I'm sorry... you seem to be well versed in theological abnormalities. I
shall not define it, but give you a hint so you can look it up.
'Liberation theology' is a term, usually referencing Roman Catholic
priest who feel it is their primary purpose to help the poor by
promoting communistic/socialistic causes, often in South and Central
America. The liberation comes form breaking the chains of their
oppressors and freeing them to live in a drab, gray world.
This philosophy has been thoroughly repudiated by the previous Pope and
his successor. It describes the mindset of placing the physical above
the spiritual. It is this thinking that brought people like Che Guevera
help from certain parts of the Catholic Church.
If you follow that up, you will see much more of the thinking expressed
here. Just because you are a Methodist does not render you immune from
this thinking, but it does not make it mandatory either.
One more thing... I have attempted to answer your question by treating
it as a serious inquiry for knowledge. I would appreciate the same
courtesy.
Larry Miller
-----Original Message-----
From: Leland Jackson [mailto:lelandj /AT/ mail .D.O.T smvfp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 9:06 AM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] Shut it down. Just shut it down.
You seem to be implying that I am a [ 'liberation theology' viewpoint ]
kind of Christian. I'm not sure what that is. I'm a Methodist.
Regards,
LelandJ
Larry Miller wrote:
>The primary purpose of touting the diversity of views is to shoot down
>the ideas of someone else by telling them not to be too confident.
>
>However, you are correct in saying there are many branches of
>Christianity... and there are many who claim to be Christian, using
>terms, etc. You have made your choice, and I have made mine. Keep in
>mind though that just because you believe something doesn't make it so,
>and just because someone proposes and interpretation doesn't mean it
has
>to be give equal weight with all others.
>
>I'm not the one you have to convince about the correctness of your
>views... so why try. You know we see things differently. Often I
>respond primarily so the unsuspecting reader is not left with the
>impression that the 'liberation theology' viewpoint is generally
>accepted. In my work, I've even spent time at the NCC headquarters in
>NYC. One quote comes to mind about them and their affiliates. The
>'have the form of godliness but deny the power thereof.'
>
>It is my humble, but accurate opinion that this applies in many cases,
>particularly when one thinks they are fulfilling the mandate to help
the
>poor by promoting government programs. You help the poor by getting
>involved and writing out your own check! For most liberals, it is a
>soothing thought to say they've encouraged the government to spend
money
>helping these people when they have done nothing themselves.
>
>You see, we have Christians in name only just like we have Republicans
>In Name Only. <g>
>
>Larry Miller
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Leland Jackson [mailto:lelandj@mail.smvfp.com]
>Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 10:38 AM
>To: ProFox Email List
>Subject: Re: [OT] Shut it down. Just shut it down.
>
>Larry Miller wrote:
>
>
>
>>And why do they have to be mutually exclusive. By your definition,
>>someone would have to repudiate any influence of a church they say
they
>>believe in. This would make them a hypocrite... something you say you
>>have a problem with... if it is a Christian. On the other hand, a
>>Christian can certainly understand the will of the people.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>It seem the whole issue of Theocracy versus Democracy goes right over
>you're, and President Bush's, head. Perhaps the issue will become
>better defined for you over the coming days, so you can better grasp
the
>
>issue, and what is at stake.
>
>
>
>>I choose to have more confidence in someone who says he prays and
reads
>>the Bible than someone who says he does not. At least I know where
his
>>influences come from. The other guys, who knows, it might be
>>
>>
>principle,
>
>
>>bribery or just plain perversity.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>People throughout the Middle East, and around the world. pray and read
>their Bibles (eg The Koran). They are very religious and devoted to
>God in their Islamic faith. Why do you fear all of them, or do you
only
>
>fear certain segments of them? Why would it be any different in the
>Christian religion?
>
>
>
>>What you don't quite comprehend is that some of us get involved in the
>>system because of the 'bigger' issues, but much of the effort expended
>>comes into play on local and mundane decisions such as placement of
>>turning lanes and middle school locations.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>So what?
>
>
>
>>If you are truly afraid of the Christian influence, you might want to
>>look at the Bible you are fond of quoting for an explanation. It
tells
>>us that to the fellow believer, one is a fragrant aroma, but to those
>>who are perishing, the Christian is the smell of death. I sincerely
>>hope this is not your case. I'll give you a hint... it's in the NT.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Their are many branches of Christianity. Within each denomination,
>there are many more segments such as liberal, moderate, fundamentalist,
>and Radical Religious Right. Each of these different faces of
>Christianity believe they have a monopoly on God, and defined God in a
>nutshell. Many of these scattered pieces believe they are the only
true
>
>church, and anyone that does not belong, or was not lead, to become a
>member of their particular persuasion of Christianity, are lost and
>doomed to an eternal hell. The same passage of the Bible will be
>interpreted differently by many of these branches of Christianity, so
>why do you offer you're selected passage of the Bible, as an absolute
>truth to support you're argument that God favor you over me? Do you
>think God love you, and you're interpretation of his word, over all the
>other branches of Christianity? Do you think God loves you more than
he
>
>love me or anyone else?
>
>Without love, understanding, an some sibilance of a relationship with
>God, passages from the Bible are empty dogma, and only have meaning in
>attempts to support whatever personal agenda others may have. The
dogma
>
>is corrupted to fit the desires of peoples heart, not to fulfill God's
>will. God will be done; regardless of any effort to corrupt God's will
>to fit anyone elses purpose or desire. Nobody has a monopoly on God,
>for God is available and open to all that truly seek. God is love.
>
>So do not worry about me; because, I'm OK with God, and I'll be just
>fine. Rather, you be sure to spend a little time each day with God
>through reading the Bible, and prayer, that you might grow to love God
>more, and in doing so, learn to love yourself and others. Then God's
>purpose that you might get to know him better, gowning in your love
>faith, and understanding, will be severed. In practicing these
>principles, you will grow spiritually in our three dimensional,
physical
>
>world, so that you will be made complete, when reborn into his
spiritual
>
>kingdom.
>
>Regards,
>
>LelandJ
>
>
>
>
>>Larry Miller
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Leland Jackson [mailto:lelandj /AT/ mail .D.O.T smvfp.com]
>>Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 12:54 PM
>>To: ProFox Email List
>>Subject: Re: [OT] Shut it down. Just shut it down.
>>
>>Hi Larry,
>>
>>The problem, as I see it, is we cannot have two masters. Either the
>>government's master is a Church/State religion, or the government's
>>master is the American people who elected them to server. If our
>>government's master is the Church/State, then our government officials
>>will server the Church/State. If the government's master is the
>>American people, then our elected government official will serve the
>>American people. You cannot mix and match; that just doesn't work.
>>
>>
>Out
>
>
>>government cannot serve two masters. Democracy and Theocracy are
>>mutually exclusive, so we must chose one or the other.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>LelandJ
>>
>>
>>Larry Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I was trying to be polite. Leland's thinking is harming me in
several
>>>ways... Those who follow his thinking are attempting to see to it
that
>>>parental authority is secondary to that of social engineers... ie.
The
>>>state can take a girl for an abortion with neither the parents
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>knowledge
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>nor consent. We are told that criminals need to be understood rather
>>>than punished. This leads to early release and more crimes being
>>>committed. I am harmed by this as there is an increase in the
>>>opportunity for me to be victimized and my insurance rates are higher
>>>because of higher crime rates.
>>>
>>>We have higher defense costs and increased risk to our selves and our
>>>property because the darling of Leland's thinking, Sick Willie missed
>>>several opportunities to take bin Laden into custody before 9/11...
>>>
>>>
>not
>
>
>>>to mention the several thousand fellow citizens who lost their lives
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>and
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>the families now living without husbands and wives.
>>>
>>>Yes, ideas have consequences. There are real costs to following the
>>>liberal agenda. I've just mentioned a few. I can get more personal
>>>
>>>
>if
>
>
>>>you like, but I don't believe that is necessary.
>>>
>>>One last point... why is it that you think your ideas have no
>>>consequence, yet you fight so bitterly about mine? That was
>>>rhetorical... I don't expect an answer to that any more than I get
>>>answers to any of my other questions. <g>
>>>
>>>Larry Miller
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Leland Jackson [mailto:lelandj@mail.smvfp.com]
>>>Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 1:55 PM
>>>To: ProFox Email List
>>>Subject: Re: [OT] Shut it down. Just shut it down.
>>>
>>>Larry, you seem to think that "they" are hurting you in some way.
Who
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>are "they"? In your post you only refer to them using personal
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>pronouns
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>like "their terms", "they have a choice", "their people", "they can
no
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>longer claim", "these people", etc. Your sounding paranoid. I don't
>>>think anyone out to hurt you.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>LelandJ
>>>
>>>Larry Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>They only understand things in their terms. The death penalty is
>>>>imposed because it is the only way a society can make the point that
>>>>taking an innocent life is completely unacceptable. When a nation
is
>>>>attacked, they have the choice of letting their people be killed or
>>>>taking action to prevent it. The key is innocence. When people
take
>>>>certain actions, they can no longer claim this kind of protection.
>>>>
>>>>But that's all a smokescreen. The real problem these people have is
>>>>with traditional Judeo-Christian ethics. If traditionalists take a
>>>>position, these people have to say 'wait a minute, I have a better
>>>>idea'.
>>>>
>>>>We can thank them for the deterioration of our society as their
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>'better
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>ideas' (apologies to Ford Motor Company) have opened a Pandora's Box
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>of
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>problems. If there is any absolute in their thinking, it is the
>>>>
>>>>
>moral
>
>
>>>>and intellectual superiority that comes with looking down on
everyone
>>>>who believes in God, home and country.
>>>>
>>>>Larry Miller
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Ed Leafe [mailto:ed /AT/ leafe .D.O.T com]
>>>>Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 4:49 PM
>>>>To: ProFox Email List
>>>>Subject: Re: [OT] Shut it down. Just shut it down.
>>>>
>>>>On May 27, 2005, at 4:44 PM, Scott Ramey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Respect for life is a moral absolute
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Absolute, unless of course there is the death penalty, or war,
>>>>or no
>>>>health insurance, or...
>>>>
>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>> ___/
>>>> /
>>>> __/
>>>>/
>>>>____/
>>>>Ed Leafe
>>>>http://leafe.com/
>>>>http://dabodev.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2005 Larry Miller |
|
