:lol: I agree that some don't seem to want to research and understand what they are talking about...

:thumb: Thanks for the informative links. I think that it is a pretty well accepted fact that liberation theology is interwoven with socialist political movements in Latiin America.

 

It is no coincidence that Barack Obama is the most liberal member of the US Senate and that 17 years ago he chose to join a church that follows the black liberation theology teachings of James Hal Cone.

 

 

I think the greatest problem you have is not realizing that there are Oppressed people in this world.

 

Liberation theology in Latin America sprung out of the identity of Jesus as the crucified martyr and the impoverished and used of Latin America saw God's redemption as redemption for their whole life not just their souls. BTW, the Bible is pretty clear about "sharing one another's burdens" among the family of faith. Those burdens are more than just about professions of faith and what church they attend.

 

As I said in my previous post, to merely dismiss Liberation Theology as a marxist/socialist "thing" is to neatly look for labels rather than address the issues at the core. To simply cry "Socialist" at Liberation Theologians is no different than the old early 19th Century cry of "Bolshevik" at Union Organizers.

I think the greatest problem you have is not realizing that there are Oppressed people in this world.

...and you seem to believe that the fact that I disagree with your opinion regarding liberation theology is attributable to ignorance. Yet, many people who are much more knowledgeable about liberation theology than either of us have reached the same conclusion that I have reached. Liberation theology has a socialist/Marxist component and black liberation theology as preached by Jeremiah Wright has added a racial component.

 

Liberation theology in Latin America sprung out of the identity of Jesus as the crucified martyr and the impoverished and used of Latin America saw God's redemption as redemption for their whole life not just their souls. BTW, the Bible is pretty clear about "sharing one another's burdens" among the family of faith. Those burdens are more than just about professions of faith and what church they attend.

 

As I said in my previous post, to merely dismiss Liberation Theology as a marxist/socialist "thing" is to neatly look for labels rather than address the issues at the core. To simply cry "Socialist" at Liberation Theologians is no different than the old early 19th Century cry of "Bolshevik" at Union Organizers.

There are better ways than socialism and communism to address oppression and poverty. Personal liberty and economic freedom have freed more people from oppression and poverty than liberation theology ever will.

...and you seem to believe that the fact that I disagree with your opinion regarding liberation theology is attributable to ignorance. Yet, many people who are much more knowledgeable about liberation theology than either of us have reached the same conclusion that I have reached. Liberation theology has a socialist/Marxist component and black liberation theology as preached by Jeremiah Wright has added a racial component.

 

There are better ways than socialism and communism to address oppression and poverty. Personal liberty and economic freedom have freed more people from oppression and poverty than liberation theology ever will.

 

 

Can't disagree with that whatsoever. One of the problems that grew out of the Latin America and in places in this country's history was where personal liberty and economic freedom did not exist.

Your comments make me wonder what research you have done. No less an authority than the pope has noted the marxist leanings of some liberation theology followers.

 

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/ratzinger/liberationtheol.htm

 

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/liberati.htm

 

http://www.landreform.org/boff2.htm

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

 

 

Did you read any of these? Item #1 states at it's beginning:

 

1. Liberation theology is a phenomenon with an extraordinary number of layers. There is a whole spectrum from radically marxist positions, on the one hand, to the efforts which are being made within the framework of a correct and ecclesial theology, on the other hand, a theology which stresses the responsibility which Christians necessarily hear for the poor and oppressed, such as we see in the documents of the Latin American Bishops' Conference (CELAM) from Medellin to Puebla. In what follows, the concept of liberation theology will be understood in a narrower sense: it will refer only to those theologies which, in one way or another, have embraced the marxist fundamental option.

 

Most of the rest of the discussion is a discourse against the Marxist view but not the Ecclesial view that is more orthodox and not considered heretical. That is exactly the Point I made !!!!

 

 

Your third source cited openly discusses the origins and development of Liberation theology and never contradicts what I said. In fact it's final sentence of conclusion reads:

 

Criticisms of certain tendencies within liberation theology, which have to be taken into account, do not negate the vigorous and healthy nucleus of this form of Christian thinking, which has done so much to bring the message of the historical Jesus to the world of today.

 

 

Your wickepedia source is the same one that I cited earlier and while the current Pope might have problems with Liberation Theology not all have.

 

Maybe we just read them differently Shooter but 2 out of the 3 opinion critiques you cited supported where I was coming from. So read on my friend! :thumb:

...and you seem to believe that the fact that I disagree with your opinion regarding liberation theology is attributable to ignorance. Yet, many people who are much more knowledgeable about liberation theology than either of us have reached the same conclusion that I have reached. Liberation theology has a socialist/Marxist component and black liberation theology as preached by Jeremiah Wright has added a racial component.

 

There are better ways than socialism and communism to address oppression and poverty. Personal liberty and economic freedom have freed more people from oppression and poverty than liberation theology ever will.

 

Aces Full, I have also researched Black Liberation Theology as well and have come to these same conclusions. However, I don't see how you or I either one are going to continue to sleep well knowing that Hatz thinks we're bound to have only come to these conclusions through blind ignorance.

Aces Full, I have also researched Black Liberation Theology as well and have come to these same conclusions. However, I don't see how you or I either one are going to continue to sleep well knowing that Hatz thinks we're bound to have only come to these conclusions through blind ignorance.

Fortunately, I am a very skillful sleeper. Hatz' posts are more likely to put me asleep than to keep me awake. Nothing keeps me awake at night. :lol:

Aces Full, I have also researched Black Liberation Theology as well and have come to these same conclusions. However, I don't see how you or I either one are going to continue to sleep well knowing that Hatz thinks we're bound to have only come to these conclusions through blind ignorance.

 

Or Hatz just thinks no one wants to talk the specifics of Liberation theology or perhaps IM4 HOUnds can produce counter evidence that I've talked about. Either way I won't loose sleep over it and I'm sure neither will you. :lol:

Or Hatz just thinks no one wants to talk the specifics of Liberation theology or perhaps IM4 HOUnds can produce counter evidence that I've talked about. Either way I won't loose sleep over it and I'm sure neither will you. :lol:

I watched and posted a link to a 20 minute interview with James Hal Cone, who is generally credited with founding the black liberation theology movement in this country. I have also posted several of Cone's best known quotes on the subject. Those specifics are relevant to this discussion - much more so than the liberation theology of Latin America, which is another step removed from Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr.'s rants.

 

Rev. Wright claims that he is a black liberation theologian and has cited Cone as an authority on the subject. For some reason, Obama's supporters want to ignore these facts and seem disinterested in exploring whether Obama himself subscribes to the teachings of his own church.

 

Rev. Wright's comments are not isolated outbursts and he has apologized for none of them. He has not apologized because his preaching, including his most controversial words, are consistent with his religious and political beliefs.

Did you read any of these? Item #1 states at it's beginning:

 

1. Liberation theology is a phenomenon with an extraordinary number of layers. There is a whole spectrum from radically marxist positions, on the one hand, to the efforts which are being made within the framework of a correct and ecclesial theology, on the other hand, a theology which stresses the responsibility which Christians necessarily hear for the poor and oppressed, such as we see in the documents of the Latin American Bishops' Conference (CELAM) from Medellin to Puebla. In what follows, the concept of liberation theology will be understood in a narrower sense: it will refer only to those theologies which, in one way or another, have embraced the marxist fundamental option.

 

Most of the rest of the discussion is a discourse against the Marxist view but not the Ecclesial view that is more orthodox and not considered heretical. That is exactly the Point I made !!!!

 

 

Your third source cited openly discusses the origins and development of Liberation theology and never contradicts what I said. In fact it's final sentence of conclusion reads:

 

Criticisms of certain tendencies within liberation theology, which have to be taken into account, do not negate the vigorous and healthy nucleus of this form of Christian thinking, which has done so much to bring the message of the historical Jesus to the world of today.

 

 

Your wickepedia source is the same one that I cited earlier and while the current Pope might have problems with Liberation Theology not all have.

 

Maybe we just read them differently Shooter but 2 out of the 3 opinion critiques you cited supported where I was coming from. So read on my friend! :thumb:

 

I believe that you have been very selective in the emphasis you have applied to the descriptions of liberation theology that can be found in those links. For example, in the above you have bolded the phase that supports your position but the phrase immediately before mentions "marxist positions" which was AcesFull point. I have no doubt that if, as you have done above, one accepts its positive aspects while ignoring its negative, one can come to the conclusion that liberation theology is acceptable, perhaps even praiseworthy. However, a balanced view of liberation theology can not ignore the marxist leanings of many of it's followers.

I believe that you have been very selective in the emphasis you have applied to the descriptions of liberation theology that can be found in those links. For example, in the above you have bolded the phase that supports your position but the phrase immediately before mentions "marxist positions" which was AcesFull point. I have no doubt that if, as you have done above, one accepts its positive aspects while ignoring its negative, one can come to the conclusion that liberation theology is acceptable, perhaps even praiseworthy. However, a balanced view of liberation theology can not ignore the marxist leanings of many of it's followers.

 

 

I never said that it did not morph into Marxist sympathies. I pointed out that in at it's core it is a viable theological construct. As to the marxist discussion it was labeled that by people who wished to back the Contras in Nicaragua and the military backed government in El Salvador. Any Marxist tendencies in that era were there because of the way in which the great number of people were impoverished while the powerful in those countries made huge profits and ruled with fear and terror.

 

As to that first paper you cited it CLEARLY states what I noted at the premise. The rest of the paper supports your understanding of Marxist tendencies (your position) but that would be like reading a paper that says "capitalism has it's good points" and then proceeds to rip capitalism to shreds because that was it's slanted view in the first place. Not very objective.

 

As to my accepting it as knowledgable you need to reread thost papers that both point out support from different sources.

 

The reality of Liberation Theology is that it is nigh on impossible for the person who is not being subjugated to see any need for it's slanted view of the Bible or the theology behind Jesus' redemption. Likewise it is very hard for someone who ascribes to this viewpoint to accept that both they and God perceive their plight as anything but anti-God and racist/economically motivated.

I watched and posted a link to a 20 minute interview with James Hal Cone, who is generally credited with founding the black liberation theology movement in this country. I have also posted several of Cone's best known quotes on the subject. Those specifics are relevant to this discussion - much more so than the liberation theology of Latin America, which is another step removed from Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr.'s rants.

 

Rev. Wright claims that he is a black liberation theologian and has cited Cone as an authority on the subject. For some reason, Obama's supporters want to ignore these facts and seem disinterested in exploring whether Obama himself subscribes to the teachings of his own church.

 

Rev. Wright's comments are not isolated outbursts and he has apologized for none of them. He has not apologized because his preaching, including his most controversial words, are consistent with his religious and political beliefs.

 

 

Cone and Dwight Hopkins are the principle constructionists of this thought. I listened to Cone's interview. While I may not share all of what he has to say he does raise some good points speaking from a biblical and theological standpoint. While I may not subscribe to a total Liberation Theology perspective I do not dismiss it as immaterial to discussion or debate concerning race in this country. The same is true with Rev. Wright. I am willing to listen to what is being said so that commong ground for dialogue can begin. I practice this in the local Minister's Ecumenical Group where we have numerous African-American pastors who are not too far different than Rev. Wright or Dr. Cone. I don't agree with them often but I am willing to allow them the forum to speak and then listen for what they are trying to reveal. We usually end up agreeing to disagree.

Cone and Dwight Hopkins are the principle constructionists of this thought. I listened to Cone's interview. While I may not share all of what he has to say he does raise some good points speaking from a biblical and theological standpoint. While I may not subscribe to a total Liberation Theology perspective I do not dismiss it as immaterial to discussion or debate concerning race in this country. The same is true with Rev. Wright. I am willing to listen to what is being said so that commong ground for dialogue can begin. I practice this in the local Minister's Ecumenical Group where we have numerous African-American pastors who are not too far different than Rev. Wright or Dr. Cone. I don't agree with them often but I am willing to allow them the forum to speak and then listen for what they are trying to reveal. We usually end up agreeing to disagree.

This all sounds like a very reasonable approach to dealing with black liberation theologians from the perspective of a minister and I commend you for it.

 

I had a racist uncle who used to make some ridiculous claims concerning black point guards at family functions. As a teenager, I recall pointing out repeatedly to him that the best point guards of the day happened to be black. I made my point without pointing out the obvious fact that his opinion was shaped by his racist views and family harmony was preserved.

 

My uncle probably had not talked to a half dozen black people in his entire life because in some parts of eastern Kentucky, months could pass without even seeing a black person. So, I understood how my uncle's opinions of black people in general were shaped out of ignorance (although I never understood how anybody could apply racist opinions to basketball) and I understand what Barack Obama is talking about when he speaks of crazy uncles from whom you do not disassociate yourself.

 

However, as many people have pointed out, Obama chose his pastor and his church. Obama reached adulthood in Hawaii and graduated from an exclusive private high school there, graduated from exclusive Ivy League schools, and was the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. It is hard to see how he would have formed the kind of victim mentality that would be required for one to seek out a pastor like Rev. Wright and a church like Trinity.

 

I have concluded that Obama joined Trinity purely for political reasons and it is from that perspective that I believe Obama should be judged. Obama chose his pastor and church for what I consider the wrong reasons and he should now pay the political price for his decision to voluntarily associate himself with racists for more than 20 years.

This all sounds like a very reasonable approach to dealing with black liberation theologians from the perspective of a minister and I commend you for it.

 

I had a racist uncle who used to make some ridiculous claims concerning black point guards at family functions. As a teenager, I recall pointing out repeatedly to him that the best point guards of the day happened to be black. I made my point without pointing out the obvious fact that his opinion was shaped by his racist views and family harmony was preserved.

 

My uncle probably had not talked to a half dozen black people in his entire life because in some parts of eastern Kentucky, months could pass without even seeing a black person. So, I understood how my uncle's opinions of black people in general were shaped out of ignorance (although I never understood how anybody could apply racist opinions to basketball) and I understand what Barack Obama is talking about when he speaks of crazy uncles from whom you do not disassociate yourself.

 

However, as many people have pointed out, Obama chose his pastor and his church. Obama reached adulthood in Hawaii and graduated from an exclusive private high school there, graduated from exclusive Ivy League schools, and was the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. It is hard to see how he would have formed the kind of victim mentality that would be required for one to seek out a pastor like Rev. Wright and a church like Trinity.

 

I have concluded that Obama joined Trinity purely for political reasons and it is from that perspective that I believe Obama should be judged. Obama chose his pastor and church for what I consider the wrong reasons and he should now pay the political price for his decision to voluntarily associate himself with racists for more than 20 years.

 

:thumb: Agree and nicely stated (assuming, however, that by "racists" you are not applying that term to anyone and everyone that attends Trinity. But based on your previous comments in this thread, I feel certain you are not).

:thumb: Agree and nicely stated (assuming, however, that by "racists" you are not applying that term to anyone and everyone that attends Trinity. But based on your previous comments in this thread, I feel certain you are not).

I consider everybody who cheered and applaud Rev. Wright's racist comments to be racists and those who cheered and applauded his anti-American rants to be anti-American.

 

To be fair, there were some people standing behind Rev. Wright who were not putting their hands together in response to his diatribes and I am sure that there were many more who I could not see.