Michi, allow me to nitpick a sentence that got slipped into your answer. You said you have no trust in the field of theology at all. How so? After all, you created a thin theology that you stand behind as a substitute for other (Jewish) theologies.

That’s the result of peeling away the layers that I have no trust in.

What remains is completely universal, aside from the commitment to Jewish law.

Well then that really contradicts your original statement… You have a great deal of trust in theology, provided it’s the theology that is correct according to your view. So much trust that you took the trouble to write about it extensively.
The last sentence is of course not criticism (but the ones before it maybe are, a little…)

It doesn’t contradict it at all. I wrote that there is a universal foundation grounded in reason. That’s not what is usually called theology. Nor is it supposed to vary between religions and people. All the load beyond that is what is usually called theology, and those are baseless fantasies.

I’m really having trouble understanding you. If it’s universal and not supposed to vary between religions and people, then it’s not “theology”…?

You believe in:

1. The existence of God
2. That He is a personal God
3. That He created the world (most likely)
4. That He exercises providence (or at least did in the past)
5. That He reveals Himself
6. That He chose the Jewish people and gave them the Torah
7. That He is what gives validity to universal morality

That’s a perfectly fine theology.

It really does seem that you’re having trouble understanding what I’m saying. Check whether there is a single item in that list that is not accepted by Christians and Muslims.

This is admittedly semantics, but for most people this is definitely theology. It’s accepted by Christians and Muslims. It’s not accepted by Buddhists or secular people.

The semantics aren’t important. When I said here that I’m not interested in theology, I meant the theology of a particular religion (they asked me about Christianity, as opposed to Judaism).

I actually did understand your answer. Still, does “messiah” go one theological step too far compared to, say, rabbinic commandments? Is that the difference between the formal authority of the Sages and their de facto authority, such that with rabbinic commandments you’re obligated, but not with descriptive aggadic claims about the messiah? (And those are included in the plumper theology.)

I didn’t understand the question. What does it mean to go too far?
If it’s true, then it’s true, and if not, not. That is a factual question. My position on it depends on whether this is a tradition from Sinai or something that comes from the prophets, or wishful thinking by Jews in distress. And semantically here too, it’s hard to call it theology if it is written explicitly. It’s not the product of theological discussion but a fact received through tradition/prophecy.

1. Yes, you did write that you have no trust in theology at all (“not even in our own”). You’re welcome to check again.
2. From the fact (correctly) that Christians and Muslims hold the same principles that you hold—which I listed—it does not follow that these are not theological principles, but exactly the opposite.
3. I really don’t understand this trick of your private language. If you want to make Leibowitz’s absurd claim that there is no theology, then make it. If you want to argue the opposite, that there is a (thin) theology—the way is open before you. But why confuse your readers and say one thing and its opposite?

Doron, I see no point in repeating myself if you aren’t reading. Everything has been explained, and I didn’t argue anything different earlier.