Social justice vs. liberation theology

[vern_humphrey]

Again. Why on earth would they make something that there is no consumer demand for? That would be absurd.

I’m afraid you are correct. I have gotten totally confused at how you came to that conclusion. I will paraphrase for you maybe to help clear your confusion: To think that any company would build with intent to sell an unmarketable product is insane.

Ya gotta understand that some people think economics is a form of black magic.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Again. Why on earth would they make something that there is no consumer demand for? That would be absurd.

I’m afraid you are correct. I have gotten totally confused at how you came to that conclusion. I will paraphrase for you maybe to help clear your confusion: To think that any company would build with intent to sell an unmarketable product is insane.

Again, somewhere close to the beginning you misunderstood something and have gotten off on a new tangent. No one would produce things absent demand, that is not the point, never was. I really don’t have the time or interest (sorry) to go back and start all over. I can’t figure out quite where you derailed, but you’ve completely lost the tenor of what I was saying and Mmyers was saying. We realized our point of departure, fixed it and realized we were in basic agreement. Talk to Vern, he always will agree with anything that disagrees with me. Tell him its day and he’ll dutifully argue night.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Again, somewhere close to the beginning you misunderstood something and have gotten off on a new tangent. No one would produce things absent demand, that is not the point, never was. I really don’t have the time or interest (sorry) to go back and start all over. I can’t figure out quite where you derailed, but you’ve completely lost the tenor of what I was saying and Mmyers was saying. We realized our point of departure, fixed it and realized we were in basic agreement. Talk to Vern, he always will agree with anything that disagrees with me. Tell him its day and he’ll dutifully argue night.

That kind of nonsense, while it may use up bandwidth and give the illusion you have advanced an argument, is no substitute for facts and logic.

 

[mapleoak]

Again, somewhere close to the beginning you misunderstood something and have gotten off on a new tangent.

Nope. I responded to a nonsense statement by correcting it.

No one would produce things absent demand,

Exactly.

that is not the point, never was.

Then why state the opposite?

I really don’t have the time or interest (sorry) to go back and start all over. I can’t figure out quite where you derailed, but you’ve completely lost the tenor of what I was saying and Mmyers was saying. We realized our point of departure, fixed it and realized we were in basic agreement. Talk to Vern, he always will agree with anything that disagrees with me. Tell him its day and he’ll dutifully argue night.

That is one of the most bizzaar ways of saying “I give up cause I don’t have a legitimate argument” I have ever heard.

 

[frankadams]

That is one of the most bizzaar ways of saying “I give up cause I don’t have a legitimate argument” I have ever heard.

I can’t speak for SM, but it might really be a way of articulating frustration with those who can’t be bothered to give more than a cursory reading to the posts of people who disagree with them. Instead, they misrepresent, distort, lift out of context, and largely comfort themselves by responding with meaningless quips. They seem to put more thought and effort into choosing the best emoticon to add to their comment than to the comment itself.

And in this post, because a person doesn’t want to provide even more of her time explaining something that other fair-minded readers have managed to comprehend, Mapleoak claims victory. “Yea for my team!”

Speaking for myself, as one who has answered the same question dozens of times, it becomes frustrating when people simply refuse to READ. Or perhaps they do read and choose to obfuscate rather than engage.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I can’t speak for SM, but it might really be a way of articulating frustration with those who can’t be bothered to give more than a cursory reading to the posts of people who disagree with them. Instead, they misrepresent, distort, lift out of context, and largely comfort themselves by responding with meaningless quips. They seem to put more thought and effort into choosing the best emoticon to add to their comment than to the comment itself.

And in this post, because a person doesn’t want to provide even more of her time explaining something that other fair-minded readers have managed to comprehend, Mapleoak claims victory. “Yea for my team!”

Speaking for myself, as one who has answered the same question dozens of times, it becomes frustrating when people simply refuse to READ. Or perhaps they do read and choose to obfuscate rather than engage.

It seems almost a talk-radio-ish style of debating, doesn’t it? No substance but trying to entertain (without succeeding in some cases).

 

[vern_humphrey]

It seems almost a talk-radio-ish style of debating, doesn’t it? No substance but trying to entertain (without succeeding in some cases).

You’ve nailed it – when they run out of argument, they resort to name-calling.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

You’ve nailed it – when they run out of argument, they resort to name-calling.

I was referring to your simplistic and childish style of debate. You pose a poison pill question and demand people answer yes or no to it. You knowingly twist what people say so you can make them look bad and you look good. I’m glad people are finally calling you out on it because it’s been long past time that it’s happened.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I was referring to your simplistic and childish style of debate. You pose a poison pill question and demand people answer yes or no to it. You knowingly twist what people say so you can make them look bad and you look good. I’m glad people are finally calling you out on it because it’s been long past time that it’s happened.

You’ve nailed it – when you run out of argument, you resort to name-calling.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

You’ve nailed it – when you run out of argument, you resort to name-calling.

I didn’t call you anything. I criticized your methods. If you can’t discern betwixt the two, that’s your problem.

But you go right on telling yourself whatever you want.

 

[mapleoak]

I can’t speak for SM, but it might really be a way of articulating frustration with those who can’t be bothered to give more than a cursory reading to the posts of people who disagree with them. Instead, they misrepresent, distort, lift out of context, and largely comfort themselves by responding with meaningless quips. They seem to put more thought and effort into choosing the best emoticon to add to their comment than to the comment itself.

I agree.

And in this post, because a person doesn’t want to provide even more of her time explaining something that other fair-minded readers have managed to comprehend,

A logical refutation could not be made, so a shift to discredit ad hominem was made. Typical when one senses they are ‘losing’.

Mapleoak claims victory. “Yea for my team!”

:extrahappy: YEAH!

There are no teams. Just intelligent discussion. Is this a perception complex?

Speaking for myself, as one who has answered the same question dozens of times, it becomes frustrating when people simply refuse to READ. Or perhaps they do read and choose to obfuscate rather than engage.

Yes, that can be very irritating.

 

[Al_Masetti]

There needs to be some discussion of how to expand the world economy.

Create more wealth for everyone.

The problem is that some of our “leaders” cannot comprehend how to increase wealth. So they see the pie as being fixed in size. A zero-sum game, in their vernacular.

You can use sand to make a sand box, or to make cement, or to make glass, or make computer chips.

And all too many of our politicians have no background in how to make anything.

They lack any background in history … how, for example, Hall discovered a way to transform aluminum … the most common of metals … from a precious metal to a household blessing.

And that is the problem. Our alleged self-proclaimed leaders are know-nothings … they are great debaters, but have empty quivers. No actual knowledge of the world.

If they don’t know science and technology, for example, then how can they move society forward … or make it more wealthy. Or, if they lack an accurate history of Christianity. Or if they don’t know much of anything from other fields, then …

… they assume that no one else does either.

OR, if it thwarts their quest for political office, they will dumb down education so that no one else CAN know other stuff.

So the answer is to increase the size of the world economy in all aspects. Rather than for our alleged leaders to declare the size of the world economy is fixed and that they should be rewarded for parcelling it out to us … rationing it out to us … or even that they should be rewarded for reducing the numbers of humans.

Have you ever been in an “emergency” situation, where some self-proclaimed leader came up with some rationing solution. And then all of a sudden you figured out how to make the problem go away completely? Boy, do those leader-folks get annoyed. Because their “leadership” was no longer needed.

Whooey!!

 

[JNewfield]

Liberation Theology is based on the bible. It has in some instances and in some places acquired Marxist overtones, mostly in Latin America. There is nothing wrong with Liberation Theology as theology. That is why it is not banned by the Church. The church cautions on and properly I believe decries Marxist theories that support violence as a methodolgy for practicing liberation theology.

Thank you for your reminder to go beyond the “sound bite” label and look at the “cautions” rather than rejecting the challenge of concern for and solidarity with the oppressed.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I didn’t call you anything. I criticized your methods. If you can’t discern betwixt the two, that’s your problem.

But you go right on telling yourself whatever you want.

If you can’t debate without getting personal, you can’t contribute anything to the debate.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I was referring to your simplistic and childish style of debate. You pose a poison pill question and demand people answer yes or no to it. You knowingly twist what people say so you can make them look bad and you look good. I’m glad people are finally calling you out on it because it’s been long past time that it’s happened.

Oh lord I may split a gut…laughing so hard. Twice on one thread, read the wrong way and answered inappropriately…too too funny LCMS.

Guess I’m gonna put Vern on the ignore list again. He just refuses to do his homework.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

If you can’t debate without getting personal, you can’t contribute anything to the debate.

If calling you out on your methods (obfuscation, misdirection, ridicule) is “getting personal,” then that’s just too bad. Perhaps you should consider debating honestly instead of playing at being Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Thank you for your reminder to go beyond the “sound bite” label and look at the “cautions” rather than rejecting the challenge of concern for and solidarity with the oppressed.

Welcome to the bizzaro world of CAF! I think that if you look at the field of liberation theology in a broad sense, you will find a great deal that is worthwhile. Certainly it follows Luke closely in Jesus preference for the poor and rejected in society. That is why it resonates so strongly with oppressed groups and minorities today. We are all in need of increasing solidarity with our brothers and sisters around the world who struggle against oppressive regimes. We cannot, I believe, ever countenance violence, but we can encourage their struggle for justice, and find out ways in which we can NOT support their governments.

The scenario changes of course when we talk about womens, black and other minorities. One you might be interested in in this country is Appalachian liberation theology–to work on behalf of the poor there, who have been long subject to the mine owners. I’d do a google on it. or check out I believe www.catholicanarchy.org which I believe has attended the latest conference.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I agree.

A logical refutation could not be made, so a shift to discredit ad hominem was made. Typical when one senses they are ‘losing’.

:extrahappy: YEAH!

There are no teams. Just intelligent discussion. Is this a perception complex?

Yes, that can be very irritating.

LOL…winning seems to be equated on this forum with: I refuse to respond to what I have read in any meaningful way, just saying it is ****. After the poster reinterates their position about 5 times they give up in disgust, and since I have the last post in, I win. LOL…if that’s what floats your boat, but of course you kid only yourself.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If calling you out on your methods (obfuscation, misdirection, ridicule) is “getting personal,” then that’s just too bad. Perhaps you should consider debating honestly instead of playing at being Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.

That would be considered a clever comment – at recess in grade school.

 

[mmyers]

Welcome to the bizzaro world of CAF! I think that if you look at the field of liberation theology in a broad sense, you will find a great deal that is worthwhile. Certainly it follows Luke closely in Jesus preference for the poor and rejected in society. That is why it resonates so strongly with oppressed groups and minorities today. We are all in need of increasing solidarity with our brothers and sisters around the world who struggle against oppressive regimes. We cannot, I believe, ever countenance violence, but we can encourage their struggle for justice, and find out ways in which we can NOT support their governments.

The scenario changes of course when we talk about womens, black and other minorities. One you might be interested in in this country is Appalachian liberation theology–to work on behalf of the poor there, who have been long subject to the mine owners. I’d do a google on it. or check out I believe www.catholicanarchy.org which I believe has attended the latest conference.

What we need to get away from is running everything through government. This only makes the government bigger. If you want a social justice program and you develop a special interest group to put it though congress, even if you get what you want in the short run, you will be owned by the government in the long run.

You now have to depend on tax dollars and so we have to tax the people more and when you run tax dollars through the government there is a lot less money that comes out the other end after every government official takes out their paychecks. (that was a serious run on sentance, but there is no turning back in this point). SpiritMeadow, in reading some of your blog and the websites that you recommend I have found many activists that have taken this approach through Washington. I propose social justice on a more grassroots level…a kind of do it yourself and teach your children. We must move away from large governments and move toward free markets where people will really have a voice.