The Battle of Gog and Magog: Prophetic Deja Vu

American Vision ^ | 10/23/2007 | Gary DeMar

[cornelis]

And so it makes sense because you prefer and hold that pov?

[the_conscience]

Which pov?

[cornelis]

Good question. Have you read Levinas?

[the_conscience]

A little. Is he right?

[cornelis]

Everybody is right in part. I reckon you know that.

[the_conscience]

Systems are oppressive?

Duty to protect otherness is the prime objective?

[cornelis]

Yes, systems can be oppressive. And a duty to protect otherness can be the prime objective.

[the_conscience]

“To be made in the image of God means not than one is God’s icon but that one finds oneself in his trace. The revealed God of our Judeo-Christian spirituality shows himself only in his trace. To approach [God] does not entail following this trace, which is not a sign. It means, instead, to approach the others [fellow human beings] who exist in the trace of this deity. Through this illeity, which has its place on the hither side of calculations and reciprocal relations of economy and world, being signifies. A meaning without finality that cannot be satiated by happiness.”

“In the other, there is a real presence of God. It is not a metaphor. It is not only extremely important, it is literally true. I am not saying that the other is God, but that in his or her face I hear the word of God.”

All transcendence and no incarnation?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for all of your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

The eternal glory and splendor of God is beyond the ability of the human intellect to imagine, let alone understand. Any attempt to do this inescapably results in viewing God in terms of what we know about humans -- the anthropomorphization of God, as you note. But the Creator cannot be defined in terms of the Creature. And that's an absolute statement.

So very true - and so very well said.

[Alamo-Girl]

Everything--especially everyone--doesn't fit our favorite category. Besides, a person is more than a category. There's a lesson here, for those who have ears to hear.

Indeed. Very wise, dear cornelis.

[cornelis]

The message that revelation is a trace is typical Levinas. You might find some passage which demeans the incarnation; to me these words are in another direction, confirming what St. Paul saw: “Christ in you, the hope of glory.” That is not to say you are God.

[the_conscience]

I understand that Levinas is not claiming that each of us is God but Levinas’ concept of the trace can hardly be compared to Paul’s conception of Christ in us. Per the Levinas quote I offered, his conception of the trace relates back to imago Dei which is something quite different from the Spirit of the incarnated Christ in us.

The question is does a exclusive concern for the other any less oppressive than exclusivism per se? I think clearly it is not. It reduces all truth claims to essentially the same thing to whatever the prevailing interpretative framework may be. It repressively reject the otherness of an exclusivist. It essentially retracts upon itself. We see this exact phenomenon with the political Left.

[cornelis]

About your first. I wanted to say in my reply that there is nothing about the Incarnation in the passage you cited. Did I say that? Or did I speak in that general direction? I don't mean to sound cranky, but I do want shoot straight, like a Marine. As to what the imago Dei has do to with Christ is another interesting subject that someone might discuss after the cows come home. You want to talk exclusivism. Really. Is this exclusivism from Levinas? From your citation? Not there. Neither is there anything there about the Incarnation. Oncee more and you have strike three. Speaking generally about his writing, the exclusivism that Levinas attacks is the presumption of totality in rationalism. If you think that such an attack makes him liable to the error that he criticizes, nota bene you could be wrong about that. C'est rien. I'll gladly speak apart from Levinas, and understand that taking an antithetical position does not exonerate one from the danger that is criticized. I'm not here to defend Levinas per se. I'm here to speak to you.