritual temperance and sobriety lead to another and a very different temper, which is that of mortification, fear and submission in all things.

Of course the so-called "neo-catholics" in frequently resorting to the above refrain (particularly that of submission) are only echoing the sentiments of St. John of the Cross. Apparently St. John of the Cross, the Mystical Doctor par excellence, was a "neo-catholic" too!!!

It thus becomes clear that the perfection and worth of things consist not in the multitude and the pleasantness of one's actions, but in being able to deny oneself in them; this such persons must endeavour to compass, in so far as they may, until God is pleased to purify them indeed, by bringing them into the dark night, to arrive at which I am hastening on with my account of these imperfections.

The above reason (for those who have in the past inquired about it) is why I have never once utilized the Indult in my dioceses (despite pestering my local ordinary about providing one which he finally did) and quite possibly never will. To explain this in detail would be akin to opening the windows to pray in front of others rather than doing so behind closed doors (cf. Matt. vi,1;5-6); ergo that is all I will say about it.

To be Continued...

Meditations on The Dark Night of the Soul:
(Aka "the Rerum Novarum 2004 Lenten Spiritual Instruction")

The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this series, please go HERE.

CHAPTER V

Of the imperfections into which beginners fall with respect to the sin of wrath.

BY reason of the concupiscence which many beginners have for spiritual consolations, their experience of these consolations is very commonly accompanied by many imperfections proceeding from the sin of wrath; for, when their delight and pleasure in spiritual things come to an end, they naturally become embittered, and bear that lack of sweetness which they have to suffer with a bad grace, which affects all that they do; and they very easily become irritated over the smallest matter--sometimes, indeed, none can tolerate them.

We will get to the biggest weakness of the so-called "traditionalists" as a group shortly -even bigger perhaps than pride, luxury, or wrath. In the meantime, the above paragraph notes one of the imperfections of the so-called "traditionalists": the irritability that they have when they are bereft of spiritual consolations.

In particular this would be those who are so attached to the Tridentine liturgy who are irritated at having to go to the Pauline liturgy either most of the time or on occasion. (Those who never do this -particularly where there is no available Indult liturgy- are in even worse shape than those who do. Tomorrow's A later points to ponder segment from St. Thomas Aquinas will deal with people in this situation.)

This frequently happens after they have been very pleasantly recollected in prayer according to sense; when their pleasure and delight therein come to an end, their nature is naturally vexed and disappointed, just as is the child when they take it from the breast of which it was enjoying the sweetness. There is no sin in this natural vexation, when it is not permitted to indulge itself, but only imperfection, which must be purged by the aridity and severity of the dark night.

As long as the natural vexation is contained within the internal forum, there is of course no sin just imperfection. It is when these difficuties or annoyances are put forth in the external forum when the danger of sin becomes much more proximate if not actual.

There are other of these spiritual persons, again, who fall into another kind of spiritual wrath: this happens when they become irritated at the sins of others, and keep watch on those others with a sort of uneasy zeal. At times the impulse comes to them to reprove them angrily, and occasionally they go so far as to indulge it[39] and set themselves up as masters of virtue. All this is contrary to spiritual meekness.

The above also applies in spades with so-called "traditionalists." Much as luxury is an area where the so-called "progressivists" often fall, wrath is an area which affects the so-called "traditionalists." (And of course both are affected by pride though not in exactly the same way.)

There are others who are vexed with themselves when they observe their own imperfectness, and display an impatience that is not humility; so impatient are they about this that they would fain be saints in a day.

Now we are into an area which still afflicts your weblog host. He used to make a lot of resolutions, now he does not make many. But there is an impatience at times that he is not progressing spiritually at a much more rapid pace.

Many of these persons purpose to accomplish a great deal and make grand resolutions; yet, as they are not humble and have no misgivings about themselves, the more resolutions they make, the greater is their fall and the greater their annoyance, since they have not the patience to wait for that which God will give them when it pleases Him; this likewise is contrary to the spiritual meekness aforementioned, which cannot be wholly remedied save by the purgation of the dark night.

The next one pertains to many if not most of the so-called "progressivists."

Some souls, on the other hand, are so patient as regards the progress which they desire that God would gladly see them less so.

To be Continued...

On Al Queda, Spain, John Kerry, Etc.:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

These are some disjointed thoughts that came to mind when reading Greg Krehbiel's Weblog today. In an entry on the Spain situation, Greg opines that Spain's election cavein is a victory for the terrorists. It is darn difficult to argue against this viewpoint as I see it.

For what happened was an entire country caved in at the last minute. The liberals were trailing bigtime before the explosions but within seventy-two hours the electorate did a flip flop voting out the conservative party and voting in the terrorist appeasers liberal party. I wonder if this will give those terrorists ideas about 11th hour bombings before elections in other countries. But enough on that point as this situation opens up a can of worms logically.

For one thing, this is referred to as America "losing an ally" in the war on terror. (In the election turnaround in Spain.) Now I am confused because we had no "allies" according to John Kerry.{1} Why now that Spain has folded like a cheap tent and voted in the Al Queda fan club liberal party in that country were they a "former ally." How can they go from not being an ally to being a former ally. Something does not jive with these media reports.

While my readers know that I am not much of a George Bush fan, I can nonetheless not see how a vote for Kerry is not a vote for Al Queda. Which reminds me of something else.

If (i) Al Queda is behind this bombing and (ii) they did so because Spain was an ally of ours in the recent war, then (iii) what of the claim that there was no connection between Al Queda and Saddam Hussein??? It would seem strange for Al Queda to care about what we did to Hussein and Iraq if there was no alliance of any kind (read: no connection) there. How will the media pundits explain away this one and will John Kerry actually name any of the so-called "world leaders" that he claims support him against Bush??? These are two questions that I would like to see answers to.

I am reminded of the old Bob Hope joke where he says that Joseph McCarthy claimed to have obtained the names of over 200 communists. Bob's punchline: [McCarthy] had gotten his hands on a Moscow phonebook. In Kerry's case, he claims to have met with these leaders. But where (out of curiosity) did the media ever report Kerry meeting with foreign leaders???

You have to think that such meetings would be heavily reported since (i) the media wants Kerry to win and (ii) such meetings would give Kerry the appearance of being "presidential material" and also give him a certain amount of foreign policy credentials in the eyes of the average Joe Six Pack who at best casually follows these matters. Are we to believe that the media would avoid making Kerry look as presidential as he could by neglecting to report such meetings with foreign leaders??? Or is it more probable that Kerry is lying his keister off again???

In short, there are a lot of loose ends that need tying up for the Democrats as I see it...and not only that they have to root *for* higher unemployment, *for* increased job loss, *for* increased deficits, and also (it seems) *for* another terrorist strike right before our elections.{2} As far as Spain goes, the only concern they seem to have about the Spain explosion is that they see it as political fuel for their agenda. Which raises another question:

Does this make a vote for Kerry and the Democrats -who have long claimed that Bush exaggerated the scope of the terrorism threat for political advantage- a vote for Al Queda type terrorists??? I am forced in light of all that is noted above to answer that question with a "yes" unfortunately.

Notes:

{1} Except of course for Great Britain.

{2} With the hope that America will follow the poltroons of Spain and vote in our fullblown socialist party (the Democrats) to replace our wishy-washy "ambiguously-socialist-on-domestic-policy-issues" party (the Republicans).

For more musings on these and other related subjects, please see this subsequent weblog link. -ISM (3/22/04 9:28 am)

Points to Ponder:

Obedience is foreign to the minds of the modern world because, again, it is sacrificial. Every obedience requires that we sacrifice our wills for truth. It requires that we be humble, to know that we cannot know everything, that we are fallible beings. Knowing that we are fallible beings, we know that there is always the possibiliy of error. No matter how intelligent we think we are, self-abandonment, self-sacrifice, is primary. And self-abandonment means to trust that God will work through us, through our thoughts, through our life, even if we do not think that we are walking on the right way. This is what obedience means. It is through obedience that we will grow in wisdom. [Apolonio Latar III (January 14, 2004)]

"St. Blog's Parish Hall" Dept.

Mary H of the Ever New BLOG has started a St. Blog's Parish Hall discussion board. It is set up a lot like the Catholic Converts board before the Novus Boardo format was imposed in January of 2003.{1} I even see some familiar names from years past (Walt, Lane Core Jr, Mary H) and fellow bloggers of St. Blog's as well. (Lane and Mary are also in this category.)

Though I will not make any promises, I will nonetheless note that it is probable that I will post there in the coming months at least occasionally. Such endeavours will depend on (i) the subject being discussed (ii) who is doing the discussing (iii) if I want to muse on the subject being discussed at that time and (iv) if I have time to involve myself there.

My guess offhand is that any posts for the Parish Hall that I put up will be written first at Rerum Novarum and then linked to the Parish Hall system. That is what I am generally inclined to do with message boards now for many reasons.{2} But anyway, I thought you may be interested in the Parish Hall and by all means, stop by and pay Mary a visit. She is one of the nicest people you will meet I assure you.

Notes:

{1} I had been finding myself less and less pleased with the way that board was going in 2002 but I still weighed in on occasion or when specifically requested to. However, when I sought to log on to wish the board a happy new year on January 1, 2003, my password of almost four years would not register. That was the next to last straw for me viz. posting at that board. (The last straw was the Novus Boardo format.)

{2} Primarily because it saves time and duplication of material that way. Though I often blog more developed versions of previous message box posts that is due to space constraints in the message box formats. (Which message boards generally do not have.)

Reprising a Request for Dialogue on Foundational Premises:
(To Tim Enloe)

It seems good at this time to reiterate a previous dialogue request to my friend Tim Enloe which was issued two weeks ago. Slightly adjusted to reflect the time passage and refined a little bit, here is the text of that request once again. -ISM

Tim:

The main reason I want to discuss the foundational premises rather than the subjects that you want to discuss now is because I can determine in advance where we will arrive at in dialogue if we do not do this. Indeed, I am experienced enough in dialogue to anticipate future impasses and want to therefore avoid them if at all possible.

Such impasses are inevitable if all we do is hurl citations at one another and attempt to reduce complex theories into propositional formats that miss the finer details where God is often to be found. You often emphasize wanting to get to the nuts and bolts and avoid the kinds of generalizations that often impede fruitful dialogue. My intention here is to provide for doing just that.

To start with, we both agree and have often stated in divers ways that history is a complex mosaic. For that reason, we need to get beyond the individual interpretations of the data and into the operative points of view behind those interpretations. That is why I would rather focus on operative points of view first before even discussing the differing theories.

As a veteran of many of these kinds of discussions, you are not unaware of how people can continually miss one another like ships passing in the night.{1} My time for dialogue is not extensive nor will it be for the rest of the year. I am interested therefore even more than I normally am in getting behind your theory to attempt to better understand where you are coming from.

Of course in such a discussion, I would likewise strive to provide for you a window to viewing things as I view them. Once that is achieved, our odds of having a fruitful dialogue on these controversial subjects increase substantially over what they will be if we do not do this. This is the reason for the request I made to you. Hopefully this brief clarification will help explain why I posted the entry I posted.

And again I ask: is this an area that you have any interest in going over at all??? For like you I have little patience for apologetical "dog and pony shows" no matter who is putting them on. My interest is a dialogue on ideas and the presuppositions that colour those ideas. As I trust that you also have this interest, I extend to you again this invitation hoping that you will take it. Few people are willing to have this kind of discussion but I believe (and long have btw) that you are willing to go beyond conventional approaches in your desire to better understand any subject you study. (Be it theology, history, philosophy, or whatever.) This is why I addressed this request specifically to you.

The other points I touched on briefly can be dealt with another day. They are not going anywhere soon -indeed they have not in hundreds of years. So we need not worry that they will if we focus for a few months or whatever on the very prisms through which either of us view any data we appropriate to defend our respective distinctions of outlook. Surely you can concur with me there I presume.

Note:

{1} I remind you of the one year go around you had with Gary Hoge on the meaning of the term "perspicuity" as a case in point of precisely the kind of thing I am saying here. (Not to say I have been free of such go-arounds myself in my life of course.) But they are the sort of thing I desire to avoid or make the likelihood of them happening as remote as possible if at all possible. (Particularly in light of the even greater constraints on my time that I noted a month ago today.)