I rarely dive with veal. It tends to attract sharks.
Posted on 01/24/2010 7:20:20 PM PST by The Ignorant Fisherman
The Conservative movement of today basically consists of individuals with various personal beliefs (both religious and ideological), but conservatism in general sadly rejects outright the absolute authority of the Bible, the Holy Word of Almighty God. It is a “bestselling” book widely reverenced, but too many Conservatives reject its Divine authority and preeminence. These “Subjective Conservatives” cannot see out of this box called time, and thus they are oblivious to the realities of Holy Scripture truth. This includes the coming establishment of the literal Kingdom of Almighty God on earth, as well as their own eternity destiny (John 3:3-5; Romans 8:5-8; 1 Cor. 2:12-14; Jude 1:19).
"These “Subjective Conservatives” cannot see out of this box called time, and thus they are oblivious to the realities of Holy Scripture truth. This includes the coming establishment of the literal Kingdom of Almighty God on earth, as well as their own eternity destiny"
Many conservatives in the New Media are on a “suicide alert” today trying to cope with the present realities at hand. One in particular is radio host Michael Savage. He is the most moved and passionate about our declining American culture and government. Sadly though, Mr. Savage and others will not be objective about the realities of Almighty God and His Word to receive its simple message (Acts 16:31; Romans 14:17; 1 Cor. 15:2-4). Why not, you might ask? Well, for one thing a lack of genuine humility will prevent anyone from turning to God and knowing the truth (1 Pet. 5:6; Matt. 11:28-30). Committed and sincere but blinded in their pride, they are thus doomed to their own subjective world view of reality (John 5:37-41; Rom. 7:24-25).
(Excerpt) Read more at theignorantfishermen.com ...
Thanks for dropping by. I’ll say your handle is certainly an accurate one, at least as far as the ‘ignorant’ part goes anyway.
I usually prefer chicken with my fact-finding missions.
I rarely dive with veal. It tends to attract sharks.
My bad... it’s ZEAL...glad you had a good laugh.. lol
:lol:
Yeah, before disparaging our faith you might want to use spellcheck.
Not sure how to take the rest of the rant. Is non-rejection of the Natural Laws of Almighty God and His Biblical authority both a necessary and sufficient cause for conservatism, or is it really even a necessary cause?
And if so, perhaps you can inform us of your personal definition of conservatism, since non-rejection of the Natural Laws of Almighty God and His Biblical authority does not appear as a cause at all in any of the definitions I can find in my dictionaries, including the mighty Shorter Oxford English that dominates my desk.
Hey...You guys are funny... but you all are proving the point.. LOL
Thanks ginnie pigs!
Baited with veal..lol!
(1 Cor 1:18-21)
>Hey...You guys are funny... but you all are proving the point.. LOL
Not necessarily, the shark comment _was_ funny, and reminds me of some of the ribbing that goes on in my church’s men’s group.
“Hey...You guys are funny... but you all are proving the point.. LOL
Thanks ginnie pigs!
Baited with veal..lol!
(1 Cor 1:18-21)”
Yawn.
I am continually astonished at your capacity to expend enormous amounts of words without ever saying anything.
"Hey...You guys are funny... but you all are proving the point.. LOL"
There was a point?
Now is not a good time.
I am a Christian and absolutely believe in Biblical authority, but perhaps not in the same way that you do.
I would not care for dogmatic biblical absolutists any more than I would for muslims or reverend Jim Jones.
Fortunately, I neither need nor seek your approval for my decision to keep my religious and secular lives separate. The opinion that it is impossible to accomplish that without conflict is your problem.
I’ll take veal roast for $500 Alex...
If I may offer a gentle defense of our fisherman friend, I think conservatism is one of those words that requires a fair amount of context to properly separate out the several different meanings it may have. Political conservatism, as our fisherman is using it, often refers to those who are interested in conserving the traditional moral and legal foundations of western culture. Those foundations do in fact have a historical connection to the concept of a natural law that describes universal moral truth, which in turn originates in an underlying divine law. Whereas Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, and atheists may all alike find common moral ground, such commonalities are thought to be expressions of that natural law, and because they are so widely shared, may form a reasonable basis for a uniform public policy in a pluralistic society such as ours.
This is, for example, why the abortion issue has not gone away, despite Roe v Wade. Positive law, i.e., law created by duly appointed human legislatures, cannot eradicate the deeper moral sense of a well-informed conscience that ending the life of an otherwise healthy human being, without justification, is, and always shall be, a profound moral wrong. That is natural law at work, and it drives one to the traditional, therefore conservative, position on abortion. The liberal, or anti-conservative position, that reproductive freedom entails the power to end the life of the defenseless infant, is of more recent origin, directly traceable to an absolutist form of Kantian autonomy, i.e., total self-determination is the only path to total self-realization as the highest good.
Other expressions of conservatism are similarly connected to traditional moral premises that do have their root in natural law and the historical sources out of which natural law theory was developed, not the least of which was the Scriptural traditions of the Abrahamic religions. For example, the right to life implies a right to a strong self-defense, which extends to the right of a nation to defends its own best interests. The dignity of a life implies the right to be heard in terms of political speech, to freely associate, to own property, to make contract in a free market, etc., all expressions of liberty, and all derived from a natural law that supersedes any law created by legislative authority. Hence, as the Declaration says, these fundamental rights are gifts from our Creator, and therefore inalienable, i.e., they cannot be extinguished by the laws of man.
So I would restate your inquiry as follows: Non-rejection of the natural law, whether or not God is recognized as its source, is a condition necessary to but not necessarily sufficient for political conservatism as it is popularly understood. It is necessary because the alternative is subjective despotism, and that is the opposite of conservatism. It is not necessarily sufficient because it is not a given that one who believe in natural law in general will come to all the specific conclusions of political conservatism.
In short, the fisherman has a point, “veal-politick” notwithstanding.
Thank you, Springfield Reformer, for your thoughtful and articulate reply. I find little to quibble with, although I do suspect that your defense of our fisherman is perhaps based on wishful thinking about his intentions.
It is interesting that you bring Kant into the discussion. I’ve actually read, back in the day, many of his major works, but the only one remaining on my shelf now is his Lectures on Ethics. I have not read or studied it in years, but I don’t recall his thoughts being devoid of God - in fact, I recall him being actually quite concerned with God.
For instance, in one of his beginning sections, “Natural Religion” - although inspired by Baumgarten’s textbook on which he based his lectures, and therefore, perhaps, not fully representing his own thoughts - he states: “Natural religion is no rule of morality. Religion is morality applied to God. It is ethics applied to theology.”
Perhaps it is a poor translation, or my own ignorance of his meaning here in the larger context of his thought, but once again it seems that he is very much on the side of God as the basis for morality, not “total self-determination”.
Perhaps the “absolutist form of Kantian autonomy’ of which you speak refers to his later thoughts, or extrapolations others made from his philosophy. In any event, it is a small matter, far overshadowed by the urge you have given me to go back and reread this work once again - and for that I thank you.
I think you are right in many cases.
Most “conservatives” find much of the Bible to liberal. Much like most “liberals” find it to conservative. The Word doesn’t give what men with itching ears want to hear. Never has.
So this is no surprise.
I give up. I can't work out which language this was babel-fished from. Evidently one without adjectives.
My mother and I share a belief in a certain eschatology (antediluvian-style decadence, rapture, tribulation, kingdom age, dissolution, and renewal). Her take on it is to sit back and let it happen— no voting, no activism, no marches for life etc.— because, for instance, if she had voted in 1992 she would have picked GHWB instead of WJC, and God chose WJC (obviously, b/c he won, right?), and she would have (in her own mind) put herself in opposition to God’s will.
My belief is that things will proceed as they have done, and will inevitably proceed according to God’s plan; this, however, does not require me to acquiesce or permit evil to triumph where I have the means to stop it. I believe God will reward my efforts in eternity even as He permits them to be thwarted in this world.
Just my buck-oh-five (2 cents, adjusted for inflation).
There is nothing absolute about it, but simply a subjective belief that it is. No different than any other religion holding on to its 'absolute' authority.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.