Liberation Theology

[CatherineM]

I have never understood people who think just believing is enough. Jesus didn't just sit under a tree like Buddha. He went out and did things. If you believe in Jesus, how can you not want to do service?

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='jnorm888' post='1567806' date='Jun 11 2008, 01:08 AM']I agree with you to a point, but I can't go all the way with you for Jesus told us to feed people, cloth people, and visit people in prison.

When Saint James spoke about "faith without works" as being dead. It was in regards to talking great things without living it. It was in regards to the lip service of "blessing" someone without actually "blessing" someone who is in need. Especaily if you have what they need.

A similar concept can be seen in one of the Epistles of Saint John, in regards to Loving our brother.
So I'm hesitant to go as far as you did. Our Souls, isn't the only thing that will be saved. That is somewhat neognostic. If our bodies will be raised from the dead, then that would mean that the whole man will be saved. The whole man......as in "Spirit, body, and Soul" or "Soul & body" depending on what tradition of anthropology one embraces.
It seems as if, When we are judged by God, that we will not only be judged by the first greatest commandment......which is: "loving God with all our heart, mind, and soul, but also with the second greatest commandment as well.

"Love our neighbor as ourselves". Part of the reason for some of us going to Hell has to do with how we treat our neighbor.

It seems as if the First Greatest commandment bleeds into the Second. For how can we say "we Love God, when we disobey Him in regards to Loving His fallen images?

If we can't love our neighbors, then we can't love the One who told us to Love them.
Do you see what I'm saying? What I'm getting at?
JNORM888[/quote]

The problem with Liberation Theology, as I understand it, is that it reduces the whole of Christ's message to love of neighbor, and neglects the love of God part. Then, it injects heretical Marxist teachings into Christianity, and is also quite militant. In short, its kind of a form of Humanism. No one is questioning the motivation behind Liberation Theology; the motivation was good: to bring justice into societies of corrupt governments. What we are questioning is the parts of it that are bad.

[Jnorm888]

[quote name='Deb' post='1565093' date='Jun 9 2008, 03:49 PM']Is there feminist theology?[/quote]


I could be wrong, but I think there is a Feminist Liberation Theology. I may have heard rev. Jeramiah wight mention it in passing. (on one of those 3 days when he was on tv)

And I think I read someone mention it in a book once as well. But if it exist, I don't know to much about it.



JNORM888

Edited June 11, 2008 by jnorm888

[Jnorm888]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1567825' date='Jun 11 2008, 12:27 AM']The problem with Liberation Theology, as I understand it, is that it reduces the whole of Christ's message to love of neighbor, and neglects the love of God part. Then, it injects heretical Marxist teachings into Christianity, and is also quite militant. In short, its kind of a form of Humanism. No one is questioning the motivation behind Liberation Theology; the motivation was good: to bring justice into societies of corrupt governments. What we are questioning is the parts of it that are bad.[/quote]

Isn't certain forms of Roman Catholicism "militant". If a Protestant missionary preached in a Roman Catholic country, wouldn't Roman Catholics think that they have the right to use force to shut the protestant missionary up?

Also, what about the just war doctrine? Idea?


I'm not trying to argue. I'm just throwing out stuff that you will have to deal with anyway.

Is there a difference between the just war doctrine and the "militantness" of Liberation Theology?

And do you think that Liberationists can't form an argument that would sqeeze their theology into the accepted theology of a just war?

I agree with your line of thinking, but from my perspective, Rome has alot of different sides. And if one was educated in your churches theology then they could blind alot of the various teachings in other areas to advance their theology.

I think this could be one of the reasons why it's still tolerated in some Roman Catholic circles.




JNORM888

[Jnorm888]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1567815' date='Jun 11 2008, 12:16 AM']I have never understood people who think just believing is enough. Jesus didn't just sit under a tree like Buddha. He went out and did things. If you believe in Jesus, how can you not want to do service?[/quote]


True



JNORM888

[CatherineM]

I don't think we are allowed to use force to stop Protestants from evangelizing in traditionally Catholic countries, but I have been known to do naughty things to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses who come to the door.

[Selah]

lol. My grandma used to invite them in for tea while my mom played the piano for them. They'd sit and talk...it was funny

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='jnorm888' post='1567830' date='Jun 11 2008, 01:35 AM']Isn't certain forms of Roman Catholicism "militant". If a Protestant missionary preached in a Roman Catholic country, wouldn't Roman Catholics think that they have the right to use force to shut the protestant missionary up?[/quote]

Do you have any specific instances to cite?

[quote]Also, what about the just war doctrine? Idea?[/quote]

The Church teaches that the role of legitimate government is to protect the people of the state. Actually, in that last sentence, replace the word "role" with "responsibility". The just war doctrine outlines the "strict conditions for [i]legitimate defense by military force[/i]" (Catechism's emphasis) (CCC 2309). These conditions do not "give permission" to countries to fight war. This is not the Church saying, "OK, you've met all four, go ahead and blow up the other guys." We must not look at war as "when do we get to" but rather "when do we have no other choice". The just war doctrine outlines those conditions, which must all be met "one and at the same time":

[quote name='CCC 2309'][list=1]
[*]the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
[*]all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
[*]there must be serious prospects of success;
[*]the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
[/list][/quote]

Again, the Church is not "giving permission" to countries to be militant. She is teaching countries that they have the responsibility to protect themselves against an aggressor, and outlines the conditions to be met for the country to examine its own use of force.

[quote]I'm not trying to argue. I'm just throwing out stuff that you will have to deal with anyway.

Is there a difference between the just war doctrine and the "militantness" of Liberation Theology?[/quote]

I do not know enough about this part of Liberation Theology to feel comfortable about teaching about it. My guess would be that in the civil wars that the theology advocated, one or more of the above conditions was not met. This is a case-by-case sort of thing.

[quote]And do you think that Liberationists can't form an argument that would sqeeze their theology into the accepted theology of a just war?[/quote]

I am certain that the possibility existed for a war advocated by Liberationists to have been in fact a just war, provided that the four conditions outlined above were meant. I don't know enough about the history of the region to be able to comment on whether or not any actually were just wars.

[quote]I agree with your line of thinking, but from my perspective, Rome has alot of different sides. And if one was educated in your churches theology then they could blind alot of the various teachings in other areas to advance their theology.

I think this could be one of the reasons why it's still tolerated in some Roman Catholic circles.
JNORM888[/quote]

Rome does indeed have a lot of sides. Hell, we're the Church that is able to house religious orders as liberal as the Jesuits and as conservative as the Legionnaires of Christ under one roof. Having different "sides" is OK (is this football or something? What's with the "sides"?), so long as each adheres to the same basic teachings (-cough- ... Jesuits ... -cough-). These sides can do anything that they want to within the "confines" of Church teaching, but become heresy when they overstep their bounds. Liberation Theology simply steps over the line.

[Galloglasses]

Also, there IS no Feminist Liberation Theology.

There is just Liberation Theology and its spin offs, and then there is feminist Theology. Which came at least ten years before Liberation Theology, and originated in America. Whereas Liberation Theology originated in the Carribean and spread to South America straight aftwerwards.

Liberation Theology=Marxism in a Priest's Clothes. Social Justice > Salvation.

Feminist Theology=New Age Paganism and goddess centric worship, worship of self, worshipping Our Lady as some proto-Feminist goddess, and is the driving force behind such nonsense as, say, oh, the Da Vinci Code. Its usually proponents of this Theology that argue Jesus only came down to earth in the body of man because His message would not be accepted if He came down in His real form as a woman. Yeah, right, don't let the door hit you on the way out. To sum it all up. Gaia.

There is no real confusing of the two, but like nearly all liberals, proponents of either are likely to adopt ideas from the others' Theology that are 'useful' to them.

For the record, even Secularists try to manipulate the Just War Doctrine, which the UN has even adopted.... and repeatedly failed to reference against member nations practicing unjust wars yet are more then willing to reference it against Western States and their dependents.

[Autumn Dusk]

Have whatever theology makes you happy becuase in the end it dosn't really matter.

[Galloglasses]

Ok, Autmn Dusk, seriously, what got up your back lately?

[Autumn Dusk]

what crawled up yours?

[Galloglasses]

Curiosity.

[Autumn Dusk]

well, curiosity killed the cat, and you're slinking around an awful lot like one

[Galloglasses]

I'm a Dog.