VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 03:12:02 11/21/01 Wed
Author: Clare
Subject: Re: Defense of conservatives
In reply to: Tom 's message, "Re: Defense of conservatives" on 19:54:16 11/16/01 Fri

There is no book of
>>liberalism in the U.S., but there definitely is The
>>Bible, The Pope and The Southern Methodist Church, who
>>dictate actions.
>
>Not every conservative is a Christian, and not every
>Christian is a conservative. You confuse the issue
>when you mix and match those terms.
>
>Everyone believes in a set of moral absolutes from
>which their political beliefs flow. Whether or not
>these absolutes come from a belief in a god is
>irrelevant.

Jamey: I have to say that Tom makes some good points here. As someone who was raised in (and sometimes still attends) a Christian-based religion (Pope and all), I am definitely NOT a conservative. While I agree that a majority of my fellow Christians fall under the umbrella of conservativism, there are quite a range under there as there are also many liberals. And many of us are not fundamentalists.

>>If there ever were presented
>>scientific proof that evolution did not exist,
>>liberals would join with conservatives in dismissing
>>it. The contrary is not true. That is certain, since
>>ALL scientific evidence points to the fact that Homo
>>sapiens did evolve from a root species just as the
>>other four species of great apes, (chimpanzees,
>>bonobos, organgutans and gorillas)did.
>
>Books have been written about why this is untrue.
>Scientists have altered their theory of evolution to
>explain the lack of physical evidence supporting the
>evolution theory (Punctuated equilibrium).

And books have been written about why it is true.

>In any event, this is not a political issue. My
>original point concerned political conservatives, not
>religion or science.

>>Like Ronnie
>>said, "Why can't it be both?" That is there is a
>>God(dess) with a Plan and She(he) did it through the
>>natural process that is consistent with scientific
>>fact.
>
>Many (maybe even most) religious people believe this.
>I personally believe it is possible.

for the record, that is alsomy personal belief.

>>I think that it is sheer arogance and
>>anthropocentrism (and misogyny) to feel that He
>>created Man in His Image.

You know Jamey, some people don't get to turn on their computer until very late. Some of them may even have earn a Masters degree and have a dictionary nearby. But even so, the big words are still a pain to deal with at this hour.

>The vast majority of people, whether or not they
>believe God created humans in his own image, consider
>humans to be more important than animals. (You might
>be an exception to this, which is fine.) Is an
>athiest being arrogant when he eats a hamburger? If
>so, then your argument cuts against all of the 95% of
>people that disagree with you, rather than
>conservatives. Unless you consider anyone who is not
>a vegan to be conservative.

What??? Now you've gone too far, Tom. True this thread got a bit off base, but really, Vegan=Liberalism?? Now you're just making fun of Jamey. Come on now, say you're sorry...

>>I think, if there is a
>>creator, he created all sentient beings out of love,
>>and furthermore this creator is not a self-centered
>>meddling egotist, but is probably off in some far-off
>>solar system creating life elsewhere, and letting us
>>take care of ourselves.
>
>It's fine that you believe that. However, why is it
>so strange to believe that, if there is a creator, he
>cares enough about his creation to stay involved in
>it? Also, you are putting limits on this creator by
>saying he is in some far off solar system. If he is
>powerful enough to create life, why would you believe
>he is limited by space and time?

I personally like to believe in my own little fantasy of God. Basically, I believe that God got the ball rolling and is watching, and caring. Now whether God sometimes puts a hand in to help is a question. There are times when I believe God does. There are others (most particularly things like Hitler and Nazis, etc....)when I can't believe that an involved God would just stand by and watch...

What I really hate (not that either of you have done this) are people who actually think they KNOW what God is or isn't and try to force their opinions down other people throats.
>>It is true that I believe
>>what I do because I love animals and nature, and you
>>are probably a conservative Christian because you have
>>a deep down contempt for animals and nature. In that
>>sense I agree with you.

Oh, come on! That's really low. For all you know Tom has a dog and lives in the mountains, where he communes with nature every day. Do I have to separate you two?


>Are you saying that you can tell that I am probably a
>conservative Christian because I have a deep down
>contempt for animals and nature? Or are you saying
>that the reason I am a conservative Christian is
>probably because I have a deep down contempt for
>animals and nature? There is no basis for either of
>these positions. If you think there is, please let me
>know.
>
>It is true that I, like most people, believe humans
>are more important than animals. If you consider this
>to be "contempt" for animals, that's your opinion.
>However, the vast majority of people agree with me, so
>your argument does not cut only against conservatives.

Personally, I don't think I have contempt for animals. If an animal seriously hurts a person, I have no trouble with the idea that it be killed. So I guess that means I think peaple are more important. I also wish we were less inclined to put a minimall in every empty lot that pops up. Sometimes I think we're going to run out of open space far sooner than we think.

Now it's time for me to turn off my computer and go to sleep. I hope you two make up... Maybe we should start a new conversation. We could talk about something else. Hey, how about talking about Boston Public? Just a thought...

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-4
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.