Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Critical Theory was developed in the 1920's by intellectuals as critical of communism (particularly Marxism) as they were of capitalism. I can't discover when it became Marxist ideology, or how. Can you shed any light on the matter?
Sure, but I don't see anything in there which makes me think that Critical Theory is fundamentally Marxist or that it was developed as a method of advancing a Marxist political and economic agenda.My angle on the history of Critical Theory would read something like this:
Go right ahead. You still won't be able to withstand the awesome, world-destroying power of our pronouns.Something like that. I'm all about applying critical analysis to the psychology and social influence of individuals, whether they happen to be the likes of King Solomon, John Wilmot, (a.k.a. the Earl of Rochester), Nietzsche, or Hugh Hefner.
Thats an interesting take on this. It could also be a bit like how the different paradigms work with difference sciences or ways of measuring the world and behaviour. A behaviouralist as compared to a psychoanalyst or cognitive scientists.
I find it hard to get my head around what actually is Critical Theory. In some ways its self defeating. Its hard to know all perspectives to make any truth determination. Or at least it can become so ingrossed in pulling apart underlying reasons for differences in behaviour and outcomes that its a never ending intersection of possible ways to see the world.
Yes, doesn't Christ teachings really liberate in the true sense. The Truth will set you free so to speak. Christ talks about the Pharisees who wanted to stifle and oppress people with the Law but did not have the spirit of the law in their hearts. Did not practice loving their neigbour as themselves. But held grudges against people.
Yes of course, it will fall under all the ways we divide human and social differences up , race, religion, sex, gender, ect. But it seems strange out of all differences it always seems to be along these lines. Why these lines and not other ways like say strength, speed, looks, natural talent. Why is is always the race, gender or sex card that gets played over all else as the reason for differences.
Not really. Terra nullus was more a legal term and not a religious term. I don't think you can attribute any Christian doctrine to terra nullus. Thats a legal determination that a land had no legal ownership. But I would say there was a motivation to make the land without owners so they could take it.
www.britannica.com
Yeah that was the problem. The church never looked back at itself as to what was actually going on. Power corrupts even the church. Thats when it was knocked off its perch and the State began to taker over.
Yeah thats probably right. But I think thats already happening. The problem is they threw the baby out with the bath water. That same religion mared the good name of the Christians who were tirelessly working in the background helping others, putting Chr5ists teachings into practice.
Are you kidding? Seriously, the pope himself divided up the new world between Spain and Portugal. Condition -- convert the heathens by the sword. (Hmm, that gives me an idea. Let's create the Jesuits... -- il papa)
Because sometimes the person does not get the job, regardless of merit, because of race, religion, sex or gender.
As proclaimed by Pope Alexander VI and eagerly adopted by Protestant reformers as one of the "core truths" of Christianity that they would bring away with them from the Roman Church (or the "main church" as you like to call it.)
They haven't yet been pushed out, despite the best efforts of you and your coreligionists.Yes of course, it will fall under all the ways we divide human and social differences up , race, religion, sex, gender, ect. But it seems strange out of all differences it always seems to be along these lines. Why these lines and not other ways like say strength, speed, looks, natural talent. Why is is always the race, gender or sex card that gets played over all else as the reason for differences.
Like a person did not get in an advantageous position because of natural ability or merit, or they did not get into a position due to lack of natural ability or merit but rather because it was racial, or because of sex or gender. Why always that lens to see difference.
Not really. Terra nullus was more a legal term and not a religious term. I don't think you can attribute any Christian doctrine to terra nullus. Thats a legal determination that a land had no legal ownership. But I would say there was a motivation to make the land without owners so they could take it.
I am not sure Christians were even in control then. By that time politics had certainly mixed with religion if not dominated. Colonialism is a political idea rather than a theological one.
Western colonialism, a political-economic phenomenon whereby various European nations explored, conquered, settled, and exploited large areas of the world.
Western colonialism | Characteristics, European, in Africa, Examples, & Effects | Britannica
Western colonialism, a political-economic phenomenon whereby various European nations explored, conquered, settled, and exploited large areas of the world. The age of modern colonialism began about 1500, and it was primarily driven by Portugal, Spain, the Dutch Republic, France, and England.
Yeah that was the problem. The church never looked back at itself as to what was actually going on. Power corrupts even the church. Thats when it was knocked off its perch and the State began to taker over.
Yeah thats probably right. But I think thats already happening. The problem is they threw the baby out with the bath water. That same religion mared the good name of the Christians who were tirelessly working in the background helping others, putting Chr5ists teachings into practice.
If it wasn't for these Christians society would have been much worse off. I think pushing them out of society will come at a cost to society. Though many will continue to work in the background living the Christian truths and helping others.
Now, having not amended itself in the meantime, it wants its perch back. No thanks,
But I wasn't thinking of those Christians, I was thinking of conservative Evangelical Protestants, who don't consider those other Christians "real" Christians anyway.
I type this response a half hour after "the" verdict. I'll let it and the follow up analysis by pundits make my point. The timing is perfect.
Sort of. My point is that the particular articulation on the theory will, in these analogous cases, depend on the concepts and praxis being used by the that theorist. As for String Theory in physics, similarly for Critical Theory in social science.
It's not that difficult. People don't like to be oppressed and/or enslaved. It's simple really. The difference between secular Critical Theory and a socially critical Christianity is the means by which a social solution is to be reached. Those drawing from the Enlightenment and from Post-Enlightenment Marxist ideology want a more militant solution to social inequalities and class conflict; Christians, on the other hand, want the solutions to these things via the wisdom and behavior expected in the New Testament.
Obviously, you and I as Christians believe that the New Testament provides a sort of "grounding." The problem with this Christian axiom for grounding, though, is the same epistemological problem that has always been present ever since the day John the Baptist arrived on the scene to point the way to the Way.
Actually, today's critical theories draw from Marxism. It's not simply that they are a natural ally. Go read the entry I linked up in post #828.
Sure, but in a World that is sold to Sin, we're not going to make much headway with the ways that Christians, despite thinking they're taking a
I understand what you're attempting to insinuate, but I don't think this example is analogous to the forms of oppression being cited by radical leftist for the past few centuries ..........................................................................................
I was talking about how the British spread their Empire to North America, Canada, Australia and many of the Islands. This was no different to how all nations have spread their lands as part of spreading the Empire. For Britain it was about finding new lands for economic reasons, expanding their people and opportunities.
Yes thats true but I don't think as much as it was in the past. But that wasn't the point. Theres an infinite number of ways to categorise advantage and disadvange besides race, sex and gender. Like education, economics, looks, natural talent, disability which can be divided into many sub categories, obesity, age, genetics, epigenetics, environment which could mean many things, dress ect ect.
I think for different reasons. I mean the church had little power over the economic and political asperations of society at that time. I' not saying the church did wrong. I am saying you can't just tar everything that happened due to the church.
Why would I want to push out the good Christian and Church people who are working in the background helping people.
Not sure what your talking about, what part of the church, what church, what country. But there has always been a part of the church that has worked tirelessly in the background helping others. Surely your not talking about this.
Well thats the problem. Thats another form of identity politics. If you don't identify as this particular way of thinking and believing then your wrong. But it seems to me your judging all Christians by this stereotype which is unfair.
The "main church" declared it to be.
I don't know, but it's happening.
It's their stereotype and they try very hard to live up to it.
We're very far from there. Christians still wield enormous political power, in this country at least.
Yes. That's why Christians are so eager to see Trump in office. They regard him as that saviour (some even with a capital "S")
But just because the church declares it to be is not a Christian core truth. Core Truths are Christ teachings. They have to have some Biblical basis. But where s that in the bible. You can't label every bad act as a Christian truth.
But your saying I am pushing them out. And how is pushing out good Christians helping people and society a good thing. You say it like its good that these good Christians are being pushed out.
How is it Christians stereotyping Christians negatively when its people looking from outside Christianity making the stereotypes.
Well thern don't stereotype all Christians by what happens in your country. But I don't think Christians wield much power in any western nation now. Sure theresd a lot of rhetoric going on but when it comes to real power I don't think Christians have much sway.
Christians generally support the right and conservatives. That is only natural. But I don't think US politics is all about Christianity. The right is not just influenced by their beliefs. They have many genuine social and economic reasons why they may want change. At the end of the day most people vote for a variety of reasons like the economy.
