← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Petr

Why Leo Strauss condemned Machiavelli - for being too CHRISTIAN...

Thread ID: 20487 | Posts: 24 | Started: 2005-10-02

Petr [OP]

2005-10-02 04:09 | User Profile

I have this thesis that many great "neo-pagans" have been and are more influenced by Christianity than they even themselves realize - whether they like it or not, they are [B]different[/B] from [I]original [/I]pagans who had not even heard about Christian doctrines. A modern Western unbeliever can no more "return to paganism" than a divorcee can return to virginity.

For example, already emperor Julian the Apostate (who had been raised as a Christian) was forced to copy several Christian practices in his onslaught against Christianity, like educating pagan masses about the content and meaning of their rituals or adopting the Christian policy of universal charity.

Likewise, Leo Strauss argued, and I tend to agree, that even Niccolo Machiavelli had, in spite of all his "might makes right" political philosophy, imbibed one important Christian idea - that[B] truth shall set you free [/B]and that if you possess the truth, you should "shout it from the rooftops".

See, Christianity is a fundamentally [B]anti-esoteric[/B] doctrine while systematic esotericism is very much a part of genuine pagan piety (in this sense, Freemasons with their hierarchical degree-system are genuinely following the mysteries of ancient paganism on this issue).

Machiavelli discussed his nihilistic ideas [B]in public, under his own name[/B], instead of keeping them as a private property of small closed circle, which is what Strauss alleges that ancient pagans like Plato or Livy had done. (For example, Strauss argued that Plato's [B]real[/B] opinions had been voiced by people like Thrasymachus)

Machiavelli simply had too [B]Christian[/B] mentality to remain silent after discovering what he thought was the truth, he had certain [I]evangelistic zeal.[/I]

This shows how Jews like Leo Strauss can make "better pagans" like neo-pagans with Christian background or parentage - they are more genuinely immune to Christian influences.

These are excerpts from Shadia B. Drury's book [I]The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss[/I] (1988), pp. 117-118, 123-5, 128-9: [COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Times New Roman]

[SIZE=3]"My thesis regarding Strauss' Machiavelli is as follows. [B]First, following the wise men of antiquity, Strauss used Machiavelli as his mouthpiece in order to avoid pronouncing unpleasant, unsalutary and dangerous truths in his own name. [/B]Instead, Strauss avails himself of the "immunity of the commentator" which allows him to express truths that he believes a wise man dare not speak openly. [B]He refers to Machiavelli's conception of the relationship between politics and morality as shocking, repugnant, evil, irreligious, diabolical and dangerous, but never as [I]false[/I]. [/B]On the contrary, he thinks it a true account of the real nature of politics, but one that wise man dare not express openly, [B]except through the mouth of a madman, a slave, a sophist or a devil, like Machiavelli.[/B]

"Secondly, contrary to what Strauss' commentators believe,[U] [B]Strauss does not criticize Machiavelli so much for being anti-Christian, as for having ultimately seduced by Christianity. [/B][/U]So much so that he uses a secular model of Christianity for his own politival philosophy.

"Thirdly, what Machiavelli hides is not so much the extent to which he is anti-Christian, but the extent to which he is opposed to the pagan tradition of Greek philosophy. Machiavelli is not the admirer of the ancients that he pretends to be. The truly anti-pagan nature of Machiavelli's work is more cleverly concealed than its anti-Christian implications. [B]Contrary to his declared love of pagan antiquity, Machiavelli accelerates the Christian revolt against the aristocratic tradition of Greek philosophy, a tradition that Strauss identifies with Western civility itself[/B].

...[B]

The real reason Strauss rails against Machiavelli is that he makes his disapproval of Christianity much too easy to detect[/B]. He does not follow the ancient wisdom of writing esoterically on these matters. Machiavelli is being very devious when he pretends to be following the authority of Livy in belittling religion. [U][B]Livy does not mock religion although he puts words mocking religion "into the mouths of plebeians who mock religion."[/B] [/U]But Machiavelli says these words in his own name and pretends to be following Livy in doing so. Strauss shows numerous instances where Machiavelli quotes words of Livy which the historian put into mouths of his characters.

...

"Machiavelli is esoteric because he pretends to follow Livy in the very act of subverting him. Conversely, he pretends to denounce Christianity while mimicking it.

"Strauss' real criticism of Machiavelli has little to do with the anti-Christian nature of his central doctrine.[B] [U]Far from criticizing Machiavelli for being anti-Christian, Strauss believes Machiavelli is very much under the spell of Christianity. [/U][/B]The latter is the model both for philosophizing as well as for his politics. Strauss does not make this explicit, and it is likely to be missed in the midst of his rhetoric against Machiavelli's conscious intention to destroy Christianity.

... [B] "Strauss casts doubt on Machiavelli's claim that unarmed prophet cannot succeed. [U]He maintains that Machiavelli could not possibly believe this, since he is himself an unarmed prophet[/U].[/B] Strauss suggests that Machiavelli models himself after Christ: an unarmed prophet whose success must have inspired Machiavelli with awe and admiration. (50) The triumph of Christianity over paganism must have encouraged a man, who, like Machiavelli, wanted to introduce "new modes and orders", or to change the way men thought about good and evil, honor and dishonor. [B]Machiavelli portrayed the change he wished to make in terms of a return to the virtues of antiquity, but Strauss uncovers this claim as a fraud.[/B]

...

"What is at issue between Strauss and Machiavelli is that Machiavelli couples his rejection of contemplation as the end of politics with a rejection of the whole aristocratic Greek tradition. [B]Strauss seems positively offended by the fact that Machiavelli prefers the "more democratic and less stable Roman polity" to the "less democratic and more stable Spartan polity." /B This for Strauss is decisive in the understanding of Machiavelli as the first modern. Strauss links Machiavelli's preference of Rome over Sparta to the anti-aristocratic sentiment, that more than anything else, characterizes modernity. He writes:

[I]It may easily appear that Machiavelli was was the first philosopher who questioned in the name of the multitude or of democracy the aristocratic prejudice or the aristocratic premise which informed classical philosophy. He preferred the more democratic Roman polity to the less democratic Spartan polity. He expresses the opinion that the purpose of the people is more honest, or more just, than the purpose of the great. It is true that he did not favour the rule of the multitude; all simple regimes are bad; ...[/I] (62)

"Strauss was a man who chooses his words carefully. He does not say that Machiavelli is definitely the first modern or the first to undermine the "aristocratic or oligarchic republicanism of the classical tradition". [B]He says only that he [I]appears[/I] to be the first. It does not take much ungenuity to surmise that Christianity and not Machiavelli was the first to do this.[/B] We must conclude that Machiavelli's bias in favor of the multitude is Christian and that Machiavelli completes rather than begins the revolt against classical antiquity. (63) Modernity therefore begins with Christianity and not with Machiavelli. [B]Strauss is unwilling to say this openly not only because it might be distasteful for a Jew to to criticize Christianity as the source of all the ills of modernity, but because Strauss is reluctant to criticize the dominant religion of the West. [/B]Despite all its shortcomings, Christianity is still better than no religion at all."[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

Drury also wrote how it was typical for Strauss to be silent or vague on issues on which he had his most negative opinions, and that Strauss was especially careful and "roundaboutish" when dealing with Christianity - meaning that deep inside, Strauss considered Christianity to be his enemy [I]numero uno[/I].

May I say for my own part that it is honor and pleasure for Christians that Strauss considered them to be his greatest ideological opponents!

Israel Shahak cited this opinion on how Machiavelli possessed certain [B]refreshing honesty [/B]compared to deceitful advocates of "virtue" such as Plato and Sir Thomas More:

[COLOR=Purple][SIZE=3][FONT=Trebuchet MS]"The difference between the two kinds of policies was well expressed by Hugh Trevor-Roper in his essay 'Sir Thomas More and Utopia' 3 in which he termed them Platonic and Machiavellian: [I][B] Machiavelli at least apologized for the methods which he thought necessary in politics. He regretted the necessity of force and fraud and did not call them by any other name. But Plato and More sanctified them, provided that they were used to sustain their own Utopian republics[/B].[/I][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.abbc.net/islam/english/books/jewhis/jewhis1.htm#anchor29utopia[/url]

Thus, in the spirit of the Gospel, I personally appreciate more an open unbeliever like, say, Wintermute, who tells me to my face what he thinks about my religion rather than some crafty Straussian neocon who blathers about how virtuous and sublime and socially useful Christianity is, but secretly despises it in his heart. [I]An open enemy is better than a false friend.[/I]

[COLOR=Blue][B] [U]Proverbs 27:6:[/U] Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

[U]Revelation 3:15-6:[/U] I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.[/B] [/COLOR]

Any opinions on this, folks? I'd like to hear them.

Petr

2005-10-04 05:20 | User Profile

Here are excerpts from Machiavelli's [I]Discourses upon the First Ten Books of Titus Livy[/I], that was criticized by Strauss:

[url]http://cas.memphis.edu/~jmblythe/3370/MachiavelliDiscExcerpts.htm[/url]

It would really seem that Machiavelli "sort of" sides with the crowd against the aristocracy, by saying that nobles can be just as unstable and deluded in their judgment as the large crowds - and thus being more "Christian-modern" in his mentality than "ancient-pagan."

See [COLOR=DarkRed][B]CHAPTER LVIII: THE MULTITUDE IS WISER AND MORE CONSTANT THAN A PRINCE[/B] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3] "And in sum to epilogue this material, I say that the States of the Princes have lasted a long time, the States of the Republics have lasted a long time, and both have had need to be regulated by laws; for a Prince who can do what he wants is a madman, and a People which can do as it wants to is not wise.[B] If, therefore, discussion is to be had of a Prince obligated by laws, and of a People unobligated by them, more virtÃÂ¹ will be observed in the People than in Princes:[/B] if the discussion is to be had of both loosened from such control, fewer errors will be observed in the People than in the Princes, and those that are fewer have the greater remedies: For a licentious and tumultuous People can be talked to by a good man, and can easily be returned to the good path: but there is no one who can talk to a Prince, nor is there any other remedy but the sword."[/SIZE][/FONT]

[/COLOR]

Here is a paper that deals further on Leo Strauss' criticism of Machiavelli - and also on Eric Voegelin's position that Machiavelli was a "modern Gnostic":

[url]http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=leo+strauss+machiavelli+moses&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&u=www25.brinkster.com/cenphilsoc/Machiavelli%2520Paper%2520III.html&w=leo+strauss+machiavelli+moses&d=GDDDWmFULhOQ&icp=1&.intl=us[/url] [COLOR=Purple][SIZE=4][B] "Machiavelli's Birth of Modern Political Philosophy" [/B][/SIZE][/COLOR]

Petr

2005-10-04 05:21 | User Profile

From this page (which is otherwise full of crap) I collected some citations showing just how [B]unblushingly[/B] the ancient pagan intelligentsia used religion merely as a way of keeping the rabble in line - absent is the Christian ideal of "truth for its own sake":

[url]http://www.tentmaker.org/books/OriginandHistory.html[/url][COLOR=Blue] [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]

" Hence [B][I]Augustine [/I][/B]says, in his "City of God," "This seems to have been done on no other account, but as it was the business of princes, out of their wisdom and civil prudence, to deceive the people in their religion; princes, under the name of religion, persuaded the people to believe those things true, which they themselves knew to be idle fables; by this means, for their own ease in government, tying them the more closely to civil society." B. iV 32.

...

[B][I]Polybius[/I], [/B] the historian, says: "Since the multitude is ever fickle, full of lawless desires, irrational passions and violence, there is no other way to keep them in order but by the fear and terror of the invisible world; on which account our ancestors seem to me to have acted judiciously, when they contrived to bring into the popular belief these notions of the gods, and of the infernal regions." B. vi 56.
[B][I]Dionysius Halicarnassus[/I][/B] treats the whole matter as useful, but not as true. Antiq. Rom., B. ii

3[B].[I] Livy[/I], [/B] the celebrated historian, speaks of it in the same spirit; and he praises the wisdom of Numa, because he invented the fear of the gods, as "a most efficacious means of governing an ignorant and barbarous populace." Hist., I 19.

[B][I]Strabo,[/I][/B] the geographer, says: "The multitude are restrained from vice by the punishments the gods are said to inflict upon offenders, and by those terrors and threatenings which certain dreadful words and monstrous forms imprint upon their minds...For it is impossible to govern the crowd of women, and all the common rabble, by philosophical reasoning, and lead them to piety, holiness and virtue - but this must be done by superstition, or the fear of the gods, by means of fables and wonders; for the thunder, the aegis, the trident, the torches (of the Furies), the dragons, &c., are all fables, as is also all the ancient theology. These things the legislators used as scarecrows to terrify the childish multitude." Geog., B. I
[B][I]Timaeus Locrus,[/I][/B] the Pythagorean, after stating that the doctrine of rewards and punishments after death is necessary to society, proceeds as follows: "For as we sometimes cure the body with unwholesome remedies, when such as are most wholesome produce no effect, so we restrain those minds with false relations, which will not be persuaded by the truth. There is a necessity, therefore, of instilling the dread of those foreign torments: 10as that the soul changes its habitation; that the coward is ignominiously thrust into the body of a woman; the murderer imprisoned within the form of a savage beast; the vain and inconstant changed into birds, and the slothful and ignorant into fishes."
[B][I]Plato[/I], [/B] in his commentary on Timaeus, fully endorses what he says respecting the fabulous invention of these foreign torments. And Strabo says that "Plato and the Brahmins of India invented fables concerning the future judgments of hell" (Hades). And Chrysippus blames Plato for attempting to deter men from wrong by frightful stories of future punishments.

Plato himself is exceedingly inconsistent, sometimes adopting, even in his serious discourses, the fables of the poets, and at other times rejecting them as utterly false, and giving too frightful views of the invisible world. Sometimes, he argues, on social grounds, that they are necessary to restrain bad men from wickedness and crime, and then again he protests against them on political grounds, as intimidating the citizens, and making cowards of the soldiers, who, believing these things, are afraid of death, and do not therefore fight well. But all this shows in what light he regarded them; not as truths, certainly, but as fictions, convenient in some cases, but difficult to manage in others.

...

9[B].[I] Aristotle[/I].[/B] "It has been handed down in mythical form from earliest times to posterity, that there are gods, and that the divine (Deity) compasses all nature. All beside this has been added, after the mythical style, for the purpose of persuading the multitude, and for the interests of the laws, and the advantage of the state." Neander's Church Hist., I, p. 7. 11[/FONT][/SIZE] [/COLOR]

This is the golden olden way that Leo Strauss wanted us to return to - when public religion was very little more than a tool of the state.

In ALL developed ancient pagan societies (or even in pre-WWII Japan!), there was NO "separation of the church and state," for the state[B] was [/B]a church. It was really[B] Christianity[/B] that gave birth to the concept of religion separate from the needs of the state, beginning with Jesus Christ' words on giving Caesar what was his and giving to God what was His.

(There is no similar distinction in Islam or Orthodox Judaism either)

Here you can find Titus Livius' book [I]Ab Urbe Condita[/I] online, and his description of the utterly pragmatic origins of Roman religion in the time of Numa Pompilius:

[url]http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_livy_1.htm?iam=metaresults&terms=henry+silvia[/url]

Petr

2005-10-04 09:55 | User Profile

Btw, here's fine piece by Thomas DiLorenzo, arguing that (unlike Machiavelli) [B]Abraham Lincoln[/B] was a true soulmate of Leo Strauss:

[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo46.html[/url]

[COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]...

[I][B]Straussian Principle #4: Fake religiosity[/B].[/I] Several of the journalists who have recently written about Strauss have noted that he was a proponent of a greater role for religion in affairs of state, a position that has endeared some Christians to the neocon movement. But StraussÃ¢â¬â¢ position was that the political rulers and the intellectual elite (philosopher kings?) need not be bound by religion themselves; religion was primarily a propaganda tool to be used to get the masses to acquiesce in state intervention on behalf of aggressive nationalism. As Ron Bailey of [I]Reason[/I] magazine has pointed out, "Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers."

Once again, Lincoln is the perfect Straussian role model. [B]Lincoln never joined a church and was opposed by almost all the ministers of Springfield, Illinois, when he ran for president[/B]. He was infamous for his dirty jokes and even his criticisms of Scripture. There is no explicit evidence that he ever became a Christian, and some of his contemporaries even believed that he was probably an atheist. As James Ostrowski has written ("DiLorenzo vs. His Critics on the Lincoln Myth," LRC Archives), the "church of Lincoln" is "the church of a man who had no Church."

Lincoln was nevertheless brilliant in his use of religious language and images to mesmerize Northern audiences, especially the hyper-puritanical New England Yankees and their upper Midwest brethren. [B]After launching a war that he apparently thought would last only a few months, Lincoln distanced himself more and more from responsibility for his own decisions by invoking religion.[/B] By the time of his Second Inaugural, when over a half million young American men had been killed in the war, he was to the point of absolving himself [I]entirely[/I] from [I]any[/I] responsibility for all the warÃ¢â¬â¢s death and destruction. He declared that "the war came," as though he had nothing to do with it, and said that it was all out of his hands and a matter of GodÃ¢â¬â¢s will. He theorized that God was punishing America for the sin of slavery. This argument was nonsensical on its face, however, since it ignored the fact that some 95 percent of all the slaves that were brought to the western hemisphere ended up outside the U.S., where no such "punishment" was being executed by the Lord. Why would God punish Americans for the sin of slavery but no one else?

...

LincolnÃ¢â¬â¢s cynical political manipulation of religion was the perfect Straussian subterfuge. It was the perfect propaganda tool for sugarcoating a bloody and imperialistic war of conquest. [B]Little wonder that contemporary Straussian neocons think of Lincoln as "the greatest statesman in world history"[/B]: He was an extreme nationalist; an enemy of constitutionally limited government and [I]genuine[/I] natural rights; a skilled political conniver, manipulator and deceiver; and a phony religionist. Perfect.[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

Petr

2005-10-07 02:22 | User Profile

Isn't anybody going to make any comments on this stuff?

I'd almost wish that Wintermute and NeoNietzsche were still here to debate with me...

Petr

Okiereddust

2005-10-07 04:08 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]I have this thesis that many great "neo-pagans" have been and are more influenced by Christianity than they even themselves realize - whether they like it or not, they are [B]different[/B] from [I]original [/I]pagans who had not even heard about Christian doctrines. A modern Western unbeliever can no more "return to paganism" than a divorcee can return to virginity. I think that's undoubtedly true. What did Moeller say " a revolution can never be undone". Especially one that lasted two centuries.

See, Christianity is a fundamentally [B]anti-esoteric[/B] doctrine while systematic esotericism is very much a part of genuine pagan piety (in this sense, Freemasons with their hierarchical degree-system are genuinely following the mysteries of ancient paganism on this issue).

I don't know Petr, it almost seems like you're getting pretty esoteric here, in a sense:wink:

[QUOTE]This shows how Jews like Leo Strauss can make "better pagans" like neo-pagans with Christian background or parentage - they are more genuinely immune to Christian influences.[/QUOTE]Undoubtedly part of the reason paleo-Nietzsche was an philosemite.

These are excerpts from Shadia B. Drury's book [I]The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss[/I] (1988), pp. 117-118, 123-5, 128-9:.....................

May I say for my own part that it is honor and pleasure for Christians that Strauss considered them to be his greatest ideological opponents!

Israel Shahak cited this opinion on how Machiavelli possessed certain [B]refreshing honesty [/B]compared to deceitful advocates of "virtue" such as Plato and Sir Thomas More:

[url]http://www.abbc.net/islam/english/books/jewhis/jewhis1.htm#anchor29utopia[/url]

[COLOR=Blue][B] [U]Proverbs 27:6:[/U] Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

Any opinions on this, folks? I'd like to hear them.

Petr[/QUOTE]All fascinating Petr - great stuff for you to be debating with Wintermute. Your points about Strauss though look like fertile grist for some of the Straussian boards I've seen. :rolleyes:

I can see how you would prefer WM and NN to Straussians, - still be careful what you wish for..................................... :wink:

Okiereddust

2005-10-07 04:22 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]Btw, here's fine piece by Thomas DiLorenzo, arguing that (unlike Machiavelli) [B]Abraham Lincoln[/B] was a true soulmate of Leo Strauss:

[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo46.html[/url]

[COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]...

Petr[/QUOTE]I can see what you mean about Lincoln being a Straussian role model. Personally though, while Lincoln beating is something from a Southron point of view is one you can never tire of, I think you have to view Lincoln's own religious situation with some sympathy, and perhaps grant his turn to religion in stress the possibility of some redeeming grace, albeit only that of the sinner caught in his trespasses with no way out.

I think it relates to his personal situation in childhood, especially his life-long estrangement from his father Tom for what plausibly seems some rather just causes. Hopefully in his heart somewhere he didn't sink to the level of the Straussians.

Petr

2005-10-07 08:09 | User Profile

[FONT=Arial][COLOR=Indigo][B][I] - "I can see how you would prefer WM and NN to Straussians, - still be careful what you wish for..................................... "[/I][/B][/COLOR][/FONT]

As time goes by, you can start to feel nostalgic about almost anything - which incidentally is the main cause for romantic neo-paganism.

:tongue:

Petr

weisbrot

2005-10-07 14:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I can see what you mean about Lincoln being a Straussian role model. Personally though, while Lincoln beating is something from a Southron point of view is one you can never tire of, I think you have to view Lincoln's own religious situation with some sympathy, and perhaps grant his turn to religion in stress the possibility of some redeeming grace, albeit only that of the sinner caught in his trespasses with no way out.

This is irredeemable bulls*t. It doesnt' take a "Southron" to recognize how the rapacious war criminal Lincoln's cynical atheism informed his views and actions against other Americans.

Anyone espousing traditional American conservatism for and from the common man- anyone endorsing Christian nationalism, whatever that really is- can't give any serious consideration to giving Lincoln a pass based on Freudian analysis. Are we to believe that Lincoln ordered Sherman to burn Georgia as a means of psychologically killing daddy in order to marry mommy?

Okiereddust

2005-10-07 15:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE=weisbrot]This is irredeemable bulls*t. It doesnt' take a "Southron" to recognize how the rapacious war criminal Lincoln's cynical atheism informed his views and actions against other Americans. I knew you'd catch me on that Weissy :wink:

Anyone espousing traditional American conservatism for and from the common man- anyone endorsing Christian nationalism, whatever that really is-can't give any serious consideration to giving Lincoln a pass based on Freudian analysis. Are we to believe that Lincoln ordered Sherman to burn Georgia as a means of psychologically killing daddy in order to marry mommy?[/QUOTE]Firstly Lincoln didn't just "order Sherman to burn Georgia" the chain of command and decision was quite a bit more involved. And one doesn't have to be a Freudian to recognize one's opinion of the faith we were brought up in is affected by one's opinions of the parents who bring us up in it.

Military historians in general throughout the world have always viewed Sherman as a military genuis and his march to the sea as a brilliant action which shortened the war considerably. And northern churchmen have always viewed Southern religiousity and interpretations as rather selectively sanctimonius for that matter. The "scorched earth" strategy was pushed as much by Davis as by Sherman in any event - but Southerners never accuse admirers of Davis of exagerating his religiousity.

weisbrot

2005-10-07 16:12 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I knew you'd catch me on that Weissy :wink:

Firstly Lincoln didn't just "order Sherman to burn Georgia" the chain of command and decision was quite a bit more involved. And one doesn't have to be a Freudian to recognize one's opinion of the faith we were brought up in is affected by one's opinions of the parents who bring us up in it.

Georgia and South Carolina burned because Sherman's army burned it. Sherman reported to Lincoln. The chain of command defense rarely works, as Lynndie England found to be true recently. Indeed, there is no defense for the actions of either Sherman or Lincoln- not by anyone of conscience.

I don't care what unnamed "military historians" supposedly thought. I care even less what unnamed "northern churchmen" thought and may still think about Southern religiosity. Even if Lincoln's atheism was caused by emotional breaks with his family, I don't see any reason to care or to excuse his war crimes based on either his atheism (which certainly helped enable his actions) or the cause of his atheism.

Claiming that Davis supported a "scorched earth" policy identical to Sherman's is bold intellectual dishonesty. Davis urged civilians to burn fields and poison wells in advance of troops that were already undertaking those actions. Sherman burned homes and shelters, destroyed winter food stocks, killed and stole livestock, and torched entire cities. His Lincoln-approved goal was to impose horrendous conditions on women and children in order to demoralize Lee's army and increase desertions. Lincoln and Sherman left white Christian women and children to starve in order to unite them with the erstwhile "nation". It was a depraved and immoral strategy, and it accomplished their goals while revealing their character.

There is no basis to accuse Davis of exaggerating his "religiousity"; the record on Davis's professions of faith are quite clear and unquestioned. Your characterization of Davis is a non sequitur.

Okiereddust

2005-10-07 16:58 | User Profile

[QUOTE=weisbrot]Georgia and South Carolina burned because Sherman's army burned it. Sherman reported to Lincoln. The chain of command defense rarely works, as Lynndie England found to be true recently. Indeed, there is no defense for the actions of either Sherman or Lincoln- not by anyone of conscience.

I don't care what unnamed "military historians" supposedly thought. Wikipedia says [QUOTE]The March to the Sea is considered by many historians to have demonstrated Sherman's superb command of military strategy, and his commitment to destroying the Confederacy's ability to wage further war may well have hastened the end of the conflict.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman's_March_to_the_Sea[/QUOTE]

Sherman's actions in general in regard to milatary strategy are acknowledged to have been forward-looking and ahead of his time.

[QUOTE]I care even less what unnamed "northern churchmen" thought and may still think about Southern religiosity. Even if Lincoln's atheism was caused by emotional breaks with his family, I don't see any reason to care or to excuse his war crimes based on either his atheism (which certainly helped enable his actions) or the cause of his atheism. [/QUOTE]Well I don't expect Georgians to admire Lincoln or Sherman, either their war actions or philosphies. However we weren't discussing whether either of the men were saints, but whether Lincoln was being cynically opportunistic by evoking Christian imagery when he himself always had personal difficulties with the faith. And in this context the reasons for his personal stance on religion are relevant, when you are questioning not just his piety but more his sincerity.

[QUOTE]Claiming that Davis supported a "scorched earth" policy identical to Sherman's is bold intellectual dishonesty. Davis urged civilians to burn fields and poison wells in advance of troops that were already undertaking those actions. Sherman burned homes and shelters, destroyed winter food stocks, killed and stole livestock, and torched entire cities.

[URL=http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-641]This link[/URL] differs

[QUOTE]Although he did not level any towns, he did destroy buildings in places where there was resistance.[/QUOTE]

His Lincoln-approved goal was to impose horrendous conditions on women and children in order to demoralize Lee's army and increase desertions. Lincoln and Sherman left white Christian women and children to starve in order to unite them with the erstwhile "nation". It was a depraved and immoral strategy, and it accomplished their goals while revealing their character.[/QUOTE]True enough. Northerners focus on the goals, while Southerners focus on the character.

Quantrill

2005-10-07 17:19 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust] Sherman's actions in general in regard to milatary strategy are acknowledged to have been forward-looking and ahead of his time.[/QUOTE] Certainly true. Sherman and Lincoln completely abandoned the Christian ideals of just war and inaugurated the 'total war' barbarism that would engulf the world in the 20th century. Oh, wait, you meant that statement as a compliment, didn't you?

weisbrot

2005-10-07 17:27 | User Profile

Maybe there is an issue of semantics, giving you the benefit of the doubt. The fact remains that in cities like Atlanta and Columbia, it is next to impossible to find buildings dating to before November 1864. This is a direct result of Sherman burning Atlanta:

[IMG]http://sherpaguides.com/georgia/civil_war/atlanta/ruins_of_atlanta_73.jpg[/IMG]

and Columbia:

[IMG]http://www.us-civilwar.com/graphics/columbia.jpg[/IMG]

...and other towns and communities.

[url]http://www.us-civilwar.com/columbia.htm[/url] [I]The truth is," wrote Union Gen. William T. Sherman shortly before leaving Savannah, "the whole army is burning with an insatiable desire to wreak vengeance upon South Carolina. I almost tremble at her fate, but feel she deserves all that seems in store for her."... One of his soldiers wrote home, "If we don't purify South Carolina, it will be because we can't get a light."

...Sherman's men foraged liberally upon the native population, and everywhere left little more than clusters of black chimneys to mark the sites of where towns had been....On the morning of February 17, the advancing blue horde was met by the mayor of Columbia, who surrendered the city and was in turn assured by Sherman that the city and its inhabitants would not be harmed. Even so, as the blue soldiers marched into Columbia, some could be heard to sing, "Hail, Columbia, happy land. If you don't burn, I'll be damned." [/I]

Actually Lincoln's basis for his religious beliefs aren't relevant at all. The fact is that he- along with the many American (and military) historians who abetted in creating the Lincoln myth- cynically misrepresented his religious beliefs. By nearly all credible accounts and by his own words, Lincoln is shown to be an unapologetic atheist. Why search his childhood for a mitigating cause?

I note your apparent approval of Sherman and Lincoln's development of total warfare, and place it alongside your tacit approval of Northern focus on pragmatic results at any cost vs. Southern emphasis on character.

Okiereddust

2005-10-07 20:23 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]Certainly true. Sherman and Lincoln completely abandoned the Christian ideals of just war and inaugurated the 'total war' barbarism that would engulf the world in the 20th century. Oh, wait, you meant that statement as a compliment, didn't you?[/QUOTE]Why certainly. See - we did it in America first.

I've been told in fact that the Germans in fact did study the American Civil War closely. I suspect the aggresiveness with which they waged WWI and were criticized for (even though of course Allied propagandists certainly exagerated it as much as they could) - measures like their own limited "scorched earth" tactics in WWI, introducing poisen gas, flamethrowers, and unrestricted submarine warfare, owed a lot to their study of the Civil War, and the effectiveness such measures could have, including when directed against a civilian population. Even though of course the full impact of that thinking wasn't felt until WWII, and in large part was directed against the German's themselves.

The genie was out of the bottle. Thanks all to Billy "War is Hell" Sherman.

Okiereddust

2005-10-07 20:34 | User Profile

[QUOTE=weisbrot]Maybe there is an issue of semantics, giving you the benefit of the doubt. The fact remains that in cities like Atlanta and Columbia, it is next to impossible to find buildings dating to before November 1864. This is a direct result of Sherman burning Atlanta: Ah, com'mon. That was an [I]accident[/I].

[QUOTE]and Columbia:[/QUOTE]

But Billy Sherman [I]tried [/I] to stop it. :wink:

[QUOTE]Actually Lincoln's basis for his religious beliefs aren't relevant at all. The fact is that he- along with the many American (and military) historians who abetted in creating the Lincoln myth- cynically misrepresented his religious beliefs. By nearly all credible accounts and by his own words, Lincoln is shown to be an unapologetic atheist. Why search his childhood for a mitigating cause?[/QUOTE]Yes, it certainly seems there was a Lincoln myth created. I've been told in fact that a lot of Churches have some story that Lincoln was a churchgoer, secretly baptized, a member "at one time" or something.

Only these dadgumb suhthenaws spread these nasty rumours.

I note your apparent approval of Sherman and Lincoln's development of total warfare, Well, if you're going to make an omelete, you've got to break a few eggs. (I admit, not popular if you're a Georgia egg)

and place it alongside your tacit approval of Northern focus on pragmatic results at any cost vs. Southern emphasis on character.[/QUOTE]

Like at Andersonville? I doubt Suhthenaws were any saints either.

Give the nawthenaw credit where credit is due, if he's going to shoot you, at least you don't have listen to a ten-minute lecture about how he's doing it all for your own good. :lol:

weisbrot

2005-10-07 22:40 | User Profile

Andersonville, FWI?

The starvation and disease at Andersonville were a direct result of Sherman's march and of Lincoln's refusal to exchange prisoners. The massively overcrowded prison couldn't find supplies, and were blockaded from receiving medicine. Food was nonexistent after Sherman burned fields and mills, and destroyed the trains. Guess those prisoners were part of his omelette.

[url]http://www.pointsouth.com/csanet/andersonville.htm[/url]

Okiereddust

2005-10-08 00:11 | User Profile

[QUOTE=weisbrot]Andersonville, FWI?

[url]http://www.pointsouth.com/csanet/andersonville.htm[/url][/QUOTE]Well the situation you refer to certainly is something the South points to. There are a number of other arguments it can point to also, such as the fact that some Northern P.O.W. camps were reputably very bad also, without the South's logistical problems.

All in all though southron partisanship such as csa.net doesn't I think quite do full justice to the Andersonville situation. I don't think Wirz will ever be nominated to be canonized, or Andersonville cited as an example of fine Southern hospitality.

Petr

2005-10-08 08:17 | User Profile

The most famous literary description of Straussian mentality is probably Feodor Dostoevsky's "[B]The Legend of Grand Inquisitor[/B]," contained in his novel [I]Brothers Karamazov[/I]:

From Shadia Drury's article:

[FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=Red][SIZE=3]"[B]All the similarities between Strauss and the Grand Inquisitor notwithstanding, the Straussian position surpasses the Grand Inquisitor in its delusional elitism as well as in its misanthropy.[/B] This shows that while one need not be a religious thinker to be misanthropic, religion is an excellent vehicle for implementing misanthropic policies in public life.

The Grand Inquisitor presents his ruling elite as suffering under the burden of truth for the sake of humanity. [B]So, despite his rejection of Christ, the Grand Inquisitor is modeled on the Christian conception of a suffering God who bears the burden for humanity. In contrast, Strauss represents his ruling elite as pagan gods who are full of laughter.[/B] Instead of being grim and mournful like the Grand Inquisitor, they are intoxicated, erotic, and gay. And they are certainly not too concerned about the happiness of mere mortals. They have little pity or compassion for them. [B][U]On the contrary, the pain, suffering, and tragedies of the mortals provide them with entertainment.[/U]

The Trojan wars and similar tragic atrocities were festivals for the gods, intended for their pleasure and amusement.[/B] Nietzsche thought that only when suffering is witnessed by gods did it become meaningful and heroic. Soaring high, Strauss discovered that there are no gods to witness human suffering; and finding the job vacant, he recruited his acolytes.9[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]

[url]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7395.htm[/url]

So, at their deepest mental layer, it could be that many neocons do not even need any strategical goals (protecting Israel included among them) to justify their warmongering - it is just a best way for them to spend their meaningless atheist lives, with [B]gladiatorial amusements[/B] at the expense of lesser mortals.

Petr

2005-10-08 08:40 | User Profile

Incidentally, this Shadia Drury, who pioneered exposÃÂ© of the Straussian cult, is a quite clichÃÂ©d anti-Christian "freethinking" humanist herself.

She has actually just published a book named [I]Terror and Civilization: Christianity, Politics, and the Western Psyche[/I], where she attacks Jesus Himself, and not just His followers.

She argues: [COLOR=Blue][FONT=Arial] "Jesus is a paradoxical figure who is far more interesting than the orthodox view would lead one to believe. According to the orthodox view, he is the paragon of love, humility and meekness. Nor is this view of him confined to the Church and its apologists. The most visceral critics of Christianity also accept this view of Jesus. [B]Even the self-anointed antichrist, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), blames Saint Paul and the Church for the decrepitude of Christianity; he directs most of his assault on the priestly rule. /B He rants about the hypocrisy of priests, as if hypocrisy was the peculiar invention of Christianity. [B]But he is not critical of Jesus - he thinks that the only real Christian died on the cross. (6)[/B]

...

"[B]My childhood education was a mixture of Orthodox and Catholic - two traditions that do not encourage reading the Bible[/B]. In reading the New Testament as a scholar, I found to my surprise that Jesus was not as admirable a figure as I have always believed. Nor was his doctrine as sweet, mild or genial as I had assumed. I found the flaws of his character to be closely connected to the defects of his doctrine.

"Jesus is generally considered the incarnation of love, forgiveness, humility and innocent suffering. This is indeed how he is depicted in the Gospels. [B]But the Gospels also present the other side of Jesus' personality that has been overlooked. All his goodness not withstanding, he is also autocratic and vindictive[/B].

...

"Jesus may appear humble when he tells his fellow Jews that he has no purposes of his own; he is merely the agent of God who is his Father in heaven. [B]But he adds, "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30). In other words, he is God. [/B]It is not surprising that the Jews threw stones at him. And when he asks them what he has done to deserve their abuse, they reply that it is nothing that he has done, it is his blasphemy: because "thou, being a man, makest thyself God" (John 10:33). [B]A reader has to already believe that Jesus is God in order to excuse his conduct[/B]."[/FONT][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1403964041/ref=sib_fs_top/103-6472491-1300651?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00M&checkSum=9GwrGrW9QYUExQvFGtr88BMrUPi9e9LezFvA0XceBhQ%3D#reader-page[/url]

Indeed, like C.S. Lewis put it, Lord Jesus Christ doesn't need any half-way humanistic "admiration". He wants ALL of our respect or not any of it: [FONT=Garamond][SIZE=3] [COLOR=Navy]"[B]A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic Ã¢â¬â on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg Ã¢â¬â or else he would be the Devil of Hell. [/B]You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. [B]But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.[/B]32"[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[url]http://www.irr.org/yamauchi.html[/url]

I would actually congratulate Drury for realizing that Jesus Christ was [B]not[/B] the kind of all-tolerating namby-pamby liberal that modernists have tried paint Him into. (It would really take a Biblically illiterate person to believe such nonsense.)

Btw, here's a nice description from R.J. Rushdoony on just what "meekness" in Biblical sense means:

[FONT=Trebuchet MS][COLOR=DarkRed] "The word meek is a Biblical term. [B]It is used in Numbers 12:3 to describe Moses, who is termed "very meek"; Moses hardly jibes with modern ideas of meekness.[/B] In fact, Moses is described as "above all the men which were above the face of the earth." Marsh indicates the meaning of meek: "[B]Moses does not fight for his own status before men, but it concerned to be Yahweh's servant. Therefore Yahweh cares for him and his position among the people[/B]." (1) [B]The word meek thus refers primarily to a spiritual state in relationship with God.[/B] Elliott noted, "It may be observed, further, that the word[I] anav[/I], meek, is frequently interchanged with the cognate word [I]ani[/I], and that the meaning may be bowed down, or oppressed. (2) The meaning is further clarified by the Beatitude: "[I]Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.[/I]" (Matt. 5:5) Dominion over the earth is given to the meek, and meekness clearly has reference to God. The meek are the redeemed whom God has burdened, oppressed and broken to harness, so that they are tamed and workable. [B]God subjected Moses to a more rigorous discipline than any other believer of his day, and he became disciplined and strong. Hence, Moses was the meekest man of his age. Meekness is thus not mousiness, but disciplined strength in and under God[/B]."[/COLOR][/FONT]

[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17759&highlight=meekness[/url]

Petr

Gabrielle

2005-10-08 12:45 | User Profile

Sherman was a low life drunk. Lincoln was a half-breed dirt bag.

The North couldn’t win playing fair; so they used a no moral drunk to do what no white man would do.

Petr

2005-10-14 03:56 | User Profile

"Little Geneva" provides us with some info on Straussian Abe Lincoln's henchmen:

[url]http://littlegeneva.com/?p=362[/url]

[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"] [SIZE="3"][FONT="Arial"]"Lincoln and his generals (Grant, Sherman, Sheridan) have often been accused of introducing the theory and practice of total war into the civilized world, but they do not deserve even that much credit for their originality. The Jacobins, both in their democratic theory and in their war of genocide against the Vendee, blazed the trail that burned through Georgia and South Carolina and consumed the poor people of DresdenÃ¢â¬Â¦ [B]Lincoln was a mocker; Sherman, an Ã¢â¬ËagnosticÃ¢â¬â¢ - an atheist without the courage of his convictions - and Grant, a skeptic who went to church with his wife but never received communion, even on his deathbed. [/B][B]Grant criticized the wealth (tax-exempt) of churches in America and repeatedly called for a strict separation of church and state.[/B] His anti-Christian views made him the ideal hero for Mark Twain."

~ Thomas Fleming [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

Petr

Okiereddust

2005-10-14 05:12 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]"Little Geneva" provides us with some info on Straussian Abe Lincoln's henchmen:

[url]http://littlegeneva.com/?p=362[/url]

[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"] [SIZE="3"][FONT="Arial"] [B].....Lincoln was a mocker; Sherman, an Ã¢â¬ËagnosticÃ¢â¬â¢ - an atheist without the courage of his convictions - and Grant, a skeptic who went to church with his wife but never received communion, even on his deathbed. [/B][B]Grant criticized the wealth (tax-exempt) of churches in America and repeatedly called for a strict separation of church and state.[/B] His anti-Christian views made him the ideal hero for Mark Twain."

~ Thomas Fleming [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

Petr[/QUOTE]Interesting about Grant and Sherman. I'd never heard much really about their personal lives actually, (except they were drunks). Fighting Joe Hooker also was a notorious womanizer, who shuttled whores through his headquarters and operated a huge brothel for his Army.

These were just two Union generals. Rosencrantz,who Grant replaced in the western theatre, was a very devout Catholic. But its odd how a certain malaise about performing the duties of the war seemed to grip the better Union generals, like McClellan, Rosencrantz, and Mead.

War can be a very definitive selection process for the type of generals best suited for it. In some wars (just as in revolutions) the cream rises to the top, others the scum. And clearly, waging the war ruthlessly for the Northern cause was one that was best served without religious scruples, just as the Southern cause conversely was served most devotedly by men like Lee and Jackson who viewed it almost as a religious crusade.

Petr

2005-10-30 00:32 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]Likewise, Leo Strauss argued, and I tend to agree, that even Niccolo Machiavelli had, in spite of all his "might makes right" political philosophy, imbibed one important Christian idea - that[B] truth shall set you free [/B]and that if you possess the truth, you should "shout it from the rooftops".

I will give now show how this fundamental [I]anti-esotericism[/I] was part of the Biblical religion from the beginning, by citing some Bible commentaries on the famous [B]Proverbs 8[/B] chapter about Divine Wisdom (whose incarnation Jesus Christ was), and one of its main points is the [B]public and unconcealing[/B] nature of Truth.

In contrast, to pagan philosophers like Plato (and Gnostics, Jewish Kabbalists, and people like Leo Strauss), "wisdom" and "truth" were always more or less occult concepts, that were and should be available only to a few chosen ones. "You can't handle the truth."

[U]James Burton Coffman[/U]:

[COLOR="Navy"][SIZE="3"][FONT="Times New Roman"]WISDOM CALLS ALL TO HEAR HER WORDS

[I][B]Doth not wisdom cry,

And understanding put forth her voice?

On the top of high places by the way,

Where the paths meet, she standeth;

Beside the gates, at the entrance of the city,

At the coming in of the doors, she crieth aloud:

Unto you, O men, I call;

And my voice is unto the sons of men.

O ye simple, understand prudence;

And ye fools, be of an understanding heart."[/B][/I]

What a contrast there is between the woman Wisdom, as depicted here, and the woman Vice as revealed in the previous chapter! "[U]Wisdom does not speak in whispered seductive tones under the cover of twilight and darkness[/U]";F5 she thunders the truth from the gates of the city, shouts it in the public streets, and demands that all men of every class and condition heed her admonitions. [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[url]http://studylight.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=pr&chapter=008[/url]

[U]Matthew Henry:[/U][COLOR="DarkRed"][SIZE="3"][FONT="Times New Roman"]

[B]Verses 1-11[/B]

The will of God revealed to us for our salvation is here largely represented to us as easy to be known and understood, that none may have an excuse for their ignorance or error, and as worthy to be embraced, that none may have an excuse for their carelessness and unbelief.

I. [B]The things revealed are easy to be known, for they [I]belong to us and to our children /I, and we need not soar up to heaven, or dive into the depths, to get the knowledge of them (Deu. 30:11),[/B] for they are published and proclaimed in some measure by the works of the creation (Ps. 19:1), more fully by the consciences of men and the eternal reasons and rules of good and evil, but most clearly by Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

The precepts of wisdom may easily be known; for, 1. They are proclaimed aloud (v. 1): [I]Does not Wisdom cry?[/I] Yes, she cries aloud, and does not spare (Isa. 58:1); she [I]puts forth her voice[/I], as one in earnest and desirous to be heard.[I] Jesus stood and cried[/I], Jn. 7:37. The curses and blessings were read with a loud voice by the Levites, Deu. 27:14. And men's own hearts sometimes speak aloud to them; there are clamours of conscience, as well as whispers.

They are proclaimed from on high (v. 2): [I]She stands in the top of high places[/I]; it was from the top of Mount Sinai that the law was given, and Christ expounded it in a sermon upon the mount. Nay, if we slight divine revelation, we [I]turn away from him that speaks from heaven[/I], a high place indeed, Heb. 12:25. [B]The adulterous woman spoke in secret, [U]the oracles of the heathen muttered[/U], but Wisdom speaks openly; truth seeks no corners, but gladly appeals to the light. [/B]
They are proclaimed [I]in the places of concourse[/I], where multitudes are gathered together, the more the better. Jesus spoke[I] in the synagogues and in the temple, whither the Jews always resorted[/I], Jn. 18:20. Every man that passes by on the road, of what rank or condition soever, may know what is good, and what the Lord requires of him, if it be not his own fault. There is no speech nor language where Wisdom's voice is not heard; her discoveries and directions are given to all promiscuously.[I] He that has ears to hear, let him hear[/I].
They are proclaimed where they are most needed. They are intended for the guide of our way, and therefore are published [I]in the places of the paths[/I], where many ways meet, that travellers may be shown, if they will but ask, which is the right way, just then when they are at a loss; thou shalt then [I]hear the word behind thee, saying, This is the way[/I], Isa. 30:21. The foolish man[I] known not how to go to the city[/I] (Eccl. 10:15), and therefore Wisdom stands ready to direct him, stands [I]at the gates, at the entry of the city[/I], ready to tell him where the seer's house is, 1 Sa. 9:18. Nay, she follows men to their own houses, and cries to them [I]at the coming in at the doors[/I], saying, [I]Peace be to this house; and, if the son of peace be there[/I], it shall certainly abide upon it. God's ministers are appointed to testify to people both publicly and from house to house. Their own consciences follow them with admonitions wherever they go, which they cannot be out of the hearing of while they carry their own heads and hearts about with them, which are a law unto themselves.
They are directed to the children of men. We attend to that discourse in which we hear ourselves named, though otherwise we should have neglected it; therefore Wisdom speaks to us: "[I]Unto you, O men! I call[/I] (v. 4), not to angels (they need not these instructions), not to devils (they are past them), not to the brute-creatures (they are not capable of them), but[I] to you, O men[/I]! who are taught more than the beasts of the earth and made wiser than the fowls of heaven. To you is this law given, to you is the word of this invitation, this exhortation sent. [I]My voice is to the sons of men[/I], who are concerned to receive instruction, and to whom, one would think, it should be very welcome. [B]It is not, to you, O Jews! only, that Wisdom cries, nor to you, O gentlemen! not to you, O scholars! but[I] to you, O men! O sons of men[/I]! even the meanest." [/B]
They are designed to make them wise (v. 5); they are calculated not only for men that are capable of wisdom, but for sinful men, fallen men, foolish men, that need it, and are undone without it: "[I]O you simple ones! understand wisdom[/I]. Though you are ever so simple, Wisdom will take you for her scholars, and not only so, but, if you will be ruled by her, will undertake to give you [I]an understanding heart[/I]." When sinners leave their sins, and become truly religious, then [I]the simple understand wisdom[/I].[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[url]http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/proverbs/mh/proverbs8.htm[/url]

Petr