Which is, of course, boloney.
And then ascended into heaven, leaving *twelve *representatives to found an organized community of God’s people with the power of the Holy Spirit. By my definition (which may well not be yours), that’s an overtly political act.
Are you seriously suggesting that Jesus wanted us to conclude that there is anything that is not God’s?
Right. “Ouk ek tou kosmou toutou.” Its origin is not from this world. That does not mean that it is not *in *the world and that it has nothing to say about the questions that worldly political systems try to answer.
Not “temporal” in the traditional sense of that word–wielding the temporal sword with the power to wage war and inflict the death penalty. (You will in fact find statements of the medieval papacy claiming that both swords were delivered to St. Peter, and that the temporal authorities simply act as surrogates for the Church. But I agree with you that these statements were wrong.) But if the Church is not “physical,” then why are you a Catholic?
Catholicism is certainly much better this way than most forms of Protestantism with which white people are familiar. However, a liberation theologian would still point out that the structures and traditions of Catholicism are largely shaped by European culture (that is, that they have been so shaped for the past thousand years and more–obviously the early Church was a rather different matter). Again, I agree that many (perhaps all) liberation theologians take this too far. Our culture has become obsessed with “identity” issues, and this has made it increasingly hard to talk about truth or goodness or beauty. But there is a reason for this. It is a reaction (however unhealthy) against a real problem.
I could say that by my definition the Earth is flat – but that wouldn’t make it true, now would it?
Are you seriously suggesting that Jesus didn’t say what He said?
And then five legions of angles descended and defeated the Romans?
“Physical” =/= “political”
“Our culture” =/= “our church.”
The Church is universal, but the Latin Rite is specifically a western european rite, yet it is used in many non-european countries.
Gee! And in English-speaking countries, the Mass is in English.
No, it wouldn’t. How is that an argument? My definition of “political” comes from Aristotle–it covers anything having to do with how human beings order their life together. The Church is a political concept by this definition. I would respectfully suggest that you are embracing a much narrower and more modern definition created by modern secularism.
Obviously not. But we know that Jesus liked to make cryptic and ironic statements. He does it all the time in the Gospels. ("Why do you call me good? No one is good but God. No Christian thinks that Jesus was in fact denying that He was good, right?)
No. And that has political implications.And then five legions of angles descended and defeated the Romans?
It was not a kingdom that would only last for a time, and it was not a kingdom whose origin was from earth. But it is a kingdom that exists in time and on earth.
I did not say that they were the same. As I said, it depends on your definition of “political.” You have not given one. Would you care to?
That is not the standard definition – nowadays, we would define “political” as “relating to secular government” or “partisan issues related to secular government.”
Nice try, but no cigar. If we follow your reasoning, we must finally conclude that nothing Jesus said is understandable.
If so, that would make you the first “reasonable” person in 2,000 years.
Indeed it does – which is why it didn’t happen. Jesus specifically denied that He came to establish a temporal, political kingdom.
You’re tying yourself in knots here. Jesus did not establish a government on earth, and no amount of sophism can change that.
“Relating to secular government” or “partisan issues related to secular government.”
Yes, that is the way people use the word. But why? I would argue (and lots of other people would as well) that this is because of the very modern concept of “secular government” and the accompanying idea that Christianity is about private, individual, personal experience. This is why you find people like Peter Singer claiming that prolife arguments are completely irrelevant in the public square because they rest on religion. This separation between the religious and political is well-nigh impossible to maintain. What it means in practice is that religious ideas whose political implications one doesn’t like are branded “political” and thus ruled out of court.
No, nothing of the kind follows. That’s all I need to say, since you have not produced an argument to support your dismissal. You still haven’t answered my question: is there something in this universe that does not belong to God? If there isn’t, then something like my interpretation necessarily follows.
No, this is a very common interpretation. That doesn’t make it right, of course. But it’s not something I made up. It’s something I have heard frequently in discussions of this passage.If so, that would make you the first “reasonable” person in 2,000 years.
Jesus denied that He came to establish a kingdom whose origin was from earth and which would be established through military force. If that is what you mean, then we are in agreement. If you mean something more than this, you need to show it to be the case and not simply repeat cliched labels.
You call precision “tying oneself in knots”? How do you expect to have a meaningful discussion if we aren’t going to define our terms?
Define government? Didn’t he give St. Peter the power of the keys? Isn’t that government?
Translation: “please don’t try to get me to think about the terms I am using. I’m comfortable with my cliches the way they are, thank you very much.”
Isn’t abortion a partisan issue related to secular government? It certainly looks like one to me. Does the Church therefore have nothing to say on that subject?
Because using non-standard definitions once the debate has started is a dishonest method of debate.
You try to change definitions in mid-debate and deny engaging in sophism?
No. Abortion is a moral issue. The Church speaks on moral issues all the time.
I am not defining it as “making peanut butter sandwiches.” I’m defining it as the way the life of a human community is ordered. This is a perfectly traditional, respectable definition, and I am willing to defend it. I’m not sure what it would mean to “define it before I entered the debate.” I defined it when the issue came up. The definition of “political” is central to the debate. You’re using a definition that simply can’t be defended. At least you aren’t even trying to. Instead, you are trying to rule the question out of court. But this *is *the question. You can’t criticize liberation theology by assuming the definition of “political” that liberation theologians are questioning. That’s like saying that belief in God can’t be rational because rationality is defined as believing that only physical things are real. You’re the one making an intrinsically dishonest move–trying to win the argument by defining the terms in such a way that you can’t possibly lose.
I haven’t changed anything. When did I grant the validity of your definition? As arguments progress, more and more terms need to be defined. That’s how arguments work–it’s how we learn to communicate instead of just talking past each other.
How is it sophistry to point out that some “partisan issues having to do with secular government” are also moral issues on which the Church must speak? This is an excellent example of why your division between the religious and political cannot possibly work.
Since that is not what I am trying to prove, you are yet again showing your unwillingness to engage in actual argument.
Which is trying to win the debate by changing terms
My position is simple – Christ did not come to establish a secular, temporal goverment, and as Christians we are not commanded to establish one.
Is this supposed to be good? A “theology” thats purpose is to undermine the Church and its teachings?
You are misunderstanding I believe. There are already any number of theologies, LT in its many flavors is only one grouping of them. It has nothing to do with groups having their own theologies. Theology is the the study of faith and God. There are many ways to do so, and philosophers and theologians continue to bring us new ways of viewing our faith. It is not against anything, it is simply a different way to examine the world and search for truth.
I have no clue frankly what you are alluding to. There are several theologies in the bible. There have always been different ways of addressing our faith. There is absolutely no denial of Exodus. I have no idea where you come to that conclusion. Again, it has nothing to do with failure to understand sin, and Jesus is the central figure in all Liberation Theologies that I am aware of. Can you explain where you have gotten the “information” you are alluding to in your post?
Why, then, does one of the foremost proponents of Black Liberation Theology say, “G** D*** America!” ?
I have read Cone, I too never heard of Wright until recently. I have no information that he is a leading speaker for LT. I would surely like some citation to that effect if someone is claiming he is. I have no information that Wright has even written anything on LT.
This particular point has been shown at least 4 times here so far, and it is simply ignored by those who refuse to accept the Church on this point. So they read it out apparently. I have no idea why. As I said, it’s been pointed out 4 times now.Here’s something by the Pope about Liberation Theology:
"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. "
Here, the Pope says that Liberation Theology is found in the documents of the Catholic Church, from Medellin to Puebla. So some Liberation Theology must be good stuff.
