Jump to content

Something rotten in today's Conservatism


myata

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Only a complete fool would pray to a state.

Agreed.  Foolish.  Letters to your MP would work better.  But, is it any more foolish than praying to a god who’s not there?  Assuming you think most people are praying to the wrong god, or praying incorrectly to the right god, aren’t they even more foolish?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Agreed.  Foolish.  Letters to your MP would work better.  But, is it any more foolish than praying to a god who’s not there?  Assuming you think most people are praying to the wrong god, or praying incorrectly to the right god, aren’t they even more foolish?

The critical factor is an appeal to a higher moral authority than the state, which sometimes must rise to the level of consciousness objection and constitutionally protected religious rights when the state gets oppressive, because it happens.

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The critical factor is an appeal to a higher moral authority than the state, which sometimes must rise to the level of consciousness objection and constitutionally protected religious rights when the state gets oppressive, because it happens.

Why does the authority need to be a magical being?  Can’t the authority be one’s own conscience?   
 

Do I need a god to tell me that arresting gay people for being gay shouldn’t be allowed?  Where would I find that value in any of the Abrahamic gods?   This state overreach stopped, not because of a god telling people it was wrong, but from people’s own consciences telling them that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Why does the authority need to be a magical being?  Can’t the authority be one’s own conscience?   
 

Do I need a god to tell me that arresting gay people for being gay shouldn’t be allowed?  Where would I find that value in any of the Abrahamic gods?   This state overreach stopped, not because of a god telling people it was wrong, but from people’s own consciences telling them that.  

You think it’s magical.  The majority of people still consider themselves religious.  The right to religion is constitutionally protected.  This is an essential right in a free democracy.  You wouldn’t want to live in the countries that lack religious freedom.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You think it’s magical.  The majority of people still consider themselves religious.  The right to religion is constitutionally protected.  This is an essential right in a free democracy.  You wouldn’t want to live in the countries that lack religious freedom.   

I agree, freedom of religion, and freedom from religion, are fundamental rights enshrined in our Charter.    I’ve never claimed otherwise.  
 

You ignored my questions. 
 

Do I need a god to tell me that arresting gay people for being gay shouldn’t be allowed?  Where would I find that value in any of the Abrahamic gods?   This state overreach stopped, not because of a god telling people it was wrong, but from people’s own consciences telling them that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

I agree, freedom of religion, and freedom from religion, are fundamental rights enshrined in our Charter.    I’ve never claimed otherwise.  
 

You ignored my questions. 
 

Do I need a god to tell me that arresting gay people for being gay shouldn’t be allowed?  Where would I find that value in any of the Abrahamic gods?   This state overreach stopped, not because of a god telling people it was wrong, but from people’s own consciences telling them that.  

No, you’re wrong on that.  The descent into socially acceptable sodomy and the blessing of sin is fundamentally regressive, returning us to the excesses of pagan Rome.  It’s not only that, but a bundle of practices that parody the natural family: abortion, active euthanasia, legal hard drugs, playing with natural gender and transhumanism.  You won’t see all the effects right away, but we already see negative birth rates, confused kids, strange role models, and a general apostasy underway in faiths.

You will tout all this as progress because I can more or less guess that you have no aims to raise a family and see no greater purpose in life apart from production and consumption, and a kind of Marxist attempt to make people comply to a state collectivism and redistribution of wealth as a parody of charity.

I also know you deny all of this and proclaim anyone who calls it out as “alt-right” or MAGA or some other modern means of dismissal.  I’m of course making assumptions and know nothing about you, but your views are just another iteration of the lost, nihilistic hollow man.  I’ve been him and met many versions of him.  Either one day you’ll see the light or you won’t.

The only value for me in these dialogues is to clarify my positions and hopefully provide some clarity for others.

You make the common mistake of confusing love of the sinner with love of sin.  I’ll leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The descent into socially acceptable sodomy and the blessing of sin…

So you think people should be arrested for the sexual positions they prefer with their consenting partner?  

Do you also think forms of birth control, like the run-of-the-mill pill, should be banned?  
 

What about divorce?  Ban it?  Sex before marriage?  Arrestable offence?  
 

What a dark-ages view of individual liberty.  

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

So you think people should be arrested for the sexual positions they prefer with their consenting partner?  

Do you also think forms of birth control, like the run-of-the-mill pill, should be banned?  
 

What about divorce?  Ban it?  Sex before marriage?  Arrestable offence?  
 

What a dark-ages view of individual liberty.  

Get real. Legislation is created by people.  None of this behaviour will be restricted by laws because people generally take the path of least resistance and seek personal pleasure.  That doesn’t mean that self-centredness and hedonism are always good.  Don’t worry, your porn and Tinder hookups will be there, along with your birth control, unlimited abortion, polyamory, and drugs.  When the going gets tough you can divorce, commit suicide, whatever.

Neither conservatives nor the major churches are vocal opponents of these policies anymore.  We’ve washed our hands of guidance. The disintegration of the family continues unabated.

You can choose how to live your life, however. Being lawful doesn’t automatically make you a good person. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

 

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

 None of this behaviour will be restricted by laws because people generally take the path of least resistance and seek personal pleasure.

Thank God we’ve realized that individual liberty is more important than legislating Catholic doctrine.  

 

59 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Don’t worry, your porn and Tinder hookups will be there, along with your birth control, unlimited abortion, polyamory, and drugs.  When the going gets tough you can divorce, commit suicide, whatever.

It doesn’t hurt you, so again….  thank God people have the choices to do what they want without being hit on the head with a bible while they’re dragged off to jail for loving someone you don’t approve of. 

 

59 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Neither conservatives nor the major churches are vocal opponents of these policies anymore.  We’ve washed our hands of guidance. The disintegration of the family continues unabated.

Nonsense. They’re not opponents anymore because the religious are active participants in birth control, abortions, gay sex, and all the other things you mentioned.  Just like they always have been.  The difference is that when they’re caught, their only consequences are to the people in their own religion who may judge them for what they’ve done. 

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Thank God we’ve realized that individual liberty is more important than legislating Catholic doctrine.  

 

It doesn’t hurt you, so again….  thank God people have the choices to do what they want without being hit on the head with a bible while they’re dragged off to jail for loving someone you don’t approve of. 

 

Nonsense. They’re not opponents anymore because the religious are active participants in birth control, abortions, gay sex, and all the other things you mentioned.  Just like they always have been.  The difference is that when they’re caught, their only consequences are to the people in their own religion who may judge them for what they’ve done. 

You should judge actions, not people. Even courts ascribe responsibility for actions, and of course you’re free to engage in all sorts of behaviour that’s legal. Not everything you can do legally is good, however.  That’s the point you don’t get.  You make no moral distinctions, and you don’t see the moral hazard of the green light of legalization.  Permissive and purposeless.

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Not everything you can do legally is good, however.  That’s the point you don’t get.

I never claimed that if it’s not illegal, then it’s good.  Why would you think that I do?  

 

10 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You make no moral distinctions, and you don’t see the moral hazard of the green light of legalization.  Permissive and purposeless.

Not true at all.  I can make a moral distinction without thinking that the immoral action should be illegal.  I think it’s immoral to tell gay people that they are an abomination, or even how they choose to physically love one another is abhorrent, or a sin…. and yet, I think you have a right to say it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

I never claimed that if it’s not illegal, then it’s good.  Why would you think that I do?  

 

Not true at all.  I can make a moral distinction without thinking that the immoral action should be illegal.  I think it’s immoral to tell gay people that they are an abomination, or even how they choose to physically love one another is abhorrent, or a sin…. and yet, I think you have a right to say it.  

Again, you make no distinction between person and act.  I can love a gay person and understand the desire for affection but be opposed to the sexual act on moral grounds.  I realize not everyone thinks sodomy is disordered or sinful.  I realize it’s not illegal.  I don’t support harassing or mistreating gay people and I’m not imposing my beliefs on you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Again, you make no distinction between person and act.

I did, actually.  I said “how they choose to love each other physically”.    Which makes me think….

Is the act of gay people holding hands a sin?   Kissing?  Or is the line at sexual intercourse where it becomes a sin?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

I did, actually.  I said “how they choose to love each other physically”.    Which makes me think….

Is the act of gay people holding hands a sin?   Kissing?  Or is the line at sexual intercourse where it becomes a sin?

 

 

Yes it’s sexual activity, but the same applies to heterosexual couples outside of wedlock.  Do I think that’s realistic for most people?  No, but the ideal or perfect is not necessarily common. The act of sodomy is considered a sin in both testaments of the Bible.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yes it’s sexual activity…

I’m glad you’re a lot more liberal about it than people in the past.  Who says beliefs are never-changing?   You’re evidence that even the staunchest conservative is a lot more liberal than his predecessors.
 

  I think that’s an important point.  The staunchest Catholic conservative today is way more liberal about people’s sexual activity than they were even 100 years ago.  Look at the treatment of divorced women, as an example.  Even the fact that women can now get a divorce equally as a man. 
 

Catholics, and other Christians, used to advocate for gay people being arrested.  Gay people would be assaulted (and still are) just because they were gay.  At least Catholics no longer want gay folks arrested, and your Pope is even advocating to treat them nicer in church!

 

31 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

…but the same applies to heterosexual couples outside of wedlock.

Funny how straight people haven’t had to deal with being policed in their bedrooms for a lot longer than gay folks did…   why do you think that was?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

I’m glad you’re a lot more liberal about it than people in the past.  Who says beliefs are never-changing?   You’re evidence that even the staunchest conservative is a lot more liberal than his predecessors.
 

  I think that’s an important point.  The staunchest Catholic conservative today is way more liberal about people’s sexual activity than they were even 100 years ago.  Look at the treatment of divorced women, as an example.  Even the fact that women can now get a divorce equally as a man. 
 

Catholics, and other Christians, used to advocate for gay people being arrested.  Gay people would be assaulted (and still are) just because they were gay.  At least Catholics no longer want gay folks arrested, and your Pope is even advocating to treat them nicer in church!

 

Funny how straight people haven’t had to deal with being policed in their bedrooms for a lot longer than gay folks did…   why do you think that was?

 

It’s a difference of decades really. There were a lot more social strictures in general until about the 1960’s, but we have seen downsides.  Look at the divorce rates.  Look at the negative birth rates.  Canada is now relying on the fertility and family structures from more traditional countries to maintain its population.  Obviously we’ve gone over the top in recent years juicing the population, but we might not have had to do this had our families been more stable.

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Look at the divorce rates.

I don’t see increased divorce rates as bad.  From a humanist perspective, it’s better for women not to be in abusive relationships.  Individual liberty once again trumps religious doctrine for good reason. 
 

4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Look at the negative birth rates.  Canada is now relying on the fertility and family structures from more traditional countries to maintain its population.

We need to spread wealth and individual liberty across the globe (nicely) to get birth rates down further.  Overpopulation is a real problem. 

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2024 at 10:50 AM, Zeitgeist said:

You don’t seem to know the difference between venal and mortal sin, nor the difference between temptation and sin.  

I do not trust your judgement to understand much, not even how to argue, given your unqualified opinion that invites no reply or show the difference.

Go waste someone else's time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2024 at 10:53 AM, Zeitgeist said:

Only a complete fool would pray to a state.  Interesting though how confused some people are on these matters.

Only a complete fool like you would speak of something no one proposed.

The word pledge was used and not pray.

Only a dishonest fool like you pulls such B.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2024 at 2:52 PM, Zeitgeist said:

The critical factor is an appeal to a higher moral authority than the state

How is your genocidal and homophobic God a better moral authority than your present government?

Would your God kill off all the LGBTQ+ in total, or would he have you keep the young females this time ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

I don’t see increased divorce rates as bad.  From a humanist perspective, it’s better for women not to be in abusive relationships.  Individual liberty once again trumps religious doctrine for good reason. 
 

We need to spread wealth and individual liberty across the globe (nicely) to get birth rates down further.  Overpopulation is a real problem. 

Our population will eventually decline due to demographics (dying boomers combined with much lower birth rates). Immigration is how we’re managing that problem, but it’s created other problems as outlined on other threads.

On the whole I think feminism has been a failure.  I don’t mean the right to equal pay for work of equal value or the right to vote, and so forth.  I’m speaking more generally about the idea of suppressing important female qualities and the price that families are paying for that, whether it’s children without a parent around very much (and yes that often means mom) and the displacement of men from the workforce (as men don’t have motherhood to affirm themselves and they innately value themselves in the workplace above other identity factors).

Feminism in its more radical sense often means that we should pretend women don’t give birth and necessarily need time outside the work force.  It also means pretending that men shouldn’t be more prevalent than women at the top of companies when clearly one cannot be all things to all people.  While it’s true that women can successfully parent and work at the same time, the compromises are real.

Unfortunately our society has made it almost impossible for most families to allow one parent to stay home with the kids.

I’d say that feminism in its excessive varieties is connected to the destabilization of society also because of the high rates of divorce, which isn’t to say that divorce isn’t sometimes necessary.

Quite simply we have sold out to the marketplace too much, bought into the lie that we can socially engineer people completely out of natural gender and their associated hormonal and biological realities.  We think medicine and technology can make our manufacturing of modified people perfect, but the story of Frankenstein is an old one that’s still true today.

We have many lost young men who have given up on finding a mate.  More women are in university and buying homes than men.

Anyway, much more can be said on this.  As mentioned prior, many social changes since the 60’s have brought us phenomena that are worrisome that were touted as liberating.  And no, we’re not going to see laws get more restrictive generally.

This modern society will stick around until it collapses under the weight of its own excesses.

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, French Patriot said:

Why do Christians sing of Adam's sin, and ours, by implication,  as a happy fault and necessary to God's plan?

Do you not agree with common Christian beliefs?

Sorry but you just have a lot to learn.  You can read my prior posts but they are scratching the surface.  Suffice it to say that there are good reasons for long-established values because they have stood the test of time and collective wisdom.  Radical departures from such morality are just that.  As for your strange remarks about killing gay people, etc., I can only think either you’re ignorant or trying to get a sympathetic reaction.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, French Patriot said:

Why do Christians sing of Adam's sin, and ours, by implication,  as a happy fault and necessary to God's plan?

Not Christians but Abrahamic religions including Islam, Judaism, Christianity,as well as Baha'i, Druze, Gnostic religions and others...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Not Christians but Abrahamic religions including Islam, Judaism, Christianity,as well as Baha'i, Druze, Gnostic religions and others...

Judaism rejects original sin, inherited sin and that humans are sinful by nature when they’re born.  
 

Not sure about the others you mentioned.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,746
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    historyradio.org
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • User went up a rank
      Experienced
    • exPS went up a rank
      Contributor
    • DUI_Offender earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • exPS went up a rank
      Explorer
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...