mfbukowski Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) Isn't liberation theology essentially that? not really. The essence of Marxism is that religion is an opiate of the masses. Using theology within that context doesn't make sense. Liberation theology is the attempt to use certain Marxist principles to liberate masses of poor people combined with religious Christian values of love and harmony.Liberation theology combines and makes compatible separate interpretations of two separate ideas. As you know not all socialists are Marxists. Being a socialist Christian is not the same as being a Marxist Christian Edited October 30, 2015 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Interestingly enough, Eagleton writes that his book is essentially an "obituary" for literary theory. What he envisions to replace it is a "theory of discourse. ... What would be specific to the kind of study I have in mind, however, would be its concern for the kinds of effects which discourses produce, and how they produce them." This sounds quite similar to C.S. Peirce's pragmatic maxim: "Consider the practical effects of the objects of your conception. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object." As far as language goes, however, Eagleton argues for a radically traditional approach:That is also the approach of William James. James is seen as one of the fathers of post-modernism. The conflict is in the definition of postmodernism. Everything is interpretation and that includes the word post-modern. That's why I'm trying not to argue the stupid point with you. 1
volgadon Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 not really. The essence of Marxism is that religion is an opiate of the masses. Using theology within that context doesn't make sense. Liberation theology is the attempt to use certain Marxist principles to liberate masses of poor people combined with religious Christian values of love and harmony.Liberation theology combines and makes compatible separate interpretations of two separate ideas. As you know not all socialists are Marxists. Being a socialist Christian is not the same as being a Marxist ChristianI wouldn't call the opiate quote isn't really the essence of classical Marxism, which at any rate has a highly religious flavour. Though Marx and Engels were not believers by any stretch of the imagination, they chastised the bourgeois for severing religious ties and and values for money. I agree that not all socialists are Marxists, but the point I am making with liberation theology is that a mix of Marxism and Catholicism has been done.
volgadon Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 That is also the approach of William James. James is seen as one of the fathers of post-modernism. The conflict is in the definition of postmodernism. Everything is interpretation and that includes the word post-modern. That's why I'm trying not to argue the stupid point with you.Eagleton is definitely post-modern. You can't get more post-modern than claiming that post-modernists don't really know what they were actually saying, but that you do. 1
volgadon Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Marxism's essence is the reality of Hegelian postulates, with a focus on the social and economic aspects of dialectical history. 1
mfbukowski Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Interestingly enough, Eagleton writes that his book is essentially an "obituary" for literary theory. What he envisions to replace it is a "theory of discourse. ... What would be specific to the kind of study I have in mind, however, would be its concern for the kinds of effects which discourses produce, and how they produce them." This sounds quite similar to C.S. Peirce's pragmatic maxim: "Consider the practical effects of the objects of your conception. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object." As far as language goes, however, Eagleton argues for a radically traditional approach:Here.Founders of Postmodernism, including James and Peircehttps://books.google.com/books?id=eiNGKwNdu2wC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=william+james+postmodernism&source=bl&ots=VzHhI_J1zN&sig=T6pDCnjuuh7btqHv5s7enF2ZehI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAWoVChMI2YDW44nryAIVV_5jCh3sJQSJ#v=onepage&q=william%20james%20postmodernism&f=falseCan we stop now?
volgadon Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Literary theory is just ugh on so many levels.
mfbukowski Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 I wouldn't call the opiate quote isn't really the essence of classical Marxism, which at any rate has a highly religious flavour. Though Marx and Engels were not believers by any stretch of the imagination, they chastised the bourgeois for severing religious ties and and values for money. I agree that not all socialists are Marxists, but the point I am making with liberation theology is that a mix of Marxism and Catholicism has been done.Indisputable. It's the old half empty, half full thing.
mfbukowski Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Literary theory is just ugh on so many levels.English majors. (Ducking for cover, just kidding folks, my own dear daughter is an English major)
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Marxism's essence is the reality of Hegelian postulates, with a focus on the social and economic aspects of dialectical history.Yep. Many people have successfully adopted Marxism while maintaining Christian faith.
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 I'll respond to Jeanne since no one else did. Jeanne, I see a lot of scripture as not literal. I don't think God sits on an actual throne all day, yet it's mentioned so much in scriptures that God sits on a throne. I believe all of heaven is His throne and he can stand for eternity without getting tired. A ton of the book of Revelation I believe is not literal. Even the descriptions of hell as being a lake of fire and brimstone I believe is not literal. I believe hell is just a dark cold place where your mind is filled with guilt, not burning.
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Just a question..did anyone else besides me take certain passages of the D & C as well as the NT Book of Revelation super literal??? I mean, most of it scared the living hell right out of me. I ask because it carries on to other readings like the Miracle of Forgiveness..Are so called modern prophecies included in as literal..how do people deal with this?? It makes one wonder why to believe..does that make sense? In my experience and IMO..scriptual fear does not make one secure in retaining faith, healing or desire to progress.I never took it too literally. My biggest fear was that I was never going to be good enough.
mfbukowski Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Marxism's essence is the reality of Hegelian postulates, with a focus on the social and economic aspects of dialectical history.Missed this.Yeah, that's the whole reason liberation theology is not Marxism. Liberation theology is the synthesis of aspects of Marxism mixed with aspects of Christianity. It is not really either one. But both
mfbukowski Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Eagleton is definitely post-modern. You can't get more post-modern than claiming that post-modernists don't really know what they were actually saying, but that you do. love it!
Bobbieaware Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Missed this.Yeah, that's the whole reason liberation theology is not Marxism. Liberation theology is the synthesis of aspects of Marxism mixed with aspects of Christianity. It is not really either one. But bothIn a strictly technical sense they are not the same, but the end consequences are virtually the same -- an all-powerful state running your life for you and confiscating nearly all of your money. It's kind of like saying highly addictive synthetic opioid drugs and heroine are not the same thing. 1
Analytics Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Just a question..did anyone else besides me take certain passages of the D & C as well as the NT Book of Revelation super literal??? I mean, most of it scared the living hell right out of me. I ask because it carries on to other readings like the Miracle of Forgiveness..Are so called modern prophecies included in as literal..how do people deal with this?? It makes one wonder why to believe..does that make sense? In my experience and IMO..scriptual fear does not make one secure in retaining faith, healing or desire to progress. I sure did. I thought the whole point of it was that the scriptures were in fact true in a literal, historical sense. While I was in that mindset, I saw the movie, The Exorcist. Mixed with my religious beliefs, it was really scary and took me months to get over. A full third of the host of heaven were cast out to earth; billions of demons roaming the planet, anxious to poses our bodies, especially focused on destroying the young Saturday's Warriors of the one true Church. Scary. 1
Analytics Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 In a strictly technical sense they are not the same, but the end consequences are virtually the same -- an all-powerful state running your life for you and confiscating nearly all of your money. It's kind of like saying highly addictive synthetic opioid drugs and heroine are not the same thing. Marxism has nothing to do with "an all-powerful state running your life."
volgadon Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 In a strictly technical sense they are not the same, but the end consequences are virtually the same -- an all-powerful state running your life for you and confiscating nearly all of your money. It's kind of like saying highly addictive synthetic opioid drugs and heroine are not the same thing.Rep point given in error. I don't much care for liberation theology, but your accusation is ridiculous. 2
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Marxism has nothing to do with "an all-powerful state running your life."I think for some people, Marxism is synonymous with Stalinism.
mfbukowski Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 In a strictly technical sense they are not the same, but the end consequences are virtually the same -- an all-powerful state running your life for you and confiscating nearly all of your money. It's kind of like saying highly addictive synthetic opioid drugs and heroine are not the same thing.I have in my younger years known some addictive heroines who have ended up running my life. 2
Jeanne Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) I'll respond to Jeanne since no one else did. Jeanne, I see a lot of scripture as not literal. I don't think God sits on an actual throne all day, yet it's mentioned so much in scriptures that God sits on a throne. I believe all of heaven is His throne and he can stand for eternity without getting tired. A ton of the book of Revelation I believe is not literal. Even the descriptions of hell as being a lake of fire and brimstone I believe is not literal. I believe hell is just a dark cold place where your mind is filled with guilt, not burning.IThank you so much for your reply. I believe that I, too have grown to understand a lot more about interpretations of scriptures but when I was younger.. I really feared the "WORD" In my teens, this made it difficult to accept the atonement and repentance process fully. I thought I was just a lost cause. Edited October 30, 2015 by Jeanne
Recommended Posts