theology

[scarletghoul]

This thread is for the communists and not the OIers, it just happens that for some reason the religion forum is in OI. everyones welcome though of course..

What schools of theology and which theologians do you like or think are relevant to the Left ?

I've always liked the Satanic stuff, though in the past few years have seen through the individualist bullshit and now view Lucifer as an inspiring rebel/liberator of the world and not just individuals.

Recently I discovered the Atheist theology of Altizer and Zizek. It's pretty cool though I haven't read enough for a full discussion.

(and please no one line posts saying how religion is the root of all evil bla bla bla)

[Who?]

I'm a pretty militant atheist myself ('though I primarily identify as anti-clerical rather than anti-theist) but I don't think we can completely write off the works of leftist theologians. Gustavo Gutierrez's work is still largely relevant and I find that many communists who happen to believe in a god are inspired by his work.

Edited for clarification: Religion is still poison and should be discouraged.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

None of them. They all just assume that God exists, despite the utter lack of evidence.

[Sentinel]

What schools of theology and which theologians do you like or think are relevant to the Left ?

Is this a joke? If so haha, but if not then see NoXion's reply.

[Blackscare]

None of them. They all just assume that God exists, despite the utter lack of evidence.


.



Recently I discovered the Atheist theology of Altizer and Zizek.

[ComradeMan]

Jainism.... Pax Christi.... oh, hang on, I'm an OI-er, so I can't post...:rolleyes:

[Dimentio]

Theology is about as much a science as astrology.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Atheist theology is quite literally a contradiction in terms. But then again, logic was never the theologians' strong point.

[ComradeMan]

Theology is about as much a science as astrology.

Although I agree with you from a scientific point- I don't think theologists or theologians claim to be scientists....

That's why Intelligent Design people are so way out too...

[scarletghoul]

People study Greek mythology without believing in it. Do you think that is wrong ?? It's the same for Judeo-Christian theology.. Really I don't get what peoples problem with this is. Guess it's just some irrational reaction

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

People study Greek mythology without believing in it. Do you think that is wrong ?? It's the same for Judeo-Christian theology..

There's nothing wrong with studying mythology, when it's studied as mythology. With Christian theology however, its axioms are generally assumed to be true or at least morally valent. Nobody looks to The Iliad for moral guidance, but people still uphold the Bible (or at least bits of it) as a standard to live up to, despite being at least several centuries out of date.

[Dimentio]

Although I agree with you from a scientific point- I don't think theologists or theologians claim to be scientists....

That's why Intelligent Design people are so way out too...

If they aren't claiming to be scientists... why is Theology a university subject?

[Lord Testicles]

People study Greek mythology without believing in it. Do you think that is wrong ?? It's the same for Judeo-Christian theology.. Really I don't get what peoples problem with this is. Guess it's just some irrational reaction

I don't think it's wrong but how do you think it is relevant to the left?

[hatzel]

If they aren't claiming to be scientists... why is Theology a university subject?

I study Finnish at university...I mean fennology, that's a science...

[ComradeMan]

Greek religion wasn't really based on "mythology" anyway. There was no "one" Greek religion as such, but the deeper philosophy and the mystery schools reflected the "religion" more as we understand it, there was of course the division between the household religion and the "high" religion too. The mythology was more like a set of fables, usually with a moral of some kind that probed the psyche of the ancient world.
I don't think most ancient Greeks literally believed their myths, certainly not the semi-historic ones.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't think most ancient Greeks literally believed their myths, certainly not the semi-historic ones.

I'm given to understand that back in those days, the line between history and mythology was pretty damn hard to discern anyway.

[Dimentio]

Greece and Rome were at the classical time almost semi-secular societies. The elite was debating philosophy.

[ComradeMan]

I'm given to understand that back in those days, the line between history and mythology was pretty damn hard to discern anyway.

You're right- remember these societies interpreted many things with a different schematic. The very early histories such as Troy are what I mean by semi-historic. There was a Troy and it may well have been sacked by Mycenean Greeks and the "horse" may be a metaphor for the earthquake that seems to have damaged the city- but the rest is interwoven with myth... afterall, a good epic needs some magic too.
:lol:

[Demogorgon]

Greece and Rome were at the classical time almost semi-secular societies. The elite was debating philosophy.
The elite debates philosophy in every society where it has the economic means to secure comfortable existence. I mean Medieval Europe was rife with philosophical debate amongst the highly educated minority. They were constrained in what they could argue of course, needing to be careful not to say the "wrong" thing, but that is certainly not to say that similar restrictions were not also there in Greece and Rome.

As for what theology is relevant to the left, well I am tempted to say that it is a bit of a distraction, I find theology interesting, but I'm not sure if it is of much political significance. Incidentally it is perfectly possible to be an atheist and a theologian, I did a theology course at University a number of years ago and there were certainly atheists in the faculty. Studying religion does not necessarily imply viewing it as true.

[Palingenisis]

Is anyone interested in Gnosticism?

[Homage To Catalonia]

taoism is cool, cos its kinda sounds like maoism.

[ComradeMan]

The elite debates philosophy in every society where it has the economic means to secure comfortable existence. I mean Medieval Europe was rife with philosophical debate amongst the highly educated minority. They were constrained in what they could argue of course, needing to be careful not to say the "wrong" thing, but that is certainly not to say that similar restrictions were not also there in Greece and Rome..

Socrates? You're right.

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm a Dawkins-Saganite-Buddhist;
We're all made of the same stuff (star dust). An organism at war with itself cannot stand. So, take care of existence (God's creation).
Oh ya, and science is cool. If you don't like that, you can fuck off :thumbup:

[ComradeMan]

I'm a Dawkins-Saganite-Buddhist;
We're all made of the same stuff (star dust). An organism at war with itself cannot stand. So, take care of existence (God's creation).
Oh ya, and science is cool. If you don't like that, you can fuck off :thumbup:

How do you ally "Dawkins-ism" with Buddhism? What kind of Buddhism?

[MarxSchmarx]

People study Greek mythology without believing in it. Do you think that is wrong ?? It's the same for Judeo-Christian theology.. There's nothing wrong with studying mythology, when it's studied as mythology. With Christian theology however, its axioms are generally assumed to be true or at least morally valent. Nobody looks to The Iliad for moral guidance, but people still uphold the Bible (or at least bits of it) as a standard to live up to, despite being at least several centuries out of date.

In the abstract I agree, but in practice academic theology is very different from the moralizing of the sunday school teacher. If only it were so interesting!

No, theology is ironically the driest academic study one could undertake.

The papers in theological journals and lectures by people who are considered "theologians", focus is generally on the text (e.g., "Although Job argues X, Jeremiah argues Y"), and emphasis on the historical/sociological way that the religion is perceived (e.g., "While the Eucharist has been viewed by some as X, by others Y, if you consult the Book of Noxion etc..."). I think it is rare to find a serious theologian who sees the literal reading of the bible as a source of moral guidance and tries to reason from that.

[Revolution starts with U]

How do you ally "Dawkins-ism" with Buddhism? What kind of Buddhism?

I take the middle road; spirituality is fun, and science is cool :D
Buddhism, in general (specific schools in anything just ruin it. As Bruce said, the truth lies outside all set doctrines) as in non-attachment, moderation, and ignosticism.

Ignostic; believes God, the soul, the afterlife, even were they to exist, are absolutely pointless to discuss or try to understand.
To put it in the Buddha's words; "What care do I have for questions on the nature of the soul? Do good, be good. There is where you will find your freedom."

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think it is rare to find a serious theologian who sees the literal reading of the bible as a source of moral guidance and tries to reason from that.

That's why I included the qualifier "or at least morally valent". I'm aware that biblical literalism is unpopular among theologians. I'm also aware that they have different (but no less ridiculous) axioms to the common believer.

[Demogorgon]

That's why I included the qualifier "or at least morally valent". I'm aware that biblical literalism is unpopular among theologians. I'm also aware that they have different (but no less ridiculous) axioms to the common believer.
The view that the bible (or other holy book) is morally relevant is certainly not a universal one amongst theologians. Naturally there are atheist theologians as well as those who specialise in the study of religions other than their own. Others still are interested in comparative study of different religions or investigating the way particular belief structures evolved. None of that requires one to be a believer and indeed I would argue that it probably helps not to be a believer in order to do that kind of study.

[Black Sheep]

The problem is that people speak of "Greek Mythology" and "Christian Theology", when it's "Greek Mythology" and "Christian Mythology"

[Lunatic Concept]

My main problem with Christian theology is they insist on treating the bible like a historical document, which is frankly incredibly stupid. :blink:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The problem is that people speak of "Greek Mythology" and "Christian Theology", when it's "Greek Mythology" and "Christian Mythology"

Fucking THIS. It irks me how Christianity enjoys such privilege in society and most people, including leftists, fail to realise it.

[ComradeMan]

Fucking THIS. It irks me how Christianity enjoys such privilege in society and most people, including leftists, fail to realise it.

Like all the oppressed workers in Italy, the majority of whom are Catholic. In fact if you did a class analysis of religious belief you'd probably find that the oppressed masses are the most believing.

What is this privilege exactly of which you speak?

What really irks me is how much "scientific" atheists preach about empiricism and logic and an academic approach to subjects unless it's their pet hate, i.e. religion in which case they often behave like the worst examples of badly-educated and bigotted religionists, ironically the very people they attack so often.

[Revolution starts with U]

That doesnt change the fact that Christianity holds such special privelage that its mythology is cleverly allowed to be regarded as theology (this goes for abrahmic religions in general. It started w christianity and was only later appplied to others).
It is true tho. My uncle once smacked his son upside the head because he said at a dinner he didn't believe in God. And my my uncle is no fan of religionn. But still, in prole culture, atheism is held in very low regard. These people are generally anti religion because they see it as corrupting god's influence, rather than seeing God as prime corruptor, like an atheist would.

[ZeroNowhere]

Ignostic; believes God, the soul, the afterlife, even were they to exist, are absolutely pointless to discuss or try to understand.
Isn't that just apatheism, rather than ignosticism as such?

[Revolution starts with U]

Could be. Tho I think apatheism would be ignosticism in favor of God. It has a connotation of "its pointless to discuss, so don't (ill hold my own belief). Whereas I come from "its pointless to discuss, so point this out at every oppurtunity you can. Religion is absurd."
I am in no way apathetic about my non-belief in God.

[ComradeMan]

That doesnt change the fact that Christianity holds such special privelage that its mythology is cleverly allowed to be regarded as theology (this goes for abrahmic religions in general. It started w christianity and was only later appplied to others).

That is a bit lame- theology is the study of religions, err.... last time I looked Christianity was a religion. Now there is some debate to the application of the word to non-Christian religions, well, call it philosophy-theology for Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism(s), Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, etc etc etc..

No one forces you to study theology though do they?


It is true tho. My uncle once smacked his son upside the head because he said at a dinner he didn't believe in God. And my my uncle is no fan of religionn. But still, in prole culture, atheism is held in very low regard. These people are generally anti religion because they see it as corrupting god's influence, rather than seeing God as prime corruptor, like an atheist would.

I knew someone who got eggs thrown at them by fellow communists because they said Marx may have been wrong about something.

[Revolution starts with U]

That is a bit lame- theology is the study of religions, err.... last time I looked Christianity was a religion. Now there is some debate to the application of the word to non-Christian religions, well, call it philosophy-theology for Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism(s), Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, etc etc etc..
Theology technically is the study of theos, or deity (God). I think religious studies is the study of religion. But either way. In western society (my apologies, I left that out of my last comment ;)) it is generally regarded that only the abrahmic religions study theology, and the others merely have mythology. It's a cultural prejudice that I find absurd. It is no more/less mythology/theology whether it is belief that one god maintains everything, or 60000.


No one forces you to study theology though do they?
My parents did ;)
(Catholic school, byzantine... :sneaky:) The priests and nuns did. It was believe or burn in hell. Seriously... is that a choice?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFyuhTwi_OE :D


I knew someone who got eggs thrown at them by fellow communists because they said Marx may have been wrong about something.
The truth is found outside all fixed positions ~ Bruce Lee
If being reasonable is not marxist, I am not a marxist ~ paraphrased from Marx

[heiss93]

A specific theological debate that was of interest to dialectical materialists was the controversy in the 14th century between the nominalists and realists. The so-called realists claimed that terms were real, similar to Platonic forms, while the nominalists argued that universals were just the sum total of concrete objects.
http://leninist.biz/en/1978/MLP519/02.3-Materialism.and.Idealism.in.Medieval.Philosophy

Theology was the form in which all intellectual (and in fact class-based) discussion took place from the fall of Rome till Luther, and so from a historical materialist point of view there is as much reason to study theology to understand the feudal mode of production as there is to read the Greco-Roman classics. Even today certain neo-thomist philosophers have provided defenses of "naive" realism, that might be of use to materialists. And I think the theological current that comes out of the tradition of German Idealism, could be of use in understanding dialectics. Lenin studied the basically theological writings of the British Hegelians like Bradley.

The theologians of the Radical Reformation represent the first class consciousness of revolutionary communism. And so they are as relevant as the writings of say Babeuf.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Like all the oppressed workers in Italy, the majority of whom are Catholic. In fact if you did a class analysis of religious belief you'd probably find that the oppressed masses are the most believing.

I know that already. Doesn't make it right.


What is this privilege exactly of which you speak?

The same privilege that ensures a visit to the UK by the pope is funded out of money stolen from British workers, some of whom didn't appreciate their money being used to prop up the legitimacy of the Papacy, an organisation known to protect child molesters and other rapists from recieving justice.


What really irks me is how much "scientific" atheists preach about empiricism and logic and an academic approach to subjects unless it's their pet hate, i.e. religion in which case they often behave like the worst examples of badly-educated and bigotted religionists, ironically the very people they attack so often.

Yawn. Get back to me when atheists start murdering abortion doctors, murdering homosexuals, flaying female flesh for showing an inch of it, destroying world heritage sites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan#Dynamiting_and_destruction.2C_Ma rch_2001), murdering "witch children" (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-af-nigeria-child-witches,0,5276725.story), or anything like that. Not to mention the previously mentioned protection of rapists.

If you seriously think my aggressive debating style is anywhere remotely as bad as the shit that has been pulled in the name of religion... then you're beyond fucking stupid, and well into the realms of dishonest apologism.

[ComradeMan]

I know that already. Doesn't make it right. The same privilege that ensures a visit to the UK by the pope is funded out of money stolen from British workers, some of whom didn't appreciate their money being used to prop up the legitimacy of the Papacy, an organisation known to protect child molesters and other rapists from recieving justice..

Is any of that to be found in the New Testaments of Gnostic Gospels?

You are using the same argumentation style that rightwingers use against communism, like the Black Book of Communism etc. Because Pol Pot and Stalin were bad etc then communism is inherently evil. You would scorn someone here with the latter argumentation yet you apply it with the former.


Yawn. Get back to me when atheists start murdering abortion doctors, murdering homosexuals, flaying female flesh for showing an inch of it, destroying world heritage sites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan#Dynamiting_and_destruction.2C_Ma rch_2001), murdering "witch children" (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-af-nigeria-child-witches,0,5276725.story), or anything like that. Not to mention the previously mentioned protection of rapists...

Firstly in terms of Christianity there is no justification for the acts that you describe whatsoever and most mainstream "normal" Christians would condemn them. The same with the Taliban blowing up the Buddhas in Afghanistan- if that were really a "commandment" of Islam then most of Egypt would have been demolished wouldn't it? The same in Persia and Iraq.

Cuba was/is an atheist state and so was the USSR- homosexuality was persecuted and abortion was illegal- the death penalty existed too. China is officially an atheist state too... great track record on human rights.

Oops.


If you seriously think my aggressive debating style is anywhere remotely as bad as the shit that has been pulled in the name of religion... then you're beyond fucking stupid, and well into the realms of dishonest apologism.

You don't have a debating style, you just have ignorant rants- you spout out factually incorrect or disingenuous half-truths, you presume an arrogant position of being "wiser" than others and when you get pulled up on it- through the very application of the objectivity and empiricism you would laud, but applied to your argumentation- you go off on an insulting tirade of abuse- like a spoilt child smashing the pieces of a chess board when they start to lose.

Fail.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Is any of that to be found in the New Testaments of Gnostic Gospels?

Who gives a shit? There's plenty of fluffy peace and love crap in religious texts that's trotted out when the religion in question is weak, but when the priesthood get their grubby paws on some real power, that anodyne crap gets dropped quicker than a hot potato and it's inquisitions and theocratic bullshit again.


You are using the same argumentation style that rightwingers use against communism, like the Black Book of Communism etc. Because Pol Pot and Stalin were bad etc then communism is inherently evil. You would scorn someone here with the latter argumentation yet you apply it with the former.

Difference being, the religionists have had millennia to get their act together, while socialists have had a couple of centuries at the very most; the worst of socialism has nothing on the worst of religion.


Firstly in terms of Christianity there is no justification for the acts that you describe whatsoever and most mainstream "normal" Christians would condemn them. The same with the Taliban blowing up the Buddhas in Afghanistan- if that were really a "commandment" of Islam then most of Egypt would have been demolished wouldn't it? The same in Persia and Iraq.

Religious adherents justify and condemn shit as and when it suits them - there's no objective standard for determining whether the peaceable or bellicose manifestations of a religion is correct.


Cuba was/is an atheist state and so was the USSR- homosexuality was persecuted and abortion was illegal- the death penalty existed too. China is officially an atheist state too... great track record on human rights.

Oops.

Turns out that even when they become "socialist", nations still hang on to pre-existing prejudices... what a shock! :rolleyes:


You don't have a debating style, you just have ignorant rants- you spout out factually incorrect or disingenuous half-truths, you presume an arrogant position of being "wiser" than others and when you get pulled up on it- through the very application of the objectivity and empiricism you would laud, but applied to your argumentation- you go off on an insulting tirade of abuse- like a spoilt child smashing the pieces of a chess board when they start to lose.

Fail.

This coming from the guy who attempts to put me on the same level as antisocial bigots who go out of their way to harass people... pardon me for not taking a word you say on this subject seriously.

[ComradeMan]

^^^^^^^^ You haven't answered one point other than your own ignorant ranting.

You disappoint me.

The persecution of homosexuals, anti-abortion policies etc were all justified in those times and places by socialism, not in spite of it.

Fail again- ignoramus.