Quit with the magical thinking.
There is always a mechanism. It might change, be fluid, sure. But somewhere, somehow, if the US wants to do stuff, it needs to get people willing to do stuff. And there always, always, must be some mechanism by which that's happening, some way or ways to motivate people to put labor and materials toward whatever it wants.
What I'm asserting is that the current method (pay for it with dollars, using promises of future dollars in order to get enough dollars to cover what taxation isn't sufficing for) is being done in an unsustainable fashion, and will have to stop, or otherwise be revised eventually.
I was saying that that problem would eventually be remedied by printing money, which should have the effects I discussed (A worldwide shift away from dollars, to some extent).
(Heavy taxation or cutting spending are also possible, but probably harder to get through the political process.)
So what are you suggesting instead? You keep bringing up force. Are you suggesting that we'll impose a tribute on other countries? That's possible. (Though definitely a big departure from now, when we give countries a ton of money, instead of exacting it)
Edit: If innovation in AI or something causes sufficiently large US-centered economic growth to increase tax revenue enough to pay for things, that could also work, provided it's not also accompanied with corresponding spending increases.
Edit 2: If the US does impose tribute, ancient Athens might be a cool comparison.
Felagund
10hr ago
You keep saying this, and not addressing what I said about the mechanisms of how the US would end up in a situation of scrambling to avoid default.
Which point in that list was wrong (following "that is:")?
What is the actual mechanism by which the US can keep borrowing? Who, specifically, wants US dollars, and will keep buying up our debt indefinitely, even as it continues to grow to be a larger and larger share of US and world GDP?
Instead of just giving a, "we'll be fine, someone will stop it," as you have us sleepwalk into disaster.
Felagund
1d ago
The US will never default, we are in a better place than all other countries, hence the strong dollar.
Okay, the US won't default, but at some point it'll need to start printing money, at least, to avoid it.
That is:
The US wants to pay for stuff.
To raise funds to do so, it sells bonds.
Demand for bonds is not limitless.
US spending keeps growing.
Eventually it will hit the limit of those willing to buy US debt.
At that point, it must either print money to pay for things, or fail to pay for things (that is, default).
Unless you think all other players are totally irrational investing in it?
It wouldn't surprise me. But really, all you need to buy a bond is just to think that things will be fine within the lifetime of the bond, which is entirely possible even if you think it's going to collapse in a few decades.
If we are defaulting, the rest of the world has already fallen apart and it doesn't matter. Like people who buy gold for the apocalypse...when what you really need is beans and bullets.
I see no reason to think the former is true. And the latter depends heavily on what kind of apocalypse you're in.
Felagund
1d ago
I don't expect the demise of the dollar before the US comes close to defaulting on its debt, which is still a ways away. But the deficit's steadily been growing relative to GDP. (And even then, I don't expect a total collapse.)
Felagund
1d ago
But how much does that actually matter to the value of the dollar?
My guess would be that the general value prospect to people and countries abroad of holding dollars are that:
- Dollars have low inflation, so they're one of the better currencies to sit on.
- The US is fairly reliable, as nations go, so it can be expected to remain stable.
- Dollars are useful for trade with the US, and the US is an important part of the world economy.
- Other places and people want dollars too, so they work well as a currency.
But if 1 fails (due to, say, running out of people willing to finance US debt, meaning that we need to start printing money to fund things or pay back debtors), then some will drop the US dollar for other currencies. This will drive down the cost of the dollar, that is, cause inflation, which will lead to more of the same.
I don't expect 3 and 4 to go anywhere, but I think 1 and 2 could change, in a way that would meaningfully affect demand for dollars, and hurt US prosperity.
That said, that's mostly just from me thinking things through myself, not something better vetted, so is there some reason that I'm wrong, or something I'm missing?
Felagund
1d ago
I'm reading the general lesson of this is that:
Republicans (and congressmen in general) should assume that government agencies will not listen to their intent and do everything they can to interpret every law passed in as left-conforming a way possible.
Accordingly, minimize dependence on government agencies for one's legislative agenda, and prefer to shrink power when possible.
Felagund
1d ago
To the owner of the self-driving car would be another option, maybe? This seems like it would better work with cars that have a full self-driving mode, but could also be driven ordinarily.
I'm not convinced that self-driving cars would be banned, instead of just way more expensive. It would depend on how much liability they would tend to have.
Felagund
1d ago
This might run out, with devastating effect, some day.
If people lose confidence in the US dollar, suddenly they'll try to get rid of it, leading to an increase in domestic supply and dramatic inflation, and foreign goods in general will be much more expensive.
Felagund
1d ago
Wait, she's the one who's the problem, and not him? I thought she was just trying to bring up the problem that those who profess that we can just print money and not worry about debt don't understand why we borrow, showing that there's a problem with their model.
Felagund
2d ago
I've usually seen it to mean something having some level of pro-free market (with, of course, a pejorative sense, and while pretending to refer to a precise group), which this didn't exactly seem like.
Felagund
2d ago
What exactly do you mean by neoliberal?
I've never seen it used in the way you're using it.
Felagund
3d ago
I'm trying to parse that translation you offered, but it's very dense and I'm having trouble making sense of it. Could you summarize the point of view Quenstedt is offering here?
What Quenstedt is doing there is summarizing the views of Roman Catholics, on the question of what worship is due to the human nature of Christ. This is in the midst of a list of groups that he presents as disagreeing with his (the Lutheran) position on it. As to what's happening in the paragraph: he cites Thomas, Alexander of Hales, and Tanner as what seems essentially your view: Christ's human nature can be worshiped with latria, but per se, only hyperdulia. He then says that Bellarmine and Petavius disagree, in that they would not think that latria can be ascribed to Christ's human body, because latria can only be applied to things per se, not by a habitus. (At least, that's how I read it.) Then, he finishes by citing places for further reading.
My guess is he's saying Christ's humanity deserves latria ipso facto, which would be fair, I get that, I'm actually rather uncomfortable with the whole presupposition here that we can separate our worship of Christ's humanity from that of his divinity, even in thought, I'd rather not even conceive of categories here, let's just worship Christ the Incarnate Son of God.
I think Lutherans would reject the latria/dulia distinction outright, but I could be misremembering. If you want to read it for yourself, and know Latin, here it is. Pages 200-201 are what I quoted, in the midst of a larger passage. He does a nice job formatting, so it should be fairly organized. But yes, he would just say that it deserves latria. Lutherans have a more thoroughgoing view of the effects of the hypostatic union and the communicatio idiomatum, hence why they sometimes do things like ascribe ubiquity to the human nature of Christ.
I read a bunch of authors on this topic across denominations in the 17th century not too long ago, and it was funny how they were all saying that one of the problems with the positions of the other people was that they were too much like that of the Catholics, since their positions would imply something too similar to a dulia/latria distinction.
That being said, while there's clearly a strain of theological opinion here, I don't actually think there's a dogmatic definition on the matter even in Catholicism. I know of no teaching authority in the Catholic Church that focuses on this issue, though maybe one exists. More solemnly, Church councils have resisted talking about Christ's humanity and divinity separately, probably because talking about offering different worship to each hypostasis is incredibly misleading and dangerous.
This seems correct.
I think it's enough to say that Christ deserves to be worshipped as God because he is God, and also to be devoutly honored as the greatest among men because he is the greatest possible man. Delving too deep into where both things come from and how that relates to the hypostatic union and such strikes me as perhaps scholasticism delving a bit too deep into the mystery of the Incarnation in a way that could easily lead someone who's not incredibly careful into serious error. This seems like something where a non-Chalcedonian could easily say, "see, look how Chalcedon is misleading!" Let's just agree not to send this to the Oriental Orthodox, hm?
Seems reasonable.
I was on mobile when I typed my comment so I didn't see the hyperdulia reference in the Summa. Good catch! This is something that's never talked about in lay theology, I have never seen hyperdulia in reference to anyone but the Virgin Mary. It's generally treated as a gerrymandered category for her alone. But saying that Christ deserves hyperdulia with respect to his humanity makes a lot of sense, it puts it as essentially "dulia intimately connected with the incarnation of the Word."
Yup, this was essentially all that I was trying to get at with my original comment.
Felagund
3d ago
An excerpt from Quenstedt, a Lutheran scholastic (translation, my own):
(in the context of him listing those who disagree with the Lutheran stance)
"Of the papists, who, distinguishing between latreia, duleia, and hyperduleia, to God alone attribute latreia, to angels and men, douleia, and to the humanity of Christ and the blessed virgin, the devotion [cultus] of douleia. So Thomas, in book III, upon [Lombard's] Sentences, distinction 9. [I looked there, and though things seemed relevant, didn't quite find usage of the word hyperdulia in a way relavent to what I am attempting to demonstrate] Thus also, Alexander of Hales: "To God", he says, "we owe latria, to Christ, by reason of his human nature, hyperdulia, to the saints, only dulia." [Adam] Tanner, in book 4, Theologia Scholastica, disputation 1, question 7, dubia 7, declares his opinion in two assertions, of which the first is, "The humanity of Christ united to the Word, in the same supreme adoration of latria, by which the incarnate word is adored, rightly at the same time is worshiped [colitur] and adored, but by diverse reason," which then he explains thus, as he asserts, "the word is the per se, primary, and absolute object of adoration or latria, even the formal object itself, but the humanity is only the material object of the same adoration, and indeed secondary only, and concomitant and respective," etc. His other assertion is this: "Christ, as man, and therefore also his humanity, speaking per se, rightly is able to be worshiped by an inferior worship, namely, if the reason of worshiping is the dignity and created excellence which his humanity has either from habitual [different sense of habitual] grace and created holiness, by the spirit inhering, also by abstracting from the Word, or by the grace of union." This opinion of Thomas and his followers, Robert Bellarmine and Denis Patau not obscurely oppose. For [Bellarmine], in book 2, on images, chapter 24, denies, "by the worship of latria something is able to be adored, in such a way, however, that it is not affected by this worship on account of itself," which is the manifest opinion of Thomas, Gregory de Valencia, Tanner, etc. But Petavius, Th. Dogm. tom. IV lib. XV. cap. XV. num. 5, after he gives the opinions of the fathers and councils, at length, concludes, "in all which, considering, latria, or latreutic proskynesis, to be opposed to schetic [habitual, in the unusual sense above, I think: something one has, roughly], nor is any schetic latreia recognized by those fathers;" etc. In a few, "the papists do not concede Christ according to his human nature, properly, per se, by the same highest worship of adoration, by the force of personal union and of the communicated immense majesty, to be pursued." See Thomas part 3, question 25, article 2, Bellarmine, book 1 on the adoration of saints, chapter 12, article 2, Tannerus, loc. cit. Compare Dorscheus loc. cit. page 1001 and following."
Which I realized as I was translating had few dispositive proofs in the passage itself of the word hyperdulia.
Oh, wait, Aquinas does use "hyperdulia" at the end of reply to objection 1 in the Summa, in the passage you read. The Bellarmine passage cited there also refers hyperdulia to the humanity of Christ and his mother, as Bellarmine is listing the kinds of worship. And I decided that's enough, I'm not going to check the Tanner or Dorscheus. So I guess there was more proof from those, beyond the Alexander of Hales quote.
Anyway, so yeah, hyperdulia is applied to the humanity of Christ, although it does look like it's usual also to say that Christ's humanity is worshipped with latria on account of the hypostatic union, as you rightly pointed out.
And of course, you're right that worship wouldn't be separated, so it doesn't actually matter.
Felagund
4d ago
Fun fact: standard Catholic teaching also says that the human body of Christ is to receive hyperdulia, if I remember correctly. (I'm not Catholic, but I'm pretty sure that's right.)
Edit: When I look up hyperdulia, it refers only to Mary, but I'm pretty sure I'd seen it applied to Christ in some theological writings in Latin? If you like, I can try to find it.
Felagund
4d ago
The new testament seems often to use the term lord (κυριος) most frequently apply to Jesus. (And since you are asking for verses instructing to call us that, Phil 2:11: "and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father".) At the same time, it was typically also used as a translation for the Hebrew יהוה, the proper name of God.
Our own ability to call God Father isn't really seen much in the old testament. I imagine it's probably also only a thing because we're adopted as sons of God in Christ.
Felagund
4d ago
It happens to me whenever it's deep enough in a thread that I'd need to click a "more comments" button to see it.
(Specifically, book reviews)
Good relationships also exist.
What's your life ordered around? Is there anything you care about? How best can you make the world better for your having been here?
Living for something is significantly better than living hedonistically.
(I submit as an option, Pascal's wager, for your consideration.)
Have friends whom I can talk to about the things I care about or take interest in. Play board games. Spend way too much time on the internet.
More options
Context Copy link