The Christian Discussion thread IX: Pelagius Rising.

[Genivaria]

The opposite of the borderline sociopathic Prosperity Theology taught around my area?

My pastor condemned prosperity gospel just last Sunday in the homily.

The Gospel doesn't guarantee success, and Christ even warns us of excess trouble that may arrise from following Him.

I couldn't stand having to sit through a sermon from an Olsteen-esque pastor.

He got alot of crap for not letting any of the newly homeless into his church during Hurricane Harvey, he claimed that it was inaccessible despite being way above the water line.
It's about 40 minutes from me.

[Lower Nubia]

Thoughts on Liberation Theology?

It's intentions are admirable, but its execution is poor.

[The Archregimancy]

Thoughts on Liberation Theology?

Like its polar opposite Prosperity Gospel, it's a twisting of Christianity to suit narrow political ends.

It's arguably somewhat more thematically in tune with the core Christian message than Prosperity Gospel; but it's still an abomination in practice.

[Pasong Tirad]

Thoughts on Liberation Theology?

*barges in from the wall* DID SOMEBODY SAY LIBERATION THEOLOGY?!

A lot of the arguably true problems with Liberation Theology stem from its origins in 20th century South America and its - not entirely false - roots in Marxism, and an early overemphasis on the materialistic application of Liberation Theology, as opposed to the more mellow approach of emphasizing the preferential option for the poor and THE DISMANTLING OF THE SYSTEMS OF OPPRESSION AND INSTITUTIONS OF SIN DOWN WITH THE SYSTEM RAAAAAAAAAH the tackling of systemic barriers hindering those in poverty from gaining an equal footing in society.

While "Liberation Theology" today tends to be a clumping up of several different branches of theology, it has really diversified since Gustavo Gutierrez's seminal book which gave the theology its name. You have Black Liberation theology and Queer theology, for example. But, really, Liberation theology - at least, the more mellow, Jesuit-influenced (mellow? Jesuit? That doesn't sound right) strand that I follow - is all about 1) emphasizing the preferential option for the poor, 2) tackling systemic barriers that hinder the poor from being afforded proper human dignity, 3) helping the poor feel God's love even in poverty (which is basically also kind of what black liberation theology and queer theology are - how do I feel God's love even if I'm black? How do I feel God's love even if I'm gay? - okay that's simplifying it very much, but I hope you get what I'm trying to say).

Liberation theology isn't a separate church or denomination, it's supposed to (supposed to) supplement Christian thought in regards to the plight of the poor.

Here's a good intro to what liberation theology is - at least, as it was defined by Gustavo Gutierrez.

[Cappuccina]

So, is this "liberation theology" a form of christian socialism?

[Pasong Tirad]

So, is this "liberation theology" a form of christian socialism?

I'd argue no, but concede that there would be certain similarities. The main distinction would be that Christian socialism is socialism (a political ideology) infused with Christian beliefs (a person who called themselves a "Christian socialist" would be at odds with, say, a person who supported America's Christian right), while liberation theology is, ideally, a bit more apolitical and focus more on its concern for the poor as an extension of Catholic social teaching. Its similarities with the Christian left and Christian socialism begin where liberation theology, for the most part, also believes that along with Christian charity, we should also be tackling the roots of poverty, usually found in the social systems and government institutions of many countries. So, while liberation theology doesn't advocate seizing the means of production, per se, it tiptoes preeeeeety close to it. It's not opposed to capitalism and wealth, it is rather suspicious of unfettered capitalism and very vocal of its criticism of capitalism when it begins to unduly oppress and marginalize.

[Claorica]

Thoughts on Liberation Theology?

Latin Liberation Theology:

At best a collection of disjointed ideas that take the christian duty to care for others as a reason for socialistic ideas, at worst a collection of ideologies that attempt to apply Marxism to Catholicism, which in the light of Rerum Novarum are irreconcilable

Black Liberation Theology: Black nationalism/black power gone wrong mixed with christianity

Queer Liberation Theology: an attempt to try and normalize sin.

[Nordengrund]

I’m going through a very personal problem that I don’t want to go into the specifics about, but it is a problem with my body and God knows what is going on because I’ve already prayed about it.

Thank you!

[Diopolis]

I did consider myself non-denominational for awhile, but in my experience, non-dems are just Southern Baptists with contemporary worship and speaking in tongues. Ironically, I’ve found more fundamentalism in those kinds of churches than I did in traditional SBC ones. Like, “Harry Potter is demonic” kind of fundamentalism.

That's kind of weird you haven't found that very much. When I was a kid, the Baptists in town weren't allowed to read Harry Potter because it was about witchcraft.

That's rather an oversimplification.

[Diopolis]

Question.
Are the socio-political ramifications of various Christian thought and denominations relevant to this thread or is this more just a theological discussion?

As long as it doesn't become a threadjack, sociopolitical ramifications are fine, but it could merit a new thread if that starts to become the main topic.

[Salus Maior]

I did consider myself non-denominational for awhile, but in my experience, non-dems are just Southern Baptists with contemporary worship and speaking in tongues. Ironically, I’ve found more fundamentalism in those kinds of churches than I did in traditional SBC ones. Like, “Harry Potter is demonic” kind of fundamentalism.

That's kind of weird you haven't found that very much. When I was a kid, the Baptists in town weren't allowed to read Harry Potter because it was about witchcraft.

Well, technically most of Christian-inspired literature has what could be called "magic" and "witchcraft" in it. Tales of King Arthur, Lord of the Rings, Narnia....

[Salus Maior]

I’m going through a very personal problem that I don’t want to go into the specifics about, but it is a problem with my body and God knows what is going on because I’ve already prayed about it.

Thank you!

I'll be praying, man.

[Nordengrund]

I’m going through a very personal problem that I don’t want to go into the specifics about, but it is a problem with my body and God knows what is going on because I’ve already prayed about it.

Thank you!

I'll be praying, man.

Thank you.

[Stonok]

>Get into heated argument with someone who was claiming that Paul was a Roman Soldier soley because he persecuted Christians
>Get blocked

[New Visayan Islands]

>Get into heated argument with someone who was claiming that Paul was a Roman Soldier soley because he persecuted Christians
>Get blocked

How does that even make sense?

[Sahansahiye Iran]

>Get into heated argument with someone who was claiming that Paul was a Roman Soldier soley because he persecuted Christians
>Get blocked

That's a common misconception I hear, tbh. It's often claimed that he got his Roman citizenship by serving in the Army for 20 years. That's false. He was born a Roman citizen, as he states in Acts 22:28. This means that his father might have served in the Army but not necessarily that he did.

[Maineiacs]

>Get into heated argument with someone who was claiming that Paul was a Roman Soldier soley because he persecuted Christians
>Get blocked

That's a common misconception I hear, tbh. It's often claimed that he got his Roman citizenship by serving in the Army for 20 years. That's false. He was born a Roman citizen, as he states in Acts 22:28. This means that his father might have served in the Army but not necessarily that he did.

If Paul came from a wealthy family (and I think he may have), they could very well have bought their citizenship through money, land, etc., presented as a personal gift to the Emperor.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

That's a common misconception I hear, tbh. It's often claimed that he got his Roman citizenship by serving in the Army for 20 years. That's false. He was born a Roman citizen, as he states in Acts 22:28. This means that his father might have served in the Army but not necessarily that he did.

If Paul came from a wealthy family (and I think he may have), they could very well have bought their citizenship through money, land, etc., presented as a personal gift to the Emperor.

I don't know. Acts describes him as a "tent-maker". Not exactly the most lucrative of professions.

[Geneviev]

That's a common misconception I hear, tbh. It's often claimed that he got his Roman citizenship by serving in the Army for 20 years. That's false. He was born a Roman citizen, as he states in Acts 22:28. This means that his father might have served in the Army but not necessarily that he did.

If Paul came from a wealthy family (and I think he may have), they could very well have bought their citizenship through money, land, etc., presented as a personal gift to the Emperor.

Paul, at least, was born a Roman citizen. The Bible (as far as I know) doesn't say anything about his family.

[Salus Maior]

If Paul came from a wealthy family (and I think he may have), they could very well have bought their citizenship through money, land, etc., presented as a personal gift to the Emperor.

Paul, at least, was born a Roman citizen. The Bible (as far as I know) doesn't say anything about his family.

I think it's mentioned somewhere that his father was a citizen, hence why he is.

[Maineiacs]

If Paul came from a wealthy family (and I think he may have), they could very well have bought their citizenship through money, land, etc., presented as a personal gift to the Emperor.

Paul, at least, was born a Roman citizen. The Bible (as far as I know) doesn't say anything about his family.

His father might very well have been military, then. Paul was not, though.

[Saint Ryvern]

Paul, at least, was born a Roman citizen. The Bible (as far as I know) doesn't say anything about his family.

His father might very well have been military, then. Paul was not, though.

In Acts 23:6, Paul says he is "descended from Pharisees." Whether that's a reference to his Jewish ancestry or direct personal relations should be determined by a better exegete than me.

[Geneviev]

Paul, at least, was born a Roman citizen. The Bible (as far as I know) doesn't say anything about his family.

His father might very well have been military, then. Paul was not, though.

I'm fairly sure Paul was of Jewish descent, not Roman.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

His father might very well have been military, then. Paul was not, though.

I'm fairly sure Paul was of Jewish descent, not Roman.

He was. That much is certain. But non Romans could serve in the auxiliaries.

[Stonok]

I'm fairly sure Paul was of Jewish descent, not Roman.

He was. That much is certain. But non Romans could serve in the auxiliaries.

Wasn't there a conflict of interests with Jews joining the Roman Army, even for citizenship, though? Or was this mainly an issue that Jews in the Palestine region felt?