I also spoke wrote about the French Revolution and other near-revolutions of the 19th century.
I can see your point that Marx COULD be seen as a leftist reactionary and not a leftist liberal, but again, he offered a theory and what his followers brought was leftist liberalism.
Darwinism and eugenics were certainly popular theories in the mid to late 19th century, but that was as far as they got.
But ultimately, what I concluded with is the FACT that the widespread leftist attacks of lefist liberalism can probably be best dated from the late 19th or early 20th century.
However, since we are arbitrarily dating positions, biblical literalism and Christian fundamentalism isn’t “2000 years old”; both of those movement are a response to theological liberalism and modernism;
Nonsense. Prior to the 20th century, ALL Christian churches (Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox) taught Creation, denounced premarital sex, condemned contraception, abortion, homosexuality and divorce. What would be called "fundamentalism" today was the NORM in EVERY Christian church two centuries ago.
and I meant that arguments from convention, by themselves, are fallacious.
So, does this mean that you support the homosexual agenda? This question can be answered with a simple YES or NO, any explanation is really nothing more than an affirmitive response followed by an attempt to convert others to the same point of view.
” Nonsense. Prior to the 20th century, ALL Christian churches (Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox) taught Creation, denounced premarital sex, condemned contraception, abortion, homosexuality and divorce. What would be called “fundamentalism” today was the NORM in EVERY Christian church two centuries ago. “
Correct, and to argue otherwise is a denial of historical fact.
Your comments are excellent, please add my name to your small ping list!
1) Theory is needed for action, therefore the birth of left liberalism (and all ideologues) should be seen as when the theory was birthed in a robust form.
2) Marx was extremely critical of liberalism and the thinkers that have refined the liberal ideology; it’s very reductionist to label him as a “liberal”
3) in response to my flippant comment about fundamentalism, first it is false that all Christian churches preached the core tenants of fundamentalism (Creation, Divinity of Christ, sola scripture, etc.) 200 years ago. Off the top of my head, I can think of three Christian theological movements that pre-date the 20th century that reject some (or all) major aspect of fundamentalist theology; namely the Unitarian, the Universalist and Society of Friends (Quakers) movements. Setting this aside, my larger point was the questions of if the Bible should be read literally, or if Creation account was history, only makes sense if there are options. Prior to the advent of theological liberalism such questions did not exist because there were no “options” available. It is, therefore, silly to insist that for 2000 years biblical literalism and fundamentalism were the norm; They weren’t because such concepts only came into existence as a reaction to Modernism. It doesn’t make sense to say people held a positive belief that the Creation was history if any other thought wasn’t possible.
(and the the Anglican Church came into existence to allow for divorce)
4) No I don’t support the homosexual “agenda.” Through to be fair, there are aspects of my political beliefs that extend to supporting “gay” rights; i.e. I have no problem with gays and lesbians exercising their freedom of assembly to have pride parades or hook-up. But bad arguments are bad arguments.