Liberation Theology

[L.A.P.]

Liberation Theology is supposed to be a Marxist interpretation of the story of Jesus Christ where they view him as a liberator and revolutionary for the people. What do you guys think of this? Since most of the Bible's story of Jesus is just a parallel to the story of Horus I don't know how legitimate him as a liberator could be. It seems really interesting though and even though I'm an atheist if I were to choose any faith I guess it would be this.

[Queercommie Girl]

Intrinsically it is totally pointless. There is nothing original in Jesus at all if you take away all the fundamentalist theological elements and solely focus on the ethical teachings.

But in terms of socialist strategy, it is useful for attracting Christian believers among the working class to socialism and move them objectively more to the left.

[¿Que?]

Liberation Theology is supposed to be a Marxist interpretation of the story of Jesus Christ where they view him as a liberator and revolutionary for the people. What do you guys think of this? Since most of the Bible's story of Jesus is just a parallel to the story of Horus I don't know how legitimate him as a liberator could be. It seems really interesting though and even though I'm an atheist if I were to choose any faith I guess it would be this.
I don't think that is a correct interpretation of liberation theology. I think liberation theology just places special emphasis on those aspects of the bible that renounce materialist culture and which suggest that good Christians should help the needy, and places them in the context of social justice. My point is that strictly speaking, a Marxist interpretation of the bible would interpret the story of Christ in terms of historical materialism, whereas liberation theology is firmly grounded in a Christian idealist epistemology.

Also, liberation theology isn't so much a faith, but a philosophical approach to faith. Although most liberation theologists are Catholic, it doesn't preclude other faiths from accepting this philosophical outlook. During the civil rights struggles, many blacks took a liking to liberation theology, but remained Baptist in faith.

It is a particular interpretation of the bible, and it does borrow from some ideas of the Marxist tradition (for example its emphasis on praxis), however, in no sense is it a Marxist interpretation.

[L.A.P.]

Intrinsically it is totally pointless. There is nothing original in Jesus at all if you take away all the fundamentalist theological elements and solely focus on the ethical teachings.

But in terms of socialist strategy, it is useful for attracting Christian believers among the working class to socialism and move them objectively more to the left.

True, the fact that most of his life story was made up anyway just kind of ruins it for me.:(

[Amphictyonis]

Liberation Theology? No thanks.

[blake 3:17]

Liberation Theology is (or was) really a kind of marriage of Catholicism and Marxism in Latin America. It was certainly very powerful in Brazil, El Salvador, Nicaragua. I've heard that Subcommandante Marcos of the Zapatistas was a Jesuit.

It has some strengths over other Marxist traditions -- respect for life and spiritual community -- while sometimes not so good on issues of sexuality.

Here's a link to the Brazilian born Trotskyist Michael Lowy on Marxism and religion: http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article807&var_recherche=lowy%20theology

His book on Liberation Theology, The War of the Gods , is very accessible. I'm sure there are other really good resources out there that others would know about.

Lowy makes an interesting point in his work on Liberation Theology that the Nicaraguan revolution was the first social revolution to abolish the death penalty. He credits the role of Catholics in the revolution for this.

[neosyndic]

x

[Queercommie Girl]

Liberation Theology is (or was) really a kind of marriage of Catholicism and Marxism in Latin America. It was certainly very powerful in Brazil, El Salvador, Nicaragua. I've heard that Subcommandante Marcos of the Zapatistas was a Jesuit.

It has some strengths over other Marxist traditions -- respect for life and spiritual community -- while sometimes not so good on issues of sexuality.


That is a big problem. "Liberation" is not truly genuine unless it includes every section of the oppressed classes without exception.

The other problem is obviously that the belief in God and the supernatural, along with all idealistic and non-materialistic philosophies, are fundamentally illogical and unscientific and not intrinsically compatible with Marxist philosophy, which is human-centric not God-centric and materialistic not idealistic.

Liberation theologists can act as an ally for Marxists on many fronts, but we should not allow them to use the political platform of socialism as an opportunity to spread their religion evangelically.

[Ocean Seal]

True, the fact that most of his life story was made up anyway just kind of ruins it for me.:(
I tend to disagree here, while you might not believe in God there is reason to believe that Jesus Christ was a real person whose life was well documented within the bible and other books. The life is documented by Josephius, Tacitus, and other Roman historians. Early Christians were very confident in this to the extent that the apostles even ask at point for their enemies to disprove what they say about the Christ and none of their enemies are able to say anything.
On the subject of liberation theology, we should see it as a venue for attracting working class leftists and creating people who hold moderate and accepting beliefs. This philosophy also makes them more objective because it allows them to see the crimes of capital and since there aren't many liberation theology churches, this philosophy forces them to think for themselves. It encourages logic and questioning, especially authority. So I see it as a generally positive thing.

[Queercommie Girl]

I tend to disagree here, while you might not believe in God there is reason to believe that Jesus Christ was a real person whose life was well documented within the bible and other books. The life is documented by Josephius, Tacitus, and other Roman historians. Early Christians were very confident in this to the extent that the apostles even ask at point for their enemies to disprove what they say about the Christ and none of their enemies are able to say anything.


The bit that is definitely made up is the idea about him rising from the dead - the central "evidence" and cornerstone for Christian theology. The historical human figure Jesus most likely did exist.



On the subject of liberation theology, we should see it as a venue for attracting working class leftists and creating people who hold moderate and accepting beliefs. This philosophy also makes them more objective because it allows them to see the crimes of capital and since there aren't many liberation theology churches, this philosophy forces them to think for themselves. It encourages logic and questioning, especially authority. So I see it as a generally positive thing.


It's useful for pulling people always from the reactionary mainstream Catholic Church.

Liberation Theology is still not really accepted by the Vatican, so these people are in effect like religious dissidents.

[L.A.P.]

Jesus Christ was a real person whose life was well documented within the bible.

I'll just stop you right there considering the fact that the Bible is a fictional book.

[Crimson Commissar]

I tend to disagree here, while you might not believe in God there is reason to believe that Jesus Christ was a real person whose life was well documented within the bible and other books. The life is documented by Josephius, Tacitus, and other Roman historians. Early Christians were very confident in this to the extent that the apostles even ask at point for their enemies to disprove what they say about the Christ and none of their enemies are able to say anything.
On the subject of liberation theology, we should see it as a venue for attracting working class leftists and creating people who hold moderate and accepting beliefs. This philosophy also makes them more objective because it allows them to see the crimes of capital and since there aren't many liberation theology churches, this philosophy forces them to think for themselves. It encourages logic and questioning, especially authority. So I see it as a generally positive thing.
It encourages questioning? It doesn't encourage questioning of God's authority. Liberation theologists confuse me. They will speak out against the crimes of capitalism, and yet won't even dare to question the actions of their own God. They won't ask themselves "Is god doing the right thing? Does he deserve our worship? Is he truly on our side?". Until they do that, they can't really be called true socialists. A true socialist would question all authority, and stand against anyone or anything that is against them and their ideas and values. A true socialist would not blindly follow god simply because they believe him to be our creator. If we discover that god does exist, then we must ask ourselves the same questions about him that we asked ourselves about the Capitalist rulers of today's society.

[Queercommie Girl]

I hear that Liberation Theology tends to be more queer-friendly (though not always so) than mainstream Catholicism. Is this correct?

[neosyndic]

x

[Queercommie Girl]

liberation theology is not about ''evangelisation'' in any sense, it is about reconciling beatidic ethics with existing social struggles; as explained by materialist analysis utilising cathegories developed by marx.

in your comment you emphasise the class struggle (rightly so). recently I watched a program on venezuelan television about the ''fosa guerrillera'' shrine in bolivia (where the bones of che guevara where exhumated in 1997). the shrine is staffed by a former franciscan from germany who joined the struggle of landless peasants in paraguay and bolivia. the paraguayan 'sin tierra' (like the brasilian 'dos sem terra'), engage in direct land seizures and the establishment of agricultural cooperative production in 'asentamientos'. the franciscan in question tells of his experiences in paraguay confronting state repression alongside the pasants. this is one example of what i meant when i wrote before about historical materialist analysis revealing to the proponent of liberation theology ''the nature of the crisis'' as a means of defining the ''prudent disposition'' relative to taking a preferential option for the social struggles of the oppressed in situ, and then defining what that means (in context of a concrete analysis of the concrete social reality), as praxis. for Camilo Torres (the founder of the Colombian ELN) this meant celebrating the eucharist only among those engaged in armed struggle against the army of the Colombian neo-colonial narco-state while fighting alongside them.

Though Che is a great socialist figure in many ways, he made many mistakes too, to worship him in a "shrine" is not the Marxist way, no more than the personal cult of Mao Zedong is strictly speaking correct. Everyone is just human and fundamentally equal, no matter how "great" they are.

I don't mind co-operating with liberation theologists in actual struggles, as long as they are not evangelical style preachers. There is nothing anyone can do to make me believe in a religion even with the threat of literal death. The belief in religions is fundamentally illogical and unscientific and incompatible with humanism and materialism, but as Marx stated, directly attacking religion is often unproductive.

I only directly attack reactionary, discriminatory and fundamentalist variants of religion.

How does the average liberation theologist view queer rights?

[¿Que?]

I tend to disagree here, while you might not believe in God there is reason to believe that Jesus Christ was a real person whose life was well documented within the bible and other books. The life is documented by Josephius, Tacitus, and other Roman historians.
Not to pick a fight, but this comment is incredibly misleading. The two Roman historians you mentioned hadn't even been born yet while Jesus was supposedly alive, and the earliest gospel is something along 20 or 30 years after his death.

Nothing was ever written about Jesus during his life that can confirm his existence to the same degree as most other historical figures of the time. It is possible he may have existed, however, there is no overwhelming evidence that he did, and most likely, given that during that time, many people preaching revolutionary ideas similar to Jesus' existed, we can probably say for certain, that many, many Jesuses existed, and that the "myth" of Jesus is some agglomeration of the folklore surrounding a number of them.

EDIT: In fact, we can be more certain of the existence of Mohamed (from a strictly empirical/historical point of view, than Jesus.

[Queercommie Girl]

It doesn't matter anyway. Jesus probably did exist as a historical figure, and he had some good ethical ideas. But there is absolutely no evidence for the supposedly "supernatural" things that he did, like say rising from the dead. You won't find anything like that in the accounts of Roman historians.

So the central basis of the entire Christian religion is simply bogus.

[neosyndic]

x

[Queercommie Girl]

it is not a ''marxist cult'', it is a syncretism. bolivian indigenous peasants traditionally develop cults for folk heroes. it is part of their cultural expression. i personally do not agree with the idea of the cult of ''san ernesto'', but i respect the peasants. there is no evangelical content to liberation theology. it is only an approach to social struggle praxis.

as to the issue of glbt liberation; the latin american liberation theology movement is generally supportive in recent years (a welcome change). this because of the influence of rectification in cuba in favour of GLBT citizens, support from hugo chavez and the bolivarian revolution to gay liberation, and the expression of militant opposition from the conservative catholic hierarchy to the legalisation of gay marriage in Argentina (this finally turned the izquierda cristiana to support the lgbt community there) .

Thanks for your reply. I feel that Liberation Theology is probably among the most progressive strands of religion in the world today. It's certainly useful for turning people away from the reactionary and conservative mainstream Catholic Church.

[Ocean Seal]

It encourages questioning? It doesn't encourage questioning of God's authority. Liberation theologists confuse me. They will speak out against the crimes of capitalism, and yet won't even dare to question the actions of their own God. They won't ask themselves "Is God doing the right thing? Does he deserve our worship? Is he truly on our side?". Until they do that, they can't really be called true socialists. A true socialist would question all authority, and stand against anyone or anything that is against them and their ideas and values. A true socialist would not blindly follow God simply because they believe him to be our creator. If we discover that God does exist, then we must ask ourselves the same questions about him that we asked ourselves about the capitalist rulers of today's society.
I've noticed that you make this point more often than anything else. That we worship a "tyrant." I assume you believe that he does not exist. If it doesn't affect our outlook on the material world, why does it matter what we end up thinking of him?

[Queercommie Girl]

I've noticed that you make this point more often than anything else. That we worship a "tyrant." I assume you believe that he does not exist. If it doesn't affect our outlook on the material world, why does it matter what we end up thinking of him?


Well, philosophically speaking to rely on a "higher power" of some kind is contradictory to the notion of human self-emancipation which is central to Marxism.

As for God being a "tyrant", for a materialist the only way to judge such things is through empirical historical evidence. I know you probably have a very progressive view of God and religion, but unfortunately throughout history many religious people did many very bad things in the name of God. For instance the actions of Christian colonialists and imperialists in recent history. Perhaps if you more explicitly distance yourselves from these reactionary manifestations of Christianity then you will win more supporters among the atheist left.

We don't believe God really exists, at least not the kind of God in your orthodox theology. But even something that does not objectively exist can still have socio-economic implications in reality if people really believe in it. This is why we speak against the reactionary implications of theistic belief.

[Ocean Seal]

Well, philosophically speaking to rely on a "higher power" of some kind is contradictory to the notion of human self-emancipation which is central to Marxism.
Ideologically I don't rely on God to send 10 plagues to the bourgeoisie and I acknowledge that God leaves this world to its self-improvement or as you said human self-emancipation. That is why we fight for justice, regardless of how the fight goes even at certain low points like now.


As for God being a "tyrant", for a materialist the only way to judge such things is through empirical historical evidence. I know you probably have a very progressive view of God and religion, but unfortunately throughout history many religious people did many very bad things in the name of God. For instance the actions of Christian colonialists and imperialists in recent history. Perhaps if you more explicitly distance yourselves from these reactionary manifestations of Christianity then you will win more supporters among the atheist left.
I will explicitly distance myself from them because I do not assert that any activity where a man emerges to oppress another for his self-interest can be just and is this un-Christian. From a Marxist perspective we must acknowledge that colonialism and imperialism were a reflection of their current economic system and that danger emerged only because of the material conditions that existed at the time. This was in part due to nationalism, poverty, and non-religious hierarchy. Poverty works with hierarchy to induce a sentiment that there are superiors and inferiors among humans and that these rules are acceptable. Nationalism and other forms of sectionalism also influenced the progression of imperialism/colonialism. Otherwise what legitimacy would Mussolini have had for attacking Ethiopia, and why would there exist wars between nations of the same faith. Additionally, internationalism has always been a tenet of Christianity (although not always followed), an aspect which was despised by Hitler and other nationalists regardless of their relatively unknown religious beliefs. So I will assert that the actions of imperialists are not based in Christianity nor are they compatible with Christianity.


We don't believe God really exists, at least not the kind of God in your orthodox theology. But even something that does not objectively exist can still have socio-economic implications in reality if people really believe in it. This is why we speak against the reactionary implications of theistic belief.
And rightly so, the reactionary implications any belief must be denounced.
By the way, thank you for providing a respectful but critical post.

[Crimson Commissar]

I've noticed that you make this point more often than anything else. That we worship a "tyrant." I assume you believe that he does not exist. If it doesn't affect our outlook on the material world, why does it matter what we end up thinking of him?
But what if he does exist, like you claim? It's a possibility. In my opinion, a very unlikely one, but a possibility still. I do not wish to worship God if he does exist. But he wouldn't give me that option. With religion, it's either worship God or suffer his wrath. This is what is stated in the religious book of your very own faith. Surely, you follow everything in said book? And if not, why call yourself a Christian? I've heard you say before that "It's more important to be on God's side than for God to be on our side". From what I can gather, you believe that communism is what your God supports. But what if he supported Nazism? Would you still be saying the same thing? I really hope you wouldn't at least. As a communist, you should question all authority. Whether that authority happens to be just a lowly police officer, or even someone as powerful as an omnipotent God.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Well lets be fair. It is 'generally progressive.' Its an idea born in Latin America. Possible only because the Bible already has a million interpretations, whats one more gonna hurt? Besides, the enlightment idea of questioning god still lacks in several plaaces in Latin America. So, its a clever disguise for socialism. Though, IMO, people will at some point come to understand that socialism stands for 'No Gods, No Masters.'

[Geraint ap Llew]

From a socialist point of view it would make more sense to advocate a liberation theology which wasn't tied to Christianity and I think this is where much of the problem lies. Why would a genuine God require everybody to be Christian (or Muslim) when this is largely determined by people's cultural background? Also if Christianity requires us not to question God this is hardly good enough since God's actions throughout the Bible are nothing if not questionable. By the same token we should question accepted Marxist tenets. If Marxism is meant to be scientific, how can it be if it is dependent on the non-existence of God, which is not scientifically established? Surely most of the basic points of Marxism are correct by being based on observable material conditions and processes and should not depend on whether a God exists or not.
The belief in a God of the monotheistic type gives strength to its adherents and we would expect this to apply to left-wing monotheists for whom some kind of ultimate justice is clearly important.

[Queercommie Girl]

From a socialist point of view it would make more sense to advocate a liberation theology which wasn't tied to Christianity and I think this is where much of the problem lies. Why would a genuine God require everybody to be Christian (or Muslim) when this is largely determined by people's cultural background? Also if Christianity requires us not to question God this is hardly good enough since God's actions throughout the Bible are nothing if not questionable. By the same token we should question accepted Marxist tenets. If Marxism is meant to be scientific, how can it be if it is dependent on the non-existence of God, which is not scientifically established? Surely most of the basic points of Marxism are correct by being based on observable material conditions and processes and should not depend on whether a God exists or not.
The belief in a God of the monotheistic type gives strength to its adherents and we would expect this to apply to left-wing monotheists for whom some kind of ultimate justice is clearly important.

True, but I'm not sure if Liberation Theology is evangelical in this sense though.

I do however oppose evangelism or the attempt by some left-wing Christians to use socialist activism as a platform to evangelise their religion. That should literally be banned.

[ckaihatsu]

We don't believe God really exists, at least not the kind of God in your orthodox theology. But even something that does not objectively exist can still have socio-economic implications in reality if people really believe in it. This is why we speak against the reactionary implications of theistic belief.


Here's one implication:





Poverty works with hierarchy to induce a sentiment that there are superiors and inferiors among humans and that these rules are acceptable.


Another implication of religious belief of *any* sort would simply be about the time spent in any kind of belief-oriented association -- should we be conversing about religious topics or would our time be better spent in *political* exchanges? Yes, there may be overlap between the two, but why settle for overlap?

Additionally we could talk in terms of the slippery-slope -- perhaps the *slightest* of beliefs relying on a foundation of faith is simply a bad precedent. Where does it stop after that? Why let it become a full-blown bad habit? It can only weaken the mind and provide a soft spot for social influences that use faith-based premises as a landing pad.





If Marxism is meant to be scientific, how can it be if it is dependent on the non-existence of God, which is not scientifically established? Surely most of the basic points of Marxism are correct by being based on observable material conditions and processes and should not depend on whether a God exists or not.
The belief in a God of the monotheistic type gives strength to its adherents and we would expect this to apply to left-wing monotheists for whom some kind of ultimate justice is clearly important.


Again, though, we have to look closely at *what kind* of strength this is -- as others have pointed out, the *material* basis of a shared religious mindset is a very *weak* one and prone to divide-and-conquer tactics from nationalism, etc. (I'll add parenthetically that I've yet to see a universally shared theoretical grounding for disparate systems of religious belief, and that this lack of theory leaves the adherent with having to default to an exaggerated emotionalism -- *not* healthy.)

I won't nit-pick with progressive historical results, of course, but we all have room for improvement....

[Queercommie Girl]

From a socialist point of view it would make more sense to advocate a liberation theology which wasn't tied to Christianity and I think this is where much of the problem lies. Why would a genuine God require everybody to be Christian (or Muslim) when this is largely determined by people's cultural background? Also if Christianity requires us not to question God this is hardly good enough since God's actions throughout the Bible are nothing if not questionable. By the same token we should question accepted Marxist tenets. If Marxism is meant to be scientific, how can it be if it is dependent on the non-existence of God, which is not scientifically established? Surely most of the basic points of Marxism are correct by being based on observable material conditions and processes and should not depend on whether a God exists or not.
The belief in a God of the monotheistic type gives strength to its adherents and we would expect this to apply to left-wing monotheists for whom some kind of ultimate justice is clearly important.

Actually we cannot prove that "celestial beings" definitely don't exist, but the kind of "God" in orthodox theology is definitely ruled out. A being who is supposedly "infinitely wise and powerful" and also "excludes all others" simply is fundamentally beyond the scope of any kind of empirical proof. A "metaphysical absolute" such as that simply cannot exist, it is fundamentally opposed to the dialectical philosophy of Marxism.

Which is why I think paganism is actually more scientific than monotheism.

[Queercommie Girl]

To be frank, as things stand now, Liberation Theology is probably the only variant of Christianity that is relatively and partially progressive and not reactionary. Every other variant, from mainstream pro-Vatican Catholicism, to Protestant fundamentalism, are all clearly reactionary.

[neosyndic]

x