16 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarSo political correctness is Marxist and Atheism is Marxist?
Both are aspects of communism as put into place by communist nations.
I believe the godless society is a marx thing.
You attribute an awful lot to Marxism. The problem is not that Marx was anything other than an atheist and by all means given to schisms and complaints about correct thinking, but I think you will find that atheism has a wider heritage than Marxism, that many Marxists are not atheist, and that the very model of heretic hunting and hair splitting is Christianity throughout its entire history. Don't you recall that Thomas Cranmer, the reluctant Protestant martyr, remarked that he himself scarcely understood the doctrine of transubstantiation on which he was to be burned as a heretic but thought it only right that there should be a Protestant martry to balance all the Catholic ones (for some of which he was responsible).
Most English socialist in the past century would tell you that their socialism is based on Christian traditions. As for Latin America, where would liberation theology fit into your assumptions?
The papacy has condemned liberation theology. Would you say the papacy was more Christian than Marxist champions of the poor who stood up against tyranny in Central America and accepted "martyrdom" in their cause?
The Latin American bishops agreed at Medellin that priests should use their pulpits for consciousness-raising (or conscientization). They should aim to 'awaken in individuals and communities...a living awareness of justice...[and] a sense of responsibility and solidarity.
The liberation theologian Gustavo Gutierrez said that as well as liberating people from the physical things that oppress them (unfair laws, economic oppression etc) people also need to be liberated from oppressive ideas that restrict their ability to flourish as human beings.
Liberative hermeneutics could play an important role in consciousness-raising. Stories like the Exodus and Jesus' message to the poor could be used to make it clear that poverty is not part of God's plan but occurs as a result of sin. This message contrasted with what the Church had sometimes taught - that wealth is a reward from God and that people should accept their God-given lot in life.
At Medellin the bishops voiced the need for 'political change' as a prerequisite for social improvement. Potentially this could be seen as an endorsement of revolution. The bishops also stated 'we, as bishops, wish to come closer to the poor in scincerity and brotherhood'. As part of this the bishops recognised that the Church should not itself be wealthy. 'The poverty of the church and of its members in Latin America ought to be a sign and a commitment - a sign of the inestimable value of the poor in the eyes of God.'
Gutierrez encouraged Christians to 'build a new society' and to support the 'exploited classes' in their struggle against their oppressors which could be understood in the Marxist sense of entering into the class struggle on behalf of the poor. Gutierrez advocated a 'preferential option for the poor' which suggests reversal in action. This phrase was not used at Medellin (although the idea of having a particular concern for the poor is present). At the Latin American Bishops' third conference at Puebla in 1979 the bishops agreed that 'the poor merit preferential attention' 'we affirm the need for conversion on the part of the whole Church to a preferential option for the poor.'
Liberation theologians would argue that the ideas of revolution and reversal is found in the Bible as well as in Marx. Jesus preached that 'the first shall be last and the last shall be first' (Matthew 20:16) and appeared to align himself with the poor and the outcasts rather than the rich and the powerful. He said that he had come to 'bring good news to the poor' and to 'set the captives free' (Luke 4:18). Consequently, it is not simply that liberation theologians borrowed the idea of reversal from Marx, they felt that it echoed what the Bible said. (See notes on Jesus the liberator).
http://www.philosopherkings.co.uk/Marx.html
Originally posted by @athousandyoungMaybe so. The Polish saint Cardinal Wojtyła and the German Ratzinger were less enamoured. The eternal verities tend to have a decided association with the particular political environments of the various pontiffs. At least it is refreshing to have a change from Italian politics and the Vatican's rather shaky status in the postwar settlement there.
Pope Francis is very much a part of the Latin American Liberation Theology tradition.
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2016/02/16/pope-francis-invokes-themes-of-liberation-theology-during-mexican-visit/
The point that matters is to refute Elador's infantile grasp of the nature of either Marxism or atheism. His rather touching allegiance to his Christian faith, however astonishing in contrast with his barbaric political attitudes, can be left to Spirituality, where he can debate forever and ever amen the meaning of true love.
Originally posted by @finneganI doubt if he can even do that.
The point that matters is to refute Elador's infantile grasp of the nature of either Marxism or atheism. His rather touching allegiance to his Christian faith, however astonishing in contrast with his barbaric political attitudes, can be left to Spirituality, where he can debate forever and ever amen the meaning of true love.
Over in that forum, he's gone so far as to claim, and argued it quite strenuously, that Jesus was a bigot. His barbarism goes well beyond politics.
20 Oct 17
Originally posted by @suzianneI agree. I am fascinated to understand why people like him seem so attracted to Spirituality and so keen to be identified as Christian. Reading his posts, I get the impression that he is trying (struggling) to get up to speed on the key "culture wars" arguments because he wants to be accepted in a tribe, and as such to throw stones at rival tribes. Spirituality as a forum sometimes resembles a sort of safe zone for fatuous arguments, endlessly recycled, which are often toxic.
I doubt if he can even do that.
Over in that forum, he's gone so far as to claim, and argued it quite strenuously, that Jesus was a bigot. His barbarism goes well beyond politics.
20 Oct 17
Originally posted by @finneganWell, let me be clear, here. His purpose for suggesting that Jesus was a bigot was to normalize his own bigotry.
I agree. I am fascinated to understand why people like him seem so attracted to Spirituality and so keen to be identified as Christian. Reading his posts, I get the impression that he is trying (struggling) to get up to speed on the key "culture wars" arguments because he wants to be accepted in a tribe, and as such to throw stones at rival tribes. Spir ...[text shortened]... resembles a sort of safe zone for fatuous arguments, endlessly recycled, which are often toxic.
You might be interested to know that even though I identify as a Christian, I agree with everything else in your post. There have been many threads about just what is a "real" Christian, with all of the requisite arguing and flaming. I'm dismayed that, in modern society, religion in general, and Christianity specifically, seems to be the main place where one can proclaim that their own belief is THE correct one and everyone else has just "got it wrong", AND feel good about that.