God <<staff edit>> America!

[spinningtutu]

Whomever she goes up against, I will almost certainly vote for, if only to keep her out of office.

Besides, she's already served two terms.

Lol, isn't that the truth?

Well, at least there is some sanity on this thread regarding Hillary Clinton. Anyone used to my posts around WWMC can testify to my views on sexism and gender...

So here it from my mouth when I tell you, Clinton is the LAST person we need to be putting into the White House, especially at this point in American history/politics.

 

[catlover]

Yes, society is still VERY RACIST from a structural angle... but, the sad part?

The Church is still the most racist component of our society

It certainly influences the attitudes in American society-the idea that the nuclear family-father works mom stays at home etc, is the "ideal" family when it only makes up 7% of families in society today.

 

[catlover]

Honestly--was that really necessary? the edit?

 

[freespiritchurch]

It helps to understand the roots of liberation theology before you condemn it. Liberation theologians were originally Catholic, and thery were trying to do exactly the same thing that Thomas Aquinas did.

In the 1200s, academics were buying into the philosophy of Aristotle, which provided helpful new ways of understanding old problems. But since there were points where Aristotle's teachings flatly contradicted orthodoxy, a lot of Aristotelian theologians got condemned.

Aquinas went through Aristotle and the Christian tradition and worked to reconcile them. Along the way, he comes up with some things that would have left Aristotle spinning in his grave...but that just shows how he put the Christian tradition ahead of his philosophy.

In the mid-20th century, a group of Catholic theologians looked back on Aquinas and suggested that he had worked to translate Catholicism into the "language" of the philosophy that was current in his time. They went to work developing a Catholic theology that drew on existentialism, whose most significant writers have been mostly atheist or agnostic.

Liberation theologians figured that if Catholics could work with existentialism, they should also be able to work with Marxism--keeping in mind that Christianity has to trump philosophy. Along the way, they've done a whole lot of good work. There are some issues, of course, but I would much rather live in a world formed by liberation theology than a world formed by the capitalist/nationalist theology that has gained so much traction in the American church.

I have been less impressed with Protestant liberation theologians. I think that because they are not firmly grounded in tradition, they are more likely to allow philosophy to take over. But if you start with the Latin American "greats" (Gustavo Gutierrez, Leonardo Boff, the articles in Mysterium Liberationis), you'll find a treasure trove.

Alan

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

It helps to understand the roots of liberation theology before you condemn it. Liberation theologians were originally Catholic, and thery were trying to do exactly the same thing that Thomas Aquinas did.

In the 1200s, academics were buying into the philosophy of Aristotle, which provided helpful new ways of understanding old problems. But since there were points where Aristotle's teachings flatly contradicted orthodoxy, a lot of Aristotelian theologians got condemned.

Aquinas went through Aristotle and the Christian tradition and worked to reconcile them. Along the way, he comes up with some things that would have left Aristotle spinning in his grave...but that just shows how he put the Christian tradition ahead of his philosophy.

Yes, I know and like Aquinas. So far, so good.

In the mid-20th century, a group of Catholic theologians looked back on Aquinas and suggested that he had worked to translate Catholicism into the "language" of the philosophy that was current in his time. They went to work developing a Catholic theology that drew on existentialism, whose most significant writers have been mostly atheist or agnostic.

Liberation theologians figured that if Catholics could work with existentialism, they should also be able to work with Marxism--keeping in mind that Christianity has to trump philosophy.

Here's where we run into issues. Existentialism makes some sense, at least some forms of it do. But IMHO Marxism is pure horsepuckey right from the beginning. It makes no sense to do anything with it at all, other than toss it on the dustbin of history where it belongs.

Along the way, they've done a whole lot of good work. There are some issues, of course, but I would much rather live in a world formed by liberation theology than a world formed by the capitalist/nationalist theology that has gained so much traction in the American church.

I'm sure they have done some good.

But liberation theology and capitalist/nationalist theology are not the only alternatives. Nor am I suggesting indifference: We can work to help the poor without getting all political about it, and to the extent we have to get political because it's government perpetuating injustices, we can fight those without going hard left or hard right in our politics.

I have been less impressed with Protestant liberation theologians. I think that because they are not firmly grounded in tradition, they are more likely to allow philosophy to take over. But if you start with the Latin American "greats" (Gustavo Gutierrez, Leonardo Boff, the articles in Mysterium Liberationis), you'll find a treasure trove.

Alan

Thanks for the reading suggestions.

 

[CaDan]

Here's where we run into issues. Existentialism makes some sense, at least some forms of it do. But Marxism is pure horsepuckey right from the beginning. It makes no sense to do anything with it at all, other than toss it on the dustbin of history where it belongs.

As a program, I agree Marxism is and has been a big flop. On the level of a critique of industrial society, it functions a lot better. Marx, but even more so Engels, really did an excellent job pointing out the problems with industrial capitalism. Their proposed solutins, though, were not very workable.

 

[spinningtutu]

Well, for the record, I don't identify as a Marxist or a Socialist or anything like that. I used to identify as an existentialist...for a long time

Now I just identify as a post-modern deconstructionist.

 

[stumpjumper]

Ala Jacques Derrida?

 

[spinningtutu]

yes, and Jesus too.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

As a program, I agree Marxism is and has been a big flop. On the level of a critique of industrial society, it functions a lot better. Marx, but even more so Engels, really did an excellent job pointing out the problems with industrial capitalism. Their proposed solutins, though, were not very workable.

I wouldn't say an "excellent job", but they did find some nuggets of wisdom we can use, and I think them for that much. However, the essential assumptions of Marxist economics are false and disproven.

I think we can learn much more about how capitalism works if we study the Austrian and Chicago school economists. That's not theology of course, and shouldn't be... but perhaps if some theologians understood sound economics, their political prescriptions would be more in harmony with the laws of God's universe.

 

[CaDan]

I wouldn't say an "excellent job", but they did find some nuggets of wisdom we can use, and I think them for that much. However, the essential assumptions of Marxist economics are false and disproven.

I think we can learn much more about how capitalism works if we study the Austrian and Chicago school economists. That's not theology of course, and shouldn't be... but perhaps if some theologians understood sound economics, their political prescriptions would be more in harmony with the laws of God's universe.

Amidst the other junk, I do have a degree in economics. With about ten minutes of review, I could start generating micro graphs from basic indifference curves.

Austrian and Chicago school methodologies are great if one's goal is model ideal situations with the goal of maximizing the production of goods and services. They are also useful for getting an idea of the monetary cost of various market interventions. However, they are not, and should not be, guides to what is moral or ethical.

 

[catlover]

Economics taught from the Adam Sandler prospective is pretty cold and promotes social darwinism-hardly Christian values.

 

[CaDan]

I think you might mean Adam Smith . . . .

But the mental image continues to crack me up.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Amidst the other junk, I do have a degree in economics. With about ten minutes of review, I could start generating micro graphs from basic indifference curves.

Austrian and Chicago school methodologies are great if one's goal is model ideal situations with the goal of maximizing the production of goods and services. They are also useful for getting an idea of the monetary cost of various market interventions. However, they are not, and should not be, guides to what is moral or ethical.

I suck at micro graphs.

Alrighty, since you know more economics than I do, you're excused from the general accusation of economic ignorance!



I totally agree that economics can't show us what's right. But it can very often show us what's workable and what isn't.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Economics taught from the Adam Sandler prospective is pretty cold and promotes social darwinism-hardly Christian values.

Somehow I could never quite take Adam Sandler seriously as an economist.

 

[catlover]

I think you might mean Adam Smith . . . .

But the mental image continues to crack me up.

Woops...how did that come out??? Was it Freudian? Yes--I know it's Adam Smith....it was a...slip....

 

[catlover]

Somehow I could never quite take Adam Sandler seriously as an economist.

I guess he would make us laugh--- More than Adam Smith. Don't do Myspace and Christian Forums at the same time.

 

[tulc]

Economics taught from the Adam Sandler prospective is pretty cold and promotes social darwinism-hardly Christian values.

Wow. I thought he was just a movie star!
tulc(hasn't been this shocked since he found out George (the Animal) Steele had a masters degree in science)

 

[catlover]

Wow. I thought he was just a movie star!
tulc(hasn't been this shocked since he found out George (the Animal) Steele had a masters degree in science)

Maybe he would be a better economist than the ones I listen to on NPR.

Wow a degree in science? He must be smart..

 

[tulc]

Wow a degree in science? He must be smart..

Smart AND a pretty severe dyslexic!
tulc(and a Christian)