|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Hated by the Liberals
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
Elizabeth Anne, the sentiment may have some well-meant elements, but we've covered the unfairness of it in other threads. (A)That attitude is not one that people apply to other disagreements. (B) Prolife people are very active in all sorts of ministries to women and babies, and it gets pretty infuriating to hear for 20 years that you're not doing anything. This is a favored attack of pro-choice groups, but I find it to be based on prejudicial stereotype rather than fact.
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
Unless you personally plan to donate money to help an impoverished single mother and her child survive (And I'm talking about a mother and her already born child), kindly [trying to think of a more polite but no less forceful way to say "shut up" but am at a loss for words]. There's plenty of other threads on this topic anyway.
Why? Why why? Why on earth does this insane and deeply disturbing argument repeatedly come up?
I have never understood why the pro-choice lobby appeal to economic arguments to justify abortion.
IF there is an innocent human life at stake, no economic argument will be persausive to anyone of moral integrity. No decent person would ever justify the taking of a human life for economic benefit, or, if they did, why only unborn life?
If there is not a human life at stake, then no economic argument is needed, because there is no case to be answered. You don't need to justify the benefits of abortion because there is no act taking place requiring justification.
Hence the only relevant question is: "Is a human life taken when an abortion takes place?". The only sensible defence of pro-choice is based upon giving a convincing argument for answering "no" to that question.
If you can prove that point convincingly, victory to the pro-choice lobby.
You don't have to bother even mentioning the economic, social or emotional benefits of abortion, you can simply hammer home the central point that the fetus isn't a human being...therefore there is no human rights ethical issue at stake.
The fact that after 30 years of debate the pro-choice lobby are still appealing to socio-economic benefits of abortions makes it sound suspiciously like they don't have a strong case on this central issue. If they did then surely that would be the drum they would choose to bang loudest?
Yet I have never come across a pro-choice person who made the non-human nature of a fetus the linchpin of their argument for allowing abortion.
If I did, and their argument was convincing..I'd become pro-choice right then and there on the spot.
I'm sold on the benefits of abortion to women and society, provided it doesn't mean taking human life. So come on pro-choice campaigners: convince me abortion isn't taking a human life and I will gladly join your number and campaign fervently for you.
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
Matt, no pro-choice person with any sense will try to convince you that to perform an abortion is not to take a human life.
The point of the pro-choice stance is that there are instances (medical and non-medical) where the taking of a human life may be justified.
I trust that when you qualify that you will not be going into O&G or paediatrics.....
cheers,
m (been there , done that)
--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
So come on pro-choice campaigners: convince me abortion isn't taking a human life and I will gladly join your number and campaign fervently for you.
Wanders through with hostly toasting fork in hand
If anyone does wish to take Matt up on his challenge/offer, please do so in Purgatory. It looks like there's an abortion thread already there.
Viki, hellhost
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
There sure is. Please join us there!
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
The point of the pro-choice stance is that there are instances (medical and non-medical) where the taking of a human life may be justified.
If you read that sentence out of context and didn't know the "human life" in question was fetal then it would make the hair of any mild mannered liberal stand on end.
Which returns to the central point that some discrimination between "human life" in the womb and "human life" outside of it.
You can't possibly say you mean the same thing in both cases when you say "human life" else your argument that "there are instances where the taking of a human life may be justified" should hold good for the taking of, say, a 2 year old human life as well as a 20 week old one.
It is this implied difference and it's justification I am interested in, and need to be convinced of, whatever way you choose to slice up the semantics of it.
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
oops..just spotted the hosts redirection upstairs.....sorry.
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
the liberals tend to imply a "moral high ground" that conservatives do not.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Oh. You're serious.
quote:
For example, a conservative may criticise your view on homosexuality, because they say it is in conflict with scripture, but all they are really therefore saying is that you have made a mistake in your judgement of scripture. If they are a decent sort of person they will assume it to be an honest mistake. They may try and "correct" you and you may find that patronising, but they need not be necessarily saying you have your entire ethical gyroscope out of kilter.
But that others' ethics are skewed or non-existent is exactly what they say, over and over again.
quote:
However, if a liberal finds you offensive the ethical law that they are usually accusing you of having breached is always the same one, regardless of the particular issue: Intolerance, that is, the impinging of another individual's personal freedom of thought and/or action by your own belief.
Liberals most commonly object to things that are dehumanizing.
quote:
Very often, more than one party's freedom is in play, but the liberal will have, conciously or unconciously, made a personal judgement on which party is most important and will henceforth completely disregard any others, focusing the entire discussion around whether their chosen party's freedom is being impinged.
But conservatives don't do this?
Oh, that's right. You're serious.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Matt, Matt, I read your essay with tears streaming down my face!
Perhaps it's my mischievous inhabitation of evolution/creation boards, but if I were to list the things that theological conservatives have called me, this post wouldn't even be suitable for Hell.
Apparently I'm a ravening wolf in sheep's clothing. I am a cafeteria Christian. I will never enter heaven. I'm taking orders from an atheist conspiracy. And so on.
I have to disagree with you on a personal experience basis. When I have gone to churches more conservative than me, I have been labelled as a dangerous liberal. I have been told to shut up or put up. Or, of course, go away. I've been made unwelcome generally. Conservatives have frequently doubted that I am a Christian at all.
Now I go to a very liberal church - I often joke that the bell at St Marks doesn't go "Bong bong", it goes "Spong spong". We've had conferences from Borg, Crossan and Spong in the last three years. The church is probably as far from me theologically than the evangelical churches I speak of. But you know what? They have no problem with me. My Christianity is never doubted. The validity of my opinions is accepted.
The point is this - I think many conservatives have a scale in their mind from "conservative" through to "liberal" through to "not Christian at all". So if you are on the liberal side of them you are in danger of dropping into the "not Christian at all" category. Liberals do not see it that way. We may think Conservatives are wrong about a whole load of things, but we never suggest that we will not see them in heaven.
Those of us that believe in heaven, anyway. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
While Karl has a point (I've been considered "not a Christian" on some occasions) I've also been faced with a sort of intellectual arrogance from my liberal brothers and sisters, in a sort of "you believe in the literal resurrection? Gosh, how quaint and benighted" sort of way.
I find this equally galling.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
ummmm....I believe in the literal resurrection .
Does that make me a conservative??!!
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
Mike:
Nope. But then, not all conservatives (as I really hope you've realised by now) are hardline "fundamentalist" nutcases, just as not all liberals are unbelieving and intellectually arrogant.
I know people who are far more conservative than me, and people who are far more liberal, all of whom I'm fine with - but on both sides you get your scumbags. It's a fact of life.
Gunner in his OP wasn't complaining about the lack of conservatives, really. He was just complaining about the lack of people who agree with him.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
Conservative Christian: Man[sic]kind is basically evil and in need of salvation, which will come by the grace of God leading all of us backward in time to the Roots of the Truth.
Liberal Christian: Human[sic]kind is basically good and already on the road to salvation, which will come as the grace of God leads all of us forward in time to a New Absolutely Relative and Inclusive Truth.
No one has picked up on this gem of a post, so I will.
I thought this from Jim T was absolutely fantastic. I think it's just about spot on. What do the liberals think? Has Jim come up with a precise and succinct definition of our differences which we all agree with?
I see a problem with it though. The two sentences are basically 180 degree opposites to each other are they not? Statement 2 is pretty much an inversion of statement 1.
I mean, if what Jim has written is true, and I believe it is, isn't it rather strange that both groups fight for the label "Christian" when they appear to be saying opposite things?? Why doesn't one of us ditch it? To say these two statements flatly contradictory statements can fall, meaningfully, into the same catagory of belief is like saying black is white.
So why bother? Why the persistent attempts to mantain a union between two groups which are as unmixable in their philosophy as oil and water?
I'm not saying we have to hate each other or anything, but oughtn't the dialogue between liberals and conservatives be better observed as an "inter-faith" dialogue, rather than an "intra-faith" dialogue?
I suppose in practice it often is more like that anyway, but in theory we all like to deny this, it makes us uncomfortable.
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
gbuchanan
Shipmate
# 415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Now, my point was, that when a liberal takes issue with something that someone has said, 99 times out of 100 it is on grounds of imposing on another individuals liberty.
...it is one reason, but not the only one, and I'd argue used more often by libertarians, often arch-conservative, than liberals as such, at least by UK understanding of those terms
quote:
Not imposing upon another individual's liberty is an extremely high moral virtue, hence if a liberal is accusing you of it, they are accusing you of a morally very serious "sin".
...and stating that, e.g. someone's view promotes sexual depravity is not, for a Christian, a serious sin?
quote:
A conservative on the other hand may only be accusing you of being mistaken in your biblical interpretation.
...or of bad taste in clothing - you're not making a reasonable comparison of gravity here, are you? Moral decadence is more common, and I'd argue, more comparable...
quote:
Of course, an obnoxious conservative can say this in a nasty way, and a nice liberal can accuse you in a very respectful and polite way. I'm not awfully bothered by their manner. I was referring to the philosophical implications of what they are saying.
...and the conservative hardliner can tell you that you are Satan's own assistant in just that variety of manners...
quote:
Conservatives derive their morality on the basis of what is dictated in scripture
...I'd more argue that they argue for a morality of their preference from the basis of an external authority (the Bible). Frankly, the morality often comes first & the support is found for it. I think thus far they are little different to most Liberals...
quote:
Liberals derive their ideas of morality based on what they feel to be self evidently true...because they don't like being dicatated to.
...I think the word "feel" is unnecessarily weak - more often "convicted" is a word more commonly used, and in that conviction, though differing in conclusion, often not so removed from the conservative.
quote:
Now, if you have a disagreement with a conservative it can simply be a matter of interpretation of those dictated laws.
No, most proper conservatives believe that there is no scope for error in the interpretation - there is the one, received, interpretation. Anything else is heresy at least...
quote:
But liberal morality comes from supposedly "self evident truths", but if you don't see them. to be such....then clearly you must be blind to something which should be self evident. If you don't "see" it, then presumably you are to morality what a tone deaf person is to music, a kind of moral dunce.
...which sounds much like the conservatives understanding of differing opinion you've just given - that you are in some way blind or decieved - i.e. you're arguing that they are, in fact, the same... Certainly, I've heard conservatives argue just the above...
quote:
Therefore a liberal's attack on your morality is highly personal attack on your own internal moral compass.
...like telling a person who has just divorced their violent spouse that they are immoral isn't? (and, yes, I've seen conservatives do just that...)
Posts: 683 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
quote:
Conservative Christian: Man[sic]kind is basically evil and in need of salvation, which will come by the grace of God leading all of us backward in time to the Roots of the Truth.
Liberal Christian: Human[sic]kind is basically good and already on the road to salvation, which will come as the grace of God leads all of us forward in time to a New Absolutely Relative and Inclusive Truth.
No one has picked up on this gem of a post, so I will.
I thought this from Jim T was absolutely fantastic. I think it's just about spot on.
What about the idea that (hu)man[sic]kind was basically created to be good, that this goodness is still in God's plan, but has fallen into sin and is in need of salvation, but that salvation has already been made real, possibly even for those who have not heard about Jesus' death and resurrection, and the Grace of God is not bound by time (either past or future) but is leading those of us who will trust Him to the eternal Roots of Truth -- which, while Absolute, must often be understood in Relative contexts and with an eye to the way God may work Inclusively, redeeming all that is in us?
Not very Hellish, I'm afraid. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) Dammit! ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) Oh, wait, that was, so I'm covered.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
Merseymike said:
quote:
ummmm....I believe in the literal resurrection .
Does that make me a conservative??!!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) :faints:
Hoping to put the Punk out of commission for a couple of days ...
I also believe in the literal resurrection.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
Please give it a little time before you agree with MarkThePunk on anything, RuthW. I'm still recovering from the "I Dated a Republican" revelation.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lifeman
Troll
# 579
|
Posted
Well give Mark his due; he is a fan of the Dead Kennedys.
Posts: 746 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Matt, while I'm flattered, there was more humor than truth in my definitions. What I tried to show in the Conservative definition was a charicature of how they are viewed by Liberals and vice versa. While some Conservatives might view the charicature as not so unflattering, Liberals would probably find their's much more so. They would probably go more for something like "forward in time to an Ever-Clearing Picture of the Ultimately Unknowable Truth."
I do see what you are saying in terms of the differences being almost like completely different denominations. It comes out in works like The Meaning of Jesus by NT Wright (CS Lewis style conservative) and Marcus Borg (nearly Spong). A very central question is: was the Truth given long ago but we stubbornly refuse to recognize and obey it, or is the Truth continuously revealed to us in new manifold ways that change radically with time? I'm afraid I'm in the "new radical revelation" camp. So much so that I've gone over to the Unitarian/Universalists.
Just by the way because it's on subject, I bumped into Marcus Borg's office a few days ago. Yup. He's a professor at Oregon State and it looks like I will be taking a course from him on science and ethics. I'll have to tell him what a timid, cling-to-the-past (1960's) conservative I find him!
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
Merseymike, in some quarters believing in the literal resurrection does make you a conservative. Don't fight it, relax and enjoy it.
I think conservatives have learned to be unnecessarily defensive. Yes, it is true that people don't "get it," and ascribe ill motive to us rather than deal with the content of our thought. But we should expect that at this point.
There is an apples-and-oranges comparison in the argument that conservatives think you're not Christian and going to hell, but we nice liberals never do that. That's our point. You (generalization, pace) include too much. You can't draw any boundary of what's Christian and what isn't. Do we exclude too many? Probably. Lord, I hope so, because I'd hate to think that there were even fewer than that saved. But having the opposite sin is not a virtue. Feel free to think us judgemental or closed-minded. You could be right. But don't congratulate yourself on falling to starboard because it's not port.
RuthW you make a fair point in turning the self-righteousness accusation back on conservatives. All of us do it sometimes, and some of us do it all the time. My challenge to you (plural) is very serious, however. I have heard conservatives sometimes question their own righteousness and specifically guard against self-righteousness. I cannot recall a single instance of hearing a liberal do this. They do have two clever imitations of this, but not the real article. The first is chastising themselves for not going farther in their chosen direction than they have. This takes the form of (for example) "well, I don't know if I could do it, being human and all, but even if they were raping my wife we shouldn't meet violence with violence," or "I also find that selfishness in me when the government wants to raise taxes." It's just a nice way of saying "And if I believed as you did I'd really feel like a shitbag." Similarly, to accuse by apologising. "Christians have been allied with some tyrants, so we shouldn't be so quick to judge..." which would be fine, except that "we" means "you," because the other progressives and I certainly never did that. Bill Clinton was a master at this one.
The second is to never question whether one's position is actually more cruel, less moral. Of course refraining from war must always be more moral. Of course we should preserve the wilderness. Liberals will acknowledge that perhaps their idea lacks some practicality, that it may be only a noble dream, but never that their dream might actually be a nightmare.
Now that I have you all in infuriated disbelief, I will add to it. Browse the papers. Review the posts. You will seldom see the marks of self-questioning among conservatives, but you will never see it among liberals. There is an agony of soul, a scar of intellectual self-confrontation, that reveals itself if you let people talk long enough. And I don't see it.
You are of course free to start convincing me at any time.
--------------------
formerly Logician
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
If liberals seem that way, Logican, one reason why is they tend to focus on societal sins more than conservatives do, whereas conservatives tend to focus more on personal sins. And liberals, though often quite dogmatic on societal sin, usually are not as dogmatic as conservatives on personal sin.
Good point on the "boundaries" of what is Christian. I thank God that perfect theology is not a requirement for salvation. Trust in Jesus is. But even the lines between trusting in Him and not trusting in Him can be hard to see at times.
I better go before I start sounding like a liberal.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
Well everyone,
I fully accept that up to this point, my posts on this thread have been incredibly badly written to the point on unintelligibility.
I agree with what Ruth W and gbuchanan said, the point is I didn’t mean anything like what they thought I meant. Rather than try again to defend what I’ve written before and spend numerous posts saying “What I meant to say was this” I’ll just try again, this time illustrating with a little parable, not because I need to make it easier for you to understand, but because it will make it easier for me to put into words!
Once upon a time there was a community of lemmings. They had an elected council to make their decisions, each member of which represented a section of the lemming community:
Jack – A very liberal lemming, but not awfully bright.
Lucy – A liberal lemming, but very clever.
Peter – A rather dim, but very cautious lemming.
Mildred – An evil nasty lemming who just wanted to spoil everyone’s fun.
One day a council was called because a lot of the lemmings had a deep built in desire to go and jump off cliffs.
“We should all be able to jump off cliffs if we want! It would be fun!” said Jack.
“Fun? Fun? Quick! Ban it!” said Mildred.
“It doesn’t sound a like a good idea to me, I don’t think it should be allowed” said Peter
“Yes, although I generally don’t like having laws, in this case we shouldn’t allow lemmings to go jumping off the cliffs because they will all die” said Lucy.
“Awwwwww! You’re all spoilsports! You’re all restrictive inhibited conservatives and discriminatory against those of us who have an innate desire to cliff jump!” said Jack.
Still, it was put to a vote and the law “No cliff jumping” was passed by 3 votes to 1.
However, Lucy went away, and thought about it. Being naturally a liberal, she didn’t like having more laws restricting personal freedom than were strictly necessary, but in this case the facts of the matter made it necessary, jumping from a cliff would kill lemmings. But what if the facts changed?
She went away and invented parachutes. Now the lemmings could cliff jump all they wanted with no risk of death.
At the next council a new debate took place:
“We want to cliff jump! Cliff jumping rights for lemmings! Oppress us no more!” chanted Jack.
“I reluctantly had to vote in favour of a restrictive law last time” said Lucy, but I Think now the time has come to repeal it. The facts have changed.
“No! I like restrictive laws! I’ve seen lots of lemmings walking around with sad “I’m being oppressed” expressions on their faces, and I LOVE IT!! Besides, it’s probably good for their souls to live in misery or something” said Mildred.
“I thought we said cliff jumping wasn’t allowed?” said peter
“It wasn’t” said Lucy
“Well there you go then..cliff jumping is a bad thing” said peter.
“not anymore” said Lucy.
“Good and bad don’t change” said Peter
“no, but the facts do!” Said Lucy
After much debate, a vote was taken. It was a dead head 2-2. Lucy tried to swing Peter’s vote, but he was just a bit too thick to understand.
Eventually, many councils later, Peter finally “got” the whole parachute thing, and the oppressive cliff jumping laws were repealed 3-1. Mildred declared the society morally corrupt and that she would oppose the repeal till her dying day.
There! I hope you all enjoyed the story.
Now to my point….
All decent human beings surely want to be like Lucy or Jack in our morality? That is to say, we want to be as libertarian as possible wherever possible. Liberty is the highest moral ethic.
However, we all recognise that there must be restrictions on this moral imperative, because of the obviously destructive results of Jack’s unrestricted libertarian philosophy.
But the restrictions on liberty are not moral they are factual. The reason for the law was not (except in the warped mind of Mildred) a moral question. It was a matter of fact: Namely to do with the laws of gravity and their detrimental effect on small rodent’s health.
As soon as the facts changed, there was a moral imperative to push back the boundaries of liberty
And hence I reach the following conclusion.
When suggesting we should be more liberal than we are, we are suggestion a moral imperative
When suggesting we should be more conservative than we are, we are suggesting a factual necessity for restriction.
Now, when I say to someone “You should be more conservative” all I am saying is “The facts of the matter necessitate a more restrictive policy”. If we are in disagreement, it will be because of the facts of the matter and their potential consequence.
If there were no facts to consider, there would be no reason for not being more liberal.
On the other hand when I say to someone “you should be more liberal”, I am either in the same position as Lucy trying to convince the nice but dim Peter, namely trying to convince someone of a salient change in the facts, or our understanding of them, or else, my “should” is implying a moral imperative; appealing to the moral axiom of liberty.
I think all four characters exist in the real world. Probably on these boards.
I think a lot of morality was originally derived by Lucy types, but then hijacked by Mildreds.
For example:
quote:
...and stating that, e.g. someone's view promotes sexual depravity is not, for a Christian, a serious sin?
Sexual ethics would be the best example. Were there no factual consequences to sexual activity, surely we would ALL want to follow a “jack” line on this one?? I know I would!!
The only reason not to is because of factual implications: namely the negative emotional, physical and social implications of uncontrolled sexual activity?
However, some warped people have then created from this a strange idea of sexual chastity as if restriction in itself was some kind of virtue? Restriction for restriction’s sake is never a good thing. They have, in effect moved from a lucy perspective to a mildred one.
The key point I am making is that the continual moral push on our legal restrictions is outwards: to be more libertarian. However, the continual factual push is inwards: to be more conservative.
Hence, why to disagree with a libertarian is more likely to be a question of morality, while to disagree with a conservative is usually a factual question.
Apologies for the long post..but I made a hellishly bad job of explaining this before!
Matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
Weeeeeeeeee. bong
lemming falling with no parachute.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
Liberal/Conservativ/ism is a modernist construct. Both rely on over arching metanarratives. Metanarratives are dead ... er except for that one.
So we are in a state of flux. LLiberal/Conservativ/ism need to move beyond right/wrong language games, and instead embrace fictionalism.
Otherwise they are stinky and smelly and yucky and poo. Well that's my narrative and I am sticking to it.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
I mean, if what Jim has written is true, and I believe it is, isn't it rather strange that both groups fight for the label "Christian" when they appear to be saying opposite things?? Why doesn't one of us ditch it? To say these two statements flatly contradictory statements can fall, meaningfully, into the same catagory of belief is like saying black is white.
matt
But which one of us should 'ditch' the label 'Christian'?
For example, many of my conservative evangelical friends read their Bibles and come to the interpretation more or less proposed by Jim T's first definition; I have no problem regarding them as Christians. Does that mean, logically, I should not regard myself as a Christian, then? How does - in my case - my non-conservative interpretation of the Bible exclude me from the right to use 'Christian' as a label, in that case?
Because I'm more in line with part two of the definition (though not necessarily 100% so), why does that mean I am less of a follower of Christ?
(Of course, to read it the other way, switch the labels and ask the same questions.)
You seem to have fallen into the trap, Matt, of assuming that because a criteria (whatever it is) of belief has not been ticked off, anyone thinking outside the box must by definition be excluding themselves.
It isn't a case of two flatly contradicting statements; but two flatly contradictory interpretations, of what essentially leads to the same truth. I appreciate that is a typical 'liberal' argument, but I don't see a difficulty in acknowledging what is Christlike in my conservative brethren, even though we may be at odds over certain issues of interpretation and philosophy.
It would be interesting to know if conservatives felt the same, or whether based on what you've written, they would agree that only one group is deserving of the label 'Christian'.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
I'd say if anyone, the conservatives should be most ready to abandon the term.
After all, it's not biblical is it? [ ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ]
Also, as you rightly say, the liberals (being liberal) don't really care who's included and who isn't, but the conservatives do.
hence the conservatives should go off and find a new more exclusive term for themselves.
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Conservative Logician asserting zero self-righteousness among liberals:
quote:
I have heard conservatives sometimes question their own righteousness and specifically guard against self-righteousness. I cannot recall a single instance of hearing a liberal do this.
JimT catching card-carrying liberal female priest Anselmina in the act of guarding against self-righteousness:
quote:
But if I continue praying that those who oppose my ministry will someday see Christ's light in me, and at least honour that much about my Christian witness, then it's only fair I should seek, as far as I am able to, the same thing in the lives of those whose views I oppose.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Damn! Logician asserted zero guarding against self-righteousness in liberals, as implied in my second quote.
It's hard for me to admit that I often make mistakes like that when I post...I'm such a righteous person otherwise.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I'm a more self-righteous liberal than you are. Ner, ner, ner-ner-ner. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
JimT, Anselmina is guarding against one type of self-righteousness but not another. As any is laudable, it's a shame to seem to pick on her particularly, but in the interests of accuracy I will not that nothing in Anslemina's comments says "Gee, maybe this type of ministry harms the church, or creates problems." I'm not saying is or isn't on that question BTW, as I don't want to get sidetracked. I only note that it is a self-question not asked.
--------------------
formerly Logician
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
"I will note that nothing in Anslemina's comments says "Gee, maybe this type of ministry harms the church, or creates problems." (typo corrected)
Logician, this goes beyond self-righteousness to complete self-doubt. I cannot believe that the level of self-doubt you seem to be asking for on something as fundamental as one's calling in life is healthy and desirable. That kind of extreme self-doubt I have never seen in anyone except myself when I was suffering from depression. I would not wish it on anyone.
Do you really mean to say that you ask yourself on a routine basis whether you are 180 degrees wrong on very central moral issues that you've given years of thought to and as a consequence are actually a servant of Evil instead of Good? I could see this as a once in a decade crisis of confidence when something goes terribly wrong like a spouse committing suicide. I can't see this as a healthy way to approach debate and discussion with friends and colleagues, though.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Hey Hell Host.....
Lemmings don't go over cliffs in herds. That's an Urban Myth. But, as we no longer have an UM board to check on these things, maybe its now true. [What you expect to look on other internet sites for opinons ]
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But I get the feeling this conservative vs. liberal arguement is seen by much of the non-Christians as an equivalent exercise in mass self-extinction.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Should have known....question a hell host's post and make numerous errors in grammer and punctuation.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
I do not subscribe to the urban myth of suicidal lemmings but when a population explosion occurs followed by a migration that goes wrong they have been known to fall off cliffs. I am glad to have improved your knowledge of the animal kingdom.
Weeeeeeee, bong, bong, bong.
{Lemming falling on a trampoline.}
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Logician: quote:
I have heard conservatives sometimes question their own righteousness and specifically guard against self-righteousness. I cannot recall a single instance of hearing a liberal do this. They do have two clever imitations of this, but not the real article.
I love it when you are able to look inside people's minds and tell us non-enlightened ones what they are really thinking. Thank you - suddenly the world becomes clear. How do you do it? Do you analyse their handwriting or their tea leaves? Or do superhuman powers of logic bring telepathy in their wake, as was the case with Mr. Spock?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
For some funny reason I now have a burning desire to get out my old Commodore Amiga and play "lemmings"
Anyone remember that masterpiece?
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
auntbeast
Shipmate
# 377
|
Posted
Posted by MTMM
quote:
Sexual ethics would be the best example. Were there no factual consequences to sexual activity, surely we would ALL want to follow a “jack” line on this one?? I know I would!!
The only reason not to is because of factual implications: namely the negative emotional, physical and social implications of uncontrolled sexual activity?
OK, fine, but who is it gets to decide for any individual what those "negative" consequences are, whether they are actually "negative", and who it is that should be controlling the "uncontrolled" and for whom? And what of the incidents where the "negative consequence" is nothing more than a by-product of the belief that the behaviour is wrong? (e.g. if the belief is that children should be seen and not heard, the negative consequence of a child asking a question is only that the parent will punish them for it. There is no universal negative consequence inherent in the behaviour)
and as for Logician's:
quote:
You will seldom see the marks of self-questioning among conservatives, but you will never see it among liberals
Oh thank God.For a moment I thought I was about to question my beliefs about the conservatives being a bunch of racist, mysogynist, power mongers... but, I guess as a liberal that's not possible, whew, I guess I shall rest secure in my unalterable assumptions.
and furthermore, just because I am in a pissy humour
quote:
Do we exclude too many? Probably. Lord, I hope so, because I'd hate to think that there were even fewer than that saved. But having the opposite sin is not a virtue
Since when was it sin or a virtue for us to be doing the excluding or the including? Yet another thing that annoys me about the (generalized) conservatives. They seem to think it is up to them to make the determination. No thanks, I'll take my chances with God rather than my local fundy. Rather reminds me of an old joke in which God is showing a new comer around heaven and there is a walled off area with no windows.. that's for the [sub in name of fundamentalist group here], they think they're the only ones here.
Here's to hoping we can learn to get along sometime before the judgement day... although I hold little hope.
Cheers,
Auntbeast
--------------------
"My vices are the children of a forced solitude that I abhor; and my virtues will necessarily arise when I live in communion with an equal" - Mary Shelley (Frankenstein)
Posts: 820 | From: Vancouver, Canada | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
JimT, a fair question. Yes, about once a decade is about right. But it is fair to ask the subsidiary questions more often, particularly in the instance when other Christians call your actions into question. I would prefer self-examination to self doubt.
Wanderer, also a fair point, especially as I rail against constant mind-reading of liberals, who are quite sure that we conservatives have all manner of psychological ills which drive our beliefs. What's sauce for the goose should be sauce for this gander. Without rereading the exact wording of my post, I will make a clarification I think is fairer. I do not see evidence for that type of self-examination, nor also of cross-examination from within one's own group. I cannot say it doesn't occur. I do think if it had happened it would show in some way. If there are signs I should note but am missing, I am sure people will fill me in.
As a point of comparison in the public square, I note that Phillip Yancey and Tony Campolo have both done serious questioning of their earlier beliefs and accept some more politically liberal ideas. I read their self-examination of their former ideas respectfully, and found some persuasive points. I felt they had missed some things which bear on the discussion. Others have raised those questions to them, and they now show no inclination to continue the examination, but choose instead to demonize their critics. It leads me to ask, what is it about cast of mind which allows one set of beliefs to (occasionally) be questioned, and the other to not? It does not seem logically necessary that this be so, but it is in practice. Compare also, reading First Things, or reading The Nation in comparison to The National Review. The difference is startling.
--------------------
formerly Logician
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by logician:
I read their self-examination of their former ideas respectfully, and found some persuasive points. I felt they had missed some things which bear on the discussion. Others have raised those questions to them, and they now show no inclination to continue the examination, but choose instead to demonize their critics.
How do you, and these "others", know that Campolo et al. have not, in fact, taken these things into consideration already? How do you know they have "missed" them? Are you performing the same mind-reading that you denigrate others for just 2 paragraphs before this quote?
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Logician, thanks for your reply and verification. I have to say that I find it quite curious that you find the one dimension of "liberal vs. conservative" so very diagnostic of so much human behavior and interaction. For myself I find this one dimension even more limited in usefulness than the four dimensions of Meyers-Briggs. Some characteristics do tend to clump, especially at the extremes of the dimension, but the middle is a difficult place to describe and make predictions. What of the middle? Is there a place for "moderate" on your axis or is that a separate dimension of "inconsistency?" Are there two kinds of moderates, the "salad" mixture of some liberal and some conservative opinions as opposed to middle positions on most issues?
You painted a pretty big target on yourself with that one post, perhaps bigger than you intended. I admire the courage if not the wisdom of doing so, and admire you for responding with honesty.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
I would echo Jim's last point in particular. Logician, I find it hard to remain annoyed with you for very long (despite the provocation ) when you take criticism on the chin, and respond to it so honestly.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by auntbeast:
OK, fine, but who is it gets to decide for any individual what those "negative" consequences are, whether they are actually "negative", and who it is that should be controlling the "uncontrolled" and for whom? And what of the incidents where the "negative consequence" is nothing more than a by-product of the belief that the behaviour is wrong? (e.g. if the belief is that children should be seen and not heard, the negative consequence of a child asking a question is only that the parent will punish them for it. There is no universal negative consequence inherent in the behaviour)
In answer to your first question, I'm not sure it's relevant to the debate.
You ask "who decides what the negative consequences are for whom". The tone of your question is such as to make me think the question is supposed to be a rhetorical one, and that the reply is "no one can".
Yet even the most liberal people I know believe in this sort of moral decision making about negative consequences at least some of the time.
For example, you are not (I assume) seriously suggesting the legalising of paedophilia on the grounds “no one can decide for any individual what the negative consequences are”
The fact is, we all believe in this sort of executive moral decision making. It’s just having differing opinions about what it should and shouldn’t apply to.
Your argument to say we shouldn’t have it at all is, in one sense, a very strong one, but only if what you are arguing for is complete anarchy. If you want anything more ordered than that, you must submit to the idea of executive moral decision making, and, having submitted that idea, you can’t just pull the “anarchy argument” whenever it suits, and shelve it when it doesn’t suit.
You might say it should apply to paedophilia, but not homosexuality, but that is your opinion.
Presumably, if you class yourself as a liberal, you do not see any reason on the other hand for not allowing homosexuality?
But the wording is right there: see any reason That is always the way moral reasoning works..if you cannot see a reason for not being liberal about something...then we should be liberal about it.
If we cannot see any good reason for not allowing something, then we should allow it, because the moral imperative is always to allow as much as possible.
Therefore, the best defence for being more liberal on any issue is "I cannot see any reason not to be liberal on this issue".
You can't really construct a positive case for being more liberal, only state that you can see no compelling negative case.
The conservative response will usually just be "That's because you are too short sighted to see the reasons".
There's not a lot the liberal can say to that, because the whole point of being short sighted is that you don't know you are!
I should say, I’ve been on both sides of such debates. I think the reason they generate such anger is because they are so frustrating. The conservatives pulls his hair out, because the liberals can’t seem to see the obvious path to destruction that they are on. The liberal pulls his hair out because the conservative seems to live in an abstract world of dire consequences at some unspecified point in the future, while ignoring the obvious moral realities of the present.
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
Re: JimT definitions (I know, he said it more for the purposes of humour than truth), which MTMM thought were right on the money:
quote:
Conservative Christian: Man[sic]kind is basically evil and in need of salvation, which will come by the grace of God leading all of us backward in time to the Roots of the Truth.
Are, in my special erudite way of speaking, pretty spewy. 'Backward'? 'Roots'? A traceable origin? Linear? Tain't no way ta talk about an eternal, omnipotent God if ya arks me. Seeing how he is Truth and all.
Nup. Thumbs down to Matt the Mad Medic. Martin PC Not uses much bigger words, more complex sentence structure, actual humour, and does a fairly good job of conveying God's grace and compassion and even being animated by it himself. And he's an inerrantist.
MMTM = ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif) Snoresville. Go and watch MPCN in action, laddie. Learn from him. Until then, thou art just another rabid, regurgitating, somnolent hack. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Please resume.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by logician:
JimT, Anselmina is guarding against one type of self-righteousness but not another. As any is laudable, it's a shame to seem to pick on her particularly, but in the interests of accuracy I will not that nothing in Anslemina's comments says "Gee, maybe this type of ministry harms the church, or creates problems." I'm not saying is or isn't on that question BTW, as I don't want to get sidetracked. I only note that it is a self-question not asked.
I assume that, as a human being, there are bound to be elements of the performance of my contribution to ministry which may create problems or be harmful; just as every clergyperson, and indeed lay person, is prone to making mistakes or being a little lazy, or unpleasant or whatever the fault/sin is.
That my contribution to ministry would be per se harmful to the church, causes problems because I am not a male priest, has certainly caused me moments of self-doubt, and doubt over the question of women and the ministry, over the 10 plus years I've been exploring this road.
Though I have to say mainly because of the repercussions it has on some opponents rather than in any sense of 'is it against God's will, or wrong?' That argument was fought, personally, a long time ago, and as for rigorously questioning my personal sense of vocation to this kind of ministry, I believe that was what the selection process of the Church of England was about.
If I wasn't being comprehensive in my list of 'types of self-righteousness I must guard against', maybe that's because these things generally are the preserve of one's spiritual director and God. There are lots of 'self-questions' that are perhaps not suitable for public consumption!
I appreciate, Logician, that you have tried to be fair in your posts; that you have a particular point you wanted to make and were not necessarily interested in 'picking' on me personally.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Please give it a little time before you agree with MarkThePunk on anything, RuthW. I'm still recovering from the "I Dated a Republican" revelation.
My name is Laura.
[hi, Laura!]
I have dated Republicans. I can't defend it, but there's just something about their moral certainty and air of omniscience that I found really hot. Plus, in college, they dressed much better than the liberals. What can I say?
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I married a Republican. She has mellowed considerably, however.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
What the feck is an "over-arching meta narrative"? when its at home?
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
What the feck is an "over-arching meta narrative"? when its at home?
It's Pretty much the same as an over-arching meta narrative when it's on holiday - except without the suntan.
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
